Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA02-040 3 of 5
�T• URRENCE DATE NAME - INITI 'AT CITY OF RENTON 6.• inns "¢ SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 n AAA 1 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMI APPLICATION NO.: LUA-02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-H (Revised) DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 2003; Revision received October 12, 2006 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 3, 2004 (Final Environmental Impact Statement); Not required for revision DATE APPROVED: April 1, 2005; Revision approved November 27, 2006 TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit, Revision [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton granted a Shoreline Substantial Development permit on April 1, 2005. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, on November 20, 2006, the City of Renton approved a revision to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit granted in 2005. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit was approved on April 1, 2005 for the following action: APPLICANT: Century Pacific LP (Steven Wood/Campbell Mathewson) 1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140, Seattle, WA 98101 PROJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM)for the subdivision of a 23-acre site into 115 lots ranging in size from 1,779 square feet to 16,867 square feet and associated utility and road improvements. The project would be developed in two phases. The lots, intended to be developed in two phases, consist of townhouse units- most of which would be constructed as 2-unit, 3- unit and 4-unit structures. The buildings could be up to 50 feet in height within the shoreline jurisdiction and potentially up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Both Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines are designated as"urban"environments under the City's Shoreline Master Program. The western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline (Exhibit 1)—for which a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark would be maintained with 35 feet of native vegetation and 15 feet of lawn for the majority of the lakefront lots. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta within Lake Washington. The project would provide a 50 foot buffer on each side of the May Creek ordinary high water mark and would restore currently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. A conceptual site plan review was processed and approved with conditions by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. Detailed site plan review is required to be conducted prior to the construction of any structure on the property. Residential development is permitted within this urban environment designation provided the development provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge. For public access to Lake Washington, an access easement would be provided through an Open Space/Water Quality tract to a parcel under the ownership of the Department of Natural Resources, which is leased by the current owner. For public access along May Creek, a public trail is proposed to be provided along the entire south side of the creek within the property boundaries and terminate in an interpretative display of the history of the mill site at the delta. Shoreline Permit, Revised 2006 03.doc CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-H (Revised) DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 2003; Revision received October 12,2006 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 3, 2004 (Final Environmental Impact Statement); Not required for revision DATE APPROVED: April 1, 2005; Revision approved November 29,2006 TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit, Revision [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton granted a Shoreline Substantial Development permit on April 1, 2005. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, on November 20, 2006, the City of Renton approved a revision to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit granted in 2005. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit was approved on April 1, 2005 for the following action: APPLICANT: Century Pacific LP (Steven Wood/Campbell Mathewson) 1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140, Seattle, WA 98101 PROJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM)for the subdivision of a 23-acre site into 115 lots ranging in size from 1,779 square feet to 16,867 square feet and associated utility and road improvements.The project would be developed in two phases.The lots, intended to be developed in two phases, consist of townhouse units- most of which would be constructed as 2-unit, 3- unit and 4-unit structures. The buildings could be up to 50 feet in height within the shoreline jurisdiction and potentially up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Both Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines are designated as"urban"environments under the City's Shoreline Master Program. The western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline (Exhibit 1)—for which a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark would be maintained with 35 feet of native vegetation and 15 feet of lawn for the majority of the lakefront lots. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta within Lake Washington. The project would provide a 50 foot buffer on each side of the May Creek ordinary high water mark and would restore currently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area.A conceptual site plan review was processed and approved with conditions by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. Detailed site plan review is required to be conducted prior to the construction of any structure on the property. Residential development is permitted within this urban environment designation provided the development provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge. For public access to Lake Washington, an access easement would be provided through an Open Space/Water Quality tract to a parcel under the ownership of the Department of Natural Resources,which is leased by the current owner. For public access along May Creek, a public trail is proposed to be provided along the entire south side of the creek within the property boundaries and terminate in an interpretative display of the history of the mill site at the delta. Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Departm-.s Six _ 9 Substantial Development Permit,REVISED Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat November 29,2006 Page 2 of 3 The proposed Revision to the 2005 Shoreline Substantial Development permit is as follows: APPLICANT: Garry Upper; Conner Homes Co.; 846—108th Ave NE; Bellevue, WA 98004; 425-646-4437 PROJECT: Barbee Mill (LUA02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-A) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: During the project engineering phase, following preliminary plat approval, it became evident that raising the elevation of the southerly half of the site by up to six feet would provide multiple benefits to the project. This increase in finish elevation would be accomplished through the importation and placement of structural fill on the project site. The increase in elevation provides the means of meeting several conditions placed on the project by the Hearing Examiner(Exhibit 2)specifically: Mitigation measure B3: The new May Creek bridge needs to be constructed to provide a design clearance above the 100-year flood elevation of May Creek. In order to accommodate this elevation, the driving surface of the road must be at elevation 31 feet above sea level at each end. The grading plan, revised as proposed, would accomplish this. Mitigation measures B4 through B6: The project must accommodate projected May Creek flood waters and provide an enhanced 100-foot wide buffered corridor for May Creek. Originally, the preferred EIS alternative for meeting these requirements would have resulted in "benching"the west side of May Creek, thereby providing capacity for the potential flood water and new vegetation along the stream corridor. During engineering design, however, it was determined that flood capacity could be increased while retaining a significant amount of existing riparian vegetation if the elevations of the bridge and lots adjacent to the stream corridor were raised. The resulting increased corridor buffer area (currently asphalt)would be planted with riparian vegetation. This revision was an EIS alternative preferred by the State Department of Fisheries. In addition to allowing several mitigation measures to be met more effectively, the proposed revision would improve utility service efficiency. With increased site elevation, the sanitary sewer system would be gravity based, rather than require a new lift station. The infrastructure, including all pipes and the water quality pond, would be above the groundwater table. Since groundwater is currently being remediated and monitored for residual contamination, separation from the utility systems would be preferred. The amount of imported fill on the 23 acre site would be increased from 37,000 cy to approximately 80,000 cy. An additional 20,000 cy of sandy silt, previously dredged from the May Creek delta and stockpiled on the site would be recycled as topsoil. The placement and grading of fill is shown in Exhibit 3. The shoreline treatment proposed along Lake Washington is illustrated in a series of cross-sections shown in Exhibit 4 (Sections 1 through6). It appears that the proposed reconfiguration of existing rip-rap and bulkheads would create a significantly improved shoreline condition, particularly when replanted with appropriate vegetation. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment Exhibit 5 SEC-TWN-R: 32-24 N-5 E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington and May Creek APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton The following sections/pages of the Master Program are applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4-3-090.J Urban Environment page 3-25 4-3-090.K, 3,4, 6,7 General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses page 3-26 4-3-090.L Specific Use Regulations page 3-27 Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departn`.. _ , Shc: Substantial Development Permit,REVISED Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat November 29,2006 Page 3 of 3 4-3-090.L.14 Residential Development page 3-36 4-3-090.L.17 Trails page 3-37 The 2005 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was approved pursuant to the following terms and conditions,which remain in affect: 1. The applicant shall comply will all SEPA mitigation measures established by the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) issued on May 3, 2004 and set forth in the Mitigation Document, dated January 10,2005. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval required by the Hearing Examiner as part of the decision for the Preliminary Plat and Level II Site Plan issued on February 22, 2005. 3. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies. That the permit be granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7)of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition herein. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one(21)days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within'this twenty-one (21)day review period have been completed. /e / 421 Otc Gregg Zimm44(f an, in'ist o November 29,2006 Planning/Bing/ ublic Works cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review(Kayren Kittrick) City of Renton,Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka) City of Renton, Parks(Leslie Betlach) Applicant Project File Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc J SE 72nd St. i i .-- J/ • R-a R-8 . - ' i NE 50th St. 1/ 1 • : ' F ,.• ,.. CA , i • ,� / C❑R cn PE 48 t. ;SE 76th ti i St. - ' , �O C) ( ,• 176th Plt-� / n"I SE! [77th P1. 1` r _ k �� "tn ( Ij CA ‘L i 1 J ;L-SE 80th St. // 1I . CUR Cl 43KI F1 //°*:> : Gj1T�.!i 7 R-10 I • Q W 4,,,' R-8 m t . /%�j •-10 . 40th St 6CA R-10 6 • / T\ NE 40th St j �a5° .f2-8 R-8 > rt a N•38th St10 R-8 z i SE 86th �� R-8 QI w��1� L';.. va �N 37th 1R .8 b , R-8 ,1 __ R-8i ` • NE'36th -\ i !% N 36th St �' BR-8 N 35th St R'-8 �� R-1 I i R-8 i R_B.N. 34th;St R;8= N 34th St ill �� !.I '� �� :.....: :. 14 33rd PI R-8 • ! �E 33rd'St. . ' i 11 R-8� R-g • ✓R-8 I ro R-8� I [ 7 re,R-8 1,33rd St i -, i /Z R-8 1 g i • '.R-e N 32nd St: ' i) Si RC ~� R- R-1' �� R-8 1 MR-8:N•32nd;St::,.. I ., , 1� R-1'�1 ` ' .T l\E 31 t St RCico� J 31tt R-eR-8� R e. R s kg R-8 I R-8 N 30th St R_8 10 . CN C N ( R�� `-- �� 'ci• i 1 R® R-8 N 29th St 10I CN 8h St : S h St R=8! R-1 . \._ 'Q-8 \- - R-8 coR-e R R` p' t]] R-8 a I( R-8 \\ I-R-4" I F I . ': I - .: 27 s. R,-g : 'NO mania. H. i° • I EXHIBIT I 1 I • T si?too \NG Summary Table of Mitigation Measures �EVEvef f RE A. Earth, Soils and Geology C,•� 1 Z Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and VL site construction. G�, G A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized;OR A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed;OR A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading;OR A5. Comparable engineering design. B., Surface Water Resources B1. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation. • B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway to avoid restriction of flows during regulatory flood events. AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of B4,or B5,or B6: - • B4. Contain the 100-year floodplaiin within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream channel, removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream / buffer improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design. • B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume(i.e.a flood terrace excavated on either side of the stream). • 66. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel. C. Groundwater Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. • D. Plants and Animals D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas. • D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee • Mill Preliminary Plat approvals. .- D4. The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic in order to optimize light penetration to those areas immediately adjacent to and under the bridge deck. Bridges shall also be designed with reasonable below-deck clearance adequate to pass debris and maximum flood volumes in accordance with current City of Renton and other applicable regulatory criteria for life safety. D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. EXHIBIT Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat . j 2 • D6. . The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic with minimum below-deck clearance adequate for passage of small animals and/or mammals including,but not limited to deer,ducks and geese, muskrats,squirrels,mice and frogs. D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer. -D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site. D10. Compensate-fo(10ss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing • buffer vegetation. D11. If applicable, thena) Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established (where the lake is shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR b). Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap. D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings. D13: Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids. D14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation. • D15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare. D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35)feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area. D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- shore habitat; OR b): Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c) Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such-as the homeowners association or a similar entity. E. Transportation El.• Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF. Pre-cast concrete crossings shall be utilized. • E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC. Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of • roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s). E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be provided. E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording.of the final plat. E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the • approved Barbed Mill Preliminary Plat as a public road system designed to public road section standards for residential access streets per the City of Renton Development Regulations. F. Hazardous Materials F1. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16,2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Mitigation Document • Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat ii • F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model • Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent-with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided. G. Aesthetics G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color, including sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets. G2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet in height,relative building bulk may be reduced by.screening through large vegetation. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings may be required. H. Light and Glare H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated. • H2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet In height, buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection. I. Noise 11. Reasonable measures shall be taken during construction to minimize noise and vibration resulting from any necessary pile driving operations. Such measures shall include pre-drilling of the upper portions of driven piles for large structures or use of alternate technologies such as pin piles for smaller,residential supports. 12. Vibration, auger casting,or similar alternate construction methods shall be used where practical to limit noise related to pile support installation. 13. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels shall be provided. 14. At-grade rail crossings shall have underground conduit installed and other equipment installed as needed to facilitate future double=gating of public railroad crossings at the time of crossing • construction. • J. Historic and Cultural Resources J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer. The design and location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior to recording of the final plat. J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s). K. Public Services - K1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K2. • The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to determine the location and design of the public access.The system may include a soft surface trail along May Creek,sidewalks,and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington. { Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 111 • • , • BARBEE MILL i.sg.:',--,„_':i 1 67"././;:-;:•:".7:)..-• . s.... G.ty„,„;,,,,,,-• Shoreline Development Permit Grading and TESC Exhibit , .3 ..,,. . :.,..;• .. :,.. '.' IN*,.• V ./ ; ):: • --)1 ) I '?) ( 11 V 0 \ A _ U _.-2 ' ". ..:,,,....,,,,,-,:,_--' --J. ..q,..)---------------• ..--- v4itli ,.. j. ) .'" \„,;•_,,, ) .., ----------- - _.------------------ - ;:-.,_ -. ---- ------ 1.1T.'? -----::- ------ Ap.47. y, . ,-... 7. ,,,,,:„.„,., ,,, .,.._ ,.._....._______----------- • ------912.5 Et • N.-- 9• ' • 15.5 El 16 --.-•,•=... -------- -:-..17--:-----------' \ - ------ ------\ ..,-- ....,....."...---.- . •: 1.,'=19- /•-=', '-'"'•.:"'';'rt. Al•11111.--'74tVA..,17iiP4* .7'-• .-.---_.=.-_7_7.____---•-..-..--,.9 0.. -.---..... ,.9• ---- • •-•....-• . 111 ••-•7 ,-.-----J--.ikv --L, ,7_. .7-14,:c.1:41,-;,,4,.,.: 7--71157- -.---7";:)..-.--- ' -------------I -•-•-:-"*10.11001.1" .-111iW=Mli iiiiiiiligliiiit' '.7Y- ,,,-':1---r-f•-• 7--1-r---r--)--1-- ..., -1----r--- y., - • ,---1-- t-.-.: ----.: - ir,ir,"0,4:4:7_,I /.// 1.I,,. (7./-": Ai a . We)...71)./,. .--:-.1.-r-'2,i 41111 I. 21 10!) 1 SO 1 19 15 1 17 18 1 15 1 14 13 1 it 11 1 '• 1 9 5 5 4 1 ' h 5''.• / 41,1 a.l/i19 1.•:„WI ..• -.-- ' 1 9"1" i : . 1 1 1 : •:: : 1 . . 1\ - ,-.--1-.2••:,,, 7../..? 9/1 •. 44;41*, ----. --',.. .e. ,//-**„. '9,,,,,,,,A.-- ' ' .-__j___-- ...1- ' -L--1 +t-J-.!, ' ,, . . . _ 411 'et:1' (k-,--- - i- _-+ _ • ,..10 _ •,,--,---..,(„:1 .1 -ti-- •'-'11-1' , __ •IIIII- ;..aa; , . , . ,,,,,, , .4,...t. . i. / - - ---.---1 0.0 i '" i.f .. -Zi_ ' 0 s, 1 -.(7::-.-. - •-i.:...q.;', ••, , / t.,/ 5/ .• if, / •/'. --/--t- - ----- -t- --4- • 47' fir' • • i.l.• ,liam -.4`. ' /1,,, n '78 . 79.80 , e,1 at 4•-•;;-/.4-ii , o';. 55 ! ,...e ' IIIIII 1• - 1 '•• ' •-4'•-•- 1 • r - -- 1-1 7 / . , .• . i (i . I' / .'' / till-T'l I I) I- •6.'1 i' i -'.'s/ / ....- .r. • „,, ...j., 11, , , b.a' 41114Vak,ftivii:•••••immrsilamiorsk-•••• ---;%:-': il • -• -I /1 '/ill i ' I , • / .."/ dill I° \ ....„/ LirEteo-r"',...="z=r-*I-E -:::---:•:::--713- 1 1 I i ..., .7.=121%.... .. ,,,, . ..'" -,- Le • .. /4 • m4./ ,./ . .7 r z -----::::-)c-- ' •--t,44a3 •i • I.0 , .0-_-_,_*--r--,--- 4111111,1Fir7Z,Tiorli - - cri Al IIIF -'.''. • .-.- g-1--- '':'. '' .• .4*ik - (n, i , .-7169 .."`, "'"1"."` 11 • 1 - - - '.'',i 4. '' ..::;;ri0000%,":41I'4 N / / . P -Z-1! /,_ . /2///' // •//ca 7%i35,ROW WE '411111" 1 \ 1E1 III \,. ..1._i__ : \.. 1 0:::,......El 13 m ;;:.. :.:------,..----•..,--; ;;;-_,Ilt,.91 , \ 111 A„.. 4, , 4/ ./ % 1 ' 4P "* -;/ fr '.••. 1 ,g,4 ' / --./ ,,,..a ,,Ifb ,,. . . / .I-J -. 1001111-Wort%• ." ' - . ------••• ••,,a.. : - sN --. ..-- 1, • ...--• ,,/ ,.•. -" q,r Ar iiii \ . m-11111 71c1;' 0 r -! • -i.,>. ,ref \ tat.- i II, i,,,,,N4 .., ).. .--N,..- A. I ‘ '.- - - ..--• \ ..0c-z---:-.3-,:,- . ..-t-- .,. , •.;f •,,- .. .1./ ,)I f-•••A 1 .;1111;0F4Rniiii1621111 I . ... \\ \ 'g11111WRIIIR:•-•)1 I i ,,i.„,...,‘• ..„„will , ......=_.--:_...\-- , 71,711 ,..,....5,-.:-,-,,,.---,--.-.----,-3.- \ \". \Ill ...-1' ' .r.... v\-*:• sig•:,'-4. lif-;--2---:,--•:--';'' 'P-.7..:-,./.---,‘,.'.Y?.1 \" \ , .......2' •-•-• -- ' '.....4,---,-4.,--1.,/. i lit / ::, : J g',.., ft...-.- urSTRAU 4 iti r07015... ‘1 ‘"-••••-• fi,W-\\- -'.. 1 A 1 '' '''---/-•-'.,(44‘ -)y il".0 ., , •-..-. 0 -e-./. .'W. Ji.//// 7/A \ "°"'r'si re cat1-0•11 MR OK IL F.V...... !Al, 1-\'...,,----;-\ ‘_ __ ,I .1 skitill:;: .4.•,4e„ii,":,74 ' % ,:r1111411,1) „.•••,"--_.--..:e 4, ,•I 1 ./1 .)i 7 1•,,.'/1- •/ .;,1,fi , CINV:=741""- 7:::-‘')\ -Z•7'::V.)11111$ '''.‘"--2 " 3 .., •i:.--AfIg. ' •' „;...i6rd' 116....., ..,01 -...-..-•:'. ..s ••/:.-1 .,t,/ ', •.',1/ \... Dire,taal Mt Mecca SO ECU i r•' I 1 11--- • ,1, .-..' AO #, -:',": • • Witifirif . ,g,l.' .7.:.......2./- fiyy7 y /,:, ..i../.,, -.. .............. . ,.//iliiiiiil f, ..q.,. .4 ......,40,..„.44. , ( \ , _.,__.:, .---,..--..; v.4.40//6 /"..''' /' uz...r............... ( \ \ lki iii1M11.1LL 24,,'Lirt.....7.,'"'"Rtfl, "op .,;•I. ...,..easi....... 4).. k e i , erAlf W`-.4 IL\ / alutit.tit SIMMS WE*al DM WI. '...\\\c•-•'.I tt i'Ldipt,,,, Ertdrilltkea.;.;ttkg . ..t. ,i/e9A1 ..'..._......_ ',...-- .A4ghttt,A..." ..,..t.,., f '' .5.,,':1 ,P.% ,.,..7:.likk..Z, • OttiontrdrIalnot Ma Fa DM fti . • N. -...V f•/I!W AtkkIV.tP,'___Nal0 • ',';,,::.V"Itrii # ,,;p,- .*--c,-,:.,-:--i''''ivi,lwri4e,1,7,v• ,-:/ei;';'/';1,•.iv,' ci-mat SY Sta isastattitearcl.se. I "\-I/r'..•IUP N' VA:."I''•-•:.•••16.1.'•, r-11. ' • / .0''''''" . _/3''''•11.r- , dtg''' i gite.44,' t VI\,.\ Oproa mower=tam No Sat Agitio,„. I ,).,•-..../.'.,/(-- \\111. I it. ''''-- ' \ngr.11/1. - :••..• .7-7r)s...",,...- - •....1-,- h .;.ilik:.7.11.r.---WAVAY' C \\\ rt -...A,'....,;,1:,....,E)*T,:ill-41- 7.1\ ,_.-$-5.7:.---„--47. '3,,, '.'or° - - ii..:.- T, fr.Z. ''':i1/1-.,--:**igi.4'.:•-,---1-',--- ''' latie ow".am al Mr n.\,----.11V ‘-i'./., q 1'At '''„c :'• 1 It.'14--,v. ii -• kr•• '"' 'mi's 17/43'-•---4;-';',:il!---7.947''-, i•-•-• ' altialarttly•tta Mr.PI sierl CUla .;,-.....,V.,.....:1.,„.,‘,..t.':i. t. '. .„ I. 1 d.*-: ',...k4at",• ii....-. ) „ill.i.„ , U. .• ////,'41'...,,...,-/441-qt;21.-- - - ---- cp---..mogp.--,,...az,......c i'...-:::: .,'-......1.,;)/:',AW,,\AI: , \ (i.:‘- -ir., I, il--,-,14- - --7;-4,41; ?/, /:#7,-/,fr3ct-frfic... ,,;---, WC•71011.111:011111.1.1.=KM '4)‘‘...-.G.•••,. I (t.\\Slin..\..'-' .. '\% 1 i i' '1 1' t (• . ?•17/ '//el/le?" ',c, -... .....-. 5406 Ma ea SOX CY Dare.. :, . .• -.l 1/- • • I/ :'//,/.,/.//.43,1 ' ' ._/,,r.<•. '.'; C I z%Orr",...41."..ra I r' \.-'1,7.7.1----'' .,\.)k\\Ilumu ,.. . - ... • . 01 ..,!I, ! 1--.) .1__,....., i \ ', at ' 1 \ I;a ill; i; iki''A ., .„ 7 li'Val ' • ;t,„A...7,:/'k.(..),-- ---.--- .'-'ziZ4` •-...1;1%1i\i\y i', - ' 1 i ' iii.e.• :•44, u cv, /, .,,,,..,,fgv,. •4 • ,s‘z,„,--4,,;,...4g- '.( ,.:7-:-)' ''A.'S\\KA\11111 ‘,7 . 1 •. 4., ,-;,-', 4 .0.............................:1....i...,=::„.... Ev....................,... , . •,,,,,,,,,k,,,,/ 1,..,'2,, 7...4-.. ,-.T. IA' ' •»•')Irr---- , ' ''''' ." ' .. kr/ / ,n /V i ' -- LEGEND . .04'....6Y/..' /, ----70 .,,,,,e,oa A to,... .• / ,,f,,, 7.. , . • ............. -F--_,..,, --. v -.:1 /1 1 ..00400.7 .,.., • ,„/F,,,, / ../.:, ,,,, • k L..__„\r,‘ f•,,, „.• -.._A ^.._, ,,,,,.-•-•.%•4<, .. ..4)/ ' iliPV,.-. 4: or, ' ///Ali' J., elff • --:-..-- Sat Ma ..j.,„ ........,•Ye/ ...../.. .--^-• / A 1,./.4iinq,„,,,, ,- ,..,:i , ',..t.,,,. -1, /, /7 1//":,...,,,,)14„ --,-S- comet MetrimnsTALT fiNtr -4,--0,- irsealIMUI MY i .;:,..,....- ...,,, . .4 v,,44..eipv, .,,,,,,, .. p t. .-se. r- :7•,,,,„,..?... .:.. _____ gm./110:6P0:•=X tilitt.Jii/h.. 1.0, II i / /,'•";1" / .4•'.// •'..V.? ','-' • / ' 106....4t4;i4i V,• .‘" ••• / ;f4if ,, / • •-• ,„ Lep WON ••••••,-...,,...MUM=CS SAL 4)A, ---."--.. )4 JilifiriA.:44V4,9.L.'* A --/,1 7 4,/,:,;,.,• < . •%.,,-• . 7A,4.iy 1<viiti, , ,i ,../-• in .......,......,- ''. x"-- -.‘ •• vi."4;ril. .,,,--*/$4,1-f s: 4, .7 (._•,,,,, •,7/ / ((( , . COSMO MOW Mt /.. • 4..... inN.. <,,,' ItS,431*...//,_-.. e Nk 17 /1....' 4'./• /'''.\\-,,,,, -- -....,-.. •....'-'-' . , , VhsP' ,.111W/44,, -.V°• // /2. 1/./•.,<:7.. / , 0 '•;-• -..------:- ., _.--...-,!-...;AV:80,v4tV,V4)01) • uri fr - A -ii tk;.K" s' '.% .',.. 1 (\„.,.."•:-'44111i - d'i,,,,,;;0;:k,(dr ' 7 i IA, ,,,-.•,./ . ..-•-•\\ Irdr....4t" .<1...0,,,740k1WV-./:',102.,," / .,,r 0,..// . -• -N.,:":\ \ ) , r• , . ..546-,-:,--'-*%1,1-4174, .. , ofiC(il p' 1 i • . ._o_a ) C//1 re... .."•. T.„...*-1:641e7-7,4--441144-A77f.044,4/7 1. ';*./.., ...,,,....... •-',..;}r• t, - ..ogrigN,",-'„,:lt.-...;, -,7 '44/rx.„ ti. , ./,,„,.i./ . • ,r, 4,, .N, ;# ,W y .,07 , -, :-/ (.- T• ,Alk eett 0 13 MM.IV 1111051,..../1.191 ' -'••••_,__,..,.., _,,\•.'s ''.--'4""?..".'.:'IF oil ,iiir ' '." -- ':"..e' ' '' 1 .-..'7---•-..,,Thimr :- '- ,iff/77 CONNER j•' )1 it. . dr9i. ',/,'',' 5-,-,. i ..- .' '14:,'-. -v. !".:.,;/14',.; /2' . ..'i ///'-, . • Imam. Shoreline Development Pettnit Greeting&Wit C782S02 • EXHIBIT 3 . • • • I (,_" ' ' ; Ili t1 I ; ij ' 1. ,00e '\ B A.RB EE MILL _ ♦E; ',C 1ii 1�II�� t "_ ii Liti, " LAKEFRONT SECTIOIS I . 'SE T10 6 'M 'F.• r� t ,, ,` , 1`;' 11111111i I -- 1�` 1-, �11 �`' I �� �'' ' '97``;� �'n / I'/jJIIJ t :-- - Conner HomesLU; , 1 L''u. 1 i I ===`'�' �-"-''�`C '`ir' Sheet 1 Of 7 �¢ C 1 7472 1 /' , ,/ ,` ,I'I , ,i�S, _ . /11qi - ;hit /' ILrLt r�;I irs 1``t'�'` ; r�- ,'`'`� `,^___�` \\��l C-34--- -,_'I�1, - E/i ;`� ' .c__ -;t�e_;}�1a.vU tr ,, t \_` 1 \1, ♦% i, + .'t\`i I' iiL��l I 35- A9 /, ,- - --- ''.' /`A G `�+ • • IIlllajM•mmuml- ` \S `Tit�N r 5%' 'IIIllIII •II ,/z,? �`'I �w�,:•3 s j %+''ti '1-f' !? ' IEEE:THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. BUILDINGS, LOT I ' - _ 1 ,''� r , , r ' 11 137 /11'I , LAYOUTS AND IMPROVEMENTS ', r---^� i i , ` . t -`, t r r 1 I I,�`I. tAlil I I. SHOWN ARE _ , 1 t , : %N -- ' S1,O.%='4{1 \ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ♦•� , ♦`♦, ` t r ♦,r, r-'�`; 11 \ 11.E�e Al' �. r IS PROPOSED, BUT IN MOST CASES, THEY HAVE NOT \• ' s� \ so ,� r w BEEN DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED. THE FINAL PLAN _• `, i i ': `▪ ` r tt i i':! , r ,'" 4• I ...,., MAY DIFFER FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THE '" ,``'` ' I „ i`i`'I it -It`1````"r rr•♦I,tf l`��k \J9 , t 1. '41\1 ,-1'_J,'• S,.•;, ,l` r? DEVELOPERSTHE PLANR IS FINALIZEDNA THE RIGHT TO MENMAK CHANGES `.o !•�'�" J? AS THE IS AND IMPLEMENTED/Al . • ..1 „i'—'„ ‘•• '' is I'1 ..:!,1,.....::::\ 's, .1,/,./.1,)A\%1 \ 40 r' ‘V /` �' -'�1'ISECT ` ,�'',\ ..r111111'11. , ,•.r. IT pp ( dr.:' r r' / I / - • t t V 41 \% 1 /JI I 1 r 1 , 1 I i ' 4%, 4 ' , r ,. --...' ‘• ' ' ' ' i‘ . . .',„-i----1 .,, ,,,,,,,,,:,:, \,,,,, / )._ ,. \\,,,‘,..,..,,,,,s,1:, �. : , 1!� � r',;+�`.', : ' SE TI'N}r � ;�1�43_ ,�/ � ` ,n ! 7 / i' ' isi � y, ., • :-.,.k ..,.",: (••• ,>.),__2,\v,--••• ‘.....\ ,...,, );',.. 44 ' a ' i 1.... j /,-,'/‘Vi ..1/10' o a , , „. , „.. ...., , ....,,,, , ` ` , _ _ # / OCfOBER6. 2008i. II : r _./liw,:4,./) , „, ,.....„, -„0„.„- ,, , , ,____,.. „. ,; r---ev;,,', '-:.:7••• z/ '-'•• •:::•,—-- 7 !,,, „,,,,4 ,,,,,d, , , :,, . . \% ' gEGj-1I r�/ j� ` �S \ f �� .� '�r „1.,,,,,) rr`� + I t ` r`' ,�' ; , r/1• r- -1`Ir f/ /�•14 ♦s;��`` ..// r �� ` it '1 ♦♦ • "r ..,. 14;_�.:J ..,, ,:( i , (,, ' ` J $ / ,1 Incor orated ''t,,--ir`r, ` / 4.-, .r/� l' 1 \`• `, '''' ` / J''' ''',7,, r \4// �t Y01 $04 �10� 10230NE Points Drive �40D I Z / ' - t, ` \ I r „ IGrkland, Washington 98033 ` r',,,,'• i ` SECFI(2�' 1♦ ` -'<:•�\- ` J(JJ ,,"• ' /'ti\ '�, Phone: 425 822-4448 / i i i -�`, ' ,,1,^\```` i, i= +i.. � .i" ,, `. u ` ` FAX: f 425; 827-9577 I, ,. ; ,, r/l" s' Internet: WWW.Otak.COM 1 I 1 f f ' ti `,-`••`: , r�' 1 ``,::1 ....:� .n'``•.' ,, {' r 1/ 4\ 1 �./, t r . EXHIBIT 4 • fre4oud C S�norctiwe Orths9") ill, V111i-w (8.(a74 Ayr& :. 141454414, e.,„.44, 40.• L•ilce. Nhsk;Ko-1-ov+ 7ci5rf-ia9 Raf B A R B E E MILL SECTION 1 0' 2' 4' 8' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 71.7.7 Sheet 2 Of 7 froposeL Gradc Kip- gf. icn 6 I&bMbV4.4 I 411 e.f.GteNt QY4i+in }-Hill. t,hix✓ 18.6 ltoA ,_,41„,.__./6" v.„4e54—iii Cor a/c 5 kw . 4...... vv„k•.14-vv 44 L-T .4400i X;s-f;►ii 12-ip_gzp , BARBEE MILL SECTION 2 0' 2' 4' 8' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS . 7Iiimlim..7 , Sheet 3 of 7 i 1 • pr#Po$ee4 6ra4a -' trs�-t� tipvf 6vlk — 4 ?ror. "ref of 434- g,ggJ4'z bra le ctiro tlin[ Ov LiI% I I I .4 L akc el.(via -' MOPS ti L alcrc 1.54: .4 s, • B A R B E E MILL SECTION 3 0' 2' 4' 8' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS Sheet 4 Of 7 1'ropose rad{ is-I-;h 6sv 4L WA-tivtt breliha J 141111 vd/P.e.. - MG 1 V•ie.Ar in lo A_ 41101"C— B ARBEE MILL SECTION 4 °' 2. 4' s' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 7%77 Sheet 5 Of 7 aF fro p05 �iwaa�e eralj•L Or " p tWM'y kl i qti Wyt-ge 184 Oxis-Whi &raie L-aki W I SkirtSi eN 0 B ARB EE MILL SECTION 5 . °' 2' 4' 8' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS Sheet 6 Of 7 e . f rgD,rtI Graeae er.t i1KIL &Ain arl Riopl W;4 bv- 18.1. • g ierli'K.) nar BARBEE MILL SECTION 6 °' 2' 4' 8' LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 7.71M7.1 Sheet 7 Of 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. 325436-5 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON AND OF SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF SAID SHORELANDS LYING NORTH OF THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. THE DESCRIPTION CAN BE ABBREVIATED AS SUGGESTED BELOW IF NECESSARY TO MEET STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS. THE FULL TEXT OF THE DESCRIPTION MUST APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT(S)TO BE INSURED. SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 24N RANGE 5E NW QUARTER NW QUARTER EXHIBIT 5 BIOLOGICAL ,ASSESSMENT I OF LME Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Renton, Washington August 26, 2002 DEVELOPMENT PLANK G CITY,OF REbto • RAEDEla.ASSOCIATES;. INC Kik _________F4A Report To: Mr. Alex Cugini Barbee Mill Company, Inc. 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98057 Title: Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton, Washington • Project Number: 2002-036-001 Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle,Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 Date: August 26, 2002 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rd St. Seattle, VVA 98115 (206) 525-8122 Principals: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Dorothy A. Milligan Raedeke, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Project Personnel: Emmett Pritchard,B.S. Wetland Ecologist Victoria Luiting,M.S. Wetland and Mitigation Ecologist Dawn Garcia,B.S. Wetland and Wildlife Biologist Claude McKenzie,B.S.L.A. Landscape Architect Gail W. Livingstone,B.S.L.A. Natural Resource Planner Danette Emberlin Fuhrer Technical/Administrative Assistant , RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rd St. Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF PHOTOS vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3 2.1 Project Location 3 2.2 Project Description 3 2.3 Action Area 3 2.4 Identification of Listed Species 4 3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION 5 3.1 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5 3.3 Description and Distribution of Species and Habitat 7 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 16 4.1 Project Overview 16 4.2 Stormwater Facilities 17 5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 19 5.1 Listed and Candidate Fish Species 19 5.2 Bald Eagle 25 5.3 Osprey 26 6.0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS 28 7.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT- SUMMARY 31 8.0 LIMITATIONS 32 9.0 LITERATURE CITED 33 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTO PLATES 40 APPENDIX A: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A-1 V LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Map 41 2. Vicinity Map 42 3. Project Site Plan 43 4. WDNR Stream Type Map 44 5. WDF Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization Map 45 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Total contributing areas for water quality ponds no. 1 and no. 2 46 2. Stormwater facilities design summary 47 vi LIST OF PHOTOS Photo Page 1. Mouth of May Creek and south bridge, looking north. 48 2. May Creek, 50 ft. south of north bridge, looking south 48 3. May Creek, 250 ft,north of north bridge, looking north. 48 4. May Creek, 50 ft north of north bridge, looking north. 49 5. May Creek looking south to middle bridge. 49 6. May Creek, 150 feet north of north bridge, looking north. 49 7. May Creek, 100 feet north of north bridge looking north. 49 8. Wetland H. Looking north. 50 9. Wetland 1. Looking north. 50 10. Barbee Mill facilities 50 11. Lake Washington shoreline, looking south 50 12. May Creek at north bridge, looking north. 51 13. Barbee Mill osprey nest atop sawdust tower. 51 vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Raedeke Associates, Inc. has conducted a Biological Assessment(BA) to evaluate potential effects on certain federal and state listed species that may result from development of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat in Renton, Washington. The site is located on the east shore of Lake Washington between the Lake Washington Boulevard North and the Lake Washington shoreline near the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange in north Renton. The Barbee Mill Company is currently seeking approval for the proposed development from the City of Renton. In June of 2002, the City of Renton withheld issuance of a Threshold Determination under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),pending additional information requests including a BA. This BA was prepared at the request of the City of Renton in a letter dated June 3, 2002 from Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner for Renton, to Dan Dawson of Otak, Inc. Specifically, that letter requested: "Five(5) copies of a Biological Assessment completed by a qualified biologist. The study must assess the potential environmental impacts from the associated infrastructure improvements that have been identified as components of the proposal in the submitted checklist, as well as direct and indirect effects from the proposed plat on adjacent Lake Washington and May Creek shoreline areas (i.e. site design issues such as building placement, lighting and shading and their impacts on critical habitat and endangered species)". The information contained in this BA satisfies the City's request. The City of Renton has requested that the BA evaluate potential direct and indirect effects from the associated infrastructure improvements of the proposed development on Lake Washington and May Creek shoreline areas (City of Renton 2002a). Specifically, the City of Renton has requested an evaluation of the potential impacts to federally listed species that may be present or use habitat associated with the site (City of Renton 2002a). Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are all species listed as threatened that may be present within the vicinity of the project. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are currently a candidate species for federal listing. The City of Renton (2002b) has also requested that the BA include an analysis of impacts to Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) due to the presence of a known nest site located on the property. This species is not a federally listed or candidate species protected under ESA. The site is currently utilized by Barbee Mill Company, a specialty cedar products producer. Under current conditions, approximately 85% of the site is now covered by pavement and structures associated with the mill operation. The lower reach of May Creek, a Type 1 stream (WDNR 2002b) flows through the southern portion of the site roughly 1,000 feet from Interstate-405. The current average buffer width for the entire on-site portion of May Creek is less than 25 feet. Surface water from the site currently is not treated and drains directly to Lake Washington and May Creek as run-off. Existing viii buffers for May Creek are narrow and provide limited function for the protection of May Creek. Portions of two small palustrine emergent,persistent (PEM1)wetlands, totaling approximately 0.02 acres on-site, are located in the southeastern portion of the property. Both wetlands have been highly disturbed by human activities as allowed under the City of Renton(1999) Wetland Regulations and meet criteria for a Category 3 rating. Wetland H, the northernmost of the two wetlands, drains via a ditch to May Creek. Wetland 1 seeps into ditch that connects to a storm drain that flows to Lake Washington. Neither wetland provides habitat to salmonid species. The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct a 115-unit housing development on the 22.9-acre property. A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of an existing bridge. Two other bridge crossings would remain and would be converted to foot traffic. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and would likely require work below the OHWM of May Creek. Neither wetland is proposed to be impacted by site development. The site plan includes lots for residential construction adjacent to Lake Washington and May Creek. A 25-foot setback from Lake Washington would be maintained per City of Renton(1998) shoreline management regulations. In addition, building height would be voluntarily limited to 50 feet within 200 feet of the shoreline. The original submittal called for a 50-foot buffer with buffer averaging that allowed a buffer as narrow as 25 feet. This proposal was consistent with the City of Renton's Municipal Code requiring a 25-foot buffer. Upon the requirement of our firm and the request of the City of Renton, this buffer was increased. The project proposes an average buffer of greater than 60 feet for May Creek that would range from a minimum width of 50 feet to a maximum width of approximately 100 feet. Buffers for May Creek would be restored to pervious condition and all portions of the proposed buffer would be enhanced with supplemental plantings of native vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition. Stormwater would be treated per requirements of the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual. Potential for direct mortality and disturbance,water quality impacts, and critical habitat impacts as a result of site development was examined. The proposed project has the potential to affect the federal and state listed species listed above. However, due to the level of impacts currently occurring as a result of the operation of the Barbee Mill which have resulted in the low functional quality of buffers for May Creek, the high level of impervious surface area, and the absence of stormwater treatment for the site, the proposed development would likely result in an overall improvement in on-site habitat. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any adverse effects on listed and candidate species. Provided that the Applicant complies with the conditions listed in section 7.0 of this report, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to listed or candidate species are expected. ix 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct a 115-unit housing development to replace the Barbee Mill Company located on a 22.9-acre property on the eastern shore of Lake Washington in the City of Renton, Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is currently seeking approval for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat from the City of Renton. In June of 2002, the City of Renton withheld issuance of a Threshold Determination under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),pending additional information including a Biological Assessment to determine potential impacts to federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species (City of Renton 2002a). At the City's request, the Barbee Mill Company revised the proposed site plan, as submitted to the City of Renton, from its initial April 4, 2002 configuration as part of the preliminary plat application. The revisions are related to the provision of adequate buffers for May Creek a Type 1 stream (WDNR 2002b) located on the property and resulted from recommendations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and preliminary discussions with the City of Renton. Minimum buffer widths were increased from 25 feet to 50 feet and average buffer width was increased from approximately 50 feet to approximately 60 feet. These revisions resulted in the loss of two lots from the original 117-lot configuration and a reconfiguration of the remaining lots and stormwater treatment facilities. Raedeke Associates, Inc. was retained by the Barbee Mill Company to prepare a Biological Assessment(BA) to address the potential impacts of this project on listed fish and wildlife species and their habitat in compliance with the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). ESA makes it illegal for any authority, agency, or private individual subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to "take"or"harm" any species of fish or wildlife that is listed as endangered without specific authorization. Take is defined under ESA as "harass, harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined as "an act that actually kills or injures a protected species." Harm can arise from significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures protected species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning,rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering." Our report is based on an examination of the revised preliminary site plan and stormwater calculations received in our office on August 12 and 13, 2002 from Otak, Inc. Due to the preliminary nature of the site plan, it was necessary for Raedeke Associates, Inc. to make certain assumptions regarding building heights, stormwater discharge rates, and location of stormwater outfalls based on conversations with Mr. Campbell Mathewson of Century Pacific L.P. and the staff of Otak, Inc. These assumptions were made in order to address issues raised by the City of Renton during the initial review of the preliminary plat submittal and are detailed the descriptions of project overview and stormwater facilities (Sections 4.1 and 4.2,respectively). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 2 This BA addresses the occurrence of Chinook salmon,bull trout, Coho salmon, and bald eagle, in addition to osprey (at the request of the City of Renton)within the Action Area, the presence or absence of their preferred habitat, and the potential for effects of the proposed development on that habitat. This assessment is based upon our familiarity with the site and its existing conditions, agency consultation regarding fish use of May Creek and Lake Washington, a review of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)Natural Heritage Inventory, the Washington Depai tuient of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database, consultation with the project engineer regarding the stormwater plans (as presented in Appendix B), and our best professional judgment and experience. We have also reviewed pertinent background literature and have drawn species occurrence and habitat suitability information for the May Creek delta and Lake Washington shoreline adjacent to the Barbee Mill from recent Biological Assessments prepared for the City of Renton for the construction of a joint- use dock located just south of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (Meridian 2001) and the remediation dredging of the Barbee Mill log storage area in Lake Washington (Harza 2000). These Biological Assessments included extensive fish and habitat information for Lake Washington and May Creek within the vicinity of the Barbee Mill property. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 3 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is approximately 22.9 acres in size and is located in a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North,Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington(Figure 1). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company property is located at 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington (Figure 2). The site is situated on the east shore of Lake Washington and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. A log storage yard owned by Port Quendall is located north of the property. The site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, May Creek, a Class 1 stream (WDNR 2002b, Figure 3), flows in a southwesterly direction through the site and outlets into Lake Washington near the south end of the site. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct 115 town homes and duplexes, as well as associated public streets, utilities, water quality ponds, and landscaping (Otak, Inc. 2002,Figure 4). To accomplish this,the Barbee Mill Company facilities, including all buildings, asphalt surfaces, and other associated structures would be removed. The proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on the 22.9-acre site. New impervious surfaces would include buildings, driveways, walkways, and stormwater facilities. Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). However,water quality treatment is required under KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8. 2.3 ACTION AREA The action area for the proposed project includes the area of development, roads accessing the development, and the associated stormwater infrastructure. Included in the action area are stream reaches, 100 feet upstream and one mile downstream, from the project site. This would encompass the lower reaches of May Creek and all portions of Lake Washington within one mile of the project area. May Creek is identified as tributary#0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 8, the Lake Washington Basin. 1 Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 4 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF LISTED SPECIES Agency contacts provided information regarding endangered and threatened species present in the project vicinity. A search of the WDNR Natural Heritage Program did not identify any threatened and endangered plant species within two miles of the proposed project site (WDNR 2002a, See Appendix A for agency correspondence). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Onchorhychus tshawytscha) as a federally threatened species that is, or may,be present in Lake Washington and/or May Creek within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, NMFS identified Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon(Onchorhychus kisutch) as a candidate for listing under ESA that may utilize habitat within May Creek and Lake Washington. Coho salmon are considered within this BA to preclude additional analysis should Coho salmon be listed in the future. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as federally listed species that occur within the project vicinity(USFWS 2002a, Appendix A). In addition to these species, the City of Renton requested that an evaluation of potential impacts to osprey(Pandion haliaetus)be included in the BA due to the presence of an active nest on the property(City of Renton 2002b). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 5 3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS 3.1.1 Action Area Physical Baseline The project site is located within the alluvial deposits of May Creek and Lake Washington. The U.S. Depaitinent of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS 1991; Snyder et al. 1973) Soil Survey maps Norma soils for the site. This soil is poorly drained formed under sedges, grass, conifers, and hardwoods. These soils are in basins on glaciated uplands and in areas along the stream bottoms. Norma is a hydric soil series (USDA SCS 1991, Federal Register 1994). Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. Both east and west sides of the stream bank are armored with riprap at the mouth of May Creek in the vicinity of the southernmost bridge (photo plate 1, photo 1). Portions of the west side of the stream are armored with riprap between the southernmost and northernmost bridges (photo plate 1,photo 2). Riprap is placed intermittently along the east and west banks of the creek from the northern bridge to the eastern site boundary(photo plate 1,photo 3). The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches;hence the stream's OHWM is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream. Short riffle glide complexes dominate the stream between the three bridges (photo plate 1,photos 2). Pool and riffle complexes characterize the creek northward from the northernmost bridge to the eastern property boundary(photo plate 2,photo 4). Stream substrate varies from fine silts and sands downstream from the southernmost bridge to gravel and cobbles upstream from the bridge. Substrate in the deeper pools in the northern on-site reaches of May Creek consisted of fine silts and sands. Water depth during our March 26, 2002 site visit varied from greater than 30 inches in several of the pools located north of the bridges to 8 to 16 inches in the riffles and glides. Water levels within the creek dropped approximately 4 inches between our March 26, 2002 and June 3, 2002 site visits. The existing buffer on May Creek ranges from a minimum width of 5 feet along significant portions of the west bank of the creek(photo plate 2, photo 5) from the northern bridge downstream to the confluence with Lake Washington to a maximum width of approximately 100 feet along the east bank of the northern on-site portion of the stream. Average buffer width for the entire on-site portion of May Creek is less than 25 feet. Much of the buffer along May Creek consists of managed lawn,particularly downstream from the northern bridge (photo plate 2,photo 5). Scattered areas of riparian shrub vegetation including red osier dogwood(Cornus sericea), and willow(Salix spp.) are interspersed with the lawn areas; however, the shrub areas are located 5 to 10 feet Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 6 from the stream edge and do not provide substantial stream shading (photo plate 1,photo 2). North of the northern bridge,May Creek is relatively well shaded by a 25-foot-wide row of red alder trees (Alnus rubra) growing along the east bank of the stream (photo plate 2,photo 6). In recent years, the Barbee Mill improved the vegetative cover of the existing riparian area along May Creek with supplemental plantings of willow, red osier dogwood, western re cedar(Thuja plicata) and other native species (photo plate 2, photo 7). Two Category 3 (City of Renton 1998)palustrine, emergent wetlands were identified within the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the eastern property boundary(David Evans 1997, Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a, 2002b). Small portions of the two wetlands (less than 1,000 square feet total) extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are managed as lawns. Wetland H is located north of the current entrance to the Barbee Mill from Lake Washington Boulevard North and drains via a ditch that connects the northern portion of the wetland to May Creek(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a; photo plate 3, photo 8). Wetland H is dominated by red fescue (Festuca rubra,FAC+), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FAC). Wetland 1 is located south of the mill entrance and is connected to Lake Washington via an approximately 150-foot-long pipe (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002b; photo plate 3, photo 9). Wetland 1 is dominated by common velvet-grass (Holcus lanatus, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), bentgrass (Agrostis spp., FACW-FAC), dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius, FACW), birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, FACW), and sawbeak sedge (Cares stipata, OBL). At no time during the year are salmonids able to use either of the wetlands or their drainage conveyances. Existing Conditions The Barbee Mill Company currently occupies the project site. Approximately 85 percent of the site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations(photo plate 3,photo 10). Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. An existing bulkhead extends along the majority of the Lake Washington shoreline owned by the Barbee Mill. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore midway between the northern property boundary and the mouth of May Creek. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (photo plate 3,photo 11). Over the past several years, annual dredging of Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark debris from mill operations and to remove sediment deposited from the upper reaches of May Creek. Recent SCUBA surveys by the Harza Engineering Company, Inc. and Meridian Environmental, Inc. of the May Creek delta and Lake Washington shoreline adjacent to the Barbee Mill have found that these dredging activities have improved salmonid rearing habitat in the project area by improving substrate conditions (Harza 2000, Meridian 2001). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 7 Approximately 1,000 feet of the lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the project site. Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single lane wooden structure located at the mouth of May Creek(photo plate 1,photo 1). The bridge provides vehicular access to southern portions of the mill. The middle bridge is a narrow foot-traffic only wooden structure located approximately 200 feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek (photo plate 2,photo 5). The northernmost bridge is a two lane concrete structure that provides the primary access for the mill (photo plate 4,photo 12). 3.1.2 Drainage Descriptions Lake Washington Basin The Lake Washington Basin known as WIRA 08 is comprised of waters funneling into Lake Washington and hence through Lake Union and the Salmon Bay waterway to Puget Sound at Shilshole Bay(Williams et al. 1975). The Lake Washington Drainage basin contains 470 identified streams providing approximately 700 linear miles of rivers, streams, and tributaries (Williams et al. 1975). May Creek May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to Lake Washington(Williams et al. 1975,Figure 5). The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land uses (King County 2001). The on-site portion of May Creek is classified as a Type 1 stream (WDNR 2002b, Figure 4), based on its size and anadromous fish use. During the past several decades, the lower portions of the watershed have undergone intensive residential development while the upper two thirds of the watershed have retained a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forest areas (King County 2001). Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent. Under, current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective impervious surface to 12 percent(King County 2001). 3.3 DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES AND HABITAT The project site lies within the range of the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and bald eagle. The Chinook salmon,bull trout, and bald eagle are listed as threatened under the federal ESA. Coho salmon are proposed for federal listing under the ESA and will be included in the following discussion. In addition, an active osprey nest is located on existing mill facilities. Ospreys are listed as a State Monitor species in Washington and active osprey nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The taking of the nest would be prohibited Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 8 without a permit from the USFWS; thus, this species will be included in the following discussion per the request of the City of Renton(2002b). Most of the information in this section has been adapted from Harza Engineering Company's March 2000,Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and ESA Fish Species Assessment(Harza, Inc. 2000), and Meridian Environmental, Inc.'s Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment(Meridian, Inc. 2001). 3.3.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Status On March 24, 1999, the NMFS listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Federal Register 1999a: 14308- 15328). The abundance of Chinook salmon within the Puget Sound ESU has decreased drastically from historical levels. Puget Sound stocks show both long- and short-term negative trends in abundance (Myers et al. 1998). Decline of this species within the Puget Sound ESU is attributed to habitat degradation consisting of stream blockages, forest practices,urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). Habitat degradation includes stream bank degradation, sedimentation, and widespread removal of large woody debris and riparian vegetation, resulting in loss of stream shade. Other effects include changes in flow, and rerouting of streams, loss of estuarine areas,harvesting, and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon(Myers et al. 1998). Habitat Requirements Compared to the other Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon have the most complex life history with a large variety of patterns. The length of freshwater and salt-water residency varies greatly (Myers et al. 1998). All Puget Sound stocks, including those found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, exhibit"ocean-type" life history patterns (Federal Register 1998: 11482-11520). Puget Sound Chinook salmon, including those found in Lake Washington, consist largely of summer and fall run stocks,with juveniles that typically migrate to the marine environment during the first three months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998). However, Chinook juveniles have been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods (Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Channel size and morphology, substrate size and quality,water quality, and cover type and abundance (Quigley et al. 1997)may influence distribution and abundance of Chinook salmon. After three to five years in the ocean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in the fall and spring. Spawning occurs in the mainstem of rivers in gravel and cobbles (Myers et al. 1998). Presence in Project Area Chinook salmon are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill (WDFW 2002a). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 9 The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River run is a native,naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery stocks. The Cedar River stock is thought to be depressed (Harza 2000, WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard locks from late June through September with a peak in late August. Spawning occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November,with a peak in early to mid-October(Harza 2000, WDFW 1994). Fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (Harza 2000, City of Seattle 2000). Chinook salmon rarely occur in lakes and the distribution and behavior of Chinook fry in Lake Washington and the role the lake plays as a rearing area is not well understood (Harza 2000, City of Seattle 2000). Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries,juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. In the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. During a study conducted in the spring of 2000, researchers observed the highest densities of juvenile Chinook salmon along the shallowest depth contour surveyed (0.4 meters compared to 0.7 meters), in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel), and in areas having gradual slope (<20%) (Harza 2000). Overhead cover appeared to be avoided, although the researchers could not determine its importance due to confounding factors (e.g. slope and substrate) of variables found beneath these structures. The theory is that juvenile Chinook salmon use shallow near-shore areas with small substrate and little structure to avoid predators (Harza 2000, Piaskowski and Tabor 2000). May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals utilizing the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. However, these stray Chinook use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lake Washington is a major migration corridor for Chinook and is also used for juvenile rearing. Spawning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977, found Chinook salmon population densities in May Creek of one and seven fish per mile,respectively. Population surveys conducted in 1983 did not find Chinook salmon in May Creek,while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of one fish per mile (Harza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, six live Chinook salmon and four carcasses were spotted in May Creek at approximately River Mile 0.5 in May Creek (Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001,Marvos et al. 1999). 3.3.2 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Status On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule announcing the listing of bull trout throughout the coterminous United States as a threatened species under ESA (Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Thirty-four subpopulations are identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment. Bull trout were once widely Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 10 distributed throughout the Pacific Northwest,but have been reduced to approximately 44 percent of historical range (Quigley et al. 1997). Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include harvest by anglers, impacts to watershed biological integrity, and the isolation and fragmentation of populations. Changes in sediment delivery (particularly to spawning areas), agradation and scouring,reductions in shading(high water temperature), water quality, and low hydrologic cycles adversely affect bull trout. In addition,bull trout appear to be negatively affected by non-native species such as brook trout(Salvelinus fontinalis)through competition and hybridization (Quigley et al. 1997). Habitat Requirements Bull trout are thought to have more specific habitat requirements in comparison to other salmonids, and are most often associated with undisturbed habitat with diverse cover and structure. High quality bull trout habitat is typically characterized by cold water temperatures, abundant cover in the form of large wood,undercut banks, large boulders, etc., clean substrate for spawning, interstitial spaces large enough to conceal juveniles, and stable channels (WDW 1992). Therefore,negatively impacted watersheds are not thought to provide optimal bull trout habitat (WDW 1992). Spawning and rearing is thought to be primarily restricted to relatively pristine cold streams, often within the headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), although adults can reside in lakes or reservoirs and in coastal areas, and they can migrate to saltwater(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Cold-water temperature is also a critical factor for bull trout; many studies show that temperature must drop below 9 or 10 degrees Celsius before spawning occurs (McPhail and Murray 1979, Craig 1997). Areas where water temperature exceeds 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) are thought to limit distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout spawn from August through December when water temperatures are decreasing,although migratory bull trout begin their spawning migrations as early as May. Spawning typically occurs in cold, low- gradient 1st to 5th order tributary streams, over loosely compacted gravel and cobble having groundwater inflow; frequently they spawn in the headwaters of tributary streams (Rieman and McIntyre 1996, Craig 1997). Juveniles are usually located in shallow backwater or side channel areas, while older individuals are often found in deeper water pools sheltered by large organic debris, vegetation, or undercut banks (Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Presence in Project Area Due to habitat requirements, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within the action area. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Boundary, including the project area(Lucchetti 2002). The only confirmed bull trout stock in the project vicinity is the Chester Morse Lake population in the upper Cedar River watershed(Hama 2000, WDFW 1998). Cedar Falls, a complete barrier to anadromous fish, is located a short distance below Chester Morse Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 11 Lake prohibiting migration outside of the upper Cedar River watershed(Harza 2000, WDFW 1998). While a distinct population of bull trout does not occur within the project action area, bull trout sightings have occurred within Lake Washington and its tributaries during the past 20 years (Harza 2000, USFWS 1999, and WDFW 1998). The origin of these fish is unknown, yet it is believed that they may be from a remnant bull trout population spawning in the lower Cedar River and/or from a remnant population spawning in Issaquah Creek. Others believe that the water temperatures in the lower Cedar River and Issaquah Creek are likely too high to support a bull trout population and that the fish are strays from an anadromous population from outside of the Lake Washington watershed (Harza 2000, WDFW 1998, USFWS 1999,Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). 3.3.3 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Status On July 25, 1995,NMFS printed a proposed rule adding the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for Coho salmon to the candidate species list (Federal Register 1995:38011-38030). Historically, Coho salmon inhabited most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Although population levels have not declined from historical abundance levels, several risk factors may necessitate the listing of this species under the federal ESA in the future. Risks to this population involve artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, dramatic decline in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradation can occur as a result of activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and dams that can cause high mortality from egg to age-one smolt. Habitat Requirements Coho salmon are anadromous fish that typically have a three-year life cycle, one of the shortest life histories of all anadromous salmonids. Different patterns of life history are linked to different populations. Juveniles, forming large schools, rear in freshwater for one year, migrate to the ocean, and return in 5 to 20 months to spawn. The distribution and abundance of Coho salmon is most likely influenced by water temperature, stream size, flow, channel morphology, vegetation type and abundance, and channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon prefer to spawn and rear in stream reaches less than 4 to 5 percent gradient. Coho salmon generally return from the ocean to spawn from early fall to late spring, spawn in mid-winter and then die. Spawning occurs in substrates ranging from silt to large gravel of tributary streams (Johnson et al. 1991). Coho eggs incubate from four to six weeks depending on water temperature and hatched larvae generally remain within the gravel substrate for an additional three to four weeks before emerging in early March to mid-May(Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979, R2 2000). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 12 Presence in Project Area Coho salmon are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill (WDFW 2002a). Adult Coho begin returning to Lake Washington in late August and continue through early to mid-November. After entering Lake Washington,most Coho will remain in the lake for several weeks if river and stream flows are low. Migration to rivers and streams occurs from August to mid-January with the majority of spawning taking place from late September through mid-January (Harza 2000,R2 2000). After emergence, Coho fry typically congregate in schools within pools, while juveniles aggressively defend territory in riffle habitat. Juveniles generally rear in natal streams for one to two years before migrating to the ocean(Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979). The role of Lake Washington in juvenile Coho rearing is not well-understood(City of Seattle 2000). Compared to other anadromous salmonid species, Coho spend less time in estuarine habitat and instead move rather quickly out to sea(R2 2000). Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influence by hatchery production. Therefore, recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally spawning Coho populations in the region. However, recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Harza 2000,Fresh 1994, WDFW 1994). Lake Washington Coho populations, including those within the Barbee Mill project area, appear to be depressed,based on the steady decline in escapement numbers (WDFW 1994). Spawning surveys conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak Coho densities in the lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 Coho per mile respectively. While surveys in 1992-1993 found peak densities of only two fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). 3.3.4 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Status Bald eagles were first protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and later listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 1978, the eagle was reclassified as threatened in five states, including Washington. The bald eagle is also currently listed as a state threatened species (WDFW 2000b). Once numbering between 250,000 and 500,000 in the continental U.S., factors including human development and the use of the pesticide DDT reduced the population to a low of about 400 pairs by the early 1960s (Stalmaster 1987, Stinson et al. 2001). With the banning of DDT in 1972 and a number of active recovery efforts, the continental U.S. population of bald eagles has since made a dramatic recovery. In the past 20 years, the population of nesting bald eagles has grown about 10 percent per year as eagles reoccupy habitat(Stinson et al. 2001). By 1998, breeding pairs numbered approximately 6,000. Recovery is especially dramatic in Washington State,where there are now over 600 nesting pairs, with approximately 300 pairs in Puget Sound alone. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 13 Because of the significant increase in bald eagle populations in Washington, the State has proposed to reclassify the bald eagle as a sensitive species concurrent with the federal proposal for delisting of the eagle (WDFW 2002c). However, to date the bald eagle remains a federally listed species. Habitat Requirements Bald eagles are found wherever food(i.e., fish and waterfowl) is abundant, with nesting typically occurring in forested settings that are relatively free from human disturbance (Stalmaster 1987). Nesting pairs return to the same nesting territories year after year, while wintering groups tend to be transitory. In Puget Sound, the seasonal home range containing the foraging and nesting habitat of an eagle pair averages about 2.6 square miles (Stinson et al. 2001). Selection of territories usually involves rivers or large bodies of water. Bald eagles prefer fish to all other types of prey(Stalmaster 1987), although they may prey upon small mammals and waterfowl. Bald eagles reportedly forage most intensively at first daylight and at low tide (Watson et al. 1991). In the Pacific Northwest, nest initiation begins sometime in February and the breeding cycle ends when the juveniles disperse near the end of August(Stalmaster 1987). In Washington, bald eagles nest primarily west of the Cascade Mountains, with scattered breeding areas along major rivers in the eastern part of the state. Wintering populations are found throughout the Puget Sound Region, the San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula, and the upper and lower Columbia River and its tributaries (Watson and Stinson 2001). Migrant eagles arrive at their traditional wintering grounds during late October (Anderson et al. 1986). Washington State consistently supports the largest wintering population of bald eagles among the western and Pacific Northwest states, if not in the continental U.S., with well over 1,000 birds counted during past studies (Knight et al. 1979, Dobler 1983, McAllister 1984). Primary winter range includes the Olympic Peninsula, San Juan Islands, Puget Sound and its major tributary rivers, Hood Canal, and the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers (Rodrick and Milner 1991), especially where food sources such as waterfowl and fish congregate. Destruction of habitat and food sources, and direct and indirect chemical poisoning or killing has led to low reproductive success. Presence in Project Area No bald eagle nests are located on the subject property. The WDFW (2002a) PHS database depicts two bald eagle territories in the vicinity of the project site. One territory is depicted on the southeast shore of Mercer Island. This eagle pair has used three alternate nests within their territory, the nearest being approximately 1-mile west of the Barbee Mill property on Mercer Island. This nest was apparently blown down in the winter of 1999 (WDFW 2002a). A second nest, approximately 1.2 miles west of the Barbee Mill, was reported as being active for 7 years but"unrepaired"in 2001. The third Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 I , 14 alternate nest is located near the southern tip of Mercer Island, where a development was proposed in 1999 (WDFW 2002a). Information for nest activity was not available in 2002 (WDFW 2002b). The southern portion of a second bald eagle territory is located approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the Barbee Mill property,but does not include the project site (WDFW 2002a). Bald eagles may forage along the lower May Creek channel and delta and the shores of Lake Washington,most likely concentrating in areas with significant use by adult salmonids or waterfowl. However, eagles have not been documented on-site and are unlikely to use the proposed project area for perching, nesting, or roosting due to the lack of suitable large trees or snags. In addition, the frequent disturbance due to the operation of the lumber mill may also discourage bald eagles from using the site. The USFWS has determined that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project(USFWS 2002a, see Appendix A for agency correspondence). Wintering activities typically occur from October 31 through March 31. The WDFW(2002a) PHS database does not show winter concentration areas or occurrence of wintering bald eagles. Wintering bald eagles may range over the Lake Washington basin,but there is no documentation of regular or individual use within the project vicinity(USFWS 2002b). 3.3.5 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Status Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are protected under the Revised Code of Washington(RCW 77.15.130), which protects wildlife including birds,their nests and eggs (WDFW 2000, Patricia Thompson WDFW, pers. comm. August 1,2002). Ospreys are not protected under the ESA, but as a migratory bird, have protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Under the Act, it is unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, or barter any migratory bird, or their feathers,parts, nests, eggs or products. Ospreys are widely distributed across the globe,breeding in North America from northwestern Alaska throughout most of Canada south to Baja California, the Tres Marias Islands, Sinaloa, several southwestern states including southern Texas, and along the east coast south to the Yucatan Peninsula. Breeding birds are also widely distributed in the Old World including Australia. Winter ranges include the Americas, especially north of the equator, and also a wide distribution throughout the Old World (Johnsgard 1990). From 1972 to 1981, the osprey was included on the Audubon society's Blue List of declining species. In the mid-1980's the U. S. Forest Service classified ospreys as "ecologically sensitive" and the species also received special conservation status in 15 states. Declines are likely due to persistent pesticide usage (especially DDT) that may still be the cause of depleted osprey populations in some areas, as well as excessive Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 15 human disturbance or declining fishery stocks (Johnsgard, 1990). Population estimates in the early 1980's were thought to be about 8,000 pairs in the contiguous United States. In Washington, breeding bird survey data show a significant population increase of 11.7% increase from 1982 to 1991 and an increase of 10.2%per year from 1996 to 1991 (Smith et al., 1997). Habitat Requirements Ospreys are large, fish-eating birds of prey, averaging about 3.5 pounds with a wingspan of approximately 63 inches (Sibley 2000). The basic needs of osprey can be summarized as an adequate source of fish and an elevated nesting site that is at least within a few kilometers of the nearest food supply (Johnsgard 1990). In the United States, ospreys are migratory, arriving on their breeding grounds in early spring after wintering as far south as Chile and northern Argentina(Erlich et al 1988). During the nesting season, they are monogamous, forming a long-term pair bond, although they separate during the winter. The birds tend to display a strong fidelity to a particular nest, returning year after year to the same location (Johnsgard 1990). Upon the arrival of the male to his summer grounds and the onset of egg-laying, old nests are renovated and new materials are added; osprey nests can become quite large. Generally, one clutch of two to three young is reared in nests constructed on dead trees or artificial structures (Ehrlich et al. 1988). In Washington, ospreys are common along large water bodies in lower-elevation forested landscapes on both sides of the Cascade crest. They are rare breeders in steppe zones along large rivers (Smith et al., 1997). Nests and foraging observations have been documented at higher elevations but are uncommon occurrences. In northeastern Washington, they are found along major river valleys, and are common along the Pend Oreille River(Smith et al., 1997). Presence in Project Area There is an active osprey nest located on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the Barbee Mill site (photo plate 4,photo 13). The site has been active since 1995 or 1996 (WDFW 2002d) and is active in 2002 with two offspring (WDFW 2002d). The pair typically returns to the nest in April and raises their young prior to their departure in October. The birds appear to be very tolerant, and have raised young for the past several years, despite the operation of the sawdust collection tower that supports the nest. Currently a webcam monitors the activities of the osprey family, which can be viewed on the World Wide Web (Barbee Mill 2002). The WDFW(2002a) database depicts a second osprey nest located off-site, approximately one-eighth of a mile north of the Mill property. In 1993, nest materials were transferred to an artificial platform, creating a new nest site (WDFW 2002a). Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 16 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The information presented on the site plan, existing drainage conditions, and stormwater system are summarized from the Preliminary Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat prepared by Otak, Inc. dated April 4, 2002 and additional material received from Otak, Inc. including a revised site plan and stormwater details provided to us on August 12 and 13, 2002. Assumptions regarding building heights and restoration of the buffer for May Creek are based on communications with Mr. Campbell Mathewson of Century Pacific, L.P. during July and August 2002. 4.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Barbee Mill Company is proposing to construct a 115-unit housing development on the property currently occupied by the Barbee Mill Company(Figure 3). The proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area. New impervious surfaces would include rooftops, driveways, walkways, and stormwater facilities. The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage of the 22.9-acre property from approximately 85 percent down to about 57 percent. On-site wetlands would not be filled during project construction and the standard 25-foot buffer for Category 3 wetlands (City of Renton 1998)would be maintained. A recent traffic study prepared for the project found that approximately 732 average daily trips would be generated by the project. Currently the existing mill facility generates 136 average daily trips, so the number of new trips would be 596 (HDR 2002). Approximately 3,400 linear feet of new local roadways would be constructed for access to the new residences. A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of the existing middle bridge (photo plate 1,photo 4). Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and would likely require work below the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately 32 feet wide and include sidewalks. The remaining two existing bridges would be converted to foot- traffic-only use. The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. The project proposes that all residential structures to be constructed along the Lake Washington shoreline would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City of Renton (1998) Shoreline Master Program. In addition, this BA assumes that building height would be limited to 50 feet within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington and May Creek. The project also proposes an average buffer of greater than 60 feet for May Creek that would range from a minimum width of 50 feet to a maximum width of approximately 100 feet. Wherever the proposed buffer is currently covered by Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 17 impervious surfaces,measures would taken to restore them to pervious condition and all portions of the proposed buffer would be enhanced with supplemental plantings of native vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition. Native plantings would include western red cedar(Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia),black cottonwood(Populus blasamifera), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), red osier dogwood(Cornus sericea), Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra), Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis), western crabapple (Malus fusca), salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis), hazelnut(Corylus cornuta), red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa), and vine maple (Acer circunatum). Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings located on the property, removal of asphalt, excavation and backfill for utilities and water quality ponds, and grading for road construction. Infrastructure construction will include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes. It is expected that large earthmoving equipment would be used on-site to clear the property. Approved erosion control measures would be implemented to protect surface waters from delivery of construction related sediments and pollutants; however, a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)Plan for the project has not been developed at this time. 4.2 STORMWATER FACILITIES Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM). However, water quality treatment is required under KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8. Approximately 67,679 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per the KCSWDM Secion 6.4.1. The proposed design includes two separate water quality ponds to provide a total of 72,026 cubic feet of wetpond volume to treat run-off from pollution generating surfaces (Otak, Inc. 2002, Table 1). Both ponds have been sized to the 100-year/24 hour storm event. The proposed storm drainage system is sized to convey the 100-year/24 hour storm to the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions without overtopping their rims. The 100-year design flow rates at selected catch basins were determined by using the Rational Method (Otak, Inc. 2002, Table 2). The stormwater conveyance system is designed to meet the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 stormwater conveyance standards (Otak, Inc. 2002). Following water quality treatment,water from each of the two water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes. Based on information from Otak Inc., this BA assumes that the discharge pipes would outfall to an invert elevation approximately 0.5 feet below the mean-lower- low-water for Lake Washington. Based on information from Otak Inc., discharge rates for the larger of the two ponds would range from approximately 2.5 cubic feet per second Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 18 (cfs) during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 8.0 cfs during the 100-year/24 hour storm. Water velocity at the pipe outlet ranges from approximately 1.4 feet per second during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 4.5 feet per second during the 100-year/24 hour storm. Discharge rates for the smaller pond would range from approximately 1.6 cfs during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 5.0 cfs during the 100-year/24 hour storm. Water velocity at the pipe outlet ranges from approximately 0.9 feet per second during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 2.8 feet per second during the 100-year/24 hour storm. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 19 5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT This determination of effects is based upon information regarding presence of listed species within the project area, existing site conditions, project design, and the implementation of the stormwater plan. Potential effects (direct and indirect) of the proposed project and the associated stormwater facility to the species of concern in this evaluation are summarized below. 5.1 LISTED AND CANDIDATE FISH SPECIES Because of the similar life history requirements of Chinook and Coho salmon, direct and indirect effects resulting from project construction would likely be similar for both species. Therefore, the following discussion of the direct and indirect effects would apply to both species. As discussed above, there are no documented occurrences of bull trout in the project area nor is there evidence that May Creek ever supported bull trout populations. Therefore,no direct or indirect impacts to bull trout or their habitat would be expected. Activities on the project site that may have direct and indirect effects to the fish and habitat within the Action Area include: (1) direct mortality or disturbance, (2) water quality impacts, and (3) critical habitat impacts. 5.1.1 Direct Mortality and Disturbance Installation of the Stormwater Treatment Outfall The direct effects of the project are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities within Lake Washington and May Creek and whether fish are rearing or migrating at that time. Direct effects are also related to immediate habitat modifications resulting from the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during the installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls below the mean-lower-low-water(MLLW) of Lake Washington and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge below the ORWM of May Creek. Specific plans for installation of the structures are not developed at this time; therefore, Raedeke Associates,Inc. cannot fully address the potential direct effects to federally listed and candidate fish species that may result from their installation. Impacts to listed fish species can be minimized if in-water work is done during the time of year when fish are not present, as prescribed by WDFW, and other appropriate BMPs are employed. We recommend that a qualified fisheries biologist be employed to assist in the development of the stormwater treatment outfall and bridge footing installation plans. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 20 5.1.2 Water Quality Impacts Reduction of Impervious Surface The project proposes to reduce impervious surface coverage of the site from approximately 85 percent under current conditions to approximately 57 percent under the proposed development conditions. This would be accomplished through the removal of existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures. New pervious areas would include residential yards, and setbacks from Lake Washington and May Creek. Setbacks from May Creek would be planted with native species to provide forest cover for the stream. Reduction in impervious surface is likely to significantly reduce run-off velocities and volumes to May Creek. This could lead to more stable flow regimes and decreases in peak flows during storm events (Schueler 1994). Scouring of the streambed would be less likely to occur and would likely lead to an increase in stream habitat complexity, including an increase in the quantity and quality of available salmon spawning and rearing habitat (Schueler 1994). Currently, sediments and pollutant loads are transported directly to May Creek without treatment. Under proposed conditions, stormwater would be routed to stormwater treatment facilities before being discharged to Lake Washington. Thus, sediments and pollutant loads to May Creek would likely be reduced. Sediment deposited over stream gravels after salmonid spawning has been shown to reduce embryo development and survival (Furniss et al. 1991). Impervious surfaces also collect and accumulate atmospheric pollutants, as well as leaks from vehicles and other sources of chemical contaminants. These can be transported to aquatic systems such as May Creek and Lake Washington during storm events. Thus the reduction in impervious surface would likely result in an overall beneficial effect for federally listed and candidate fish species within the action area. Stormwater Facilities The proposed stormwater system would meet current King County (1998) stormwater regulations. Under current conditions, stormwater is discharged directly to Lake Washington and May Creek without treatment. Detention ponds would not be required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM). However, water quality treatment would be provided per KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8. Therefore, no significant effects would be expected from operation of the stormwater facilities (King County 2001). Proposed treatment of stormwater would be an improvement over current conditions for the site. It would likely result in either no adverse effects for federally listed and candidate fish species or may result in an overall beneficial effect due to water quality improvements. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment g Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 21 5.1.3 Critical Habitat Impacts May Creek Buffers The proposed restored buffer along May Creek would be a substantial improvement over existing conditions, and would be expected to provide many of the buffer functions necessary for the maintenance of suitable salmonid habitat. The proposed buffer would average greater than 60 feet in width. Buffers would be no less than 50 feet along all on- site portions of May Creek and in some areas approach a width of 100 feet. All proposed buffers along May Creek would be restored with supplemental native plantings described above in Section 4.1 to provide forest cover for the stream. Under current conditions, May Creek buffers average less than 25 feet in width. Asphalt pavement for the Barbee Mill extends to within 5 feet of the bank top of the creek along much of the west bank. Existing buffers along the lower half of the on-site portion of the stream consist primarily of lawn and the majority of the on-site portion of the stream is poorly shaded. Scattered clumps of shrub vegetation are interspersed throughout the southern portion of the buffer. These areas have developed primarily as a result of recent buffer enhancement efforts by the Barbee Mill Company; however, shrubs in these areas are located approximately 5 to 10 feet from the stream edge and do not provide substantial stream shading. The east side of the northern on-site portion of the stream is fringed by red alder trees that overhang the stream;however, the width of the buffer in this area averages approximately 30 feet and includes only a single row of trees directly adjacent to the stream. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include removal of sediments and pollutants, erosion control,provision for large woody debris (LWD)recruitment,regulation of water temperature, and regulation of microclimate (May 2000). The required buffer width for maintenance of these functions varies with stream size and ability of the channel to migrate freely and there is not a single buffer width that can be applied to all situations. The Tri-County response to NMFS's 4(d)rule for the taking of listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound is wider than that proposed for the Barbee Mill project. The Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum buffer width of 115 feet for urban streams like May Creek (Parametrix 2002). Some research suggests that the proposed narrower buffer may not provide the same level of buffer function as that of the wider buffer(May 2000,Parametrix 2002). However, Knutsen and Naef(1997) reported that stream buffer widths greater than 35 feet can adequately provide pollutant removal and sediment filtration and water temperature regulation. In addition, Pollack and Kennard (1998)recommend that buffer widths of on-site potential tree height (SPTH; 50 to 250 ft. based on a 300 year SPTH in western Washington)would be required to reasonably provide a full range of riparian functions, and therefore, not contribute significantly to loss of salmonid habitat. The proposed buffer for May Creek would fall within these Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 22 limits, and thus, could be expected to provide an adequate level for several important buffer functions. Therefore,because the proposed restored buffer would be a substantial improvement over existing conditions, and because the proposed buffer width would likely provide many of the buffer functions necessary for the maintenance of suitable salmonid habitat, the proposed buffer would not be likely to adversely affect listed fish species. Lake Washington Shoreline Buffers The project also proposes that all residential structures along the Lake Washington shoreline would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City of Renton(1998) Shoreline Master Program. Land ownership for shoreline lots is proposed to extend beyond the OHWM of Lake Washington. It is likely that development of these lots would be typical of most residential development and include landscaped lawn, shrubs, and small trees. Opportunities to provide substantial beneficial shading of the near shore habitat through installation of large shrubs and taller trees are minimal because the project is located on the east shore of the lake and thus afternoon shading from taller vegetation would not extend over the water. As the project area comprises only a fraction of the total Lake Washington shoreline, and the existing condition of the Barbee Mill shoreline includes paved asphalt and buildings within five feet of the OHWM of the lake, it is likely that effects resulting from conversion of the 25-foot setback zone to residential landscape would be negligible. Artificial Lighting and Shading of Lake Washington by Residential Buildings Long term direct effects to salmonids can occur as a result of near shore permanent shading such as that created by overhead piers,boathouses, and log booms. The direct effect of shading would be the loss of shallow water habitat for normal migration, feeding, and refuge from predators. For instance,preliminary research by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001, Piaskowski and Tabor 2000). Adverse effects to salmonids resulting from shading due to the construction of adjacent residential buildings are not expected or would be negligible because they would not permanently shade the lake in the way that piers and other over water structures would. Shadows cast by buildings would not persist for long duration during the day due to the west facing aspect of the site. Shading of the lake would be limited to the early morning hours and would be transitory,meaning that shadows from adjacent buildings would move relatively quickly across the near shore environment with the changing aspect of the sun. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 23 The current proposal does not include the construction of docks or marinas,which would create permanent over water shading; however, any future proposals for these types of structures should be closely assessed by a qualified fisheries biologist. Artificial light cast from overhead piers can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999). These can cause delays in migration or cause a change in migratory routes into deeper water without refuge where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation(Simenstad et al 1999). However, artificial light intrusion into Lake Washington would be from adjacent residences and street lighting rather than overhead pier or marina lighting and therefore would likely be of lower intensity to artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad et al (1999). Construction Activities Direct effects on listed fish species resulting from project related construction activities would be minimized through the implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If implemented, adverse impacts from project related construction activities to listed fish species are not expected. The SWPPP should provide a careful assessment of the risk to May Creek and Lake Washington. The risk assessment will integrate the site-related elements such as slope, soil types, geotechnical stability, groundwater, offsite sources of water flowing into the construction area, and the proximity of site stormwater discharge to critical areas. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following measures: 1. Mark Clearing Limits: Prior to clearing or disturbing the limits must be marked. This element is part of most normal construction plans as one of the first steps. 2. Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, use geo-textile fabric under the rock. 3. Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. It may be necessary to construct and use a detention pond to control flows during construction. 4. Install Sediment Controls: If there is runoff from the construction site, sediment shall be removed from the water. Note that the water quality standards must be met. 5. Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Note there are time periods of allowed exposure that depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover needs to be part of the construction plans. 6. Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes that need to be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems are in place. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 24 7. Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets require protection from sediment and silt laden water. 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems shall be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets require protection. 9. Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system. 10. Maintain BMPs: The plan shall provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs as well as their removal at the end of the project. 11. Manage the Project: The plan shall outline how the site shall be managed for erosion control. It needs to cover phasing, training,pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring and reporting. It shall provide for notice of problems, revisions during construction and contingency planning. One of the most important elements in the management of the project is planning for contingencies based on the risk of exposure during phases of the development. It is essential that planning is ongoing throughout the life of the project. Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows: • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30. • In water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in- water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,.respectively. • The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a temporary sediment and erosion control (TESC)pond. The majority of construction stormwater runoff from the site will be temporarily routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project, stormwater will be routed via permanent drainage pipes. • Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems will be controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. • Soils shall be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include,but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, the early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control. • Matting,plastic sheeting or other approved slope stabilization measures will be specified on the TESC plan to be placed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Plans will make provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over slopes. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 25 A monitoring plan, with independent testing, shall be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule shall at a minimum require samples during every storm event in the wet season that generates runoff, and site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. The monitoring and sampling are to be done in a professional manner consistent with current sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The sampling points are to be shown on a map and marked on the ground. 5.1.4 Cumulative effects Cumulative effects are the additive effects of future State, local, and private activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the described action area. Development in the action area is expected to continue as the population in greater Lake Washington basin continues to grow and urbanize. Additional impacts of urban growth in this area include an increase in impervious surface,pollutants that come from land development, and urban runoff such as fertilizers,pesticides,pet wastes, and storm sewers. Impervious surface within the May Creek watershed is currently at 7 percent and is projected to increase to about 7 percent under current zoning. The project proposes to decrease the area of on-site impervious surface by approximately 33 percent. This would result in an overall benefit to the watershed as a whole. The stormwater treatment facility is designed to filter urban runoff and mitigate for water quality impacts of increased impervious surface within the Lake Washington basin. Due to project design, the proposed development will likely not degrade current habitat conditions for listed fish species in this area. 5.2 BALD EAGLE 5.2.1 Direct Effects No bald eagles nest on or within a mile of the site. The nearest intact bald eagle nest is approximately 1.1 miles west of the proposed project area on Mercer Island (WDFW 2002a). Due to the distance of the nest from the project site, development of the site, including disturbance during construction,will not affect nesting activities of these bald eagles (WDFW 2002c,USFWS 2002b). Bald eagles are not likely to use the proposed project area itself for perching,nesting, or roosting due to the lack of suitable large trees on-site. In addition, the frequent disturbance from the operation of the Barbee Mill Company may discourage bald eagles from using the property. The potential foraging habitat along ng the shores of Lake Washington and the mouth of May Creek and its riparian zone is not expected to be adversely impacted by the Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 26 proposed project. The project is not likely to adversely affect salmonid fish species upon which eagles forage, and may benefit certain species (see discussion above for listed salmonids). Depending on their habituation to human activity, eagles that may fly over the project site are not likely to be disturbed by construction activities or human activities after construction. Research by Bottorff et al. (1987), described how bald eagles flying over dock construction in the San Juan Islands (Washington) did not demonstrate any avoidance behavior. As there is no documented bald eagle use near the project vicinity, there would be no direct impacts to bald eagles. 5.2.2 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Negative indirect of cumulative effects are not expected for bald eagles because of the proposed development. Positive effects may result from the construction of water quality ponds,which may attract waterfowl and provide an additional prey base in the absence of fish and other preferred prey. In addition, any positive effects for salmonids that result from restoration of the May Creek buffer would also indirectly benefit bald eagles by potentially increasing their prey base. 5.3 OSPREY 5.3.1 Direct Effects The sawdust collection tower currently supports the osprey nest on site. The proposed development would remove all existing mill structures including the tower. Impacts to Osprey that use on-site areas would be minimized through application of WDFW management guidelines for nest removal and relocation. The WDFW recommends relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure, erected within the project vicinity. Varieties of artificial platforms have been designed,most consisting of a frame or solid base mounted atop a tree or artificial support. The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with Washington Depailnient of Fish and Wildlife in their determination regarding the best management of the osprey nest site on the Barbee Mill site (USFWS 2002b). Specific designs and suitable erection sites are discussed in WDFW's Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest (Link 1999) and in WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species guidelines for osprey. We recommend that a WDFW biologist be consulted during relocation of the new nest site. Following WDFW guidelines, the nest would be removed and relocated while the birds were on their wintering grounds. However, the osprey pair may not use a new site that has been constructed for them. If not, the returning pair of osprey would likely find an alternative site, however should the pair not breed, the removal of the tower and relocation of the nest site could adversely affect the productivity of the nesting pair, resulting in a negative cumulative impact on osprey numbers in Puget Sound. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 27 5.3.2 Indirect Effects Osprey tolerance to human activities depends upon the frequency of the activities and whether or not the ospreys are accustomed to human interactions (WDW 1991). Ospreys that currently utilize on-site structures are likely to be accustomed to human activities due to the current level of activity resulting from mill operation. Therefore, there would likelybe no indirect project impacts to the osprey. P Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 28 6.0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS Provided the following mitigation conditions are followed, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to listed or candidate species are expected. 1. Building heights should be limited to 50-feet within 200-feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington and May Creek. 2. In-water work should be conducted during the time of year when fish are not present, as prescribed by WDFW. 3. A qualified fisheries biologist will be employed to assist in the development of the stormwater treatment outfall and bridge footing installation plans. 4. A WDFW biologist will be consulted during relocation of the new osprey nest site. Following WDFW guidelines, the nest would be removed and relocated while the birds are on their wintering grounds. 5. Specific elements of the Stormwater Prevention Plan should include the following measures: 1. Mark Clearing Limits: Prior to clearing or disturbing the limits must be marked. This element is part of most normal construction plans as one of the first steps. 2. Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed,use geo-textile fabric under the rock. Note: a wheel wash is required for plans that propose winter grading. 3. Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. It may be necessary to construct and use a detention pond to control flows during construction. 4. Install Sediment Controls: If there is runoff from the construction site, sediment shall be removed from the water. Note that the water quality standards must be met. 5. Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Note there are time periods of allowed exposure that depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover needs to be part of the construction plans. 6. Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes that need to be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems are in place. 7. Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets require protection from sediment and silt laden water. 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems shall be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets require protection. 9. Control Pollutants: The plan shall show how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris will be handled. This includes maintenance Barbee Mill Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 29 of construction equipment, fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water treatment systems. 10. Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system. 11. Maintain BMPs: The plan shall provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs as well as their removal at the end of the project. 12. Manage the Project: The plan shall outline how the site shall be managed for erosion control. It needs to cover phasing, training,pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring and reporting. It shall provide for notice of problems, revisions during construction and contingency planning. One of the most important elements in the management of the project is planning for contingencies based on the risk of exposure during phases of the development. It is essential that planning is ongoing throughout the life of the project. 6. The following Best Management Practices should be employed: 1. Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30. 2. In water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek, respectively. 3. The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a temporary sediment and erosion control (TESC)pond. The majority of construction stormwater runoff from the site will be temporarily routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project, stormwater will be routed via permanent drainage pipes. 4. The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility will remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. 5. Soils shall be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching,plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, the early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control. 6. Matting,plastic sheeting or other approved slope stabilization measures will be specified on the TESC plan to be placed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Plans will make provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over slopes. 7. A monitoring plan,with independent testing, shall be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations,background measurements,and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule shall at a minimum require samples during every storm event in the wet season that generates runoff, and site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. The monitoring and sampling are to be done in a professional Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 30 manner consistent with current sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The sampling points are to be shown on a map and marked on the ground. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment g Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 31 7.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT - SUMMARY The proposed project has the potential to affect the federal and state listed species described above. However,based upon existing poor condition of the buffers for May Creek, the high level of impervious surface area, and the absence of stormwater treatment for the site, the proposed implementation of project design features, including provision of a functional buffer for May Creek, reduction in impervious surface, and treatment of stormwater,would likely create an overall improvement in on-site habitat. Some temporary disturbance to listed species and habitat may occur during initial construction of the project; however, implementation of erosion control and conservation measures during project construction should minimize these impacts. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any adverse effects on listed and candidate species. The information outlined in this BA is based upon current conditions at the proposed project site and the proposed site plan and stormwater plan. Information gathered on-site by Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff has been incorporated into this report. Should changes in listing status or management guidelines occur before project construction or completion, these changes should be taken into consideration, and any necessary consultation should be undertaken. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 32 8.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Barbee Mill Company and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from them. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands and streams,the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. II Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 33 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Wash. Wild. 36:13-20. Barbee Mill, 2002 Osprey at Barbee Mill. From the Ospreynest.org web page: www.ospreyn.est.org. Last updated August 12, 2002. Bottorff, J., J. Schafer; and D. Swanson. 1987. Noise disturbance study on Bald eagles at Orcas and Shaw Island ferry terminals, San Juan County, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA. 12 pp. + figures. Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant,L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 pp. Craig, S.D. 1997. Habitat conditions affecting bull trout spawning areas within the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Central Washington University. Ellensburg, Washington. Master's Thesis. 74 pp. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property. 14 pp. plus appendices. Dobler, F.C. 1983. The 1983 bald eagle survey for Washington. Washington Dept. of Game, Olympia, WA Erlich, Paul R., Dobkin,David S. and Wheye, Darryl. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: a field guide to the Natural history of North American birds. Federal Register. 1995. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened species: Proposed threatened status for three contiguous ESUs of Coho salmon ranging from Oregon through central California. Vol. 60,Number 142. pp. 38011-38030. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. July 25, 1995.. Federal Register. 1998. 50 CFR Parts 222,226, and 227: Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Endangered Status for West Coast Chinook Salmon; Listing Status Change; Proposed Rule. Vol. 63,Number 45. pp. 14308-15328. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. March 9, 1998. Federal Register. 1999a. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status for three evolutionary significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon and endangered status for on spring Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Vol. 64, Number 56. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 34 pp. 14308-15328. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. March 24, 1999. Federal Register. 1999b. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United States. Vol. 64,Number 210. pp. 58910-58933. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. November 1, 1999. Foster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and City of Renton. August 1995. Fresh,K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. 1,pp. 148-151. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan(ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington. M.S. Thesis,Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87 pp. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill Aquatic habitat and Fish Population Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates, Inc. HDR Associates, Inc. 2002. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. March 28, 2002. Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America;biology and natural history. The Smithsonian Institution. Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 95 pp. King County. 1998. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural resources, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April2001. Knight, R.L., J.B. Atheam, J.L. Bruggeman,A.W. Erickson. 1979. Observations on wintering bald and golden eagles on the Columbia River, Washington. Murrelet 60:99-105. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 35 Knutson,K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Link, R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and fmdings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap County Natural Resources Department. McAllister,K.R. 1984. A summary of the 1984 midwinter bald eagle survey in Washington. Washington Dept. of Game, Olympia, WA. McPhail, J.D., and C.B. McMurry. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly- Varden in the Upper Arrow Lakes. A report submitted to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife Branch, Helena Montana. Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25, 2001. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp. Otak, Inc. 2002. Preliminary Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. April 4, 2002. Parametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d) rule response proposal. Prepared for the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19, 2002. Piaskowski, R. and R. Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. Available at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 36 Pollack,N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit Foundation, Washington Environmental Council, and Point-No-Point Treaty Council. Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service,Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057 - 1,713 pp. R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a. Barbee Mill wetland boundary confirmation summary letter. Renton, Washington. Report to Mr. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L.P. March 28, 2002. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002b. Barbee Mill wetland delineation summary letter. Renton, Washington. Report to Mr. Alex Cugini, The Barbee Mill Company, Inc. August 6, 2002. Renton, City of 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of Renton Planning Commission. Renton, City of 2002a. Leslie Nishihira. Initial SEPA checklist review letter for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. To Mr.Dan Dawson, Otak, Inc. June 3, 2002. Renton, City of 2002b. Personal communication with Ms. Leslie Nishihira regarding purpose and scope of a Biological Assessment regarding the Barbee Mill preliminary Plat for the City of Renton. July 9, 2002. Rieman,Bruce E., John D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-302. 43 pp. Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management and Habitat Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 37 Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100-111. Seattle, City of. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Sibley, D. A. The Sibley guide to birds. 2000. National Audubon Society. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York. Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler,B.Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999. Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12. Smith,M. R., Mattocks P. W., and Cassidy,K. M. 1997. Breeding Birds of Washington State Location Data and Predicted Distributions Including: Breeding bird atlas data and habitat associations. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA 1997. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 100 pp. Stalmaster, Mark V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books. New York,NY. 227 pp. Stinson,D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 92 pp. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States; In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington. November 23, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. United States Fish and Wildlife Service species list request letter for T24N,RO5E, S32. FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1721. July 29, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Personal communication with Ted Thomas regarding the bald eagle territory occurring near the Barbee Mill property and osprey nest. July 31, 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 38 Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002a. Habitats and species map. Mercer Island, 7.5 minute quadrangles. July 23, 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002b. Personal communication with Jennifer Brookshire regarding the bald eagle territory occurring near the Barbee Mill property. July 31, 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002c. Personal communication with Ms. Julie Stofel regarding use of Barbee Mill project site or vicinity by bald eagles and potential affect of site development on nearest bald eagle nest. July 31, 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002d. Personal communication with Ms. Patricia Thompson regarding state regulatory status and use of Barbee Mill project site or vicinity by osprey and buffer recommendations. August 1, 2002. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2002a. Natural Heritage Inventory Database search verification of no listed plant species or high quality natural systems within Section 32, Township 24N,Range 5E, W.M. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. August XX, 2002. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2002b. Forest Practices Base map information for T24N, R05E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on August 14, 2002. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington. Report 92-22. 125pp. Watson, J. W.,M. G. Garrett, and R. G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia River Estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55:492- 499. Williams,R.W.,R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, WA. 704 pp. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 39 Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fisheries of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 FIGURES,TABLES,AND PHOTO PLATES i 1)41‘)\\---\ ... —— ••••• -:7.77 :.UNITEDSATES:: .': ..::.>:< ;'::::. Sc) i /an Juan C\, Bellingham c . ____ __-'1..: '::Whtcbiri.Co, Skagrt Cd: 1 / : . Q nac , : A rtes .`' • .:` VICTORIA i SAN JUAN ISLANDS i Island Co. ......../J-- -1 •••••::. i 1 Po rt rt Angeles port T•• P 0 nse ' • • - • - - • film) - C) .. - , — Ev r et t am Co. ff . Ed o . "Snotio)ilsh iCo.`.`. then; Kin C 0 son.Co Vnd ,;<::; ;=a:.;> ..�:•<,:': ; ';..:. Ma ,, • s. son Cif4/ g:co .......:.. O _ N i !• Re• io ass:Bren3erton� i 0 : ..,.,,..............:,::::......,,:,..,......:..::::::::::::.. , -...! 0 m • TE" a . t , m • � • P � : : AG edeirs t s- Aub 1. R10RTH..:,r .t PuyaLup m r 9 O N • Figure 1. Regional map showing general location of the project. •'i4 ate".'. '`N: .,'j'i7 •' %=r g'68T'.z- .,..;,$ 9300` - LA, , SE`'.. :68TH,:;I =!' li'sT-k';i -N o ~-'t 0- ST iie ` vs. RTONE R.�= 'E ¢ I = ='; t'.'_; :i1otso ,TH x k,`, m A M SE 70TH ST 011 - F;:,:PARK%4:,,',, ,A P. 'T q -i` , `'.0g:;rrs,;c:''N .. ° !, '1 • .,:':: Z 4 SE 72ND ST =;._ ' 2±3tJ :5 0 �ti q .� IST all SE'%�72ND.`'PL'F . m sr , .sr,1ST e�' 1 ;�.� ;;fir, 's'NEor/4 m P 7 �,��, ^ , �'". ;; '• ,,. 76TH . ST tX sir �i� k;, ,2 fw SE H 5 ,z �• lr 1 E • ,'' / .::'' :; D I� fw 76TH PL i^ 77TH fr`rc^ • SE 76'H / //';,.: :.:,:` L.f 6L ST H,`../ :ti: `r•. 43. '/, ,.:;NE2: G1 sE�t,n/6 s tx a BARBEE „ PL ;"r n SD CLARKE'1 MILL SITE / ®;:s- f " � P. •>: sE /BEACH:- 3' >''<?` ''- �, %1' T', SE 'a 'LiSLAND A C P< 78m!/', R(C--/ y /'; j .N 43RD" ' ' SE 80TH 79TH ST S HE A!) 0T., yT !• -,./40/� �". y `•........_ r:`,j 'P "'� 11200 ollC LN SEA f J,,:,J :'' -.':' g .t.74 �-.1... .n N`40TH`:ST,''^: do Ifp ?_'a SE''_ban, �i` --1300';� .! SE 85TH PL ON _ .2 .,z` I • ':X i ;v'1:,-rot coo , _.. ,�-c .-..N SE 85TH LN 31 / !'38Th r �57;: ;x rwK- � F<,J,_ E SE am sr • / 2 • i N. 37i .2 0•: ,:v1� �� r;..A,0,. SE 86TH SE 87TH KENNYDALE ;�,:.6 „ST:;:Q .tr..+;.N 9c :;36TH 1 i '� <NE, :i36 f H sE SE 88T BEACH PARK 3" {5e I _= f;: , 116C ,,.:> �36TH:f`.-ST 1 o•:;" ''!. *La' ;f s; V,•r,;'1`k ''.'<:;y.;:f 'tit ,,I S_E8c v. } F , 0!LIMA 70.0: i. 1. N ,/., ,L% - ,�`' ''z.'1 C. I1 � 'lam, a'."'t� v":' I 0.1 u.jTh .:Q: ;' .-'y'1:: - -:j :.;-'q1• 4'-'s`�F$Erz�i.b,;i2;:�:.:`-'"tr". o I ST! `: 1.::2_ �r.<.,,. :itr3i. --�:ti40 mot:;. '' ,� r7.'.IVnm - -, :700; '130.0' li '4; ,aya 174:,r' t Q ©<',VS^.".«�3 JI 11i ps E<: Cl' y:�"�"�.�Vt�^':".sA-�', R,-•�q"'=.�,�n`+ , 11 9 -S >28TH,. :PL H • T:., :: : :. '2UTA�aj:_2.::. ye 31 , "N` "'•"•.',i';:x.,,; .V-:.:„. ...:;v,,,:•--= 1 IME,r,•r,-,‘-.:-•,-.'-',-•-,.,,,-••,,,.• '.-3 -i-,1,171...-':u,-,"'.',,317:,• ....t.-i-f:'0 i�l: I w a :a o. r.': '.1p.'I 4 2 ,��T�! I. HE- ;:�: r���#tc�.'„'i' Lia Nv O ,� �ti. '`':;,`1.0. .: off` ii- c . `;: ,LtQNS:% �: - m '�\\N'_24T v:; ;->s '°:. 11 1l1n TON 1 • aNEryg� ,-`11 4'U�.11 J 1.l kf f�l (�l V =g,' >r,; r� `z.��;17.0Q-. R RYA?3R (6 A ,F:,..„„a,..,.... .....,..„ „,:.:,........ E ,., '::' :;' ,,,, c22NOr< , c., •Lt=',1 • a >>.'''' NEi:;iz.▪ST S"` .F:1:..0 . ., - - o NORTH ;�t.,..,0„,.. F' = <,,....:.5;., .,.•�:,:,� �;. ._, >: No 'oil;u _ 0 4', ,Q J,p.: x* ?ry}yr=_• \;� ;����` :Mc E' ..."20THU..:_ ,.I__. .... ..< ,.. (..il-�... • Figure 2. Vicinity map for the study area. ''Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps, and it is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission." r f/ FIGURE 3 7TO /� BARBEE MILL COMPANY i SITE BOUNDARY LINE ', / BAR E E MILL PLAT .., • f-m ee_..m, t.am mw..>' -•__ •, m I•• ,�,, r , r-i-----' r �r____ ----,-,_� /,•' %J /% / f.,1_ 1._ 2a ,s i I r---- -mot rim•• < , ram.. ,<m- '- • I I .m. > •• / /' / `u i 1 ', r ,,/ i \ CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON _r '.' . I 2, jm , 19 I '.m'' rr,-->i >�..—j g., ,j , •�mwm>I 1 m>i m>j >n .. j .«nm> va.r '' /`" / / .. I I> ,i; 4. 5 ,k L 1a ,] Is mam G c, > >n' ''s'° / / y, i/ / /' .L—. v>'v n I S E I 22 > 3 20> P �' b' `,a> 'ma. mom ; 6 • amm 81 m 3 uom§ $ / ;' / /. _ PROPOSED SITE PLAN I I I ~ Ifi I 13 1 12 I, 6 I .va 7 r m> s 1F E 3 / 4 /!� , °•yt 2l I, I I :� I 16 1 I 10 9 8 I 6 I '• , ' / / l it ) rom- mac /-..m ..m .am' .� __z J 1-nm`J Ln .. nm J L 7,-1_-__J L-__ _J L_� _ J ,,,,,„....."1.: / / Ib, // , 4 _74, ',IL «s.ro .� //' -- -w au na. - .// / I, % / \.\�.— I �6i .�m2a `1/ 1 '' C'.«� / i2 '�.:, !-'a v:zy�.n.'v '• 't,!' n� r w.,1 II` r m 1 .`"«o /Ai , II// /j1 41 1 /( ], q , / ]3�+ i, ]5 J ]6 a«.n �',• ,`` 61 v«m8 awm vl anam amm I i 1tI 1 -`«1 28 1 V+ ./` ' `' ''6e` '' I mm> c! tg 1169 6a `6]>• g`66 I�$ 1,,• 'III ' / !O •19I > I - °\` , Fa'```, :' 4 ` %Pr"` T I ]a m ]0 I I I I ,I /' / O L J \b`,v ''i°, @`,y i g8, ` ..m_' Lava new J L.m J In». I / / / 0 STORMWATER I" �1~I m" p'' M« „a,gory/ ,11 / I N 1 I TREATMENT POND 1 > '-> -� /� • / / I c ",,_\ 1. .�e„``` e2 '� ',: F;y �'a y ",ii7TOB (Top of Bank) I I anv> <v'm�'ea 8` `'`tea•' �> (ai' Y 6a °> f_`,i bb / .% / / I Q >� b, I _cl _ \ �`' - .'' , m>' �. OHW(Ordinary High Water) I COI , CD >��, 58 /III /� h \ [TT-- 00 '4.4""4. 1 •.° ''' ' ,,,0°'.0.„, ".---112:\\.:7733 '''. 5‘ \\\ \ .-...;";:4'\--' ,,,....:'001/ :// ,0 C // I'Z' l- i �>ed>31 1 I a�yt'.>n> ra«5' .,;a'e'o` i�•���✓ `° :i bU a/ Ui� \\ I 01 , 32 N 1-.a..w v-----,x i n«,a v `'a. so//f /i%��//� • /' 76G6�/ ��� / �� 111 O .,I-.. my 'e• -„a /ne.,.v`. •�a9 «� /!%i'_=_=_, /t h6- / /�� �\ N ! ' • // LAKE « ' ,� ` ,, I I u« vaa .7 'ab / ./ ' / .G BUFFER F./ 11'' %/ � ��� WASHINGTON -x w� _=- a, , o Q-/ // �'\ I 5 as i'tk4 WETLAND H ..,' 1--�-- 1 �' 1& i. '/ III / . / ` , 35 '`I 1 wem, \ I g0n.•,,,a;;s, 115?,` di i, / // // \\\ II g < BUFFER ,,,5 •� I' ``I 3a ---� z :,....,,t,lo,�� '{/ 4°' / /,/ \/I .// ;#''' / / . . la L_ 39 • my ;ii ` //// 1 OD OP" C 40 °,..,;. / M to... A�/� /4, m' 9 % p0O , ` ,',< /2 �^ d, \\ // '� 9 ,05 11' / / ;`� north • "N .,y/ / U\•.`"»v \i+\' / /� '�I/� ,` 4104 / A f / 0 -7 'dr /10 / j '�_ �►��/ /�<; `o;/;' 'hh , ; /— RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES,INC. b / `� t�\\\ '� 69 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. SEATTLE WA 98115 E ^\ / �g > Al o .,,,,,,, �� �`, ; (206) 525-8122 FAX: (206) 526-2880 Aiiipl n a STORMWATER 95 _ 'WETLAND 1 0 S / '' -u- RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2002-036-001 >, TREATMENT POND 2 ,��`a 9, K--- / / , 96�s bh Vi / i .. yr 'i-dN io J, c j9' ,�_>.rs,/ U ( a„- /a ;4 ;% `�/j DATE: 08-14-02 f r/ - � .°.:: ,�... K.___ , ss z x.�,� / -r__�>YI -_ a SITE BOUNDARY LINE! '"'y' ```, ' / "' v DRAWN BY: CJM / :;'r '': % 4;r'- Base information from Otak, Inc. drawing names "N %"�. ''/ base.dwg and existing.dwg received 8/12/02 FOREST PRACTICE BASE MAP TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST(W.M.), HALF Cl, SECTION 32 • E{ri;:I: ''i{=,Ijri1{<ffiarh,`•i�fa:.�'j2..{i;r 'l' J / • • i, I I I t `. ..L-2 • , hf'Ri§,i;'a' FiV_;j; N ;3`i.�?r =7. �•s o• ff ,. .7..2$' 1, .S 'I I •.�'s. I • �� • 2a. -- !il"i;{794s1 hfi:ti%.i.%=%= ,.. i• .. N ,; r44."sj,`,,, :14. V T� • ,.). ,.1. :[:. .L .•\ r'` _ L `! •1r' - 4 . J { i' ;'1-^ i{ r (Tj'y , -;4"•,i,1.,ttdtl?.otiVli;itM,,.,.:4.%;e4 ^, + I•, I I I{I • .-•1.. • • : :./. • "'•'I�iXIYtSS h1hG.InN�,r' _ t r., 1'•.• ..• 1 ( 1I ,.._,..... . . ........ .,„, . I =iXii S j'%tti:t i,J's_'f:d6;., .... :,..,::•,.. •.,A,..... !,, ...,I;•. , . f: .:..4',: •...,.:;..... . ,,. .,...,: �,- . • • f,; Y i. }Fcil= i_: r.j :rd,tEil3 i:?::S:;i}�J •.•.-'."'- i ',LLi, SS 5: t 54 }. .tits';/ 1" 1 ' ��:49='' i f .'�i� I . •, •• • , • • '.ISM i'4WtdAsi ? f'` . . -.1 F.41 .II 1'T.� ? • .•TJV(r,.7..3:. i•+ :.;f;,i-r.r:,.I.v=iiG f 1 : } r „' 1 ,r:.:�.. • • ia i ' ', l~ 5i'.a;f' P • ' I f. �itgf .I r : 1' t' ' r • •• • f t f X ,1 { t.' a ! • [ ::41•A:ir ;1 . .• f 13 f I t .l r / r I - ...��..—f 'lei• ' ; { • r - :s ., . : \ '1, 1.' �'f35:372-- .feaSj0' • t • a r. '( t • f } Pik ` �:. m ` • IT mts y--., � ..� t: t OFF N NORTH _ -s': ,{ 1 \ ' I • Wednesday,August 07,2002 10:25:42 AM • ' NAD 27 Contour Interval:40 Feet '- Figure 4. Washington Department of Natural Resources (2002)Forest Practice Base Map for the project area. . SYMBOLS • r;-`, .'N' �'�I \�° PASSABLE - BARRIERS - IMPASSABLE Falls f:;,ry,: ,`i y ,,` lilt ill „'rt,;1;,;'ti Cascades . r;: L; O 10 ', t Beaver Dams '*?C* s' � oLog Jams 1-----0 , g:rrY m V5'-:i;-,::i'.Ikl,N,.•i.Aiy::.t'--;0.'ti1;.•q_4.-,4-t45,t,i5zi4n;'.it4.:.,,t'i'4,g-%i g Mo,.,.,„/ Dams �` '7 '.{„?;` \c ino4 Salmon Hatchery c w;;r�r'ltiti''' ,60;4--M(1 n ) c:id Fish Passage Facility En <4 $ f M�r'x 02 —� �, rhit: Stream Gage i fir:Sri.1.0:•: O) ti stream Mile N. °' ,r sty, , UL o N "d O 01 O Reference Point - ;. �5 \O Coo/ a O Q • •• 9 /4 ,SITE �c Lake 5Gw 1. ` 7. Baren ".. c� o so « yK. 1 a °' > < 279 r<m illfri 0 752+,z-3,_ o m C? -41‘ 3 9 '.e4i 0289 t:;. 09 .9S RitattA so ,�lnss+i?h� � 2 9 m r w,LL a. g I 1/2 0 I MILE O O 0297 �♦�►�♦��♦�♦• SCALE I"= I MILE m m ♦�♦���♦ • •ifr•♦ o to 6 ••♦ Diki•i0•�••��i�i�i•i♦. Renton o .,•:,• 4�..••s 4,,,;••••�� SOUTH dji •4#-).000•♦•oo LAKE WASHIICIGTOf�I ,.' Lake NORTH I , �":��:�:• .,,. , ♦,.♦•••♦••• DRAINAGES Figure 5. Washington Department of Fisheries (1975) Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1. SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON DRAINAGES Lake Washington Basin-WRIA 08 Stream Location Drainage Number Stream Name Of Mouth Length Area Salmon Use SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON 0059 Mercer Slough Sec8,T24N,R5E 6.3 - Chin., Coho, Sockeye 0260 Sturtevant Creek RB-1.7 1.3 - Coho Sturtevant Lake Outlet-1.3 - - Mercer Slough cont. @a mi. 1.71 as Kelsey Creek 0261 S. Fk. Kelsey Creek LB-2.4 2.1 - Coho, Sockeye 0262 Unnamed RB-1.65 2.3 - Coho 0264 Unnamed RB-2.7 1.1 - Unknown 0266 N. Branch Kelsey Cr. RB-4.7 1.85 - Coho Larson Lake Outlet-6.3 - - 0268 Coal Creek Sec17,T24N,R5E 7.0 - Coho, (Sockeye) 0269 Unnamed LB-0.8 1.7 - (Coho) 0273 Unnamed RB-2.25 1.05 - Unknown 0281 Unnamed Sec17,T24N,R5E 1.3 - Unknown 0282 May Creek Sec31,T24N,R5E 8.6 - Chin., Coho, Sockeye 0284 Unnamed RB-1.15 1.2 - (Coho) 0285 Unnamed LB-1.7 1.0 - (Coho) 0292 Unnamed RB-5.9 1.5 - Unknown 0293 Unnamed RB-6.1 1.65 - Unknown 0294 Unnamed RB-6.7 1.3 - Coho 0297 Unnamed RB-7.1 1.0 - (Coho) Lake Kathleen Outlet-8.05 - - N Q m ra Q N m i ED Rl O 0 0 M O O O N Lake Washington-603 Figure 5. Continued. .. • P. g. c�i �'I" �T'_ h. .•�` _` „���.. SMr•1_(,�}I'r• /(1;'i 01 '. fl._ N�l co ca o o 7 . g Photo 1 Mouth of May Creek, looking north. South bridge with rip �, • ,.1 w rap, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-6]. v� 1r . . 4 Y s kr r.� 'tii.6 • ,+ i � � r i3 r \ t aO t , I co 1 . 1 {F 9- l. 0 P F1 I 1 • n r 4l co co _ . CU 4 aa', L _. - , 7 r,,J .;.,cam: ' z f cp m - ,.,, ` 4., ` `ramco z. ! 9J o ' -,- - ' • 'IA,-.... .0 '•-••••:''','6.- Photo 2 May Creek, 50 feet south of north bridge, looking south. Photo 3 May Creek, 250 feet north of north bridge, looking West bank rip rap, riffle-glide habitat, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-24]. north. West bank rip rap, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-4]. Photo Plate 1 ifite a. 4� Nit :1 5 K'{p • •a a,J Y �,..• V. 7 y ;si ?�lKF i A.r. ! .•� Vj 7 7 • '' t....i, • Or f � ..-"• .41 i' r o.,: .- ,. L-� v `Y j( ~ .Y'y ' o r" C �v12- 't .,•`' fy c; .i t Zf ;, it 4 t �, 1 P t _ • j .�` !r� h,� •.'� s p .. f :S, '`• �.• -., "� 1,r ' '�- . '-c ,srs*a�'L,•ay.:a11 > - cv 3� ,,, _. 'rr •s«J �' ,{ � X :'���3 '''x r , '�a�ll ;. �+ }!�j' rt�Cr ..D�IMr. - '�!_ w•:- �t l ti .ah ,... 2. 1-. ,A , ' rf��,."K>-A • ryti:....•' -.• ; n o o ce- ," F:, � �' _ m .. �' a — k� err ::_ r ` � rr r. 6ar t'/r e. ` r - o / sr o - F t rrT� .s4o st ,. h .moo o I -..5..5 "w•;7T--1 �', . '_ � • -' s�'•T w G: +. r'r34'� '— - rii - +�,aC' g Photo 4 May Creek, 50 feet north or north bridge, looking north, A Photo 5 May Creek, looking south to middle bridge. Narrow west 0 6-3 02 [photo 2002 072 24A] o buffer. Mowed lawn east buffer, 3-26-02 photo 2002-043-18]. gr� " :,.' '� `' - rt K� �. 1�'Y r!' Y 4 .� ,- "` ,, ✓mot- . ,tis' X i • o o -A. ! ) ice' t ,,•' q ■ M1 . C ...N....9' 'ST ,.1'i • o !�yrSjf�:,SF�4 ICy M N'i .•.e ') A.. ir'A q, P• , i , ,';`-'-r- ��... Itw h .�w .c j�itf • r 4. ;o• by co • c, y 41.;,, ...-01.. . —, , ,..--,,,,:- , c, •• • .„7..z.•=:, .r a. ^ �' c••• �" 2t� it \ - •�F ` '- CO Illi • i rti CO • ,- r • J�{` - • ~ !R k f . e sar `}� x v: ,�:' io � .a4 - � � r Ij�'r :!q;•r- (� �� ♦ T . . � M r�tt -A ! ' re . . _ A y " I � c1 ti i e p� , r ` Y � � i. .r; ( _ , -:....„.„7„::;, �Y ' J1 j ( - ,4 .i.,F � = =tr{o0 y ��� _: • Photo 6 May Creek, 150 feet north of north bridge, looking north, Photo 7 May Creek, 100 feet north of north bridge, looking north. 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-3]. Riparian buffer plantings, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-1]. Photo Plate 2 > a;, .,:z � � 4 { .ter / 04 sa As , . , , ...,._. 4,. ,v. ...... . _ ,,,,,.,./...,•,. 4-04' -e, • •-,... ,. . 111 .:Iiii& , b '1 o ~ -a 'Li X. '' ' „ /./4." e ' • r r. 4.(, a Ai- . .ca t .rsn. $ „�.,+1' `•c, � i •411- _ "° M. fi 3t it",'", �^ �, AAkL• ._ •1 .' �l I �'t �k fy :err y v,,i . ` as ` g - �, as+r .; ' srrj i'4 1 re c, r ,' .5� M1. r K'. M i A f .a .s �t r1, O s /1 a '.t.- K , . _ g Photo 8 Wetland H, looking north, 3-26-02 [photo 2002-043-10]. Photo 9 Wetland 1, looking north, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-12].U 4 O O , • J I CV o 1 MN' j :II �r fir' 7 ill:11Fr.. r 1.,;ifitiLIT '''*-- CO r - ....-- .... . 3CdLLriB'_r4'-�aOIIwe lsiu; �__ co 16. ts.A S -- 3A• Y b r j f cll • ItPhoto 10 Barbee Mill facilities, 3-26-02 [photo 2002-043-21]. Photo 11 Lake Washington shoreline, looking south, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-9]. Photo Plate 3 -0 f.,•:.__,,z,..--.-.-.;,-t.',A,- ' •— -7.i.,'• - iftt'st7.„4-e. AIN •4 - • , r__—co Der _j_ ?-- _r <-� ` -- ill: . ►, 0 0 • mn t t.'i.' . i , 14114..1.4114'"I'Pil. Ilt,t` Q.. y - . ti' 4? _,f iij ry' Y� i- AIM g F� ' , '* Photo 12 May Creek at north bridge, looking north, 6-3-02 Photo 13 Barbee Mill osprey nest atop sawdust tower, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-23]. [photo 2002-073-2]. Photo Plate 4 46 Table 1. Total Contributing Areas for Water Quality Ponds No. 1 and No.2 Design based on information provided by Otak Consultants. Developed Area Land Use Impervious Pervious Total [Acres] [Acres] [Acres] Residential Lots 7.59 3.82 11.41 Water Quality 0.44 1.67 2.11 Pond Tracts Open Space 0.00 0.25 0.25 Onsite Roadway 3.73 0.00 3.73 Offsite Roadway 1.31 0.00 1.31 Total WQ 13.07 5.74 18.81 Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc. August 26, 2002 47 Table 2. Stoiniwater Design Summary based on information provided by Otak Consultants. Water Quality Pond Capacity Treatment Design Device Design Criteria Required Provided Standard (cubic feet) (cubic feet) Runoff KCSWDM' NA Lake 0 0 Control Washington Direct Discharge Exemption Runoff Basic Basic 3 times Runoff 67,679 72,026 Treatment Wetpond From Mean Annual Storm 11998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual 2 Direct Discharge Exemption C Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 26, 2002 APPENDIX A Agency Correspondence WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF �� DOUG SUTHERLAND Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands �p ril 15, 2002 f7 g a i ,.`r , ; I. 1'[L AUG 1 9 2002 + i Emmett Pritchard Raedeke Associates Inc ' `! I` - 5711 Northeast 63rd St Seattle WA 98115 SUBJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat—Project#2002-036-001 (T24N ROSE S32) We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether . or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species;there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. We have begun to add information to our database on selected groups of animals of conservation concern, such as freshwater mussels, butterflies and bats. However, to ensure that you receive information on all animal species of concern,please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. If you have internet access, please visit our website for more information. Lists of rare plants and their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. You will find us listed under Programs & Topics on the WA DNR homepage at www.wa.gov/dnr. Please call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by E-Mail: sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordina r Washington Natural Heritage Program • Asset Management&Protection Division,PO Box 47014, Olympia WA 98504-7014 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7000 • FAX:(360)902-1775 I TTY:(360)902-1125 I TEL:(360)902-1000 ° '° • Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER i�j1 1 es,„p� _ G.,{ bee, avi 1 2oo 2 -O 3 ^O O I Syr ias9 a°y JUL1 2 4 2002 State of Washington • DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE b .. • ___ Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N,Olympia,WA 98501-1091-(360)902-2200;TDD(360)902-2W07- Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building,1111 Washington Street SE,Olympia,WA I Date: JUL 2 3 2 2 Dear Habitats and Species Requester: • Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to help you understand and use these products. These products only include information that WDFW maintains in a computer database. They are not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our 'tnowledge. It is important to note that habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas ;riot currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not .been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of riority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this information. Generally, for assistance on a specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area: Refer to the enclosed directory for those contacts. • Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1:24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are required they must be requested separately. • These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as such does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be screened against marbled murrelet detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest Practice Regulations, you should specially request murrelet detection areas. • WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and species information can only show that a species or habitat type is present, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These products should not be used for future projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information. August 2000 Because of the high volume of requests for information that WDFW receives, we need to charge for these products to recover some of our costs. Enclosed is an invoice itemizing the costs for your request and instructions for submitting payment. Please note that sensitive information (e.g., threatened and/or endangered species) may be included in this request. These species are vulnerable to disturbances and harassment. In order to protect the viability of these species we request that you not disseminate the information as to their whereabouts. Please refer to these species presence-in general terms. For example: "A Peregrine Falcon is located within two miles of the project area". If your request required a sensitive Fish and Wildlife Information Release Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and you or your organization has one on file, please refer to that document for conditions regarding release of this information. For more information on WDFW you may visit our web site at www.wa.gov/wdfw or visit the Priority Habitats and Species site at www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm. For information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program at P.O Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504- 7014, by phone (3.60)902-1667 or visit the web site at www.wa.govidnr/htdocs/frinhp/wanhp.html. #you have any questions or problems with the information you received please call me at (360) 02-2543 or fax (360) 902-2946. . 'Sincerely, . Lori Guggenmos,.GIS Programmer . Priority Habitats.and Species Enclosures August 2000 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REGIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM MANAGER CONTACTS For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species Information contact a regional habitat program manger and they will direct your questions to a biologist. County project is in... Contact... Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield Lincoln, Kevin Robinette Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, 8702 North Division Street Whitman Spokane, WA 9921 8-1 1 99 Phone: (509) 456-4082 Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan Tracy Lloyd 1550 Alder Street NW Ephrata, WA 98823-9699 Phone: (509) 754-4624 Benton, Franklin, Kittitas, Yakima Ted Clausing 1701 24th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902-5720 Phone: (509) 575-2740 Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Deborah Cornett Whatcom 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 Phone: (425) 775-1311 Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania, Steve Manlow Wahkiakum 2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661 Phone: (360) 696-6211 Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Sue Patnude Pacific, Pierce, Thurston 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563-9618 Phone: (360) 249-4628 August 2000 United States Department of the Interior AUG 9 07• FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2002 Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 . r./' LJ I- ' Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360)753-9440 Fax: (360) 534-9331 AUG 1 2002 Dear Species List Requester: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are providing the information you requested to assist your determination of possible impacts of a proposed project to species of Federal concern. Attachment A includes the listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, candidate species, and/or species of concern that may be within the area of your proposed project. Any Federal agency,currently or in the future,that provides funding,permitting,licensing, or other authorization for this project must assure that its responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are met. Attachment B outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies for consulting or conferencing with us. If both listed and proposed species occur in the vicinity of a project that meets the requirements of a major Federal action (i.e., "major construction activity"), impacts to both listed and proposed species must be considered in a biological assessment (BA) (section 7(c); see Attachment B). Although the Federal agency is not required, under section 7(c), to address impacts to proposed species if listed species are not known to occur in the project area, it may be in the Federal agency's best interest to address impacts to proposed species. The listing process may be completed within a year,and information gathered on a proposed species could be used to address consultation needs should the species be listed. However, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, a formal conference with us is required by the Act(section 7(a)(4)). The results of the BA will determine if conferencing is required. The Federal agency is responsible for making a determination of the effects of the project on listed species and/or critical habitat. For a Federal agency determination that a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected(adversely or beneficially)by the project,you should request section 7 consultation through this office. For a"not likely to adversely affect" determination,you should request our concurrence through the informal consultation process. Candidate species and species of concern are those species whose conservation status is of concern to us,but for which additional information is needed. Candidate species are included as an advance notice to Federal agencies of species that may be proposed and listed in the future. Conservation measures for candidate species and species of concern are voluntary but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. For other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project,contact the National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries)at(360)753-9530 to request a list of species under their jurisdiction. For wetland permit requirements, contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit requirements. Thank you for your assistance in protecting listed threatened and endangered species and other species of Federal concern. If you have additional questions,please contact Yvonne Dettlaff(360) 753-9582. Sincerely, cea- Ken S. Berg, Manager Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Enclosure(s) ATTACHMENT A July 29,2002 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT PROJECT IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (T24N ROSE S32) FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1721 LISTED There are two bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)nesting territories located in the vicinity of the project at T24N ROSE S30 and S31. Nesting activities occur from.January 1 through August 15. Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the vicinity of the project. Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species; 2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species,and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project; and 3. Impacts from project construction(i.e.,habitat loss,increased noise levels,increased human activity)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. PROPOSED None CANDIDATE = None CRITICAL HABITAT None SPECIES OF CONCERN The following species of concern have been documented in the county where the project is located. These species or their habitat could be located on or near the project site. Species in bold were specific occurrences located on the database within a 1-mile radius of the project site. Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) --C—ascades-frog-(Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi) Pacific fisher(Martes pennanti pacifica) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus(white-top aster) ATTACHMENT B FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(c) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973,AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) - Consultation/Conference Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized,funded,or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the Federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect(adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with the FWS when a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) -Biological Assessment for Construction Projects * Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment(BA)for construction projects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed and/or listed species that is/are likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a Federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species(list attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list,please verify the accuracy of the list with the Service. No irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning,design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA,your agency or its designee should(1)conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal,which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat;(5)analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used,any problems encountered,and other relevant information. Upon completion,the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1273. * "Construction project" means any major Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human - environment(requiring an EIS),designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes Federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of Federal authorization or approval which may result in construction. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32 Report Date: July 22, 2002 PHS POLYGON FORM LIST - CROSS REFERENCE REPORT -- IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32 FORM NUMBER/ PHSPOLY# PHS CODE*USE CODE 2 900000 3 903666 HALE*B- 4 900000 *_ 5 903666 HALE*B- 6 902048 UNOS*- 7 902041-902043 UNOS*-WET*- 8 902508 WET*- 9 902041-902043-903666 UNOS*-WET*-HALE*B- 10 902043-903666 WET*-HALE*B- 11 902508 WET*- 12 902041 UNOS*- 13 902041-902043-903666 LINOS*-WET*-HALE*B- 14 902508 WET*- 15 902509 _ UNOS*- • 16 902508 WET*- 17 902508 WET*- 18 900000 *- 19 903666 HALE*B- 20 902509 UNOS*- 21 902508 WET*- 22 902505 RIPAR*- 23 902030 UNOS*- 24 902042 UNOS*- PHS POLYGON - SPECIES AND HABITAT LIST PHS FORM# PRIORITY PHS CODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION 900,000 902,030 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE 902,041 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE ' 902,042 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE 902,043 YES WET WETLANDS 902,048 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE • 902,505 YES RIPAR RIPARIAN ZONES 902,508 YES WET WETLANDS i 902,509 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE 903,666 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. Form numbers 909998, 909997, or 909996 indicate compilation errors. ' YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. WILDLIFE HERITAGE POINT - SPECIES LIST AND REPORT IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32 QUADPT PRIORITY SPPCODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION - 4712252014 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE 4712252015 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE -- 4712252031 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE 4712252035 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE 4712252039 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE 4712252041 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. quadpt: 4712252014 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY year: 1993 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status: township - range - section: T24N ROSE S29 SEOFSW occur#: 810 seqno: 2 general description: OSPREY NEST, LOCATED ON ARTIFICIAL PLATFORM ERECTED ON SAFER SITE THAN ORIGINAL - NEST. NEST MATERIALS TRANSFERRED TO THIS PLATFORM. quadpt: 4712252015 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE year: 1998 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT township - range - section: T24N RO5E S30 SEOFSW occur#: 616 seqno: 1 general description: BALD EAGLE NEST LOCATED IN SNAG-TOP D.FIR IN GREEN SPACE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT TOP OF STAIRS UP FROM E. MERCER WAY; WEST & UPHILL FROM WHITE HOUSE. NEIGHBOR REPORTS NEST BLEW OUT IN WINTER 1999. quadpt: 4712252031 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status: township - range - section: T24N RO5E S32 NWOFNW occur#: 810 segno: 3 general description: OSPREY NEST ON BARBEE MILL PERMANENT EQUIPMENT, SINCE 1995 OR 1996. ACTIVE, SUCC 1998; OCCUPIED, ACTIVE 1999; 2 FLEDGLINGS 2000. CONTACT PHONE: 425-226-3900. quadpt: 4712252035 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT township - range - section: T24N ROSE S31 SWOFSW occur#: 616 segno: 2 general description: BALD EAGLE NEST 8 FT BELOW TOP OF FIR AT 8487 W MERCER WAY. GOOD VIEW FROM E MERCER WY AT MAILBOX 8526-8520, LOOKING SOUTH. TREE IS CLOSE TO RD AT/NR TOP OF SKINNY 1/2 ACRE PROPERTY. PLANNED DEVEL AUG 2001. quadpt: 4712252039 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status: township - range - section: T23N ROSE S08 NEOFNW occur#: 1153 seqno: 1 general description: OSPREY NEST ON CELL TOWER. BEEN HERE AT LEAST 4 OR 5 YEARS PRIOR TO ENTRY IN DATABASE IN 2001. quadpt: 4712252041 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT township - range - section: T24N ROSE S30 SEOFSW occur*: 616 segno: 3 I general description: • BALD EAGLE NEST IN DOMINANT DOUG-FIR THAT IS PITCHING BADLY. NEIGHBOR SAYS NEST HAS BEEN ACTIVE FOR 7 YEARS. NEST APPEARS UNREPAIRED IN 2001. GPS LOC 47.53400 122.21867. Note: If known occurences of spotted owls and marbled murrelets exist they will be displayed on the accompanying map, however, detailed information for them are not included in this report. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT Report Date: 07/22/2002 form: 902,030 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: SEATTLE CITY PARKS (VARIOUS) . general description: SEATTLE CITY PARKS. source: MULLER, TED; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION. date: 91 code: PROF synopsis: HAVE PERSONALLY VISITED MOST OF THE CITY PARKS OVER A 30 YEAR PERIOD. form: 902,041 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: MERCER ISLAND OPEN SPACE AREAS. general description: RELATIVELY DENSELY FORESTED TRACTS. SOME STEEP HILLSIDES. source: MULLER, TED WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. date: 03 91 code: PROF synopsis: PERIODIC VISITS AND OCCASIONAL OVERFLIGHTS. source: MULLER, TED WDW; WDW REFERENCED MAPS & ORTHOPHOTO. date: 03 91 code: GSMAP synopsis: USED MAPS & PHOTOS TO DETERMINE PERCENT COVER TYPES. form: 902,042 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: NORTH RENTON general description: FORESTED RAVINES WITH INTERMITANT STREAMS. source: MULLER, TED WOW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. date: 03 91 code: PROF synopsis: WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TO SOLVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT Report Date: 07/22/2002 • form: 902,043 species/habitat: WET species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: MERCER SLOUGH general description: LARGE MIXED WETLAND IN ASSOCIATION WITH LARGE LAKE. OPEN WATER, PERSISTANT EMERG ENT, SCRUB SHRUB, EMERGENT AND FORESTED. source: CITY OF BELLEVUE PARKS DEPARTMENT, MERCER SLOUGH PARK PLAN, IN FILES. date: 05 90 code: TRAN synopsis: CITY SURVEYED ENTIRE AREA FOR COVER TYPE & WILDLIFE. form: 902,048 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: COAL CREEK PARK general description: MOSTLY STEEP FORESTED GROUND. RIPARIAN ZONE OF COAL CREEK AND UPLAND MIXED FORES T-MOSTLY ALDER/MAPLE. source: MULLER, TED WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. date: 04 91 code: PROF synopsis: SEVERAL SITE VISITS TO LOOK AT VARIOUS PROJECT PROPOSALS. form: 902,505 species/habitat: RIPAR species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: MAY CREEK RIPARIAN AREA general description: MIXED FOREST RIPARIAN ZONE source: OPPERMAN, TONY WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. date: 04 91 code: PROF synopsis: VISITS TO THE AREA WHILE DOING SEPA REVIEW. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT Report Date: 07/22/2002 form: 902,508 species/habitat: WET species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: MAY CREEK WETLANDS. general description: SCRUB-SHRUB, FORESTED, AND EMERGENT MARSH WETLANDS ALONG MAY CREEK AND IT'S TRIB UTARIES, INCLUDING LAKE BOREN. source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS, 1990 date: 12 90 code: GSMAP synopsis: LOCATIONS MAPPED BY COUNTY STAFF. source: OPPERMAN, TONY; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION. date: 03 91 code: PROF synopsis: DRIVEBY OBSERVATIONS ENROUTE TO AND FROM SEPA INVESTIGATIONS. form: 902,509 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1 sitename: LAKE BOREN/MAY CREEK PUBLIC PARKS. general description: HAZELWOOD AND LAKE BOREN PARKS. TWO SMALL PARKS IN MAY CREEK DRAINAGE. UNDEVELOP ED, COVER MAINLY MIXED SECOND GROWTH W/SHRUB UNDERSTORY. source: DNR ORTHOPHOTO TO ESTABLISH COVER TYPE. STREET ATLAS TO ESTABLISH BND. date: 84 code: ORTHO synopsis: SERVE AS REFUGIA FOR MORE COMMON SPECIES OF URBAN WILDLIFE. form: 903,666 species/habitat: HALE species use: B season: WSU accuracy: 1 sitename: SE MERCER ISLAND BALD EAGLE TERRITORY general description: LA^[>EAGLE TERRITORY NEST IN DOUG FIR; ALTERNATE IN CLARK'S BEACH PARK TERRITORY ACROSS LAKE ALONG I-5: PERCH TREES & FORAGING. PRODUCTIVE SITE IN 1996. source: THOMPSON PATRICIA; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION. date: 06 96 code: PROF synopsis: AERIAL SURVEYS FOR OCCUPANCY & SITE VISITS; VERIFICATION & UPDATE FROM AUDUBON OBSERVERS. W i r1ING'iuLN L)EPAIZirir.NT or rISH ruvj WILLl tr'E PRIORITY ANADROMOUS AND RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE REPORT FROM THE STREAMNET DATABASE IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32 Report Date: July 22, 2002 PRIORITY ANADROMOUS FISH PRESENCE CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE CHFA Fall Chinook Cedar River 1222590476452 05-20-97 C. Smith, WDFW COHO Coho Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW SOCK Sockeye Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW STWI Winter Steelhead Cedar River 1222590476452 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW COHO Coho Salmon Coal Creek 1221938475758 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW SOCK Sockeye Salmon Coal Creek 1221938475758 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW STWI Winter Steelhead Coal Creek 1221938475758 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW COHO Coho Salmon Honey Dew Creek 1221803475169 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW CHFA Fall Chinook May Creek 1222101475287 05-20-97 C. Smith, WDFW COHO Coho Salmon May Creek 1222101475287 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW SOCK Sockeye Salmon May Creek 1222101475287 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW STWI Winter Steelhead May Creek 1222101475287 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW PRIORITY RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE CCT Resident Cutthroat Cedar River 1222590476452 07-15-97 WDFW Staff RBT Rainbow Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 11/24/93 WDFW Staff CCT Resident Cutthroat Coal Creek 1221938475758 07-15-97 WDFW Staff CCT Resident Cutthroat May Creek 1222101475287 07-15-97 WDFW Staff DBT Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 07-05-01 Jeff Chan, USFW The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902-2543 or it is available on our web site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. MICROFILMED Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com September 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 • Y.a.3 ... CITY OF 1ENTON tst, PlanninglBuilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor September 2, 2003 Dear Reader Attached is a copyy of.the.Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the >:.. :. Barbee.:Mill Preliminary Plat: The proposal is located adjacent :to Lake Washington and: the shoreline of May Creek on a 22.9-acre site. The ;DEIS. evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed 115 townhouse lots and from the'continuation of the existing industrial:use. In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted;a Land.Use.Master Application (LUA 02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of,Renton Environmental.Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance on. November 5, 200,2. The City of. Renton, in accordance with the State. Environmental Policy Act,`(SEPA) 'process, issued a Scoping Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10, 2002, a public scoping.. meeting was held•to receive written and oral comments on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping. Document was issued on January 10, 2003. The issues identified through the scoping.process are addressed in the DEIS..: These include:earth; water, plants and-animals,. hazardousmaterials,'aesthetics, light and glare; transportation, noise and'cultural.resources:; For each environmental.:.issue, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed_,Action.are reported. Where ..' _.. significant impacts were determined to :potentially exist, options•for possible mitigation measures were suggested,,including two'alternative shoreline, buffer options: Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a-30-day;review. period, starting on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 and ending at:.'500 pm; Wednesday, October 1, '2003. Written comments should be addressed to: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner; Development Services Division; 6th floor Renton. City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton,WA 98055: A public. hearing :has been scheduled. to: accept both. written and .oral:. comments on the DEIS. It will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 6 'pm, in City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA. _, Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement .(FEIS) that will include responses to the 1055 South.Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 11 E lr 1. O 1'd AHEAD Or C, This paper contains50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer THE CURVE • I i '' comments received during the public comment period. The City will then issue a Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary.conditions to diminish.or j eliminate environmental impacts, as one portion.of the approval of the Proposed.. Action. 1; If you have any questions or require clarification of the above, please .contact. '! Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, at 425-430-7382: The City of.Renton appreciates your interest and:participation. , { For.the:Environmental Review Committee: - 1 Gregg Zimmerman Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works' • fib. g': .. '. Ir FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. Utilities include water, sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls between property lines. Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE Renton,WA 98056 Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc. Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific,LP 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle,WA 98101 (206)689-7203 Lead Agency City of Renton Contact Person Susan Fiala (425)430-7382 Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging • Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval • Clearing and Grading Permit Approval • Site Plan Review • Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street modification for access to the development by Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement i September 2003 I Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease (continued) termination assessment and restoration order • King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill buildings within public aquatics lease area Authors and Principal Parametrix Contributors 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 II (425) 822-8880 Date of Issue September 2,2003 Date Comments Due October 1,2003 Date and Location of September 23,2003 6:00 p.m. Draft EIS Public Hearing Renton City Hall Council Chambers 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Date of Action on Winter 2004 Applications i ' !, ! Location of Background City of Renton Information Planning/Building/Public Works ' 1 Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 (425)430-7200 Parametrix Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 822-8880 II Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS - - I $ 15.00 Technical Appendices $ 5.00 CD version I � City o,CRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ii September 2003 ' J � TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COVER LETTER FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS iii ACRONYMS viii 1. SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1 1.1.1 Proposal 1-1 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1 1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1 1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1 1.2.2 Impacts 1-4 1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1-5 , 1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5 1.3.2 Impacts 1-5 1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-6 1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-6 1.4.2 Impacts 1-6 1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7 1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7 1.5.2 Impacts 1-8 1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10 1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11 1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11 1.6.2 Impacts 1-11 1.6.3 Mitigation 1-12 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1-13 1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-13 1.7.2 Impacts 1-14 1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15 1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15 1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15 1.8.2 Impacts 1-15 1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16 - 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-16 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017 - _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement iti September 2003 i 1 , TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ', 1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-16 1.9.2 Impacts 1-16 1.9.3 Mitigation 1-17 1.10 NOISE 1-17 1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-17 II 1.10.2 Impacts 1-17 1.10.3 Mitigationl-18 , 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19 1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19 1.11.2 Impacts 1-19 1.11.3 Mitigation 1-19 II 2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1 I' 2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1 j 12.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4 I 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1 3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 3-1 ! ' 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1 ! I i j 3.1.2 Impacts 3-3 3.1.3 Mitigation 3-4 3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-8 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-8 I ' 3.2.2 Impacts 3-14 3.2.3 Mitigation 3-16 3.3 GROUNDWATER 3-22 i 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-22 3.3.2 Impacts 3-24 3.3.3 Mitigation 3-24 • ' 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-24 ' , 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-25 --, 3.4.2 Impacts 3-34 3.4.3 Mitigation 3-43 3.5 TRANSPORTATION 3-61 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-61 ! ; 3.5.2 Impacts 3-68 3.5.3 Mitigation 3-83 ' I ! , ! 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3-89 ! ! 3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-89 3.6.2 Impacts 3-96 3.6.3 Mitigation 3-97 3.7 AESTHETICS 3-97 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017 Daft-Environmental Impact Statement iv September 2003 I - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-98 3.7.2 Impacts 3-102 3.7.3 Mitigation 3-117 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE 3-118 3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-118 3.8.2 Impacts 3-118 3.8.3 Mitigation 3-119 3.9 NOISE 3-119 3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-119 3.9.2 Impacts 3-123 3.9.3 Mitigation 3-125 3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-126 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-126 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-126 3.10.2 Impacts 3-130 3.10.3 Mitigation3-132 4. REFERENCES 4-1 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 5-1 APPENDICES A Scoping Determination(Bound with EIS Text) Volume 2—Appendices B—E B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report C Water Resources D Terrestrial Plants and Animals E Aquatic Species City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement v September 2003 i �_ I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) I ' LIST OF FIGURES 1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2 1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3 2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2 3.2-1 May Creek Basin Vicinity Map 3-9 3.2-2 May Creek Location and Stream Type Map 3-10 3.2-3 Floodplain 3-17 3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-18 3.4-1 Existing Shoreline Protection 3-26 3.4-2 Northerly Wetland 3-35 3.4-3 Southerly Wetland 3-36 3.4-4 Option"A" 50-foot Buffer 3-49 3.4-5 Option"B" 100-foot Setback 3-51 3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27&28 3-53 3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-54 3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 &36 3-55 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-59 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-60 3.5-1 Project Area Map 3-63 3.5-2 Overall Plat Plan 3-64 3.5-3 Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-65 3.5-4 Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-70 3.5-5 Project Trip Distribution 3-72 3.5-6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3-73 3.5-7 Year 2007 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-74 II 3.5-8 Alternative Access 3-87 3.6-1 Site Map with Adjacent Properties 3-91 I ' 3.6-2 Building Locations 3-92 3.7-1 Location of Viewpoints for Visual Analysis 3-100 3.7-2 Area of Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction 3-101 3.7-3 View 1-Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-104 3.7-4 View 1—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-105 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vi September 2003 ti TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.7-5 View 2—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 40th Street 3-106 3.7-6 View 2—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 40th Street 3-107 3.7-7 View 3—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 38th Street 3-109 3.7-8 View 3—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 38th Street 3-110 3.7-9 View 4—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-111 3.7-10 View 4—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-112 3.7-11 View 5—Existing Condition as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-113 3.7-12 View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-114 3.7-13 View 6—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-115 3.7-14 View 6—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-116 3.10-1 Location of Existing Buildings 3-129 3.10-2 Historic Lake Washington Shoreline 3-131 LIST OF TABLES 3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-41 3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-41 3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-41 3.5-1 Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay 3-66 3.5-2 Level of Service Summary 3-67 3.5-3 Trip Generation 3-69 3.5-4 Project Impacts to City of Renton 3-75 3.5-5 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary 3-75 3.5-6 Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary 3-79 3.5-7 Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle 3-80 3.7-1 Visual Simulations 3-103 3.9-1 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 3-121 3.9.2 Noise Levels 3-121 3.9-3 Noise Measurement Results 3-122 3.9-4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) 3-124 3.9-5 Noise Modeling Results 3-126 r 3.10-1 Structures on Barbee Mill Site 3-128 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vii September 2003 I 1 I I , ACRONYMS I APA Aquifer Protection Area , BA Biological Assessment ' BMP Best Management Practice 1 BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 1 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations i cfs cubic feet per second CMZ channel migration zone COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment — I, Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement 1 EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency , ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration I-405 Interstate 405 , I KCBW King County Backwater _-! KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter , mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement viii September 2003 I ,I ACRONYMS (Continued) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington j 1 RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Energy WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ix September 2003 1. SUMMARY 1.1 ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed. 1.1.1 Proposal The project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure 1.1-1). The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with one bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet that would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging about 50 feet in width along May Creek; and displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands. • Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline to protect buildings and associated private lawn area. Public lands of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are presumed to be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and interpretive facilities. 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site • This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads, the existing driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses and new structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building area. 1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 1.2.1 Affected Environment The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand, as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site. The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement I-I September 2003 2 5 405 522 5 DUVALL 202 REDMOND KIRKLAND 202 203 520 SEATTLE Lake BELLEVUE ,c Washington re"�. 90 • W ISSAQUAH .. V NEWCASTLE 900 RENTON PROJECT 405 SITE Parametrlx DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure 1.1-1 W Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat L. 4...- ... •.- 111:1% ,,,, / !WM 1641' ;. -4 ''. /:::::::'':-'.:^2..........7..K7..1f..'......':.?'...7. ,A „,,,..„ ,, ltelittr1..z.., 1 --_: ,7 :4_4 44TI4 • - _ BO"N _ STREET «„ T :=SITE _ o r r: e0 f .........................._..... _ the - r - , -N, afarap , A i d••vs 0 c• ___ Y, :ice 1 _ �V .---- . if.a . .. ...;,..._ . . ... _ ■■ rY i�Y • c, .., vh:a f :i Pa:a:' . ........... ............ ................... . I G �UF ;i:it,..''''''.011111 Z.. ........: • __ 2 -.... . .. .._...'.. !J! r ®� t ®lam ;. pn Lit‘lI ®aaa. 1ihm, it ..,..., . , «mien miVg1 . of ran ,... ,....., CITYii \'f' V ENERIN OFiimI. ■rally , ,.,::,,f, • „....:11111;-. ` ;excl. ' RENTON `ME ; ""am 4 l . NI 5100011016111.11POOM• '., ' iiiiii hitiolim .44t, :'; :,,,, , ....„.... ,..:‘,',.r_-, ...: ._:111! ;;;:ii& a tti i ififfilkviiii LAT:.:..,,,, , 1,., . ",I i a l . :. '1� % ' 11 I''. INA all a gi . lip . ... Millitl.'"' Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)8/03(K) dik City Limits Figure 1.1-2 lap City Vicinity Map 1.2.2 Impacts Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the site prior to grading. This project may cause erosion,sediment-laden runoff, and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek. Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That, together with the gradient provide by lake depth could result in movement of portions of the site to the west. It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site developed to date. There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement. 1.2.3 Mitigation To control erosion during construction, contractors would implement Best Management Practices(BMPs) and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction. Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by: • Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. • Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. • Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral spreading,particularly near the shoreline. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 September 2003 underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type, size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time. 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1.3.1 Affected Environment The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington. The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. May Creek is listed as a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water Quality Standards. The uses of Class AA waters include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. Also, these waters provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment),commerce, and navigation. The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State as being impaired for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria. Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood. The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to (1) reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2) make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; (3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and (4) take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored." Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities. 1.3.2 Impacts The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately 85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 September 2003 stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, reduction in impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site. Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would cover a substantial part of the site. 1.3.3 Mitigation Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control(TESC)Plan. Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff. Containment of the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors could be accomplished with fill outside the flood corridor to bring the lowest floor of residences a minimum of one foot above base flood elevation or levees approximately 2 feet above existing ground level. Compensation for flood storage area lost could be provided. Provision of the wider 100 foot wide corridor would provide additional flood conveyance and storage to compensate for the future increase in floodplain depths that will occur because of aggregation of sediments in the stream over time. Existing bridges should be removed and/or reconstructed to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow. 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1.4.1 Affected Environment The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST) areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment. 1.4.2 Impacts Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 September 2003 Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces, the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up- gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of foundations. 1.4.3 Mitigation Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic and other contaminants. 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1.5.1 Affected Environment Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes substantial upland vegetation adjacent to the riparian zone of the stream. A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, but the majority of plantings do not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation community. Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker, spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants, hooded mergansers, American wigeons, scaups, buffleheads, and common mergansers. Mammals and amphibians on the site include voles and mice, the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of Washington laws. Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de- listing and state down-listing to sensitive. Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 September 2003 May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon,winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site. There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened' species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project vicinity. 1.5.2 Impacts The existing osprey nest will be removed during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site. Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in the area. Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity. Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The long-term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about 100 feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed, which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage,cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress, which will result in limited habitat value. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 September 2003 The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project, as low speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would potentially cause some disturbance, which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of constructing the proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports from the stream. The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. A 50-foot width would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate. The required width of the buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate. The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16 additional docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may also desire to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, thereby reducing the habitat benefits provided by the May Creek delta. Bulkheads are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences because the proposed 25-foot building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without potentially threatening buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon, preventing recruitment of sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating an inhospitable high- energy environment for juvenile fish. Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting and piers can also adversely affect juvenile salmonids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington. The applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 September 2003 1.5.3 Mitigation Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations, may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, clearing to remove these species would be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species. Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant communities and provide for animal movement. Residential landscaping should be designed and maintained in ways that minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides to reduce adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek, Lake Washington. Enforcing restricted use of chemicals on private lawns and landscaping is,however,difficult in the long term. The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer. If impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment, plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation communities. Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW, to allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, providing plantings in riprap, or more extensive vegetative stabilization. These options have limited application under the proposal because of the 25-foot building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in dredged areas. Impacts of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on near-shore habitat can be reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. Mitigation through alternative buffer areas involves conceptual plans for 50- and 100-foot buffers along both May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities and support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and persistence of native vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and replace plantings that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants. For the Lake Washington shoreline, both the 50- and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts such as the introduction of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading, City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 September 2003 recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline. Some of this mitigation could be implemented on the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private shoreline frontage will allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor. 1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1.6.1 Affected Environment All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service (LOS)A or B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard) at NE 44th Street that operates at LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation. The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway. Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transit service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405. 1.6.2 Impacts Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2 transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity. The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials. Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad. Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings. Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site. All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project, due to heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 September 2003 intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn movement. The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007 baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp operations. Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions. A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential alternative arterial routes, however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips can be addressed,by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes. Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project. Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north. At the least, residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour,trips and would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections. 1.6.3 Mitigation At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes. The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection also meets volume criteria for signal warrants. The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of $75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of diffuse new trips from the development on the general circulation system. Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 September 2003 could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan property. Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches: • Grade separation,which removes potential vehicle train conflicts,but is more expensive; • Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails; • Active control of at-grade crossings, which consists of signals and gates designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians. The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required. Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation. 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1.7.1 Affected Environment As part of lumber processing, various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks (USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals, fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations. Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected. Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon (TOC) that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were not detected in areas sampled. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 September 2003 A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA) includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil impacted with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base; dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington; removal and disposal of impacted soil at a licensed location; backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring program and possibly an ongoing groundwater treatment program. A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, next to the Barbee Mill site, was conducted between 1999 and 2002, under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criterion. These sediments are currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter • for the sediments from Ecology(2003). Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property immediately north of Barbee Mill, which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other organic compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to constructing a roadway. The Vulcan (J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site included creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Contaminants present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment of the site include dioxins,PAHs, and dense non-aqueous phase liquids(DNAPL). Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site. 1.7.2 Impacts The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal, because concentrations of detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 September 2003 1.7.3 Mitigation Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. 1.8 AESTHETICS 1.8.1 Affected Environment The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures. Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and slope steeply toward,Lake Washington,creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity, varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides. 1.8.2 Impacts This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15- to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide. Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of views from the vicinity to 32nd Street, to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer to the site, the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that is visible. For closer views, the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground. For viewers farther up the hill,the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings, and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the entire site. Construction of new buildings, however, would not block views of the dominant element of City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 September 2003 the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation of indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings. Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect. 1.8.3 Mitigation For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies. Changing building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of a canyon effect on streets within the development, and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings from outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building height, bulk, and setbacks. Common design features, materials, and color, as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety. Screening of the buildings on the site would require large vegetation that would not be expected to mature for a number of years. The current design, however, does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide for large species. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the access road on BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1.9.1 Affected Environment Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have some shielding, but probably date from the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass. 1.9.2 Impacts Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 September 2003 Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall brightness at night and would reduce glare. The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees. Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south, headlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family residences. 1.9.3 Mitigation For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding glare from glass surfaces. 1.10 NOISE 1.10.1 Affected Environment Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently, operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs; and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise from arterials in the area and I-405. Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA. Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks. Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA. Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes, hospitals, or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site. 1.10.2 Impacts During construction, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 September 2003 In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment, use of driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower noise levels over a sustained period. The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest noise impacts will occur to residents occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings. Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA. This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3 dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise impact. The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore, increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four trains per day, the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. 1.10.3 Mitigation State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) has proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed" status to fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn. • Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 September 2003 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.11.1 Affected Environment Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and barge building company, was established on the site in 1943. The Barbee Mill Company, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last active sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt, and additional structures have been added since then. The oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This building and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" as individual components because the original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an historic district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register. Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources; however, the northeast corner has the potential for deeply buried resources. 1.11.2 Impacts As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of privately owned structures. 1.11.3 Mitigation An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction, the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the, Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Earth,Soils,and Geology Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control prior to construction Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system, such as pilings,that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits Install ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the hazard of lateral spreading, particularly near the shoreline Surface Water Erosion and Sedimentation [ Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan Pollutants in Surface Water Construct, operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities Flooding Contain the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained by fill or levies at least one foot above base flood levels Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow Groundwater Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater,if monitoring after soil removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Plants&Animals Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity Removal of existing vegetation Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species buffer areas Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain vegetation Restriction of animal movement at Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement bridges Lack of habitat value of residential Use native plants in residential landscaping landscaping.._............................................_........... i..........._.........................._........... ... ......................_............... ._.................................._.......__............................ . -.........__....... Surface water pollution from E Use of native plants in residential landscaping can minimize the use of fertilizers, fertilizers, pesticides,or herbicides pesticides, or herbicides with resulting impacts on wildlife and fish Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce overspray, spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into water City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures(continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Plants&Animals(continued) Wetland and buffer displacement Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site Compensate for loss of buffer through averaging and enhancement of the existing and buffer vegetation Bulkhead impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Providing plantings in rip-rap Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings Loss of waterfowl habitat through Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from near- removal of pilings and other in-water shore habitat important for juvenile salmonids perching sites Lack of large woody debris(LWD) Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow recruitment establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow temperature establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer ( shade Light and glare impacts on wildlife Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow and aquatic species establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to intercept light and glare Direct disturbance of wildlife and F Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer public using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline Impacts of docks on juvenile Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- salmonids shore habitat Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than shoreline vegetation residents Transportation Increase transportation demand from Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard)intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal. standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets volume criteria for Signal Warrants Geometric limitations of propose Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Transportation(continued) Potential safety impacts at railroad Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts, but is crossings quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative impacts of development of adjacent properties Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of conflict points Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings Increased pedestrian/vehicle ° Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide conflicts safe pedestrian circulation Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee circulation system Hazardous Materials Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminates from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control .__.___. Act cleanup Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan during construction l Visual Impacts Reduce building bulk by reducing building height Reduce building bulk by increasing setbacks between buildings Reduce building bulk by varying building height, bulk,and setbacks Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color,including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would be required Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun 1 reflection Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare Noise Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby residences would be most sensitive Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving Pre-drill pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the character of deposits) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures(continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Noise(continued) Require less noisy pile installation methods, if feasible given soil conditions, such as vibrating piles into place,cassion-type piles,auger cast piles or other methods Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, equipment welding machines,pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels Noise from locomotive horns Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration(FRA)designation of a"quiet zone"for locomotive horns Historic and Cultural Resources Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area Potential disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the archaeological resources northeast corner of the site,and if deposits are found,consult with the, Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and should be conserved Public Services • Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts(see Appendix A) public services City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 September 2003 2. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed. 2.1 PROPOSAL - ' The current proposal of the applicant contains the following: 1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into lots include the following(Figure 2.1-1): • Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet is proposed. • Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads. • One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed to be retained for pedestrian use. • Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek consists of a water quality pond with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet. • A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity. • An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline administered by DNR. Approximately 6,500 square feet of this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities, which would leave a net area of approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not developed a proposal for public access to this area. • A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed. • Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced, together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots. Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland. • Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce.the wetland setback below the minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance. • Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets. • No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or the shoreline. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 September 2003 fj r jjr f �.r kw 1, • . : ti��j � i1 'c---- =, • �' " �� COR-2Zo� , r , i ,. — �. . � �f r I wr. / f zf 1 , ,:7--10,7,4trOffr<4ai OUNAlla viy r Tract"B" roA ``ract"C' Water PUBLIC LAND Open` ' Quality f f N t f j �' Space NA \� .,,,,,, rr �,f „// 4 / ,, 4. 43;gk. N ` LLP• Aip • jj',� r,• l , • o, ‘..,,,,.,..„7. " . r�r,� �P , ,LAKE �f -oHw ;WASHINGTON r . �.- • , �1 (/4.1-wage • :it .44,- ' /47 /& PUBLIC LAND �.••'• 4 ,t" r y' y—,. j iti-.. /, j > 4 lr1"�4 / ', -'N%r f v• a i .c,' j,7 \ �l `r AY CREEK, • .: •' // / / 7/' r N; 1 DELTA iiiip #)> / % /// ���p V iR .q 1 x1 40 T r j . 1f ti �.d� � � r,,, I ;payyd\, Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01 SCALE IN FEET Figure 2.1-1 iir Overall Plat Plan 0 150 3I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following: • Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two structures with five units are proposed east of May Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate design and environmental review. • On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning, which is Center Office Residential 2 (COR-2)and Shoreline Urban Environment designation: > Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district, which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review. • The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units: — Street setback— 10 feet — Rear lot setback— 10 feet — Side lot setback—5 feet — Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum > Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2. — The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet. — Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70- foot building would be up to 7 stories high. • Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific proposal for shared moorage. - • Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building patterns on Lake Washington. • Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future. 3. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed lands: Features presumed to be developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and _ interpretive facilities. This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to: Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement - 2-3 September 2003 (a) Foster water-dependent uses (b) Ensure environmental protection (c) Encourage direct public use and access (d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources (e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city limits ol[Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line. 2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing sawmill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made: • No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access would continue. • Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses. • Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained, including structures on public lands administered by the DNR. I • New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC]4-2-080,Footnote 23). > New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum shoreline and stream setbacks. ➢ Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland setbacks, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. D. All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer areas, which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. ➢ If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would be implemented to meet current codes,which would result in somewhat larger, open stormwater treatment areas, due to the larger impervious area. > Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings, would meet current codes. • Specific presumed building area and uses on site include: j I ➢ Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet — Warehouse: 272,500 square feet - Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet — Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet ➢ Parking Area: 220,000 square feet 818(based on pro-forma sheet)spaces City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 September 2003 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES �_' 3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY - This section provides analyses of soils, geology, earthwork, geologic and seismic hazards, and erosion/sedimentation for the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation development. These analyses are important both for disclosure of project impacts and for providing a context for assessment of impacts on other elements, such as water quality. This section was prepared based on review of existing data and a peer evaluation of existing studies and a qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. The analysis was based on existing site information and soil, geologic,and geotechnical studies. The geology and soils in the project area were evaluated to identify the suitability of the soils for building and to identify sensitive or geologic hazard areas. Geologic hazard areas include land that is prone to erosion, landslides, and earthquakes. Information was collected from existing reports and maps of the area, including the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now know as the National Resource Conservation Service) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, site-specific information on geology and soil types was determined through geotechnical investigations performed in 1999 and 2003. 3.1.1 Affected Environment From a regional geologic perspective, the project area is located in the middle of the Puget Sound lowlands, which is a north-south trending structure that is a topographic trough. Tertiary andesite comprises the bedrock in this area. Glacial deposits consist of recessional outwash and till that unconformably overlay bedrock. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt- water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. Till is a very dense mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight of the glacial ice. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake- deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand. Imported fill materials have also been added to surface in the area(Yount and Gower 1991). The affected environment relative to local soil and geologic conditions on the project site was evaluated based on descriptions and subsurface information included in local and site-specific studies(Golder 2002; Hart Crowser 2000; Shannon and Wilson 2001). The soils at the project site consist of silts, sands, and peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser 2000). The thickness of the fill is 10 to 15 feet, followed by 40 to 50 feet of lake and stream deposits. The glacial deposits were encountered at depths of approximately 60 to 65 feet on the site. The depth to bedrock is greater than 130 feet. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS,Hazardous Materials). The project site is located on the May Creek delta,which is the source of a significant portion of the post- glacial sediments. Through time,May Creek has meandered over the site area. The area was mapped by Waldron et al. (1962) as alluvium consisting of mostly silt clay and peat, with generally poor drainage and slow to moderate infiltration. These geologic materials are characterized by variable permeability with poor seismic stability and fair foundation stability due to the compressible organic layers. The fill was placed to buildup the project site shoreline. The wood and sawdust are present because the site was operated as a sawmill for more than 60 years. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 September 2003 i I The near-surface geology and soils conditions in the project area would not change substantially between the existing site development and the redeveloped neighborhood. The development would include for removal of contaminated soil (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and importing clean fill material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction of future residences. 3.1.1.1 Seismic and Landslide Hazards Because the Puget Sound region has a history of earthquakes with a magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter scale,the ground in the entire project area could experience shaking in the event of an earthquake. The USGS has identified the western Washington area to have a moderate to high risk of earthquakes (USGS 2003). The loose soils, fill, and deltaic deposits at the project site are prone to landslide and liquefaction in an earthquake. The severity of movement in an earthquake would depend on the location and magnitude of the seismic event, as well as several other site-specific factors such as depths to groundwater. The Seattle fault is a 4 to 6 kilometers wide, west-trending zone of three or more south-dipping reverse faults that transect the Puget Sound Lowlands. The Seattle fault is cut into two segments by a north trending, high-angle, strike-slip fault zone (Johnson et al. 1999). The published location of the southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site (Shannon and Wilson 2001). Topographic expressions of this fault are not indicated at the project site. Also,there is no known recent displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area, which indicates limited or no motion across the fault during recent times. Past studies in the vicinity of the project have identified seismic risks in the area. The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region (Heaton and Hartzell 1987; Noson et al. 1988; Gower et al. 1985) and thick unconsolidated sediments in an area of observed seismic-induced mass wasting (Bucknam et al. 1992; Atwater and Moore 1992; Karlin and Abella 1992; Jacoby et al. 1992). Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest dIamage in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta. Sliding and generation of turbidity currents are natural processes occurring off deltas like the May Creek delta. Slides and resultant slide-induced waves have occurred on the south side of Mercer Island, across from the May Creek delta (Jacoby et al. 1992; and Karlin and Abella 1992). Lobes and terraces on the bathymetry of the delta indicate the presence of wave cut terraces and possible slumps (USGS Bellevue South Topographic Map 1983). On a geologic time scale (thousands of years) the May Creek delta is a high seismic risk because of the potential for seismic induced landslides and slide-induced waves (King County 1995). Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils,which are soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low; however, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. In technical terms, liquefaction is the transformation of loosely packed sediment into a fluid mass. It is the transformation from a solid to a liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. This process occurs most readily in fine- to coarse-grained sands of uniform grain size. The mixture of sand and water act as a viscous liquid with significantly reduced shear strength. The process of liquefaction City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 September 2003 can be triggered by a variety of mechanisms, including seismic shaking, wave-induced shear stress, the static force of a thick sequence of loose sediment on a slope, erosion on the toe of a slope, or seepage force due to a changing water table(Obermeier et al. 2001). The results of liquefaction generally include the following: • Loss of bearing strength of soils • Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls • Lateral spreading Loss of bearing strength of soils can result in the slumping of earth and sinking of structural foundations. Differential settlement of foundations can cause shear forces in other parts of the structure that cause the overlying structure to develop cracks or to fail. Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on structures such as foundations or retaining walls, which can cause them to deflect. This can also cause shear forces in structures, leading to failure. On structures such as bridges, lateral pressure can cause supports to deflect,which can push foundations out of place to the point where bridge spans loose support or are compressed to the point of buckling(UW 2002). Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is the displacement of ground under a gradient as the result of liquefaction of underlying soils. Lateral displacement can range from slight to severe movement of several meters. Slight movement typically produces cracks and fissures in the overlying deposits. Greater movements can result in unsaturated overburden soil sliding as intact blocks with the formation of ground fissures and subsidence at the head of the movement and compression and buckling at the toe. Locations where there is no confining geologic boundary, such as at a stream or lakeside,typically result in greater lateral spreading(Rauch 1997). Both landslides and liquefaction can have caused major damage beyond structural damage to roads, bridges and other structures by making roads unusable, blocking streams with resulting flooding or other damage, and breaking pipelines and power and communication lines, leading to loss of fire flow, loss of domestic water service,and pollution from spilled sewage, including related health hazards(USGS 1996). Whether either landslides or liquefaction occurs depends on a variety of factors, including slope, strength of geologic materials, and the magnitude of shaking. 3.1.2 Impacts 3.1.2.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation The near-surface geology and soils in the project area would change as a result of the proposed development because of the removal of contaminated soils from the northern part (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and the importing of clean fill material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction. Redevelopment of the project site would include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the site prior to grading. This may cause erosion. Sediment-laden runoff may discharge to Lake Washington and May Creek. Wind erosion during dry seasons can produce dust. If soils are trucked off-site or if fill is transported into the project area, some soil may be blown off trucks while in route. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 September 2003 371.2.2 Seismic and Landslide Hazards Geotechnical assessment of the Barbee Mill site has concluded that the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the site to depths of up to 60 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake (Golder 2002). The potential impacts to the Barbee Mill site from seismic induced liquefaction include the following three mechanisms, as discussed above. • Loss of bearing strength of soils. 1 • Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls. • Lateral spreading. -- Dlepending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the extent of lateral movement, damage could range from minor to severe. Localized loss of soil cohesion could result in differential subsidence or deformation of foundations with associated structure damage(i.e., deflection of foundations walls with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges) localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. A loss of soil cohesion in larger areas could result in rotational failure causing building structures to tip where substantial portions of foundation support is lost. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight Movements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits causing building structure failure i through increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or be pulled apart. Roadways may experience severe cracks, and fisures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is 'close to the lakeside and the lack of a confming geologic boundary with the gradient provided by lake depth could result in movement of portions of the overburden to the west. It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the • .complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site developed to date. The risks of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass, as discussed above, cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement. 31.3 Mitigation 3.1.3.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation Site work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas that are under construction. To control erosion during construction, contractors would use Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard mitigation measures approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) and by the City of Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans would be in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs, erosion, sediment-laden runoff,and dust would be controlled,and adverse impacts would be reduced. The following measures could potentially be used to limit erosion and sedimentation: • Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the site would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate measures for each phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for stockpiling of erosion control 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 September 2003 i — I ' material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of problems may be appropriate. Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the plan should be provided. • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1 and April 30,because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at any time. Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies. • Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake Washington shoreline. Where possible,existing vegetation should be maintained as a buffer. A barrier should be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them from construction activities and prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within those areas. • All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part of the construction plans, including: > Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved,and dust control. > Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and establish temporary and permanent cove. • A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent sediment transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season grading occurs. • Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include: > Detention for runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be designed to contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected during construction. > Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water. > Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance systems to prevent erosion during and after construction. > The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations should be discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required for sediments or pollutants. • Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment, leakage of fuels,fertilizers, application of chemicals,and water treatment systems. • In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of Fish.and Wildlife's (WDFW)prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively. • A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality assurance plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum, require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 September 2003 3.1.3.2 Seismic Hazards Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the presumed extent of l' liquefaction,with varying levels of risk. The following three basic strategies were identified by the applicant's geotechnical engineer: • Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. • Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. • Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002). The use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense deposits not subject to liquefaction. It is unclear from prior geotechnical work done on the site how deep such piles would need to'be driven. In the central area of the site,two borings have indicated that dense glacial till is present at approximately 60 feet. The most reliable foundation system would be founded on the dense glacial till. Shallower pile-supported foundations might be acceptable if non-liquefiable soils could be confirmed at shallower depths. Piles driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer would not only have to carry vertical loads from the superstructure, but also would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and bending moments induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could be achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition, it is important that the piles be connected to the cap in a manner that allows some rotation to occur, without failure of the connection. If pile connections fail,the structure may fail due to overturn forces. There is uncertainty in evaluating the relative effectiveness of ground treatment strategies for limiting lateral deformations because a limited amount of research has been performed that evaluates seismically- induced lateral deformations of improved soil sites(ODOT 2002). I ' Stone columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of providing drainage. They are routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe into the soil using a water jet to the required depth. While adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and lowered to form a dense column. A system of closely placed stone columns provides areas of compacted soils not subject to liquefaction. In addition, stone columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil, which would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil particles. This effect,however, is not the most important one, since time for a positive effect of the drainage is limited to the duration of the earthquake, which means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only affects a rather limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is especially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage effect becomes negligible(Madabhushi 1999). Jet grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is the most common stabilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a drilled hole from the existing ground surface down to the desired depth. A rod containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high pressure. The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix. The jet is rotated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of improved soil. Numerous columns at close intervals can be used to create a block of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with cells of unimproved soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil without having to treat the entire area(Berger/Abam 2002). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 September 2003 Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground surface to create dense and compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard, modified, or specialty machines and dropped from about 50- to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height, number of drops per point, and the spacing of the grid. In general,treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in granular soils. The major limitations of the method are vibrations,flying matter, and noise(Martin 1999). For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and constructed to tie all elements together to make the foundation move or settle uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful for bridging over areas of local settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation also reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002). The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can resist the load applied from the untreated deposits located behind the treated area depends on a number of factors. Such factors include the area of liquefiable soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with retaining structures to contain lateral movement due to liquefaction. Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural challenges due to the depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more feet and the extremely high forces likely to be bear upon such structures if large areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend below the liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One retaining structure option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The walls consist of reinforced concrete shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of unreinforced concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves drilling shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary shafts to be reinforced with steel and higher strength concrete are drilled between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The process is repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together. (Berger/Abam 2002) It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil improvement and retaining structures between building sites and Lake Washington. Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they are extensive linear facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep foundations, the cost is generally a limiting factor. Ground improvement measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in shallow liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral movement. Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to resist breakage from minor displacement together with sections of flexible line to allow displacement without breakage. In addition, having emergency backup facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire fighting and water supply. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Commercial and industrial uses may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the potential loss of life may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an active state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type, size and location. Additional environmental review may be required at that time. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 September 2003 I � I 3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.2.1.1 Surface Water Bodies This section includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. More detailed discussion is provided in Appendix C. These analyses provide a basis for assessment of impacts on wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been prepared based on review of existing data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the applicant, and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the potential impacts identified. Additional technical analysis is contained in Appendix C. Surface Water Bodies May Creek The proposal site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington as indicated in Figure 3.2-1. May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.,6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square- mile area between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily within unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin 12 percent of the total area) are within the Cities of Newcastle and Renton (KingCounty tY 1995). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land uses (King County 2001). Under current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective impervious surface from 7 percent to 12 percent(King County 2001). The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site as indicated in Figure 3.2-2. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill I property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high Water(OHW) is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company since the 1950s to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek in order to maintain water depth for log handling and log storage for the sawmill. . II The portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002), based on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different categories. Class 1 streams have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's Shoreline Master Program(King County 1991). The water quality classifications of May Creek is a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water Quality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. The water quality of Class AA waters exceeds the requirements for all or substantially all uses including domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. These waters also provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, crustaceans, and shellfish, as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide opportunities for recreation, commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet certain water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas; temperature; PH; turbidity;Y; toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A (MRSC 1997). Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 September 2003 ; ,,;. .`, :,—,,,e:- --7;k'''".,:, ': Afik, : ' ().-A r..-,-,'" \\,) : ,,,,,,e ,k , . , : 580 �- SEATTLE �r cSl?%l7gtC)t1, .s. BELLEVUE z::„`,-'.-,'„T'2,—.„,,-e-:,•"*.,:,,.,,,,‘,,':..„,„1,,‘",,'",,,:,-,i,k' g'o, ,.'"..'.;,',-5'.t,• l405 ' . , .. i `;*'', ''' MERCER .w , "> •,,a• , „, ISLAND ;t 00 ,,.;„4'4'11P4141iii,i_i. .. • ' r,, f7 t �. .x :I ,i '•�< F..'t ,..:,::....„...,,,,1 i max. • I'o, e' Y 4 f N +e. / 1SSAfvtUAN SITE , W A71E '',, ',. �Si, `ts:y...M "ELF.. I • M eet Y. Ilk y. ,,,, Illk 41, : RE,.,T,o. ..."„ „,......„,,,t,...,„„,:,....„,,,,,,,...„: ,..,,,,:,4,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,:„.,,,,.. „,:,,,,,, : ,:,.., , 9B , 0! Tit W,LA �189 �— t 405 \*) Date of map,October 1998 Z Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) takN Figure 3.2-1 o 1 2 Miles May Creek Basin —_—_ Vicinity Map AY NI.EIO t.$ !.',;1.•"r..,• ':',. • • .'.l... 7:'41:C) ...,,,„,,,,-A •PASSABLE,BAP RI Vis,IMPAstAlinl' • —,••••-rZl'''''• . .. . , .:•0111„. ,';',i,.. ' IL "Fott;• In— :' '*4'' '• . . (:)---- 17f- y, „ . . .„ . , . . 0 '''' 'f:.i-' ' -,. • . .• --rt4TIL :Coscti ci es• . ,i - • • .. . 'AO* !8 e over 'barns . . .. . ,S4,5, ". • - i ' ' • - — .. . . • ,-.t.V.Q0,444:4,. 't''.0 • '..."'N'S.,........ ..:44,M, Y. 4,,,V....144tVf;1 . ‘4 . . ft''''1,..:11•0*,;,' •- : t-il -.,„ ,:,i0,'4-r' -.,...iTy, . . •:•-.- ... ' Cka, ... ,:::,, ' ==•::F •:PO.rit9. '' Z'r. •-.. „„rt4 • ii,„• •,. : eilk - ' ............. :: ,,,kh,*'... lA.•,,,„4-*A.... . , „.. .. W . 0-• . ,V7„,.... • ,. - . • '. .... - ., 2'' '''Z • -•,,iglito..,,t.A.1,-. • .,-.:,..',,. .''., ...: .- .. . *Iwo. .Sqlrp.9n•Hqt.c her y • .op":„., •',Pre& *,,,p lr. ,,,,— ,,.. - .;it• • -''''' -,•I,,W'''''''e A• ''''A'...2,-SW 21-a- ', 'IV , ' . ) . •<c...4 fiftti .p.osktiOe•-Kticility Fr.,-,,,.,viiv,14p4yv.,,„ ,• • :-. : ,. •15 ,-.. ,,,e&I,,k1:;;:y;k,,,,g•-,,,'i„,vo,• • • . '*.. • ' 2k•'-`04,A.4.x"*;:k.," ...,rei • - ,ok7Z.. •" • . • .. . 'S•tteoni 29,5194 . • '' •-•'4'''iidri.VA'' • " A711_. .. :,•.. ,,',;tetX41:-:;i4IX ' ..- „, LC-r 4eD'iv • hl(?.:( 16'ç. . ;,k t-. 'v •40; •.Sil".6.10bi 'IV.I.if.e• ' ..,34 , „. ." to • vs - iel• . ty. • t's,. .... .a : , e....-....r• -.„.... ,, . •N- et/ .!z1 ' :Nfgferlce. 'Potpt •p • ' r..1.7,4, J. 10,44,,,I•4 •et.,--,.z. . ., .r. ..... . . ..„. . .. ..i„,,...;.„...ti,,,,, ,.:„:e ., „Trcrti4 •• „ii, : • . .:., ..,....,,,.....:„. 40.::.z,,„ :.,./., :•s, \.. . • • . .. SITE. •.- . .c5.. :.:- . „•,'.,„,,,,,,....,,,:;„61..,i‘ „. , .. el cz ' . . 3,4`,?t-f.rklj• •: : 4 e.Gred"t•,x•r, -, . - •••f.,':'.''':::;:;rr'''''' .-' . .. la • Oh• • .•••.:(31 '0 ' 34,,iik 11,11,-,.=?4 ,,, 41..'.c2, :- • \ . . 441....•`•!. , . .c::. ,.'1.Ya...., .0 4 . ,• : VO TO .,. .•,... 1 f•,,,,,i kg', 1-..,,,,7 .m . .0, .. AY-f:. • •- : -e, ?...9 t'.4 " . . • . .rtt= • .. ''*.k-4,44/,.- ••0"' tN1 :- .. v .0e,re. 0cF... 51 .. 94.' ' ''''P• • .: 0.8-' , itli li,:•. • •• - •- - • . . . .. -•140:0t.,' ,. • . - g?" oc,,.... --.:41,0.A • .• . . .. . . . ,. . . .. ri'b . ' .. ......, .-',,',.9:4.v.,,,Fai , - (L.:).. • 049/. „,.. • • ....,•70‘.,4.:12N• • •,,!i,,,k,..4„.4ix1.;,,„, , • .,:„, • . . .v, . •.•••43,,m4.... .•• ....e...„ . , .. 5:,• .t.,, •a . . ta: RI,,,N.I.,,4,4,4. .",..,....74.,,,k, . , lz, ,. .-,,, • •a, '°',4*.,.P.igr..w.::...,,,A • .. . . \,... .' .. ,Ck,,V..1.-4,4,, ,,,:,,, . .. . . . •. . . . - . „st.0. , Tv•-(=.441.,' ': . , . . . . . ' . ' '• 1," •!1•V"r___....,;--`"/•"."'-‘ - . • . (..S., ... ' • ' 11).ONO • •.. '. •, , . .t . . .. .. . . . . ...'.:4 1/2 0 1 MILE .0. • t • I - - , 0,97.'..• , • 2 ....4 ...C.:44 • .e el AO*: ;SCALE) 1 MILE • •crl .4 44:4:4 44.4,.4.I...4:4 -• . . •-`4.4. 448,..+4.44$44 to, I ..044:;$*:+44:•K 404 kitt• • 0 R n.t 6 r) : SOUTH: ,44 ..4 ,40-4,.....1y,,,"1,; 44 : 4. • .•\......?.•*4. ##.#4,+#44:#4.4 • . . . . . LAKE WASH 1:N•G• TON ,...• , 4C elf.44:44 4.44.0 di, 4..****44444.4.4+44, .'.4701 iroltAips N404•4,.•+:114.4#414 t,'. .• .Y.'I w•-0-4.-iy•-ow• :tVite4.4•444~. DR Al N.AGES• . . . •,04,.....m.......4....,..• . . . . ... Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1. Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) /rAlik Figure 3.2-2 May Creek Location ' 410 and Stream Type Map The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State as being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria, zinc, copper and lead are listed based on one to three excursions beyond the criterion collected by King County Surface Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994. Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out of 92 samples (29 percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between January 1991 and April 1997. (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired wtrs.html) and www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf). Lake Washington The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steep side slopes. The lake receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and drains approximately 472 square miles. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. The Lake Washington Basin is WRIA 08. Lake Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A). As with May Creek, its water quality should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses, provide areas and habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide recreation, commerce and navigation opportunities. Any water listed as Lake Class must meet the same water quality criteria as those for May Creek. Considering its urban location, Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake and it is a valuable natural resource to both King County residents, and fish and wildlife. This, however, has not prevented natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout from declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998). Identified Management Strategies The May Creek Basin Action Plan(King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines a set of actions for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin: 1)reduce the threat of flooding to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements to facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; 3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse. The Action Plan's primary recommendations include: • Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water quality facilities for site development. • Develop basin stewardship and community participation through creation of a May Creek Basin Steward. • Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions. The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional sub-area identified in the Action Plan as the Lower Basin Sub-area,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile 3.9,above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for this Sub-area specific to the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No.10: Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May Creek delta, and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 September 2003 that increases in erosive storm flows from basin clearing and land development have increased the need for more frequent dredging to maintain adequate access for the mill's continued commercial operations. The Action Plan goes on to note: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on ' channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance dredging." 3:2.1.2 Floodplains and Flooding The May Creek Delta is formed by the discharge carried by the stream into Lake Washington where it is deposited on the lake bottom. Delta deposits extend underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately a half mile. The character of the delta was influenced by construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 that lowered the lake's water level by 9 feet. This exposed portions of the delta that were previously underwater and initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel and caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek delta. This action shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel, resulting in high ground along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. This fill concentrates flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. Dredging operations by the Barbee Mill site has removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year since the 1950s from the mouth of May Creek(King County 2001). Floodplain modeling of existing and future conditions using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE 2001) is presented in Appendix B. Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the proposal study area was modeled. In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges,whose fill and structure help confine the floodplain, and the predicted 100-year floodplain would cover a substantial part of the site as indicated in Figure 3.2-3. (see Floodplain Analysis Technical Report,Figure 2-2,Appendix B). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 September 2003 3.2.1.3 Existing Drainage Impervious Surface Areas Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). An existing bulkhead extends along the majority of the site's shoreline, and a 50-foot dock is located about 300 feet from the northern property boundary. There are also numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek: a single vehicle lane, wooden structure at the mouth of the Creek, a wooden, foot-traffic only bridge approximately 200 feet upstream, and a two lane concrete structure 350 feet further north(Raedeke Associates, 2002). Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities,and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities(Loyd and Associates 2003)and is discussed further in Appendix C. North Outfall This outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of Barbee Mill, and drains approximately 40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area. No chemical usage occurs in this area. There is a covered and bermed, petroleum product storage area, and a wash area near the east side, north of the dry kiln,drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm drain system. This outfall does not have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake Washington, although numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling of potential windblown dust and debris,which is minimal. Middle Outfall This outfall drains approximately 10 percent of the industrial activity area. It has an oil/water separator to trap the minimal amounts of residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product from the sawmill area. South Outfall This outfall drains 50 percent of the activity area. The storm drain system has catch basins and lines that terminate at an oil/water separator adjacent to the lake. Wood debris from dredging is currently stored in this area. Non-Point Drainage Areas The non-industrial, southern portion of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May Creek is a non- point drainage area (Loyd and Associates 2003). There is no industrial activity in the May Creek corridor. Wetlands The northernmost wetland drains via a ditch to May Creek, and the southern wetland drains to Lake Washington via a 150-foot-long storm drain pipe (Raedeke Associates, 2002). See discussion of impacts in Section 3.4. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 September 2003 I I I Adjacent Upstream Drainage II A drainage basin near North 40th Street, between I-405 and the BNSF railroad, drains south towards Barbee Mill, first along the east side of the railway, then the west. The stormwater daylights into a surface ditch before entering a 15-inch drain line to cross the site and discharge to the lake (Otak, Inc. 2002). 3.2.2 Impacts 3.2.2.1 Impacts of the Proposal The proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on the 22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent 1 I (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land I waterward of the Inner Harbor line. This public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Residential structures along the lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from the waters edge. The proposed buffer for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing bridge close to the mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance north of the northerly wetland. The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the Mill Creek buffer area has not been proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis, it was presumed to be restored with native vegetation. (Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002). A new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of an existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHW of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained and converted to foot-traffic-only use. I Stormwater Discharge I I The proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek and Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. 1! Impacts to Water Quality I I Degradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater 1 pollutants, or erosion and sediment transport, result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving I waters. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil and greases, nutrients, toxic organics, metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater detention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure. Water quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment facilities, described in Section 3.2.3—Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington. The reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed,enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide beneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002). I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 September 2003 II I ! ill Maintenance Activity Impacts Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods. Construction Water Quality Impacts Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, excavation and backfill for hazardous materials remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for utilities and water quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after completion of subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes. These activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff, and soil compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and maintenance of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated, surface waters can be impacted. Floodplains and Flooding Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors, including the erosive force of the river, and the nature of the material protecting the proposal development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three proposal scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration, delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. In addition,the individual scenarios assure the following: • Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill; • Scenario 2—The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water; and • Scenario 3 — The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback from OHW. Scenario 1 —Existing site topography The 100-year floodplain would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on Figure 3.2- 3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek. The almost level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow over about a third of the site affecting 25 buildings. A small area near the mouth of May Creek remains outside the floodplain, possibly because the existing bridge present enough of a barrier to flood water to divert water to the west. Scenario 2—50-Foot Setback Construction of levees or fill at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream to contain the floodplain would divert floodwaters from the 100 year floodplain from all the buildings areas on-site. The containment would result in slightly increased flood stages (up to 1.6 feet) at most of the cross sections modeled(see Appendix B). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 September 2003 I 1 1 I Ii II Scenario 2— 100-foot Setback I ' I Containment of flood waters at a distance of 100 feet from the stream also would prevent flooding of building sites and is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly lower flood state elevations than Scenario 2(see Appendix B). I 1 3.2.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site 11 conditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net impervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same. 1 Because there are buildings within the 100 year floodplain, the assumption is that they will be flooded when such events take place. Impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground floor uses and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the flood elevation. I 3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact Cumulative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water resources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal. 3.2.3 Mitigation ;- I 3.2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation ' 1 Site Hydrology I i Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge 1 Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998);however,water quality treatment is required. Thie proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater 1 infiltration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount proposal could be enhanced by the use of 1 pervious pavements on driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, using tree and brush cover to provide 1 additional interception of rainwater, and infiltration of roof drain discharges. 1 Stormwater Discharge + 1 I I The proposed stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 is sized to convey the 100-year, 24- 1 hour storm with the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Its operation and maintenance 11 I would conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements (King County 1998). If mitigation I measures were properly implemented, adverse stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The following brief description of the proposed conveyance system is based on the Technical Information 1 Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (I'1R) (Otak, Inc. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides the preliminary calculations showing that the stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards(King County 1998). i it 11 i I II, 1 I J I II Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 I Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 September 2003 i -CORF 2 ZONE � p 1 1,,,* ,, _ v--- l':-.:r.... v.-...,.. w...... r- T..7.:[,..--..--,,,- ,..,,,.. - ,, 4,4 �., 1 L -_I L- —J I_ ___I L_. ___I s ;i -- .• •,▪ t=;'':: — ,fir 1 — ; - — STREET - — ,-..---2-, ,..i‘ ..::----,_,: /----- „--7.... ..,...7c7„.:=1, r,. ....[k.. , . .---,y 1 p ---, ,, ih, , ...\ , ,.. , ,,,, ,,,,/, , -i. L- . ,,,* e, ,., *,,,/ ts, s . 1 Tract,�C, O,o T /` Jlf� `l PUBLIC LAND p , / / . � '/ ° / / / �. Space .\' 9 j �� o ` j ° ,// / 1 / --/ ..,...., , , 'r,./.. ,>•''', A _ 77/ , , • l - N. V�", e. P BUFFER Q f • -'1 __//-l. =ff LAKE oa r• ,,, , ` .../ ,,, ..N.,,olek*. • ''(`. ~ .-� ' , . "\ , C9 / WASHINGTON E L — 1 � /// • oHw !if ;% r`% am! 1 -..--:,1°I WIA' //,/ NAti/f /1 / go('.3- • %" 4 ;/',//' !I, ::„ I. • 4' •i 9 ",-."7 , AZ, 4,1 ,T ----______ � • A � Fes'...cif n,2.,_ ,,,,,, .. 41k ,,. ,.. /7/ / PUBLIC LAND F' \4 / / """"" ,./ /` "' ` 41 /" / J % / \. . . '\ / ;j t.. ._ % r .� -' _ _ .. _ . N 40TH ST Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: 1(1779017P01T14F-3-2-03 SCALE IN FEETak Figure 3.2-3 I W Flood Plain o ioo 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i i -- r t u_ i 17 -- emu:: ..�.-- ,._ '-C://i/pi . _ 4. - Air ' I 1_I ° I r°wl a' '' ,° I_l -i l _I I .\I \ °d / f , 1/ / i'l k 3 4/ t-r < i� ` �l di — m j 1 i . lik -4,1"`TV---\ \/ , _Thm, r-- - ::, ki/-674k,•- • 4 ,. / 1, 111.,ilr'r 17_ ./:// oh 1/ // \- Try:. , 1 .'''.. .---- 5.!1Ta e.°:r Q l',16_ L---...)--1,---' /\ \/ :—/ 1-44 . - L. ',/...ju / '''/ / / ‘s: sl I \I , Orr- < \ , z.,,,/ / / p ti(sPa-ce\ 1 i it•----- c' ''',..„„ , q.,Ac,---- ,—.".11 ,11.61..,`, / ,.,/—•-/ */. / / r, \ ,,, ,,,... \‘‘..‘ . ,- ,,„\\. , t>.....,_,,, . - \ A,,,,,,,,,7-7- t3 // \ Iii, 4i..),- -: .\ 1111"/: . .1-->,,,,..:11.4. 7.\--\- \ . \\,z.,-di'," .-77 i /// -,,, Ei \ IFLW. \I r.,./„...v. 1,„,\ - ' _,,,,:;:, -,>,---- ;,,,„---,,,,- , , ,/ „ /7f, ,j r-'' /\ ,,..: ,A„ , , ,,, / , , IL —Ili yel \ ..‘4.111111V:',, '-'44- 1:Co' '''1•1"At7/ it / e 1 1 Ali \ .,, , „. , --;,--7;,„::-,:_,-,, • i 0- 4 / cl,>/ ___.!1*, �/ ?' 'i 4 ° 1` p ffjj f LAKE I, ,- !/ . s, `Ii f !a I, , e/ WASHINGTON \ illa f 7,FN?i N "' A' / is• " '� 1 - , '''',' , ' %) _____ 1/".7•y4 I e ,, 0\N . ryviee . ..G ;_ilV; yf / / *„/A4) ,,...\'' \• ' iiiii 4,AIVINS‘ti :::,,y/ ‘" 11111#,--:-..,--. ;;;;:;4*/;1''r./:..11fi....14 i''':;)1.;*' 41..i'''''44r- 1..'''./. - ' .:4,-," ‘4,„/ -\_,,,„,-_,---- .94,s, .. -..., MAY CREEK q„ _ ?:9 � ."'i DELTAis •. f� �� � `sfCam` . // •2O 1�/ W4447 :, i LEGEND `4.. V7r ° — * Flow path yak .n__ ,� �� /:; x.,« J M ;5,,'�N 40TH ST 7 "' '.a'r,. 2 Basin boundar Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3 Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04 Figure 3.2-4 SCALE IN FEET ,IrliN Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System o 100 200IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i Discharge to Lake Washington Following water quality treatment, water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs (Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002). Adjacent Upstream Drainage An existing bypass storm drain line would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve the developed offsite N 40th Street basin. Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include the constructing of levees or constructing the proposal on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented above under Scenarios 2 and 3. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100-year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet above the existing ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding and reduce the chance of the stream migrating to a new location. Dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. As an additional mitigation measure, all existing bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain. Reduction in floodplain storage capacity resulting from fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated. In general, these impacts could be mitigated by providing compensatory storage at the project site or a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-year floodplain elevation. The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 and Appendix B. However, because the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating, potentially aggradation would continue, with deposits that would reduce the capacity of the stream bed over time. This would result in greater floodplain depths that would eventually exceed the above estimates. This could be compensated for to some extent, by increasing the height of the levee or the elevation of the bottom floor of residences. An additional option is utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the stream, which would provide additional flood storage to compensate for the reduction in conveyance capacity. Mitigation for Water Quality City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged (see Figure 3.2-4). The facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 September 2003 it 11 , I I !i The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre. Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc.2002). The measured volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ 1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). I ' The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of May Creek. The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet, or 11,026 cubic feet if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality I. treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. Mitigation for Maintenance Activity Maintenance of the water quality ponds would be private,and would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998)requirements (King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal from the ponds could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts from the possible use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan, as described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater runoff would be reduced by the implementation of the following BMPs: I ; • Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of stormwater in landscaped areas • Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems j j • The practice of mulch-mowing • Disposal ofgrass clippings, leaves sticks,or other collected vegetation bycomposting, if feasible P g If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. 3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation BMPs for sediment control should be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation - j of an appropriate SWPPP, including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002): t_1 • Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked. • Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction I^I entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 September 2003 I � • Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction. • Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met. • Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans. • Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place. • Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden water. • Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require protection. • Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction equipment,fertilizers, application of chemicals,and water treatment systems. • Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations would be discharged into a controlled system. • Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project. • Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control. It would cover phasing,training, coordination,monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning. Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,2002): • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30, because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively. • The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes. • The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. • Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. • Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering,erosion control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved, and dust control. • Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 September 2003 • A monitoring plan should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations,background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the ground. The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001)contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs that include the following: • Limiting disturbed areas as practicable; j f • Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas; • The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure; • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces; • Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site discharge; • Specialized concrete handling; • Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals; • Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill containment features, and a spill clean-up kit; • Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction; • Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures. 3.3 GROUNDWATER Infiltration movement and storage of groundwater depend on surface and subsurface deposits. Groundwater'exists in many types of geologic deposits; however, accessibility to that water and its movement in the deposits depends on the pore space in the deposits and their connectivity. Aquifers provide numerous connected voids through which groundwater can travel(e.g., sand and gravel), making II G the groundwater accessible. Aquitards restrict groundwater movement because they lack pore space and/or connectivity(Shannon and Wilson 2001). 3.3.1 Affected Environment The layering sequence of aquifers and aquitards affects vertical groundwater movement. Surface aquifers allow infiltration of precipitation to the subsurface to recharge the aquifer. Three aquifer systems are present in the area of the project site. The local unconfined aquifer is in the alluvium and fill, which is mainly silt and sand. Within the alluvial unit of medium to fine sand are discontinuous zones of silt and peat that may cause localized semi-confined conditions (the second aquifer system). The sand in the north central portion of the site becomes gravelly, which may represent a channel of May Creek and the CityRenton-Barbee Mill PreliminaryPlat 554-1779-017 o.f Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 September 2003 third aquifer system. The base of the alluvial and lacustrine deposits consists of a relatively continuous silt layer, 5-to10-feet thick. This unit overlies the glacial sand and gravel unit(Hart Crowser 2000). Depth to water in this area ranges from 3 to 7 feet below the surface. This equates to a 14- to 18-foot elevation. The aquifer is in communication with Lake Washington to the west and pinches out to the east. The Seattle Fault may have a significant effect on the local flow system. The soil types at depth on both sides of the fault are different. The effect of the fault on the aquifer system has not been studied. The City of Renton began an effort to protect its groundwater supplies that is consistent with the Washington State Wellhead Protection Program (Chapter 246-290-135(4) WAC) and recommended an Aquifer Protection Program in its 1983 Water System Plan. Aquifer Protection Ordinance No. 4367 was passed by Renton in 1993 and Aquifer Protection Areas (APA)were established to protect the quality of Renton's municipal water supply. Land use and development is regulated by the ordinance in this area. The Barbee Mill site does not fall into this area. The closest municipal well is southeast of the project site. Groundwater Flow The project site is generally in a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. There is an upward vertical gradient near the lake (Hart Crowser 2000). Flow in the unconfmed alluvial aquifer is most susceptible to localized change due to placement of fill, cutoff walls, and utilities. Low permeability pavement and fill will decreases overall infiltration and recharge over the site. The on-site wetlands are discussed in the wetland section of this report. Bedrock and regional aquifers would probably be unaffected because their recharge areas are further upland. The primary water supply aquifer in the area is the City of Renton Well 5A, which lies in an APA south of the project site. The site is more than 5,000 feet northwest of the well and outside of its 10-year capture zone. The well is deep and unlikely to be affected by shallow contamination. Due to its distance from the project,there would likely be little effect on that well. Groundwater Quality The water quality impacts likely to occur in the shallow unconfmed aquifer would include increased total dissolved solids from turbid surface water infiltration and contamination from surface spills of chemicals and petroleum products. There are several groundwater monitoring wells on the Barbee Mill site. Multiple site investigations have been conducted at the project site and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.6,Hazardous Materials. Elevated concentrations of arsenic (0.0086 to 52 mg/L) were detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in specific areas. Surface water screening standards were applied to groundwater samples because the lake is a receptor for groundwater, and it is of higher concern relative to human and environmental impacts. Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B surface water cleanup levels, Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act Criteria, and estimated background concentrations were used as the basis for choosing groundwater screening levels in recent investigations. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank (UST) areas. Groundwater treatment would be part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan for the contaminated soil on the site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 September 2003 Groundwater Rights Ecology has issued no Groundwater Rights Certificates in the project area. The closest location is more than 2,000 feet east on the east side of I-405. The impacts to those with claims are unknown, but would probably be small to none. 3.3.2 Impacts Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. There are no on-site drinking water wells or other types of wells penetrating the deeper aquifers; therefore, impacts to the deeper aquifers would probably be minimal. The saturated thickness of the shallow aquifer fluctuates seasonally in response to precipitation (dry during low-precipitation months). Because the site is presently almost totally covered with impervious surface,the amount after redevelopment would probably not be significantly different. Pilings for a structural foundation can act as a conduit for surface contaminates to migrate to the unconfined aquifer. Minimal impacts to the deeper aquifers would be anticipated under this alternative. Cumulative Impact Groundwater impacts have been determined to be minimal for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site; as a result, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to surface water flow, interception of runoff by the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Installations of foundation may alter the shallow groundwater flow direction depending on their depth. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of foundations. May Creek is located mainly upgradient of the construction area and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Impact on site wetlands and wetland recharge are discussed in Section 3.4,Plants and Animals. 3.3.3 Mitigation No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the aquifers below the project site resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal. Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the community, it is important for on-site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the impacted groundwater during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic. Shallow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of subsurface utilities or other intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table is likely to be low during the portion of the year when precipitation is minimal, the chance to encounter groundwater could be minimized by conducting intrusive activities during the dry season(late spring through late summer and early fall). 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 September 2003 3.4.1 Affected Environment Vegetation Communities Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington, and to between 5 and 25 feet of the waters' edge along most of May Creek. Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge,there is a forested buffer of red alder and black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canary- grass. The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. In places along the west bank,paved surfaces extend to within 5 to 10 feet of OHW and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25-feet wide along the stream (Raedeke Associates 2002). Some trees and shrubs do occur along the west bank, but they are scattered through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing and, in general, are too far from the stream bank to provide significant shade to the stream. In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water, non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-grass, and the large areas of managed lawn that line the stream in the project area. The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap, indicated in Figure 3.4-1, which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along the edge of the water. The portion of the shoreline east of May Creek is managed lawn. The shoreline west of May Creek has recently been cleared as part of dredging operations and consists of disturbed soils that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Further to the north, sheet pile bulkheads and riprap are present up to the log loading area of the sawmill. South of the sawmill log entry building, the shoreline is retained by a log bulkhead with shallower water. Most of the shoreline is cleared, but it supports some soft rush and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom,which grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks and log bulkheads. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the existing sawmill building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed in the lake and extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points. For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project. A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification. 94-2-00196. The majority of plantings do not appear to have survived or established a stable vegetation community. Additional discussion is provided in Appendix D. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 September 2003 I f, j; f, ; �; , - OHW, - ---)ei �/ ,,,,,,,:tf: (11 - --.'-'--) :, .„.„ --: ' s li\ 7/1 ---___g 17 r 1:1 ww ,, , ,ti: 1 , ....../,./// -. ,—) \ (7/-7 ,,---, iI PIER f_-- /" / 1 / • • •7 ..a_4_„,, . /j / / / ,__ •. •. :. 1:7.1-- --___ ,_ ,,'''-'7.4 LOG i 6IP j� t RAFT r 1 % j .� / / 1 ,,° om ` I -.. :- ,g � v / Q �y� J 01 a./ cliv - I 4 //// Ill r J 1► 't i r �� % LAKE r / /� �' / w--,�';%f'a 11't i I N I )j 7 WASHINGTON A f �' i` r! ,I� ,--, P 7 i if i t .2 af•lif 1 �1i' i,` f, J / ,___, /121 / f f ) _t,<C /66'f; `=y 0 •.il :\, / /e7 /,' / ,,,,,tc-/ ---,-.7:-.1....:.:(./ ll'-,, MAY CREEK O• �/ '"" A ` t DELTA j _• f j r, s .i i;f . f/ �u, df /� f M� � J N 40TH ST o Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01 CD BROKEN ASPHALT SCALE IN FEET SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure 3.4-1 up —8— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection 0 i00 200 C> RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i ' • • • • LOG PILES Wildlife Limited habitat for wildlife is provided in upland vegetation in the narrow corridor along the riparian zone of May Creek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site. Species known or expected to use the riparian habitat area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker, spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house fmches, American crows, muskrats, and possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. Habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as potential foraging areas for gulls and other predatory birds, is provided along the Lake Washington shoreline and aquatic areas. The low level of current activity on the site, as well as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhance the lake habitat in the area relative to other near-shore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher. t _- Two wildlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use the project site vicinity, as described further below. Mammal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek corridor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian habitat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice, which are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and migrating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off- d leash dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at the site. Forest-dwelling mammals such as deer are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and have been observed to swim from the delta area to Mercer Island. Osprey The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996 (Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity. The osprey is not listed as threatened or endangered but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and RCW 77.15.130. It is unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or s export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg. Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers, light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant (i.e., up to 14 kilometers but typically within 3 to 5 kilometers)from foraging areas(Poole 1989). The majority of nests in Oregon and California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers (Zarn 1974; Vana-Miller 1987). Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 September 2003 1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987). They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime thereafter(Cadman et al. 1987). Bald Eagle No bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee Mill site. The two closest nest sites are approximately d 1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive. Bald eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby large trees for nesting, perching, and roosting(Stinson et al.2001). Habitat quality is also associated with freedom from human disturbance. However, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of urban areas with significant human activity is not uncommon. Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting territories as early as December(Stinson et al. 2001). Each eagle pair maintains an active nest and often alternate nest(s) within its territory, and successful nests may be used over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two and, in western Washington, young hatch by late April after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001). Young eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington. - Eagles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north to British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults generally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington State generally arrive from October to December and jleave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia, Alaska, the Northwest I Territories,and the Yukon. Wetlands Two small wetlands (Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property (Raedeke Associates 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine emergent wetlands (David Evans 1997). Wetland hydrology is provided by surface runoff on the site, runoff from — I east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow subsurface flow through the BNSF railroad bed (Raedeke Associates 2002). Both wetlands and buffer areas have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment retention and limited water storage. Both wetlands,due to their small size, limited buffer area, and periodic disturbance associated with mowing,have low species diversity and probably provide minimal wildlife habitat. Aquatic Habitat i r Aquatic habitat in May Creek and Lake Washington has been substantially altered by dredging operations conducted by the Barbee Mill Company since the 1950s. The relocation of May Creek to flow south City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 September 2003 rather then west across the site, and associated fill and riprap has eliminated most natural stream functions. Dredging operations that annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the mouth of May Creek which served to prevent deposition of sediments in the May Creek streambed, and has prevented formation of a delta at the mouth of the stream. The most recent dredging in Lake Washington was implemented for removal of bark and other materials deposited by log storage (Harza 2000,Meridian 2001). Additional discussion of aquatic habitat is found in Appendix E. The shoreline of the Barbee Mill site reflects the extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington that have occurred over the past century. The modifications that have taken place have simplified the nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. The removal of shoreline vegetation on the site is typical of much of the lake shoreline that has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing Lake Washington shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001). Near-shore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are less altered. Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food sources, and - eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in shallow water increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the near-shore zone. The shoreline vegetation helps maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food web and provides crucial in-water habitat. Lake depths along the margins of the site are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek and the log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing sawmill north of the log handling area and are 3 to 4 feet below OHW. The greatest depths are about 12 feet in the vicinity of the log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. Substrate in the project area is a mixture of silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel(Meridian 2001). Where observed, gravel was mostly located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter), whereas silts were the dominant substrate in deeper water. Fish Species Use May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout(KCSWP 1995). Of these species, Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and coho salmon are considered a candidate for listing as discussed below. Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish species (WDFW 2003). Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are a USFWS species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site(WDFW 2003). ESA-Listed Species } Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) On March 24, 1999, NOAA Fisheries listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement _ 3-29 September 2003 compared to historical levels (Federal Register 64:14308-15328). Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks have shown long- and short-term negative trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat degradations that include stream blockages, stream bank instability and modifications, increases in sedimentation, widespread removal riparian vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading, alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of streams, and loss of estuarine and near-shore habitat(Myers et al. 1998). Harvest and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon are also considered factors of decline(Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater and salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of Chinook salmon, including those found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit an "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during the first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles have been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time {. (Garza 2000). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and near-shore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open ocean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas of clean gravels and cobbles,and generally in the mainstreams of rivers(Myers et al. 1998). " '' Most juvenile Chinook salmon that use habitat within the project vicinity originate from the Cedar River. The Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery stocks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late August. Spawning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with peak spawning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994; City of Seattle 2000). Fry emerge from February through March. The distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon along the Lake Washington shoreline has been demonstrated to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest densities of juvenile Chinook salmon have been found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel) during day and night, and in areas having a gradual slope of less than 20 percent (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). From February to March, Chinook salmon commonly used overhead structures during the day, but rarely at night. In contrast, Chinook salmon generally do not appear to use overhead structures later in the spring during the day or night (Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, Chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at night they have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water,close to shore. Woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by Chinook salmon in March and April, but are used less progressively from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2002). It is at this time that predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often utilizing such cover and other overhead structures. While May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon population, some individuals believed to be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Spawning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found adult Chinook salmon population densities in May Creek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Spawning surveys conducted in 1983 did not find Chinook salmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of 1 fish per mile (Harza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live Chinook salmon and 4 carcasses were spotted in May Creek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 September 2003 f i-- �.-- From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few Chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that study, densities of Chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas (Tabor et al.2002). Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) On July 25, 1995,the NOAA Fisheries added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for coho salmon to the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the future listing (Federal Register 60:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and stream blockages. f Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon start returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After entering Lake Washington, adult coho salmon may, if necessary, remain in the lake for up to several weeks until river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake Washington basin streams occurs from late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000). Spawning generally occurs from in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in early March to mid-May (Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). The stream distribution and abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel morphology,vegetation type and abundance,and channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region. However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions(Harza 2000,Fresh 1994,WDFW 1994). The use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood, but juveniles are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area (WDFW 2002a). Spawning surveys of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho salmon densities in the lower reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively (Raedeke Associates, 2002) Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 adult fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth of May Creek, juvenile coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake Washington in close proximity to the mouth (Harza 2000). However, juvenile coho salmon are not generally known to reside in lakes for extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore, most use of the Lake Washington shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May during seaward migration. Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus) On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 64:58910-58933). Thirty-four subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading,altered flow regimes),hybridization and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 September 2003 competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al. 1997). Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history forms. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to undisturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut {; banks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992). Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding and/or migration(Federal Register 64:58910-58933). Cold-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature considered to be suitable for bull trout is 8° to 10°C for spawning 2° to 4°C for egg incubation, 4° to 10°C for rearing, and 10°to 12°C for migration(USFWS 1998). Areas where water temperature exceeds 15°C (59°F)are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning occurs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic debris,vegetation, or undercut banks as they grow. Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area boundary (Lucchetti 2002), which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in the Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper Cedar River watershed (WDFW 1998). Bull trout have, however, been sighted within Lake Washington and its tributaries over the past 20 years (Harza 2000; USFWS 1999; WDFW 1998). The origin of these fish is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations outside of the Lake If Washington Basin(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999;WDFW 1998). Other Fish Species Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch(Perca flavescens), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper)(Meridian 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000,the most abundant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch, and juvenile smallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine stickleback were observed (Meridian 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters (about 6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in the existing dock,boathouse,and submerged logs. I I ` City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 September 2003 ' Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further clarified the definition: NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including Chinook salmon, within Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000) that address construction/urbanization impacts upon salmon habitat. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect EFH, should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would: • Alter sediment delivery to, and quantity in streams and estuaries. • Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature, or chemistry. • Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey. • Discharge pollutants,nutrients, or contaminants. Critical Habitat The designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA. The ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5)(A) as "the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection." NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat to include all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (Federal Register 65:7764-7787). On April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast, including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. NOAA Fisheries is currently reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. An analysis of the effects of the project on critical habitat, as defined under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS in the event that critical habitat is re-designated before this action is fully implemented. This analysis may be relevant in determining whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is re-designated. Currently,NOAA Fisheries has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a candidate species and their status has yet to be determined (Federal Register 60:38001-38030). A perspective on potential habitat definition is provided in the NOAA Fisheries proposal that critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats (Federal Register 64:24998-25007). Should Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing, Lake Washington and May Creek in the general vicinity of the project site would likely be considered critical habitat. The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout due to the meager understanding of the biological needs of bull trout(Federal Register 63:31693-31710). A critical habitat designation is generally expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this designation will be made for the Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 September 2003 3.4.2 Impacts 3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction Vegetation Communities Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the lj h majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge _ deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation. Wildlife I The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is discussed below. Impacts on existingwildlife communities duringconstruction would depend on duration of construction P P I and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a Y_ substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when construction is not taking place. The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving. The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity. Wetlands The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the adjacent Street C and the town homes will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code minimum of a 25-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland (as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass with encroachment by stored soil. 1I The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an area of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3). Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source of water to recharge the wetland, resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be eliminated. CO)of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 September 2003 it y Pp%� \� - / t i I I_...�. f;'/ f.�,i-.»_ '`l r Ell 0 l' j j 1� ; -, (.-- III III I f _ 0 t III. f �� AI a ,� ra, /, M TLANb--., 11 ,-- ,_—,..:. - ' /� ►`/ \ C I�\ i,1 \ I 1,f s, 4. _ ` I, 1 1 t \\ ki {— It -4 I '41; • I , y " , I , if / f X�/ j � 1\ i / / /fi / i' I / t. 1 11,51 / / I I t / k „ , ----t- -rip \ 1 I I I 1 1 l ,S" • ;, : i # 1 / -- . 7 de . it \ ,1 113 - ii I . fiyI \\:\\\ i KEY MAP A„,97/ ' / � !l�% \ `~ 12 I;I 41:- N// ._..---i-.0% re\--- '/ /'y 1 ;% / ' Yam. �� / `r :11J / / '' �� �, ,�,� _110 Ii" � f r �� jf 4,ei �WETL9 D 1 �• , �, r emu/ f4 f :;! / !y - p ,f / l BOUNDA / / z ,j \ 'j•• // f /N \ 108 / ,,, /X = 'f 5ETBACK/ 411 I \\.� �v 7 / / l . ‘ r f 106 / '�' j ? ', • // f PPROXIMf,T AREA / /` /,, /�% F CONS,TRycTION '1, • / / /it/ ` DISTUR-A CE ...N.--__-_.1-05 J f / ` / / // ' / 2 - `.`- / // -.,. / / / , -- -1- 3 ---- / /*// / �„O / % rr x , t 4, \\ ..-- _ ......._._ ----2._.......____------- --,- - ___ / /, / / f / 0, ,....._ _ _,, ___..36..,_ ___. / / , ____ 7_,,,______/, / / , 0.,' // 0 NT , A 1 ./\1. / ,i/ / / Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02 SCALE IN FEET 'At „L Figure 3.4-2 WETLAND NJ Northerly Wetland , 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -- ' /fr" 7 kr- \ ____ --- -'4 ..... 11111111111111111 I i j ' - 1" --'" - / ,_,, I7_��� ` 1 :,,,, _ 104 �` _ _ 10 ���� 11111� .1 ,,:'+4 /,—_ // mr �� fAlt/, . . i /"'"' / ,,,":41,..i\S- . „ii,•tisiimie7-• , • ------___L_ .• /&/' / At/ •-47-N ,a,,, i ----- _,,,,_ 1 \ _dig , /48" i II tr,,,\, /,( /,/,_/ i .„...,,,,,,„„.„. , ,, W ./..,, ,\ ,0,,,, i , d,,,,,,- .7,4_,,,,,,,,,,y . SOUTHERp / _._...... / rE ~ 101 �► ©I ARD /i' Q�l / \ N. /0 , 4, \ / di KEY MAP ; \ > ///" 1( ' K / 4V\I / fi, - ,• � �t ` yQ / / +..., r •Nt 9 e.• / I,,,_ -4......,\ / '.,7:Aor WETL- , ID �l4 / / / ' + rr CI - R _. -4� -- / 5' E BA /' / -2/ - -----..-----.--pL, . -IF -. j T CK k° r �, l` 4fr/ co 1 �� 1 / ! / j // Y 1 7././ f f /I \ '98 4/ t / i/// /i 1 \, --, ..1‘ /// / . /Ili ' / / •-'...,/, ' \ /7 7 / Jo' # „,; .0.°4; - „,, J i 1 / // %/ �. tl /a /// �'�'/ N 40TH ST / / //d f / Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-03 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.4-3 WETLAND W Southerly Wetland 0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Aquatic Species Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are below the water level of May Creek Erosion and sedimentation from construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, may discharge to water. Increased sedimentation may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term. Suspended sediment originating from this site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes. High turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). Young salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased turbidity which may reduce total food resources available to stocks (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an area(Spence et al. 1996). The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction, during periods when use of the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology), and if other appropriate BMPs are employed. 3.4.2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s, resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003). The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the waters edge to about 100 feet, with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential indigenous vegetation on-site. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek,with 300 feet of road parallel to May Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, eight front on the public land managed by DNR, City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 September 2003 leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building setback. The 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely that common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, without specific conditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil amendment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping. A 280-foot wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in the latter tract. The water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress. There are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of plant communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a community is discussed in the mitigation section below. The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. (King County 2001). Wildlife Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when human activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife populations may be delayed until new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have sufficient time to mature. Plantings of indigenous vegetation in the May Creek open space area would result in an increase in forage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers are proposed to be narrowest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between streets on opposite sides of the stream. Streets represent substantial sources of disturbance from vehicle noise and lights and generally warrant greater buffering. The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential impediment to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design. The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife movement that has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project may provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's edge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. The proposed open space area and the wet-ponds, however,provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 September 2003 l The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed, may reflect the existing low levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce wildfowl use. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3- 090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis, public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms: • Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas are about 16 feet wide at lot 24, 20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30. • A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the water's edge, to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible. • Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek, including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the littoral edge. • Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area. I_r • Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may disturb plants, especially newly established plantings,or contribute to soil erosion. Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as discussed in the mitigation section below. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Osprey The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not fmd and use an alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 September 2003 jl Bald Eagle The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of.the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced. Wetlands I The desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way could lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality. The addition of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially ! h impact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application. Aquatic Species The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce runoff,but is likely to have a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed. Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated pollutants. However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on- _ site treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface Water. This may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and Lake Washington. Aquatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer along May Creek. Additional buffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing salmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functionality. ' I The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May 2000, Pollack and Kennard 1998; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993). Buffer width recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2,and 3.4-3. The Tri-County response to NMFS' 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban streams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch buffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer (Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999). Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of approximately 50 feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site, will not provide the full range of habitat functions and protections that streams require. In addition, the proposed buffer would not provide for stream channel migration processes that contribute to the formation of instream habitats. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 September 2003 Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function Sediment removal and 8—183 m (26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment erosion control removal Pollutant Removal 4-262 m (13-860 ft) 30 m (98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term natural levels Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36- 141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive Microclimate 45—200 m (148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft) Water Temperature 35- 151 Pollutant Removal 13-600 Large Woody Debris 100-200 Erosion Control 100-125 Wildlife Habitat 25-984 Sediment filtration 26-300 Microclimate 200-525 ii Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths ti Identified from FEMAT(1993) Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft. Shade 0.75 150 Microclimate up to 3 up to 600 Large Woody Debris 1.0 200 Organic Litter 0.5 100 Sediment Control 1.0 200 Bank Stabilization 0.5 100 Wildlife Habitat 30—183 m(98—600 ft) Improvement of some stream habitat functions,however, would be accomplished by the proposed buffer. Pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation (particularly on small streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet, particularly in areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional LWD recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 September 2003 Lake Washington Shoreline Aquatic species will benefit from resumption of normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into Lake Washington when dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create more shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront,which would potentially benefit all aquatic species, including juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally beneficial by increasing the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline processes in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section contains additional discussion of this option. If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in an industrial site where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include informal access to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow areas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both passive public enjoyment and a productive natural environment are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section. A 25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake Washington. This limited area would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline environment. It would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community that would contribute to natural shoreline benefits. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section, which outlines potential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected from over spraying and inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and biochemical oxygen demand.The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting public land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers, boathouses, pilings and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide refuge for predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001; Piaskowski and Tabor 2000). The proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta formation creates shallows that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake bottom is shallower, natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur, but these would lead to some loss of setback area through erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon.They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 September 2003 shallow-water areas thatprovide refuge, spawning, and habitat for a varietyof aquatic species, g � feeding q and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish. C An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999) by causing delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street lighting, would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad r , et al (1999); therefore, the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently, the City of Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, and the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above. • The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian frail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads, however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances. • People using the frail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities. Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the mitigation section. 3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have simplified the near-shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern L of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to { 1 remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001). 3.4.3 Mitigation Impact mitigation includes the following steps: 1. Avoid the impact. 2. Minimize the impact. 3. Reduce the impact over time. 4. Rectify the impact. 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 September 2003 Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed, and its specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand the beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal. Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline Regulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the environment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and - developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and wildlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). 3.4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts Mitigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or ) re-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species. Selective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species. Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important - consideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located as far from water bodies as possible. ' I _ Establishing vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids the piecemeal implementation as each lot develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of an area for interception of runoff from building sites. 3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots fronting the shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation within the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the quality of the vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and ensuring adequate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the need for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 September 2003 ' The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001). Mitigation measures for installation of indigenous vegetation in the proposed open space area adjacent to g g g P P P P J the public shoreline and within the Water Quality tract would enhance the value of the site to wildlife. Establishment of a viable community of indigenous vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be aided by inclusion of the following concepts: Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the ( fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation community. Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter. Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among various plant communities. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost. Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native species. Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require extensive soil amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control of invasive"weed"species. The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting, to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR, which has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources; volunteer participation by the public using shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for management by a public entity,may be required. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 September 2003 , I i 1 The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and I include a variety of plant communities. Native trees include western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs and small ' trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier _ dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow,and Scouler's willow red-osier dogwood,twinberry,salmonberry, Pacific crabapple, and bitter cherry. 11 11 Wildlife Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and , I 1 precipitation to maintain plants,and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement. ;, I Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat, provide t; screening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by ! shallow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the I' existing log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide perch and loafmg sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species, pilings in deep water areas are the best candidates for retention. Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value. , Osprey - I II Os re mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in Osprey g P Y the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1 Service (USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site,which will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek. I, , Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola 11 1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site I may, however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early fledging period of late April to late July. 11 1 III Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement i ' Avoidance '1 The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the - 1 proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for ,I temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through !' •11,5 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of the existing degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be retained. , The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of 1 this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the , immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require a i, , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 September 2003 reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer. Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland, which consists of introduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants. Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1 minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in functional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e). The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be addressed include the following: • Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology. • Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and trees. • Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement (Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity. Aquatic Species There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is covered below under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such functions as (LWD)recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads,artificial light and public access. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 September 2003 Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings,the existing dock, and log booms would improve conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies ranging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number of docks, and or through specific design and construction measures. Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock construction. This would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off- site marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at !; a distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common area (that could be reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots. An option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two or more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent properties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat. Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re- establishment of indigenous elements of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long- term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use for wildlife and aquatic species. I, Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and { May Creek: Option A, 50-foot buffer Under Option A, (Figure 3.4-4) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the buffer adjacent to May Creek: • Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project. III • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four proposed town home units to one or two. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: > Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads > Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for plantings near the water i l I , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 September 2003 f COR-2 ZONE } f r — / l` / .....im .xu..ieo s ws.-ev.g . � ngr I I.�.,,.QI I ,�.,,��I �I I I�,�s1 I����sl� �� g��T I,�-,�s ( __ \IIi _ II � II ,a . II ,. p 11 - . 11 . ' II ' . 11H y / op._.„9 1 STREET - /., , 50'SETBACK ""`"°°°s 7, / ./` ,, / , .,•,.. I I I / = J // v/ // L m I IIro-11— _ IL _/ Tract„B" s //w.� .. / Water Quality \ / ..„../ l PUBLIC LAND`) :;! Tract"C" \ /,� \\ ' / \ ., / _- f Open ■ / ?' \\m \\/ / \/ /� 1 I Space \ \� ,� fig/ / / 1 .\ v -\ \ //i/ 4111115111M-111 till'i\-'/ 7, <;e5v/ / 27' 10I gi///, `- -0HW / __x f C90 ' \� 111'11111l1a4.060"m°g10'.i.s LAKE y' 5 1:n1 , 7// / \ ;,,' �f�6 WASHINGTON `.�1 /7 �, . f'- i/ kV 50'SETBACK ailmee4111.110111151111mor iii,j/iti./ it4t),, 1 ,('::474,/, ',/1' //4rf------- ---- , W1-"I's/ ' V 17 PUBLIC LAND7/ //u \ • , /'/ `\ p s * y/ ;//2) {/ i9 1 i MAY CREEK/\___ • ----- . --.-\ .„..- * litesr/ , +�• ii DELTA .� •. ,.4/ as . 1 gym--r"� '5a- a.. f ,Y. , _..._ I ....._. A—A_zclr>F r 1._._ �;_ ;f sl '' J AATL.1 QT / i . . -x: ;y" I __. _ REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04 SCALE IN FEET PA& Figure 3.4-4 Option "A" 50-foot Buffer n W 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat > Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be fenced for privacy. This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Option B, 100 foot buffer Option B (Figure 3.4-5) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific changes on the May Creek corridor including the following: • Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream. • Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15. • Elimination of most of the development on both side at the mouth of the stream. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as Option A, including: > Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope. �- -- > Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15- to 25-feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, which probably would be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and which also would likely be fenced for privacy. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 September 2003 I ' I 1 I I__ COR-2 ZONE F. --1,, Fr. -1. IT. -1,. 17, -I„ 17. -1. in. 7, i T. 7 117:1 iri /4 / ' IL �L ��. 1j� _I� _IL LL LL J IJ / , I �� —ST — i- // / OHW r r / , / „ / 1� 1� „ II „ m /f / �,/ / �� / �� � ll � 11 100'SETBACK — — \/ \/ — / - Tract"B" �/ Water Quality PUBLIC LAND \ d , ..,. / Tract"C" � cietka. ,� .• I I Open l 7 I Space / t / lti*. y f /// ,4 „Immo .,.. .* y,-- r 'O.. . �/ i U Rf O vi i , ., > . . ,X / //fay oct . • J Ii YI-"-�OHW • •,.. __\ / =c, • //7/ , 'f , /Q/ LAKE 1 `„ / • ,• , • /,, '1/ /y�! WASHINGTON U `/ /��.li /�. ' 100'SETBACK hii / • /---- C 1/4.. \ „;/ .• /: ///".NI d4 q `w '// '''-,„,,,,,/,,,‘,. PUBLIC LAND j• u" • N. //!/ I 1 M ct.‘ ./' :‘„,`, .',. \ ' „V/ , /\_ . - • :ife' ,, 84— N dd MAY CREEK °`m- rV,/ .- ,, DELTA "/ * a / _ �_-_-- / '' 1i . / i a� a.aww`� '° .R$zoNE_._ _.._ 1 / *, } t_`% N 40TH ST REVISED 100'SETBACK FROM OHW 50 BUILDING SITES Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05 SCALE IN FEET tila Figure 3.4-5 W Option "B" 100-foot Setback 100 200I Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with SMA jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Cross-sections that indicate the building setback are provided for three different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline. • Figure 3.4-6 is at proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options. • Figure 3.4-7 is at proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing public land. • Figure 3.4-8 is at proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options. The following describes the extent to which these two mitigation options would reduce impacts in relation to the proposal and each other: Impervious Surfaces Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington. Total impervious surface would be reduced by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B. The decrease in impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where either the 50- or 100-foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except under the most intense storm events. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only more wildlife habitat, but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width in Option B because of the greater habitat area,the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater potential for complex communities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 September 2003 I , Public Land Existing Inner Harbor OHWM Line I Existing Warehouse 30— 20- - ..........--..... Existing Log Bulkhead Lake Bottom EXISTING SECTION I- A Inner Harbor I Public Land Existing Line OHWM 7 _ Street% I I I I high 1 Building 50' Existing Log I I I 1 I 1 50' Bulkhead I 1 30— --I I I I L 20— 25'Building Setback__ Lake Bottom PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25 SETBACK E -I Public Land Existing Inner Harbor OHWM Line p _ --1 Street I II I I 1 75 I I 1 Building 50' I 50' Regraded high 1 1 Shoreline 30— 20— 25'Lawn-- ,,,,._ I 1 . OHWM L __I 1 I I .,__ L ......—___•—T: Lake 25'Rem Bottom—/ I 50'Building Setback ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK I- _ j Public Land Existing Inner Harbor OHWM LineI E ___1 Street q I II 1 I75' I I I Building 50'high I Regarded I 50' Rded I 30— Shorerme — __L_ I I I 1 L 20——•—•— — --.— Revegetation Area —..-1 25'Lawn I-...— Lake Bottom] 100'Building Setback ] - 200'Shoreline ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK Parametrix DATE: 08/28/03 08:20am FILE: K1779017P0IT02F-3-4-06 Figure 3.4-6 Cross Sections SCALE IN FEET _ Lots 27 &28 0 30 60 . , I ' Existing Public Land Inner Harbor OHWM Line I Existing ' Saw Mill 30-, 20-—.—. ems= ------ -... ._.__ —_,--- .1 64'Public Land Lake Bottom EXISTING SECTION r I - Existing Public Land Inner Harbor OHWM Line Street Cb I 'Regraded I Building n High 50 I Building75' I I I Shoreline I i 30- + L I L 64'Public Land - .1 Lake Bottom' I ollo -. 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction PROPOSED SECTION Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street q 1 OHWM Line I Building 75' Building 50' I I High High I Regraded Shoreline i 30- � .-1 .._ ... _ _.. ._. .._ . . . . .-O— - _ - 7 64'Public Land - .1 Lake 75' 25'Lawn -.- Bottom/ 100'Setback 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction I ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-07 Figure 3.4-7 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections Lots 29 & 30 0 30 60 Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM I Existing Paved 30- Storage Area OHWM L_ 20--. —•—._ 700- -- — _ _ Rip Rap Bulkhead Lake Bottom—— as dredged EXISTING SECTION Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I Line OHI Street l 75' i ___ I I I Buildinghg 50' I I I 50 Rip Rap 30- Bulkhead I I OHWM (____Lawn 1,...._............ ..ti _.I-_. ,_........,.. I ...,..... ._._,....,.��.J.._........, ...-.. 20-�_._._.�''" f7�' 25'Building Setback ____ — Future Lake Bottom - 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction ..] - Della as dredged PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I Line OHWM Street I -r -- 1 F I 75 I I i Building 50'Hih I I I 50 Regraded —. Shoreline OHWM 1_ L 1.. l — I 1 30— 20- •— 2:1 25'Lawn Future 25'Revegetation Area Delta H Lake Bottom 50'Building Setback as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I Line OHWM Street l i75 Building 50'50'h I I I 50' Regraded , 30- Shoreline OHWM .—.L ._._.—1.—._—,—. -�—. 20-�_ - 75'Revegetation Area 25'Lawn ' Future Delta 100'Building Setback, . i - Lake Bottom as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction - Al TFRNATIVF RFCTICAI WITH 100'AFTRACK Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-0B Figure 3.4-8 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections Lots 35 & 36 0 30 60 There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. Both Option A and B respond to the Renton Shoreline Master Program that provides general guidance that landscaping be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge,marshland)and be compatible with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth of the creek where the proposal includes setbacks of less than 50 feet. Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of indigenous vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate only one or two native trees (at maturity) between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of trampling and other disturbance,and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. The 75-foot area for indigenous plantings provided under Option B would provide for a much more varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake shoreline and would allow regrading to provide a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater complexity of vegetation would be reflected in value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public access would be reduced as discussed below. There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases, homeowners on the Lake Washington shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated by typically dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the Shoreline Management Act, supports planting indigenous vegetation as a means of enhancing environmental values. With the 25-foot buffer of indigenous planting under Option A, some accommodation of both interests could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Option B provides few opportunities for view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer of indigenous plantings. Property owners would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy unobstructed views of the water. The development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline may contribute to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with value for the community as a whole, rather than being primarily an amenity (or inconvenience) for adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996). Such public access can more readily be provided with the City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 September 2003 wider setback in Option B with less impact on maintenance of indigenous vegetation and less impact on J adjacent property owners. Option A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR, which manages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for removal of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which could include some combination of the City of Renton,DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private logs likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the shoreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by.an entity other than the individual property owner, would likely contribute to better maintenance of indigenous vegetation. i Stream and Lake Morphology - i Under Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing limited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes _ such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in its;existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation and a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional buffer area provided by Option A. Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the proposal. This would provide a much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering. - j Maintenance of existing streambank protection would be required only in exceptional cases. Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington. Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing erosion to form a more natural shoreline. Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes to occur. In both cases, areas previously dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take II several decades to re-establish shallow depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration Under Option A, the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its j ability to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff. The two differ near the mouth of the stream where, under the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide additional area to filter sediments or runoff. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional pollutant control would be provided by doubling the width of building setbacks and providing an additional 25-foot buffer area of indigenous plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff would be moderately effective with the 25-foot planting area, and very effective with the 75-foot wide area. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious surfaces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the waters' edge by a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building I. construction. - Both Options would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the shoreline as , compared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 - Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 September 2003 i I applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks. Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate A riparian buffer width of 50-feet as stated in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading would most likely serve to prevent or moderate further temperature increases of water prior to entering Lake Washington that would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. The greater buffer area in Option B would provide more vegetation and shading benefits. Options A and B would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's proposed 25-foot building setback (presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and shading would be negligible). Indigenous shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would, in time, grow to provide shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the morning, because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Shading i dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more effective with the greater buffer width in Option B. Large Woody Debris Recruitment Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited increases in LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term solution, and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. Options A and B would provide s more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the proposal. As with May Creek, LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through April);however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Option B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD recruitment potential for both the creek and the lake shoreline. Bulkheads Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed 25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 September 2003 --I storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log- handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave _' action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline. - The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be ' i threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, I,' ' removal of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is I , , available for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is -- proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Options B decrease the potential adverse impacts on' adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term ' bioengineering options. Bioengineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for ' more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 This may be especially applicable in publicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural Resources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. - bosign Typicals Adequate Setback at Suucturee - --N to Mold OnticedlcO Deck - - 1 end Provide Set*Fagot in CM el Sanktalttid 1 oita Send Grade Seneca Wito.RootedYeletatltnl10Reduce Surface Err/idiot . Resode to Stable Slaps Provide tor Wane of Water ` ,f � -. ,' ,.d Stable Arcot Stone on Stable Slope 3�;°t >. _ , spaces Fltled _ _ t with 1 •.� • .,Alt.-. . F , 14 ,: sF ak•• ;7' nl St l oe. e Precccuvn `°Gravit�t#tde t r" ,y�<,:` 7-. -. kw S �IIt9 - • .' .or FitteM Ot r. 7 tt«.--,.1 "... Aryl Not Shown:SRr r) Tled into °,.-A ;;�,. ,.,_,.r;-'�'ax -'1*.,x ••i� k to Minimize Dotes horn - ' • _. . .,.„,1:;:- Saaking Erosion s — f Source: Tri-County 2000 I Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification II , Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and I pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in I�� 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 September 2003 Figure 3.4-10. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline. Maw Piprap Repe lti• .,•.tsr FVP1?Dine. UrgeBoulders Provtdo Habitat 4F,atectsimones C7 ,t, , .� �����'may.. f v 4 `� MOM Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented: • Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation. • Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or rooted plants, provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden sediments(WDFW 2003). Residential Noise and Lighting Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Along Lake Washington, the 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A and B. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 September 2003 number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will provide greater noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions. Public Access Disturbance Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of r', Renton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks,as discussed below. Under Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the • shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to Option A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide. Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A or B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option A and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct j I shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established through delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington. Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of LT--I beneficial use provided by re-establishing indigenous vegetation. • It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks. Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous vegetation area. • Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways. 3.5 TRANSPORTATION The transportation analysis addresses the impacts of the proposal to the local traffic system. The analysis was prepared in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 4-6-070 and 4-9-070 authorizing the identification of transportation impacts and the identification of appropriate mitigating measures and requirements for disclosure of environmental impacts by the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3.5.1.1 Roadway Network The study area for traffic impact analysis is defined as the area where the proposed action causes the generation of additional trips to the street system where an impact to operation, safety, or non-vehicular ' � k City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 September 2003 circulation may occur. The impacts to the City of Newcastle are included to specifically address the use of Lake Washington Boulevard and other routes to bypass freeway congestion. The study area is bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard SE/SE 60th Street to the north, I-405/Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, and Burnett Avenue (at the approximate alignment of N 27th Street) to the south, with additional area of qualitative description of potential bypass routes through the City of Newcastle. Figure 3.5-1 depicts the project area and the study intersections, Figure 3.5-2 depicts project layout, and Figure 3.5-3 depicts existing year PM peak hour traffic volumes. The arterials within the study area include Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405, SE 60th Street, SE 64th Street, NE 44th Street, Burnett Avenue, Ripley Lane, and N 30th Street. The arterials providing direct access to the project site include Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane (for emergency access). The following is a description of the arterials in the study area: • Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial in the project vicinity providing north-south access from I-405 and other arterials to the proposed site. The arterial is generally two lanes with a bike lane on both sides. Lake Washington Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • I-405 is a north-south state highway providing regional access. In the project vicinity, I-405 is _ ' six lanes (two general-purpose and one HOV lane in each direction). The NE 44th Street southbound and the N 30th Street northbound on-ramps have an HOV bypass lane to the meters. • SE 60th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both the north and south sides of the road. A park and ride lot is located on SE 60th Street. • SE 64th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. • NE 44th Street is a collector arterial with a five-lane section directly east of I-405, narrowing to two lanes to the east. It serves several businesses at I-405 and provides access to residential areas to the east. • N 30th Street is a two-lane east-west collector arterial west of Park Drive and a minor arterial east of Park Drive. N 30th Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Burnett Avenue is a north-south collector arterial south of N 30th Street. It begins and terminates at Lake Washington Boulevard to the north and south. It serves primarily residential land use and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The traffic operations analysis includes the following intersections indicated on Figure 3.5-1: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street(impacts on Newcastle) 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street(impacts on Newcastle) 3. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard at NE 44th Street 4. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard-NE 44th Street 5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane 6. Ripley Lane at project north site access(emergency access) 7. Lake Washington Boulevard at project south site access 8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 September 2003 I 4 ; 1 , / \ ..., „ 4c, , ' if 1321111 tt) 7 r Co Z. co 0 r ' •s '.. „ pLEASUPE .-, 0 . „ co m z ,......... °0 -- ), SE 60TH ST r . .• 0, ...„. Z r .I ,, „ , •I' SE 60TH ST I„ . CO. „ . -, 0 rn m.• SE ••TH ST X — w co Lu r . „ .c.0 1—zrc SE 68TH . SE 69TH 4 4 ' r „ , • 13 / / 1 SRE I 76TH ST ' A-, •, , i kr 0 i 1 44TH icg ‘I' 4 „ QUENDALL i „ ' ' „ TERMINALS 4` e 414 0 , . - PROJECT I 0 V 7 Z ' Z >., . .. . a , < :< < M - F- co //40TH 7: ] • ..e' 0 I 1 . . „ .i 0" S. 88 ST .N 36TH ;-1 • ;"' :',''•,P4,:,,,a,',.,‘,- ',.,-;:i --- cr K% ,;44' ••`,,i' 5 , , 1 cr L z z EL e/ f2•.:',' ,":.;: :c''''.:`-'-'3,1,;;J: , , ca 0 .r,,;-: „-,,-••e,::;.=,g,>,i4o . , --_',c7-','' ', ,',,-1,2;co N 30TH s f I ?, :,,,..,'..i,,z,mAy,--.:p7:-;- :~, .,ti•-:5,-w:-:::-;:,.= .,,,,.)..t „ , •••• .,..%; kl,,,- i . , . .= . -' : : -, , \0 NE 2rni sr '&4%:',AW,i;4:, •4 e,.. , „ , , •,_ 0 •',<.': t a;',..,i:• I co > m Gene Coulon :- •X• ' - , • Memorial ,' co m Beach Pa 1 Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) Figure 3.5-1 10 Project Area Map 1 , t Jfi . Yff ��� /*/ / . / , 1 , , ,,„:" J , ./: . ,/ _ . /7 COR-2 ZONE � f. �,-,�,L. L'JL -ILJLJLJLp L' JLJ `7/.s /• / jf I OFIW--,,.... ! -''' ; grarrarc:n '---.:z--.i- : ---77/ ract"C ii» • � `;' f If PUBLIC LAND ?. " Open + -" ��� �1j jj/r:a ' A* ,*-Attl3"41:7‘4 '''--, �`. Space 1 �i 44 / r , ' ' ;C-- '::_. 0,‘As w,,,, • . , ,FFLy / ,,,,,,,,, LAKE , � ' • -,_, '-,. ( WASHINGTON I , ram.- tt„,--,. . •, , • 1 r :MOW 1111-111wri.- • • !' , ,, i_ : ' '' `ftlw*8144t, ' . I '‘/-' ' PUBLIC LAND l- -<.:< J�,t: V.•` % / �, A�` it / / / /%.4 1,,,,,„'% ,. ( opt - 1r ( -,,,, / / / AY CREEK I / N. , LTA ?i r.--- ._ / / s. \// + I= Oe I jf i ' j='z°RR _ a 40TH ST 1 I t\0 I` s , / ' d i I Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-02 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-2 I W Overall Plat Plan 0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1-1 n R 139 CI El (4-cir CI co R 1 N N E 1 r r + �► c 102 R.25 + A(' 4 ,42 4 SE 60th St in N A"2� „1aB\�° N 30th St �\ce 1 � ro 4 r 4) m CO rn CO co r- 12.° 2- ro m J � _It . Q R 012 j I 0 r- '> NC. 11 l T N N F 9 O N. `37 9�clett pve L rr + co 0 -f J 2 SE + �► 64th St North Access i f Driveway • N 4 ��a�a ;wCD 4 (� 0� N LO 3 MCPco 1 � N CO r •st 1 *6> T co rn m 6 air I 0 ❑7 11 OS CO N m R29 m� CO r N • E- 113 �� CO m -- 15 4 R2 N 9 \�d _ Jc65 NZ \ . + C 24 \aKe j NE 44th St LO LO _ J a N 30th St -A E 58 r ' as j 178 °� �` ry 2. cc 167--0- o 43� rn NJ- N CO �� 84-N m -I z 12 U) A I ' El ElR3 12 co r- co co CO CD r co r E- 121 °' F3 R164 Ir 181 �► _ F 98 I N 36th St Lake Wa Blvd n wag\�a _ N 30th St m \K �. m 4 s 119-0. o �>r m o cor N 60- 4 r' 9 `3 At ,\� 470-0- _ 0 m z co Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-3 %o Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 ' 9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street 10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett Avenue(N 27th Street) 11. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street 12. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street Level of Service under existing 2002 conditions is shown in Table 3.5-2. 3.5.1.2 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the study intersections during the PM peak hour 1 I under year 2002 existing conditions, and year 2007 with and without project traffic. The degree of congestion or the quality of the traffic operations is rated with a level of service grade; the letters A through F are used for the rating scale. The letter A represents the best (least congested) conditions and the letter F represents the worst(most congested)conditions. L The LOS ratings are based on the performance measure ranges identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) published in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. The delay and LOS { results for the intersections analyzed in the study area are the output of the Synchro software program. The correlation between the intersection operations,LOS grade, and delay are detailed in Table 3.5-1. The delay reported for a four-way stop control or signalized intersection is defined as the average control delay and is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of the delay of each approach. For two-way stop control intersections, the delay reported correlates to the approach with the worst operating conditions. Table 3.5-1. Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay Delay(seconds/vehicle) Intersection LOS Signalized Unsignalized Operations Grade Intersection Intersection _ a Best A 510 510 J! B >10 and 520 > 10 and 515 C >20 and 535 > 15 and 525 D >35 and 555 >25 and_5.35 V E >55 and 580 >35 and 550 Worst F >80 >50 Source: HCM 2000. • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 September 2003 i ;� I , Table 3.5-2. Level of Service Summary - Level of Service(Delay in sec/veh) Stop Year 2002 Year 2007 Year 2007 Intersection Control Existing No Build with Project 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street All-way B(14) C(19) C (19) 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street Two-way C(16) C(22) C(24) I 3. 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Two-way F(71) F(>90) F(>90) Boulevard)at NE 44th Street 4. 1-405 southbound ramps at(NE 44th Street Two-way C(20) E(38) F(54) . (Lake Washington Boulevard) 1 ! 5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane Two-way B(11) B(12) B(13)2 6. Ripley Lane at north site access Two-way A(8) A(8) A(8)1 1 I A(9)2 - I j 7. Lake Washington Boulevard at south site Two-way B(10) B(11) B(13)1 .I I access B(12)2 ! , 8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street All-way A(8) A(8) A(8) 9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street Two-way A(10) B(12) B(12) 10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett All-way A(8) A(9) A(10) Avenue(N 27th Street) 111. 1-405 southbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(15) C(19) C(19) 12. 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(17) D(26) D(27) i ' Analysis conducted with all traffic accessing to the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard. 2 Analysis conducted with traffic from 50 units(43 percent)accessing to the north site access onto Ripley Lane to and from the north. ! I 3.5.1!.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network Lake Washington Boulevard is striped for a bicycle lane on the shoulder, which results in bicycles, I pedestrians, and disabled vehicle sharing the same space. Lake Washington Boulevard generally has 6-to I 8-foot-wide shoulders,with a ditch and cut section on the east side and a fill section on the west side. In id I the surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrians are generally accommodated on the roadway shoulder or 11. 1 verge;there is a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the I-405 overcrossing at 44th Street. 1.1 11 I Pedestrian volumes and comfort are likely to be low near the site because pedestrian walking areas are I close to traffic. No pedestrians were observed in the site vicinity during site visits. The major pedestrian I attraction is Gene Coulon Park, approximately 0.75 mile south of the site; there are few other recreation 1 or commercial attractions for pedestrians in the area. Bicycle volumes are believed to be relatively high in the area because of a continuous bicycle route I, paralleling I-405. Lake Washington Boulevard is believed to include high numbers of commuters on weekdays and high numbers of recreational bicyclists on weekends. I. I There is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard in the project vicinity. The closest transit service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride at Park Avenue North and N 30th Street,and flyer stop at 1-405 at N 30th Street. Routes include: 1 • Metro Bus Routes 111 and 114 serving Downtown Seattle,Newcastle,and Renton Highlands; .- ' • Metro Bus Route 167 serving Kent and the University District in Seattle, with flyer stops on I- 405 and SR 167 between the two end points; I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-67 September 2003 1 I • Metro Bus Route 247 serving the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond and the 148th Avenue corridor in Bellevue and Kent,with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; • Metro Bus Route 342 serving the Shoreline Park and Ride Lot and the SR 522 Route, including Kenmore and Bothell to the Renton Boeing Plant, with flyer stops on I-405, SR 167 and Downtown Bellevue between the two end points; • Metro Route 909 providing DART service between the Kennydale Park and Ride and Downtown Renton via the Sunset Hill area; • Boeing Custom Route 952 between the Auburn Park and Ride and Boeing Everett, with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; and • Sound Transit Route 560 serving Sea-Tac Airport and the Bellevue Transit Center, with stops in downtown Renton and with flyer stops on I-405 between the two end points. 3.5.1.4 Site Access The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard that crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. This railroad right-of-way was acquired by the Northern Pacific Railway in 1908 and included a reservation of a rail crossing for the entire contiguous parcel that existed at the time, which now includes the Barbee Mill, Quendall Terminals, and Vulcan properties. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve these properties. The existing driveway at the Barbee Mill site has a grade of approximately 12 percent between Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad, and a gentler grade below the railroad to the parking lot of the current mill office and bridge crossings over May Creek to the north and south. The rail line is currently used at a frequency of four trains per day, one local freight train round-trip, and one round-trip by the Dinner Train; operating speeds for freight trains are 10 mph. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years; however, the railroad has discussed use of the line for rapid transit or commuter rail with Sound Transit, but there are no specific plans for passenger service (Cowles, personal communication, 2003). In a similar situation, the BNSF line over Stampede Pass reopened in 1996 after closure for 14 years (Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT] 2001). An increase in service on the BNSF line and use by through traffic would not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. The line adjacent to the site has the potential to carry through traffic because it connects with the BNSF Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. Until the 1970s, the rail line was used for multiple trains per day by the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee Road railroads. The rail line connects with the BNSF 1 ; Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons(Cowles,personal communication,2003). 3.5.2 Impacts 3.5.2.1 Future Baseline Street Network Traffic forecasts for this study were developed using the City of Renton EMME/2-based travel demand model for the impact-year specified by the City (2007), with adjustments to add approved development projects. Specific projects in the vicinity, including the Labrador Subdivision, The Bluffs, Tamaron Point,and Southport,were included in the EMME2 baseline volumes. There are no funded transportation City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 September 2003 1 1 1 ` improvement projects identified in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in the project vicinity. Figure 3.5-4 depicts the PM peak hour impact-year traffic volumes. 3.5.2.2 Project Trip Generation Project traffic volumes were estimated using appropriate Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) surveys for the proposed residential development and the industrial alternative. Development of trip generation for the No-Action Alternative was produced to provide a comparison to the trip generation of the proposed action and indicates an order of magnitude of trip generation and resulting impacts. Level-of-service analysis has not been performed for the No-Action Alternative. The trip generation for the proposed development was based on the ITE Trip Generation equations for _ land use code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing; there is no rate or equation available specifically 1 ! for a duplex development. A wide variety of factors can affect trip generation rates from dwellings . including family size, age of occupants, and family income. Studies of duplex housing have indicated 1 . that their trip generation is analogous to that of single-family detached housing (see: Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study,prepared by Snohomish County Public Works, September 26, 2002). The project site also includes units in a shared town home configuration with four to five units per larger structure. Because these units are expected to be at or above the floor area size and a price range comparable to single-family dwellings in the region, the single-family trip generation rate was also used for these ,i dwellings to provide a conservative estimate. The trip generation for the industrial alternative was consistent with the development of the site under 1 existing zoning, which includes land use code 130 (Industrial Park). Results from the trip generation I 1 analysis for the proposed action and No-Action Alternative are shown in Table 3.5-3. During an average - weekday,the trip generation analysis indicates that the proposed development will generate 123 PM peak hour trips (79 inbound and 44 outbound) and 1,188 daily trips. For comparison purposes, the No-Action Alternative, under current land use, would generate 502 PM peak hour trips (105 inbound and 397 outbound)and 3,797 daily trips. ' i Table 3.5-3. Trip Generation Independent Weekday Land Use Code Variable Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips Barbee Mill Proposal/Proposed Action 123 total(79 inbound, 1 (210)Single-Family Detached Housing 116 Dwelling Units 44 outbound) 1,188 No-Action Alternative 502 total (105 inbound, (130) Industrial Park 545,500 square feet 397 outbound) 3,797 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for the Puget Sound region generally stress the provision of facilities, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on major roadways, and additional transit service and vanpool capacity, as well as incentives provided by employers. The choice of using modes of transportation other than single-occupant vehicles for trips involves trade-offs between travel tune that are affected by multiple factors. One of the strategies relating to residential development is the 1 provision of higher density development, which provides residential, commercial, and office uses within walking distance to allow people to fulfill everyday needs without using a car. Uses can be mixed in the ' salme building or can be located within a certain radius,typically a 0.5-mile walking distance. ! City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 September 2003 1 4 co .zt CI R148 Q � N R. r N r F 8 N r A) + L R.25 + y- 4 - 108 3 N SE60thSt A-2l v N 30th St \Nag'\vd m O) d• N 10— A�4_ J -- r r J . _ ❑2 R 0 10 1- (0 � 3 12 2. E 9 o N.r 3� � _ Y lr + No .t e P J 2 North Access -J y ��c e SE 64th St Driveway m ' 4 �I An O � imON N R ��A7:11 ¢ 4 r' .N o� �o M 1 I. 1 r r P 1 r--+ 0 ❑7 D o 11 r > R 38 *� r RI o m m d' N N �t -4 139 v 0o R 2 rn r M F 186 L A y- 85 �N re, A) y' E c 30 ' a 1 NE 44th St LO \I o= J ea N 30th St In 79 ro , a v , cc214-� ry 2 197-� Do 597. 0 o N r VP 102 m -- -N l zm 111 ® R4 12 CO m 4- 1 m m r F 150 N 0 g 4 R 208 A) y j 209 A) 1' L F 110 N 36th St a - Lake Wa Blvd g\s a N 30th St a ���a m ' v 'i 172--*. ° 7,0 E O N N 70-f m I 5m cozo T 1-11 " 511 — ,-3-N m co Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) I XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 3.5-4 Iv Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Other features, such as connections between desirable destinations and safe sidewalks and bike lanes, can encourage the use of alternative transportation modes and encourage walking or bicycling. The use of transit can be enhanced by providing safe pedestrian access to bus stops and convenient transit routes that connect to desirable destinations, as well as amenities, such as bus shelters,which can make waiting more pleasant. Facilities that reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, such as limits on curb cuts and narrower street widths to slow traffic speeds or other traffic calming measures, make for a safer street environment and generally encourage walking. For this site, there are no commercial or recreation facilities off site within walking distance. Furthermore, the development does not include a mix of uses likely to encourage alternative modes of transportation, and there is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard or within walking distance. There may be opportunities for residents to car-pool or van-pool to common work destinations; however, the setting and design of the development does not justify reductions in trip generation rates based on higher than normal use of other transportation modes. 3.5.2.3 Project Trip Distribution The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes as output from the EMME/2 model. The distribution is shown on Figure 3.5-5 and indicates that directly leaving the site, 19 percent of project traffic is destined to the south and 81 percent is destined to the northeast. To the north, 16 percent will access I-405 to the north, 18 percent I-405 to the south, 25 percent to 44th Street, 9 percent to 112th Street(SE 68th Street), 1 percent to SE 64th Street, 5 percent to SE 60th Street, and 7 percent north on Lake Washington Boulevard north of SE 60th Street. To the south, 2 percent will access I-405 to the south from the N 30th Street interchange, 2 percent destined to the east on N 30th Street, and 14 percent continue south on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 30th Street. Two site access points for public roads are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto Ripley Lane. As a conservative scenario, the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard was analyzed with all project trips accessing this location. The site access on Ripley Lane has the potential to be used for northbound trips from the portion of the site with shorter travel distance using that route. A second distribution was reviewed: routing traffic from 50 units in the northerly part of the site (up to 43 percent of the trips)destined to or from the north would use the north site access onto Ripley Lane. Traffic destined to or from areas south of the site (15 inbound and 8 outbound trips) likely would use the southerly access rather than out-of-direction movement to the north. The intersections affected by the different site access distributions include the intersections of Lake Washington Boulevard with Ripley Lane and the south site access and the Ripley Lane/north site access intersection; the impacts are accounted for in Table 3.5-2. Figures 3.5-5,3.5-6, and 3.5-7 depict the trip distribution,project trip assignment, and year 2007 PM peak hour traffic volumes with project trips, respectively. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the increase in traffic volumes in the project vicinity associated with the proposed development. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-71 September 2003 1 „ : ', ::, ,., •:,„ „„ 1 ",:, :=, : '''„ - , :: ci; 4., \32. CO i 4.6 - PLEASURE o POINT % 77o m 5% SE 60TH ST -' � .' h SE /60SH ST 16% 73 1% SE 164TH ST m W I— �, 9% l `;',:-r E S SE 68TH SE 69TH /1,.9Y 22% WLCAN JZ • SITE c�' 74 SE 76TH ST g� QUENDALL / ,® W ' - 81% ; TERMINALS/ , W T 25% ��r W PROJECT GI Z GI . ::::-- ' /1 1 1 •> I- 19% N 4OTH ;3 18% AN�36TH ST SE 88TH ST 14% v. A A�g� .9 z 1 ';:. 'k;-`;'{?ARK�x z',, "S,':X: � cr ¢ ;:vt 2% A et,n,-.;)/; x=^.Ma ico z cc cc `' :' ; ' rr:} Cam' 0N 30TH S I 1 i3§'. >Ys; Mi4 " �.t`37 ,tr'aajcr';z•�.';fz:}^ ' F.3,.,, t ' - ` -a EXIT 6 ,' :'.. s, --k,.•••I 4..� CREEK; •k, • ,fix --- NE 27TH ST .:`<.%,:;; ,rc '` a> I_ 14% Z - m Gene Coulon �s-•;. Memorial. m Z ;!' 2 ' Beach Park' G m A Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) Figure 3.5-5 �, g Project Trip Distribution , H 0 R 0 Elc 0 i n 0 -0-- 0 R O 0 u co 0 4 SE 60th St Ojr 4 �a\vd m N 30th St 0�( o LaKe ro I' m Qi Y T O 0 o OD N 36 `J ro J Li ❑2 R0 © 10 i a) O o > R 0 E 0 0 0_ �► Y jr 0 A) + CO 0 e� Pie L _North Access J + 8xm SE 64th St Li, Driveway m -o k r g�,a > 0-A m O O ‘3ya 5 < �` 4 r'' 3 ' \' \" T r o 0 071 °, Dk -~ ❑S -0 ❑7 p0 11 m R0 c-5 -4- 20 a oe .4) + F 4 0 %, R6 a 1r0 N 0 E 1r0 yNE 44th St co M 0\16ct 10--AE J Lade�a N 30th St i1 ro o c 4 r' •6 1 _* —' 11 0 't o o >r Cl) 7—N — 0 1 m z ,I �'' El El R 0 I=1 r 0 0 F51 m N o m E- 0 R ro 0 �__ c 0 �► J 0 n E- 2 E _ Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St at n �a(V , N 30th St E K o 1 28-). m \\ E o o , z r' o Q� m �t Q N O O 8 m 0� 1 -� m ti- Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) i__ XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-6 ur PM Peak Hour �_ Project Traffic Volumes I__ El El R148 ��c R. 1 c*) co V� co d) -.4-. 8 • N A) 4' ► 112 R 25 + IC 4 N $l N 30th St SE 60th St JLO l\laB"d m °° 5} " `Y) ,__) 10� rn N.r • 2�0� J as co N J • ❑ a • R12 ❑ 10 rL0 R r N N co -4- 10 O r 31 4) y 0 O SE 64th St North Access + Driveway > R r 6� , --A p • o N c.1 4 2�� r o CO 1 � n\�T 1- t. ❑3 ❑ N 11 > R '38 co m ��� �r (Nv N CO <- 159 ��7� D, CD y co E- 190 N R-6 ► as jr 85 NN 2�� E r 30 , NF 44th St -Ioo co 0,0 CC/ Kg`�a N 30th St , , J89 ' �a rg- � 198-> _ 225-). o �t o N a°N T- cn 103 ! i 66 zm N ® ® R4 12 co co F 1 r co co <- 201 cNV co r- g R.4 208 A) + L Jr 209 4) + 4k. _ F 112 Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St cc E �a�\J > N 30th St o co 200—> cc 22 E O (o N 70� co ' 4 r' O m r) z Cc) r 19-� �3�► 512- - r r r` m m Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) "AIXX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-7 Nu • Year 2007 With Project ; PM Peak Hour Volumes Table 3.5-4. Project Impacts to City of Renton PM Peak Hour Volumes Year 2007 %of Growth Total(with Attributed to Arterial Section Year 2002 Project) Project Traffic Lake Washington Boulevard(north of NE 44th Street-I-405 ramps) 560 705 19 NE 44th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard-I-405 ramps) 585 725 22 Lake Washington Boulevard(between NE 44th Street and N 30th Street) 350 540 12 Lake Washington Boulevard(south of Burnett Avenue) 360 540 9 N 30th Street(between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405) 490 585 7 3.5.2.4 Future Level of Service Results of the LOS analyses indicate that all study intersections operate with a LOS grade of C or better during the PM peak hour, except the I-405 ramp intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th t__ 1 Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates with delay because of heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north and southbound), and the I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates with delay because of the southbound left-turn movement. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the LOS analyses results. 3.5.2.5 Impacts on Interstate 405 The impacts on I-405 ramp operations at NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)and N 30th Street were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) ramp merge and diverge analysis tool. Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action (in 2007), the I-405 northbound off-ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on-ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F. Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action(in 2007),the I-405 southbound off-ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E. The analysis indicates that the project traffic volumes would have no further impact on ramp operations, and there is no measurable increase in delay between the No-Action Alternative and under Project conditions.' Table 3.5-5 summarizes the ramp merge and diverge analysis results in terms of LOS and density(passenger cars per mile per lane). Table 3.5-5. Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary Level of Service(Density pc/mi/lane) Year 2002 Year 2007 No Year 2007 with Interchange Existing Build Project Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street) 1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D(33) E(35) E(35) 1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(32) D(33) D(33) 1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(35) F(40) F(40) 1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(32) E(37) E (37) N 30th Street 1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D(33) E(36) E(36) 1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(30) D(33) D(33) 1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(34) F(39) F(39) 1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(34) F(39) F(39) I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-75 September 2003 , 3.5.2.6 Site Access The site is adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. The proposal includes public street crossings at the location of the existing Barbee Mill site private driveway access i and at the existing private driveway crossing at Ripley Lane approximately 350 feet north of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. (Continuation of a private crossing is ji p ecluded by BNSF Railroad practices that limit a new or modified private crossing to a maximum of six 11 pr perties(Cowles 2003b personal communication).) e procedure for establishing a public street crossing over a railroad right-of-way in the State of , ' Iashington is governed by RCW 81.53.020 and WAC 480-62-150, and requires approval of a grade crpssing petition by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Legislative policy of the Slate of Washington to requires new highway crossings of railroads to be grade separated, where p o cticable (RCW 81.53.020). This policy applies to local streets, and feasibility generally includes ,; c o nsideration of topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors as well as public need for the cro ssing, and reference to guidelines adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration (Nizam 2003 ,! p:i•sonal communication). The vehicular traffic volumes from this development and the current level of u e of this rail line do not meet FHWA criteria for grade separated crossings, which generally are i, i plemented for very high vehicular or train volumes(FHWA 2002). Ti e'decision to provide public roadway crossings of railways may include elimination or consolidation of e 'fisting public or private crossings to minimize the total number of crossings. This type of consolidation i mo y require property owners in the vicinity to work together to provide a circulation system to serve all p .perties on the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. The proposed northerly access to the site on to ' pi ley Lane would require dedication of a public street over the property to the north. ii It may be desirable, however, to ensure that the feasibility of future implementation of a grade separated ra 1 crossing is not precluded. The location where existing roadway grades provide the greatest potential fo 1 overcrossing is near the Ripley Lane intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, where the roF dway is currently above the railroad. An overcrossing at this location, however, would require s bstantial reconfiguration of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection with substantial I c inges in elevation and grade for both roadways. I A the proposed at-grade crossing location(at the existing site access),the elevation difference with Lake i ashington Boulevard is approximately 10 feet. Given the 60-foot separation between the road and ra lroad at that location, a 16 percent grade could theoretically be established. The combination of standards for roadway approaches and rail crossings may preclude any substantial change in grade i, I between the roadway and the railroad. The guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and *nsportation Officials provide that the roadway surface should not be more than 3 inches higher or lover than the top of the nearest rail at a point 30 feet from the rail (AASHTO 2001). The similar WSDOT Design Manual standard is 3 inches above or 6 inches below (WSDOT 1998, Section 930.03). Tlie normal standard for a road approach to assure a safe area for cars to wait for entry and for sight di tance is an area 20 to 30 feet in length with a grade not to exceed 6 percent(WSDOT 1998 Fig 930-3). e buildout of Lake Washington Boulevard, with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks, w uld require most of the right-of-way. This combination of requirements would leave little area for a c range in grade between the road and the railroad. - T F e difference in elevation between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard decreases to the north, rth both at nearly the same elevation approximately 400 feet north of the existing site access (approximately 400 feet south of the May Creek bridge). Relocating roadway access to this point presents few limitations for meeting geometric or sight distance standards on Lake Washington f City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-76 September 2003 }_ t Boulevard. It presents several design challenges for the project because the elevation of the railroad is approximately 20 feet above the elevation of the majority of the site. Specific design issues include: • The grade of the access roads serving the lots on the east side of May Creek would have to be raised at its northern end to meet the grade of the new access road near the grade of the railroad. That would involve substantial fill and would likely completely displace the northerly wetland if the BNSF allowed fill on their right-of-way. If the railroad did not allow fill, retaining walls of substantial height would be required. The design of buildings also would be affected. Buildings near the northerly end of the roadway would likely step down from street access at a mid-level with lower floors atgrade. The roadwayprovidingaccess to the east side of MayCreek would be a dead-end approximately 700 feet long. • The height of bridge crossings of May Creek would be higher(or fill,where allowed outside the floodplain,would be substantially higher). • The access road would intersect the loop roadway system on the west side of May Creek at about Lot 55. This would present few design issues, but would result in a dead-end street about 580 feet long at the southerly point. • Relocation of access is likely to impact the northerly wetland and would require development of additional wetland mitigation area. The proposed crossing at Ripley Lane, which provides access to the site by a roadway constructed over the property to the north, has similar, although less severe, grade limitations. The change in grade is approximately 4 feet on the east side of the railroad and approximately 6 feet on the west side. This grade change would not allow a 3- to 6-inch change in grade to be maintained 30 feet on either side of the railroad, nor would the change allow a 30-foot landing at 6 percent grade to be provided at each connecting street given the 65 foot separation between the rails and the existing pavement of Ripley Lane and the 70 foot separation between the rails and the roadway on the east side. In addition, widening Ripley Lane to a three-lane section with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks to accommodate the ultimate buildout of property in the vicinity would move the roadway closer to the rails. An alternate location that is nearly at-grade occurs at an existing private railroad crossing approximately r(( 200 feet south of the existing Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with Ripley Lane. This location would be approximately 200 feet north of the Barbee Mill property line and would be accessed from the site by a roadway, which would be constructed over the property to the north. The existing site access proceeds at an angle across the railroad right-of-way, which would likely be unacceptable for a public street. Construction of a roadway at this location could involve potential conflicts with the Ripley Lane intersection. In particular, the left-turn storage lane, which serves that intersection, might overlap with a center acceleration lane for left turns out of the site. Potential conflict would increase with greater traffic volumes as the sites to the north developed and generated additional trips. Traffic control at railroad crossings involves two basic approaches: • Passive control. This involves signs and pavement markers and relies on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching by listening for the locomotive horn, seeing the locomotive, and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails. Passive control includes signage and pavement markings that would include, at the minimum, a circular Railroad Advance Warning sign and pavement markings consisting of a stop bar. Supplemental markings can include reflecting cross-buck signs, lighting,or stop signs. _ • Active control. This consists of signals and gates that are designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by an approaching train and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians. Active controls include a range of devices activated by a train's City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-77 September 2003 ' approach and range from track-side or overhead flashing lights to gates, which are normally installed on the approach for both vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. Because gates can be circumvented by cars that drive in the lane for opposing traffic to weave around both gates, quad gates can be installed to close both the lanes and prevent drive-arounds and to provide greater security. Employment of quad gates also may qualify for consideration of a"quiet zone" where sounding of locomotive horns is not mandatory,as discussed in Section 3.9,Noise. ; T sere is no specific standard for choice of traffic control, but many considerations must be balanced, in luding vehicular and pedestrian safety. In addition, the cumulative impacts of additional growth and, th-refore, additional exposure to accidents, are relevant. T se WSDOT uses general guidelines for screening appropriate control based on many factors. One cr tenon is related to the type of roadway and an exposure factor based on the average daily traffic on the I roi dway and the number of trains per day. Based on that general criteria, a two-lane site access roadway se ing the entire traffic demand of the site would have an exposure factor of 4,400(1,100 ADT x 4 trains p=r day) and would warrant flashing lights (WSDOT 1998 Figure 930-2). A slight increase in traffic or n ber of trains would warrant gates according to this criterion; additional traffic would be likely if additional sites were development to the north. This guideline does not specifically consider pedestrians. F.r the proposed project, the degree of pedestrian exposure also may be a substantial factor if public access to the shoreline is provided and integration of a pedestrian circulation system in the area results in 1. rge numbers of pedestrians. Other criteria recommended for consideration include sight distance, sc ool bus use, a history of accidents, and interactions between traffic control devices at nearby in ersections. , S d ecific to this project, the possibility of higher future use of the train line may justify more stringent i control measures. A potential safety concern is short queuing distance between the rails and traffic control at Lake Washington Boulevard. Cars on the tracks may be blocked by cars queuing at the in ersection. The 50-to 60-foot separation between tracks and the intersection provide queuing space for to to three vehicles. It is possible that a vehicle could find itself on the tracks with cars stopped at the in ersection and a train approaching. Additional lane width to provide a means to escape this situation is a ery desirable feature. In the case of a quad-gate crossing, a system also may involve sensors to ensure I tip t outbound gates do not shut with vehicles present. In a case where signalization is present at Lake ashington Boulevard, preemption of signal phasing likely would be required to allow traffic on the _ I c ss street to clear the intersection whenever a train approaches. Ii 3 5.2.7 Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis a accident history was reviewed for intersections in the project vicinity to identify potential safety c ncerns. The City provided accident data for a 3-year period from 2000 to 2003. The average accident r e in urban areas for a roadway with a collector arterial classification is 4.27 accidents per million v Ihicle miles (1996 Washington State Highway Accident Report). The section of Lake Washington B I ulevard from N 30th Street to the I-405 interchange ramps experiences a collision rate of a proximately 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles. I addition to accident histories, another means often employed to locate intersections with safety c ncerns is to calculate the accidents per million entering vehicles. Locations experiencing greater than 1 0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates a high rate of occurrence. Table 3.5-6 summarizes t e collision and injury rates and accident types for the study intersections where accident data were proovided. The listed intersections experience less than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. The predominant type of accident that occurs is a right-angle collision at unsignalized two-way stop control intersections. Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D}aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-78 September 2003 Table 3.5-6. Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary Property Collisions Collisions per Injuries per Damage per Accident Type Intersection per Year MEV Year Year (%of Accidents) Lake Washington Right Angle(88%) Boulevard/NE 44th Street 2.7 NA 1.3 1.7 Approach Turn (12%) 1-405 southbound ramps/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Right Angle(67%) Boulevard) 1.0 0.36 0.0 1.0 Sideswipe(33%) Right Angle(72%) 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE Sideswipe(14%) 44th Street 2.3 0.56 1.0 1.7 Approach Turn(14%) Rear End(33%) 1-405 northbound ramps/N Right Angle(33%) 30th Street 1.0 0.43 0.3 0.7 Sideswipe(33%) Rail Safety The number of railroad safety incidents has declined over the past several decades in Washington State and throughout the nation. There are basically four types of railroad safety issues: 1. Collisions involving vehicles and trains at highway-rail grade crossings. 2. Collisions involving vehicles or pedestrians and trains within the railroad right-of-way, classified as railroad trespass incidents. 3. Derailments or railway collisions. Derailments involve one or more units of rolling stock equipment leaving the rails during train operations for a cause other than collision, explosion, or fire. Collisions involve any impact of two or more pieces of railroad on-track equipment or impact between railroad equipment and foreign equipment. Derailment and collision-type incidents usually result in very few fatalities or injuries. 4. Hazardous material incidents are regarded as a separate category in order to more closely monitor the transportation of these products. Accident statistics are available on-line from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at http://www.wutc.wa.gov/web 1/wol/crash.html. Nationwide, half of train/vehicle fatalities involve at-grade crossings with passive controls and half are at- grade crossings with active controls. The accident rate at passive controls is presumed to be higher because crossings with active controls involve locations where vehicle volumes are higher. The Federal Railway Administration strategy to address train/vehicle collisions includes: • Targeting funds to high-risk crossings through grants to states; • Installing new technologies, such as four-quadrant gates, at the most dangerous crossings; and • Developing education and enforcement programs that increase the public's awareness of the dangers of railroad crossings(CRS,2003). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-79 September 2003 , Active controls at crossings are the most effective physical strategy to reduce collisions. For the proposed nejv crossings, the City of Renton, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the ra lway must decide the appropriate balance between risk and cost. The risk of collisions with pedestrians be F ause of trespass on the right-of-way can be addressed by fencing the line adjacent to the site and by in [tailing warning signage,as well as education programs. A cidents on the rail line adjacent to the site also have the potential to affect the life-safety of residents by bl IQ,cking access to the site when trains come to a stop after a collision. Train stopping distance is affected b}�II$the momentum of the train, which is a function of speed and weight, and the reaction time of the enlgmeer from the time a visual cue is received to the time brakes are applied. For freight trains operating o the line presently with up to 10 cars and a locomotive,stopping distance is likely to be in the range of s Veral hundred feet, depending on the weight of the train. T e distance between the proposed road access points is approximately 2,000 feet and would require a -I tr I. length of approximately 25 to 30 cars to block both entrances. If the entrances were moved as o timed above,the distance between the two would be approximately 1,000 feet and could be blocked by a ain 15 to 18 cars long. If the rail line were reopened to long-haul freight trains of between 100 and 1 0 cars, a train length of 1 to 1.5 miles long could,under a variety of operating conditions ranging from , acl idents to operational stops, block both entrances. The potential for operational stops to block the e ances is low given the lack of switches between south Lake Washington and Bellevue. Under e fisting use of the line for local freight service, it is unlikely that freight trains would block both e ances to the site. 1 additional access option that would provide greater separation between access points and reduce the p tential for blockage would be to develop a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF ra lroad. This would provide access to the existing crossing at the north end of the Vulcan site a se aration between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with c nsolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. 1 3.5.2.8 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions -_- 1 e City of Newcastle lies to the northeast of the site and is expected to experience a portion of the p 1 ject-generated traffic. Based on the trip distribution analysis, up to 22 percent of project traffic (27 P 1 peak hour and 262 daily trips) are destined to, from, or through the City of Newcastle. Table 3.5-7 d scribes the arterial sections affected by project trips, traffic volumes, and the percentage increase in I I tr lffic due to the project development. I 1 Table 3.5-7. Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle PM Peak Hour Volumes _ %of Growth Year 2007 Total Attributed to ' Arterial Section Year 2002 (with Project) Project Traffic 112th Avenue SE-SE 68th Street(south of Lake Washington Boulevard) 449 506 19 L ke Washington Boulevard(Between SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street) 285 333 15 I " Lke Washington Boulevard(north of SE 60th Street) 331 381 10 SE 60th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard) 231 294 5 j ' , ' I di),of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D'aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-80 September 2003 1 _ The Lake Washington Boulevard intersections with SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street operate at LOS C or better under year 2007 conditions with or without projects traffic; therefore, they are not adversely affected by the development traffic. Based on the traffic volume forecast from the EMME/2 model, it does not appear that a significant volume of traffic is bypassing the congestion on the I-405 freeway through the City of Newcastle on Lake Washington Boulevard. The volumes experienced on Lake Washington Boulevard are in the realm of traffic volume expected for a collector arterial. A concern raised by the City of Newcastle involves the potential for commuters to use alternate routes when congestion is heavy on I-405, especially increased use of local streets to bypass congested sections of the freeway. These routes are most likely to be used by drivers familiar with the local street system and with designations relatively close to the bypass route. The most likely routes involve: • Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 9 (112th Ave SE/SE 60th Street) and using Lake Washington Boulevard through Bellevue and Newcastle to 44th Street in Renton, or potentially continuing south on Lake Washington Boulevard to SR 900 and points between; • Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Coal Creek Parkway and continuing south to SR 900 or turning to the west to access final destinations between Coal Creek Parkway and Lake Washington at SE 60th Street, SE 72nd/69th Street, or SE 89th Streets; and • Northbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 5 (SR900), Exit 6 (SE 30th Street), or Exit 7 (SE 44th Street)and continuing north along Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 9; or > taking the same route from I-405 along Lake Washington Boulevard and connecting to destinations to the east via NE 44th Street/89th Street SE, or SE 64th/69th/72nd Streets, or via SE 60th Street; or > taking the same route and continuing north via SE 60th Street and 119th Ave SE to Coal Creek, Parkway, and potentially further north via 128th Ave, Richards Road, 116th Avenue to Bellevue,Kirkland, and beyond. All of these potential arterial routes have the disadvantage of lower speed limits and intersections controlled by stop signs or signals. These arterial routes would have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. In cases where multiple stop sign controlled intersections are present, delays at intersections would become substantial if large numbers of trips divert. If congestion occurs regularly over a long period of time, drivers would seek out and find alternative routes. Theoretically, those routes would be chosen as alternative routes until congestion resulted in equal travel times over alternate routes. In practice, drivers regularly making trips with local destinations close to these alternative routes would have experienced the difference in travel times between congested freeway conditions and local arterials and would choose the faster route for their normal trips. In cases where freeway congestion seems greater than normal, they may divert to alternative routes. The EMME/2 model used to route traffic under future conditions accounts for roadway capacity when routing trips and achieves a reasonable balance between local arterials and freeways. It does not account for those occasional situations where accidents or other factors produce higher levels of freeway congestions. In those cases, all the routes outlined above are likely to experience larger volumes of traffic, which is likely to result in delays at intersections, especially stop controlled intersections, such as SE 60th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard. Trips to and from the proposed project are likely to involve the routes along Lake Washington Boulevard (southbound from Exit 9 to the site or northbound from Exit 5 to the south). The number of trips potentially diverting to alternate routes from the area in Renton west of I-450 (including the site) is not likely to be more than the current southbound off-ramp volumes employing a right-turn movement; rather, it is likely to be considerably less. As a worst-case City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-81 September 2003 scenario, approximately 250 trips would be taken, with project trips totaling approximately 5 percent of th I t total. Given this conservative case, trips on Lake Washington Boulevard at 60th Street would in rease roughly 50 percent. This increase could be addressed in several ways: by planning arterial i Iprovements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints, s eh as stop controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from t4ing alternate routes. The latter approach tends to similarly delay trips with a local destination. A p lissible response to address the potential for diverted trips would include designing future intersection 1 ' si alization to provide higher levels of service to local trips turning into local collector streets, similar to S 60th and SE 64th Streets,while providing less capacity for through movements. 3 5.2.9 Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Relationship to Transit e non-motorized facilities in the project vicinity include a designated bike route (with bike lanes on b th sides of Lake Washington Boulevard) and some discontinuous sidewalks, primarily on the side s eets. The need for non-motorized facilities exists because attractions, such as Coulon Beach Park, are to ated south of the site and transit stops. , e site is likely to create additional demand for pedestrian facilities as follows: i • Residents of the proposed development are likely to desire to use pedestrian and bicycle facilities for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided, as well as to points of interest in the vicinity that currently are limited to Gene Coulon Park, approximately 0.75 mile to the south and nearby residential areas. • Local residents are likely to desire to use pedestrian facilities for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided. C mulative effects of the proposed action (in conjunction with development of adjacent properties in the ix of intensive office, hotels, and residential activity in a master planned development) are likely to —' c eate substantial demand for pedestrian circulation to the high-intensity development from this site and adjacent residential areas and to shoreline amenities adjacent to this site, including the public land on the s 'oreline adjacent to the proposed development. The cumulative effects of this development are likely to i tensify the impact of demands related to this development, and include the following: • Demand for additional capacity and comfort for bicycling and pedestrian routes along Lake Washington Boulevard, which would connect this site (and future mixed-use development in the sites to the north)with Gene Coulon Park to the south and to transit routes and the Park and Ride at North 30th Street. • Demand for safe and comfortable pedestrian routes crossing the BNSF right-of-way and traversing the site to provide access to public lands along the shoreline and other public access ! that may be provided. • Demand for more convenient pedestrian connections from the site to future development in the north. As presently configured, all pedestrian connections to the north would be channeled back to the proposed roadway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. This will likely be perceived as out-of-direction travel for residents of the westerly portion of the site and for the general public who access public land along the shoreline of this site and who wish to access mixed-use development to the north. This demand can be addressed by providing pedestrian access, which may also be combined with vehicular access, to the property to the north near the northwest corner of the site. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-82 September 2003 i - I`4 • Demand for bicycle routes through the site will intensify, particularly with routes that skirt the shoreline and provide access to mixed development to the north. • Pedestrian demand from school children is likely to be limited to circulation within the project. The public elementary school serving the site is the Kennydale Elementary School on North 30th Street just east of I-405. Students from the site would likely be bussed to school and therefore require pedestrian routes to bus stops within the site. McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School are also east of I-405 and would likely transport students by bus. Some older children may occasionally walk home from after school activities. Effects on transit from the proposed 116 residential units, and as the result of cumulative impacts of mixed-use development of property to the north, are likely to consist of additional demand for transit service. Demand for transit service is very elastic and depends largely on the connectivity of the system to desired trip ends and the frequency and convenience of service. Individuals earning a high income are expected to live in this project area; as a result,transit use would generally be lower because the residents have the ability to utilize personal vehicles and are likely to value the flexibility provided. The exception generally is the demand for transit service to central cities where congestion provides a trip time advantage for transit and convenience of taking transit is high (TCRP 1995). Transit use in this area is not likely to be high unless more convenient transit service is provided close to the site, or low travel time express service to major employment centers is available from the Park and Ride Lot in the area. 3.5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of this development would include traffic and pedestrian demands of future development ofthe Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north. The exact parameters of future development cannot be exactly predicted, but zoning allows a mix of high intensity uses that can be expected to generate substantial traffic. At a minimum,residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips. Additional development would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections. The mitigation measures section below addresses the number of additional trips through site access points that would justify channelization of intersections. Other measures that might be employed to serve cumulative trip generation may include an overpass over the railroad to serve all development from a roadway system on the west side of the railroad tracks. The proposed site access points for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would not specifically restrict development potential of the adjacent sites, or limit options for developing access to Ripley Lane, which is likely to be the main access. 3.5.3 Mitigation Mitigating measures were identified for locations operating at LOS E or F. Signal warrant analyses were conducted for intersection locations where LOS analysis indicates a need may exist. 3.5.3.1 Mitigation of Vehicular Traffic Impacts Locations not meeting City operational standards include the I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) and 1-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersections. The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates at LOS E with 38 seconds of delay under 2007 no-action conditions, and with project traffic,the intersection operates at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay. The intersection fails primarily due to the delay City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-83 September 2003 e iperienced at the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection cannot be mitigated with cannelization improvements alone. A review of the stop control identified that either an all-way stop c•ntrol (LOS B with 12 seconds delay per vehicle) or a signal(LOS A with 6 seconds delay per vehicle) w•uld mitigate the intersection operations. The installation of a signal was not warranted based on the v=hicular volume(see following analysis). T i e I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F fo existing conditions and year 2007,with and without project traffic. The intersection operations can be m tigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane (mitigates to LOS C with 20 seconds of delay per vehicle with project traffic). Another solution is to signalize the in ersection, which requires no channelization improvements (mitigates to LOS A with eight seconds delay per vehicle with project traffic). The intersection met volume criteria for Signal Warrants #2 and e development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of $ 5 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of new trips from the development that are distributed throughout the general circulation system. ' l 3. .3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis Signal warrant analyses were conducted for the northbound and southbound I-405 ramps at Lake ashington Boulevard-NE 44th Street under horizon-year 2007 conditions per Section 4C of the Manual o Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The descriptions below summarize the criteria outlined in th MUTCD for the intersection signal warrant analysis. srrant#1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume ondition A:Minimum Vehicular Volume his warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for onsideration of signal installation. The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the inor and major approaches for each of any 8 hours of an average day. ondition B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic is warrant applies to conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. e warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the minor and major approaches for each f any 8 hours of an average day. ombination: 80 percent of Conditions A and B is warrant applies to conditions where both Conditions A and B volume thresholds are met by 80 sercent. rrant#2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume is warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to ' onsider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes exceed the lotted curve on Figure 4C-1 from the MUTCD for 4 hours. •rrant#3:Peak Hour is warrant applies to conditions where for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street .uffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied nly in unusual cases but is not limited to office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial _i omplexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over i J Ci i of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 I aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-84 September 2003 a short time. This warrant is conditioned on delay experienced on a minor approach and traffic volumes experienced on minor approach and total entering intersection. I-405 Northbound Ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street Intersection The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection is currently two- way stop controlled with at least two-lane approaches along NE 44th Street and single lane approaches along the I-405 ramps and Lake Washington Boulevard. Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic,results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that the minimum vehicular volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination) were not fully met. The volume criteria are met for Warrant #2 and Warrant #3. Volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition B and Combination) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. The volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A) are met for only 2 hours of the 8-hour requirement during the day. The hourly traffic volumes for the minor leg approaches meet the MUTCD criteria for at least 8 hours of a day; however, the major leg approaches reflect only up to 65 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and 43 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 380 vph on NE 44th Street(east and west of the intersection). The minimum vehicle volume criteria for Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume) are met for the minimum 4-hours of the day. Additionally, the minimum vehicle volume and delay criteria for Warrant #3 (Peak Hour)are met for 2 hours during the day(criteria requires to meet one hour of the day). The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic. The results indicate Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met for the full criteria. Warrant#2 vehicular criteria was met for three of the required four hours and Warrant#3 criteria was marginally not met. I-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)Intersection The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection is currently two- way stop controlled with(effectively for analysis purposes) single-lane approaches along NE 44th Street- Lake Washington Boulevard and the I-405 ramps. Under guidelines describe in the MUTCD, the southbound right-turn volume was removed from the analysis because there is a designated right-turn lane that operates efficiently at LOS B and with a delay of 23 seconds. Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, the minimum vehicular volume criterial for Warrant #1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination), Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume), and Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. For Warrant#1, the major leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and 47 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. The minor leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and meets the criteria for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 200 vph on NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard)and 60 vph on the I-405 southbound off ramp. The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic, yielding similar results(Warrants#1,#2,and#3 were not met). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-85 September 2003 3.5.3.3 Channelization Warrant Analysis C annelization warrants were conducted for the south site access/Lake Washington Boulevard in ersection under horizon-year 2007 conditions per WSDOT standards. The intersection channelization , is planned for a northbound-shared through-left turn lane, southbound-shared through-right turn lane, and e.stbound-shared left-right turn lane. A channelization warrant analysis was conducted for the northbound left-turn movement site access per th- WSDOT design manual, Figure 910-9a(see attached). The northbound left-turn movement totals 15 , vehicles during the PM peak hour. The location experiences a total peak hour volume (north and s•uthbound approaches)of 540 vehicles. Northbound left-turn movement storage is not needed based on , c jannelization warrant guidelines. Due to the low volume of traffic maneuvering the northbound left- tu , additional background growth on Lake Washington Boulevard would likely not warrant a left-turn 1. o e beyond the horizon year based on vehicular volume criteria alone. , i • U additional check of site access channelization was conducted for the AM peak hour (where inbound , . Id outbound traffic patterns are reversed). The heavier traffic flow is outbound from the site; therefore, a !hannelization warrant analysis was conducted for the eastbound right-turn movement per the WSDOT design manual, Figure 910-12 (see attached). The eastbound right-turn movement totals 12 vehicles d ring the AM peak hour. A storage lane for the eastbound right-turn movement is not needed based on ! c annelization warrant guidelines. I ' C mulative impacts of' developments accessing the south site access may include the need for turn lanes. T e total volume of traffic needed to warrant the installation of a northbound left-turn lane (given no c flange in background traffic) is 60 vph (an additional 45 vph). The total volume of traffic accessing the e. tbound approach needed to warrant the installation of an eastbound right-turn pocket is 250 vph(or 45 v tit turning right),which is an additional 200 vph on the approach(or 30 to 35 vph turning right). 1 3 5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts I pacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well as other impacts, can include a range of potential I m asures, including: I" • Grade-separated rail crossings, if found to be practicable as directed by the legislative policy in . RCW 81.53.020. This option also could be implemented in the future when properties to the i I north develop to mitigate cumulative impacts of development. • Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and intersection approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8. This may place crossings closer together and increase the potential for blockage of both by a stopped train. This could be mitigated by connecting the existing access point at the north end of the Vulcan property with this site through a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF right-of way. That would provide a separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. • A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings,ranging from: > passive signing and stop bars, - ➢ warning lights and bells, ' > gated control of approaches,and ' > quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian approaches. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-86 September 2003 , I it // // 7 i t i II ' //* pskj .- , ) c --, ,_ .._____/„.----,\,\ \ ,,,,,..,#,4,,, ,,,' 7 . •,7,/ ,,, COR-2 ZONE / ;. 4 ( L- -1 LJL IL_ IL IL __ILL _ILi_IL _IL _IL_ / f/ ' 1 _ 1 OHW_ jfl 4r4re,Fromil , �HH •"�I II II / '/ : Tract"B" MN —7 / / ' -ract"C' Water V � }I //JPUBLIC LAND E:"°`. I Open' Quality /f / f �/\, "I Space %SS* • i r 1 j _ _ 3 • '' •// f 1! ��( ' OW *//' \\\:16. • • /, rBUFF� / `� LAKE - im�� ;1` " �/ j 1/4 '', WASHINGTON ' L tI /w \`.. 1 liftio 'W\ .t.p‘, ' , ,,�,`,•••fi, f, / PUBLIC LAND / i���• %t� /'' f f N, , /c,,, ;74/ 4,. .// `",/ ,,,‘‘, / / / i. 0000 i, II. ,..,,,,,, r( lz \ s--„, , ��` LIMI ;- 1 iVIAY `-� • FLOOpPLAIN y DELTA I...: f f I ti / I i ( �A I f j i , ?- F_w 2O Ii 4OTH ST -- - 1--.._._r_. ( ,.. fJ__—_.....___i 4 3 J Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-08 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-8 W Alternative Access 0 Tho 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i • Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad right-of way can be addressed by: > Fencing railroad right-of-way, and > Education programs. Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks due to lack of emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by grade-separated crossings. This impact is unlikely to occur with current local freight use of the rail line. 3.5.3.5 Mitigation of Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that might be implemented in coordination with a variety of parties. Measures include: • Provision of pedestrian facilities within the site with a design that provides greater pedestrian comfort through setback from the curb with an intervening planting strip, and/or provision of a buffer between travel lanes. An on-street buffer might consist of curbside automobile parking or a marked, dedicated bicycle lane. • Provision of pedestrian connections to the properties to the north within the northwest portion of the site to provide convenient access to anticipated future mixed-use development in the area and avoiding the necessity for out-of-direction movement back to the east to access the site. This pedestrian connection might be combined with a vehicular connection. • Provision of public access to public lands along the shoreline and other shoreline public access that connects to the general pedestrian circulation in the site and to Lake Washington Boulevard. • Provision of off-street trails within open space along May Creek connecting to the site circulation system at the northeast corner to provide continuity with the access roadway to the north and connecting to shoreline public access. • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle connections to Lake Washington Boulevard and a railroad crossing providing pedestrian crossing control, such as gates. • Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Lake Washington Boulevard consisting of sidewalks, in addition to bicycle lanes. • Transit service impacts of the proposal can be mitigated by integrating additional service on the I- 405 corridor to local Park and Ride Lots with adequate capacity for local demand, or by providing service on Lake Washington Boulevard with other transit enhancements. All of these measures are likely to contribute to an environment in which choice of alternative modes of transportation is supported by site design. The multiple issues faced in choosing something other than single occupant vehicles for trips will also be supported by employer incentives and system improvements, such as HOV lanes and expanded transit routes, as well as rideshare matching services, that are included in a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program. 3.5.3.6 Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected impacts of redevelopment of other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated by developing an overall mitigation program. The mitigation program could ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate future channelization and signal improvements. The circulation system could include provision for a City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-88 September 2003 I gr de separated crossing of the railroad and other elements such as a street serving all properties west of -- th i BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings. Such a circulation system could include abandonment of Ripley Lane between the railroad and I-405 right-of-ways. 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3. .1 Affected Environment Tie purpose of this section is to identify potential and confirmed hazardous materials that may exist on or I ar and the Barbee Mill site, and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project design. The si a is known to contain contaminated soils and groundwater. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has b en prepared for the site pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and approved by the al shington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton. Scientific studies applicable to this site co eluding the Independent Remedial Action Plan) and available studies for adjacent sites were used as I th I primary basis for the analysis. 3.6.1.1 Regulations Governing Hazardous Materials H: ardous materials are regulated at the federal, state, and local level and are classified based on the laws , a Id regulations that define their characteristics and use(i.e.,hazardous or dangerous wastes, hazardous or to I is substances). Facilities or properties that store or manage hazardous materials or waste in significant q 'ratifies, or have released hazardous materials or waste to the environment, are required to report these , activities to both the federal and state agencies that regulate them. In addition, several local agencies p otect human health and the environment. F deral I i l T e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers several programs under a variety of regulatory a thorizations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive E vironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and the Toxic Substance Control A t (TSCA). The EPA maintains databases that track sites with potential or confirmed releases to the I e Ivironment. RCRA regulates hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are in a tive operation. CERCLA provides a means of discovering and listing hazardous waste disposal sites on 1 - - the National Priorities list, followed by EPA oversight or direct involvement of site cleanup. TSCA 11 regulates toxic substances, which are a subset of hazardous substances. TSCA was adopted to require e ialuation of new chemical substances and existing chemicals (other than pesticides) put to new uses for h alth and environmental effects. The EPA maintains files of hazardous waste management for facilities !I b Ised on notification requirements; defines the type of handling to be performed; and in the case of spills I o accidents, determines whether a release to the environment has occurred. S ate , ' E ology implements state programs that regulate hazardous materials and waste, in cooperation with the c rresponding EPA programs and regulations; MTCA regulations (Chapter 173-340 WAC) and Dangerous Waste regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC) are the principal regulations in this regard. Ecology maintains records and lists of hazardous waste sites, spills,and enforcement actions. 1 I1oca1 The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates discharges to the air from hazardous materials and waste sites. Public Health Seattle and King County enforce landfill and waste disposal site regulations. The City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-89 September 2003 i City of Renton municipal code includes regulations pertaining to hazardous and toxic materials, underground storage tanks (USTs), and activities within wellhead protection areas around municipal water supply wells. 3.6.1.2 Site Industrial History Shannon and Wilson (2001c) completed a search for hazardous materials in the area of the Barbee Mill site for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange DEIS. Historical and environmental records were reviewed, which included aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn maps, and a search of the EPA and Ecology databases. Historical information was also obtained from Hart Crowser(2000). The Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1)was first used as an industrial site in the 1920s by the May Creek Lumber Company and Railroad, which operated a dock and a railway in the southern portion of the site. In 1943, the current site was deeded to Barbee Marine Yards, which built and operated a shipyard to construct barges, tugs, and other vessels during World War II. In 1945 the ownership of the Barbee Marine Yard was transferred to Barbee Mill Company. Filling at the shoreline in the 1950s increased the site area. In 1957, a fire almost completely destroyed the mill and most of the early records were lost. The mill was rebuilt and operations continued. The area north of May Creek was paved in 1974, including installation of a storm drainage system with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Mill operations have since been reduced, and only limited cut-line activities are current ongoing. The database information (Shannon and Wilson 2001c) indicates that the Barbee Mill is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, and that the Barbee Mill site has been entered on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list due to confirmed or suspected releases of contamination to the environment. 3.6.1.3 Locations of Hazardous Materials and Related Features Buildings The sawmill (A), planer (B) and press/old dry kiln (C) buildings were used as fungicide spray areas during mill operation (see Figure 3.6-2). An electrical transformer "corral" was located adjacent to the sawmill. The transformers were replaced in the 1960s without (polychlorinated biphenyl) PCB testing. There are some small transformers in the sawmill and the planer building that have been checked and confirmed as PCB-free. Activities in both of the buildings required the use of hydraulic oil grease, oil, and welding supplies. The original boiler for the old kiln is still in operation, and is suspected of having an asbestos wrap. It is a dual-fuel boiler able to use oil and natural gas. The shop(D)was used for miscellaneous activities for mill operation and maintenance. The parts wash is currently water-based and serviced by Safety-Kleen; however, limited amounts of non-chlorinated solvents were used in the past. The dry kiln (F) building, completed in 1973, is used for lumber storage and temporary storage for small quantities of waste oil and antifreeze. The area between the shop and the dry kiln is used for steam cleaning mill equipment. One of the oil/water separators is located in that area. The stacker(G)operates by means of a hydraulic system and electric motor, and required oil and grease. A bermed area waste material storage area is located adjacent to the Boise Building (H). Latex paint, hydraulic oil, saw oil, motor oil, StaBrite P, antifreeze, used oil, grease, and lubricants were used in this area. The black building (I)has a concrete floor and is used for equipment storage, which includes wire, motors,metal,paper wrap, and latex paint. The warehouses(J and K)are used for lumber storage. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-90 September 2003 I /.y, • / 1 / fix', �/ •'&" `� / B J 4'? •j, , .� I �� �`1 J.H. B0.%TER ♦ J:, / / FI (NORTH) //' �`/'. • �• / ".„, <". ref .`f f ,/,•',:e' ,'/ '-. e‘tr.......... . • / / e,„,.„---------\\. . i. . J. .SER •, 1 : • , ..', ‘.,.<,, 4,4 , ,..,44 i ., •-, . \ a \1 OUENDAU. / /, TERMINALS 7(♦ t / ♦ S • 1 / r xba /ems' ,l 1 ;. v t oao. a\.., f/f, 11 . I - ° '''z ••.. 00.06.07•>/lettl A.":•••;,'',;iii;;;.-7 i �__.. 1. ` �. 1 i i '/// /N f 1 : `T._;,::mJ l :. _�- -� ff /V r jJ2 L-7-.0 ,i ` ; . 1 .- 1 — '1 ? 9ifRB�E r' --� t j:,'!/ / AQ'OpE l i t � �:;i ; I..,..._ .-7:.=1.1 i i MILD '-,_s=,� ., /,','''lip\ i / i e 1 • ! i } . I I ♦' ;� a t •i j `� 1 / / t''�*'• t t . i {JJ ♦ i t: tf Ax,-. V ..,,,,,,t'l , • ',T` !1 e too 200 400 1 Fru F IN FEET Source:Base Map from ThermoRetec,file 24385383 ` Parametrix Barbee Mill EIS 554-1779-017/01(10)6/03(K) ---- Estimated extent of arsenic impacts to ground water(Hart Crowser 2000) Figure 3.6-1 Site Map with •- - - - Estimated extent of arsenic and zinc impacts to soil(Hart Crowser 2000) - Adjacent Properties I 1 C IZ • ' r . ,,,7' 1 / * twu / - it • ! 1 / aDruA .0E- 1 1 • I i I I •/ r KZ - -T---/ \NN, PP"'diliEIMIIIII....., /. , , r <- __....----- \ #B\-- /:/ /:/ \ i�'M1� .a. J i �l 'fin r+ C`r '/ f A;' / f j / ,/ 11 . \' 11:,) 7 ' . f f r 9 / ( 40 // tY / --,,,, LAKE ��/ ,WASHINGTON I !/ t4f 'f i1 / • ; f g \ �} tl� / 1 A,11,k/ ;} it r rihr __ _.__7 7 1, /14/7 ---------(1 / //2,:////,/ ",,,,,, y , C/c- '5) (,,,,,,,_;,,,:,,e,,,, it // 3 0 , 7--- •_—__<----;i;;;-,',Vc, -‘ 1 ' Ak4 , AV MAY CREEK �r _ .�i% �� ` DELTA r, / f / p 'r .1 1 / / L./ 1------------- ..-_.__._ I / N 40TH ST _ — 'd. a / ,_________ 7._____L..._c 0•',,,7 Parametrix DATE: 07/25/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.6-2 Building Locations o 100 2lo ‘Er Building Mill Preliminary Plat For a brief period in the late 1940s, the mill used a new experimental arsenic-based compound to treat pilings in the northeast portion of the facility (see Figure 3.6-2). The mill owns a patent on an experimental water-soluble compound that contains arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate. Permatox 100 was used for sap stain control until 1978; it contains pentachlorophenol (PCP). The copper based PQ8 was used for sap stain control until 1988. Since then, StaBrite P has been used for that purpose. There were three areas on site assigned for spraying. Underground Storage Tanks Between December 1989 and February 1990, five USTs were removed from the site. The tanks ranged in size from 200 to 8,000 gallons and contained diesel, gasoline, fuel oil, and heating oil. Most of the site vehicles were converted to compressed natural gas after the tank removals. One 2000-gallon above- ground storage tank containing diesel remains on the site. Stormwater Outfalls The stormwater sewer system serves the portion of the site north of May Creek with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Two oil/water are in line for Outfall 001, which services the central portion of the facility. Outfall 002 drains the northwest portion of the facility. An additional oil/water separator is in line with the sanitary sewer on the northeast side of the property. 3.6.1.4 Site Investigations and Discovery of Releases Soil and groundwater contamination at the Barbee Mill site were first indicated by sampling results from ThermoRetec (1996) and confirmed in by Hart Crowser (2000). Concentrations of arsenic, zinc, and petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of cleanup levels were documented in soil and groundwater. ThermoRetec (1997) collected composite sediment samples from catch basins of the stormwater system and analyzed these samples for metals, chlorophenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total organic carbon, and PCBs. Carcinogenic PAHs, PCPs, 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorpenol, and a variety of metals were detected. Impacts to Lake Washington sediments from wood waste and chemical use from the Barbee Mill operation were investigated by Anchor (2003). The Anchor work concluded that total organic carbon (TOC) was the only parameter that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values, and that concentrations of PAHs and other hazardous substances reported by ThermoRetec were well below sediment screening levels. 3.6.1.5 Chemicals of Concern and Migration Pathways Soil Soils beneath the Barbee Mill site consist of fill, alluvial, and lacustrine silts and sands, and peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser 2000). The silt and peat layers are discontinuous and the sand layers become more gravelly in the middle of the site. Screening levels applied by Hart Crowser(2000)for soil were based on MTCA Method A and B cleanup levels for soil, the default groundwater protection cleanup level, and the Puget Sound background concentrations for metals in soil. The selected screening levels are not the lowest possible applicable City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-93 September 2003 levels for soils due to the elevated background concentrations of metals in the Puget Sound. The select sc eening levels were used in the 1999 site investigations with the concurrence of Ecology. senic concentrations were detected in site soils at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg, compared to the soil cl anup level of 20 mg/kg. Zinc contaminated the soil in the same area as the arsenic and in the tr sformer area next to the sawmill, with soil concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil cl '!anup level of 130 mg/kg). The approximate extent of these elevated concentrations of metals in soils is (shown on Figure 3.6-1 and represents a pathway for migration of contaminants to groundwater. C !ncentrations of metals detected in groundwater at the Barbee Mill site are discussed in the following se tion. L iw levels of chlorinated phenols were detected in the soils from a few borings in the spray areas,but no de ections exceeded the cleanup levels. No PCBs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the sampled areas. Groundwater D pth to groundwater at the Barbee Mill site is 4 to 5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow on th site is to the west toward Lake Washington,with a northwest component in the northern portion of the si e. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, compared to H th selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L. The groundwater plume extends west and n Irthwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the adjacent Quendall T !rminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below the site cleanup levels. Low le els of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of c orinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. Neither P i Bs nor VOCs were detected in the areas sampled. 3 6.1.6 Cleanup Approach and Schedule S a it and Groundwater e remediation program proposed by Hart Crowser (2000) and approved by Ecology (2000) for the B trbee Mill site is excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, and pumping and treatment of toundwater. Site remediation will include: • Removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc; • Confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base; I • Dewatering of the excavation area; - • Groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes including prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation,and adsorption; • Discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington; • Removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location; • Demolition of building in area to be excavated, and rerouting utilities in the area; • Stockpiling soil for loading and stormwater management; • Backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill;and • Implementing a groundwater monitoring program, and groundwater treatment, if indicated. II'iry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ !haft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-94 September 2003 Sediments A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, adjacent to the Barbee Mill site, was conducted under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program, with input from Ecology. Between 1999 and 2002, approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris were dredged and stockpiled on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded the Method B carcinogenic PAH criterion; these sediments are currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments stockpiled at the site are awaiting on- or off-site beneficial reuse. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003). 3.6.1.7 Potential Impacts from Sites near Barbee Mill Quendall Terminals The Quendall Terminals property immediately north of the Barbee Mill(see Figure 3.6-1)was the site of creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969 (Hart Crowser 1997). The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic compounds. After the refining operations ceased, the site was used as a storage area for bulk fuel and for log sorting operations. Other than wood waste debris, investigations did not identify any contamination from subsequent site lease activities. Detailed studies of the site history and operations have not identified any industrial activities south of the former May Creek channel (Hart Crowser 1997; ThermoRetec 1996). These studies, in conjunction with the hydrogeologic system and environmental media chemical sampling data, have lead investigators to believe that the soil and groundwater contamination occurs from the area of the former creek channel to the north. Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt, and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake levels has been conducted which shows a consistent east to west groundwater flow pattern beneath the site in both groundwater zones(Hart Crowser 1997). The contamination identified on site includes PAHs in the soil, dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL), and benzene, naphthalene and benzp-a-pyrene in groundwater (Hart Crowser 1997). Wood waste is also identified as a contaminant in the offshore lakebed sediments. The area of contamination has been mapped numerous times, the result of which is consistent with the area of historical site operations and westward migration to Lake Washington(Exponent 1999) The recommended strategy for remedation of the Quendall site involves removal of DNAPL affected soil near the shoreline and capping of the balance of the site to control mobility of contaminants and prevent direct human contact. For groundwater remediation two DNAPL collection trenches and biosparging are proposed. As part of the Barbee Mill proposal, a roadway is proposed to connect to Ripley Lane through the Quendall site. The alignment adjacent to the BNSF Railroad is contaminated at a lower level than the westerly portion of the Quendall site. Concentrations of benzene, cPAHs, and PAHs have been detected within the roadway alignment with higher concentrations to the north. Documented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that flows are primarily east to west. Contamination from the Quendall Terminals site is not likely to affect the Barbee Mill site. Groundwater is not likely to flow from the westerly more contaminated portion of the Quendall site to the location of the proposed roadway to the east. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-95 September 2003 J.H.Baxter Site The J. H. Baxter(Vulcan) site is located adjacent to and north of the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure I 3.6-1). This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s (Shannon and Wilson 2001 c; ThermoRetec 2000a). The chemicals used on site included creosote and PCP; contaminants are present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. Dioxins, PAHs, and DNAPL are also present on the site. agreement between Baxter and Ecology divided the facility into two properties based on historical use a d contamination. In the south property, contaminated sediment is in Baxter Cove, listed hazardous w ste (K001) is in the lagoon, DNAPL is present in a former tank area that that will be removed a cording to the ThermoRetec cleanup plan (2000b). The material will be properly disposed of and the ar as backfilled with clean material and stabilized. Capping the north property is the remedy designed to p tect human health and the environment from the low levels of PAHs and PCP in the soil. - D cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the J. H Baxter site would not affect the Barbee Mill site. P n Abode A potential site of contamination was identified at the Pan Abode site (Shannon and Wilson 2001c), w ich is located across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1). Two u derground fuel storage tanks were formerly located on the Pan Abode site. Soil and groundwater s ' piing conducted in 1996 indicated potential impacts to soil and groundwater from the former tanks, h toric use of wood preservatives, and metal slag in shallow fill. Additional investigations conducted in 1 97 concluded that chemicals detected in soil and groundwater did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels. D cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the P Abode site would not affect the Barbee Mill site. 3 6.2 Impacts 3 6.2.1 Construction Impacts 1 e of heavy equipment would create disturbed soil, stockpiled soil, and bermed areas. Dust, erosion, - a d sedimentation are impacts during construction activities that may pose a risk to workers, public health, and the environment if contaminated soils are encountered. 3:16.2.2 Project Impacts The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the Barbee Mill site to levels suitable for future residential use. Removal of the contaminated soil (per the Ecology-approved cleanup plan) is the fastest and most effective way to reduce the long-term risk from on-site contamination. Residual risk to future residents from on-site soils that would remain at the site is minimal because concentrations of detected compounds in these soils not proposed to be removed are below action levels. The action levels are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, contaminated groundwater would be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. The shallow groundwater system at the site would not be used for water supply. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-96 September 2003 Construction of the roadway across a portion of the Quendall Terminals site to the north is not likely to affect contaminant levels or mobility on the balance of that site. It is likely that remediation of contaminants within the proposed roadway, if required, could proceed independently of remediation of the balance of the Quendall site. Industrial use of the site would not alter impacts. 3.6.3 Mitigation Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to place limits on property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall site could be addressed by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to reduce mobility,to isolation from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway would provide an impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human contact with contaminated soil and reduce infiltration and leaching of residual contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The City of Renton, may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within the proposed right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a remediation program to be implemented prior to roadway construction and dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a cleanup strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as meeting the requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the north, must comply with the following requirements: • Protect human health and the environment; • Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700; • Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710; • Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410; • Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable restoration time WAC 173-340-360; and • Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600. 3.7 AESTHETICS This section describes the character of the existing landscape, the visual impacts of the alternatives, and the extent to which viewer groups in the study area would perceive the impacts. Photo-simulations are provided for representative views. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-97 September 2003 1' I 3.' .1 Affected Environment l 3. .1.1 Methodology, Aesthetics, and Visual Quality f j lie assessment of visual quality addresses both the character of the visual experience and the impact i upon the viewer. For the purposes of this analysis,visual quality and aesthetics are analogous terms. The assessment of visual quality is subjective, from the perspective that the human subject perceiving the I vi ual environment applies personal and cultural frames of reference to discern and evaluate visual in f ormation. There is, however, broad-based agreement in federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as�well as supporting research that establishes general public consensus of what constitutes a desirable vi ual environment. This broad-based agreement is the foundation of the process and definitions put forth in the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects Manual ( A Manual;FHWA-HI-88-054). V sual character refers to identifiable visual information in a selected view. The existing visual or __ a=sthetic environment is described using objective descriptors of attributes (such as form, line, color, and to ture) and specific environmental features. Relationships between elements of the visual environment ar- described in terms of dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. Dominance refers to the position of I a individual element, or its extent or contrast among all the other elements of a view. Scale refers to , a'parent size relationships between an element and the other components of its surroundings. Diversity is a function of the number, variety, and intermixing of elements in a view. Continuity refers to the m l intenance of visual relationships between connected or related landscape features. The integration of th-se elements into a complex characterization allows a more complete description of the character of a , v -w as a whole. iV sual quality is the assessment of the value of the visual experience of a selected view. This analysis u•ies FHWA's definition of three descriptors: vividness, intactness, and unity. Vividness describes the el morability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. I tactness describes the integrity of natural and human-built visual patterns and the extent to which the ! ; I 1 dscape is free from encroaching elements or eyesores. Unity describes the compositional harmony of ' e landscape considered as a framed view, much as one would evaluate a painting or photograph. This d es not imply that all elements are the same, but that they are arranged in a way that is pleasing or ! i i teresting. !ewer response is analyzed in terms of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. These two elements 1" ork together. Viewer exposure refers to the physical location of viewer,the number of people exposed , t 1 a view, and the duration of their view. Viewer sensitivity refers to the degree to which a viewer p i rceives elements of the environment and the extent to which those elements are important to the viewer. piewer sensitivity is affected by the activities in which a viewer is engaged; the visual context; and the v lues, expectations, and interests of the person involved in the activity. Sensitive viewers are generally r Isidents of the area and are engaged in elective activities, such as recreation. Moderately sensitive viewers are people engaged in other elective activities such as shopping, patronizing a restaurant, or a,ending a cultural or sporting event. Travelers and workers tend to be the least sensitive group because - of the demands of driving and the short time in which they are exposed to visual elements. 3,7.1.2 Methodology, Assessment Procedure I The Barbee Mill site and its environs were visited in order to assess the visual character and quality of ►i11 site and to determine viewer groups and viewer sensitivity. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Was reviewed for open space, pedestrian/bicycle routes, and recreation plans and policies. The site is City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-98 September 2003 , I I 1 1 zoned for use as an office and residential center due to its location at Renton's northern city limit and at a major exit/entrance ramp from I-405. Graphical simulations for key views were created to illustrate the probable visual impacts of the proposed alternatives. Key views were selected to represent a range of views from locations where significant numbers of viewers are present,where representative features of the existing structure and alternatives are present in important views, and where the visual quality of the views is high. The view selection process included field reconnaissance to locate significant visual features and landmarks and to assess the intrinsic qualities of the landscape. The fmal viewpoints were developed,reviewed, and approved by city staff before preparation of visual simulations. Viewpoint locations are indicated on Figure 3.7-1. Photographs for the simulations were taken at a lens focal length (35 mm) that approximates the normal static field of view of humans at the scale of a standard sheet size at normal reading distance. This does not reproduce the entire field of view perceived by a human observer, but it does provide an accurate representation of the scale of a structure in relation to other objects seen from the viewpoint. The simulations are discussed in Section 3.7.2,Impacts. Building heights were determined by whether a building is within or outside the line of jurisdiction of the state Shoreline Management Act. The applicant has proposed maximum height of 50 feet within the area of shoreline jurisdiction and 75 feet outside of the shoreline area. The area of Shoreline jurisdiction is shown in Figure 3.7-2. Maximum building height under zoning regulations is up to 125 feet in the COR- , 2 district. A 75-foot height was specified by the applicant at as a reasonable maximum for the duplex and town home residential proposal. For these types of structure, the 50 and 75 foot heights are conservatively high since it is unlikely that such building types would reach five to seven stories. 3.7.1.3 Existing Conditions The Barbee Mill property is situated on the southern third of the May Creek delta on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington. This shoreline had been periodically inundated and subjected to flooding before the Hiram Chittenden Locks opened in 1916, creating a generally flat shoreline terrain. The natural shoreline has been replaced by a manmade shoreline created with bulkheads and fill materials for i the length of the property that contains the working buildings. East of present-day May Creek, the landform steps up to a gently rolling terrace, then rises to become low, rolling hills. Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 generally follow the terrace and visually and physically separate the shoreline area from the residential neighborhoods on the surrounding hillsides. Views of Lake Washington from the wooded hillsides to the east of May Creek are valued(Renton 2000). Viewer exposure east of the site is moderately low due to the limited number of viewers, tree screening, and the distance from sensitive viewers. Residents east and northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 are sensitive viewers; motorists and cyclists on these routes are less sensitive. Viewer exposure from Mercer Island and Lake Washington is high due to the popularity of boating and the density of homes on the east side of Mercer Island. These groups are sensitive viewers and have a clear view of the mill site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-99 September 2003 QY : i VULCAN SITE '�• sZ ' SE 76TH ST 44/ off, Q � v � QUENDALL TERMINALS L .t 0 7 44T PROJECT / SITE . F •• Al> Q '` N •OTH ,' 21,E ` N 36TH --1 y • wy;i Z - ( ST W Lt 0TH ST I I :',, ' xA y• K' x .. •i;>, ,r'.:. .�. fir,.(zq. a ,y..,: .f. ;.:;;.PARK „t • NE 27TH Sr �ircc„ :.Gene Coulon,.'••. 70 Memorial ' 1- Beach Park : /33 Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) trAhN Figure 3.7.1 W Viewpoints I - i I ' 1 29,E .,. ...COR-2 ZONE ....�,w - it -if----, �.. .� IT-�. E. . f-_ f 1— —I f 1I— `: s. — STREET A”.,._ - . __ __— r -4 —„ •,\ r440,3_,_„, ,/, -.7 , , /,‘.. sw ' -.4. _ ... „id / . ... , ...\, v._ ,i 1 I Tract"B" �O NEE - `: / Water Quality f. G� / 'g/°'m� aI /j PUBLIC LAND Tract„C„ 0�'S`O :',.\ .f/. T L JJ 1 =� Open ■ '�- � l Space ' •\ W / • 1 / t f_ 200'SHORELINE i '_'''.—'1 11 w<• 111‘ \, s'- >7', •'.'5.' *\.:' r-, S /322 JURISDICTION .�. — "\ t BUFFER/Q ..'7 1 X ., /1/1 Z9NE/ - LAKE of il y L=• .�� OHW . .�.._ ,e _� .w ; , / / WASHINGTONi* b% ' f�/ •'r. a;f ,` g� v a / / Q' gl 1 -frat ��� Vie' /l+f= � l ///3%,,,70,.... /V .\ /1 / 4..•t , 200'SHORELINE 1 ` " " ,�`/ v 47 �ti JURISDICTION PUBLIC LAND 4.• /'/ \ ,----,..1.w.= r-s;'-'-- N : ./.4A \ i P �' 1 `�. _ MAY CREEK ANA4& `; ": e// �.DELTA . 1 , '" O;% 1. 1�7( m'j r .1 _ N 40TH ST .--_$_R 7.ONE -'..,.._. g J ': (t� :r.am sas;=r gg • y�rr',, mil' i 1 , Parametrix DATE: 06/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-7-02 iFigure 3.7-2 SCALE IN FEET1 'Alt 200-foot Shoreline Management o i o0 2I o ,m Act Jurisdiction Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I-i i 1 l The site is presently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the mill site are small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with very large structures. The texture of the mill and the north end of the delta is coarse, with large building footprints and a great deal of open area. The texture of the surroundings is medium-fine due to the small footprint of the homes and lots. Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and i slope steeply toward,Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. The area is moderately to heavily wooded, a feature that establishes visual continuity along the hillsides and lake. Utilities are above-ground in the neighborhoods and along Lake Washington Boulevard. There are no parks near the project site,but an existing bicycle trail follows Lake Washington Boulevard. The visual character of the site is industrial with highly diverse structure types and colors. Most of the mill's buildings are low, boxy, metal warehouses, painted white or aqua. They range in size from small sheds to very large open-bay storage or production buildings. The old mill warehouse is the only wood structure remaining from the original sawmill. The 1960s warehouses and shops on the north part of the site are arranged on a grid, while the new kiln, shipping shed, and a small storage shed are aligned with the railroad tracks. There are large open areas paved with asphalt between the buildings. The Barbee Mill water tower (108 feet) and the sawdust collection tower (approximately 60 feet) dominate most views. The south end of the property is grassy and open with only two structures: the 1960s office building near the entrance drive and the boathouse at the mouth of May Creek. Trees and shrubs have been planted along the new May Creek channel. On the waterfront, a wharfing pier extends into Lake Washington from just north of the sawmill building, and remnants of an older pier are immediately to the south. From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to screening from tall trees. The mill site is visible through gaps in trees, but it generally is not dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly intact because there are no incompatible visual intrusions. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides. The industrial operations on the May Creek delta (including Port Quendall) dominate the shoreline and disrupt the continuity, and hence the intactness, of the wooded hillsides. 3.7.2 Impacts Both developments proposed will affect the visual environment by removing all existing structures and adding new ones. The visibility of the new development will be determined primarily by the size and height of the buildings, but color and materials could temper visual impacts as well. Five visual simulations were prepared (Table 3.7-1) to illustrate the visual impacts of the alternative from key locations. Depictions of the gross bulk of structures were based on height, building coverage, setbacks required by city of Renton zoning standards, and specific commitments to height and bulk contained in the preliminary plat application. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-102 September 2003 Y i, 1 Table 3.7-1. Visual Simulations View Location Direction 1 Lake Washington Boulevard,just south of Ripley Street SW i 2 Lake Washington at 40th Street NW 3 Lake Washington Boulevard at 38th Street, looking northward N 4 Lake Washington Boulevard at 32nd Street N 5 Park Avenue at 40th Street NW 6 Lake Washington near Clark Beach Park on Mercer Island NE l le following sections discuss the potential visual impacts on the site and possible mitigation measures. - P oposed Subdivision and Residential Development T e proposed residential development would remove all existing buildings and structures and would +' co struct duplexes and town homes of four to six attached units. The vertical scale of the proposed d:v elopment is about double the height of the majority of existing mill buildings with townhouses up to 7 feet (seven stories) tall outside the 200-foot shoreline boundary and up to 50 feet tall inside the 1 b•undary. Footprints of the proposed townhouses are about 70 feet by 70 feet, or half the size of the t w. ehouses. Building density would be much higher than now exists, with only 10 feet between 1. b ildings and 15 to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be '-1 re ained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds and approximately 520 linear feet of i, p blic land on the shoreline. May Creek would be preserved and planted with native and ornamental tr:es and shrubs. A new road would be constructed from the north end of the property to a connection on ' pi ley Lane,just north of Lake Washington Boulevard. !I Fi L ures 3.7-3 (existing conditions) and 3.7-4 (proposal), illustrate the change as seen by motorists and l c lists on Lake Washington Boulevard near Ripley Lane. The low profile, high diversity, and overall o.�enness of the existing mill site would be replaced by tall, uniform, closely spaced townhouses. The visual impact would be moderately high because the height and continuous massing of the new to ouses would dominate the street and block existing views of the vegetated skyline of Mercer Island . d glimpses of Lake Washington. The visual character would change significantly since industrial metal b 'ildings in the middle ground would be replaced with residential housing in the foreground and 1. dscaping. Visual quality would depend on the site and architectural design, but could be moderate if 1. dscape and architectural designs create a development that has internal unity and coherence. V vidness for both existing and proposed views is low because there are no striking or memorable fe tures. —, I F.I ures 3.7-5 and 3.7-6 are from a viewpoint near 40th Street and illustrate the impact as seen from the n ighborhood due east of the mill. Visual impacts would be similar to those described for views 1 and 2. F oillm Lake Washington Boulevard,the distant view of Mercer Island's crest would be lost. Farther up the hi 1 the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings and portions of the existing vi' w of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. This simulation des not show the gateway to the development or landscaping along the roadway, both of which would likely be positive contributions to the overall appearance of the site. As with view 1,visual quality could i ii improve if the development achieves unity and intactness through design of buildings and landscaping. The presence of access roads and buildings immediately adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and the limited building setbacks provide few opportunities for softening through screening by trees. i • Ci y of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-103 September 2003 1 ; i' i I I as y c • ,I40 �ih S y, a � F.., �4.<. �,' . y� ,.'ya' 't fir- '•jri.f f.� a� /0 � �` r •-'' max , ' (p'w'>^+...a 5 ` $gg^ ,a+•r' .t VU/ 4*'!4-44.;;I',',41-40;h4,t,,,,#,.'il•A,I,c..''',;.'!"•;4*,, :',V),4•••,,_;.tt,y,''-,ilig„g:‘..,..,'1.4! 'it.:44.1.„. At...—% CO 1 2 � r 'br r� tt 17: may._ +y, -1„�." '���` ;s^• 1 -# C 7 ?'3v , #r 1 • d ''� ,j. +" t.� /.� 0 .1— 4— i ttg,,,,p'::,t, ..„.,..iv•kt- ,„.‘,..„-..4,6*,,,,,...•tv4.1:, *.:3„,,i4,,a;.:4,six.44:04%, *,:»A„,t,..14'!.:tc,%-,hio,N.,',..,.. ',4it_ IA''',14 A:•ca3•4,..4,-p7„,,,,,' 0 cs ,g r• €. x-. ,a" r. >� a -. ors _� d • 1 � ie �'° tr '' , ','is t�+ t .4 ,„%� ` 9 V. 'l as.4�r1',„,i " ,:4 r > a S+, 4;j•. y ''" • w * da _ E._ }..3 'I._ w,�„x ,*,- d r � t � r,��F"t„t "r�, -&i. z„ • • .,'*•.`x a•e _ > .."x c_ s .'"t''f.. y 'T,,1 Y{ ik '1 7�•....4 E' l ' ue •, �p t vt. r w ,�s-, s�^ 'f :a is ,,:•'',. 'l'' "7"' • . , - •..''i ,';',,,it., ,,p.,‘i'li,..:At,mot:..-', '",' ,,- A';',-,1,..':' : :\,„,_....= ''A‘,!.,',' £ - , >., - 4 = ;Aye ,a t,,44,,-',4':4•,4•,-i".,,t r\', ‘,Za' . r r• - ''.. ' •;ate: -. III (•. _ .?4--���' 1w.w{:i.: ._ a , ff. \ .... > �',a;;:.�. 5 ° \ Otis. ' a - +FEi%t" #to 3 L � �" t F Y U tj Cri) 1cd L 0 C E - J o. O d " aµ Y.y�«'" „ >3; -• 5,''i "if >s' t y ":i9r,}' y"' €s i wx^ •`, a. . a.F r ose ,, 4'. , �`" k* ,� 7 ,a'$),. 9.2. ! '.'; �+' , =z tu.1 � s` x r ti„°. •- "aa' "�, "3. L�tE�+ u.rn.§, e4 r5q �Ew4 ,< ac',X• *' 3'+ !: �+,.. �.>•• s :v " ar' '!"°''�c'x,*�,-'"� ",'tC '" a,sA ��rniz+�# ,; 8'R,. 22''j, r . i�: I ) ti„ 1,4 ,3vS.. :� �S 4 a °� 1,^' " , . 1_ }N� e � Rb� �• " � is M• co .—, Y S t -", N a Y'd zir'' i ¥ f.4 +'x 24"'d' i. �� � .. ,,,� .. '"` �" hr#•�, ,..4*t t. mot... 'a,8' � y�'.Y � 4/ ' _ '+ ''mot'''' 2 j`C 3•t i s X. " 'x f, �S�'-. ,,j'M i ,. ; .�t, 'k"Kj§Ck ti` i • 54.,f {', .k f j@ t ,,;',`4't � '? A'S. "!;[e1�. • ,, ki'�t ff . ! '' i(dea '°°{}°s" ' - lk i a+� E fetes � •ye: �f � �b�q+��,+Y",Y ,S• � '�4, q Y't 'r<: a Y'lE t `�t i:;z' .' ,.'P's ;� Yy:'x✓` i Y, a� '.'x#k� �t i' 'f< ¢ q, . , 4 '" " a°„xcY.'A''' ;,,, #,l 9' j @@ b^�s �".s, � £ s£ 'k Y'�#. •y t 1 P''�k„, F t sbu ' Oy ,. 3. °sR.,;.;' :� �, � s c ,�� ni � � °ia >,:; ,a�si ��`, • a'�As• a'' i �.� _ :�,+.• .a. ,t a' 3 �i `3gCi"5r'..>;',.`:dFa`,S:"p''; 3a , Y fit _S� .dr `. f ;r,-..:.1C' . s1ii s (' • ;;.r'£° ..4 >'b ::..',.°wo a;• _ ,,•J.,-;N 'S by .. s 1' `+i pj �.� J`'' ''rev <' ,'� � "�':a 4 �,'' ,:. _`< ,i , i � '* P 4� 3' 41' ,P / P n' �.,,,,A"' ',.:'?"',441;1'''''''-'A''':F1: : illi::,,.‘„,..,,,,,,-/„',,,, , ,,,,- )„... s ,� Ott.. °it.. S� `:. \ , -, -,•„.-... , a. '1T,/'„t,.nf,a° t �,9 : r''''',';',14',' ' -- -,---,-,-,-,"--- ;.-r, ,,:-,,''',\,,;,',.,: ',.:','':,/'','e'''‘:: '' .,,', , ,",'''t''''4.,•-'-',"''''''';-'%g5 ' 1.-2',','1-;-,,;:',L; '', '',-4:41,''''-',,,' IA ', .anti'. ° :,t `'' _ p', • r f,,,§::dw i""„ x,r y5 ' as '',�, k gf j ' .-[ -,'-•,,,, ' .. ,:-:',,'-:-.::-:;---',-,', ,, -, -,:,'-:, '„ '"••-?:','.,., ,-,,"•. .., -..,,-.; 1•;, ,,,;..,,,„.„4?-•::::.):",„ -ri l•:-''',,":!:',--,--:", ,--‘.--.1it,,;-‘,.-0,i,,,,,%,-,1;:. ,",., :•-;? ,r,• .;.3 1 g i dd � a+° . � <�E�" ram:;'nt,�r—rat.,'��ro ,,:. � �.:•i 9: �� � ��,4�<,. �• „ /,fix AS co i. t' . k 4,,,,.. 't PE,. y'npgt a.,.:4,,,, �', ,',' S S,'.� , p✓ v F tv" �• °`• "4 o»n '..,;?„,,,,,,,A,,,,,'a ; ,, «* " ,. I, „ ..»-t n, •" ' ,- ,aom -� i yU i.i : /)id ,, a 1 I N O C y xo w _ = ",p ._nx t x • #'z` F t �' E" °'r �€, -``S '< a�i,:;M'x,a"' 1 il it `,k; x^ x• *' I .�°,� e� 1iiiitAitg'kV).,3". ..rlDa,�.y.'�s.`�e°aw. fl r ,�,'y� ,*,'� ��. `y,'{ ;' it tie#,!:„.;:.,::::,, ' ,..-4,. ; -. ---':.:'44',,,,,,i .-..;;-,,,..,,;,'‘.•,';„,i-.L-'s-t-, ,,::,',.,:'‘,,' ' ,;:.14::,:-.,:.,. ..3.'.,.y„::!:E4:110:74,41,,k,:!::,74,06,..40.,:"...,,s,v,:.....,.,,,,,k,,,,,,„...,,,,,,,-.,,,,,,2 y •ce _` ix e C3 ; � ,, .. 5 •? . " t moo..� &a a'.,",,'k ^ ii 4•' .\O e .., a r . ' "` _ Q:yi4\ aMn;,: `{ 'f�_`" ; .: 4� 'i< ° 1. sgys E t r . � .: ,r 3 ' •' 'S• .f ' k �.x• p�m� • �i i v 1-i','N ,t :":":1 1.' .:.'4, 4-,,r-iNfi''''-'-'1,1,,T4,4'), T4,1'' ,'. \'''IkVii:^#, ''.1:;1.0',";',11:71',,.1.,. ,*StR • w te 1r ,<`• <_ f +;'. ^,',1 {a`, , aa ,\t._ ' g's _ , E `1 ° fia . o?,.„ .t ^. 2, yIqftfe p , \ �•W' £f �• mix \ £: ^ ,, ,r : s;'r'x,•,` .' < Ia - ' .. "•emu a•t , 4, ‘, . ,,,1161f., :::. ..,:.:At-,1 1 ; ,. : a ''ei„a�'ryse.asv a+• \•.S ^' y 1. °�'� � �' � x b 0 1 1 '''-i'',. ' ‘.,1!4''-;:°•-**,;, ''''''''t'",:••• •..-' ''','-':-'''','t-"•;‘,Ni:i':,':..,.'':.'::::..;'27'7;•F',','' '',„ ,•t-ot ,,,,,'., •i;:''',-..--'i',..:',',,*.i.N.,1",fe'.. A, NZ'l7.;,',;04ktitk,.;4L•'4 1. • ,,,,f,,....2-0,‘., ,,Nsik', ,--..i‘ •''''.•‘,"4••.''''.:-14'.'•'--',.,•••••',?:-:'''''''''.:-:: ';., ''.",,„ ;,:.‘,'• - 1 .`"IA*"iiiii, ,.,,,,v.,-,,,,..:-.1 .,,,,,;,-.:,\Ilviiiit4 , 1 t,i,,,4„,k,41,,:\*,„4,,‘,::: „...,-„,,,,,,::,,,i,;..7."..„ 2,,,::::.:,,,:.„,.......,-,:„,,,,,-,,,,,,,-,:.„,-, v... „ 1 4.,14• IN':-.":"k: ''','At.st ,',`,'.‘4:*:: ''..,ik''.t.1''':',Pfit s':'Z: I' • :W04:71:. ‹Z‘•'''''''. ''',ZV''''S''''';'e, ••'•, ':•?•':'''''''.7''..',''' ''''.' •':S'1,:,,,': ',i- ,,, ... 1 i . ':: ','''4+,,k; :, :'-..):w:,, , 74%'-•. '''itiklEM14. .7 .. � �� \ `�,'<r`"g Y♦ `{r'. i P .' <a." i,'�, A 5��•:S 4 a\� ,ail . $ •f.' p j �,\\\ � i..,�,z�• �.�, i„ �,k3.2"t ,r .'t6J-�+ \ \�, p\�'` �'Z..a o ,'- -' j tit1:\u� ' �c •"*7-, j ,' *." ` :,,",Ao+'t t4"« •. •ti y 'N'•e 3 h' e�:g� .pia • °�•� �' '��T � a*�,�' y •\ �s. ®�\��', pia ro, i . `" €� ,*fit, CC f:w 0 n Lam- fr�-' ,_._-- , —- A — `t } { s }i I ,; .""'�i'i.ads. .' .,^ ;y/'.n.%' °' y '.:if %,y°, ,,rr;.>�; . —W-.a..a.,...,, a ...,< , 4- ua`1'j r +rf" • may.^ .,,1?,+%j,� z,° .xs° "'`% i,; "qFe •• -", va ..d a " " F ' ,,^ ' „",. ,� '.', . ';'' rrr, ,: �: .. ", '.„y�' ': ..'' ii• '' ,:'fie` t: , ..:, � / .. � .,, , ;,�,,�,�>r, ... ,r., .ram .rr,v ..., , i�., ,�.'" � .6�. .r ,, ,J4xa' e,yt,,:4^ir ,/'b,: i„�i�','q;, y l5': �" „ ;7', ,2'�/(s y, muy?'«,_ , - • - : f° " - � fi ' %- : " .,k, 'e' ;:e >v r ` :s "" ; • r. • • :Tr O„ 's;cx�Y < ,4 ' � " i," j x ,- fi S» fi ,Y y� o r il '.'„i'. ,- e,8 . <,ws: w - ., <',1 y �i <r." '1'Hfr 1 iS': .'..- .,;;,Jq-: ii, `%,Vr�- z„ .. .Zm-'^. "r:;. ..<"7 ',i . •t ` y9v^� ,• > - r`-' .,4 n3r1+ 4 i'/,` AE.Vi' /j r 7; "'a$..r.L;r:'-: ,,.,. , '"y ri r..;y•.: : •A't. i' '.f:' ", ,•' r 3, / ' r r�r'"' ,yj .. ,:,, "kr•, 4. J:. •` .'et -- ,.'.• "S r... s ' ,.// /3 . may :f, r.. v S r,�f f+r� ', p , � i )y"7^yi a r. h- - ''. .: 1 a .r / ;jNxa vi' tik! :SX ( as' r*. wry/.. ,4 4 ..; ; , ,T *;lit','' , r ,:, ' ' A.fm »a'�''''`.., R i »i^ *': �} ,.�, , � 9yw' X y4 °4,',' 'cu L/r M,,!,^*n'e - ,.1r-",, " 4' M:l; K" }'�P M' y. c " ,✓ ry .¢, ,r°t ,ft,,:,- ` ar s..: ' rZ' s .. x: ,.r. r.? �� .x�y$N nm+ss. _ .: .,�',r^" b,,,�,r9 'x ip '"w�l' '_.�;.' Y-..,` _� `. ��`• • F. • n. il,''€'" n•r,,Ae Al )c y. :''W.""' /u.:00 416 '. "y"/> ,,: ,, ,'';I'"'e X, "Qy W 'i i� t:,,:'f s t '" `x x, F', .4 r . ;ry ,/,>,": ,, ,F,c. ' 15`' >,' Y,7,". r , ,, <J r ri y'qq . 4 .. rrq r> *� .,7* ''' ,i .• gyp: , 4A «'�,,� a,* • ..., , +, t, . ,ry,Gx�f, 4,,,,Y' > ,,,A:y, i r�,.;,5, s 1, - R', ,y y ,z,,..�`n, e ) le. ''w. `�, . Y , ' ' - 1" :;. F' f,£. kr „ ,,i,;, ?'', e r•';-';. t, " ,44:� f,,` `+r,7 <° - rr.sx44 .y<. ., ,�, ':yr F i �. ar"r `;' z,' , -' of y 4 r, x.. ,J. 'i ,.^e ,w w,,5 .mow s f r ,s r r p ., v ,,e,i4: *" rr °! t fix -�` is �5 "v !",ui1 . '� ..g;9 `; tom, N ;,i ', s : ai +< 4, , . r„., „� .r'y.. ,s e "' -f:r/ ,s/'tww °n r y. 1.Stag` i«, .r,r.�. „�'�i (1.,: iy #,,7, �siw s " ., 'r '"�'� �`"`+iq` c.'+`,i's•. a�' " •! 'd` �� -,,Y« ,.', :f x+,.,?„. igkagn .or`4. .w iEF' .� s .#.. t hf 1"-C s :a ' =F,v,„:4e ,,t.,,, - �' �. <� Yws '! .yl, :'t r-Y+ ..� - "k'�" .4., r >'".:-y. -'t<, .'a .b :Y.',,w. .' "l.:« tf:e'"':f � 4%,,,x" r "Pa-„, r +, �° r '.� ;,;1;..-,4A *,".- t,-„, ¢ x,`'` v,,7;.v. ���;�,, ,r „";� ,r�;y,��. ,t«t f � r �„�` >.'r'�w '�.: .� r�� 'r ;: +�..•'.`;aaa�.',��,,p'`:.�4- �=�''-, -' �- ,,>. . t s ...1 r e i"°` ,:t; Y r ly ! , .a. 3 x t -x. •w :7. ::7':e :y, si<i ,i't 1.1 r; '1 ,,r. y, ,�,M••r ,, l' .4. y, 4 .x:r�! ,' F y� ,.i 'x<4�.3r- -"'s' -,-.+:.'-_:.r`^y's. ,s---, • Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3J-6 View 2-Simulation liar as seen from ofDevelopment near 40th Street 1; 1 Fi' ures 3.7-7 and 3.7-8 illustrate the potential impact as seen from the neighborhood near 38th Street south of the site. This view represents one of the intermittent scenic views of distant hillsides and Lake Washington presently available from breaks in the tree screen. The visual impact would be moderately high because the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and north Mercer Island. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that is ' isible. As with views 3 and 4,this illustrates a change in visual quality available to motorists on Lake `' ashington that currently enjoy an almost continuous view of the Mercer Island skyline and intermittent vi ws of Lake Washington. The scale of the proposed buildings become a foreground and middle ground - , fo us, as compared to the existing sawmill buildings that are lower in elevation and smaller in scale. V ual quality is likely to be higher than indicated in the simulation because the corridor along May `" s C eek, which is between 20 and 25 feet wide can support screening and softening trees and other la l dscaping. 1 Figures 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 illustrate the potential impact from neighborhoods near 32nd Street. The new development would have a low visual impact because the site is part of the distant view, and tall trees , o s scure the eastern portion of the site. Both existing and proposed views retain the dominant features of -, th- Mercer Island skyline and intermittent views of Lake Washington. Because of the small relative scale o'I the proposed development in the distance, the visual character would remain essentially the same. A U ditional landscaping incorporated into the development isn't likely to change the visual impacts much 1 b:tcause of its overall minor role in the view. i Figures 3.7-11 and 3.7-12 illustrate the potential impact from the hillside neighborhood southeast of the 1 si e, near the corner of 40th Street and Park Avenue. Visual impacts here would be low to moderate d-lpending on the viewer's vantage point because Mercer Island skyline and distant views would not be o obstructed, but a portion of the lake and Mercer Island's shoreline would be. The change from an i I•ustrial operation to a residential development could be perceived as a positive change. The overall b ilk and scale of buildings is not as intrusive as for views from Lake Washington Boulevard,but is likely t. be perceived as a substantial change from existing conditions. The dominant element in the view will remain the Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington. 1 e most significant visual impact would be from Mercer Island and Lake Washington (Figures 3.7-13 'd 3.7-14). This would be a moderately high impact because the bulk, height, and scale of the d lvelopment would be greater than currently exists and would fill the entire site, although the existing buildings provide an almost continuous view from the distance. Construction of new buildings would not bock views of the dominant element of the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual `' ir-terest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land b ltween the inner and outer harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new b 'Wings. Docks, if provided for shoreline lots,would be a minor feature and not visible from a distance, c mpared to the bulk of the buildings. i' e view from within the development would likely be that of a dense urban setting. Building heights , (10 to 75 feet) are greater than road widths (30 to 36 feet), creating a canyon-like effect. The 10-foot s tback from the right-of-way and between buildings will add to the sense of enclosure and limit views o�it of the complex. Views across Lake Washington can be had from the 24 shoreline lots and other residents using the shoreline open space. Views of the May Creek corridor with an expanded buffer area vu;ill be provided from about 40 lots. About 48 lots will have front views onto streets, although 20 of `' City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-108 September 2003 1 „ ...,, ,• . . -..r.„. , ,,,,....' .4,---/-, A./,,,14,-•':;' -':...” rf4ffscf, 4,' ,72/ff,W4116111ri-7-w,,i44v,f, , ... ,,,f<z•f ff04,,,t,,4/'/,,,, ,,,,,lf,,f,,,,,iff:If„.;,,,,,,,ft-K:,4,,,ff '. .•,,,-,;,2, 4..,, ,,, • • • :47,,,,,„0,,„,,,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,...,,,,_ .4,,;,,,,,,„..,,v,, 7.,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,.,,,,, , ,,,..,,,,!..,:, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:.,,,,,,‘,.;,. "'rt‘,'-'''':4-, ,,',77-,,,-",,'-r:::,,,'"„4-.:' -r,.•,-4-:','•:,',f,A,.:-'f--',--44 -', t- te,--,-* ,,,,,,,- :,...t:T':''''',:',/,..:',-;':' V0,-. ,-.5,-24 4,,,,:,,,:,:„/,,„•,', '''',:,,.; .;,„7,,, t,,,.,,,••, ,4', ' 0.,,,,,•,,, •,,, ,-,-. -, -' .r.,' ''' 4,' '''./ ''''' ' ',/•-f r., /-/-//',-- 4,‘•••.0'‘,,'' -1,"f.'k, %.*1,",:'• 1%',4' ''%''Y! "•,,-,;',4-,:'-,I*W*.;,,':',::'ili:',41*T3'::::',4.*AP,.*, ':',',,,,*,,, ,:';.,.. ,;.;,,,, ,, ,; ,, ,.;',,O.,,,,-„,,...,,, , -, - — -''',;,.,..4., ''''.:,',*/;P,/ ,'1* :,'fx/: ",, , /‘e ''''''',%0S', ",'fr,,,,,, ,„,...,,ari,,,,,,,,,,,-;:-,:t,.,:,;41,..,,,,,,,trtr.4,-,, ,,,•,.r,,'..,,,,,,r,-,,r.,,,,,i,rt,„ , . .::,-,:r.r,r2:',, '- •, ,, ,-,..,:r.,r.qm, - ,-,r,„--. . : 4.,-„,--,-4.• •'''', 71;i5,',',r; 'f „,, 0:-,4',;'„ fr„:7'..,:„.-4;,. ..ii,,,;:f,;!'j'.-,i',:i•1'%-,r,ofi*,‘,",rlPs',y k.,4°,'1,,'.;,,',4 t,t„',.„',,,,,,'t,,4,,';',,4,',O?-;.!,,e,,',,„P.,;,,':'We,,;',.,,,,/,A,:.'.!,/,,,:.i,„,44',,,,°",,,-,A;O,,,:,•t4•„f,,--,,,•*,,,.•„:•,,„%,,.',,-',,,„',,',',.e,e,,,,,,,',,'0,%-'',;'44':'.,*;",;,,'*,.',,r',,,T,4hs,,,(i:41,,,,,,*4,44_,.e-,„,„,0k::,7a,,,-,,.,a.l.'..:,,;''.;.;e.„r,4rt e'ifr,,,,f,,.,,..,c1.7-,i,0',4,„l,',".';,.,,.;,,;,,,,;-',,,,.,-,,',,.,,:'„';.y,.„,r,'.',;;;,„•y,,;,14ft.,,1,•,F",.,,,,":,',:,,,,2,,i 0„,i-,,t,,r',i,,,,":,,;„,-5.,,,,'f;,,':i.,-,*.O.k,W,.,-7•-,",•"":,t';-,„-",'1(2,-"•'.i,-,1-','."-'';,'/-.;.';,',,‘,.'-',.:%3,,•i,:,.4'.4.,r.'-..::.if„„fIZ'„iA7:;,,1A,.7kk4,V<-*:r*4‘-X'*,*5.g"#7.4,:"t,*;1 r,,,t3„'-t',''-J,'',;-"Z.,,'1'.•,r'.,•'",,,..-,.*t-t,,.,:,4i,,;-r'k•-,.V'':1%,'4*,:4;'';4,'4,,z'';,:,',"4'1,.:'::,:4,Z-„'-',,"'3'';,''5„;r:'"‘'',,,'„'.!I-.A'•S,.„,:'.'t:',1",,'"„''•''4',-i‘.",-'";'074:,r,;:,'r'';.,,1.,i4 4,72;,',*,•,•`:„.:•,,;-,,-",,4;';,:'.,,:,,:,q,:V.;„,,,:,.,,.,Pf:,I,,:,.t-,.-.r,i,Mf".-;•,-,,4:s,':*:t'-„,‘!,*1,;•?,r.-,.fr„:,-•4'-e-„,e'',,%,,1,*%,.;.,%';*•;.',>&-.-,r..';,„•-:,°;';,*-,,,-'',:'."-',,ef-,.•;''.•.4."...4-•p..:,4.-.',z•-.t;i"'`:,;,,.-V',,-*,''.',..,,,.„,,-,":1,'4,.,-,.e,;.•:'','-.7':,:',4,,.'-S-,'.-.1•.*•,.'."t 1*„'„4:'•,,-,,,1-.•--:",.:1',-,,J:';,„;',','-.'-'-''`'7A''fi.,';-,:,,,,-,:,,,,,,,,:',•,.',4,"•,,,„,-1a.,..C,,,,,,.‘,4,,''*0'''•,,'..'',,1*„'.,:,.:-,,,':,•",,/'1,',w',''.-!""j 2.",,A,:,,,',,.,,:,,',,.',0i„,•-,,',-%„i;..,.',:;0„'1/-.:,.,:",';.''*-'",*,:,:''"-'.4,„s,-,:-:.:::,r.„":.,,-,;,::„,.4,,:,;',,,,,7,'4',,.;,,„t•';1..T',,,-.'..,4,.:..;•:4.-?;-;4;:',4'-,-;,,,'*;;''':',,J,,;,;,'-.;.,„-4:.,,'-:--z•-,'•,,,:,4,,,'.:,.'.'1',,„;'',;.7,:.;.„-,-z-',-','„,,.:.,,',!,„';,,!,i.,,'..-,,.i;`9,:7".44',,-,'•'.,`.:'"1'',w•,,,.!5.%••,,,*;.:.,',,4„,''•.',.1,.'r;7.,`.;-,:‘,4.,y,::4'.,-'',:'0..-.'.:',A' ,.",,y.';.,S.1'•,,-':'','-,•,•,-',,,,,..-,',i.-..,,„•:.;:'7.,:,,,,A...0'r*I,i;:,L.,'.,4t5-,,•,,,*'4e,,..,,e..4,.:''„:,r';v.:,..:V,,:',.z,'.',,';.'.,",7r",,,,,'^:,,-,,r,',,,••,'•'1,:,--:''',,-''',,'„'i"',::.1''•,4'.,,:,4-',."1-'.•'.."'.-:1:,4:•f':',..,:,*.,,,,.'\',.-.,,,.,.-,,,z-„t::oe",.•,"*/.'•::'.„.,.,.,.:-'^,.,..,',•:'.-':',,.',,k-',';-,-,•4':--.;.`7 " , i , Y 4 *;,"-.!`•`:;,.,,-'.4..iX''',•.'::*'.*._°„.'X„'^.•:,:.„-.,,•'-,,,.V;1'.'.V4..,'-'',,,-5'7,,.,:..„„.,'''',,•.-•',',-'- ,•;';'':,,'''(,'A-;,.,•'',:•,:',,"",;.,•4':•,'S:•;„,"-,,,7.,k2'tz.-,'„•',4'',-,,.;,.1-;,,,-,5:'•''',-;1" k % ,'•',;,• ,'^.'''2'•.:- ••.' :,-;'''': 3' ' -,1* '"'"4:'-` ':/:,:* "-;A.r.,--':,. ,,.':* ,-',,•3 ''''',*.,-",,,e,..:. ' .:,,...-.',.',, ,,,,- ,....!-,-,,',"; .,- '•.,,..2 ,•' ' ,-'''-;.:---'&,,,,,x,,,,,,,,,CA.M.111+ ,14:** A‘',` . ., .. .',L.,' ''.,'11-.A,‘7.„'''''"'':':4 '''f/ ',,' '-,'.',,:::,;,.7' :':';' ., :-*,,-' ',:-:, :,; °,',.*,'„.'.,..`: , -', ''''',.' , ,,,,,',' ' ,:'''.!"`:':,,,-„*.:•.;,:,,,,-:;,',,,:,;:7':A,''.*:':';', It.-,, "t-. **.•-'4$C7'''4.170,,e1;,,,,,`:..-'''.f., ,',- ret-t4''..,,„*,. '''': ':, ,,*,':, '-'i,?','' ..04.; ,:',”,.''•:,,'',-'---•';:e:,*:-.::`-',,,L',*,.i ::, ‘,• ' .:':``' ' -",:,, ''.''''A'',..!,- ' ''' ''':../,'',.:' ,-, ' -,' ',.;:' - ',,,,,-,A•s-::-,' ..;-79.i4.--",7.rfor's ,.-4:;::•:,.,i'y 4-, i7;e4k4.,":',,,r.'-' ," ..-? ,:: ,-.41.-', ;' ',, '-'.',. .,'-7...::•:-:,,„:`,"-,-.-'.'-„,'-: :, '',,,',::::' r'",-'1:::..,--:' • •„ -. .-- ..'„i-4--..-..,„,.`:-,•-,,s 2,,,', •7'',.•-•,4;,r;,.....-i:,,,-;,;t„qf.'-*J 0-!,,r-..:,::- -,,,,,y: ::, r..4.: . „ •, • t-.----- .,;.,-,•;:-.-,--,,-',- ,,,,, - -'' -',:;:w-;;,r„, ,„,,,,,,:;,,,t.,,,:;,.-,t, ,,ttrt.„‘-.7:-:•.ti„ , ...,:.. ,-,,. ..,,,A4 7,vi.,34 ° ' 'e ,'"'f..':.,' .: .;.''' •• . ".,-..- ••, ;-•, . :,„,„ 'v.:7'..•'.,t •,',..:'''-- " *4-"i.;`$!:,'-'. '".?....- '..; '''',.'" ".' -'-' •-;, 'r "''''', '...•„': ,- . -,-', .-.';---!„, ...', .'':..•' .--..'. ,,. .'n;:-.'"-•';.')'''•- ''''''' '4-:-4 • =::',f.'' -. • •A 1` . .4,ipt...,',.. 1,• . , :<1-,4,-,2f,i..-..•: ..*:'. . •' •,° .,•.•• ''4.:,‘:•; '', '.. ':',•C;--. •.:•.-..-".".-- ,„'' '„';•' f.4.i•---- -,;"'•"- (....i •--'", '.40fi*:,4 .„...,-„,•• '. ..,,,,• ..4i''' . •,, ' -- ).-...4 04 17:.2.411:;;-42'''.-','.:•.':•-' 4-:-::;:; :':,':'• '; : •-:* •:' :-''' ' - ..'''.-',-.' -:-.' ' ''.- -,'..'t .•i•.f. ::','.:, „.ife'."-. :11,4e.t.4-1;,=:::.. • . - , I- : ..* - . -., ,. -: -,*' .4.,.": i,tf • : "';?...-'* ' .1`''''' ) ,:„., ...,,,,_,.......... ..,,,,,, ,;',. ';'„ . .• .. ..4.-:,;:!...::,,•., ,,,,;•••,,:lit-•,'-•,,, ,• ,-4.,,x,r,„;.„ .. ...:,,,,m....:.20„,,.. r, .„, , ,, tort.o., •--- .... . ,. . .,, . % .. „. . ,—,,,,--•,- - tkvt, ---- ' •--., '' -'0.* '-. --.0t '- '• - . - ,....„,-, f- -e• . Vi ,...--, -. - ...f.1077.- • • -c-faii--;ef- ...$6,.... . ..4, * .11,.''''',',.,,,,,„,......,m.'m'" -,,"/", . * - ' '' ,,,....4! tr*.`.",,, ..,,,.., .,.,,,,w, 4,,,.r„,,,'',A ,'4%,',,, ,4 .i',„,': '3, - 4-iv„,,a,-,:',...'-'• 0,.. .-4 ' r '• ''4•.' ''''' — .."***".* '' '"******': ' '"`-'*"*"•i•'''''''' ;'***.' ' 477* 47•'"4*%•':',•41t• '.','''''''',..:A: 'fr;;I:Ore;'''';'''''''',‘'.4* ' ..A5,-..";,.•-• 0 -r;t":„isir4,tcs,,I,,,•,•.„:A4tet--.'7..,,,-,!,;,,,,,„0.-•••,,,,,--„,,,,,,,s,„,;?, ,7..'•:,q,,,,, -,-- ':„..4,"•-••,,,, :,,,,••..•.: N . . ;.-.7,.,,;.,g, ,;;;,,,,:„, . ,‘, ;,,,,‘,„,! 'b,.• ,,,,,,:„. !:,-- ;0.',44,„.' „,„,:';::--1-ji,,,,,,,,•;;;t=„.v• • , reao •Jvcro,,,,-(,,*, ",.,,,,„ •,,, ,!,.;7„.„,,,,, ,,,,,,77„,:, ,,,,.. ,t,,,,:,,,j.. ..,:,,,,;., ri.••;',-,1! ' .*(A, 4,,,,I.f.'S''‘,,,,g4..".k;',,ia; '-,;;i','•*;,A*•5‘.• ,,'-',.*- ."*. ;lir;•"•:1:7-.7••':-'--- '''''.;,:rt•tr;4;'•::ii'• ',"*:;.•,: i''.'":-`:;41;••i.':;1;,,,';,;-_*-•',.o-,. tr''''''''''.f':'A''Ft••*k-•,._„,..,:f,,,,,,f';''4••'•• 1::'''''.1='" ' 4 . ' ".$07,-••.-"--!•;--; '•/'• '4',C•:,',- ,•;--76'>4-, ;•••''..,,,,, .,'-'•.:';:•,.."f7:',41a,:Zr,•:. ': *le„".*:•••;,,,,,,:•,0*,'''.• :•'''',"••1„..•;.;., ,,,,:•••••-;;;;;`jv4..,-Try0;•t•A,-,1-4.g,',, ,6,,oe;,-,44,_,..'-,-we-7,-,41,„. ."...-.•'....„;, ,•• ,,„ , ,,,,,-.,,, 417,4,,,'''',..,,,•,4',,1,-',-VC...,,,466,7,., , ' 1,4,, 4„,,,,,''': ‘,,,,‘,,,..*.r!,4 --",' ,, „;.,;''';',,, ,,,,,,;,.,/ ,'"-”'"'"*:-',,tiai-ei:p---'%1'1.2....'-',. TZ'A'" o.''''-''.1;, ' ,,.•,•,,,,,,44-;.,,,,.-i„ ,*.....A.; ri,,,.; ..,,,,,,,,, ,.,„,it,,,,,,,k, •,„il,„i!,..: ,,i, -,:,":3-r.,:,......0..,-40.-.::,,,„ .. .,.t.,„4.71;-•„v.::..„::/*'4'''' • „— -' ,,,,*-re'."-„k'',',••••"•wt; :::..,...,1•,,,,' ...--...t...-• to, •• '4,..,‘,11,...‘,44.4...t,-#., • ,.."'v--"...‘,":.7.„kr"..-4"--% I.,.* ."."..... .f. -'• '' ,z•. ".4„..,;•,41- '•%--,-,,,,.:;‘,0..;--‘; -,.-.; •''''%,'","•'-' ';'",i'-••','•*.•"I'' "•.,>ii,.c,;',•-•.'';••‘•- ' '24't"..' .'",'''•?,x4' .1,':%-*43 - ".•1 - .!1:P..,0 *-'r. P.,:t e•'',”'”44,4,..:1'.. .„^”'''',"''"::'.. ' '' ' „ " -,4.,.4 'f;f4g,•-•fi'';;,;*.?..4'..0.-•_„;,'.-, ',I.' ,..• ' -,''''.;/,',3. , '---,-N...' , ,;,"*',- -4, '.:, . • ',,,,i,„..,17,14..;,,,'''•:.-„•:,',,,-%..;,,,, ,,,iilt,-;k. ,:4. '''' r#,-;;1 ," .,• 7,,r.-•-';:',. ' ' "i ",-,,,,"4.', .,', ' '---,-(*`-'. ,G00"i4. .*,•I'.1 V:4,-')..i'.6--i44,P,1*:-,...-•'• :it1'.',. -4- i,,tv4r,:12%,.*'• ' ,Vi';',':-;' 04'; ,'''' /),• •• •,,,-,' - 'ir'•• "/4 / '.7:i' • ; 4'' '/ " '-•0-4 .,/,""FP' -v4,.,. *. ... -%.4,4111:3•"'...-,".:, ''.. .`t• .a...1'. • , -.' ''''':'..AA' ;'•;.Afir"',/•'-",-, !•'•'" '' ,. '...-.2',4'' •,,,410.40,,, '':,•••,• • , •,- •.,f,.... ,<;•'.i.',.0, -;;.,,,;r /•'-• ,i,„ ,,'‘,,,,,, -.• ,,, N.,4 4.11.134r,,..„4‘,`.,,N41. .::k;,,. 1:;„ ',"* ; ,v-ifr,----- ' - ,,,;, , _ ,,-,-47,;#");,•:•#`4;, ' ' . - '•;"•"''''-',.X.,•**.4,•t:t •?,:e: 4t.r.".";:i'Altftt,":1',"• .:?; '.,r -...,7..,„„.4.:',4-w,,,-,'•'-,* 4..--" „,•;,,,,, r,,• . - -/„,,„ ,• , ,.',.', ,4,,,,,,,,-____. ..1,•:„.,;-.,',,,,,;',:,,,,,-;;;,,„‘h,...rz,-;:-.,:. , Q.,,..„ ',.•„':, -,,..,.4 ;,..4,-1,..4.•,r NV. .!.•:.': *Tcri• ;''''''''' ','' ,"-.'' /. .,,,,,,e,,,. -04,'Woo,' 4,4,1),-,',,'„,' ,•'...,•/4, ..,-/,'‘. / ,,,,, ,,,',-.':.- .,-•'f'' ,,t i'‘',', ','..,,f•',.,‘,.',"1‘;'':-4'4,;.*;;;P';':,?...."'"''--,i'''''.')54,1,:il:;;;F.'„,,, :.,,e':',''''1,' ''" '' ''''0‘' '1-"'"' ''/,„.4091tiaig,74# ".4''/;;',";`,"-., 4',fi'47,'"..1;;',;4',0? y.-,.0 ,•, .,,,,',,,-,,:,,,,./.11÷,...7,,,';%:,'%',.‘:z,,,::,,,,,,,,,,ri„.>,/,*,,,•,p/k*.•*•.*#-111:,•,..;,•,*„..,,,•;;,:„...-A1/4;-:,::-',C;i,.,-;'-'.•••',' 1#1,4'" -"'"*; -LI,' •,•,-;:tr',/,‘,•77 .474.;•$7,%*";•,‘,44,,i*•;*;'.; •,„.;*-•54,11ory":,,,;"0"tV , „,•:„,„„,f,,,•;,,;;;.,,,ft:,, , •,-,,,•.:,•'**',,;, •:•;...V*,t,,,,,o,,,,,,„;i,‘,„-Jot-T.: :,,,,,',.;::-;,,,,*--•.i' ." '*;,,, ' , ,,,,,%4,47 ;fie"t 444•„" lefzi4!:;,4-,4;,,:„;-$7,3,;,,:,,:--q,%,,,,,;,-,,,,, ' ,e,,,,,,,,'0:,,,'.,,,,,,,,Y,',:44A . ',-;„', •1 :*:(, ..,--X.'‘,.,',!.-,--. 4,- ,',,:,,T •-...-1-4,--„•,,,,•-rtrn::'"'lli-' ,-..4'-,.',:".i. .•,:•:4•••'F.' 61',i -•;""`‘ '''"•"-'7-",';','' 44N.'''?"4" : 'ft-4-4,01,,Ii;',% :'.';•if".'',i,',,,i;:••s.';';:t:;t4:ter'-,-','''.7,'F',:,-,,,;,:iti'4”; '',,'' , , '';,',•!..144.1"..44•(-1. '4'''''...*21./? iit‘':'''''.5'''''' ;0.0 - „ , 4', „ ''11:';?5i4...,‘4,i '''.:310+1 /;' ': ;'4,45,„,,t'-4';', 4:';'''.7 4't;'''':-:-,,,i*5,,,,, ',:i,;,:,.::,r,:44':::,,-;,V•tit", ,.; ,e,- ''.',,N .-,i‘::::cAr"f 4....;*4 ,,! „,,.:!: -::,-:,f,•et. '''''T,,•,1 .ife,',•,.;,;.?,,ptiit&•:V,it,,I 4';.04, ,ifr,,,t:;5%,',4%/1 „.efri,Sirte",.; ,,,,,'"if.'741‘4:',44"T*C4,4.t.,%* Iteet:,,,.4';,,,/-iin(S,Z* ,,:''<7^•%fft. '3.41•(' t',,P'''',,,O.i.',,,.1,:,..t; •.::•;''''''. •'.14-4"1.-Wi,';• 7'•";17••,';,;',.:),Tf,,'iltV4:4,!1":-.10$14e,,'-;,1,:ffi,,,,,-k,'..',,.. '' ,4,,*;!:,:`.11,-",rAc... ',,'.17,„'",e.'*,P.,14,):::',„,.,'' $1,r;rfk'it,,•:,:w;t', ..,'•,,,t„4,, V'=„$,16.,$',....,' ? ..-,,,',=`,,i.p.---.:' ,,:',..t.:,.,!, ' ' 'V-.4-.•? '..•,,t".•• '.7, 4*z.Pe,'-',,,, --.,,,,-,.,--,,,,',F1, -'''-ft;f:,•‘-','.;:i.5,;'4•1,'/I'';,.•;„,,'*- 'Ili;',.'5r,,,,,,,,; 'I'-1-' !‘;.''' '''-,'? P4e,t,,''''.74,..'t'"tite, ,e'''q''''''',.,'. Mui,e*.,:?'-'.." ...,. , );;',.! '' ,,;'-'.,4/1. 1:,*'A':,;"'" ,,'A;;;',:''''''',.:;'''4%;4444'.iiin4,11-;';"1/-1,;,,,r,r4,7t• .!*"•"tfi•V',„•r.: ?`•-•"440.,..".,,,a°1- ..4"s!"'"`7::', -•;;;44:1,4 7:44:44: 1',";•;:t4".4•;'•,,,c- ,:!'‘.,:!4, ,6•474.4,Vi-%.1 41 , ' '. ,,i-. • . -,,i';',••••:,;•t.,.,,A;:r ''' "4.,IC l'•'`.'`.*.t, ..." -,.;•!:','",:fitris.,*•"0,4"; '''''4 •' ,,,",,1:;;;14,?%,,4"'A;,'W,,;,,,%"''-:: ''',`",;;*',1,tti,"I 4.;4:1`''''7-f:,'i,V,:,,,,^,.6.44:0.?:ae,. 6,,'11';;;;,#:'' ?'':''Pt(1,:se+4'. ''''''..,q'P°VI''''"W"-';',::' ,.‘*, •,' ';*,:;"'til''.•1, ':•'.'•,''' ' ..;,,re,1 :,`,''.'''"'''1'„ ,=4*‘2,:e4; 4V .::'44,, ',,-.',,,::•' - ',4'‘',:,,,,,-,;,.4,,,,.,'-',".1-', '''A)7, -*--. -'..4.'/ '-'--'‘-' -'4 -''''''' *.''' - '---//' - 4", " - 4 ' - -' ' - ' ' v.- '-*'' 4`.4`)k* ' * arrot4;74'1'." '* ' ''' Vt''''''''14:' /711PrIkk" ',"•0* „RV:'''',/'0'' A,,: '' ' ,'1 K'''..-„„'f'',"t(,71`;•'4, 1* ' '''‘ 0, ,„ •*•^ '." • 1 •,,,, , , ,t14 ,..41,4‘..'1:*i•.' `.rjtj 7,--„.!'''„4!e„11,r;4'3,,t ', , L,I,'I''' ,,,,V;° '3.4);' 40;' ' .**** ,--=,4.,;,;;;{,„-;.,4,,,': •,,%. ,t''.:,,,,';:- 4'.-:,p4d-bi•-.4-.".,-,:,=:r-It.- # ,'-'::",•.4?‘/:—..,,,',or-.;',,,:fs,%.'-re-;--,',R• t::,,,'-•-,,,A5p4:,"-/--AO'. ,,;'' '''.,-4.-e-,-"4:e;'4.3;e,Pg• ;,•4 ',,,•; ',,,,4,-.'-5,•/:,k,,,m‘,,,,, ,1 eiie" ;,,,..,40 .710,. •„,,,,,,,,,,,,,„•„. -,,,,,,,,,,,,, -,.. ,,- e,, - .„ . , ,;. -.A,.,40,„„Art,,,,0.4,,,,t -4,,,.40-t:ttio--1, ,Ajorr" ,:-.,--.. .•,,,,ott-,44.0.4Fr-,::-..",ft ''-',-IPIP 't' * "''‘ ' ',•;,,,,•-• ',",:•,,t''''e,,,:,et?".-,1741,1,';',.'','';,;;,4k,:. . 4,4•4,w,..,t..„7, . ,„- ... rarnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-7 View 3-Existing Conditions as seen from near 38th Street ., - _.' ---- , -_ • -- -_ _,,,, '• s..y '�". �g ,is >'he� • c :Y s . • ` ;•a fr � • '• x� � ,, 7• 1 H y` 1 '� �;/ / ,I r s :a ¢,1:4 ,���ka,4s u ' ./ / . % r r , � a x� c s ,iY 4 ,y i i/ / 5 � ! ,�z»���;y . ' ".; µ""�bn� ,::"' �l�Fr „���1 " k, ,oi '' ; � „✓ � `.' ', r�/ '/' �% ✓ 4 _/ ,,3., , , '=� ,' " - .9< ,, �,sr */ �t/%l %� / ,y yf;, ,.,9j + ' °,v;, ' "" u> ,{~af' C"' a" y r > a: ate, / /; mil a� ; ..;' y ,, ,� "rc. ,� �i / n> � , as «Y :;:, y., ,' '� �� ry„i>c'y <s1y;�.<ya,H?-,✓ < t/ /r /�.�:. Y;.z;,..^+eta / , ° 7w.// r' %4 4: s 'y : �.,...mp� ,. , , d: • y � :� r "/� r •;>/? . � f ! .«r� - r� � : n,�, ,., N , 23F it ;v a • vii �' ° :%✓�ramv;' , � ,, ,� <, r �.�, 4. 21 w,• 4.fi j'i : '•An�jc L J wn ' w+ •. . p'` w . w< ' _.ti. :" v, / '�/ .. 9 a a Y. � /� /fit :.✓' �:: n fr r` , r,‘s Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779.017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-8 View 3—Simulationseenf of Development W Buildings asfrom near 38th Street I 1 c d CL v .:o,;.._ "• ciim •. ..,...,,,„_,., , „,,,,,., . .. %j,,,,t,,,„,.,,s,„„,,,,t,,-, ,,,,,,,,,, , .i. '4.+ ,rya '. ,„ •-/ •,- Q ` + .. • `v ;1 .a f ip :?sty,. +�� L e„ 3 i'F $£ b �' T U. > f/1 '•4.` 3 -qay,� n k -,y3.e ""''perp„„. !ti 1^i:; �' , (gam ' ' yff;; � ,� ,��+�� �: i �, i,• µ; �'/�. < ,`','.°c,^e„ -,. ;_' Y *x ,s a°j.;ae•��;'y/ F y,y: .ywE . sueg'=; P ,# , • '_id, I'''''''',,,,,,,,;:'''':''': :r,/ .. "P" yF, ' "i~ !,,.' Jry`K, ,¢ • b '• f� Nr a ' ...r,' ,.,. ,. " ;4 ;,�:°.,. „.s 1,„ " -3'7','3"3 .'4,..,4-,T„,,..:4;.:3;1,,.:':3.,":13-,,,-;/VT",3.-T7-",r,0';`,".„,>:. s$ .a "? ",s�.k',}-.' .'i,,,.,4 F'inst, i�' s , A� � q9 :: � ;"�'.;' e'::y� � � "3'i" �� �.. °d., 4s`n L h Z 8 S �'t'".; ; +r ''a ." '44' +'�M i j - w 'r am '.,,. .9 ; - '4 i A +, 7 I ( y .'Er S. ° in/y,�,Y.i" ".l.N z=Y r°'..F 13,,}yj 3'V r '., "'"tip. k#,i si' e 4Y £'d, d.��•' � .cb°',u '• dam' ,.;r;",%�i/y/�✓�%fa�'!; �f', tJ k ��`c ���:C"Y.<''s� ', -.., Win,' -' �` E a i ax \ '' n�m:: ,,.%�. .-,.%s�.'�`'" .��'..�;` .x.'�„ ��, g-� ,:;'X;r ,.,,,,g. ��YaM. , ;3 uj = ,,vr�°i✓i,. ;l` NZ¢ l4 e J L ' ,�<,% < $ y „ ' .4k 'F, »r. ,� f ^^!! ,'rr`.,q<d�r,,,,e e'er N 4 � � y&'y�. R F ii.(.. ; ..„ 4 kl l•!'-I4,-', ;,-,:•-;,;i:- 440, .e',s �9L f, < a��,..�.n # �. i9v, �., s eat o k.l°:'S.> fig• F S 41. '# "k �ry "�..k, ��+ � :�r Yk '$' $ .41 .P-#, w !" �,.� r fix• ;,,<t•-•�✓ "--.:I' R „s -ar*n, "s v M,'$"" e"'+3�Fn #, w" •g' '',:'',A;:; y,<•ar 7;4 W :r c` o � , - >; ,� "`" " ii,. g a 4U; to •g«.'v"}' F O1 i cr 4CD) il ) �y 5 ' x r ,g i� � .�? a r�` M a� •,r,,.' f ,� M �.. n«• i "k.�,y," ° e8`', a £x}i " .A,.� ,� f .al.+'o „,, ',i ' `Y .s".. .. ", grm`."`! p co U 1 L -- '•-. ,- . . , . .. _ IIIPP __ • ., - .- -- ',!.5',,,,,,,,,,;''',' LliA,', i. 'c,',' :,„.'',, i, r'''‘,.1:'' ' -•',"-.:?0',,'•, 7.77,77V,:F:'::.:/''."7,',?,77:.","'„*;/•- ,'a' '''',''''!"!''''''''","''„":'''''' ' "::,,''',:::;''•'„'.::-::,'''''''':'':::'; • CI'''',, -i'' ' ,,':., ''',:'"," ., '.;,'1%, ,''.,::,„;,,,,,,,,,:,-,„ '',.'•:''',,,i'%;''',.'';''r.f.,k,',.:fY".1„ „:,'"',„'t,,*,,'i'„,„";t',•,'%%N, '.''''''..„";,.. '':,,,;.:''!. ,, \ , .•'''- ,. . • '1','''! ‘T:. , f4- -; ''),44--.- '"':'''1'-',-,it--14.,,-- ,:-;,? ,:e1:.;„-,„ ,*i . ',''-',4 - \ rio; ,i,..4,,;,-,,;,i',/,,,,,,%,;i f%,,'„?, -5";?,, ':', ,,,,-,'\V, <i .; ; ,y,-„,•;, ‘•-,,,,I-,,2',',,,",-, ,A'''„'" : !IA*, : `," ' '',,,,' ' ,4:, ,,' . -"(, - i. . .. . . . . - . , ,,.., ,„4,i,', ',,;',, - %, '7',:z:-',","":%',• ,' -%." s' 4,11,, „ , ;,:‘,. \,N',,', : ' :,- .,, • „ , : , ;.', , ,, ` . . • - , -. ,,„ ' „. „ .• :-,''',:.'"„:-;•-,;,:::/,''''' .' ",".:1,1,"','''' , . . . „ ... . ,. , „• „ ..-L,.',',. ';.•,..",,,,,'--,,,,,,,,,.44, ,,--',.- -- ,:. , i --, ' ,,., °,,,, ,; ,\ ...- , , 4. . , .,, „ , .,'..., „ .: , ...: , ‘ ., , . , .,., . .,. , . .. . . „ si,J..,,r,-,,,0-fwii=,,oi,,,,i..v„!„,...-; ',,,'., . -:., ' -. -, .. -.,--, ,,,, -.-N, - :„., ..,-_ • .. .. .- .- • --.4*.e...."',•''.:,,•„-----:-• ',i,,,,,:: '-:'. 1',', ''',,,," -; ', , : ,',. .'2\",,:;..-.,,,‘,-,, .,., , - - , , . .t:'?,.;V,T4;i C'S....!*:,',..10 V,A;11':t;A:**:1,:,,, ''' - „";-. .';,,,-' -' ,:‘- ''"''‘ -• \, . 4.4"411kvy ' V.:i 'i,,'A, -`.5kkg*,:'? -\\"',." '‘ 7 ' k. - \,.,\,;',N'.,. , , ' ',-,;,, , , • .,." - ,,,,,, ,-- ,,,,,,', ,' .:- ,-, . 4 ;;I:',,. .7.*t..-2,4V 4.4%'''''.- ..-°- '' "'',,...- kt4.-k,""- ",,', '... --. - .•, ,' ..,..',-,-'\ .:c,, Altst4.:;.•'''''.1.1.0.4'w.7141".. ...;11.".,'" ' k,':,f;.4.--„-',f4,',.;;:.„4,:" :„ -2 ; ' ' ', ..„ N-i. ,y,' , ., ,' ' • ' . „„ , ' :, , XAr.s:•#.4t.A,„:..r, , - 'k,..,'...,.-74,',- -,-ii",.. ,„--„c'"—T: =-,.. . ':'.',--.,• N;•„',‘;-'„ • - ',: ' '.5',; ' • ,-,, - .„7:•:;.,'•'!•''- :;:.:•' '2'' ; 7'• , l',;',.''• ;f44;r1.11 .4,',4411•SP:'%,. 11,441;.•.':;?:;,'„ ' ''', , ' . ..„, , , ., , „ 4N;f:t•t,, ,IkS,.„?.?$,P4 *-,,,,r,;,;:'*L.A. *5'...t."I'l;*7`<k' •;,'"•Wii..''''',--,,• ':" ,., -".°F %'•,', -::'L-'',':-',i ,,'''',' .:- ":,',, " s , ' ;. ' '..,' ..,,-,',..-:-,-, „ .„ ,•„ . %'.'`.---,',--4.'.'" - ...14t,,C:VVi.+14;.*'.40?4T,,i4,1''•,:*#:•• 44,,511444-.19,:".1-':',. ' ''''---,'; - ••••`'--S.:::'--:- :",.„,'T--. .: --.;:::..! „ -;• --• ,' ', -<'' - . f -;,;,,,i.i,. ';' r ---,-,:°:-:,,,r,,,k,,,*. ,''. :'*V47,1*f44!„,14 1";*4--"TA!,*1,,Ziz..,,s.N'tV•falf:;.1",". .4....A..-",'"':...-' '• ; • -:'.: N''.'''''', '.4'''''.:2-rir-P",- '',.-:-. ' ----' • - • ,;;;4.,,,-;:-t ,;•::',-, .,..i.:‘,,:-.,....4%*•'..-4-1i.":• - 17* '1` ,,i4 OP'" it''''...,;14:;%.•'''. •:. tt, .;:.4-0-,:.,1.-,-;', *FM.';4'Z,- "4" ",:-.`' •?..:71.4.....At4......,-;:y.:,......?•$--,.,- •., :,,,,,, -•,.„-.,-.,,,,:,,,,,. ,•.- ---,,, .i.:et,,,A•f,•,-, ,-, '..-. ,.,-..„.,,,,v..:,„..,%,...t.. .cA.," , ...".Z.1' ':.:(1, ,,,4...... . ,. -,irp...4j, q•Vt:Ar,...44,1.; .1.e-!•„,,. ,.„::-.t, - .7; --,:uw-4,;e1-4.0.„,-,r,....v,.-471.:..,---,,r ..•,.,,;,;c- .: ,..,,..; ---7,_.- , „..i,•-„iii..t:.,....„-2-1.0,14r"„''''-:-•' "•.:." ....=, ;tr,:if,ti:.-4.00..,r0":,:`1.101.1...31141,-IVAV ' ''''';:•••4 1"1.4,„*:,.;,f,.,,,..,:,... ..,..,. f.,*;44,,,x.„.„.701%,;440411.,::,..,4„;04.,,,ii: „,, t ii• 4.,\•,,,, , ,. ,:•,.•.,,,i ',--•-'-4.°:11;;;;.,,,i,„1::,-,, 4,';4° ',""‘f, ,-- -t, ;Ey' "1, It' '''''_',:i4t-". -4,-...A.'Net .V 1 s 5.y.-tr- - I4 *.442tRINWAslr-•-,ft.teV:4&*441%‘,.;•:,. :i''.. - --,?-:, • ,‘. ;- -',----'-,,,,,%,:i.,.... ..,v :.,,,,,WI: .---:, - -- . 1.. . „ -.4c,..:,-.--..:04,4,,r.1,,. :W.,. ,.„.0t,,V...;t-z: . ,, —;.. ,,' vi,;,41.f,,,,,•1.43!,•itf-erl,:k.„tx,,:v;,.....C.;;.4.,,, -,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,K-',27 j„-,-----,-,'„,r,-.MP:' " ,.*''-it' y l'A :,' , - ,,,,,-4 '-ie-:"-4'2.;; ''..g.*"1" ig';',,r,;..0„,I,;4..,,, ,,,,.Wf,`-r5.-7,‘'.4%-fttpa'r.:.... '.,:',.:i•V:;,4.,!:.t.1.,:,y'1. 4:,tfi,Tit--''-: -"r'''''.''..,r4:' ..0-44A4 --.,,p.., ,...,,,x.',.-,.',4:-.7.7:--. ',/- ,a,,,,,T,‘. ••-. .,-.--?-4,44,1?,:f2,'•,*:.1.-..tt':.'•- 4.1%.,..2...w*,--t,,V,-• - ':,,,,,,,*",-',,•,,,...-.1t,l, • '.. ..!••tc...:,%iis;:_,,,,..-,,,sii•;,i.F-,:-7717;L''',-,i',, -;„.ft,,,f#::•.=„:7:-':::i '7Jit. if,,,I,i,..•frrki,-,5a1,--'''..',..!-:....*.1„'T•4---'1:;•-,/,..; i '.1„,..4„wiik....,0V-.,;:v4r- , .7'•„,a.,..,,,trit, ' '5 k4 ;/;,..' 44,4,' :k7P:P:" ' :1;.,•044 ,-i i 'i;" kEf4,.x ,,,, ,''',, ., .,„ • ..iv,...lri--:;,„: -1..A.a, „I:71'z. ,-,,,...,..-1 %.',;',--:',1,;<- 1,--4:;.-‘<,..:-.•i'• ,,0,..1.--,,grr," •11:; ,;-, -,,,,,-.-,2, , .::t;ii,., ;;;';':.--'=',,-'4-.7.; L'. .7*.‘11'.7 • VI\ .. . ill/:./,, " ••, --'• •..,.-'.' ---a ---. .•,:ty. - •-. k ‘ ,,,,,..„„,•' ,., .t ' v 4:,ifeffialit.. . — ,,,, ,,..e-:,,,;,-,,4, ‘,,,, - ,,.!„,7 . .,-f.- ,t,., .., ...:„ „, , -„a- .......:.,„-:-....z.„---- ,', ,-....,;,:,- -,,,,.51-., -,•••.-: „,,...,. „..._.•-•,- ,47,-----...rwr...m , , -' - •-.-... .--. : -..!).1,-:•0'4:-*''' ' - . ,.', A -, ' --- .4-'. '?".-..'-,-,-'''''7q-7,7÷, -.‘,'''''',4,--,2,:yr' .,-•--.1,1-'"•- ." .tt...;.fr: ••‘...."-I.• . '1"t"71- —..-.-:-----"- lor"-*.;.-:1,. '4..1.,,tz-4*--tol•k:-: " .411—`,-"9—..',..- - ., ' _ , --';---.7-.5„7,210;''':-,1„,.:,%., -.1. ...''/...:".44.÷.••-,4• '',-1 pi.,-.1,-sixti,.. ---t-.- ----1,,,,,,,,,.,;,.,-;7.--9,-1 .„..,-5-4,0-,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,x ,,,,,,,,., , k.,,,,\,,,,,„ .„„„‘„,, ,, - ....,-•. ...- .1, ...,.v. i..- iii„.•,,ty ot,, ' • " • .4, •'";-;*' ' ''4', ''''•If , O,."%,,i)t.«,•', ‘':*;•,1;', i,;'');1', '''', ',1 ,,,5', ',•'',•';',:':52; ; '' ', ,,i';''''',$..,'„,;',‘"'"' "....,,,,,:.'";..,, ' ".„ •-.., 'a 4... ,', _...iftlAw',''': ''''C• 4,11**,,*;e•'•'•,'.*:...'''''''. 9;,V'V;fr'' '.(;',7"51;;FC;;4, ''''•;%;' ;',‘'k'/'f*3,',•',-•fi','" ,ife-91:•-•,,..„--.., ,,,,:‘,-,,,..-,,,;'- -'; „' .--'N.,,,,,„-5,,.--.,,,.,..,,,,i:',-,.-_-,..-,.„,--,,...„•„.;-, ..;i-,-.:':. ---------- - ••,';c ,, ,' , ,,--,.,P,,r(;,o. ,',. .; ti:- ,' %,',,-: .. 7,"; ,, " -- ; 'f-,-;•-•,:,--:.,-;',5 7-..,';',,,,,-'‘,....,":•41-`"--;"4;--"-:,,i,:,'•-2.'-'' .-°- - ,k,,..,,,--,,,,,,,,,7',1'..,::, or--,,-•-- . •':-.,, - / ' .,,:e• ' .1. ,;:l :,- `,,4 - ,,,,..fr,„,•'',-.1-1. ';,t,--, , 1,..,,* ' "; - ,,,,- ./,'-' ',,,,',.;... .-0,,4,,..e,,,:k, ;„' -....." ,,•:,,-",,,,i.;,, ''- .;.--7-,-,-;.-- - rPt'4:7:' " ;,',",,, ,,,•'' '-';.""1,4Y -.,-,,.''?,%"',,r,°.4,'/;3/". **,,'E;', 7''''•,'. 51,1,1V.4 ,Y-1),0:',lk - ,,1j.."1''. :',;4t;',7:11::,,%, ,,,...4 „II;, ,,, ,..'..-'' '-... , ,. ..,?;,:,. /,-.„,,,?:,;4-:,'''',,!''':'.."4, ''',',.;4."/'-',% .14'"'' z,e;'"I'!,,-4',.,0;',,L,,; ,,, '-'';‘,,i',,,f* -,,r;41,4,1,,,,,:,F,.,i .fa',,f, '-.:(.-',"••••:-.?:',- '''-'-•'!''.,,,,„fa -- e,'"•°°,-,*_'40,10.-1.'---..'''''-'"'i',7q. :'-':4','-'1..,;";"',-,L,-.-:--''''''' ` ;i:,.,- ,,,.,-..ts: p.,..-...177,.7i0,-.-f,,,--fve,,,,,kotit4;,,,„-- ' 1,,,I...,i1.1 13,3; ;.,,f,., - - -,.. ...: :::-,,,„,„,. :•,,,,-,;,,,;,-,240<:' :J.';'-•/.;••LI•"::;'!R;.‘'."."'''' 'N',..:-: •;:": '15.7.,'''.;•'; ',.".k‹;i4:::,,,:j '-.., ''•.•.,.•'",::0 44,0f,,,,-:lel.''* ""140',';'," "4-,' As " -,y,",..,-,e; ,*"%""- ' .*,,„,4 '41,,.. "*''',$-'7'.4aYV'', 104:.,*"'',14,.'-'.--R.:rg -.,,,%,"'"z.,,,,''':s4;,1_,,,1„,,,,ns,„,;,ki ,',-,,,,r,,..-:,,,„ . ; -, .,- ., .--1,4i,,,i*,•„,4,,,,..„,,4.1, ics4.,,,,,f,,,p, ;4p4, , :4::,.''',e'"1 "' ' • , `-„,;''',>,"lk t".e),. .'„47-,''ss/,'1,tr-:..." ',,,..,.,K,:;',4tet' t.',.4',4' ',":"'-."1"'s;'',' "t$s7k.,,''''''''''''-'!" ' °' 'II', _40..- .•',."',' 4-,5„"'.1:''4....-,i'", --":%' ;-':%%E.,;.4""f'V.??","/"'"''''-.2 . ., -44 ' 4"'iA. " 0:,:,'''flii,:..:,•---.$,,,,:--;",-.,-.-- '',..',-;?:‘' -'..':- ":4' ;-,(-•',.,'',,.'-',4,T2,-<Rif:.q.,;-`-;.,0--;-,,-`,',--,; - -',,-‘ °-3 ..4,---,4, 4,;-t,..:i r,g,.44,4•.-....41:4 ',1,,%',1-1.... ..i.--0 ' - • ,, ,,,,. .:,,,,,,,t,---,, .-,:,- - ,,;,4- ,,,,,; " ; :: - ,,,:.-„,,„p-,----1•,,-..:,-.-, , 1,p„,.,,,„;,v,,;,,•',,,.".,;v--o:sy,,,,--1: t4,--4.1'4,4.-4,1- ' ,..,,,„04,-,',,,,.,•-•:7-,, :;?,,,,, ,,,,,A.,. ,..,„,,,,,,,,A. 34...,,,,,,, ''''''Y''.4.1;07`;°M ''' ''''' Yr2g.t.41'44,0'W. Afir',7" :11•:.',X, - t!',',:,g0t1r1,-,'?f:,;„,f,', ..1-Z,,.,,,,,,i?.4,....414-zt.,:,;:.,0%,:.,-;;,5,r,-7,..,..r.emit,,,,,,,..,3!„:„...3 .,i,._, ,......04.c,...,0*..., . .. .., .,. ..- ,,„ . ., . . Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-10 ifilk, View 4—Simulation of Development IV Buildings as seen from near 32nd Street „-.'' -• '••,: •,"10-:,-;,-,''- ':,‘,, , K, Wr:9 ti�.. « , 68; 4' .a -L % �b >.a ^ Y -%F fE' 3.a�y.a Aa �rt q_ . '° e+�r s.hrr � y«� yi'ii F ;, rr9.. A r ., g x g Y. *F`e a tx L�;a > ww ty ..;•, t ' `f .k ±4 '' 37' t � '`s a 7 �>+M t=M„ '”` ,M ,t•.1''`";. • • �'t d Fx '+ . .$t '»t ,y. i r`� ffF1�St, r... Y J, ^��` IA .f� r r h� 'h' g ^� 7 s -"'" � ,� i-� xH.: z, ds .�."'" 4 157 'il • rs '., Y^s*5 t z '' C'., ' '' • l ` `' "tr' e Eq 1 '7 • a k' '; 'i •« ,'r.' s , ,ern Y' ry -.a."` '� .,f. i t� -4 .s �r" y if .»••.rs > a, t •f.� +' r�tk, .. � "-- ,ty,��s`, `.,{ :R ,r 4 ,fie'" i - :„-.-3i,,+*.0,," s""- - . .°':, ' „Y '° �tt'�9, l ySy' ,y',4*°" r.?•�r,� wP r P' J, r r M i�` a x 'k '4� �" w l ca Sys,. a r,, / ,� 4 r :, f" '�'y 'Y � � a .5°r , a,r�5 , kts'-r y'+ ;.,.�' ° oyr ,,�i € -.x,. '•` -,, ,' s . .�" „ ,'' ^ r�e`q ; e ;T v '^"k } �` -{,, «� '° . Yl '�" `k'v,' y> ,3"� »r `. a Sl""°� m" �fr, .04440440r Ord 1, tr a A, i�� ''( <" ✓ �"q .r` , , «x xk°x yP r�, --s . *. ;o 1 : �,F,r »{vi,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,.,,, '"� ? -, .. ,,r,!, , 3� t ar "':b,.,'•i) ` ..§;,, ,` ••` zt' y�• ,�6 ik p ..t ue' !,""'! =' ,� ,7. ¢"' '.x . Y",fafg , ,,f� , ,ii^t r 4:,• Y ,-a'. ',4,4V .,,,: 12,,S "F ,�3:l 'r %.. , 'w,:h ,e "ot e€ ,y � .•'kd r r „r *, ;✓A ir*, p v,%'f* ;:s � `,,y..-r1 ' .•, Rg4 tier r .wj'{ 1II;.,. l:g. ,14.44' 4:4 3�,p}+r° ;�r [�:.41; ,x•'�r `��� ;Y °� ��.t��nr.+ ,tY aft' 'its.;,�"„,1�ts" �f$dy� c" k�''c. � ° 3Si_ ,a 3it g t`,;�4 .�' x ,�„ �• f""�fnw " "{,. ly S.r r '' „t'^' 4, "...F`., ,, r.. ew', F d" i� yit`..V • .!�'' ^ '' -'E".. J .- `�,T*4 *.t ' .AJ 't•, "°''.l o., ; 44 -�.' 7, 3 -7$;{r; -"� ,. -,i.•:. fI , ay 4'fi, .q. gyp;c°. • arm � r �`��� 1f' r1z,�, ,�r°P,rs�,yN� �� 1k �� ,.J ��4 �f" <fr $ t '"l-. � ,�x�n?"1,*'�.•�; r B y j''a r ; ,max-� ^°� ,� ���� � � ���� � � s /�.�"�'� `�'":�� ���t"' I K "'1'eS �• "l'3" • �+` +T. .l 7, .�� y. W. ;aj 'fir ,, ". .l. ,i' s"+,;7 r,$ h `J °„arc /-e-;-,t kiS '+xi -- ,^«=f S 1.-T4 ` " '� ?4". , i, .+�;� a "4 a''. .,y<t{. ? �,�,y ,t. ,�. �• '�'� / f d i ',�,"sG Y .rY' f •:S*,'� Y it>>'�'F.. �? ,� t"•i• t=M1.,•+' ,f ' •' ",,yfn <7 -' '�✓�.>%�t ',°'`c' 'J, "t` A r x *a e: ,,,A � n Y b'"'Cy,,- a, fAy:. ' 3°: 'f, SS y t1,r't i*4.*. ,''' - , .' t-s ! '.:k � ' '' Zi*VO - i ',� rel _N. 7y »' µ• � �':ri< k li`. ,�. ' �. y a ij• r r° =r '1� }#r'a;j f }@� �; yt ti sy ti t, a •..r r .r r �''•�.:-,,,* x"r`*€ ,r7 2+ ` ' 21 Yt t t ra"t+,r•/ ', ,'.1, S�`': ',t 'i 7 • # J it' e ° ' .?, .t , ";Fs rt° ;f l rY•l .S" • >.f t vf_ ,,-:j /.. ,��, .11; t 1'. #t` •1. ,t ,,4'. ,rr �, , ?. yr 3 `+3r ' - '.'fr;r4 ", A l` G '“: � f ':`1i::n'}a R *, §�"• t, r.,r f,,rf. y�/ ,l t. ..fi v'''f} `s,� y. 1,*: �r.„"^". .r� • ..;;9 t tr'.i. >if°t+ r f ,s-J Y.fr ' » K' • '° } ;�� )¢"�s' '"T','t1, ✓ ?;4 `' X ,,,pair�' 'is jwirr .' i '- w.x fS If �`' t its+.r',yv,*': , 'r,+:C;� '� .. {Yxi rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K) Figure 3.7-11 View 5—Existing Conditions as seen r-- from Park Avenue near 40th Street may> i•.> I xPe .e,c F' �, a • s ,' • ' ''• '-.. '-'i ' aSw.'a, ,t .ar , > tk fir ¢ ill"�3~� 4r,;� € • • t. .eti:" y . a,r< N« " ' -�`L :. �`v. ''< �> � + c, �, � '- E� s"r . 3 X ,. i'Skr "A� a " E.ye: yy . -: a ,'.a c 4 i« �t,"... ' s ..... fir . �s .' .. � � S � s � 7 r,G. w r ; a a" ' >< . .� y < 1 " Y � rn 'a^%. .iS f *� A�>�_ i ".r Q� 1 Yk au y4 w" +e } . . .r i i 9 rS e - '' 4*.'1'''w3'„„1s!Y 41* • N y t „•4%%Fn p'y4�%q4 fi ^y E'y3x b.ty E•ix i � a d,� ' n _ . I i �... r' t ._ 7 r »w. �w E «La` .r y • • 44. • ,?,,,,;....- • : -..: -. . " , -, . ' 7'Pr s'. '...,'... .....l• '''' , :,,: '..f:r::!:t7' '---t-;—t—jr--t-'—'ittif. -,,,A ta' ' , ,� •'� .,' ... M ..,G, Ate ,� �h.».' Ya` E � �.,, ...n•M.+S. • yr' , ' e �. ,..>.. ,: `� f k !'A nGGC N,,, • .,:y h, .'t'' 5 ; • :,y*+it ,k `.,+•+ F !^ aYS 'r•!' s ^ G' '••k-*•,,;. .,t nt+• v:,Z :.S ' 8 '. , .,. 'r^ '. ,.1' arX�t....i a e,u.•,,.. !a ,.d *'�•- �..s 4 ' 7.4'y ,-- 4`a.•2 +�.� ,.0 { •.,-.v `.•••..: ` }4.� 'i �.. t• s t ;x Y �•�• .. +„k f ` ° �nri.�1 ??�.nn 7� "•' `����';fi;/ r ax e.> : tk ,' S'" it t � w"� k` � '14 4 �'.Y t'' r.v • ' - r,,".'y� :' • t `kx• '$ i s61 1• • k' Y icy'.r "1_ F .•3`1t "� .r 'aN � *;;;-•,..*,:,*. � 'k•?er' - IS+4 45 " f,' �tri1. ft�^may % • r ¢ �YY� v� �"�s���� � P ,!r' qg. • • ,.� fF' # t�a'`_.'' t,�: Y'�. • "7' �+'. ',�• E� -�' s a r E f a,J�`.� � "'�t'E t • t ��T w�' y.+ '` ,k. • f ' ♦♦• y • yy(y •y + 't Y _ }' E..`, G ., L 1 k 4 '0° •.iL•, " '.' ,.8 R}•,Est,. .t. , .' i*,• Ayy_A .•0 .` '. -t •;;;;. t, ,,ram Y,rr s :?a ?i„ • a , <F' • t :• . �, : .� , .rw, xa ` t. r5"`p �. R`y + t�a� A"+A ,,+1 to s, e '� ' v` </ t ': ' 7t .( -• �3�" t '•`;r3' r t '''' ¢t '.i,#i� e tir, f,� r •,- • • •t'a4 •1 r`.f f..;II.:A r tf �. :+ < r F , </,''' r. . t .I{-g1•(; of i''': •+ -• �� r-> t t ,•k +<x. • r tt z{ rfr 1t•t •gtfrt• 1,44( 5. Y ;rl xil Xf•ft`, .F' •' .`- t t- �xt Parametrix city of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K) Figure 3.7-12 Mill, View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as seen from Park Avenue near 40th Street a,✓. • „••• ' :': "t'/ , f ` •r 41/.« s ,h a f° /, lsy '# a . r x' sa'" • 19 /y" -�'" i � � ,^ �� °y; �/ ,/ ja '" / q / � , ue� . ° A x tar A, �r � , / .fi, r n 4 ,� . ;`y'4451 :k)6" ' "�"5 %< , 1. % ':i •I '' .' P. .,y� ',r ' .',, ;, 4 , "/ ;Vi „ >; , �r, '9439 5 :,: ' < , ,w • i. '" %^ ' 4/5 / '� >4 ✓ � 'fS' ; 55 ,�'.J9 '/am „ W -;�;;^ , , rG • h 1yY fir : x;a' et;. d r 'fz/s, H i , �EbyF, U ' y 9. • • s` hti y / § : • "44 ` ;' ' ,fr,/ % , 9 r ,,"/. ° tE�, �y ,`!'n • , prv.vY :,,r ' ,f, b ;"'Bq4:4*,; ° / dy -;N' '•s"r, 3„ dsti„ D:j°. >2/✓ V' ye , 2'enF...- ��`�"� ' tYJ>•.s'%''," ,r b .- ; y "wF �: , %" s� : ' ^isN. ,,.A" '°y/' , '/oo ,' /n ./tyf Y ; ° '/ j° f .y <C_ .^t°so ,+ xNY • II: • , ,h 'nfy F,S ;'f5 w,.J�y s Mf' • %:es», ;,-< •'•.�`. 'G,l,.a';•s ,y'• �`� of� "� , °3. :.%; °,y 'ib ,'.y ." ^✓ F , c e P°s • � sp�R,, r�„ ��"yamkV .✓�s' p a,'s�%. F f,, &,H �r y �'T, .ie"f, /�/a 4 - %,L.. n�` a"� t'�� ./�"s r%' / '."a aid fi s,,. SZSC y/ z•. • /, ,T 1x, °.' �'8"S4.ar.? 'G:,.4' , tea..' r^:"""a . • <r ..,✓ " ,�> �`,�`,,j�'hy � / .t /��t �� �/./ w, � ., Wif ,��� t,.� s ',r`� ' yam 'r "�J���€. rX (.1/9 yx r � :,At " / ,,e:, , y/y 4*,; _ as" '�":,-A,, s tic. ` k' E.•14,4' : ._ ""z� g� $ l/„ "3� � r ,y 6 3',.i(1 3 ,;„�� '''<,,,, C 77 r`.z.,x "" - .,,,� ,.x ,r?Z44, rl fi ",,,, 40,/,, � ,,-, ,i' as %4 aay , /',i. 4, d'. x,,;4,'^ 044.". � - >,. :: i,,".. �e�',' V w Fw 5+" k -, .x " d ,am d• t r "�: ;F� Ys�s :Y ,:, ♦wy w j Frr,4 �, Y a %ma y y/ " `m<' >v .. � yny •W ' x �'° .k:. :,r..,,.. r „; �,, * � �. v04. , � � � t 'NYx .��``�''•»,t 7• '� .H /,�f�����,� ."fp �, wr 5 >r,.« sw._ ''''7 •s .� .G .: 5- t4 r � 5" ,. r' ume'k+w y b• • ^""`n2�Y° ,' `-y,• ,wk„"^..,,, t". .s. $r-"`"4hi.., ..- y}`"''4 +Y.f r �r ..��,sw ,i" wrk' x`=»yr.'M"1 7 ..0, '" . 141X:, r^+s 2":.,14 �- r "" t • •,:f: ^s• - 4 ";';•:.;.x `�,'"--Y.' r+,..,''''n,^",., `" ..*, ;, 'u .417,,,'nT '"."d4.x."..':•-.."'."t,*"`" �5" r "7. --/ i. 'T ern "�.«. vri�I:�s�„�, '/. . . + •w ar. r.. r a. �,x a,,,, ",X',,� rr',.T.w,� „ a .•,..N,s-.._ .. ..:1--,ye�,,i4,-•"""+w''' .. n• + '."M,rrvv»s", r ,.,,. ,w, .:, .RbAL�aw.,C•- • wr. w , • k.,+M ;,,,, frwG.:,, , ,»lf ..;;!n� ?a ':..�'" ' ' w.a; "!�;�'v r. s:•w ' -r a _».". , t '�, *,R�i , , �tq fa+wt""' .,.6 '," .:.f...r. ' ,'x'e.,'u""o�,r" » .x-:?.• N,'.`X'A" b' '. » "tiM • ` ., ••. w T .,'+9„y+:.,/°�F,r...'x 4Y�f,w•+bI7"'",w�' n _ .,,,, .�e- . _;. ' > rametrix city of Renton/554-1779.017/01(14)6/03(K) ,,Th..._._..i.\ Figure 3.7-13 View 6-Existing Conditions as seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island u) -0 cc • C u) as cr)— c u) "o to -- o co m 1_ . , +. C 1 ' 0 CU • ';,'SA4t;;ir.!,i;i':*IJ"'.'4ktka,t'ji-t:',',,el1441.111.1 •.'::.'''11''. E ...__: , - •„, ,, , ' ', '••14*;',„h4,4,1-c:-.ii.:1:',,-Affiii-,7,..„44,i.,:s--rgil i „k, -4.:::•.1;,,,i-,!,,‘,. cs c _...„---. ,,,-,•••-7"7.7.-: ' -- ''" .•. ' • ,.._':4,!'„1..;';-i::,%‘.:::,-.4-4;,:',:ii,,1/41'.:04,.tv,-,:vo..,--i :,',': • % ..-,..:!:,til' 0 c ,,,,,-77,77.---,--: •.-.2:•,•', -•'- . ' • ',, „ V7r,,T7-,'-':--FA" ,ti);;;4e... ,,kk,1:451 '41 ,. .:!fa, 0 o ,..,-- -''',',;:c''',,,,, ,-,:-.':.',:::',‘:',.':::,, • '' ,,,...2.•-:,•': „., ', ;,,',' . 'il.',,'-..31.'f,:',''''''f,,%.,''''i:Y'''-'44'1,4it(Xkisliktz,v,,,i4k111 T 'i , • 4-' e cr) 'r,,t.c'-.',"ii,,•:`,,,,%151itIii0 I;,4'tt.."%ft''..::',• '2,,.",i:'1,4.:,•-:1.,t,'iirk:'''',''-3:,"2‘,g',,-:.,,•::;‘;,..-„,,-',-,,',z;.;':.'',--'-'''.'''-2-,,:-,'•'''';,'-,I-',:i 1-:-',.I,&3J'',3 v1Nt,°,:, ::':.:'•'-;..','','';;;'',.,--"A-,A;::4::.:::.'-.,-:,',''•'40.-."':4r!.,':;,;"i0r.;0f.4*tt:*i9-4 t,tl•4,.:.-":4F".•1R:.1":4,!,,,ih,t,1,,,,5,'':,:',';;,'4,I:-.4,tl,1,';,141,1lit,4::-:,,.':;A:iii.itii4P'V,tk:g',42•.,,.„4-,-;<.;',eilli ii„„!.,,:"„.:,,7.;"t71 A ,t,.,q,i•',..:,::.;.:::,.::,4:i,,'.:"',,:!,.":!.:',: ...7.- = g• .cuc0o) CI — RI ,",,, ,,‘,,:;',4',,,',::, -,Y:'',,%-,:„,4,,,,::, „'4' -,, ',, :""'',,i" ,, S:,,,,,,,;'',;,-;''''''.,..•:,•.2,.',;i......:..,;,,,f,;:fAi-.021iiii.!,,,,41,4;rt"-p4f:Iiiii:',!::, ..,:!N,....:,;•:, ;), ',N,q• :.,-,'-''?:',' ' -.';',4V;4i,:al.'.'..; .:,•.,., ', 7 E Iii.:,,,,,,:. ,4:‘,,,. . ..::„‘- ,, , ,,,,„-.: ,::',',.'i'1',.', ---3>i*Va;i:•;t '1%-,' ,6i':4:',''.41 :..:4,.1%1WC,'-'''':41.1, ,,1,-;.'„i'.,:. .. „, r. - 1,,_: -;:;'''''''•'".„'„-,",,4,',i',,,,,:!;,7•:•., , ,, ' ''''' '.. ,' '',',.•,-.':-' . -..„ --'- •.,•2:-.,•,':1714:,.111 .i.,-..--tl,'°P:1!•i,..'4,.',44,i-.1;thti,AN;Ti:••°. - -‘,-:, --.- - :'• ' .----,i:.,•.-1•..:....f.,..ii!..,r,,,;••'••, --„,.0,,,, • -,• ,s!, „,,,,::,,,4,c, •,,, .:. :.•- .i. ,..,„.! • U) 0 .;'..,.. ':::17'.f'V''''' '',4'it''',V': .„ , : ,-,„ '", --;'"-.-','','• \:::;;„ ,-'-''A‘ ' :11,Ar. 'W'.$11 ' ...I:4 0 to '', '.,7 ''1':i 2.44%24 ''' I:;,44 C:,''•.:::.:. ::,;,-,:''.. $ (7) r,fi ,.0 4,,..4,,,,1„svl,64.4 r„,1 .:::.;„:"...„,...t.„::: ,,-,,,.„...i.., ---,-„;,:r,, ,,:.-.,,,,,,.-: ,.,,.2,:,-,.:-. . -,,,-. ..-, :.1,:.;.;,,-*:.,,. -,--,',..,,,',',',.,t ,:"2."'„•,k• ' ,,,--,,•,,,'„Li4t:'0,44:,. •;"P„W„.r,el,11 ..'"4: I ,,,,• cs) 0 0 ,.. l'''•tii,,-,.„,,,„ -.! ,.::.,,,, ,,„,,,-4-4,,,,,,'.,`'`,7„;','2.„2:„.: „ -„...,;,: -:',:„'j,,,'",;',7,:::.,"-„',"i'-„,:-';',:!,..j..,',. 311tit..:-:- ',1,..''-'',i''''''Vf,44,4.:'7t!‘,4,,ii''...i,'':;?.;.:,17ii.;';et f*..,)• ;-:,•::'-; •:,-I;';,';',--:::•'„...: ':,-' •"'„''' ' '"--,- ''',''''''' '''''''''.° tf•:':,:ii.3:4'1;;, :",;:;.t. ,,Ziillijitl.f.':A.,!?4 il'ciik..Ili ,"...,-,..:; ....!4.:57,!„:!,),.1 „'''' 1''''6*,. , e''': .„.1;...,- ;'-'s''.'' ''',- - ' . „... -'? ' -Atkili i,";;I',,''."?',Pr.,;1-P°01,'',k4N•Ojii,','".4'il ,,i10e44:,+-:',::-..il!.: itt 7 i'''•• .'t.'--"'"•:.‘ 1::'..- ' .. " ' • ,,,t• ','.4,• ',/,''' -- ''..:','S.%rilr.'," '.''."2„,'",x:i,-,:'q• I',/i-',',",)411. ,V1 ''i'::. .;'i:C.:4;14';'''', ','`•'"•°•‘• ,•-, ',':„;,',..„„,'' -:'.-.,.'"',7-,:-"..5;','' " '''''''-:.: , ., .- ' ": 141W7;10.41, , -:,.„,.'"„, .'i„,14';'"'"f'i•,p!,i '•.,l'!', !.,:';'!0.0,,'„,Zi!..,?.' iit+j,,:,;0,..';',,, .):',,i;,'i.i.4,,,?:::,!, 4.I • - I ' .•'.‘.:1;2;':,.:,-,. ''::!'„1,‘;,.„.;-,f'it'S ' ' ':'.''',:',',:i''''-„'''''''' '::' ''''::' '''''': :'''''''' ''' . 14::; ,,,:;iir.i4,:.'''''''''-' :ili7R, 'it, i.",f?'.4f:•t4::,14.2feiti'...", 1 ? 1. ,,--i,.'„,..l''',„'•::: ,„ '''-:%„'„f,'%;„ ' °''. , „,L :.., '.'-,'":';'''' .--.' '.''..;,.-.:,','-'.. ...'-,i4,*.A:A., :::„:•:0',‘"10.'4i'i'ild-ii !,'.:'2,' ''':.,;:f'il'''.''"."' ' ' - ' ''''-'-' '• ' ' ''4 „ ' '‘-- -'-'-' .•.•,,,,Aletr.i; ''• - ;•-•'1---,',i',,,'.,,,,As,,,y.1,-,..Y:,:•• • k• '.ik,,'•!,:-.-');:!,:; :.f•:,,. ,_ - ,.,„72;,,,°-:-:,,, • :. ',:„ , ...,::. - - -•- ; .' ' •-•:,\ :.- , •-•'-• •,,,r,','"-•''il,„'-ilIol-ii i7:::::', --4,.'77.;:P:1 „•_:•,-1-44,, ,,,34,,,,.:„! ,„?,:-4-;54,,,-„,„,,„,•1,1‘ .,..,,.,:,;.,,, , -.,..,::::,,,.;,F.4:, ,.-, p.osi, . :,?'''!';?'''' ' :,`'.:''''::;- ,,,:' ' ' "1,_::,/ '' ' 1'•-,', ''.;1:&,::'''',YiT''t'''''''.1:'':Ti'e.:12ZIF,I,TO,,,-- ';i'...1 IP-41'4 4,!;-:',' , i:‘,,,' : :-.':;::7;''s..:t;;'‘,,,,,,,::::, , _,,,,-;:!, . . ,,;,)',,,,,,, ,'''''';'4,i''',,';,:,:„ ::,-:: ''!'''.' ,1:.7:4;!4,;j':. ',:•-,1„.^4t:6::1':?:;:51*014' 11,':,':',„4:i,'• :4"1:1:'-'•,,:A!*;,:,;•;:,;:!0::::'•I'l , ,',,-: ',,,,<,,,,,„;.,,,,':'' •:'','',:„: •, ,,„ :;,,,,,..4„:":4:./7:2 '.,::' ,,,,,-,i,,:t,A?:',-,f,;;'!",:-:,,::-,;,.:zi.:44i —f',,,''';,':;:',,.0.4.'',=''';':::,y' .-:ic..i.,'!:,,i4i.,'''4,'',- 1,.'1.,,...,,',:•,:;.,',.:; • ., , .,,,,, „ . . . , . , ,. , ,,,,„ ,-.- 1,..„=„,-...,hcipc...vx: 4,,,t f?1/ ,44 .•- : r,•.: ••4 ,-.,„:0,-, „„,:: • .,•.,,,,,!,, i , -,„ , • ' . '.',.-4:::'-,0?•s-,:,'•-•-',-,:-."•;. :;14'.,''1-' %*'"iir It ,..-,, '"':''4,Yrniltl,';.--il '.'j':'.',,':41".1:,'.]1*;'.•' •,,"1 '':';", 1 wR , -' ''":":;:':+•::::, :' ' ''. " - ::';:', . ,' ,::„;;„,"11:':"^"::4%5.';'-;', iiT';."'4,-;, ';.„6"i„,•''.';:--' ,, .'''':' ..,: . , ,,,-, ,,,,;; , „ .,<:4714i,'ireqi, ", ,„ f:••42.-,:,.'-' - 1- - -,--1,:''',,i,„ ,,;,-,;,,:1,,r,,•,,,'_i:i•-,::.y-i,,.:„ :,,,.;,,.„.„,,tlfz ,:i4-wi '•,:„•••• ,:1„•„;',.-5.r,-, .. ''_.4: ---z1.--.,,, ,-- !0-4- ,-, --:;:::;,"': !-",-.-..., ..:7...):'..:;:-ZL''2{', :- '.' .1:: ' ..1.„!:, ,,],.4 .;.;.•-.I.:%1 .-:.;:, -,,-.... ',:',.. -.';'''''.'"^:4,;,:, 7- ,''''''': OM',C. ::;;.' 4''''' '''::':'''.."I71''!;.!'°:l A ,,". " ;,,,,,`;,'';' , , , ,*Fr:r.V1''''.',„ ''.A1 ', C''',7,'4.-.ir;,•,4,i1,•.rtl:„:•, :„.;,•°. ,,- --..' '.'`—‘-'''•-- ---- '.-:;'-,- ''- 'i ' •5'50N :::, .,,,AA " :'': . $'''''Pi ,' ,;';': ,t aitgU,:,..;:': x .•,,,,,,I , ;it :7 :__ ' .„,,,,,,•, , ,,;:i,,,„, 4'--- - , , " : ;;,-'l''''''' .„' ' V.'-3,7,,',.•::,.. '-'-'' 444,;','!'‘OV:I.!:•:,0•;00416':' i',' , ,--4.--,4.....4i- ,x,'''• -i'li';.',,,:i',. , , ,„ --„,-," ""(',,,),,IV,, ,,,:• f",' " ,,, ',,,c,",''1:044,7'''''i „ „,,..," ,,,,',-, ,..-2.,..:,..--'-','-,S<',*,i'',..:AA'''',' ''', •'9",• '',''>„,,.. ''..',^.-1`X.4,:*;;.";""i• iii#4,:**,:',"?;-"•'‘: *,4,4,,,, 11.:*,. +-,:i'*,,, '''.:'-5,1;';'4,1*'-',.V::*2 ,i447 . A,:-.;,,...,-,-4,1,4*-1:,41,',!A,-; - :›,, ' 4''''''''4''•"lett ;:,,'>,.,,,,-..„,,,, z\ ‘)' r ''•;;=''''-;.,:,,' ' '-',;e'' ',f''',,',•,:'?'...';,'"i,''''' ''''' :::, ''' ;:41'''' ' ;1':•'.1•4:3! ' ,i(r11°PA::',W'''"1`.P44 ,-;t„V'' " -`•;',",',.. ,•..;,:, ',44;,,,L,..;'Alii , ',', ' •'' x;),', - -''' .•' .:,, '''','",;':,,„ "„,,o '• ' ,',0,"' ... ..t,,,,-,.„4 i*,,,,,,, °;4 .-,iffi.,4,..,,,,,,,zia001,411 , ''' '''''"'' ' '111-5' - 1", ::"*',-''''' , ': • 1,,,,v ':, - ' 1'4?;': !"''.,‘, „„,,,,,,,''' W,t'l,,; -;.-,,A04;$,,, .,0*-°' ..0,-,.,,,,;,,•%„1,',,.,', ',4,.' (,,,i-,,,,t,',4,44-:.•,.4ye,;;,';',4".> ; ,.,.,:•..,-: . A;,.',.. :, :,:i214 ',. '4,14,''' '''''(''''''Vt:11'''''''7)'':'; ..,.:,..,,,',.,.---,:;.--E,;4::;r`;•. ;Fbif,-,'. ' '.,, .„,:,;,;:! '";;;;',4-`,/,,,,47:1;-',;044.10,1,'' ,..-y' t, t''' -----,,,-,,,•, --' .,-'' ,„,,..-,,,;'-..:...'. i,,-;;,,,,e•‘,'„ ' '.*3 74.%(:1'"1" '1(‘'f'.4"‘4''''''''.*:I r, ,,,.,';';"-', ":'-" . -,;•-, ,177,;'"'=', '- •, "-;;,-"- --,"•'.'''.ii:•:Vi irr:li'.i.4‘-‘''',,,1!: ..:;',1* ,,'r,,'4.-i' ' ' .,#'"" t k• ::, 4/".. 3 ,,.„,,, ,i,i,''':;.:i.ef':, ,';‘,0 ''',. ''!:,,,o'„4 .c. ,'••-••*„'•'-•I; . ;iii,•,';- -i'.-', - ';',:-,,,;„:•;,,c;;;`,`„;._; -- •.!-_--c-7---,x0t-:•;. •-.2.1.'.:1-.:':4:::,,;t4;',11,' ' '. isio,kli'"A'Aii'41P,:- 4':::•f,-4,4`li4.E• '.., ,:„tp.::.-,!:.''V ''''.',1; . ,,.. V:: '.'-' ''''''' t4:,, ' . ,.' /::",:•'''"'44 '''' '''''.0''':..'E:1'4.•::;;I:4:AtiAg.**arr, ,,, lef-.1"101‘;';'''4'.i.i.- ',Jitik ''''''..:?''fr.' LI,4„. ' 1 ,, ,,;',:k:'',.'''T, /,,,•')Ut .;:",:.,:.':.:'.%i..: 4;1.;;,'-'','':'?,%,,,',..:":42`;'•;''':i's;„‘,'""'titift''. ''''7' ; *-:l'.',$i, Cs* •_ ' " '• ' "'-1:.;'''4''''•.''' •-• ' ''',-,"-':7::.,'' ' i''-';:;''":',:';',5.' "Ti;:'7,7:44.714...4!".-: ''''f.,i-VAti.';'."'7,14'4A4T"j!: 1-34ifii:.!?!.!iiIi' '2' a) 'Xi''',':•;;.:",-;-"'"'..2,-4;:t‘.''',.".:::''': : ,";""''-';'- : ''--:44''' ."'''''''''',A44i.5**11;;Z4V'''',2t-iri14-4.;liVtl' -,i l'' *74,Itt:':: :‘,$4.'ii cc , :,:-.. •::-,,"-..°"..-.1:'1':::''''"„„..•,•;,';.:.!ir:'''''''''.,'''' ''''''": ''',' 4;,-;',,,::',„ •:',:41,41t: '.1.,';',;'," 0:.,.,„•'.:,.;,,,,,,* .„/;;;Iet,,til•!''A ,. :Aim ,)!,:4'.4:4'.. a , :i,„,",:,,,,,,,,,,L ,„ ,..,,,,,,:-.:;„,,,, -:-..,,,:..:,,:,,, ,,,, .• ',,,,,,,, ,,,. ,,,; ,---- , :,,,,,,,,,,,,,4.,,,,, ,. .08::,..,,,,,,,,,... ,- 4, ,) i) , ...,:, . ._ . ,.. , P. - --- '; _., \ 4 \ t ose will have vies of the water quality tract with ponds and proposed low vegetation There are limited opportunities for landscaping in front of the buildings where a 10-foot setback is proposed between the si ewalk and building front. For the most part, however,the only landscaping will be at May Creek and e stormwater tract. At the latter, proposed shrubs.and dwarf ornamental trees will provide limited v sual relief. i, C 1 ntinuation of Industrial Use e visual impacts of this alternative would be moderate to high, depending on the infill density and new b}ilding heights. Assuming maximum allowable height and a higher density of buildings that extend s.uth to the mouth of May Creek, the visual impacts could be similar to those for residential d,velopment, except that the visual character would remain industrial. The simulations approximate a 11y built-out condition. New buildings would probably be similar to the existing metal-siding industrial `` _' ' I wi ehouses and therefore have a neutral to negative visual impact. If infill construction were limited to -- t e northern end of the site where operations are now,the visual impact would be less than the residential ' p coposal since the new structures would appear to be part of the existing building mass. Vividness, '- i actness, and unity all would remain low, contributing to an overall low visual quality. More 1. dscaping is required if new buildings are approved, therefore tree screens and restoration landscaping c oluld be mitigate some of the negative visual impacts although landscaping of the public land along the s oreline probably would not occur. F u r both alternatives, shading and shadow impacts on nearby areas might be slightly greater than existing c oinditions because of the density and possible heights of the buildings. The impacts outside the property ould not be significant, however, due to the distance of the nearest residential neighbor. Proposed b ildings would be set back from the shorelines of Lake Washington and May Creek, so new shadowed c oinditions at these locations probably would not be created. 3 7.3 Mitigation Fur the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic i pacts could be reduced by a number of strategies ranging from changing building height and bulk to I s s1ecific building design features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening. C anging building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height. ' T i e proposed 50 foot height within SMA jurisdiction results in buildings that are about 60 percent as high \ a.'they are wide as seen from the street. Buildings outside SMA jurisdiction are proposed to be up to 70 f-et high, or almost as high as wide. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce , b ildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. It may be o served that duplex structures likely would not achieve the full building bulk presumed, since a 50 foot h gh four story building on a 40 by 100 foot building site would have a floor area of about 16,000 square , f et. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between I b ildings,either separately or in conjunction with reducing building height. This would produce less of a _ c you effect on streets within the development and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings om outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building , height,bulk, and setbacks. This could include a transition in height with the lowest buildings and greatest setbacks near the shoreline, providing opportunities for buildings further inland to enjoy view corridors over and between buildings and presenting less of an apparent wall of buildings when viewed from the water or from residential shoreline residences to the south. Another option would be to step building heights from east to west across the site, or maintain lower building heights at the site perimeter with h. her buildings in the center. Cary of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Daft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-117 September 2003 , The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape design, could provide a number of features which reduce apparent bulk of buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety, depending on the use of common elements and the variety of size,position,or design provided. Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that would not be expected to mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can provide a crown area that is higher than building roofs, or screen a substantial portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide for large species that would provide crown area that could provide visual relief, as opposed to the dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way. Such additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective because existing structures would remain. Painting existing structures a color that would blend with the surroundings better than white and aqua could reduce negative visual impacts. New structures that are taller than the existing buildings should be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A formalized entry into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen from the roadway. ?_r 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE h r 3.8.1 Affected Environment Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have some shielding, but probably date to the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site i because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass. 3.8.2 Impacts ) Potential light and glare impacts for both alternatives would be minimized by incorporating preventive measures in the project design;therefore, low-level impacts would be anticipated. The impact from glare could be mitigated by careful design and placement of the buildings, especially with respect to windows. Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of r Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to prevent .I spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall brightness at night and would reduce glare. Under Alternative 2 (Continuation of Industrial Use), the dominant light sources would be building-mounted and pole-mounted security lights. The density of such 1--- 1 lights could increase,but the overall impact would be moderate if modern lamps with shielding and low- intensity filaments were designed into the project. ` l The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level of ambient light. Impacts from the four other views would be lower since there are already streetlights in the neighborhoods,and the site is partially screened by tall trees. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 ){ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-118 September 2003 I, H'adlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade b tween the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the ro dway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south, h;adlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family re.idences. 3.:.3 Mitigation v F t'r both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, s c elded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding gll e from glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists. ,--- h T 1 is project is not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant after m tigation. i 3. NOISE 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3. '.1.1 Background on Noise Definition and Measurement Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound(EPA 1971). T 1 e human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The decibel scale (dB) used to d;scribe sound is a logarithmic rating system, which accounts for the large differences in audible sound I, in ensities. This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an increase of 1 II dB; therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. People g;nerally cannot detect differences of 1 dB; in ideal laboratory situations, differences of 2 to 3 dB can be d oti ected by people, but such a change probably would not be detectable in an average outdoor { e vironment. A 5-dB change would probably be perceived under normal listening conditions. Sound le els associated with a range of common noise sources are shown in Table 3.9-1. I I I 1 Pen addressing the effects of noise on people, it is useful to consider the frequency response of the h man ear. Instruments are, therefore, designed to respond to or ignore certain frequencies. The fr quency-weighting most often used is A-weighting; it approximates the frequency response of human ih raring and is highly correlated to the effects of noise on people. Measurements from instruments using s system are reported in A-weighted decibels or dBA. All sound levels in this evaluation are reported i iA-weighted decibels. D'stance from the source; the frequency of the sound; and the absorbency of the intervening ground, o �structions, and duration of the noise-producing event all affect the transmission and perception of i n 'ise. The degree of these effects also depends on who is listening and on existing sound levels. The ✓ i iability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise; however, when the community is considered as a whole, trends emerge that relate noise to annoyance. Two main types of health effects may potentially occur from �- `' excessive noise: auditory and non-auditory. Auditory impacts are caused by high noise levels that can — potentially damage hearing and produce either partial or total deafness. Non-auditory health impacts ! j include sleep disturbance and speech interference and may also involve human physiological (other than hearing damage)or behavioral effects. 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 September 2003 j I Ir II - 3.9.1.2 Regulatory Overview Washington State and City of Renton Noise Standards The City of Renton has adopted the state of Washington's noise regulation in WAC 173-60-040. Maximum permissible environmental noise levels are set based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement(EDNA)land use categories in both the noise source and receiving property. There are several important variations and exemptions in the noise regulations,including the following: 1. Day/night noise levels are set a standard 10 decibels lower between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 2. An exception is provided for short duration noise levels exceeding the standard, which provides for exceeding the standards above by one of the following amounts for the following 'i periods: a. 5 dBA for 15 minutes in any 1-hour period b. 10 dBA for 5 minutes in any 1-hour period L c. 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes in any 1-hour period 3. The following exemptions from noise regulations are relevant to this project and the surrounding context: a. Sounds from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt at all times when received by Class B and C receptors (commercial and industrial) and are exempt when received by Class A receptors (residential) during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). b. Sounds created by motor vehicles are exempt when regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC. c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight are exempt. d. Sounds from railroad operation are exempt. e. A variety of emergency and warning devices are exempt. f. Bells,chimes, and carillons are exempt. The regulations apply differently according to the use of the site. For industrial use, the maximum noise level for the residential area across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site is 60 dBA, based on a Class C source and a Class A receiving property. For residential use of the site under the proposed residential use, the maximum noise level is 55 dBA, based on a Class A. source and a Class A receiving property. Noise levels for individual motor vehicles are regulated by performance standards in WAC 173-62, also adopted by the City of Renton. These rules set limits on the noise generated by various classes of motor vehicles. These standards are based on noise levels at specific distances (e.g., 50 feet) from vehicles -.� moving at particular speeds (e.g., 45 miles/hour). These limits range from approximately 72 dBA to approximately 90 dBA,depending on the class and speed of the vehicle. 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-120 September 2003 7 } Table 3.9-1. Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective Possible Effects on Noise Sources (dBA) Evaluations Humans(a) luman Threshold of Pain Continuous exposure to (,arrier jet takeoff at 50 feet 140 levels above 70 can iren at 100 feet cause hearing loss in , 130 majority of population bud rock band et takeoff at 200 feet 120 Deafening 'Iuto horn at 3 feet � i,hain saw oisy snowmobile locomotive Horn 110 pact pile driver ,,, ' !awn mower at 3 feet 100 oisy motorcycle at 50 feet Very Loud ,eavy truck at 50 feet 90 ' 'pneumatic drill at 50 feet 80 usy urban street, daytime ———_ ^ _ Loud — ormal automobile at 50 mph 70 acuum cleaner at 3 feet _........_..._........._. ..................._....... ... - .............._........._..._. Speech Interference it conditioning unit at 20 feet 60 (l onversation at 3 feet Moderate 0 uiet residential area 50 1,ight auto traffic at 100 feet Library Sleep Interference e uiet home 40 -- Faint •oft whisper at 15 feet 30 .light rustling of leaves 20 roadcasting Studio 10 Very Faint - hreshold of Human Hearing 0 Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Consequently,overlaps exist among categories of response,depending on the sensitivity of the noise receivers. (a)Source EPA 1974 +- e maximum noise levels are indicated in Table 3.9-2. Table 3.9.2. Noise Levels I EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property Class A Class B Class C CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA CLASS B 57 60 65 CLASS C 60 65 70 Source: WAC 173-60-040 1 I 1 Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D;aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-121 September 2003 i 1 Noise levels from railroad operations are governed by federal law (the Swift Rail Development Act, 1--- enacted November 1994) that requires that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopt rules to k J regulate railroad crossings. The FRA rules require locomotive horns be sounded upon approaching every "unsealed" public grade crossing. An unsealed public grade crossing is defined as a crossing without grade separation, quad gating; or crossing guard with median barrier. The rules also require each lead j locomotive to have an audible warning device that produces a sound level of at least 96 dBA at least 100 feet ahead of the locomotive. The minimum noise level of 96 dBA(with averages between 100 and 110) ry- ensures that it can be clearly heard and recognized over ambient background noise in a variety of j environments, such as inside an enclosed automobile or truck cab and by railroad employees. In addition, J all major railroads have operating rules that require their engineers to blow train horns at rail grade —I crossings as a warning to motorists and pedestrians(FRA 1999). 3.9.1.3 Existing Noise Levels I Existing sources of noise near the site include the following: ( • Noise produced by operating the Barbee Mill Sawmill. This mill site is presently a relatively small noise generator. The main sawmill is operated intermittently to saw the small amount of 1- unprocessed logs currently on hand. Machinery in the main sawmill building and the planning 1 i building is completely enclosed, which reduces noise levels. The sawmill and planer buildings are about 800 feet from the closest residences east of Lake Washington Boulevard, which —, attenuates noise levels. There is also a finishing operation for windows and doors located in a building near the northeast corner of the site about 250 feet from the nearest residences. • Noise from operation of the Quendall Terminals, located to the north of the Barbee Mill site is largely from loaders used to store and sort logs. The major source of noise is the operation of _ heavy diesel machinery, which generates noise levels from 90 to 100 dBA. The Quandall Terminals is approximately 500 feet from residences on the east side of Lake Washington i Boulevard and an equal distance from residences to the north on Ripley Lane. ii L— • Noise from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals is caused by heavy machinery and noise from maintenance of boats. Residences abut that property 7 to the north. • Noise from arterials in the area is largely related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington — Boulevard,which currently carries about 400 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Noise levels for i , residents close to Lake Washington Boulevard are typically 54 to 64 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-3. U__i Table 3.9-3. Noise Measurement Results Location Noise Measurement Map Code Street Address Leg Lmax Date Time 1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 64 05.11.2000 1:45 pm 55 79 05.22.2003 11:20 am - 1 2 Eastport Shores Apartments, 59 68 05.11.2000 12:20 pm 4100 Lake Washington Boulevard N 3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 62 05.11.2000 3:30 pm I,,__ 4 3940 Meadow Avenue N. 68 71 05.11.2000 2:15 pm ,— Source: WSDOT 2001 i City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 1� Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-122 September 2003 1 • Noise from the I-405 freeway about one quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residents adjacent to I-405 typically range from 68 to 71 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-2. I • Noise from train operation includes engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive •horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Dane 1998). Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks. Horns would not be sounded at the existing private driveway entrances to the Barbee Mill site or the Quendall Terminals site, unless vehicles or pedestrians were observed in the vicinity. Four trains a day typically use the BNSF rail line to the east of the Barbee Mill site (Cowels 2003 personal communication). Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA. Measures of existing trains indicate average sound levels of about _ 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile away from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings. Sounding practices of railway engineers typically result in whistle durations from 20 to 40 seconds(FRA 1999). S;nsitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes, h.lspitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site. N.!ise levels in the vicinity have been surveyed recently for studies related to I-405 improvements and for th s project. Noise measurements are indicated in the table below. Traffic noise was the dominant noise 1s. rce at all locations monitored. ?e primary source of noise for receptors 1 and 2 is Lake Washington Boulevard. Receptor 3 receives n ise from both Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 because of its elevation and direct line-of-sight I e posure to both roadways. Receptor 4 is located north of the existing noise wall on I-405 and that fr'eway is the primary noise source. 3 9.2 Impacts 3 9.2.1 Construction Impacts D ring construction of any of the alternatives, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels along IF proposed new alignments and existing access areas due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling o construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being tried, and the amount of time it is in use. Table 3.9-4 displays ranges of noise produced by typical - coinstruction equipment. addition to the noise levels associated with these typical types of construction equipment, construction ,\ o this site may require driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations due to the loose delta deposits in the . ea. The depth of foundations would depend on the depth to cohesive geologic deposits that could s pport foundations without risk of settlement or failure. Generally, the depth to consolidated deposits is g eatest in the westerly portions of the site. I P le driving is potentially the greatest source of noise and vibration generated from construction activities. I ere are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce a high l-vel of vibration for short periods(0.2 second)with sufficient time between impacts to allow a building's , - r-sonant effects to decay before the next vibration event. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver,which can operate at different frequencies,vibrates the pile into the ground. Cjl of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 gal?-Environmental Impact Statement 3-123 September 2003 _' As shown in Table 3.9-4, sound levels 50 feet from construction equipment exceed the levels recommended for residential land uses. The residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. Construction noise is exempt between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. from the maximum permissible sound levels specified in the noise codes of Washington State(WAC 173-60)for residential receiving properties. Construction noise impacts to most existing residences are likely to be moderate because of distance attenuation. The likely exception is access roadway and bridge construction impacts on existing dwellings along Lake Washington Boulevard. The greatest noise impacts are likely from pile driving. The greatest impacts would be experienced by occupants of the initial dwellings constructed on the site from foundation pile driving over V- the build-out period. Table 3.9-4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) -, Estimated Leq Range of Noise Levels ": i Construction Types of Activity 50 feet 350 feet Equipment 50 feet 350 feet Clearing • 83 66• Bulldozer ! 77-96 60-79 j Dump Truck 82-94 65-77 `--` Scraper 80- ...._...... ........._.._..— ._.._....._._.. . ......... ......_....._.. ; 93 63-76 Grading 75-88 58-71 —._......_....._..._................_.. Bulldozer 77-96 60-79 Paving 72-88 55-71 '- ave __..._..._...........f_ Paver 86-88 i 69-71 — -- - —_ Dump Truck 82-94 ....._.....__._...i._............... ........._65-77._... Building Construction 85-90 Impact Pile Driving 90-105 Vibratory Pile Driving 1 85-95 i Source:EPA 1971 FTA,Noise and Vibration Technical Report,1995 -- ' 3.9.2.2 Rail Noise Impacts Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. This would impact the residents on the east side of May Creek,next to the BNSF tracks. Locomotive horns sounded at the rail crossings of the proposed public streets will result in noise levels of 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings. The creation of public road crossings would make horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore, increase the frequency, as compared to current discretionary sounding. At the current frequency of four trains per day, the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight, especially because most existing trips are during the day or in the early evening for the Dinner Train. If train frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant __ annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington, which is generally a residential { area from the south end of the lake to where the railway crosses I-405 in Bellevue. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-124 September 2003 'I I ; 3.'.2.3 Transportation Noise Impacts N'ise impacts from increases in traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard related to regional growth and trios from the project are within the range of traffic volumes and noise impacts previously studied for the I-4 05 interchange at 44th Street. Future projected noise levels in Table 3.9-5, below, indicate that ins reases in noise would range from 1 to 5 dBA. A change of 3 dBA is generally is the threshold at w ich a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are still well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a noise impacts (FWHA 23 CFR 772). e increase in noise at 3940 Meadow Avenue N is related primarily to I-405 traffic. The level of impact of traffic from this project on I-405 would not produce a detectable noise impact. 3. .3 Mitigation 3.!.3.1 Construction Impact Mitigation S :to and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Construction noise, however, can negatively affect people living nearby. The noisiest activities, such as pi le driving,could be restricted to start later and end earlier. A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the extent to which people are a`ected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with enforcement standards requiring m fliers on equipment: Practices such as turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise. --- S tionary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as possible. Portable noise b.: 'ers could be placed around equipment, with any openings directed away from the residential re eiving property. These measures would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound d would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment th:t would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. Substituting h draulic or electric models for pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement b -akers would also reduce construction noise. ij { 'i e effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited on this site the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in I less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete c. be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed u- ng an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus eliminating th= need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for la feral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. 3 9.3.2 Rail Noise Impacts T e FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The regulations have not y-'t been adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures that might be t.i en if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of increased use of the rail line. C y of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-125 September 2003 '+ r Table 3.9-5. Noise Modeling Results Modeled Peak Hour Leg(dBA) ii Location 2000 Existing 2025 1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 58 2 Eastport Shores Apartments,4100 Lake Washington 62 63 Boulevard N 3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 59 4 3940 Meadow Ave. N. 68 71 Source: WSDOT 2001 The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian conflicts at rail crossings. To accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a "sealed" status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by four-quadrant gates, median-divided barriers incorporating gate arms long enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates. _ Gates would also have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to range from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with traffic signals and based on the number of lanes of roadway and the number of rails(FRA 1999). 3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable adverse noise impacts include the residual noise from construction,trains, and use of the site ,r that cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described below. The most substantial unavoidable adverse impacts would occur from impact-driven pilings for foundations, if less noisy alternatives should prove infeasible because of the character of geologic deposits. 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES This section considers potential historical and cultural resources at the Barbee Mill site, discusses probable impacts on these resources, and suggests mitigation measures. A brief history of the Barbee Mill site and an inventory of existing buildings and structures are provided. The analysis presented here ,-, draws upon previously recorded investigations, in particular the following documents: Archaeological and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment (LAAS 2001), Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington (LAAS 1997), and Historical Resources Discipline Reports (BRA 2000). These reports (completed for other development proposals) were in-depth and comprehensive investigations into the significance of possible cultural and historic resources at the `' Barbee Mill site. The Renton Historical Society and Museum was contacted, resulting in a telephone interview with Mr. Stan Greene,a researcher for the Society. ly° 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3.10.1.1 Applicable Regulatory Compliance Prehistoric and Native American resources are protected by federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines. Washington State laws addressing cultural resources are the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act(RCW 27.53)and the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44). Under these acts,the agency is responsible for making a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Indian Tribes that attach significance to this site. To comply with this act, Parametrix contacted the State Historical Preservation •i__ City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-126 September 2003 O ifce (SHPO) by letter, on behalf of the city of Renton, to solicit existing information on historic and cultural resources on site. Similar letters were sent to Tribes that may have an interest in the site to solicit th-1ir input. The SHPO (Dr. Robert G. Whitlam) responded with a voicemail message acknowledging re leipt of the letter. Letters describing the proposed action were sent to the Duwamish, Kikiallus, M ckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes. 3. 0.1.2 Historical Background of Barbee Mill Tract le Barbee Mill property was once part of a larger(160-acre)parcel purchased around 1875 and owned b I J.Madison Colman. In 1903,the Northern Pacific Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way through thr property along the eastern edge and built the railway in 1905. Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and b. ge building company, purchased the southern third of the Colman property in 1943. The Barbee Mill C mpany, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the sa mill operation but abandoning the ship building business. At that time,there were numerous sawmills o s rating on Lake Washington, but the number had dropped to thirteen by 1950. Today the Barbee Mill is he only active sawmill remaining. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the Barbee water tower and the wooden mill warehouse. The mill was completely rebuilt in 1959 and incorporated these two existing structures. The - water tower, built in the 1930s, was purchased in 1943 and was barged from the Seattle-Renton Mill Company in Bryn Mawr by Barbee Marine Yards. The mill warehouse, also known as "the black b gilding," was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years, including replacing windows and the sliding door. H storic Resources a , T e HRA report,Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange(2000), w s undertaken to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,which contains the cr teria for determining if properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A p perty may be eligible for listing if it is at least 50 years old and qualifies for at least one of the f•I lowing: • It is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history. • It is associated with a significant person. • It embodies distinctive characteristics of the period's style or method of construction, represents the work of a master, is of high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entry whose components may lack individual distinction. • It may yield information important in prehistory or history(36 CFR 60.4). B ildings or structures that are less than 50 years old can qualify for the National Register but only if they . e integral parts of districts that meet the criteria for Register eligibility or are of exceptional historical i portance(HRA 2000,p. 16). T e report covered the three properties on the May Creek delta: Barbee Mill, J.H. Baxter Company, and t e Quendall Terminals. Historic property inventories were completed for the Barbee Mill Warehouse a d the Water Tower, neither of which was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic P aces. The mill warehouse and the water tower are associated with the sawmill industry on Lake ashington,which was important to both the local and Puget Sound economies. This meets the criterion f'r being associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history; however, the s 'rvey indicated that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or, C;ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-127 September 2003 j ,_,'' of the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" (HRA 2000, p. 1) as individual components because the ��~; original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. The buildings that now comprise the sawmill _) operation are of a distinctly different character from the wood warehouse and are less than 50 years old. Since the Barbee Mill does not qualify as an historic district, nor is it of exceptional importance, it was r- determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing in the National Register. The SHPO concurred with the finding. A site inventory was conducted in February 2003. For completeness, the structures are briefly described l in Table 3.10-1, below. The list is generally from north to south Locations of structures are indicated in i Figure 3.10-1. Dimensions are approximate, as scaled from the CADD survey drawings. az Table 3.10-1. Structures on Barbee Mill Site Map# Resource Name Year built Description �_; 1 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal;partial lease for storage 80 x 160 feet 2 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal empty 80 x 140 feet l 3 Mill Warehouse 1945 One-and two-story,wood-frame 120 x 80 feet 1 "The black building" 4 Boise Building One-story, metal,"Cut line"shop where timber trusses were -, made 140 x 95 feet 1 I, 5 Green Shed One-and two-story, metal,storage of wood from Shop(#4)310 x40feet 6 Wharfing pier Early 1940s Wooden dock for loading/unloading barge. 7 Sawmill Complex One-to three-story buildings, metal,for unloading, barking,and 1 (Note:buildings are on slicing logs. Includes shop on first floor, production equipment DNR-managed area on second floor,and storage for blades and saws on third floor. j--, outside`inner harbor'line) Total=260 x 60 feet 8 Waste Wood Complex Assemblage of conveyor belts,ducts,chipper,associated machinery and support structures. Includes a small building for office and rest rooms, and a sawdust collection tower. Approximately 230 x 200 feet i i- 9 Planer Building One-story, metal 100x 140 feet plus two small rooms 10 Water Tower 1930s 108 feet tall. Transferred to site in 1943. 30-x 30-foot base 11 Old Kiln One-story, metal;dry kiln and cooling shed 160 x 50 feet 12 Shed 45 x 35 feet 1 13 Garage One-story metal 60 x 50 feet 14 New Kiln One-and two-story metal 190 x 45 feet _� 15 Boxcar Building One-and two-story wood frame with metal siding for loading wood products onto boxcars for shipping 120 x 40 feet 16 Sheet piling 1960s Constructed dock edge of property 17 Office 1960s Main office building for Barbee Mill 60 x 30 feet - 18 Boat House Two-story metal 60 x 30 feet LI City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 r'r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-128 September 2003 ,�ti 1 / I /: r I 1 2 113 /' ` • ` / : / CM 1110 i OHW -,- Evetce �j -�� p ram; 5 f ./ / 7::1-----Ilimmi / I--s 1 r I q _ / 2 12,-----2, / "./// , 1 t___71y:// -.0 / ....1-4---,--:"„--/y //.§)/ \En \\'.....-,-.::::___----- / 1 / ----..-: ',.„(/ N . \ 7- // //\, -..-fly ° .. A....6` /,%fog 1 / .. g '�1s, JZ LAKE / 15 ,,'� ,;\\1 1 ! ) �1�� WASHINGTON iq�`•' ' J :1 % "y ::\ / :'j I ; ; Iffy/f/y� .72 \l' i j` i f .i t�� _ fr �t .'" n, 1 / " 7----- ,,f, / ''''''"--,„ t ,/7 /ee- \- , Vic,f / •, +•--- elf t( �, ,„, i f 'lfin.2 � �,1 1,r A: ,,, ;\, ‘,,,, MAY CREEK -.,„, DELTA x ,-' i 7 7.---:///7--y .�,� `//' _....�..__ `~\ .r 1 / Syr_- �_.._..._ — — _._. ___ _..__ __. _ /y ,� -- _ N 40TH ST tozerir 4 :, r1 Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 ALE: K1779017P01T14F-3-10-01 ' SCALE IN FEET ,FIN Figure 3.10-1 W Building Locations 0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 4 a 3.10.1.3 Cultural Resources Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding hunter-fisher-gatherer cultural resources is near the original location of May Creek(LAAS 2001;LAAS 1997),which was at the a north end of the May Creek delta. The original May Creek was the home of the Lake Washington Duwamish, who knew May Creek as "the place where things are dried" because they gathered and dried salmon there. As Euro-American settlers began to occupy these traditional gathering and fishing places, the indigenous people moved or were moved to other locations. The combination of unsatisfactory treaty terms and the occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering places resulted in skirmishes between some tribal groups and army troops and volunteers. Apparently the May Creek villagers remained at their village for several months after the war ended, living in three houses. Eventually most of the tribe moved to reservations. The USGS surveys of 1860s did not record any Duwamish houses at May Creek. '" Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916,most of the Barbee Mill site was under water,and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately 9 feet. There has been considerable disturbance of the land over the last 100 years for industrial uses and then for construction of I-405. Material from the upland portions of the site was used as fill to create usable land for the shipbuilding and sawmill operations. The changing shoreline of in the vicinity of the May Creek delta is illustrated in Figure 3.10-2. No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified anywhere on the delta, but it is possible that some remains exist in the northern part because of the historic tribal uses of the original May Creek. Only the northeast corner of the Barbee Mill site, near the black building, falls into this area. Since most of the site is paved with asphalt, it was only possible to do shovel probes at the south end of the site. The holes immediately filled with water, indicating that there are several feet of fill here. This is not unexpected since the shoreline was moved farther to the west by constructing bulkheads and backfilling, and May Creek was relocated southward twice. Based on the above fmdings,the cultural assessment reports indicated that it is unlikely that this site would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources, but that the northeast corner had the potential for deeply buried resources. 3.10.2 Impacts 3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts Direct impacts on the buildings and site within the Barbee Mill site would occur from the demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings. The buildings have been determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register; therefore, there would be no effect on historic resources. It is unlikely that there are any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources on site, except at the northeast corner near the black building;therefore,while unlikely,the potential exists for impacts to cultural resources. 3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts Operation of a development under the Barbee Mill development plan would not affect cultural or historic resources. _ r_. , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 r-_ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-130 September 2003 1 ft. , , , 4: •"" I , '''• . i.-' 1 (.:), 8 74:,-'1.• ,PH,''' . . . f r---' . . . Shoreline Boundary. • ,, *.Alki i ' r . • • , (United Stateal$Iinfeyor General 1864) ,, --. -.: ..:::. ,• ; .,1 :•.---.41-r•-$274 , • I ',, -11 ,,,,,1 .,,,,, a ,3•'•.= 4; / i, li May Creek * ' 1 ,,.„. .:' 1, t ;.z. ... (United tatesS0nreyor General 1864) /.. .-f •c\J i ::::',1 f.,.', ' :i t.,. 1864 Wagon Road . ''''''''1 ' til .,.-- . Trail I " •' '• •- 100 44 •• . (United States Surveyar•deneral 1864). '' ', ri , ft?,i, '.7 ` ',i. _,,,„.,.,,. , . .1, ,.•1 .' i loll —.1.'iv'.. ' c,,,,,,,, awn,Pfl...":•°' Shoreline Boundary ./.° ;";,/' - !A.) v,t,,z',i',,,,..,#.,Ikti, -At 6:,...,,,,,-,...., •\,,,:ik 1, (United States knit cPrPs pt Enbinaers 1920) .,,› , ,,,,',-• .:p.:,,i ',1 A , ,,,,,, .,. ,,,,,, , .. . _____ May Creek - -` -- .ti ,.1.., - '' ',",t. 4 ^i° •',,,a0c0,<ZA% ''' ''.-„..,°'''''"'elk, 0 ',, * ... ‘ ;,,,01 • 1 ; (United'BiPteS•Arnwcornt of Engineers 1920) '' --1.., ",4:`: :.' 'E,',. - l'••••"* • ,:1 1, MIN 1111111111111.1.1111 Former Railroad' ? >''..;-;" ' I'. _..1.'")**it'.4, ,'-,'',-' ,',:'' "'", a .r_._ (',,In)tad Sta*s.AnnY•Corps of.Bngineers 1920) !•• ,..;•,,..: „,,,(•-••-7- ,, .. . 1 :,f,i, ,c54,,,....• J. ; • L. - .,), • , . ;,..„ , I • : • ' PresentMay Creek •t,.. ...:/_1.4•2_, _ L.,..,,,--11- :4: it..._...........-1,..\,..4.. ---- . ). Marsh 7"Fli T,,,.,k ,.. 44z al ify (United Slates Army Corps of Engineers 1920) 4,..•:;"• , ' 1 ' c?'411 ily • :. 0 ,•-, . 41.'' ''''.0r' '''''' '"'", ,. '7;;..%0 ,—; I * ''''' •A; / '11 ,I:t.' ''', fl 1 il ,'.7 11 .;:ill ../. 4 ,./ ,4,4 , 1/ 'kitr' ,:..1•:. i,,/. l'il il /,A .A.,./ '4144'""" , '1,., . • . 1 : 1120 S1/2horeline30-/3/ I 4F.A... 14,,,4,':-/igi. ,,,, - ',4 ,,,,,ei° " er',,,•6.. .,,,, 4 4 k<?°' 1.° N''' , A. ,,,.,...: , .,,14';;ii: ;',' i' •; 10,0 '1'0, 0 .. 1864ShOreib1 le.1,4C• •,04f, . . • . ,.,-;.`'•'''' . i ,. -',.., .',,-* r,- _ -.. 7r .47`4,3(ifl'e.1,t')'•;* ' ::',':III 't ......'n . . 1 7- ...,•,... - ...4 11,0*• /14r reoeK ,/,=„, -,44",-;4•-,-,-! .....".i,14,4,!,..,,,., y..,...„C. i ,,,,,,,,,,, , , ,‘,,,,,,k -, ,,..„„N.„,;,-- . ,7, .,:v:st::$1,1 'ft' A. -.; ••:-',.:/vD.,1.,,,•',4 Yy Y 41,* ,,i,,k.2,,,'•:. er, 44'F,':•,'‘'::- ',4-.4.., — . r • ` . : 7\ .kl. 40**',.: ,:.:;• .1'',":':-, , / .47 ,, ,,:•./ ...:** "74:',, ,•,,l;', ''''••\2.sv Iv v .1,i, ,F—. f , . s • ',4Ct --,0 *•, -''''' .'..C4r*//',„7,.., •';‘,A'.::*'14‘,;'''''',•,:::::,'''''' l'! .% "' • , ..-'''''.' : .' "';"`;.1'.' ' 'lit l''':‘/;17t,\11.1 ft.;7"'°,4;f4:4• 4 .4 ' • . 1' .'% 1.,..7.7"..,,„ay ',..y—. < -4:,-•• .-"-f'Dilpi..t&F-'-'------ —. - , , ., ------ ----°-------11,',-:---::.-.-. f—, ivl .',.,..-;', A• 9 ',Tt, ;.'?`,',t0' • i • , . ••• ..._ _, • , •••• 1 .: 1. Li "..-4 ' l',, : X. (--,' ,,,, et. n .,-,41 ,441", , --, , . CO ' ' ' lil--' r"•I : . 4°'‘'')/.1:5( 1,., i 1. ':1',- I '1 ' 1 ' , . .0 ' .• '..: ' ; -2,- . ty.4.-1 '''''' 4.1.- 1-tviay oreor(":, f \ :''.• . ' i. :, . . i •1 , , J D ," .. - 'tom- ,,,..-4,:- . fri 192b . 14 -- ,---- i .,;..:•;. .,i0-:!".• /.4! 1-,,,„ki ki,t no,. ,A i • . ! -,, Marth in.1920- •.. -Iyif;1 . . 4:. •-... ":4'4... I til. 1. , In -, i e . • sta. •N: .wki • , , 1-t-g-tor-Nn--- • -----z-v- 4 ---- ''- May Creek \ . A • ' di4r.;4„ , ,,,4 0,./",,,,,,,,,,„,..-^ s-, .•, i .• , , %. •• • ,,,, ..• , . : \ •Vi ' in -10i „ 1 b fl — k , . . ,... • 1• ;, ,.,. . ...`41,3VV.,40%,..4,V2 ' .•i, i . ^.... :_-_. :'.- :'.!., - s"://;;',/,7,17717:.,' g • i i, .,,,,, 1 , May Crook- ' 1, • • • i ° .'re.v,p./ - '1,-,--k-^.., '_,,,,,y ,,,,-: q-.: . 864-Trailii '-.'.''.7 'in.1$97'• ,,. k ., '.:4-..'\° ' • — ,..,, , • • :,,-4,,„( .644 ,• - .. .,, ) : : •,., \ ,.,I; 'i.1`..-.47- c' .4.9/t:. c. ';'' * t. 1 ' ' .'4 ' \\ , i. k• . ‘q,....,-,,` •°, i:•:,-.„•tdrik/ 1' W.;.,-.k.i4:1• . ' . ° b . — ' .., : / :' :: . k 1 4 ..' !. , ,,, \ , /. ,, -,"""I '. . 'ei ' ‘-' • ' -t-,,,,,:„.,...,. I' :':p ...i.-,--' r /1: , t,,,,,,, . 4. _ . .., ......-0.1,0,...1----,- -, . ‘• - :iti., .i A 0 500 1000 x...' V i ... ,,,- .°. • -,,, i.. . ,71i r I::? ''''': ,1' [ I' i CI 1 ,tt " • ''-- . k r' ----,... .1 ' •1 I 1 ' .N , •• .4, ,..,.. ''. %,..1.,... v,,,1„,.........,,, . , .4.: , , ,,, ,, , Feet •• !,;11,4:: ,- '5-..4' .?. ,' ' '.:‘,/: - - ----- HI 1 ' 1000 feet=305 Meters •• -• ,,...,.... ,....,..,..,,,,...,r,-.. , -,-. ' I './,,,ii•,",./:ellt i , [ . : I.. ,, , 1 ,/ ,... I :•,,4 ,?ffil 'I' • 041 ,--•if,?,••.\--mr1*°'i •,.:‘: .T, .. Base Map fioni USES Bellevue Squib, ; -- WashIngtOn, 1983:•Parametrix Barbee Miii 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) Figure 3.10-2 Lake Washington 40 ,., Shoreline Changes 4 • _I 3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts Indirect or cumulative impacts on cultural or historic resources within or near the site would not occur under this development plan. 3.10.3 Mitigation 3.10.3.1 Historic Resources Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. Although the original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is the last of the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an opportunity to commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display _; could build on a brief description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a history of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near May Creek and its delta. 3.10.3.2 Cultural Resources An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction, the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would also contact Dr. Robert G. Whitlam, Washington State Archaeologist { (360-586-3080), who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources due to this development plan. I t r---, I � r'- 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-132 September 2003 I I 4. REFERENCES AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington,D.C.:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington: jr Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617 Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle,WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002. Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374. Bucknam, R.C., Hemphill-Haley, E., and Leopold, E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V.258,p. 1611-1614. Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of __ Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp. Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. , Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and California. U.S.Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp. Cadman,M.D., P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. 617 p. Chrzastowski, M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal,King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182. City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended October 25, 1999. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone communication, 05-20-03 r-- 1 CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues, Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003, http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 September 2003 ' 1� Di ne County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane —' County Regional Planning Commission, Madison, WI. Available at http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/final/html/chap5.htm D=vid Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property. 14 pp. plus appendices. t D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm. D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm. D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on August 14,2002. E.ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Program, Olympia,WA. August 2001. E.ology(Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. E tranco, Inc. 2001. I-405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report. Prepared by Entranco,Inc.for the City of Renton. E ponent. 1999. Noson, L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November 1'99 F„deral Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054. F' MAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland Oregon. F' A 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Rail Grade Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002 F ster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and City of Renton. August 1995. F II • (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999 F esh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management 9(1):148-151. Cz of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 September 2003 '__ FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16. Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development,Golder Associates,April 4,2002 Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development,Golder Associates,May 5,2003. Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene, �_- Researcher,May 2003. Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on the foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and R.J. Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology,University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340. Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16,2000. Revised September 6, 2000. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc. HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capcity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center. University of Florida. Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science, 236, 162-168. Houghton,L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994. Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53. Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158. ' HRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange. May 2000 http://wwvv.ce.washington.edut—liquefaction/html/main.html International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm Jacoby, G. C.; Williams,P. L.; Buckley,B. M., 1992,Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science,v. 258,no. 5088, p. 1621-1623. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 September 2003 y_, I, I I I - Jo son, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 95 pp. ,I it Jo son, P,D Mock, E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study:Phase I, Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia,WA. Publication No. 00-06-016. Jo son, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111;no.7 p. 1042-1053. K ler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to the City of Bellevue,Bellevue,WA. K rlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620. K ng County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department - ' Surface Water Utility. K g County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources, Seattle,WA. September 1998. g County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. g County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm utson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: 1 , riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. L S. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. March 27, 1997. L. son Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001 L , R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle,Washington. 320 pp. oyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994. .yd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company, stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie, Washington,for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. ! I fry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 September 2003 Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10 November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxzl6/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf. Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999. http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf. May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap _.' County Natural Resources Department. Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001. Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey:Prentice Hall. Mockler, A, L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream Mitigations in King County. King County DDES,Renton, Washington. MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.htm, last updated November 18, 1997. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer, T.C.Wainwright,W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T.Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp. Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office of Habitat Conservation. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January 1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/. Noson, L., Qamar, A., Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al, US. Geological Survey Open- - File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of3,1-029/. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 September 2003 ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3- 6.pdf II O iak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. P ametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19,2002. Pi skowski,R. and R.Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. Available at:http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf. Ps llack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit Foundation,Washington Environmental Council,and Point-No-Point Treaty Council. Paiole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 246 p. Q igley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057- 1,713 pp. Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000. R.�edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton, Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. R edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton, Washington. August 26,2002. R uch 1997,EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction- Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-219182249741411./unrestricted/Chp03.pdf R' nton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of Renton Planning Commission. R-nton, City of. 1999. N. 40th Street/Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage report. City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility. I -- Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. I I Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D i aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 September 2003 Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV: University of Nevada Press. 604 p. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press, Vancouver,B.C. Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137. Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100- 111. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson,June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon & Wilson, June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson, June 2001. Shannon&Wilson. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405/NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson, June 2001. Sherrard,David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development, American Planning Association,January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999. Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12. Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept, Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett,WA, September 26,2002 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis, Oregon. 356 p. Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington. Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,Washington,April 2002. Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington,December 2002. ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property. ThermoRetec,April 5,2000. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 September 2003 i II Tr-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000). U. . Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey, Washington. U.'.. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington. November 23, 1999. U.I.. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map. Assessed on April 8,2003. U`,,CE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1- 1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace- docs/eng-manuals/em 1110-1-1905/c-1.pdf. U`'.CE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001. ! s http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf. U DA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/ U S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map. A sessed on April 8,2003. U EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation,Building Equipment,and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971 U 2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering. University of Washington, Seattle,WA. V. a-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological report 82(10.154)46pp. ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia,Washington. ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. ashington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report by Washington Department of Natural Resources,Olympia,Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington. Report 92-22. 125pp. DI of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 September 2003 __,' Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, WA. 704 pp. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff I WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. HDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001. WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Department of Transportation,Design Manual, 1998. Olympia,WA. Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington: US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147, 37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000. 1 Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land. , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 September 2003 IA 1 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Renton Federal Agencies City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce Fire Renton Historic Society Police King County Audubon Society Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Environmental Services Libraries King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library King County Surface Water Management King County Library, King County Dept.of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library Tulalip Tribes Media City of Newcastle Seattle Times City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal State Agencies Renton Reporter Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Transportation Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Department of Natural Resources City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 September 2003 APPENDIX A Scoping Determination i • BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT U4Y O� - NTO� City of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department r I � I BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT In roduction 1 Description of the Proposal 1 Project Site 1 Proposed Action 1 Relationship to Remediation Process 2 Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals 3 A ternatives Chosen for Analysis 4 , E S Approach 4 E ements of the Environment 4 Natural Environment 5 Built Environment 7 Final EIS... 12 P oject Name/Number: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat File No. LUA-02-040, ECF, PP L-ad Agency: City of Renton � l R',sponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) do Jennifer Henning Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Proponent: Barbee Mill Company jl Alex Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner Development Services Division, P/B/PW Renton City Hall—6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (425) 430-7270/ (425)430-7300 fax INTRODUCTION The City of Renton has requested comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. Both public and agency scoping meetings regarding the project have been held. Comments submitted in writing L_ or given through testimony have been considered and incorporated into this document where appropriate. All comments received during the scoping period are contained +—, within the official land use file and are available for review. This scoping document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives as well as those elements of the environment identified for consideration and analysis in the EIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Protect Site — The 22.9-acre site is located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard North between North 40th Street and North 44th Street and abuts Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary. The property contains 16 buildings, some of which are currently utilized for limited lumber operations with the remaining buildings unused and in disrepair. Existing development within the vicinity of the site includes predominantly detached single family housing located within the Residential —8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zone. The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning designation, which is intended to provide for a mix of intensive commercial, office and residential activity in a high quality, master planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Stand-alone residential development is also permitted in the zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) is satisfied. The site is located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines and is, therefore, subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. The property is L ' relatively flat with approximate grades ranging from 0.5% to 4% to the west for areas north of May Creek, from 1% to 7% towards May Creek and Lake Washington. on the south side of the creek, and from 7% to 35-40% along the banks of May Creek. The City's Critical Areas Maps designate the property as containing potential high seismic hazards, steep slopes (15% to 25%) and flood hazards. Proposed Action — The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 square feet to 7,336 square feet. The proposal would result in a net density of approximately 8.35 dwelling units per acre (22.9 gross acre site — 9.13-acres combined sensitive areas and public roadways = 13.77 net acre --> 115 units/ 13.77 net acre = 8.35 du/ac). The lots are intended for the development of townhouse units — most of which would be constructed as duplex structures along with some 3-unit, 4-unit and 5-unit structures to be located on the southeast side of May Creek. Lot lines will be located along common walls with separate units on each lot. The shoreline fronting lot lines would extend to the inner harbor line. Scoping Document A-1 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat LI ndscape, roadway, utility improvements and four utility/open space tracts would be I established with the plat. With the exception of the existing building located on the s oreline (within Department of Natural Resources lease land), all buildings would be d molished as part of the project and lumber operations would be discontinued. A cess to the project would be provided via an existing 60-foot wide access easement, w:ich would be dedicated to public right-of-way, from the Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection through the abutting property on the north side of the si'e. The project would provide 42-foot wide internal public roadways throughout the m jority of the project with a 32-foot wide roadway proposed on the south side of May C leek. Private streets and driveways are also proposed in specific locations within the _ pl t. In'order to provide connection to the secondary access point at the southeast corner of , th property, a bridge crossing over May Creek (at the location of one of the three e isting bridges) would be necessary. Installation of new foundations for the proposed b idge may require work below the ordinary high water mark of May Creek and if so, w uld require approval of a variance from the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing R i gulations prior to the installation of required plat improvements. An additional existing _ b 'dge is proposed to be utilized as a pedestrian crossing. T e western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline — for which a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark w 1 uld be maintained. No other alterations or improvements to the lake shoreline are in luded with the proposal. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending s IIutheast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta w thin Lake Washington. The project would provide a buffer from the May Creek o idinary high water mark ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet in width and would restore c rrently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. All mature trees located within the May Creek buffer area are proposed to be retained. T e project applicant has also identified two category III wetlands with associated buffers within property boundaries —one adjacent to the southeasterly property line near tlie end of street C (aka "northerly wetland") and another at the southern edge of the site n ar the south end of street C (aka "southerly wetland"). The applicant is requesting to b ffer average the minimum required 25-foot buffer for the northerly wetland. In a I dition, approximately 400 square feet of the southerly wetland is proposed to be filled, with enhancements to the northerly wetland and buffer area proposed in order to pitigate for loss of wetland area. P'oject construction would require extensive grading and excavation activities t lroughout the site for the removal of existing asphalt areas and the creation of new building pads, roadways, and utilities. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at approximately 32,000 cubic yards of excavated material and 38,000 cubic yards of fill `� aterial to be imported to the site. In addition, approximately 18 trees would be r imoved as part of on-site grading activities. Relationship to Remediation Process — The Barbee Mill Company has proposed an independent remedial action plan (IRAP) pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (PATCA) to the Department of Ecology in order to perform excavation and removal of approximately 21,500 cubic yards of arsenic contaminated and elevated zinc level soils (those exceeding MTCA method A levels) that are contained within the uplands portion o"t, the property. The environmental investigations and proposed remedies for the arbee Mill site are documented in the following report: oping Document A-2 arbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1 I , _ • Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas, Barbee Mill Company, Renton, Washington prepared for the Barbee Mill Company dated September 6, 2000 by Hart Crowser, Inc. The IRAP was reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Department of Ecology on September 12, 2000. Subsequently, the City of Renton conducted Environmental (SEPA) Review and issued a Special Fill and Grade Permit for the remediation project on September 9, 2002. The permit will remain valid for a period of 4 years with the requirement for either an extension or new permit upon expiration. Although the approved remediation is anticipated to occur concurrently with site preparation activities for an approved development project, some analysis regarding the intended clean-up levels and the appropriateness of those levels for the proposed residential development will be necessary in this EIS. Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals — The following permits and approvals will likely be required for the redevelopment of the site: • City of Renton: Preliminary Plat Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval Level II Site Plan Approval Level I Site Plan Approval Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable Wetland Buffer Averaging and Compensation Approval Street Modification Approval Railroad Crossing Access Approval Site Preparation, Demolition, and Construction Permits Final Plat Approval • King County: Shoreline Permit for DNR lease lands • Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste— No Further Action Letter National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable Water Quality Certification • Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) • Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: Approval of Railroad Crossing(s) • US Army Corp of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits, if necessary • US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance • All other applicable licenses and permits necessary to allow the redevelopment of the site under the proposed action. Scoping Document A-3 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i 7 � I ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS ' 1 In addition to the proposed action described above, the following alternative will be considered in the EIS: No-Action - Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property (the specific industrial activity on the site may change over time, but on an overall basis would remain consistent with its character). Some form of clean-up would likely occur per the arj'proved IRAP, but the specific cleanup plan and the timing of remediation would likely be;different and extended. ElI APPROACH BI _ El Required - The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have si nificant adverse impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement ( IS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. �I__'`I T e EIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a re ult of redevelopment to the site. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of d-Itail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA will not be n?'cessary. T e EIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for the site and c•mprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton. Some of the documents that will be consulted and incorporated, as appropriate, into the analysis of th;- EIS include: • Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS (January 1992 and February 1993). • City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS (December 1994 and February 1995). • Port Quendall Preliminary Plan Draft and Final EIS (September 1981 and February 1982). • May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report(August 1995). J • Barbee Mill Dredging, Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, LUA-02-067, ECF, SP, SM (August 2002). • Barbee Mill Soils Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, LUA- 02-069, ECF, SP, SM (September 2002). jl E EMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT j , T e lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, i direct and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal ! ajpd alternative will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the e vironment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. T e items discussed within both the natural and built environment categories have been preliminarily listed in order beginning with those that should be studied most extensively, - f !lowed by items requiring lesser levels of analysis. Although the analysis of the less s'gnificant items will likely be minimal, it is necessary due to the inability to fully ascertain t e breadth of such impacts based on the information provided. Therefore, the I coping Document A-4 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1 I 1f ( identification and disclosure of those potential impacts as they specifically relate to the proposal, along with associated mitigation measures as warranted, will be contained within the EIS. L Natural Environment Earth —A site specific analysis of soil, geologic and hazard conditions will be prepared. This analysis will build upon the data provided in previous documents. The discussion of existing conditions will address the soil and geologic characteristics of the site and the sequencing of the geologic strata that underlie the ground surface and the offshore area. Any limitations of the site's soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. In addition, a discussion of applicable geologic hazards as established by the City's Critical Areas Maps with emphasis on the site's potential as a seismic hazard area. Seismicity of the region will be discussed and will include a description of some of the larger historic earthquakes that have affected the area, as well as the potential for the site being affected by larger earthquakes that have occurred at times that pre-date settlement of the area. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction will be addressed. The susceptibility of the site's soils to erosion and sedimentation, and existing sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will also be described. Appropriate design of the foundations and other supporting structures, as well as anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. The general nature of these types of building foundations will be discussed in order to provide a baseline for evaluating potential impacts of construction. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be i conducted. Impacts associated with cuts and fills that would be constructed in i association with access roads leading to the site and general site grading will be addressed. The quantities and depths of cuts and fills will be estimated, and any need for import/export of material identified. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated; specific emphasis will be placed on any potential impacts to May Creek. Any potential slope stability impacts will be defined for steeply sloped areas along May Creek. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Soil and sediment contaminant sources and levels that exist on site will be identified based on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion). Plants and Animals: Shoreline and Wetland Habitat — Existing upland habitat conditions and values on-site will be described. An analysis of existing on-site wetlands will be performed with functions and values of the wetlands and their habitat relationships to May Creek and/or Lake Washington to be described. This analysis will build upon data provided in previous documents and field confirmation of present conditions. Scoping Document A-5 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i 1 A assessment of the proposed shoreline buffer areas of Lake Washington and May Creek will be provided relative to any upland habitat value and identified critical habitat _ ar, as. Potential impacts to upland habitats and any identified wetlands from project I c nstruction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from in reased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. In addition, a 'alysis of cumulative impacts from reasonably expected unrestricted landscaping and + fu ure applications for residential use docks from the lake fronting lots. Cumulative impacts from future use or alterations of the DNR-owned uplands will also be addressed. O. portunities for enhancement of resources will be examined, particularly in light of e fisting conditions. i PII nts and Animals: Fisheries - Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake W' shington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fi heries habitat and functions. A plan view and side view maps of shoreline fisheries -) h bitat will be prepared. The examination of existing biological activity, as well as the __ c ndition of the near shore lake bottom sediments, will build upon existing studies. This d ta, together with the assumption of fish use, will be used to characterize existing ---� c nditions. P tential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the p 1 posal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on critical habitat areas d e to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in w ter quality conditions, the influence of in-water structures (docks, bulkheads) on s ilmon/predator interactions, dredging-related impacts and increases in lighting on s ilmon migration. Mitigation plans and/or opportunities for habitat enhancement and the , iequacy of the proposed shoreline buffers will be examined. ! a IA; ater Resources: Stormwater Drainage / Runoff / Flooding - Existing drainage _ p tterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described, with particular attention to peak flows to May Creek. Drainage sub-basins within the site will be located. Specific -' flooding and sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will be addressed. P st-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Potential vl i pacts to May Creek and each surface water discharge location will be evaluated, in luding possible increases in erosion and sedimentation due to construction. A 1 ditional analysis of the upstream drainage basin for existing and future developed c 'nditions will be conducted to address the potential need for upsizing existing culverts. - ' A;alysis of detention, water quality and compensatory storage for filling within the _' fl iodplain will be included. In addition, options for alleviating sedimentation problems at the mouth of the creek will be examined, specifically addressing the continued dredging of; the creek relative to potential flooding impacts and expansion of the 100-year floodplain into developed areas. The appropriate design of bridge foundations located within the floodplain will be discussed. The relationship of the proposed drainage system to the adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed, and the need fdr any mitigation identified. I ii 1 Water Resources: Groundwater - Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based on past and current irh�estigations. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. Any , , i Si oping Document A-6 B rbee Mill Preliminary Plat ; ! potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Groundwater contaminant sources and levels that exist on-site will be identified based on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion). Water Resources: Water Quality — Existing water quality conditions in lower May Creek and Lake Washington will be described based on available data and previously conducted studies. An assessment of the current conditions of any wetlands, seeps or swales will be performed. Surface water contaminant sources and levels that exist on- site, if any, will be described based on information generated as part of the IRAP. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to shoreline areas, wetlands, surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, ' including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to May Creek, Lake Washington and any wetlands will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for May Creek and Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Air Quality — The analysis of air quality impacts will be not be requirerd. Construction- related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will be mitigated by normal conditions of approval . Built Environment Transportation — An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Lake Washington Boulevard, Ripley Lane, Park Avenue North, Burnett Avenue North and WSDOT 1-405 facilities at the NE 44th Street and NE 30th Street interchanges will be included. _ Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed with levels of service at nearby intersections to be analyzed. There are several transportation issues regarding the proposed development that will be addressed, including impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington Northern Railroad and availability of public railroad crossings, access to the 1-405 freeway, impacts from increased trips through and on Newcastle streets, and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and existing, as well as future, land uses. In addition, safety, pedestrian and non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access, transit impacts and the design of the railroad crossing(s)will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternative and will build upon previously conducted studies. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will also be used to determine future year (year of opening for the proposed development) traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified Scoping Document A-7 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Itraffic b the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline for the ' 1 ! determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway network will be analyzed for the project during the p.m. peak hour based on a level of seirvice (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted in ersections, including site access locations. 4propriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode split to transit; HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also adi W dress, where appropriate, design of railroad crossings pursuant to UTC and BNRR -' requirements, as well as safety and emergency vehicle access. The proposal's p rticipation in planned off-site improvements, and additional improvements not currently pl nned, will be evaluated relative to mitigation. T xic and Hazardous Materials — The site is known to contain contaminated soils — p 1marily contaminated with arsenic and zinc. An Independent Remedial Action Plan p rsuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) has been approved by the Department o Ecology and the City of Renton (file no. LUA-02-069) that would bring soil conditions ' u 1 to residential standards. The IRAP has not yet been implemented on the site. D scussion of timing of the intended clean-up as it relates to site development p separation will be included in the EIS. I addition, analysis of contamination levels on adjacent properties and compatibility with t e proposed residential development will be completed. This analysis may build upon t e on-site analysis conducted for the site but must specifically address the compatibility 1 and appropriate proximity of the proposal with heavily contaminated properties abutting -' the site. Aesthetics, Light and Glare — Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the ' 1 site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The i idustrial character of both the upland and marine portions of the site will be described. If description of the general view shed to the site, which includes surrounding residential (t the north and east), 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard, and portions of the West ill (unincorporated King County), Mercer Island, Newcastle and Lake Washington itself, ' ill be included. Photos from these representative viewpoints will be provided to visually d cument existing conditions. T e potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be ! ' evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline features will be ,__, considered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal during the different phases of redevelopment, as seen from selected viewpoints, potentially including from - Lake Washington and Mercer Island, area parks and roadways, and representative el isting residential areas, will be evaluated. Visual representations such as view c rridor maps, conceptual drawings, photo simulations, computer simulations, or other it ustrations will be used in this analysis. he change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to residential will be aluated, particularly relating to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are warranted will be evaluated. r $coping Document A-8 arbee Mill Preliminary Plat M i Existing sources of light and glare emanating from the industrial use of the site will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding - land uses (especially residential uses to the north and east); residences across the lake on Mercer Island, and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. An assessment of the impacts of night lighting on fish habitat will also be discussed (integrated with Fisheries analysis). Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare will be identified, as appropriate. Noise — The analysis of noise related impacts will include relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding uses. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations in the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified traffic and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified, as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use—The Land Use analysis will not be analyzed. All issues related to land and shoreline use will be analyzed separately as part of the permit review and approval process. The permit review will consider relevant issues including conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. with the City's Zoning Code, and Office/Residential zone provisions, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Regulations) and he relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program. Public Services and Utilities: Fire Police and Emergency Medical Services — This element will not be analyzed. The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would increase the capacity demand of the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Fire Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat. Public Services and Utilities: Parks—This element will not be analyzed. It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for park and recreational facilities. The proposal does not include the provision of on-site recreation areas to meet the full park demand of future residents of the proposed plat. This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Parks Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat. Public Services and Utilities: Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste — This element will not be analyzed. It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for utility services including water and wastewater. Impacts of the proposal will be met through the utility services capital improvement and financing program and may include on and off-site improvements, utility hookup fees or other charges. Scoping Document A-9 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat P blic Services and Utilities: Stormwater — Stormwater impacts will be analyzed as -, part of the Water Resources element. P blic Services and Utilities: Schools—This element will not be analyzed. _1 T I'e project will have a marginal impact on schools, but is within the growth projections anticipated by the current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, or make facility improvements, including transportation services. Historic and Cultural Resources — The analysis of historic and cultural resources will bs utilize existing information resources. Cultural resource records and reports on file at th State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be researched, along with re orts, maps, photographs, etc. available at the University of Washington and State ' li varies. Consultation with appropriate tribal sources will be conducted. Based on j th se sources, and with consideration of the recent industrial use of the site, any areas _ of potential cultural or historic sensitivity will be highlighted. If the potential does exist, , p tential impacts from construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed. M' asures to mitigate any potential impacts will be identified, as appropriate. S cioeconom ics (Population, Housing, Employment) — This element will not be ari alyzed. The projected growth is within the general future forecasted population, housing, and e ployment characteristics for which the city has developed its Comprehensive Plan a Id facilities plans. - FINAL EIS en thereview Draft EISand co is compmentleted, it will bCommentse issuedreceived and made the availabldesignatede for pucommenblic and a ency m . t ' pgriod (usually thirty days)will be incorporated into a Final EIS, together with appropriate responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to the is.uance of the Final EIS. , 1 i I I_� SI oping Document A-1 0 1 B rbee Mill Preliminary Plat Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 I Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com September 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 * CITY OF RENTON .ail 1 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 2, 2003 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington and the shoreline of May Creek on a 22.9—acre site. The DEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed 115 townhouse lots and from the continuation of the existing industrial use. In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted a Land Use Master Application (LUA 02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance on November 5, 2002. The City of Renton, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, issued a Scoping Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10, 2002, a public scoping meeting was held to receive written and oral comments on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping Document was issued on January 10, 2003. The issues identified through the scoping process are addressed in the DEIS. These include: earth, water, plants and animals, hazardous materials, aesthetics, light and glare; transportation, noise and cultural resources. For each environmental issue, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed Action are reported. Where significant impacts were determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation measures were suggested, including two alternative shoreline buffer options. Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review period, starting on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 and ending at 5:00 pm, Wednesday, October 1, 2003. Written comments should be addressed to: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner; Development Services Division; 6th floor Renton City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98055. A public hearing has been scheduled to accept both written and oral comments on the DEIS. It will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 6 pm, in City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA. Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that will include responses to the 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 B. E N T O N ®This paper contains 50%re ycled material,30',4,post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE comments received during the public comment period. The City will then issue a Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary conditions to diminish or eliminate environmental impacts, as one portion of the approval of the Proposed Action. If you have any questions or require clarification of the above, please contact Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, at 425-430-7382. The City of Renton appreciates your interest and participation. For the Environmental Review Committee: It\4 6747 3 3/H1#z '#t— Gregg Zimmerman r yN Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works r 4 age FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. Utilities include water, sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls between property lines. Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE Renton,WA 98056 Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc. Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific,LP 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle,WA 98101 (206)689-7203 Lead Agency City of Renton Contact Person Susan Fiala (425)430-7382 Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging • Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval • Clearing and Grading Permit Approval • Site Plan Review • Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street modification for access to the development by Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement i September 2003 Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease (continued) termination assessment and restoration order • King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill buildings within public aquatics lease area Authors and Principal Parametrix Contributors 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 (425) 822-8880 Date of Issue September 2,2003 Date Comments Due October 1,2003 Date and Location of October 23,2003 6:00 p.m. Draft EIS Public Hearing Renton City Hall Council Chambers 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Date of Action on Winter 2004 Applications Location of Background City of Renton Information Planning/Building/Public Works Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 (425)430-7200 Parametrix Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033 (425)822-8880 Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS $ 15.00 Technical Appendices $ 5.00 CD version City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ii September 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COVER LETTER ° FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS iii ACRONYMS viii 1. SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1 1.1.1 Proposal 1-1 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1 1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1 1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1 1.2.2 Impacts 1-4 1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1-5 1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5 1.3.2 Impacts 1-5 1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-6 1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-6 1.4.2 Impacts 1-6 1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7 1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7 1.5.2 Impacts 1-8 1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10 1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11 1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11 1.6.2 Impacts 1-11 1.6.3 Mitigation 1-12 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1-13 1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-13 1.7.2 Impacts 1-14 1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15 1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15 1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15 1.8.2 Impacts 1-15 1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-16 Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement iii September 2003 ' I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ' 1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-16 I_ 1.9.2 Impacts 1-16 I 1.9.3 Mitigation 1-17 1 1.10 NOISE 1-17 1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-17 1.10.2 Impacts 1-17 1.10.3 Mitigation l-18 j , ' 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19 1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19 1.11.2 Impacts 1-19 0 1.11.3 Mitigation 1-19 2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1 1 2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1 2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1 3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 3-1 , 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1 3.1.2 Impacts 3-3 3.1.3 Mitigation 3-4 _ 3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-8 ' 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-8 3.2.2 Impacts 3-14 3.2.3 Mitigation 3-16 3.3 GROUNDWATER 3-22 1 II 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-22 ! 3.3.2 Impacts 3-24 3.3.3 Mitigation 3-24 1 r 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-24 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-25 3.4.2 Impacts 3-34 '-.' 3.4.3 Mitigation 3-43 _ 3.5 TRANSPORTATION 3-61 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-61 3.5.2 Impacts 3-68 3.5.3 Mitigation 3-83 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3-89 3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-89 3.6.2 Impacts 3-96 1 3.6.3 Mitigation 3-97 3.7 AESTHETICS 3-97 City of Renton Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 ,_ raft-Environmental Impact Statement iv September 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-98 3.7.2 Impacts 3-102 3.7.3 Mitigation 3-117 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE 3-118 3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-118 3.8.2 Impacts 3-118 3.8.3 Mitigation 3-119 3.9 NOISE 3-119 3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-119 3.9.2 Impacts 3-123 3.9.3 Mitigation 3-125 3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-126 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-126 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-126 3.10.2 Impacts 3-130 3.10.3 Mitigation3-132 4. REFERENCES 4-1 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 5-1 APPENDICES A Scoping Determination(Bound with EIS Text) Volume 2—Appendices B—E B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report C Water Resources D Terrestrial Plants and Animals E Aquatic Species ti . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement v September 2003 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LI II T OF FIGURES i , 1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2 1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3 ' , 2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2 3.2-1 May Creek Basin Vicinity Map 3-9 1 3.2-2 May Creek Location and Stream Type Map 3-10 i 3.2-3 Floodplain 3-17 1 3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-18 3.4-1 Existing Shoreline Protection 3-26 3.4-2 Northerly Wetland 3-35 3.4-3 Southerly Wetland 3-36 , 3.4-4 Option"A" 50-foot Buffer 3-49 , 3.4-5 Option"B" 100-foot Setback 3-51 3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27 &28 3-53 3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-54 3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 &36 3-55 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-59 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-60 Y 3.5-1 Project Area Map 3-63 3.5-2 Overall Plat Plan 3-64 3.5-3 Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-65 1 ` 3.5-4 Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-70 3.5-5 Project Trip Distribution 3-72 1 3.5-6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3-73 - 3.5-7 Year 2007 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-74 I 3.5-8 Alternative Access 3-87 3.6-1 Site Map with Adjacent Properties 3-91 3.6-2 Building Locations 3-92 3.7-1 Location of Viewpoints for Visual Analysis 3-100 3.7-2 Area of Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction , 3-101 3.7-3 View 1—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-104 3.7-4 View 1—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-105 4i0,of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vi September 2003 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.7-5 View 2—ExistingConditions as Seen from near 40th Street 3-106 3.7-6 View 2—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 40th Street 3-107 3.7-7 View 3-Existing Conditions as Seen from near 38th Street 3-109 3.7-8 View 3—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 38th Street 3-110 3.7-9 View 4—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-111 3.7-10 View 4—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-112 3.7-11 View 5—Existing Condition as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-113 3.7-12 View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-114 3.7-13 View 6—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-115 3.7-14 View 6—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-116 3.10-1 Location of Existing Buildings 3-129 3.10-2 Historic Lake Washington Shoreline 3-131 LIST OF TABLES 3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-41 3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-41 3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-41 3.5-1 Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay 3-66 3.5-2 Level of Service Summary 3-67 3.5-3 Trip Generation 3-69 3.5-4 Project Impacts to City of Renton 3-75 3.5-5 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary 3-75 3.5-6 Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary 3-79 3.5-7 Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle 3-80 3.7-1 Visual Simulations 3-103 3.9-1 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 3-121 3.9.2 Noise Levels 3-121 3.9-3 Noise Measurement Results 3-122 3.9-4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) 3-124 3.9-5 Noise Modeling Results 3-126 3.10-1 Structures on Barbee Mill Site 3-128 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vii September 2003 1_ 1 ACRONYMS APA Aquifer Protection Area BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations i cfs cubic feet per second CMZ channel migration zone -' COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel I' DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement U.S.Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act I, ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit !' FHWA Federal Highway Administration ti FRA Federal Railroad Administration iI 1 1-405 Interstate 405 I KCBW King County Backwater I KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent 11 LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 1I city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ u raft-Environmental Impact Statement viii September 2003 � I ACRONYMS (Continued) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 5 TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Energy WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ix September 2003 i i 1. SUMMARY 1.1 ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed. 1.1.1 Proposal The project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure 1.1-1). 11 The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with one bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet that would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging about 50 feet in width along May Creek;and displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands. • Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence1111 of a specific proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline to protect buildings and associated private lawn area. Public lands of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are presumed to be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and interpretive facilities. 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site • This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads, the existing driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses and new structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building area. 1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 1.2.1 Affected Environment The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand, as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site. The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta. City of Renton-Barbee Mil1 Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 September 2003 2 1115 522 DUVALL 202 REDMOND KIRKLAND r 202 203 5200)/ SEATTLE .,.;, , e . BELLEVUE Washington." $fLak o 90 ISSAQUAH U NEWCASTLE 900 RENTON PROJECT 405 SITE Parametrlx DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure 1.1-1 Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat irk ® ,,,,,,..„T . .,,, . „.„. -4i' ,.. ..., ,. " ., ._____.__„. ._ _. l.,,,„„, ....._.......... . . . . ,,,::,.: d .: - / i- ���-� / STREET , c .:S t I I [� j•f i - O cns • 1 , a MIll . ,L I • ia. 1 F s re :.`: '1 '11111111F.-',..,.. to a . „ fa _�� I manna, _r� CITY =1 ' r T nOF - ®ILA ®� [-- I®ate- i RENTON ® NPileir :I::: s MU IL _ : ..',.,.:1: , ' VitillAntei IIIIII -...,..--4. R mit.;---„All''''',..''..,:::'--.:" ':' .- • )liOIL# P . • , . r -, ':::::. A RIME niiiik740 ,,„ / '� ' pip! r,/NI illi . tilliA .. Paramatrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)8/03(K) 1 City Limits Figure 1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1.2.2 Impacts Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the site prior to grading. This project may cause erosion, sediment-laden runoff,and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek. Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That, together with the gradient provideky lake depth could result in movement of portions of the site to the west. It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site developed to date. There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement. 1.2.3 Mitigation To control erosion during construction,contractors would implement Best Management Practices(BMPs) and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction. Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by: • Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. • Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. • Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral spreading,particularly near the shoreline. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 September 2003 underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type, size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time. 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1.3.1 Affected Environment The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington. The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. May Creek is listed as a Class AA (extraordinary)water under State Water Quality Standards. The uses of Class AA waters include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. Also, these waters provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment),commerce,and navigation. The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State as being impaired for zinc,copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria. Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood. The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to (1) reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2) make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; (3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and (4) take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored." Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities. 1.3.2 Impacts The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately 85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 September 2003 stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, reduction in impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site. Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would cover a substantial part of the site. 1.3.3 Mitigation Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control(TESC)Plan. Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff. Containment of the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors could be accomplished with fill outside the flood corridor to bring the lowest floor of residences a minimum of one foot above base flood elevation or levees approximately 2 feet above existing ground level. Compensation for flood storage area lost could be provided. frep,,1l o_ 2.2 Provision of the wider 100 foot wide corridor would provide additional flood conveyance and storage to piE compensate for the future increase in floodplain depths that will occur because of aggregation of sediments in the stream over time. Existing bridges should be removed and/or reconstructed to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow. 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1.4.1 Affected Environment The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST) areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment. 1.4.2 Impacts Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 September 2003 Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces, the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up- gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of foundations. 1.4.3 Mitigation Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic and other contaminants. 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 1.5.1 Affected Environment Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes substantial upland vegetation adjacent to the riparian zone of the stream. A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, but the majority of plantings do not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation community. N Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker, 6) spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants, hooded mergansers, American wigeons, scaups, buffleheads, and common mergansers. Mammals and amphibians on the site include voles and mice, the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal _ tMigratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of Washington laws. Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de- listing and state down-listing to sensitive. Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 September 2003 May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon,winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site. There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project vicinity. 1.5.2 Impacts Theex_istin osprey nest will be remove during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project wou have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site. Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in the area. Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity. Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The long-term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about 100 feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed, which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage, cover,and potential nest sites for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress,which will result in limited habitat value. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 September 2003 The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet ' from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be , lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project, as low speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. rtr The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate test habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would potentially cause some disturbance„which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental discharaes_f sedinrnt and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of_csinstructing the proposeslja_ida is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports from the stream. 1.11 AK The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. „ .2-foot width would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate. The required width of the buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate. ¶) The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16 additional docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may also desire to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, thereby reducing the habitat benefits provided by the May Creek delta. - 127 U t,. 14 H E_ *L, Buds are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences because the proposed 25-foot building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without potentially threatening buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon, preventing recruitment of sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating an inhospitable high- energy environment for juvenile fish � T Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting and piers can also adversely affect juvenile s—a-Gaids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be/N. re vtrabletp predation. l Public access alongthe shoreline ispresumed to be developedpursuant to the requirements of the Renton ub ` P q Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington. The applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 September 2003 1.5.3 Mitigation Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations, may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, clearing to remove these species would be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species. Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant communities and provide for animal movement. Residential landscaping should be designed and maintained in ways that minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides to reduce adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek, Lake Washington. Enforcing restricted use of chemicals on private lawns landscaping is, however,difficult in the long term. The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffers If impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment, plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation ie of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation communities. Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW, to allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, providing plantings in riprap, or more extensive it, vegetative stabilization. These options have limited application under the proposal because of the 25-foot building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in dredged areas. Impacts of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on near-shore habitat can be reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. Mitigation through alternative buffer areas involves conceptual plans for 50- and 100-foot buffers along both May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities and support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and persistence of native vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and replace plantings that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants. For the Lake Washington shoreline, both the 50- and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts such as the introduction of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading, City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 September 2003 recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline. Some of this mitigation could be implemented on the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private shoreline frontage will allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor. 1.6 TRANSPORTATIONS• ^l-- —r- r 1-- ,-;•• 1.6.1 Affected Environment -- --� All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service (LOS)A or B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington Boulevard)at NE 44th Street that operates at LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation. The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway. Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transi service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405. tat.4 - 4 1jo't' 1.6.2 Impacts Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2 transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity. The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials. Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad. Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail ,,/� crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic, �� 1 operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings., Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site. All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project,due to heavy approach volumes on the minor legs(north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 September 2003 intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn movement. The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007 baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp operations. Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions. A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential alternative arterial routes, however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips can be addressed, by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersection that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes. 0-11 t 4,4 114 f " „ ' , Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project. Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north. At the least, residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips and would generate a need for additional dlitt access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections. 1.6.3 Mitigation At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes. The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection also meets volume criteria for signal warrants. The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of $75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of diffuse new trips from the development on the general circulation system. Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 September 2003 o could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan property. Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches: 4 • Grade separation,which removes potential vehicle train conflicts, but is more expensive; • Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on el drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails; � t Y;111k‘i '• Active control of at-grade crossings, which consists of signals and gates designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians. The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing options based on topographic, operational, safety, And economic factors and the public need for the crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required. Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation. 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1.7.1 Affected Environment As part of lumber processing, various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks (USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals, fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations. Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were ille detected. Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon (TOC) that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclea aroma hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were not detected in areas sampled. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 September 2003 A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA)includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil impacted with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base; dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington; removal and disposal of impacted soil at a licensed location; backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring progranrpossibly an ongoing groundwater treatment program. �, � ... ✓ a a A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, next to the Barbee Mill site, was conducted between 1999 and 2002, under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed approximately 26,QQ0 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criterion. These sediments are currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003). Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property immediately north of Barbee Mill, which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other organic compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to I.. constructing a roadway. The Vulcan(J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site included creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Contaminants present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment of the site include dioxins,PAHs,and dense non-aqueous phase liquids(DNAPL). Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site. 1.7.2 Impacts The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal, because concentrations of detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional removal and treatment if pilowd.ayncmitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. tit The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 September 2003 1.7.3 Mitigation Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material,and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. 1.8 AESTHETICS 1.8.1 Affected Environment The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures. Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and slope steeply toward,Lake Washington,creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity, varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides. 1.8.2 Impacts This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15- to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide. Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of views from the vicinity to 32nd Street, to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer to the site, the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that is visible. For closer views, the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground. For viewers farther up the hill,the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings, and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the entire site. Construction of new buildings, however, would not block views of the dominant element of City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 September 2003 the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation o indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings. Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect. 1.8.3 Mitigation For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies. Changing building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of a canyon effect on streets within the development, and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings from outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building height, bulk, and setbacks. Common design features, materials, and color,as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety. Screening of the buildings on the site would require large vegetation that would not be expected to mature for a number of years. The current design,however, does not provide sufficient area in front, sideuor rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide off` r large species. The major public of the Eroject could be softened by landscaping only if , substantial landscape areas were provided betweenlown-hames..east of May.Creek and the access road on BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1.9.1 Affected Environment Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have some shielding, but probably date from the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass. 1.9.2 Impacts Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 September 2003 Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall brightness at night and would reduce glare. The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees. Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south, headlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family residences. 1.9.3 Mitigation For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding glare from glass surfaces. 1.10 NOISE 1.10.1 Affected Environment Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently, operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs; and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise from arterials in the area and I-405. rp FtT a Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA. Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks. Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA. Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes, hospitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site. 1.10.2 Impacts During construction, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 September 2003 In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment, use of driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower noise levels over a sustained period. The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest_noise impacts will occur to re,dents occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings:, 4d1 4 /ye Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA. This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3 dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise 7 impact. The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horns ding man atory and would, therefore, increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four tr ' s er day, the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. 1.10.3 Mitigation State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) has proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed" status to fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 September 2003 1 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ImiI 1.11.1 Affected Environment Iarbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and barge building company, was established on the site in 1943. The arbee Mill Company, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last aictive sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except t e water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt,and additional structures ave been added since then. e oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was nstructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This ilding and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic laces. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of e Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that ey lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" as individual components because the iginal site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an istoric district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and ater tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register. Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site ould contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources; however,the northeast corner has the potential r deeply buried resources. 11.2 Impacts As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of privately owned structures. 1.11.3 Mitigation An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. i An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction, the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the, Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Earth,Soils,and Geology Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)for erosion control prior to construction Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system, such as pilings, that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits Install ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the hazard of lateral spreading, particularly near the shoreline Surface Water Erosion and Sedimentation Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan Pollutants in Surface Water Construct,operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities Flooding Contain the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained by fill or levies at least one foot above base flood levels Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open } space corridor and providing additional storage volume Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow Groundwater Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater, if monitoring after soil removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Plants&Animals Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity Removal of existing vegetation Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species buffer areas Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain vegetation Restriction of animal movement at Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement bridges Lack of habitat value of residential Use native plants in residential landscaping landscaping Surface water pollution from Use of native plants in residential landscaping can minimize the use of fertilizers, fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides I pesticides, or herbicides with resulting impacts on wildlife and _............... fish Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce overspray, spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into water City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-0/7 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Plants&Animals(continued) Wetland and buffer displacement Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site Compensate for loss of buffer through averaging and enhancement of the existing and buffer vegetation Bulkh ad impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Providing plantings in rip-rap Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings Loss f waterfowl habitat through Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from near- removal of pilings and other in-water shore habitat important for juvenile salmonids perching sites Lack bf large woody debris(LWD) Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow recruitment establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow temperature establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade Light and glare impacts on wildlife Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow and aquatic species establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to intercept light and glare Direct disturbance of wildlife and Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer publi using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline Impa is of docks on juvenile Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- salm nids shore habitat Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than shoreline vegetation residents Transportation Increase transportation demand from Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake • Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard) intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal. standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets volume criteria for Signal Warrants Geometric limitations of propose f Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek City of I.enton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Transportation(continued) Potential safety impacts at railroad Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts, but is crossings quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative impacts of development of adjacent properties Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of conflict points Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings Increased pedestrian/vehicle Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide conflicts safe pedestrian circulation Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee circulation system Hazardous Materials Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminates from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control Act cleanup Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan during construction Visual Impacts Reduce building bulk by reducing building height Reduce building bulk by cks Reduce building bulk by varying buddingheight,etween buildings b bulk,and setbacks Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color, including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would be required Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare Noise Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby residences would be most sensitive Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving -..__._...,,._ Pre-drill __. pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the character of deposits) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 September 2003 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Noise(continued) Require less noisy pile installation methods, if feasible given soil conditions, such as vibrating piles into place, cassion-type piles, auger cast piles or other methods Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, equipment welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels Noise from locomotive horns Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration (FRA) designation of a"quiet zone"for locomotive horns Historic and Cultural Resources Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area Poten tial disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the archaeological resources northeast corner of the site, and if deposits are found, consult with the, Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and should be conserved Public Services Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts (see Appendix A) 11 public services mill 111 III City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Linvironmental Impact Statement 1-23 September 2003 2. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed. 2.1 PROPOSAL The current proposal of the applicant contains the following: 1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into lots include the following(Figure 2.1-1): • Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet is proposed. • Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads. • One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed to be retained for pedestrian use. • Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek consists of a water quali .por ,with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet. • A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity. • An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline administered by DNR. Approximately 6,500 square feet of this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities, which would leave a net area of approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not developed a proposal for public access to this area. • A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed. • Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced, together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots. Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland. • Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce the wetland setback below the minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance. • Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets. • No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or the shoreline. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 September 2003 4/7 , gi /7 //I"( COR_2 -- /pi iiüHHIV' , . OHWcriffe ( ;f j la ' // �. Tract"B" Nal ,� .,_ ract"C Water // PUBLIC LAND Open Quality 44W-! ,/ t / •Space S ���j •,S, ,,,-—__,---% .. z' l 1-- .-: • ." .44..-A.7- / li .,,,„„wo- / ' /--,,,...,,, . . wit tr,„ . - /, J R` to , LAKE ow � � _.._/� "/., i WASHINGTON f' J insaK\ ��• OHV1y r "� j — WW 10. 'I' •'A*71,\ "'I)/ :' \\ PUBLIC LAND a '7\`,; �,�,�' yI ` ,/ - 4%, 1 ,Iti.\ ..._ 4,i, _la,* .. * i. 44,,ip _.4 -. j AY CREEK �� �,�,\\_.....-. ______. . kx*i.:� I DELTA ',� ,,�. 4,A1 , .. ‘„..... .;__. 1 1 •.asore P Gi4lt t" i-- i 1� '�,� •_ 40TH ST t,,„:,/.: t L_____. I._ _ . 'n� I 1 ✓ /, ie Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01 SCALE IN FEET Figure 2.1-1 W Overall Plat Plan 0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following: • Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two structures with five units are proposed east of May Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate design and environmental review. • On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning, which is Center Office Residential 2(COR-2)and Shoreline Urban Environment designation: > Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district, which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review. The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units: - Street setback- 10 feet - Rear lot setback- 10 feet - Side lot setback-5 feet - Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum > Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2. - The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet. - Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70- foot building would be up to 7 stories high. • Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific proposal for shared moorage. • Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building patterns on Lake Washington. • Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future. 3. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed lands: Features presumed to be developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and interpretive facilities. This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to: City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 September 2003 (a) Foster water-dependent uses (b) Ensure environmental protection (c) Encourage direct public use and access (d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources (e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city limits of Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line. 2. CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE is alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing s ill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made: • No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access would continue. • Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses. • Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained, including structures on public lands administered by the DNR. • New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC]4-2-080,Footnote 23). D. New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum shoreline and stream setbacks. > Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland setbacks, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. ➢ All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer areas, which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. > If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would be implemented to meet current codes,which would result in somewhat larger,open stormwater treatment areas,due to the larger impervious area. D. Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings, would meet current codes. • Specific presumed building area and uses on site include: ➢ Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet - Warehouse: 272,500 square feet - Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet - Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet ➢ Parking Area: 220,000 square feet 818(based on pro-forma sheet)spaces City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 September 2003 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY This section provides analyses of soils, geology, earthwork, geologic and seismic hazards, and erosion/sedimentation for the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation development. These analyses are important both for disclosure of project impacts and for providing a context for assessment of impacts on other elements, such as water quality. This section was prepared based on review of existing data and a peer evaluation of existing studies and a qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. The analysis was based on existing site information and soil, geologic,and geotechnical studies. The geology and soils in the project area were evaluated to identify the suitability of the soils for building and to identify sensitive or geologic hazard areas. Geologic hazard areas include land that is prone to erosion, landslides, and earthquakes. Information was collected from existing reports and maps of the area, including the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now know as the National Resource Conservation Service)and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, site-specific information on geology and soil types was determined through geotechnical investigations performed in 1999 and 2003. 3.1.1 Affected Environment From a regional geologic perspective, the project area is located in the middle of the Puget Sound lowlands, which is a north-south trending structure that is a topographic trough. Tertiary andesite comprises the bedrock in this area. Glacial deposits consist of recessional outwash and till that unconformably overlay bedrock. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt- water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. Till is a very dense mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight of the glacial ice. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake- deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand. Imported fill materials have also been added to surface in the area(Yount and Gower 1991). The affected environment relative to local soil and geologic conditions on the project site was evaluated based on descriptions and subsurface information included in local and site-specific studies(Golder 2002; Hart Crowser 2000; Shannon and Wilson 2001). The soils at the project site consist of silts, sands, and peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser 2000). The thickness of the fill is 10 to 15 feet, followed by 40 to 50 feet of lake and stream deposits. The glacial deposits were encountered at depths of approximately 60 to 65 feet on the site. The depth to bedrock is greater than 130 feet. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS,Hazardous Materials). The project site is located on the May Creek delta,which is the source of a significant portion of the post- glacial sediments. Through time,May Creek has meandered over the site area. The area was mapped by Waldron et al. (1962) as alluvium consisting of mostly silt clay and peat, with generally poor drainage and slow to moderate infiltration. These geologic materials are characterized by variable permeability with poor seismic stability and fair foundation stability due to the compressible organic layers. The fill was placed to buildup the project site shoreline. The wood and sawdust are present because the site was operated as a sawmill for more than 60 years. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 September 2003 The near-surface geology and soils conditions in the project area would not change substantially between the existing site development and the redeveloped neighborhood. The development would includelfor removal of contaminated soil (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and impajIing clean fill material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction of future residences. 3.1.1.1 Seismic and Landslide Hazards ecause the Puget Sound region has a history of earthquakes with a magnitude 5.0 or greater on the 'chter scale,the ground in the entire project area could experience shaking in the event of an earthquake. e USGS has identified the western Washington area to have a moderate to high risk of earthquakes ( SGS 2003). The loose soils, fill, and deltaic deposits at the project site are prone to landslide and 1. uefaction in an earthquake. The severity of movement in an earthquake would depend on the location a d magnitudeiof the seismic event, as well as several other site-specific factors such as depths to oundwater. i►444r pact;rle The Seattle fault is a 4 to 6 kilometers wide, west-trending zone of three or more south-dipping reverse f;ults that transect the Puget Sound Lowlands. The Seattle fault is cut into two segments by a north , •i nding, high-angle, strike-slip fault zone (Johnson et al. 1999). The published location of the ' s i uthernmost splay of the Seattle fault is along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site (Shannon . id Wilson 2001). Topographic expressions of this fault are not indicated at the project site. Also,there i,no known recent displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area, which indicates limited • i no motion across the fault during recent times. • st studies in the vicinity of the project have identified seismic risks in the area. The May Creek basin . -a is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence i tervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region (Heaton and artzell 1987; Noson et al. 1988; Gower et al. 1985) and thick unconsolidated sediments in an area of •bserved seismic-induced mass wasting (Bucknam et al. 1992; Atwater and Moore 1992; Karlin and bella 1992; Jacoby et al. 1992). Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to s-ismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest • age in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta. 11 `tiding and generation of turbidity currents are natural processes occurring off deltas like the May Creek •elta. Slides and resultant slide-induced waves have occurred on the south side of Mercer Island, across from the May Creek delta (Jacoby et al. 1992; and Karlin and Abella 1992). Lobes and terraces on the bathymetry of the delta indicate the presence of wave cut terraces and possible slumps (USGS Bellevue South Topographic Map 1983). On a geologic time scale (thousands of years) the May Creek delta is a high seismic risk because of the potential for seismic induced landslides and slide-induced waves (King County 1995). Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, which are soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, ttre water pressure is relatively low;however,earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. In technical terms, liquefaction is the transformation of loosely packed sediment into a fluid mass. It is the transformation from a solid to a liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. This process occurs most readily in fine- to coarse-grained sands of uniform grain size. The mixture of sand aid water act as a viscous liquid with significantly reduced shear strength. The process of liquefaction City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 September 2003 can be triggered by a variety of mechanisms, including seismic shaking, wave-induced shear stress, the static force of a thick sequence of loose sediment on a slope, erosion on the toe of a slope, or seepage force due to a changing water table(Obermeier et al.2001). The results of liquefaction generally include the following: • Loss of bearing strength of soils • Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls • Lateral spreading Loss of bearing strength of soils can result in the slumping of earth and sinking of structural foundations. Differential settlement of foundations can cause shear forces in other parts of the structure that cause the overlying structure to develop cracks or to fail. Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on structures such as foundations or retaining walls, which can cause them to deflect. This can also cause shear forces in structures, leading to failure. On structures such as bridges, lateral pressure can cause supports to deflect,which can push foundations out of place to the point where bridge spans loose support or are compressed to the point of buckling(UW 2002). Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is the displacement of ground under a gradient as the result of liquefaction of underlying soils. Lateral displacement can range from slight to severe movement of several meters. Slight movement typically produces cracks and fissures in the overlying deposits. Greater movements can result in unsaturated overburden soil sliding as intact blocks with the formation of ground fissures and subsidence at the head of the movement and compression and buckling at the toe. Locations where there is no confining geologic boundary, such as at a stream or lakeside,typically result in greater lateral spreading(Rauch 1997). Both landslides and liquefaction can have caused major damage beyond structural damage to roads, bridges and other structures by making roads unusable, blocking streams with resulting flooding or other damage, and breaking pipelines and power and communication lines, leading to loss of fire flow, loss of domestic water service, and pollution from spilled sewage, including related health hazards(USGS 1996). Whether either landslides or liquefaction occurs depends on a variety of factors, including slope, strength of geologic materials, and the magnitude of shaking. 3.1.2 Impacts 3.1.2.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation The near-surface geology and soils in the project area would change as a result of the proposed development because of the removal of contaminated soils from the northern part (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and the importing of clean fill material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction. Redevelopment of the project site would include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the site prior to grading. This may cause erosion. Sediment-laden runoff may discharge to Lake Washington and May Creek. Wind erosion during dry seasons can produce dust. If soils are trucked off-site or if fill is transported into the project area, some soil may be blown off trucks while in route. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 September 2003 3 .2.2 Seismic and Landslide Hazards G otechnical assessment of the Barbee Mill site has concluded that the fills and alluvial soils that underlie t site to depths of up to 60 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake (Golder 2 ,02). The potential impacts to the Barbee Mill site from seismic induced liquefaction include the f lowing three mechanisms, as discussed above. • Loss of bearing strength of soils. • Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls. • Lateral spreading. D',pending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the extent of lateral movement, damage c ld range from minor to severe. Localized loss of soil cohesion could result in differential subsidence o I deformation of foundations with associated structure damage (i.e., deflection of foundations walls with a ociated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges) localized cracking or ' s •sidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. A loss of soil cohesion in larger areas could 'I r;l.ult in rotational failure causing building structures to tip where substantial portions of foundation '1 s:�I.port is lost. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight --i •vements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits causing building structure failure t ough increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to II c Impress to the point of buckling or be pulled apart. Roadways may experience severe cracks, and fIIsures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is jI c se to the lakeside and the lack of a confining geologic boundary with the gradient provided by lake d jpth could result in movement of portions of the overburden to the west. - I I is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the c u mplexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site '! dweloped to date. • • ' e risks of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass, as discussed above, c: not be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic a;posits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement. 1.3 Mitigation 1; 1.3.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation ` to work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas that are under nstruction. To control erosion during construction, contractors would use Best Management Practices (n MPs) and standard mitigation measures approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) . d by the City of Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans would • in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs, erosion, sediment-laden r 11 noff, and dust would be controlled, and adverse impacts would be reduced. e following measures could potentially be used to limit erosion and sedimentation: • Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the site would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate measures for each phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for stockpiling of erosion control . pry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 — raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 September 2003 material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of problems may be appropriate. Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the plan should be provided. • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1 and April 30,because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at any time. Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies. • Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake Washington shoreline. Where possible, existing vegetation should be maintained as a buffer. A barrier should be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them from construction activities and prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within those areas. • All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part of the construction plans, including: > Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control. > Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and establish temporary and permanent cove. • A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent sediment transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season grading occurs. • Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include: > Detention for runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be designed to contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected during construction. > Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water. ➢ Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance systems to prevent erosion during and after construction. > The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations should be discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required for sediments or pollutants. • Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment, leakage of fuels,fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water treatment systems. • In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW)prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively. • A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality assurance plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum, require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 September 2003 '1 ii it 3. .3.2 Seismic Hazards 1' M tigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the presumed extent of liquefaction,with varying levels of risk. ' _' I e following three basic strategies were identified by the applicant's geotechnical engineer: • Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. • Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. • Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002). T u e use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense deposits not subject to liquefaction. It is unclear from prior geotechnical work done on the site how deep such piles would need to be driven. In the central area of the site, two borings have indicated that dense glacial till is present at a o.roximately 60 feet. The most reliable foundation system would be founded on the dense glacial till. S t,allower pile-supported foundations might be acceptable if non-liquefiable soils could be confirmed at s u9i llower depths. PI es driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer would not only have to c.i vertical loads from the superstructure, but also would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and binding moments induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could -' b; achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition, it is important that the p'es be connected to the cap in a manner that allows some rotation to occur, without failure of the I c snnection. If pile connections fail,the structure may fail due to overturn forces. I I' ere is uncertainty in evaluating the relative effectiveness of ground treatment strategies for limiting ; i 1.q eral deformations because a limited amount of research has been performed that evaluates seismically- i nIIe uced lateral deformations of improved soil sites(ODOT 2002). _q ' one columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of providing drainage. They are i routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe into the soil using a water jet to the required depth. ile adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and lowered to form a dense ' dolumn. A system of closely placed stone columns provides areas of compacted soils not subject to i j' 1 •uefaction. In addition, stone columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil, -' I 01 ich would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil particles. This __ ;,,r ect,however, is not the most important one, since time for a positive effect of the drainage is limited to I t fie duration of the earthquake, which means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only .ifects a rather limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is o pecially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage effect becomes ' -gligible(Madabhushi 1999). Il' t grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is the most common abilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a drilled hole from the existing ground surface I ••wn to the desired depth. A rod containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high . essure. The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix. The jet is - otated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of improved soil. Numerous columns at it ose intervals can be used to create a block of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with -- 4.-11s of unimproved soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil ithout having to treat the entire area(Berger/Abam 2002). I t t°-ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 September 2003 ' 1' � I Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground surface to create dense and compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard, modified, or specialty machines and dropped from about 50-to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height,number of drops per point, and the spacing of the grid. In general,treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in granular soils. The major limitations of the method are vibrations,flying matter,and noise(Martin 1999). For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and constructed to tie all elements together to make the foundation move or settle uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful for bridging over areas of local settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation also reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002). The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can resist the load applied from the untreated deposits located behind the treated area depends on a number of factors. Such factors include the area of liquefiable soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with retaining structures to contain lateral movement due to liquefaction. Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural challenges due to the j h depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more feet and the extremely high forces likely to be bear upon such structures if large areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend below the liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One retaining structure option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The walls consist of reinforced concrete shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of unreinforced concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves drilling shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary shafts to be reinforced with steel and higher strength concrete are drilled between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The process is repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together. (Berger/Abaco 2002) It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil improvement and retaining structures between building sites and Lake Washington. Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they are extensive linear facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep foundations, the cost is generally a limiting factor. Ground improvement measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in shallow liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral movement. Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to resist breakage from minor displacement together with sections of flexible line to allow displacement without breakage. In addition, having emergency backup facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire fighting and water supply. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access,especially emergency access. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Commercial and industrial uses may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the potential loss of life may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an active state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type,size and location. Additional environmental review may be required at that time. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 September 2003 i i II 3,2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES , ! 3,2.1 Affected Environment I f I' , 2.1.1 Surface Water Bodies I I i is section includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology, floodplains, and ' 1 1 :ter quality. More detailed discussion is provided in Appendix C. These analyses provide a basis for aI isessment of impacts on wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been pepared based on review of existing data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the aIplicant, and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the p'otential impacts identified. Additional technical analysis is contained in Appendix C. I IT S rface Water Bodies icy Creek e proposal site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake JJashington as indicated in Figure 3.2-1. May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in Water Resource I i'l'ventory Area (WRIA) 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8p,6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square- le area between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily ' ' : thin unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin I 1 ` (d .proximately 12 percent of the total area) are within the Cities of Newcastle and Renton (King County 1 1'°95). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land ,i- u'ces (King County 2001). Under current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective ! j : i pervious surface from 7 percent to 12 percent(King County 2001). I I e lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site as i dicated in Figure 3.2-2. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill I pI�operty is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 I to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high d.ter(OHW) is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). I 'II ual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill II II•mpany since the 1950s to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek in order t o' maintain water depth for log handling and log storage for the sawmill. _ e portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002), ,i b.sed on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different cl!tegories. Class 1 streams have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's So oreline Master Program(King County 1991). f I. e water quality classifications of May Creek is a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water I I ality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. The water quality of Class AA waters exceeds the I rl.f quirements for all or substantially all uses including domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. I d 1 ii ese waters also provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, ell staceans, and shellfish, as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide opportunities for i ! r-creation, commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet certain water quality ci'teria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas; temperature; pH; turbidity; I I t i xic radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A (MRSC 1997).1 I l I rty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 I 1.aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 September 2003 ` I z 1 j (. 1 520 -'SEATTLE L:aka • /?WashIAton1S \°: r. BELLEVUE11111, e¢t so .r_ ao f :: 11.414S4- l''Po', ,' . c\---, ,. , 4444 likIN \Lc' S,, ';.. '`A`..-. --; . :xLE. 15SA4UAH 9IIo,' 7. ::,11.i.:,,,,,,I.,,,,,,,:::::;?':ri::: ' y � i:1,16:::',410:::::—,1.t;:i' rpy'(`t r� [/I Z g��#(jam' �?? M. .teky1C spent-x t,2 '/ fir: \\\\ YY� r i55 a -, 'w�. s.. y .. :,,- !Tr (I, ENToN `;?;. > v" -i ka y; ' m 99 W TU W.LA fit16 \....).,,, ',1 Arc: 1111P \''''‘••• . Date of map,October 1998 1 Parametrix City of Renton/654-1779-017/0,1(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.2-1 May Creek Basin N , =Miles Vicinity Map I SYMBOLS, ,,,1,.•. .-so" • ' t'V \I PASSABLE.,:BA FER1ERS,1 roPASBABLE''i,,,,,,,..::' •.: 0, C) . , • .4 1 M.- 'itttle• ,,.... . _rn -.714-a, :P.Oet0CfeS -111,_ Th ) -3 • jus,,,,A4A 4Vr3g9 Beaver Dams "NAlz•x* ?5-&-',....... ''''; '-,-r. Lag Jams .-=..<•...'‘;k-i',...": l -,,,,W.c•".4"..4.p.;..'- ;/..4.-,..„;',':ez Kplk. • ' • t:,-A,*,,r...trOrle• . - -, t-4 ' .:: , Dome. . ' .0iViili'4; tr4.1 s I i‘ : .•417ir.'1A1V.21:t&I''''''4n.tiN"..;'''' C> ' fa° ig , . ...... • • . , , ' ...;:•,-.i%••:.., 47k;',F, "'eft ... . • • "Ir' .'' 4,'e'r,-14:31. -- : . , ', : • ,:.4011001 .Balraon H9ichory g.::',/" ••'"•:•,•,.ht•A, / •'' • .0.4...-?,a, ,„„'t^,VW, *5_`0„•VIA,', , . •: t• r- "ct .1 Vi*Ps'ilftti,J:;';it:'W 11' ,1 I Tr, •cf*tteV4;?4,4.9,' r . ' ' • 'sf rearri-"GAge * .'":,;'''t4r ..••'''-tir ....e.' ,...,ti . .. . ,; Vii:,*,,,,' ,,i3OV • ,.. .; 11/1:-. 11.•„ a l al ,,'-xv., '':-.744-r" ':"'••• e;,t11:., , , 4, ; ' 14:1•Zer1)91:;`-:1...,,ci (114 . ,.,.. e....k. ''t ':0-kflt•''a-A1.1:74S; AO i .711,df... 1 ill.• - ' •:1€11) . (.:7). ; • • ' '3.1,',- \ . .\L(I itiN;'''','''''. • :'VA' I. . :' • .?-qa:a,2.1 t ' 9 . ',1,74.W.v,,• ,,L.4...... ., ... • l?Oi'fii;,!,--. es -, • ,-;:,..,?fr,:,V,=7 , • ,i." , lita.,.Z.,,, 'Cli.,:-::,• '- ' • IN? W, , pe,r.,,,,,,,,4 i I • • • l:SN . - . '7‘'''''''''i••T - . -;'0 . • 7n..tts... % . A;: '.2.0.Z.79 ‘• ,, . . CI , • : 9,280 ' . „ ; • 4. ••e"....,,, 0 \ (5. • a.:S s:N14>,, 0,*;,IQ. % 1..J. :'il"rtr , 4i•=',U,':-.0,',,ZI,Yik4• . ' , . • . .d• 'tA. ' co,,r...,t.!,,,4.--,f,t-N,4,::,.,•;•••••. .. . , , fg? . , -0 161:r. ,.. • Lx. •I 0 . ' I 1/2 a 1 MILE 4 ammr,-7...r . Oaer•• • stALE;; 1',.I MILE ia 4".4.4.4,++•a *44. ,_, . .4.+44••*4•*1•04.. I , •,.... 4,4.4:4* •••••V 44.,•••e „ 1 •• $ii4gt,:kr•;',4;:l'ilf:4, .. .4,44•44;o:il,•:•:4;44,1./.. 4,1 e Re on SOUTH • )...L.)-•• :'4 ..'t.**:..1‘:+:41*"..;...:tt..: 1#•• r 0# / #4-•••#-#10 •. , .1..4,4.4 .- U ......,vii44:0;:s.....,....f..,....4.„,. LAKE WASH IN G:TO:N .-,,,,:,•.„tOke ' : 14.1 relbi.i>.en,10.1444,44,11,64.4•4 1 ! :;t0.4.1;•:+44 44.4...% •,,.....:44,44:41.r. DRAINAGES • •,..••••••.„. , - Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1. 1 , Para matrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) "Ala Figure 3.2-2 lair May Creek Location and Stream Type Map • f � dV, The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State as being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria, zinc, copper and lead are listed based on one to three excursions beyond the criterion collected by King County Surface Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994. Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out of 92 samples (29 percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between January 1991 and April 1997. (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired wtrs.html) and www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf). Lake Washington The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steep side slopes. The lake receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and drains approximately 472 square miles. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. The Lake Washington Basin is WRIA 08. " Lake Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A). As with May Creek, its water quality should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses, provide areas and habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide recreation, commerce and navigation opportunities. Any water listed as Lake Class must meet the same water quality criteria as those for May Creek. Considering its urban location, Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake and it is a valuable natural resource to both King County residents, and fish and wildlife. This, however, has not __- prevented natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout from declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998). Identified Management Strategies The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines a set of actions for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin: 1)reduce the threat of flooding to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements to facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; 3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse. The Action Plan's primary recommendations include: • Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water quality facilities for site development. • Develop basin stewardship and community participation through creation of a May Creek Basin Steward. • Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions. The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional sub-area identified in the Action Plan as the Lower Basin Sub-area,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile 3.9, above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for this Sub-area specific to the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No.10: Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May Creek delta, and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 September 2003 I Ili I th t increases in erosive storm flows from basin clearing and land development have increased the need I' ,I fo more frequent dredging to maintain adequate access for the mill's continued commercial operations. , e Action Plan goes on to note: 1 "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhanceMayCreek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance 1 dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need I for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial , operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on I channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for 1 i dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that include some need for ongoing even a long-term solution likely willg g maintenance dredging." '12.1.2 Floodplains and Flooding I e May Creek Delta is formed by the discharge carried by the stream into Lake Washington where it is II .I.posited on the lake bottom. Delta deposits extend underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,1100 feet and extends upstream to approximately a half mile. The character of the delta was influenced bl construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 that lowered the lake's water level by 9 feet. 11 1 . I is exposed portions of the delta that were previously underwater and initially increased the gradient of _ ay Creek's lower channel and caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic ,! p ay Creek delta. This action shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into j nle lake. I p ; `, bsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined i . toe channel, resulting in high ground along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to the east j' .1. . This fill concentrates flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport - c;l pacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. Dredging operations by the 1' It bee Mill site has removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year since the 1950s from I, ' t e mouth of May Creek(King County 2001). , 1, , 1 I ' oodplain modeling of existing and future conditions using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE 1I 1' 101) is presented in Appendix B. Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the !' p oposal study area was modeled. In general,the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by t e three existing bridges,whose fill and structure help confine the floodplain, and the predicted 100-year " .odplain would cover a substantial part of the site as indicated in Figure 3.2-3. (see Floodplain Analysis II I,-chnical Report,Figure 2-2,Appendix B). ;I 1:Ii II I. l Ii 1 1 l I G4i Renton-Barbee Mill PreliminaryPlat 554-1779-017 h'o.f ' Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 September 2003 i a o il 3.2.1.3 Existing Drainage ti Impervious Surface Areas Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). An existing bulkhead extends along the majority of the site's shoreline, and a 50-foot dock is located about 300 feet from the northern property boundary. There are also numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1 2002). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek: a single vehicle lane, wooden structure at the mouth of the Creek, a wooden, foot-traffic only bridge approximately 200 feet upstream, and a two lane concrete structure 350 feet further north(Raedeke Associates,2002). Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the _^I industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities(Loyd and Associates 2003)and is discussed further in Appendix C. North Outfall This outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of Barbee Mill, and drains approximately 40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area. No chemical usage occurs in this area. There is a covered and bermed, petroleum product storage area, and a wash area near the east side, north of the dry kiln, drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm drain system. This outfall does not have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake Washington, although numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling of potential windblown dust and debris,which is minimal. Middle Ou fall This outfall drains approximately 10 percent of the industrial activity area. It has an oil/water separator to trap the minimal amounts of residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product from the sawmill area. South Outfall i � This outfall drains 50 percent of the activity area. The storm drain system has catch basins and lines that terminate at an oil/water separator adjacent to the lake. Wood debris from dredging is currently stored in } this area. Non-Point Drainage Areas The non-industrial, southern portion of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May Creek is a non- point drainage area (Loyd and Associates 2003). There is no industrial activity in the May Creek corridor. Wetlands The northernmost wetland drains via a ditch to May Creek, and the southern wetland drains to Lake Washington via a 150-foot-long storm drain pipe (Raedeke Associates, 2002). See discussion of impacts in Section 3.4. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 September 2003 { it 1 1 1 A jacent Upstream Drainage 1 A.drainage basin near North 40th Street, between I-405 and the BNSF railroad, drains south towards Barbee Mill, first along the east side of the railway, then the west. The stormwater daylights into a s ace ditch before entering a 15-inch drain line to cross the site and discharge to the lake (Otak, Inc. 2112). ; l 3 .2 Impacts 3,' .2.1 Impacts of the Proposal , e proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed Barbee Mill 'L P p liminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of n+v impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on 22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent _ ('i�aedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington ' I, , a n d 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land _ II ' G terward of the Inner Harbor line. This public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Residential s i ctures along the lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from Ake waters edge. T e proposed buffer for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing it b dge close to the mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance no of the ,' niirtherly wetland. The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the ill reek i'- b;'ffer area has not been proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis, it was presumed to be restored , th native vegetation. (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). M, • new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the r- oval of an existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be n'-cessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHW of May Creek. The new bridge would be a O proximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained "'1" a d converted to foot-traffic-only use. ormwater Discharge f e proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek d Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. II pacts to Water Quality yy 0 egradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater v llutants, or erosion and sediment transport, result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving = aters. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil __ . c d greases, nutrients, toxic organics, metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater •'-tention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure. ater quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual ( CSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment 1'--'. cilities, described in Section 3.2.3—Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington. • e reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed,enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide , eneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002). 1 , city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 - aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 September 2003 1 r r� I Maintenance Activity Impacts Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially °k affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods. Construction Water Quality Impacts Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, excavation and backfill for hazardous materials remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for utilities and water quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after completion of subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 3 8 000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes:yTfiese activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff, and soil compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and maintenance of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated, surface waters can be impacted. Floodplains and Flooding Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors, including the erosive force of the river, and the nature of the material protecting the proposal development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three proposal scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the 9 thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate e of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration, delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. In addition,the individual scenarios assure the following: • Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill; • Scenario 2—The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water; and • Scenario 3 — The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback from OHW. Scenario 1 —Existing site topography -1 The The 100-year floodplain would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on Figure 3.2- 3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek. The almost level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow over about a third of the site affecting 25 buildings. A small area near the mouth of May Creek remains outside the floodplain, possibly because the existing bridge present enough of a barrier to flood water to divert water to the west. Scenario 2—50-Foot Setback Construction of levees or fill at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream to contain the floodplain would divert floodwaters from the 100 year floodplain from all the buildings areas on-site. The containment would result in slightly increased flood stages (up to 1.6 feet) at most of the cross sections modeled(see Appendix B). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 { I Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 September 2003 it S t'enario 2- 100-foot Setback C;antainment of flood waters at a distance of 100 feet from the stream also would prevent flooding of b lilding sites and is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly lower flood state elevations than S I�enario 2 (see Appendix B). 3 0.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative I : pacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site c ditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net i i�pervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same. B li cause there are buildings within the 100 year floodplain, the assumption is that they will be flooded ' J en such events take place. Impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground fl;o or uses and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the ' fl m od elevation. 11 3:2.2.3 Cumulative Impact mutative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water r; ources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal. 3 .3 Mitigation 2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation S to Hydrology 1 etention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge ' emption in the 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998);however,water quality treatment is required. c'he proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater ii�filtration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount proposal could be enhanced by the use of pervious pavements on driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, using tree and brush cover to provide ditional interception of rainwater,and infiltration of roof drain discharges. tormwater Discharge I I 4e proposed stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 is sized to convey the 100-year, 24- I ur storm with the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Its operation and maintenance could conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements (King County 1998). If mitigation easures were properly implemented, adverse stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The llowing brief description of the proposed conveyance system is based on the Technical Information eport for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (TIR) (Otak, Inc. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides t'e preliminary calculations showing that the stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM ection 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards(King County 1998). i'ry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 -- Fi aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 September 2003 ' f ' mwm .....// COR-2 ZONE ...m .�,.,..,�. 7 �.y I .— —11—:17 1::-) ••••• 11.--.r... —...... v..-. ..f. (1.7.. —1. tr— „:111--"" —7 4/. 1 112:17 ,LI 22 t-::!ft-- 1' " 1 1„ 15 I " 13 I 13 11 l'..z.10.. 71. 3' 7 l'.4"5 :I "...' i r:, jY STREET fy I. OHW—�, ,: 9 o..Y �. �. _ l �,( Tract„C„ A - ✓ /, >. "" ? PUBLIC LAND Open ■ !9✓� ✓ +. ✓ -�_\ ���/ ^ / t2'/ Space ° �''•� - � / 0 ( vaII eat f• �' / � ` LAKE 1. ' // ' f ! .//'L- : � , WASHINGTON t; . 7 4. / yOHW f4, \// f a t, // A'cici I L -b %` ; I _ = , ,,, — lit ,s... . i . ,, i. i I/ il‘�a f , , ;...,,,*„ /,",.; vs,...- ,../47/ , i PUBLIC LAND -'\// �/ 'lr ; J f7 // J J �m,� � � ✓. /�kfi / i''" L ll jr . r , -mom . ,/"."\;‘)'N.......4.: - .>4. , r�/ \___ . ___-- - v.� ,e-,„. , f4 j// / ,. , _ .P MAY CREEK �� `! , // I �/ a" � .- _ J , DELTA / % ✓` - rr I• . ' °s -1-/_ Xf24 e -............._..... —_ , -tea,-° ' ,r „it_ - N 40TH ST a� r I ' I , Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-03 1 i SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.2-3 Flood Plain 0 100 200IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat i . i I r r U` ('''--.-.. ., \ .'4C- _/ 't i— i I " ®° ii - 11 of ��� �� �� � 7 I ®.� �! , I J / a < „ , imI I ml I j I ,, aIn a _ l • illlitt\ -,ftilVI 7721.-_-7-2_-_-.17P--jj.._—:: - _itc - 7'/,/,', i //I _. !-Ia.4/0 2 ,,--''. / N , i r - 7 ,„ k 7,3 d . . / ' // i___ t .,...., �� �, \/ r-___—,. ly 1 = , r ' ' Ar, I -lie erQ 1.::1 r /\ / '-*/ -- TAJ II I::. ,__ �ii ,; ..- ..,,,. _ �: ,g / / 1i ! (sPa� a . \ % - /a. h\ r) P. 'IlL__..W.'-2\\„. ' A%000... .00. ..e.1 ,..- \ i„/: "5/ / / ai,• ' ! J\\ r ; / 2 ' 1 MMv' ? 'r"4Z1 :'' /'i\-1/:1.\/\ `' Wpt OU ,'% /�f r,. ' � J Vjf// .' 11 \\ 1�l i t' r1 1 I r 1\ / 47 1 0 (J • • LAKE :;/ %/ f 1/'fl ./ Q, WASHINGTON }1 l I . :�r ,t. k /1/ 7 , \f"/ '"' '/ * ....._\\.12V. OM\ • i,J,or I, 4- , -4 -\-"'i 'Ilr - WM' ' i • `"/ 7-- i / .'•4 - ' ' ' ' ' litiP'i 171c-- , ''' //7//////// it/11 `, 404,-**,;; / 1 yve (/ /// / / /// \' ''. viV- **A- 1.-,-,-,„ta . 27 ,/vic // /2 r 7' \ to,„,,,' ,/ , A*,4.4..,,,,, ,__ , , ,,,4,7 ,o. , \,. //,,o/tcvir .. _.,„ i / / , //Ay**. tor ‘, /0 , / i . ii,.. 0-4.,,,/,'" ifiVit-4t* ,: ,;?'""2/ \ . ....,,,..-,:- .::2-2•2,-- 24,(-./^/t940, *i z `> \ i0,4# \ . •tir, / MAY CREEK 1. „ , / // DELTA _ n � J✓ a\ / ,/ ° f f _ ' .20........v__._...'-___�.w•;.:_....__.�,.. sxr_ _ % � � /- wfi LEGEND /Yw.!CtS2 — Flow path 'ft!! 7`t``ea- <: , '� /j % �;' , N 40TH ST 7J - At Basin bounder Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3 Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04 Figure 3.2-4 SCALE IN FEETPAI Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Discharge to Lake Washington Following water quality treatment, water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). Adjacent Upstream Drainage An existing bypass storm drain line would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve the developed offsite N 40th Street basin. Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include the constructing of levees or constructing the proposal on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented above under Scenarios 2 and 3. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100-year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2lee_t above the existing_ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures could protect ; The development-from flooding and reduce the chance of the stream migrating to a new location. Dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. As an additional mitigation measure, all existing bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain. Reduction in floodplain storage capacity resulting from fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated. In general, these impacts could be mitigated by providing compensatory storage at the project site or a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-year floodplain elevation. The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 and Appendix B. However, because the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating, potentially aggradation would continue, with deposits that would reduce the capacity of the stream bed over time. This would result in greater floodplain depths that would eventually exceed the above estimates. This could be compensated for to some extent, by increasing the height of the levee or the elevation of the bottom floor of residences. An additional option is utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the stream, which would provide additional flood storage to compensate for the reduction in conveyance capacity. - Mitigation for Water Quality City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged (see Figure 3.2-4). The facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 September 2003 lL- r p The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E I [I and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre. Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The ri ' elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface I ^ II elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary. WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would. 9 discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ 1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). 1 The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of May Creek. The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard R North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet, or 11,026 cubic feet " if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds I, during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. ..� -m ,i pon s 1 �l^ 1 Mitigation for Maintenance Activity p 1 ri Maintenance of the water quality ponds would be private, and would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998)requirements(King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal G from the ponds could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts { , from the possible use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan,_as -I described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater runoff would be reduced by the implementation of the following BMPs: I i • Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of ° - ystormwater in landscaped areas —"'---'_! . y/ °t 1 f • Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems • The practice of mulch-mowing • Disposal of grass clippings,leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation by composting, if feasible 1 a�r If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. I ;� 3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation 1 ii BMPs for sediment control should be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, 4 Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation I 91 of an appropriate SWPPP, including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment 91 iI Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not I expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002): • Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked. 9� • Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction . _: entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. ,I 1 I� Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 September 2003 I 1 II InI Ir • Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction. } • Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met. —' • Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans. • Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows } until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place. • Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden water. • Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require protection. I 4yf • Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals, and water treatment systems. L • Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations would be discharged into a controlled system. • Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project. • Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control. It would cover phasing,training,coordination,monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning. Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,2002): • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30, because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Jj Washington and May Creek,respectively. I 3 • The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes. • The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. • Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. I • Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering,erosion control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved,and dust control. • Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 September 2003 I I I ,11 • A monitoring plan should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction 1- : 1 ! 1 SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and i' l -, a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the 1� ground. I l; The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs that include the following: 1 I I • Limiting disturbed areas as practicable; • Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas; 1 • The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure; 1 I 1 •I • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces; • Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site I i discharge; 1 • Specialized concrete handling; 1 1 ! • Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals; • Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill 1 ' containment features,and a spill clean-up kit; ' • Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction; 1I 1 • Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead;and 1 • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures. 3.3 GROUNDWATER Infiltration movement and storage of groundwater depend on surface and subsurface deposits. \` I Groundwater exists in many types of geologic deposits; however, accessibility to that water and its 11 rovement in the deposits depends on the pore space in the deposits and their connectivity. Aquifers provide numerous connected voids through which groundwater can travel (e.g., sand and gravel), making the groundwater accessible. Aquitards restrict groundwater movement because they lack pore space 1 and/or connectivity(Shannon and Wilson 2001). 3.3.1 Affected Environment The layering sequence of aquifers and aquitards affects vertical groundwater movement. Surface aquifers '1 allow infiltration of precipitation to the subsurface to recharge the aquifer. Three aquifer systems are 1' III present in the area of the project site. The local unconfined aquifer is in the alluvium and fill, which is 1 ' mainly silt and sand. Within the alluvial unit of medium to fine sand are discontinuous zones of silt and peat that may cause localized semi-confined conditions (the second aquifer system). The sand in the north central portion of the site becomes gravelly, which may represent a channel of May Creek and the ,I 1 I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 September 2003 i IIVI third aquifer system. The base of the alluvial and lacustrine deposits consists of a relatively continuous silt layer, 5-to10-feet thick. This unit overlies the glacial sand and gravel unit(Hart Crowser 2000). Depth to water in this area ranges from 3 to 7 feet below the surface. This equates to a 14- to 18-foot elevation. The aquifer is in communication with Lake Washington to the west and pinches out to the east. The Seattle Fault may have a significant effect on the local flow system. The soil types at depth on both sides of the fault are different. The effect of the fault on the aquifer system has not been studied. The City of Renton began an effort to protect its groundwater supplies that is consistent with the Washington State Wellhead Protection Program (Chapter 246-290-135(4) WAC) and recommended an Aquifer Protection Program in its 1983 Water System Plan. Aquifer Protection Ordinance No. 4367 was passed by Renton in 1993 and Aquifer Protection Areas (APA) were established to protect the quality of Renton's municipal water supply. Land use and development is regulated by the ordinance in this area. The Barbee Mill site does not fall into this area. The closest municipal well is southeast of the project site. Groundwater Flow The project site is generally in a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. There is an upward vertical gradient near the lake (Hart Crowser 2000). Flow in the unconfined alluvial aquifer is most susceptible to localized change due to placement of fill, cutoff walls, and utilities. Low permeability pavement and fill will decreases overall infiltration and recharge over the site. The on-site wetlands are discussed in the wetland section of this report. Bedrock and regional aquifers would probably be unaffected because their recharge areas are further upland. The primary water supply aquifer in the area is the City of Renton Well 5A, which lies in an APA south of the project site. The site is more than 5,000 feet northwest of the well and outside of its 10-year capture zone. The well is deep and unlikely to be affected by shallow contamination. Due to its distance from the project,there would likely be little effect on that well. Groundwater Quality The water quality impacts likely to occur in the shallow unconfined aquifer would include increased total dissolved solids from turbid surface water infiltration and contamination from surface spills of chemicals and petroleum products. There are several groundwater monitoring wells on the Barbee Mill site. Multiple site investigations have been conducted at the project site and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.6,Hazardous Materials. Elevated concentrations of arsenic (0.0086 to 52 mg/L) were detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in specific areas. Surface water screening standards were applied to groundwater samples because the lake is a receptor for groundwater, and it is of higher concern relative to human and environmental impacts. Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B surface water cleanup levels, Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act Criteria, and estimated background concentrations were used as the basis for choosing groundwater screening levels in recent investigations. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank (UST) areas. Groundwater treatment would be part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan for the contaminated soil on the site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 September 2003 rf1 1 , Gi oundwater Rights `— Ecology has issued no Groundwater Rights Certificates in the project area. The closest location is more than 2,000 feet east on the east side of I-405. The impacts to those with claims are unknown, but would pr6ably be small to none. Il l 1 3.�3.2 Impacts Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water . supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. There are no on-site drinking water wells or other types ' of wells penetrating the deeper aquifers; therefore, impacts to the deeper aquifers would probably be minimal. T e saturated thickness of the shallow aquifer fluctuates seasonally in response to precipitation (dry during low-precipitation months). Because the site is presently almost totally covered with impervious I surface,the amount after redevelopment would probably not be significantly different. 1 Pilings for a structural foundation can act as a conduit for surface contaminates to migrate to the • ' ; unconfined aquifer. Minimal impacts to the deeper aquifers would be anticipated under this alternative. C� mulative Impact 1 Goundwater impacts have been determined to be minimal for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee 11 ti i Mill site; as a result, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to surface water flow, i interception of runoff by the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater II I I facilities are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. ;1 1 Installations of foundation may alter the shallow groundwater flow direction depending on their depth. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of 1 , foundations. May Creek is located mainly upgradient of the construction area and is discussed in more \ detail in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Impact on site wetlands and wetland recharge are discussed in Section 3.4,Plants and Animals. ' 3.3.3 Mitigation i I No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the ,' aquifers below the project site resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal. Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the community, it is important for o1 -site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the 1, impacted groundwater during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with respect t' arsenic. , S allow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of subsurface utilities or other ; in the groundwater could intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table is likely to be low during the portion of the year when precipitation is minimal, chanceto encounter ld be minimized by conducting �= intrusive activities during the dry season(late spring through late summer and early fall). 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 i Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 September 2003 3.4.1 Affected Environment Vegetation Communities Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington, and to between 5 and 25 feet of the waters' edge along most of May Creek. Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge, there is a forested buffer of red alder and black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canary- grass. The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. In places along the west bank, paved surfaces extend to within 5 to 10 feet of OHW and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25-feet wide along the stream (Raedeke Associates 2002). Some trees and shrubs do occur along the west bank, but they are scattered through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing and, in general, are too far from the stream bank to provide significant shade to the stream. In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water, non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-grass, and the large areas of managed lawn that line the stream in the project area. The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap, indicated in Figure 3.4-1, which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along the edge of the water. The portion of the shoreline east of May Creek is managed lawn. The shoreline west of May Creek has recently been cleared as part of dredging operations and consists of disturbed soils that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Further to the north, sheet pile bulkheads and riprap are present up to the log loading area of the sawmill. South of the sawmill log entry building, the shoreline is retained by a log bulkhead with shallower water. Most of the shoreline is cleared, but it supports some soft rush and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom,which grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks and log bulkheads. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the , existing sawmill building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed in the lake and extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points. For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project. 1 A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification. 94-2-00196. The majority of plantings do not appear to have survived or established a stable vegetation community. Additional discussion is provided in Appendix D. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 September 2003 I At 71 2 OHW--Jo I ---' .,--') 1 i /(/ i'FJ �� �_ � oow �orv_mmwa > \ //// I PIER 1 a f NI � / / • • • ti�...y.� -- f/ • • •7 FF"'W • • • •® [ r. ir) ,,_....______-_____\ ,,a ?' 'fig/ / LOG V' ' 4 /7 RAFT rl� �1 i i '� u6 / .7 ,,,__________ /..,.// , ___,,,-,_,,, , / ,... , / ..f, ,, , i „ , __<„, _,i2„, . .,, ..,, , ,„--,,,...„ i / , 4,,/ \ .,, „ \ \ �ID' ' ,, , r7 f , d f/ _/!� ` ' `, / ;aF�.0,7 Tx®'_0 r4-1 ! / /�'`°/ LAKE ,�/ ,-; t �$ / WASHINGTON vt 7 °n"-°°X Org �,C 1i1` i 7 '''i HA ��� s,1 a.I' t L _ 1� l , �lrril lf t l'i ! r' / /� /ifi itki i ./ , ,f:l.: fi -----....... 7 , ,/, _„/_____-----4,7,_ ,,,,f/4Y / : •. , \ y / \,,,, OW • • 61 \5 ',,.. _,..i.4,1` \•••eff / I MAY CREEK111' / ,_ DELTA dI".... Y tr. M1 V'" - / / • yam....-_____.___.__ _._.___..__.... " — —_ �_ � ---- N 40TH ST F t._ Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01 ! '1 — BROKEN ASPHALT SCALE IN FEET "IrliN SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure 3.4-1 I NO LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection CCCrt RIP RAP , o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • • • . LOG PILES Wildlife Limited habitat for wildlife is provided in upland vegetation in the narrow corridor along the riparian zone of May Creek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site. Species known or expected to use the riparian habitat area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker, spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house fmches, American crows, muskrats, and possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the - creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. Habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as potential foraging areas for gulls and other predatory birds, is provided along the Lake Washington shoreline and aquatic areas. The low level of current activity on the site, as well as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhance the lake habitat in the area relative to other near-shore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher. Two wildlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use the project site vicinity, as described further below. Mammal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek corridor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian habitat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice, which are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and migrating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off- leash dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at the site. Forest-dwelling mammals such as deer are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and have been observed to swim from the delta area to Mercer Island. Osprey The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996 (Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity. The osprey is not listed as threatened or endangered but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and RCW 77.15.130. It is unlawful to hunt,take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg. Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers, light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant (i.e., up to 14 kilometers but typically within 3 to 5 kilometers)from foraging areas(Poole 1989). The majority of nests in Oregon and California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers (Zarn 1974; Vana-Miller 1987). Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 September 2003 1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987). They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime thereafter reafter(Cadman et al. 1987). Bald Eagle N p bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee Mill site. The two closest nest sites are approximately 1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has ben proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive. B Id eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby 1 ge trees for nesting,perching, and roosting(Stinson et al. 2001). Habitat quality is also associated with freedom from human disturbance. However, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of u ban areas with significant human activity is not uncommon. territories as earlyas December(Stinson et al. 2001 . Each eagle Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting ) g pair maintains an active nest and often alternate nest(s) within its territory, and successful nests may be uWed over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two and, in western ashington, young hatch by late April after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001). Yung eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington. E tgles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north t British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults g nerally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington State generally arrive from October to December and leave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia, Alaska, the Northwest Tbrritories, and the Yukon. Wetlands Two small wetlands.(Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property (Raedeke Associates 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine emergent NA.etlands (David Evans 1997). Wetland hydrology is provided by surface runoff on the site, runoff from east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow subsurface flow through the BNSF railroad bed (Raedeke Associates 2002). Both wetlands and buffer areas have been regularly mowed, as - part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment retention and limited-water storage. Both wetlands, due to their small size, limited buffer area,and periodic disturbance associated with mowing,have low species diversity and probably provide minimal wildlife habitat. Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat in May Creek and Lake Washington has been substantially altered by dredging operations conducted by the Barbee Mill Company since the 1950s. The relocation of May Creek to flow south city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 September 2003 rather then west across the site, and associated fill and riprap has eliminated most natural stream functions. Dredging operations that annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the mouth of May Creek which served to prevent deposition of sediments in the May Creek streambed, and has prevented formation of a delta at the mouth of the stream. The most recent dredging in Lake Washington was implemented for removal of bark and other materials deposited by log storage (Harza 2000,Meridian 2001). Additional discussion of aquatic habitat is found in Appendix E. The shoreline of the Barbee Mill site reflects the extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington that have occurred over the past century. The modifications that have taken place have simplified the nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. The removal of shoreline vegetation on the site is typical of much of the lake shoreline that has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing Lake Washington shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers - extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001). Near-shore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are less altered. Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food sources, and eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in shallow water increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the near-shore zone. The shoreline vegetation helps maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food web and provides crucial in-water habitat. Lake depths along the margins of the site are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek and the log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing sawmill north of the log handling area and are 3 to 4 feet below OHW. The greatest depths are about 12 feet in the vicinity of the log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. Substrate in the project area is a mixture of silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel (Meridian 2001). Where observed, gravel was mostly located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter), whereas silts were the dominant substrate in deeper water. Fish Species Use May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout(KCSWP 1995). Of these species, Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and coho salmon are considered a candidate for listing as discussed below. Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish species (WDFW 2003). Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are a USFWS species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site(WDFW 2003). _ ESA-Listed Species Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) On March 24, 1999, NOAA Fisheries listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 September 2003 i 1 compared to historical levels (Federal Register 64:14308-15328). Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks ' -' halve shown long- and short-term negative trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat degradations that include stream blockages, stream bank instability and modifications, increases in 1 J sedimentation, widespread removal riparian vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading, alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of streams, and loss of estuarine and near-shore habitat(Myers et al. 1998). Harvest and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon are also considered faI tors of decline(Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater Id salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of Chinook salmon, including 1 -' th se found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit a "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during 1 th first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles h ve been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time ', ( arza 2000). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and 1' ' nLr-shore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open o ean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas o clean gravels and cobbles, and generally in the mainstreams of rivers(Myers et al. 1998). ost juvenile Chinook salmon that use habitat within the project vicinity originate from the Cedar River. T e Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery st cks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock Chinook salmon ' e ter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late August. S awning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with peak s awning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994; City of Seattle 2000). Fry emerge from February t ough March. Tile distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon along the Lake Washington shoreline has been demonstrated be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest densities of juvenile Chinook salmon have been found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel) during day and night, and in areas having a gl'adual slope of less than 20 percent (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). From February to March, Chinook salmon commonly used overhead structures during the day, but rarely at night. In contrast, Chinook salmon generally do not appear to use overhead structures later in the spring during the day or night (Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, Chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at night t ey have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water, close to shore. woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by Chinook salmon in March and April, bit are used less progressively from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2002). It is ai this time that predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often u ilizing such cover and other overhead structures. ile May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon population, some individuals believed t be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). S awning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found adult Chinook salmon population densities in May reek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Spawning surveys conducted in 1983 did not find Chinook s lmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of 1 fish per mile ( arza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live Chinook salmon and 4 carcasses were spotted in May - reek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 September 2003 From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few Chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that study, densities of Chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas (Tabor et al. 2002). Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) On July 25, 1995, the NOAA Fisheries added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for coho salmon to the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the future listing (Federal Register 60:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and stream blockages. Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon start returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After J entering Lake Washington, adult coho salmon may, if necessary, remain in the lake for up to several weeks until river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake Washington basin streams occurs from late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000). Spawning generally occurs from in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in early March to mid-May (Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). The stream distribution and abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel morphology,vegetation type and abundance,and channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region. However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions(Harza 2000,Fresh 1994,WDFW 1994). The use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood, but juveniles are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area (WDFW 2002a). Spawning surveys of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho salmon densities in the lower reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively (Raedeke Associates, 2002) Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 adult fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth of May Creek, juvenile coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake Washington in close proximity to the mouth (Harza 2000). However, juvenile coho salmon are not generally known to reside in lakes for extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore, most use of the Lake Washington shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May during seaward migration. Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus) On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 64:58910-58933). Thirty-four subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading, altered flow regimes),hybridization and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 September 2003 i competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al. 1997). B I 11 trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history forms. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to u4disturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut bqnIks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992). Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding and/or migration(Federal Register 64:58910-58933). 1! C ld-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature cgnsidered to be suitable for bull trout is 8° to 10°C for spawning 2° to 4°C for egg incubation, 4° to ° i 10°C for rearing, and 10°to 12°C for migration(USFWS 1998). Areas where water temperature exceeds 15°C (59°F)are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 1 , Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning o4curs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic d bris,vegetation, or undercut banks as they grow. Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area boundary (Lucchetti 2002), which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in die Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper Cedar River watershed (WDFW 1998). Bull trout have, however, been sighted within Lake Washington a�d its tributaries over the past 20 years(Harza 2000; USFWS 1999; WDFW 1998). The origin of these _ f h is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations outside of the Lake 11 I ashington Basin(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999;WDFW 1998). l Other Fish Species Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch(Percaflavescens), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis , g bbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown , bil llhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus t IhI--aleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin (cottus aspen)(Meridian 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000,the most a undant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch, and juvenile sthallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine stickleback were observed (Meridian 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters ' ` (about 6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater lover in the existing dock,boathouse, and submerged logs. d ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 September 2003 Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further clarified the definition: NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including Chinook salmon,within Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000) that address construction/urbanization impacts upon salmon habitat. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect EFH, should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would: • Alter sediment delivery to,and quantity in streams and estuaries. • Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature,or chemistry. • Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey. • Discharge pollutants,nutrients,or contaminants. Critical Habitat The designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA. The ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5XA) as "the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection." NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat to include all marine,estuarine,and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (Federal Register 65:7764-7787). On April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast, including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. NOAA Fisheries is currently reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. An analysis of the effects of the project on critical habitat, as defined under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS in the event that critical habitat is re-designated before this action is fully implemented. This analysis may be relevant in determining whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is re-designated. Currently,NOAA Fisheries has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a candidate species and their status has yet to be determined (Federal Register 60:38001-38030). A perspective on potential habitat definition is provided in the NOAA Fisheries proposal that critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats (Federal Register 64:24998-25007). Should Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing, Lake Washington and May Creek in the general vicinity of the project site would likely be considered critical habitat. The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout due to the meager understanding of the biological needs of bull trout (Federal Register 63:31693-31710). A critical habitat designation is generally expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this designation will be made for the Puget Sound bull trout DPS. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 September 2003 3.4.2 Impacts 3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction Vegetation Communities Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation. Wildlife The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is discussed below. Impacts on existing wildlife communities during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when construction is not taking place. The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving. The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity. Wetlands The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the adjacent Street C and the town homes will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code minimum of a 25-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland (as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass with encroachment by stored soil. The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an area of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3). Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source of water to recharge the wetland, resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be eliminated. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 September 2003 _ i II 1 111111111111111 11 I / t ! - 0„., 0 '1m V, "1 11111V / i GI war ,, ,,/ ORTHERLY _-._ __-- __.-�._ . me i 1 • i 0 } ` t F! t'i • 04 \ 15 ? i 5 i . , s \ „ . ! \ / 1 i 1 4./ 1 " 00 ` ' , 4` .�• r %\ ��I i 1 / ' / `% r �%: , i .*/ y� 1 1 51 10 !! / . /7 113 I 1 1/ illd , ,I", / /I I Jr/ -- _,, .fir KEY MAP �. \ ° ��2 _ ,,1,0.i \ /4' /� />! ,4�/ / �_,,, / / I # 11 ) / I ..:, ,.. II . - / �i ..„,. � f� / ,�v / 4 j4 > _110` Ii7 4 11, WETLAND/ d ;i ter'�� / ���,:�� / r � h BOUNDARY / of `, 109 /' A. P /7 i 1/ Of -r \ • �,\ , 0 Ai 5ETBAC [' ! y/ / 11 .,� 106 � ' �)�ir �/, r PROXIM T AREA 1 / �;' ,, / / F CONSTRUCTION `,, .\ - •• / /�f// / DISTUR AF CE / / /i -�" l 4/ / / / 104 "7�- / /47/ / 4() - 0 3 // / / , /"/ / cy S.,,,,.. , Al / /47/ jar , /_,,,a// i %,y /--, 7 ----,,,w/ 0 Nr �/ Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02 SCALE IN FEET „� WETLAND Ur 3.4-2 Northerly Wetland 0 25 5I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat --1o5 11111111111111111 1 I - -- MI ��� 11111 _. --_\ 104 A: ik-.. ..._____,., ,,,,,, / :/.41117-Aa/4/:// j / .`� f (77Niip:s:il 1041r> /f4�� P, ;�, SOUTHE �1. — ,,... ,. „4„. , ...... .i.-0',... -4 0 3' l--- --- .--, / / . * NI'''. .' __, r - - -32- 4...I'Z''..4-- ONO * ;Si #.. ..% . 110 ,.„,,, 7.......\ .. 4. , ... 0 ,Pb, ''', ;11:if ,...... ij ,,,,„ ___ ,•... -_,:.,. ..„, .41 , ,..,..:N of, 19k \ \I\0\\? i ihi Iri., \ '1‘(' ‘1' vVE'rLAND .-•• 101 f KEY MAP / .-4f % / l /.et- �i� /; / Al "lip Nfr, Ale. t ,,e8 .7' 1 06\ / // (<, di „.,./ ,, . /4( . /• c/' 7 �:'' , g c' I :N,\ / / / / /i " :A f j �� WET iloa li t/ 4 \\ ,tee - f�/ / J+ l \ ` - ,,/ j < - 4/ / / ) 25BACKI5J f / )# /, / i d/ / \\ If _....„, ii )/,\,,/ 0i/II / .,„„, ,. c.) , ,,i, * .,, j'/7fC// / , � / ( .io• .' i / , Il ; : �___. , s'` N 40TH ST I i, , ; /// /7'- , ,/ / / Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-4-03 SCALE IN FEET ark w „_ W Figure 3.4-3 WETLAND Southerly Wetland 0 25 50IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Aquatic Species Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are below the water level of May Creek Erosion and sedimentation from construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, may discharge to water. Increased sedimentation may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term. Suspended sediment originating from this site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes. High turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). Young salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased turbidity which may reduce total food resources available to stocks (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an area(Spence et al. 1996). The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of } appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction, during periods when use of the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology),and if other appropriate BMPs are employed. 3.4.2,2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s, resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003). The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the waters edge to about 100 feet, with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential indigenous vegetation on-site. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. -- The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek,with 300 feet of road parallel to May Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, eight front on the public land managed by DNR, City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 September 2003 leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building setback. The 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely that common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied,without specific conditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil amendment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping. A 280-foot wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in the latter tract. Tle water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress. Tip ere are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely cHaracterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of plat communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a community is discussed in the mitigation section below. Te May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. (King County 2001). Wildlife Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when human activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife p pulations may be delayed until new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have s fficient time to mature. P antings of indigenous vegetation in the May Creek open space area would result in an increase in f'rage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a v sual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers are proposed to be n owest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between streets on opposite j sides of the stream. Streets represent substantial sources of disturbance from vehicle noise and lights and 1 j 1 generally warrant greater buffering. The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential impediment to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design. The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife movement that has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project niay provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's fedge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. The proposed open space area and the wet-ponds, however,provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Di aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 September 2003 The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed, may reflect the existing low levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce wildfowl use. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3- 090-K-14-d). Thewplicant 1 as_not de fined a public access_program. For the purposes of this analysis, public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms: • Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas are about 16 feet wide at lot 24, 20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30. • A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the water's edge, to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible. • Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek, including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the littoral edge. • Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area. • Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may disturb plants, especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion. Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as discussed in the mitigation section below. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Osprey The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not find and use an alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 f Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 September 2003 B Id Eagle Tl a proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile ofi the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to diturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of thb project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced. etlands e desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way c.uld lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality. e addition of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially i ,pact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application. A'uatic Species i T e proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing a•phalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce runoff,but is likely to have a, egligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the o erall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed. Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated pollutants. However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on- site treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface Water. This may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and L ke Washington. l uatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer alongMayCreek. Additional q P P P b ffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing s lmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of p oviding full riparian functionality. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large 0 oody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May 2000, Pollack and Kennard 1998; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993). Buffer width recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3. The Tri-County response to NMFS' 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon si n includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban eams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch bluffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer (Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999). 1 Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of alpproximately 50 feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site,will not provide the full range of habitat functions and protections that streams require. In addition, the proposed buffer would not provide for stream channel migration processes that contribute to the formation of instream habitats. Qity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 September 2003 l Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) Range Of Effective Buffer . Minimum 1, Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment r erosion control removal } Pollutant Removal 4-262 m (13-860 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term natural levels Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36- 141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive a—. Microclimate 45—200 m (148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support 1 r_ Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) — Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft) `I Water Temperature 35- 151 Pollutant Removal 13-600 Large Woody Debris 100-200 Erosion Control 100-125 Wildlife Habitat 25-984 Sediment filtration 26-300 Microclimate 200-525 I Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) - - Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft. Shade 0.75 150 { Microclimate up to 3 up to 600 `` - Large Woody Debris 1.0 200 Organic Litter 0.5 100 Sediment Control 1.0 200 1_ Bank Stabilization 0.5 100 Wildlife Habitat 30—183 m(98 600 ft) Improvement of some stream habitat functions,however, would be accomplished by the proposed buffer. Pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation (particularly on small streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet, particularly in areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional LWD recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely. /; • Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 ` Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 September 2003 l i Lake Washington Shoreline Acuatic species will benefit from resumption of normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into Lake Washington when dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create more shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront, which would potentially benefit all aquatic species, including juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally b I eficial by increasing the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone. , In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines w 11 be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline processes in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section contains a ditional discussion of this option. If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in an industrial site where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include informal access to,the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow arleas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both passive public enjoyment and a productive natural environment are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section. 25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake ashington. This limited area would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline environment. It would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community that would contribute to natural s oreline benefits. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section, which outlines p tential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical f rtilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected fiiom over spraying and inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and biochemical oxygen demand. e current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting p blic land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers, boathouses, pilings and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide ti refuge for predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001; Piaskowski and Tabor 2/000). Ile proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta formation creates shallows that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake ljottom is shallower,'natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur, but these would lead to some loss of setback area through,erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon. They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural 4'ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 September 2003 1 , shallow-water areas that provide refuge, spawning, and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species, and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish. An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999) by causing delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street lighting, would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad et al (1999); therefore, the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently, the City of f Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts: ') • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, and the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above. • The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads, however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances. • People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities. Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the mitigation section. 3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have sue,implifed,the nea shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern _ of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex.and diverse plant community and. associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001). 3.4.3 Mitigation - - Impact mitigation includes the following steps: 1. Avoid the impact. 2. Minimize the impact. 3. Reduce the impact over time. 4. Rectify the impact. 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 September 2003 �I I pacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are • erent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed, and its specific setbacks . d presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand the b neficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and a-sociated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal. itigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline Rggulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be c.nsidered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the ' e vironment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of - specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and d:veloped shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and w ldlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). 3 4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts itigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native bui ffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or red-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species. S lective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species. Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion arid sedimentation as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important c d nsideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish aIe generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located a$far from water bodies as possible. Establishing vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids the piecemeal implementation as each lot develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of an area for i terception of runoff from building sites. 3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and-.Use of the Site egetation Communities Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots fr nting the shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation w thin the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the quality of the vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers, psticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and Ia, e suring adequate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the ned for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 DI-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 September 2003 The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001). Mitigation measures for installation of indigenous vegetation in the proposed open space area adjacent to the public shoreline and within the Water Quality tract would enhance the value of the site to wildlife. Establishment of a viable community of indigenous vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be aided by inclusion of the following concepts: Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation community. Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter. Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among various plant communities. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost. Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native species. Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require extensive soil amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control of invasive"weed"species. The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting, to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR, which has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources; volunteer participation by the public using t, shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for - management by a public entity,may be required. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 September 2003 The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and i clude a variety of plant communities. Native trees include western red cedar, western hemlock, _ Duglas fir, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs and small trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier d gwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow,and Scouler's willow red-osier dogwood,twinberry, salmonberry, P cific crabapple,and bitter cherry. ildlife Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and p ecipitation to maintain plants,and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement. E tablishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat, provide so eening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by s allow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the e isting log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide perch and to Ping sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species, pilings in deep w ter areas are the best candidates for retention. i F ncing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value. O prey O prey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in ui t project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife I S rvice (USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site, which w 11 occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the ri arian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek. R search has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola 1 97; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site m y, however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential m tigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early fl dging period of late April to late July. Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement 11 Avoidance The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of th!e existing degraded buffer with future restoration,about eight town home sites could be retained. The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of I I this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the mediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 September 2003 reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained,existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer. r"- Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and fortis,with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple,vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland,which consists of introduced vegetation,could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants. Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1 minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in functional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e). The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be addressed include the following: • Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology. • Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and trees. • Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement (Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity. Aquatic Species There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is covered below under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such functions as (LWD)recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads, artificial light and public access. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 September 2003 i - moval of existing in-water structures such as pilings,the existing dock, and log booms would improve c nditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as s allmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the a verse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies r ging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number of docks, and or through specific d sign and construction measures. oidance of the im acts of new docks could be addressed by a platcondition ohibiting_privatdockx c_ nstructiThis would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such ja:prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off- s' a marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at Ia distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and fl ats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common ea (that could be reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid p oximity impacts on adjacent residential lots. option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two o more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent p operties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat. Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re- establishment of indigenous elements of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long- term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use for wildlife and aquatic species. Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and ay Creek: ,ption A. 50-foot buffer Under Option A, (Figure 3.4-4) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the b ffer adjacent to May Creek: • Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project. • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four proposed town home units to one or two. F er the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a more.natural condition through: ➢. Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads ➢ Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for plantings near the water Ct ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 September 2003 I " COR-2 ZONE OHW—__/ ' - ) aIl- - Ily II " � IT "i LT :' II . II . li • 'lI ,,/ / ♦�, •� f I •• — STREET ♦,♦' 50'SETBACK , // ,.///" // """'"II...:.II O..�,/ > i — J // v/ // II-,-- II iL__ , ,f/ / l 1 ' Trail"B" ....n., / / // PUBLIC LAND�4 Tract"C" Water Quality \ \.\\ " / //. —ij ,f Open ■ \ " \\/ /\ — '% Space /\ ., — / ../ - / /; * /:- ty 1 r — — --- V\ At‘ '\ .:// .1 / • • S,., \- \ u, E O ,.........„ .:,.."- ,.., 440 i MI 4ttir\ of _ ,4".'-' 4"---- 0! ��1 ` OHW i''�� ,,./ 2C� mow \ ,.LAKE I , .. � �� �y WASHINGTON I f /,•; ,/ i =-/ , ,/ 44/ 50'SETBACK 44w I/ ,://1 twitiZ.4! , /7,,241' ' f _____________ Aiiima.....6111.111011*111 / 4417 ' / i leile . PUBLIC LAND I/,�� I , j/ *� .l * .** *71 AZI \ \ MAY CREEK ;, ..•: ,+� DELTA 4- Z________ . �J r • / ,/ / A ____ ___,.., „,,,,„ ,,,. , Aia, Ad° At i IF -7.' a_a ZONE__.._:_...__ _ (LAI ! ,,,, . k _____ —___.._ REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01-114F-3-4-04 SCALE IN FEET ,IFAIN Figure 3.4-4 I W Option "A" 50-foot Buffer 0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat ` I > Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be fenced for privacy. This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Option B, 100 foot buffer Option B (Figure 3.4-5) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific changes on the May Creek corridor including the following: • Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream. • Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15. • Elimination of most of the development on both side at the mouth of the stream. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as Option A, including: > Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope. > Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian frail located 15- to 25-feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, which probably would be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and which also would likely be fenced for privacy. CityRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary o.f r1'Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 September 2003 I II • jczoNE ./ " >z r / r-- 11— , Ia I —Jr,. -1 I— —I 17 I . , I I , . 11 . . 1 — } I ^- / —ST' - — - -7f ., / OHW��., .H n -\ (7:-,C7,---fr7/<7/—,. ail I„ I I „ I I w „ /rt / / 1 100'SETBACK �" i� � Tract"B" \/ _ of ,'," 1 Water Quality w .' PUBLIC LAND , S/ / ' : 4lit* 440,,, f— •. / Tract t�Ctt . � /:' I Open • • xY" /��l � Spacecali1/4„,(1,* _,0 'I j d / f , n4 . . . . • • ,•,. ..,,d oNE, ,...,‘ l ' �OHW >' C x 9 LAKE ` / /, ; • /t„ t,.„ �/ WASHINGTON v / • 1,,,2 ./ 100'SETBACK fa • t P iw,o l �w� ( r / /1/ JO . • .'/ / y,z, 7-- 42 PUBLIC LAND • u • j '. °� /� ` / //# • yi * ' ,A • ta, ) 0 /... , • ♦f MAY CREEK wm `"~ X 1 DELTA �.,/ ` *,,, --- 7/ y 1 P i - � ,a y.�. _a=esoxE.__ t ,, vN 40TH ST -- # 40 . _ REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW 50 BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05 SCALE IN FEET PAN Figure 3.4-5 I W Option "B" 100-foot Setback o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with SMA jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Cross-sections that indicate the building setback are provided for three different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline. • Figure 3.4-6 is at proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options. • Figure 3.4-7 is at proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing public land. • Figure 3.4-8 is at proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options. The following describes the extent to which these two mitigation options would reduce impacts in relation to the proposal and each other: Impervious Surfaces Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington. Total impervious surface would be reduced by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B. The decrease in impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where either the 50- or 100-foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except under the most intense storm events. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only more wildlife habitat, but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width in Option B because of the greater habitat area,the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater potential for complex communities. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 September 2003 Public Land Existing Inner Harbor ,.,.�°°" OHWM Line Existing Warehouse 30— 20— OHWM .* Existing Log Bulkhead Lake Bottom EXISTING SECTION Inner Harbor I Public Land Existing Line OHWM Streetq 1 75' Existing Log I II I Bui high 50' I I I 50' Bulkhead I 320 OHWM _ ._.._.I .._,.. ___ ._.......»,.......——J.�. — - _ w J _ _ .� ____ L.-.. _..»_„_ __ `�\\ .((�L 25'Building Setback `Lake Bottom PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK r I Public Land Existing Inner Harbor I OHWM Line r Street q 75 Regraded I I I Builhi�h 50' I I I 50' I Shoreline I I L 30— �J A l _ ._...i_ __ —OHWM __ L _ __ __ 20— 25'Lawn re- Lake 25'Revegetatian Bottom H 50'Building Setback ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK Public Land Existing Inner Harbor OHIINM Line Street I 1 75 Bu ding Regraded I I I �ilh�h I I 150 Shoreline I t 30- __ _1— _ _ I 1 ._.,__l ._,_. 1_.._ 20--OHWM__ —_.__— M 75 Revegetation Area —.1 25'Lawn 1-.- Lake I . Bottom) 100'Building Setback 200'Shoreline ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK Parametrix DATE: 08/28/03 08:20am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-06 Figure 3.4-6 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections I Lots 27 & 28 0 30 60 Existing Public Land Inner Harbor OHWM Line Existing 2 Saw Mill 30- OHVVM „ ___,...... —— — —.....- " 7--, ...1 64 Public Land . . Lake Bottom-7 EXISTING SECTION r _ ______ 7 Existing Public Land Inner Harbor ( OHWM Line r_ _ , Street 2 1 I I Building 75' I I High Regraded I BuildingHigh 50' Shoreline -\, . ............ 30- I I L L OHWM ny. r 64'Public Land --.1 Lake Botto 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction PROPOSED SECTION r _____ ____ 1 Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street q --- OHWM Line I.— — 1 I 1 I Building 75' I •.• Building 50' High High Regraded I I I I I Shoreline I L ....1 L L OHINM /—7 :1 64'Public Land —1 i Lake 75' 25'Lawn -.- Bottom . 100'Setback 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK r , . 1 Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-07 Figure 3.4-7 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections - - _I I Lots 29 & 30 0 30 60 Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM I Existing Paved , 30_ Storage Area OHWM 20_—.—.—.—.—.—. — _ _ -�' Rip Rap Lake Bottom Bulkhead as dredged — EXISTING SECTION 7 I _, Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street l i 75 Building 50' High I I I 50' Rip Rap 30- Bulkhead ' OHWM Lawn L._......._.. ..._..._ ..._. -....I._.........,_. 1 ._.... ..............._tJ_.�..,..._.. 20-:-.-----—L.-= ---'-"-- [. — ry''' 25'Building Setback Future Lake Bottom 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction i Delta as dredged--11 PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street l I I— I— 1 75' I I i High I I Building50 50 I Regraded I I Shoreline I 1 30- OHWM L I� I - r J 2:1 25'Lawn Future/ 25'Revegetation Area Delta H- as Bottom 50'Building Setback as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction I ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street l I — ni 75 I BuilHidngg 50' I I 50 Regraded • 30- Shoreline OHWM I L .......,......I.—---.-..-.r_ _... ._ 20-- —-.- ---- • Fut 75'Revegetation Area 25'Lawn ure --.- Delta 100'Building Setback - Lake Bottom as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction Al TFRNATIVF SFCTICIN WITH 1lf1'SFTRACK Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-08 Figure 3.4-8 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections n I Lots 35 & 36 0 30 60 . _I j I There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. Both Option A and B respond to the Renton Shoreline Master Program that provides general guidance that landscaping be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge,marshland)and be compatible with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth of the creek where the proposal includes setbacks of less than 50 feet. Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of indigenous vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate only one or two native trees (at maturity)between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community I_. because of trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. The 75-foot area for indigenous plantings provided under Option B would provide for a much more varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake shoreline and would allow regrading to provide a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater complexity of vegetation would be reflected in value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public access would be reduced as discussed below. There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases, homeowners on the Lake Washington shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated by typically dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the Shoreline Management Act, supports planting indigenous vegetation as a means of enhancing environmental values. With the 25-foot buffer of indigenous planting under Option A, some accommodation of both interests could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Option B provides few opportunities for view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer of indigenous plantings. Property owners would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy unobstructed views of the water. The development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline may contribute to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with value for the community as a whole, rather than being primarily an amenity (or inconvenience) for adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996). Such public access can more readily be provided with the Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 September 2003 I i w der setback in Option B with less impact on maintenance of indigenous vegetation and less impact on a.jacent property owners. O•tion A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR, which mo ages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for r- oval of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action. aintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which c•uld include some combination of the City of Renton, DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings o private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of p operty-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of - water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private to s likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the s oreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by an entity o er than the individual roe owner, would likelycontribute to better maintenan ce of indigenous property rtY g v:getation. S earn and Lake Mor.holo U der Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing li• ited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes s ch as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in it existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation d a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional b !ffer area provided by Option A. Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the p ioposal. This would provide a much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering. aintenance of existing streambank protection would be required only in exceptional cases. O•tion A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington. P i rtions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing e .sion to form a more natural shoreline. Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes t• occur. In both cases, areas previously dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take s veral decades to re-establish shallow depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads. P llutant Removal and Sediment Filtration U der Option A, the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its I! a 'ility to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff. The two differ near the mouth of ' t le stream where, under the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide l a•ditional area to filter sediments or runoff. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional I p„llutant control would be provided by doubling the width of building setbacks and providing an a•ditional 25-foot buffer area of indigenous plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff •uld be moderately effective with the 25-foot planting area, and very effective with the 75-foot wide . ea. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious s aces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and e tablishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the waters' edge b a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building I_ c•nstruction. B th Options would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the shoreline as c mpared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical C)ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 September 2003 applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks. Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate A riparian buffer width of 50-feet as stated in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading would most likely serve to prevent or moderate further temperature increases of water prior to entering Lake Washington that would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. The greater buffer area in Option B would provide more vegetation and shading benefits. Options A and B would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's proposed 25-foot building setback (presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and shading would be negligible). Indigenous shrubs and trees planted on the lake.shoreline would, in time, grow to provide shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the morning, because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Shading is dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more effective with the greater buffer width in Option B. Large Woody Debris Recruitment Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited increases in LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term solution, and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. Options A and B would provide s more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the proposal. As with May Creek, LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through April);however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Option B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD recruitment potential for both the creek and the lake shoreline. Bulkheads Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed 25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 September 2003 1 i st rms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log- h ndling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline a eas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to d'scontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave a tion prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward o the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the s oreline. e greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of - e isting bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be eatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, r oval of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with b o-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is a ailable for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is p oposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Options B decrease the potential adverse impacts i o adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term 1 b oengineering options. Bioengineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for .re natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 This may be especially applicable in 1 p I blicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline e hancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural I R-sources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. 1 i osign Typicals o tiAvoidne Setback°giS `� Pawnee Safety 1itca I and In Case of 8tankeotia . . 1 11 CCtt,ttroct Dria arse Grade$ur to tetra Seneca ' Aster 1oapoted nation to Reduce 4 ....Surface Vie*! 1* Stx dgtoStabieSt„ge Jr o e` F9 a tern DraEmegm of Water--i} . b **Ili?" t tame carricoping waken i Ili `' •�""ai i "°. tiiRllb Antler Stone a6 Stable SktC+. 't Vic r r, ia� ' „r, g 1e3rn Spaces Pitied — • .". >•+xh i s if*, .' ;za., *, /+ — ''''''® — IIPE 2.4 - f , .` t - . 1'" mole toe Protection -0;141 nd ltaicr�- a-.,�:'; +!� re~Jr torum:o ' • °• - ` . ' ertiner Clout:-1'swrs, ,.,. .or " Not SitcomSStr utt,rte Stitis deli irtttl t - -».F :,r' 3."t i,...'�` Ya.•' - ..° "t,�- Bank'to Mirumiae % ., : -• .-. _ 1 Flanking Eresittn 1 Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification I Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and _- pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in 1 1 CilIty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ DJ-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 September 2003 I Figure 3.4-10. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline. .. ys d ' tame k rattan Provitta MORO 434 cteeu ,, tar4 tierP w o' Pry# w ee g ; Y r VOA! ?v ;! Via,u ff; *Aft Ark #5 , fir. G� • Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented: • Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation. • Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or rooted plants,provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden sediments(WDFW 2003). Residential Noise and Lighting Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Along Lake Washington, the 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A and B. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 September 2003 number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will provide greater noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions. P blic Access Disturbance U der the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of R-nton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would li ely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting b.ck public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation provided bylarger setbacks, as discussed below.is U der Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the s oreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to I j O'tion A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide. P blic access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A o B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option • and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline v ewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct s oreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established ough delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements o the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington. Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use provided by re-establishing indigenous vegetation. • It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks. I ' Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous vegetation area. • Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water. F-ncing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and e osion from informal pathways. 3 5 TRANSPORTATION e transportation analysis addresses the impacts of the proposal to the local traffic system. The analysis as prepared in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 4-6-070 and 4-9-070 a thorizing the identification of transportation impacts and the identification of appropriate mitigating easures and requirements for disclosure of environmental impacts by the State Environmental Policy ct(SEPA). 3 5.1 Affected Environment 3 5.1.1 Roadway Network e study area for traffic impact analysis is defined as the area where the proposed action causes the g neration of additional trips to the street system where an impact to operation, safety, or non-vehicular - C ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 September 2003 L_: circulation may occur. The impacts to the City of Newcastle are included to specifically address the use of Lake Washington Boulevard and other routes to bypass freeway congestion. The study area is bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard SE/SE 60th Street to the north, I-405/Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, and Burnett Avenue (at the approximate alignment of N 27th Street) to the south, with additional area of qualitative description of potential bypass routes through the City of Newcastle. Figure 3.5-1 depicts the project area and the study intersections, Figure 3.5-2 depicts project layout, and Figure 3.5-3 depicts existing year PM peak hour traffic volumes. The arterials within the study area include Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405, SE 60th Street, SE 64th Street, NE 44th Street, Burnett Avenue, Ripley Lane, and N 30th Street. The arterials providing direct access to the project site include Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane (for emergency access). The following is a description of the arterials in the study area: • Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial in the project vicinity providing north-south access from I-405 and other arterials to the proposed site. The arterial is generally two lanes with a bike lane on both sides. Lake Washington Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • I-405 is a north-south state highway providing regional access. In the project vicinity, I-405 is six lanes (two general-purpose and one HOV lane in each direction). The NE 44th Street southbound and the N 30th Street northbound on-ramps have an HOV bypass lane to the meters. • SE 60th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both the north and south sides of the road. A park and ride lot is located on SE 60th Street. • SE 64th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. • NE 44th Street is a collector arterial with a five-lane section directly east of I-405, narrowing to two lanes to the east. It serves several businesses at I-405 and provides access to residential areas to the east. • N 30th Street is a two-lane east-west collector arterial west of Park Drive and a minor arterial east of Park Drive. N 30th Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Burnett Avenue is a north-south collector arterial south of N 30th Street. It begins and terminates at Lake Washington Boulevard to the north and south. It serves primarily residential land use and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The traffic operations analysis includes the following intersections indicated on Figure 3.5-1: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street(impacts on Newcastle) 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street(impacts on Newcastle) 3. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard at NE 44th Street 4. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard-NE 44th Street 5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane 6. Ripley Lane at project north site access(emergency access) 7. Lake Washington Boulevard at project south site access 8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 September 2003 I \...)ffErMI co "ym. PLEASURE O ° POINT" 7m cn m = 0 0 SE 60TH ST H _ 2 f SE 60TH ST SE 0 TH ST SE 68TH SE 69TH 12 -9 _ , = \ I 9� rEVUL . SITE Y. ' E SE 76TH ST `F�_ / O av/ QUENDALL /` 44TH co TERMINALS`tr�r,,� W PROJECT e� D SITE Z F� © 1 O Z. > e I • < • W N 4OTH _ m • 2,;l')._ %‘ Ss, N 36T. ST 1 SE 88TH ST w „; 4- ARK...:. ,,-r i`e . '`•'''' , N 30TH S�1 S'.:;..:_t' ':5.:IVIAYkr',%„ ,tt»"'. <. ;„ 0,, ,,,%,,s.�.,o it-< zM AP`::: ' ^,4 x,: ),; M 27TH }^<r NE ST ff'°0" 3zrssi3`. �;., N Gene Coulon. 2 o -_ Memorial- d m Beach Park t Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) I frAilk W Figure 3.5-1 1 = Project Area Map 1 1 " ;; �ref i / /,'4•1 ; , • //'- " ir---- /1? / 7 COR-2 ZONE 1 1 -1 L 'gin-? �i����� l�e���� 4,-,,,,,L---T_____ OHW , f4c1 __ jract"C = _ _ // tig ill f of PUBLIC LAND ` OPen' ' —•---- C�� i• /5"/ j// �" Space �� ��� ���./- �� ///j , ,- ..t....... , $114);. ;* . ,, .UFF i i 1 .... , I., ,% • 9 ,/, ,,,, - LAKE a, flkk,��; :t-= . — �.WASHINGTON i_ � ' / :,,•:14 OHW`� / :311ES 01: 0 .."\\*,", ) / e - ..wda—Awiti _ .. fiT AT pi)/6 4, / 01-----_____ , A., c,•..,_,(,,,, PUBLIC LAND}IMv\.i I 8 1. / _ , "X t4.)\i/1//,.#s"-. / —1 AY CREEK /' } DELTA o : i ' _ _____---- f i''\/ I r._...__ R_R 20 ; . 4 if�N 40TH ST --- - ) 7 g/ a r•'� 7 I �• /____ r / /', Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-02 -11‘SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-2 I W Overall Plat Plan o 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat , 0 E Q I co r` r--- R 139 Q or, R. 1 cv N 1- - 1 4) + �► 102 R.25 L 4 SE 60th St N ?AA-aKe�aV6 N 30th St ilr) 0—A a cp ca i 2� ro r- co i A913 Y J (a - 0 R ❑ 10 12 O r R \1 --i r N cv co F 9 O T Ts. 37 vow., me + Y C 2 + co 0 North Access y SE 64th St Driveway , i o \ r ,_ w � ���a co 0-A o N ��6 CO tCCO cv co a) .4. 1 J 6 r a > n ir 0 m R29 �7 o c� 11 ico (11 m N 113 m��0 RZ co CO o co E- 154 c 65 NN Zp�9 �a�\Ja 4) + L ir 24 I J Vas- t (_ NE 44th St N 30th St 58 ag j -1' ) cc 178--> `CC 2 167-p o 43 vr rn N A oo � v �`L 84-� CO ) z i ® ® R 3 12 co ccoo co m <- 1 r co r 4- 121 °) CON. 3 R 164 �► 1� 181 r F 98 N 36th St Lake Wa Blvd n 3,a���d N 30th St a \� �� 4 119- . 1 E o - N 60Jin ri o '� CO co a CO rn r 9 ,�''► 470--> m co in i1 co co z 1 Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) j XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-3 40 Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I 1 , 9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street ' 10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett Avenue(N 27th Street) 11. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street 12. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street Level of Service under existing 2002 conditions is shown in Table 3.5-2. 3.5.1.2 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the study intersections during the PM peak hour under year 2002 existing conditions, and year 2007 with and without project traffic. The degree of congestion or the quality of the traffic operations is rated with a level of service grade; the letters A through F are used for the rating scale. The letter A represents the best (least congested) conditions and the letter F represents the worst(most congested)conditions. The LOS ratings are based on the performance measure ranges identified in the Highway Capacity = Manual (HCM 2000) published in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. The delay and LOS results for the intersections analyzed in the study area are the output of the Synchro software program. The correlation between the intersection operations,LOS grade, and delay are detailed in Table 3.5-1. The delay reported for a four-way stop control or signalized intersection is defined as the average control delay and is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of the delay of each approach. For two-way stop control intersections, the delay reported correlates to the approach with the worst operating conditions. Table 3.5-1. Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay Delay (seconds/vehicle) Intersection LOS Signalized Unsignalized Operations Grade Intersection Intersection Best A 510 510 B >10 and 520 > 10 and 515 r • °-- C >20 and 535 > 15 and 525 D >35 and 555 >25 and 535 E >55 and 580 >35 and 550 Worst F >80 >50 Source: HCM 2000. I ' I i City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 September 2003 Table 3.5-2. Level of Service Summary \I Level of Service(Delay in sec/veh) Stop Year 2002 Year 2007 Year 2007 In:ersection Control Existing No Build with Project 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street All-way B(14) C (19) C(19) _. 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street Two-way C(16) C (22) C(24) 3. 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Two-way F(71) F(>90) F (>90) Boulevard)at NE 44th Street - 4. 1-405 southbound ramps at(NE 44th Street Two-way C(20) E(38) F(54) (Lake Washington Boulevard) _ 5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane Two-way B(11) B(12) B(13)2 6. Ripley Lane at north site access Two-way A(8) A(8) A(8)1 A(9)2 7. Lake Washington Boulevard at south site Two-way B(10) B(11) B(13)1 access B(12)2 8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street All-way A(8) A(8) A(8) 9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street Two-way A(10) B(12) B(12) -' 110. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett All-way A(8) A(9) A(10) 1 Avenue(N 27th Street) 11. 1-405 southbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(15) C(19) C(19) , 12. 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(17) D(26) D(27) ;i Analysis conducted with all traffic accessing to the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard. 2 Analysis conducted with traffic from 50 units(43 percent)accessing to the north site access onto Ripley Lane to and from the north. -1 3.' .1.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network L.ke Washington Boulevard is striped for a bicycle lane on the shoulder, which results in bicycles, p-destrians,and disabled vehicle sharing the same space. Lake Washington Boulevard generally has 6-to 8 I oot-wide shoulders,with a ditch and cut section on the east side and a fill section on the west side. In II th- surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrians are generally accommodated on the roadway shoulder or v:rge;there is a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the I-405 overcrossing at 44th Street. P;''destrian volumes and comfort are likely to be low near the site because pedestrian walking areas are \ close to traffic. No pedestrians were observed in the site vicinity during site visits. The major pedestrian ' i a action is Gene Coulon Park, approximately 0.75 mile south of the site; there are few other recreation o commercial attractions for pedestrians in the area. B cycle volumes are believed to be relatively high in the area because of a continuous bicycle route p•ralleling I-405. Lake Washington Boulevard is believed to include high numbers of commuters on w-ekdays and high numbers of recreational bicyclists on weekends. ''1- ere is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard in the project vicinity. The closest transit s- 'ice is at the Kennydale Park and Ride at Park Avenue North and N 30th Street, and flyer stop at I-405 atiN 30th Street. Routes include: • Metro Bus Routes 111 and 114 serving Downtown Seattle,Newcastle,and Renton Highlands; ' • Metro Bus Route 167 serving Kent and the University District in Seattle, with flyer stops on I- 1` 405 and SR 167 between the two end points; City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-67 September 2003 • Metro Bus Route 247 serving the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond and the 148th Avenue corridor in Bellevue and Kent,with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; • Metro Bus Route 342 serving the Shoreline Park and Ride Lot and the SR 522 Route, including Kenmore and Bothell to the Renton Boeing Plant, with flyer stops on I-405, SR 167 and Downtown Bellevue between the two end points; • Metro Route 909 providing DART service between the Kennydale Park and Ride and Downtown Renton via the Sunset Hill area; • Boeing Custom Route 952 between the Auburn Park and Ride and Boeing Everett, with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; and • Sound Transit Route 560 serving Sea-Tac Airport and the Bellevue Transit Center, with stops in downtown Renton and with flyer stops on I-405 between the two end points. 3.5.1.4 Site Access The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard that crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. This railroad right-of-way was acquired by the Northern Pacific Railway in 1908 and included a reservation of a rail crossing for the entire contiguous parcel that existed at the time, which now includes the Barbee Mill, Quendall Terminals, and Vulcan properties. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve these properties. The existing driveway at the Barbee Mill site has a grade of approximately 12 percent between Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad, and a gentler grade below the railroad to the parking lot of the current mill office and bridge crossings over May Creek to the north and south. The rail line is currently used at a frequency of four trains per day, one local freight train round-trip, and one round-trip by the Dinner Train; operating speeds for freight trains are 10 mph. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years; however, the railroad has discussed use of the line for rapid transit or commuter rail with Sound Transit, but there are no specific plans for passenger service (Cowles, personal communication, 2003). In a similar situation, the BNSF line over Stampede Pass reopened in 1996 after closure for 14 years (Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT] 2001). An increase in service on the BNSF line and use by through traffic would not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. The line adjacent to the site has the potential to carry through traffic because it connects with the BNSF Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. Until the 1970s, the rail line was used for multiple trains per day by the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee Road railroads. The rail line connects with the BNSF Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons(Cowles,personal communication, 2003). ii 3.5.2 Impacts 3.5.2.1 Future Baseline Street Network Traffic forecasts for this study were developed using the City of Renton EMME/2-based travel demand model for the impact-year specified by the City (2007), with adjustments to add approved development projects. Specific projects in the vicinity, including the Labrador Subdivision, The Bluffs, Tamaron Point,and Southport,were included in the EMME2 baseline volumes. There are no funded transportation Co)of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 September 2003 i I improvement projects identified in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in the project vicinity. Figure 3.5-4 depicts the PM peak hour impact-year traffic volumes. 3.5.2.2 Project Trip Generation P oject traffic volumes were estimated using appropriate Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) surveys for t proposed residential development and the industrial alternative. Development of trip generation for t e No-Action Alternative was produced to provide a comparison to the trip generation of the proposed a 'tion and indicates an order of magnitude of trip generation and resulting impacts. Level-of-service alysis has not been performed for the No-Action Alternative. e trip generation for the proposed development was based on the ITE Trip Generation equations for , 1 d use code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing; there is no rate or equation available specifically f r a duplex development. A wide variety of factors can affect trip generation rates from dwellings including family size, age of occupants, and family income. Studies of duplex housing have indicated that their trip generation is analogous to that of single-family detached housing (see: Duplex Trip neration Rate Study, prepared by Snohomish County Public Works, September 26, 2002). The project si a also includes units in a shared town home configuration with four to five units per larger structure. B cause these units are expected to be at or above the floor area size and a price range comparable to s' gle-family dwellings in the region, the single-family trip generation rate was also used for these d ellings to provide a conservative estimate. T e trip generation for the industrial alternative was consistent with the development of the site under e isting zoning, which includes land use code 130 (Industrial Park). Results from the trip generation a alysis for the proposed action and No-Action Alternative are shown in Table 3.5-3. During an average eekday,the trip generation analysis indicates that the proposed development will generate 123 PM peak h ur trips (79 inbound and 44 outbound) and 1,188 daily trips. For comparison purposes, the No-Action Alternative, under current land use, would generate 502 PM peak hour trips (105 inbound and 397 outbound)and 3,797 daily trips. Table 3.5-3. Trip Generation Independent Weekday II Land Use Code Variable Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips Barbee Mill Proposal/Proposed Action 123 total (79 inbound, 1�• (210)Single-Family Detached Housing 116 Dwelling Units 44 outbound) 1,188 No-Action Alternative 502 total(105 inbound, ( 30) Industrial Park 545,500 square feet 397 outbound) 3,797 ransportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for the Puget Sound region generally stress the rovision of facilities, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on major roadways, and additional ansit service and vanpool capacity, as well as incentives provided by employers. The choice of using modes of transportation other than single-occupant vehicles for trips involves trade-offs between travel t me that are affected by multiple factors. One of the strategies relating to residential development is the provision of higher density development, which provides residential, commercial, and office uses within walking distance to allow people to fulfill everyday needs without using a car. Uses can be mixed in the same building or can be located within a certain radius,typically a 0.5-mile walking distance. ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 September 2003 r J LI ,4* co co R 148 ct. c Co r N T F8 N R 1 N r L- + �► 108 R 25 4 4 3 SE 60th St N` 2� d > N 30th St p a LaKe�aB\v 24 (' �_' co 7 O) N_ v� 10— 1- T A -J �Ji h I ❑2 R ID10 M N N 12 R (4° c0N.ro 4- 9 o r 31 Y1` 2 c (.. .1 o Iroe`t pve SE 64th St North Access J 4' 6� w Driveway a) r 0� o La N 6 e \� 2'i N . o "' 1 4� _Ip ❑3 E N 11 > R c r 0) o m 38 S �- 139 �` °co R.2 rn r 01 E- 186 �` J c 85 NN 2'1$ A) + L E ir 30 AC el NE 44th St LO LO g cr �/ e a in N 30th St cc 4 (v. 2 197—). 259 I. o N r "\50 102 Cl)`0 - CO z lJ ® R4 12 .1- co co co E- 1 co co F 150 N o ^ g 4 ►t 208 A) + ir 209 A) + L E 110 al Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St cc _' ��a0'16 > N 30th St o a � m 172� fr 2sd "y E O N N 70J co "- CD nj = co z c0 co r 11 -� v 3� 511 --� o ,— co 7I U) tA Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) ,� XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-4 Iv Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Other features, such as connections between desirable destinations and safe sidewalks and bike lanes, can encourage the use of alternative transportation modes and encourage walking or bicycling. The use of transit can be enhanced by providing safe pedestrian access to bus stops and convenient transit routes that connect to desirable destinations, as well as amenities, such as bus shelters,which can make waiting more - pleasant. Facilities that reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, such as limits on curb cuts and narrower street widths to slow traffic speeds or other traffic calming measures, make for a safer street environment and generally encourage walking. For this site, there are no commercial or recreation facilities off site within walking distance. Furthermore, the development does not include a mix of uses likely to encourage alternative modes of transportation, and there is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard or within walking distance. There may be opportunities for residents to car-pool or van-pool to common work destinations; however, the setting and design of the development does not justify reductions in trip generation rates based on higher than normal use of other transportation modes. 3.5.2.3 Project Trip Distribution The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes as output from the EMME/2 model. The distribution is shown on Figure 3.5-5 and indicates that directly leaving the site, 19 percent of project traffic is destined to the south and 81 percent is destined to the northeast. To the north, 16 percent will access I-405 to the north, 18 percent I-405 to the south, 25 percent to 44th Street, 9 percent to 112th Street(SE 68th Street), 1 percent to SE 64th Street, 5 percent to SE 60th Street,and 7 percent north on Lake Washington Boulevard north of SE 60th Street. To the south, 2 percent will access I-405 to the south from the N 30th Street interchange, 2 percent destined to the east on N 30th Street, and 14 percent continue south on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 30th Street. - Two site access points for public roads are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto Ripley Lane. As a conservative scenario, the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard was analyzed with all project trips accessing this location. The site access on Ripley Lane has the potential to be used for northbound trips from the portion of the site with shorter travel distance using that route. A second distribution was reviewed: routing traffic from 50 units in the northerly part of the site (up to 43 percent of the trips)destined to or from the north would use the north site access onto Ripley Lane. Traffic destined to or from areas south of the site (15 inbound and 8 outbound trips) likely would use the southerly access rather than out-of-direction movement to the north. The intersections affected by the different site access distributions include the intersections of Lake Washington Boulevard with Ripley Lane and the south site access and the Ripley Lane/north site access intersection; the impacts are accounted for in Table 3.5-2. Figures 3.5-5, 3.5-6,and 3.5-7 depict the trip distribution,project trip assignment, and year 2007 PM peak hour traffic volumes with project trips, respectively. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the increase in traffic volumes in the project vicinity associated with the proposed development. h -� City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-71 September 2003 I i 2 0 e- S _ Q co IMEI b, 5p m -V PLEASURE o POINT'`, 7m 7% m 2 .8 _ o 5% ``/`\{\SE 60TH ST 1 2 JIB' SE / 60TH ST I ) 16% 1% o m SE I64TH ST m E n OI.k' Ns� 9°/ SE 68TH SE 69TH il- 22%J 7 SITE F, aSE 76TH ST i OUENDALL I LS CO 81/O TERMINA ® W ° F' . , o T" 25%1 PROJECT / Z _ SITE Z, > /1 w '¢ F m 19% N 4OTH • i1% 18% 2 s� Y i sF N%6TH ST SE 88TH ST • ta > la - PARK Y , ,, 2% I •;�t:':ti:3j.'.,.r.. <�Ma LC Li, 0! rya•,: � x"" - m N 30TH ST 'MAY ->. Kw:: • EXIT 6 - :_.' ar.,Pe h .'<'=CREEK;. M>,, ; ` NE 27TH ST n,J;;, ,zs ;}` :'Z. <9 20% m•.,.,,< ,. \\ z 14% m Gene Coulon Z m Memorial 0 m Beach Park < 0 I 'L Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) J_ Figure 3.5-5 Nar.,�~ Project Trip Distribution i R O Q c/ ❑9 0 o 4- O co o It. 0 4 R-0 + �► r 0 K.} ^' SE 60th St o o 64 N 30th St 0 / �aKe�a \va �/ T O Ir 0—0" � 0 � ,r- J O CO CV 6 -J 0—)4 J r ❑� a R 0 ❑6 10 1 -4- 1 R. O O I ° _- 0 + CO o e Pve North Access 'J + gV� SE 64th St Li, Driveway t , 4 -o k r/ cn n. o o 06 > 0 .-01 it } , �' J' N r- O O 0 1 1)c" ,i- El R0 ❑7 90 11 m co1 �_ ' r 0 0 c F 20 �) A� 0 0 0 <-4 � o N 0 E K. o J IC ca NE 44th St co m Vd cC - �e`Na N 30th St ,- � 10-A Va o vr 11 � cc 4 0 1 --> m _, 7 v 'Cr o o 0 1 - co m -- z i ® ® RO 12 ,_ co 0 0 -4-- 51 co w o ro E- 0 R O 4) + 4) 4 L K. 0 ir0 E' 2 N 36th St 0 Lake Wa Blvd g\N'a a) N 30th St in st 28— >r o E ..4. 0 r' o Q m �� m z N O O 8- v 0� 1 -� m Cl) Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-6 to PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes r ,_ CI 11 R148 / co co R. 1 ,l ,- N °' -4- 8 N A) + �► � 112 RZ5 ►` 4 N 551 N 30th St SE 60th St \Nawd m 0�1 vase 5 t t �� 5� a) . co a) d' 10� J N 10- r r 2 J 0 R12 © 10 20 L.0 co ,_ N N -4- 10 O rN- It.. 5� t) + Y /r 2 A) + co t., ; 1. North Access J y SE 64th St Driveway m - a o � • \a 0 A N ca D Yis\----4-,(<-.E1 \ 2�J r .4- oo 1 r T ti__ S 7 cn 11 > R'38 c�Gr ,a. N N -4- 159 �a 2 Et, A) + F 190 L ro Ar 85 `�N 2'15 a jr 30 -J IC NE 44th St co coo \.16 cc e`�a� N 30th St 89--A E �aK 0 225- ir * r' .0 198--o- m 66 vt N N r 0� ua �g 103 - - Nzoo- , ® ❑ k 4 111 V N. co cmm F 1 N. co COr - 201 N � g 4 R. 208 A) + g" 209 A) + _ E F 112 N 36th St tii Lake Wa Blvdcc a fg\a cp in > N 30th St E `ti � v co 200 m 99-- E o co N m 4 T. 0 5 m co 70 z O co r 19-Ili 1- ,�� 512- - r r m rn Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) AI I XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-7 ly Year 2007 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes Table 3.5-4. Project Impacts to City of Renton PM Peak Hour Volumes 1f Year 2007 %of Growth Total(with Attributed to Arterial Section Year 2002 Project) Project Traffic Lake Washington Boulevard(north of NE 44th Street-I-405 ramps) 560 705 19 } NE 44th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard-I-405 ramps) 585 725 22 Lake Washington Boulevard(between NE 44th Street and N 30th Street) 350 540 12 Lake Washington Boulevard(south of Burnett Avenue) 360 540 9 N 30th Street(between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405) 490 585 7 3.5.2.4 Future Level of Service • Results of the LOS analyses indicate that all study intersections operate with a LOS grade of C or better '; during the PM peak hour, except the I-405 ramp intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates with delay because of heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north and southbound), and the I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates with delay because of the southbound left-turn movement. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the LOS analyses results. 3.5.2.5 Impacts on Interstate 405 The impacts on I-405 ramp operations at NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)and N 30th Street were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000)ramp merge and diverge analysis tool. n , Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action(in 2007),the I-405 northbound off-ramps to `--` NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on-ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F. Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action (in 2007),the I-405 southbound off-ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E. The analysis indicates that the project traffic volumes would have no further impact on ramp operations, and there is no measurable increase in delay between the No-Action Alternative and under Project conditions. Table 3.5-5 summarizes the ramp merge and diverge analysis results in terms of LOS and density(passenger cars per mile per lane). y l Table 3.5-5. Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary Level of Service(Density pc/mi/lane) Year 2002 Year 2007 No Year 2007 with L Interchange Existing Build Project Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street) 1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D (33) E(35) E(35) 1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(32) D(33) D(33) 1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(35) F(40) F(40) 1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(32) E(37) E(37) N 30th Street 1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D (33) E(36) E(36) Jr� 1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(30) D(33) D(33) I�JI 1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(34) F(39) F(39) 1-405 northbound on'ramp merge D(34) F(39) F(39) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-75 September 2003 i 3.5.2.6 Site Access The site is adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. The proposal i cludes public street crossings at the location of the existing Barbee Mill site private driveway access11 d at the existingprivate drivewaycrossingat Ripley Lane approximately 350 feet north of the pP i ersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. (Continuation of a private crossing is p ecluded by BNSF Railroad practices that limit a new or modified private crossing to a maximum of six p operties(Cowles 2003b personal communication).) T e procedure for establishing a public street crossing over a railroad right-of-way in the State of ashington is governed by RCW 81.53.020 and WAC 480-62-150, and requires approval of a grade c ossing petition by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Legislative policy of the S ate of Washington to requires new highway crossings of railroads to be grade separated, where p'acticable (RCW 81.53.020). This policy applies to local streets, and feasibility generally includes c.nsideration of topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors as well as public need for the c ossing, and reference to guidelines adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration (Nizam 2003 personal communication). The vehicular traffic volumes from this development and the current level of u e of this rail line do not meet FHWA criteria for grade separated crossings, which generally are i plemented for very high vehicular or train volumes(FHWA 2002). 1 e decision to provide public roadway crossings of railways may include elimination or consolidation of e.isting public or private crossings to minimize the total number of crossings. This type of consolidation ay require property owners in the vicinity to work together to provide a circulation system to serve all p operties on the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. The proposed northerly access to the site on to 'i pley Lane would require dedication of a public street over the property to the north. It may be desirable, however, to ensure that the feasibility of future implementation of a grade separated r.it crossing is not precluded. The location where existing roadway grades provide the greatest potential f r overcrossing is near the Ripley Lane intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, where the 1, r adway is currently above the railroad. An overcrossing at this location, however, would require s bstantial reconfiguration of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection with substantial c anges in elevation and grade for both roadways. the proposed at-grade crossing location(at the existing site access),the elevation difference with Lake ashington Boulevard is approximately 10 feet. Given the 60-foot separation between the road and r ilroad at that location, a 16 percent grade could theoretically be established. The combination of 1 s dards for roadway approaches and rail crossings may preclude any substantial change in grade b tween the roadway and the railroad. The guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and ansportation Officials provide that the roadway surface should not be more than 3 inches higher or 1 wer than the top of the nearest rail at a point 30 feet from the rail (AASHTO 2001). The similar SDOT Design Manual standard is 3 inches above or 6 inches below (WSDOT 1998, Section 930.03). The normal standard for a road approach to assure a safe area for cars to wait for entry and for sight distance is an area 20 to 30 feet in length with a grade not to exceed 6 percent(WSDOT 1998 Fig 930-3). The buildout of Lake Washington Boulevard, with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks, livrould require most of the right-of-way. This combination of requirements would leave little area for a c iange in grade between the road and the railroad. 1 The difference in elevation between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard decreases to the north, with both at nearly the same elevation approximately 400 feet north of the existing site access �. (approximately 400 feet south of the May Creek bridge). Relocating roadway access to this point presents few limitations for meeting geometric or sight distance standards on Lake Washington ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-76 September 2003 i I 1_ Boulevard. It presents several design challenges for the project because the elevation of the railroad is approximately 20 feet above the elevation of the majority of the site. Specific design issues include: • The grade of the access roads serving the lots on the east side of May Creek would have to be I raised at its northern end to meet the grade of the new access road near the grade of the railroad. That would involve substantial fill and would likely completely displace the northerly wetland if the BNSF allowed fill on their right-of-way. If the railroad did not allow fill, retaining walls of substantial height would be required. The design of buildings also would be affected. Buildings near the northerly end of the roadway would likely step down from street access at a mid-level with lower floors at grade. The roadway providing access to the east side of May Creek would be a dead-end approximately 700 feet long. • The height of bridge crossings of May Creek would be higher(or fill,where allowed outside the { floodplain,would be substantially higher). • The access road would intersect the loop roadway system on the west side of May Creek at about Lot 55. This would present few design issues, but would result in a dead-end street about 580 feet long at the southerly point. • Relocation of access is likely to impact the northerly wetland and would require development of additional wetland mitigation area. The proposed crossing at Ripley Lane, which provides access to the site by a roadway constructed over I the property to the north, has similar, although less severe, grade limitations. The change in grade is approximately 4 feet on the east side of the railroad and approximately 6 feet on the west side. This grade change would not allow a 3- to 6-inch change in grade to be maintained 30 feet on either side of the railroad, nor would the change allow a 30-foot landing at 6 percent grade to be provided at each connecting street given the 65 foot separation between the rails and the existing pavement of Ripley Lane and the 70 foot separation between the rails and the roadway on the east side. In addition, widening Ripley Lane to a three-lane section with a center left-turn lane,bike lanes,,and sidewalks to accommodate the ultimate buildout of property in the vicinity would move the roadway closer to the rails. An alternate location that is nearly at-grade occurs at an existing private railroad crossing approximately 200 feet south of the existing Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with Ripley Lane. This location would be approximately 200 feet north of the Barbee Mill property line and would be accessed from the site by a roadway, which would be constructed over the property to the north. The existing site access proceeds at an angle across the railroad right-of-way, which would likely be unacceptable for a public street. Construction of a roadway at this location could involve potential conflicts with the Ripley Lane intersection. In particular, the left-turn storage lane, which serves that intersection, might overlap with a center acceleration lane for left turns out of the site. Potential conflict would increase with greater traffic volumes as the sites to the north developed and generated additional trips. Traffic control at railroad crossings involves two basic approaches: • Passive control. This involves signs and pavement markers and relies on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching by listening for the locomotive horn, seeing the locomotive, and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails. Passive control includes signage and pavement markings that would include, at the minimum, a circular Railroad Advance Warning sign and pavement markings consisting of a stop bar. Supplemental markings can include reflecting cross-buck signs, lighting,or stop signs. • Active control. This consists of signals and gates that are designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by an approaching train and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians. Active controls include a range of devices activated by a train's City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-77 September 2003 approach and range from track-side or overhead flashing lights to gates, which are normally ' installed on the approach for both vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. Because gates can be circumvented by cars that drive in the lane for opposing traffic to weave around both gates, quad gates can be installed to close both the lanes and prevent drive-arounds and to provide greater security. Employment of quad gates also may qualify for consideration of a"quiet zone" where sounding of locomotive horns is not mandatory, as discussed in Section 3.9,Noise. ere is no specific standard for choice of traffic control, but many considerations must be balanced, irk luding vehicular and pedestrian safety. In addition, the cumulative impacts of additional growth and, t Ilerefore, additional exposure to accidents, are relevant. e WSDOT uses general guidelines for screening appropriate control based on many factors. One c i terion is related to the type of roadway and an exposure factor based on the average daily traffic on the roadway and the number of trains per day. Based on that general criteria, a two-lane site access roadway s ing the entire traffic demand of the site would have an exposure factor of 4,400(1,100 ADT x 4 trains p:r day) and would warrant flashing lights (WSDOT 1998 Figure 930-2). A slight increase in traffic or n I mber of trains would warrant gates according to this criterion; additional traffic would be likely if al ditional sites were development to the north. This guideline does not specifically consider pedestrians. F o r the proposed project, the degree of pedestrian exposure also may be a substantial factor if public a•cess to the shoreline is provided and integration of a pedestrian circulation system in the area results in la ge numbers of pedestrians. Other criteria recommended for consideration include sight distance, s• ool bus use, a history of accidents, and interactions between traffic control devices at nearby • ersections. S•ecific to this project, the possibility of higher future use of the train line may justify more stringent cintrol measures. A potential safety concern is short queuing distance between the rails and traffic c ntrol at Lake Washington Boulevard. Cars on the tracks may be blocked by cars queuing at the ersection. The 50-to 60-foot separation between tracks and the intersection provide queuing space for o to three vehicles. It is possible that a vehicle could fmd itself on the tracks with cars stopped at the i ersection and a train approaching. Additional lane width to provide a means to escape this situation is a ery desirable feature. In the case of a quad-gate crossing, a system also may involve sensors to ensure at outbound gates do not shut with vehicles present. In a case where signalization is present at Lake ashington Boulevard, preemption of signal phasing likely would be required to allow traffic on the c oss street to clear the intersection whenever a train approaches. 3 5.2.7 Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis e accident history was reviewed for intersections in the project vicinity to identify potential safety c ncerns. The City provided accident data for a 3-year period from 2000 to 2003. The average accident r. a in urban areas for a roadway with a collector arterial classification is 4.27 accidents per million vehicle miles (1996 Washington State Highway Accident Report). The section of Lake Washington Boulevard from N 30th Street to the I-405 interchange ramps experiences a collision rate of a p proximately 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles. I addition to accident histories, another means often employed to locate intersections with safety concerns is to calculate the accidents per million entering vehicles. Locations experiencing greater than 1 0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates a high rate of occurrence. Table 3.5-6 summarizes t e collision and injury rates and accident types for the study intersections where accident data were p lovided. The listed intersections experience less than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. The p edominant type of accident that occurs is a right-angle collision at unsignalized two-way stop control tersections. C of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-78 September 2003 _ Table 3.5-6. Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary Property Collisions Collisions per Injuries per Damage per Accident Type Intersection per Year MEV Year Year (%of Accidents) Lake Washington Right Angle(88%) Boulevard/NE 44th Street 2.7 NA 1.3 1.7 Approach Turn(12%) 1-405 southbound ramps/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Right Angle(67%) Boulevard) 1.0 0.36 0.0 1.0 Sideswipe(33%) Right Angle(72%) 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE Sideswipe(14%) 44th Street 2.3 0.56 1.0 1.7 Approach Turn(14%) Rear End(33%) , 1-405 northbound ramps/N Right Angle(33%) 30th Street 1.0 0.43 0.3 0.7 Sideswipe(33%) Rail Safety The number of railroad safety incidents has declined over the past several decades in Washington State and throughout the nation. There are basically four types of railroad safety issues: 1. Collisions involving vehicles and trains at highway-rail grade crossings. 2. Collisions involving vehicles or pedestrians and trains within the railroad right-of-way, classified as railroad trespass incidents. 3. Derailments or railway collisions. Derailments involve one or more units of rolling stock equipment leaving the rails during train operations for a cause other than collision, explosion, or fire. Collisions involve any impact of two or more pieces of railroad on-track equipment or impact between railroad equipment and foreign equipment. Derailment and collision-type -;-- incidents usually result in very few fatalities or injuries. 4. Hazardous material incidents are regarded as a separate category in order to more closely monitor the transportation of these products. Accident statistics are available on-line from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at http://www.wutc.wa.gov/web 1/wol/crash.html. Nationwide,half of train/vehicle fatalities involve at-grade crossings with passive controls and half are at- grade crossings with active controls. The accident rate at passive controls is presumed to be higher because crossings with active controls involve locations where vehicle volumes are higher. The Federal Railway Administration strategy to address train/vehicle collisions includes: • Targeting funds to high-risk crossings through grants to states; -- • Installing new technologies, such as four-quadrant gates,at the most dangerous crossings; and • Developing education and enforcement programs that increase the public's awareness of the dangers of railroad crossings(CRS,2003). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-79 September 2003 Active controls at crossings are the most effective physical strategy to reduce collisions. For the proposed — new crossings, the City of Renton, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the railway must decide the appropriate balance between risk and cost. The risk of collisions with pedestrians because of trespass on the right-of-way can be addressed by fencing the line adjacent to the site and by Ii installing warning signage,as well as education programs. j' Accidents on the rail line adjacent to the site also have the potential to affect the life-safety of residents by blocking access to the site when trains come to a stop after a collision. Train stopping distance is affected by the momentum of the train, which is a function of speed and weight, and the reaction time of the engineer from the time a visual cue is received to the time brakes are applied. For freight trains operating , j I, on the line presently with up to 10 cars and a locomotive, stopping distance is likely to be in the range of several hundred feet,depending on the weight of the train. I' The distance between the proposed road access points is approximately 2,000 feet and would require a I train length of approximately 25 to 30 cars to block both entrances. If the entrances were moved as ji_., outlined above,the distance between the two would be approximately 1,000 feet and could be blocked by a train 15 to 18 cars long. If the rail line were reopened to long-haul freight trains of between 100 and 150 cars, a train length of 1 to 1.5 miles long could,under a variety of operating conditions ranging from accidents to operational stops, block both entrances. The potential for operational stops to block the entrances is low given the lack of switches between south Lake Washington and Bellevue. Under existing use of the line for local freight service, it is unlikely that freight trains would block both entrances to the site. .11 An additional access option that would provide greater separation between access points and reduce the ' potential for blockage would be to develop a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF railroad. This would provide access to the existing crossing at the north end of the Vulcan site a separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. -- 3.5.2.8 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions The City of Newcastle lies to the northeast of the site and is expected to experience a portion of the project-generated traffic. Based on the trip distribution analysis, up to 22 percent of project traffic (27 PM peak hour and 262 daily trips) are destined to, from, or through the City of Newcastle. Table 3.5-7 describes the arterial sections affected by project trips, traffic volumes, and the percentage increase in J_ traffic due to the project development. Table 3.5-7. Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle PM Peak Hour Volumes %of Growth Year 2007 Total Attributed to h' Arterial Section Year 2002 (with Project) Project Traffic 112th Avenue SE-SE 68th Street(south of Lake Washington Boulevard) 449 506 19 Lake Washington Boulevard(Between SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street) 285 333 15 Lake Washington Boulevard(north of SE 60th Street) 331 381 10 SE 60th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard) 231 294 5 I ti j TI-- City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-80 September 2003 � I The Lake Washington Boulevard intersections with SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street operate at LOS C or better under year 2007 conditions with or without projects traffic; therefore, they are not adversely affected by the development traffic. Based on the traffic volume forecast from the EMN1E/2 model, it does not appear that a significant volume of traffic is bypassing the congestion on the I-405 freeway through the City of Newcastle on Lake Washington Boulevard. The volumes experienced on Lake Washington Boulevard are in the realm of traffic volume expected for a collector arterial. A concern raised by the City of Newcastle involves the potential for commuters to use alternate routes when congestion is heavy on I-405, especially increased use of local streets to bypass congested sections of the freeway. These routes are most likely to be used by drivers familiar with the local street system and with designations relatively close to the bypass route. The most likely routes involve: • Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 9 (112th Ave SE/SE 60th Street) and using Lake Washington Boulevard through Bellevue and Newcastle to 44th Street in Renton, or potentially continuing south on Lake Washington Boulevard to SR 900 and points between; • Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Coal Creek Parkway and continuing south to SR 900 or turning to the west to access final destinations between Coal Creek Parkway and Lake Washington at SE 60th Street, SE 72nd/69th Street, or SE 89th Streets; and • Northbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 5 (SR900), Exit 6 (SE 30th Street), or Exit 7 (SE 44th Street)and continuing north along Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 9; or > taking the same route from I-405 along Lake Washington Boulevard and connecting to destinations to the east via NE 44th Street/89th Street SE, or SE 64th/69th/72nd Streets, or via SE 60th Street; or > taking the same route and continuing north via SE 60th Street and 119th Ave SE to Coal Creek, Parkway, and potentially further north via 128th Ave, Richards Road, 116th Avenue to Bellevue,Kirkland, and beyond. All of these potential arterial routes have the disadvantage of lower speed limits and intersections controlled by stop signs or signals. These arterial routes would have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. In cases where multiple stop sign controlled intersections are present, delays at intersections would become substantial if large numbers of trips divert. If congestion occurs regularly over a long period of time, drivers would seek out and find alternative routes. Theoretically, those routes would be chosen as alternative routes until congestion resulted in equal travel times over alternate routes. In practice, drivers regularly making ' - trips with local destinations close to these alternative routes would have experienced the difference in travel times between congested freeway conditions and local arterials and would choose the faster route for their normal trips. In cases where freeway congestion seems greater than normal, they may divert to alternative routes. The EMME/2 model used to route traffic under future conditions accounts for roadway capacity when routing trips and achieves a reasonable balance between local arterials and freeways. It does not account for those occasional situations where accidents or other factors produce higher levels of freeway congestions. In those cases, all the routes outlined above are likely to experience larger volumes of traffic, which is likely to result in delays at intersections, especially stop controlled intersections, such as SE 60th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard. Trips to and from the proposed project are likely to involve the routes along Lake Washington Boulevard (southbound from Exit 9 to the site or northbound from Exit 5 to the south). The number of trips potentially diverting to alternate routes from the area in Renton west of I-450 (including the site) is not likely to be more than the current southbound off-ramp volumes employing a right-turn movement; rather, it is likely to be considerably less. As a worst-case City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-81 September 2003 .L scenario, approximately 250 trips would be taken, with project trips totaling approximately 5 percent of I` that J total. Given this conservative case, trips on Lake Washington Boulevard at 60th Street would increase roughly 50 percent. This increase could be addressed in several ways: by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints, i+ such as stop controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from 111 trying alternate routes. The latter approach tends to similarly delay trips with a local destination. A possible response to address the potential for diverted trips would include designing future intersection signalization to provide higher levels of service to local trips turning into local collector streets, similar to SE 60th and SE 64th Streets,while providing less capacity for through movements. 3.5.2.9 Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Relationship to Transit The non-motorized facilities in the project vicinity include a designated bike route (with bike lanes on J both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard) and some discontinuous sidewalks, primarily on the side ` streets. The need for non-motorized facilities exists because attractions, such as Coulon Beach Park, are located south of the site and transit stops. The site is likely to create additional demand for pedestrian facilities as follows: • Residents of the proposed development are likely to desire to use pedestrian and bicycle facilities _ for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided,as well as to points of interest in the vicinity that currently are limited to Gene Coulon Park, approximately C 0.75 mile to the south and nearby residential areas. • Local residents are likely to desire to use pedestrian facilities for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided. l _ Cumulative effects of the proposed action(in conjunction with development of adjacent properties in the mix of intensive office, hotels, and residential activity in a master planned development) are likely to create substantial demand for pedestrian circulation to the high-intensity development from this site and adjacent residential areas and to shoreline amenities adjacent to this site, including the public land on the I shoreline adjacent to the proposed development. The cumulative effects of this development are likely to intensify the impact of demands related to this development, and include the following: • Demand for additional capacity and comfort for bicycling and pedestrian routes along Lake Washington Boulevard, which would connect this site (and future mixed-use development in the sites to the north)with Gene Coulon Park to the south and to transit routes and the Park and Ride at North 30th Street. • Demand for safe and comfortable pedestrian routes crossing the BNSF right-of-way and traversing the site to provide access to public lands along the shoreline and other public access that may be provided. • Demand for more convenient pedestrian connections from the site to future development in the north. As presently configured, all pedestrian connections to the north would be channeled back to the proposed roadway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. This will likely be perceived as out-of-direction travel for residents of the westerly portion of the site and for the general public who access public land along the shoreline of this site and who wish to access mixed-use development to the north. This demand can be addressed by providing pedestrian access, which may also be combined with vehicular access, to the property to the north near the northwest corner of the site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-82 September 2003 • Demand for bicycle routes through the site will intensify, particularly with routes that skirt the shoreline and provide access to mixed development to the north. • Pedestrian demand from school children is likely to be limited to circulation within the project. The public elementary school serving the site is the Kennydale Elementary School on North 30th Street just east of I-405. Students from the site would likely be bussed to school and therefore require pedestrian routes to bus stops within the site. McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School are also east of I-405 and would likely transport students by bus. Some older children may occasionally walk home from after school activities. Effects on transit from the proposed 116 residential units, and as the result of cumulative impacts of mixed-use development of property to the north, are likely to consist of additional demand for transit service. Demand for transit service is very elastic and depends largely on the connectivity of the system to desired trip ends and the frequency and convenience of service. Individuals earning a high income are expected to live in this project area; as a result,transit use would generally be lower because the residents have the ability to utilize personal vehicles and are likely to value the flexibility provided. The exception generally is the demand for transit service to central cities where congestion provides a trip time advantage for transit and convenience of taking transit is high (TCRP 1995). Transit use in this area is not likely to be high unless more convenient transit service is provided close to the site, or low travel time express service to major employment centers is available from the Park and Ride Lot in the area. 3.5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of this development would include traffic and pedestrian demands of future development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north. The exact parameters of future development cannot be exactly predicted, but zoning allows a mix of high intensity uses that can be expected to generate substantial traffic. At a minimum, residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips. Additional development would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections. The mitigation measures section below addresses the number of additional trips through site access points that would justify channelization of intersections. Other measures that might be employed to serve cumulative trip generation may include an overpass over the railroad to serve all development from a roadway system on the west side of the railroad tracks. The proposed site access points for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would not specifically restrict development potential of the adjacent sites, or limit options for developing access to Ripley Lane, which is likely to be the main access. 3.5.3 Mitigation Mitigating measures were identified for locations operating at LOS E or F. Signal warrant analyses were conducted for intersection locations where LOS analysis indicates a need may exist. 3.5.3.1 Mitigation of Vehicular Traffic Impacts Locations not meeting City operational standards include the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) and 1-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersections. The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates at LOS E with 38 seconds of delay under 2007 no-action conditions, and with project traffic,the intersection operates at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay. The intersection fails primarily due to the delay City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-83 September 2003 ex.erienced at the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection cannot be mitigated with ch elization improvements alone. A review of the stop control identified that either an all-way stop co trol (LOS B with 12 seconds delay per vehicle) or a signal (LOS A with 6 seconds delay per vehicle) wiFuld mitigate the intersection operations. The installation of a signal was not warranted based on the ve icular volume(see following analysis). T e I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F fo existing conditions and year 2007,with and without project traffic. The intersection operations can be m tigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane (mitigates to LOS C with 20 seconds of delay per vehicle with project traffic). Another solution is to signalize the in ersection, which requires no channelization improvements (mitigates to LOS A with eight seconds d ay per vehicle with project traffic). The intersection met volume criteria for Signal Warrants #2 and # ° e development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of __ $ 5 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of new trips fr m the development that are distributed throughout the general circulation system. 3.5.3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis S. nal warrant analyses were conducted for the northbound and southbound I-405 ramps at Lake ashington Boulevard-NE 44th Street under horizon-year 2007 conditions per Section 4C of the Manual o Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The descriptions below summarize the criteria outlined in - MUTCD for the intersection signal warrant analysis. • arrant#1:8-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A:Minimum Vehicular Volume This warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the minor and major approaches for each of any 8 hours of an average day. Condition B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic , This warrant applies to conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the minor and major approaches for each lof any 8 hours of an average day. Combination:80 percent of Conditions A and B This warrant applies to conditions where both Conditions A and B volume thresholds are met by 80 ,percent. arrant#2:4-Hour Vehicular Volume This warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes exceed the plotted curve on Figure 4C-1 from the MUTCD for 4 hours. Warrant#3:Peak Hour This warrant applies to conditions where for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases but is not limited to office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over I ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-84 September 2003 a short time. This warrant is conditioned on delay experienced on a minor approach and traffic volumes r,. experienced on minor approach and total entering intersection. I-405 Northbound Ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street Intersection The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard) NE 44th Street intersection is currently two- ' way stop controlled with at least two-lane approaches along NE 44th Street and single lane approaches along the I-405 ramps and Lake Washington Boulevard. Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that the minimum vehicular volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination) were not fully met. The volume criteria are met for Warrant #2 and Warrant #3. Volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition B and Combination) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. The volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A) are met for only 2 hours of the 8-hour requirement during the day. The hourly traffic volumes for the minor leg approaches meet the MUTCD criteria for at least 8 hours of a day; however, the major leg approaches reflect only up to 65 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and 43 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 380 vph on NE 44th Street(east and west of the intersection). The minimum vehicle volume criteria for Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume) are met for the minimum 4-hours of the day. Additionally, the minimum vehicle volume and delay criteria for Warrant #3 (Peak Hour)are met for 2 hours during the day(criteria requires to meet one hour of the day). The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic. The results indicate Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met for the full criteria. Warrant#2 vehicular criteria was met for three of the required four hours and Warrant#3 criteria was marginally not met. I-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)Intersection The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection is currently two- way stop controlled with(effectively for analysis purposes) single-lane approaches along NE 44th Street- Lake Washington Boulevard and the I-405 ramps. Under guidelines describe in the MUTCD, the southbound right-turn volume was removed from the analysis because there is a designated right-turn lane that operates efficiently at LOS B and with a delay of 23 seconds. Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, the minimum vehicular volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination), Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume), and Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. For Warrant#1, the major leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and 47 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. The minor leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and meets the criteria for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 200 vph on NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard)and 60 vph on the I-405 southbound off ramp. The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic, yielding similar results(Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 } Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-85 September 2003 3. .3.3 Channelization Warrant Analysis C annelization warrants were conducted for the south site access/Lake Washington Boulevard - in ersection under horizon-year 2007 conditions per WSDOT standards. The intersection channelization is lanned for a northbound-shared through-left turn lane, southbound-shared through-right turn lane, and ea tbound-shared left-right turn lane. A channelization warrant analysis was conducted for the northbound left-turn movement site access per th WSDOT design manual, Figure 910-9a(see attached). The northbound left-turn movement totals 15 ve ides during the PM peak hour. The location experiences a total peak hour volume (north and so thbound approaches) of 540 vehicles. Northbound left-turn movement storage is not needed based on c bnnelization warrant guidelines. Due to the low volume of traffic maneuvering the northbound left- , additional background growth on Lake Washington Boulevard would likely not warrant a left-turn 1 e beyond the horizon year based on vehicular volume criteria alone. additional check of site access channelization was conducted for the AM peak hour (where inbound d outbound traffic patterns are reversed). The heavier traffic flow is outbound from the site; therefore, a hannelization warrant analysis was conducted for the eastbound right-turn movement per the WSDOT d sign manual, Figure 910-12 (see attached). The eastbound right-turn movement totals 12 vehicles d ring the AM peak hour. A storage lane for the eastbound right-turn movement is not needed based on channelization warrant guidelines. I � I C mulative impacts of developments accessing the south site access may include the need for turn lanes. T e total volume of traffic needed to warrant the installation of a northbound left-turn lane (given no c ange in background traffic) is 60 vph (an additional 45 vph). The total volume of traffic accessing the e stbound approach needed to warrant the installation of an eastbound right-turn pocket is 250 vph(or 45 v h turning right),which is an additional 200 vph on the approach(or 30 to 35 vph turning right). 3 5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts I pacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well as other impacts, can include a range of potential easures, including: • Grade-separated rail crossings, if found to be practicable as directed by the legislative policy in RCW 81.53.020. This option also could be implemented in the future when properties to the north develop to mitigate cumulative impacts of development. • Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and intersection approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8. This may place crossings closer together and increase the potential for blockage of both by a stopped train. This could be mitigated by connecting the existing access point at the north end of the Vulcan property with this site through a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF right-of way. That would provide a separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. -- • A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings,ranging from: > passive signing and stop bars, > warning lights and bells, ➢ gated control of approaches, and > quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian approaches. ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 craft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-86 September 2003 I i l? 4. ,j �/( + I A A ,iI ` -/ � - , � 1 , , F r 1T —11- 1E -1I— IF 7n -lr 71 -1 1 r 7. COR-2 ZONE l / / s.....!_1J _-... imiL�JLILIL _ILJLJILJIL�Jf LJL/ $ // / , OH i- W��< 4:1 ®®�- I II II 1 r Tract"B" // f -ract" Water L�fJ 4,, PUBLIC LAND Open Quality ‘41‘...11ra / p � , Space • •r'f f/ V° 1 — ' ilki) CIS ,,.. A LAKE g ��. -1 : . -- q7/ 4,4 �._, H WASHINGTON a�J , , • • '' r uH :'' iw ,�.,,, afti , . , i, •-, /7 , i N 4; , , / , PUBLIC LAND / / / NNNN��! *I a` '` r - a..iii" /, 4.71(.44* / : / ''',.„, / / LIMI o \, 7 AY CREEK _„,71/7 _ I DELTA �`Q' ,; ' -_ FLOODPLAIN /� i=- R Zoe ,a ..>'N 40TH ST• _.._----- 1 / i / t' i L . t pz/ . Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-08 SCALE IN FEET 'At Figure 3.5-8 W Alternative Access 0 150 300I Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad right-of way can be addressed by: > Fencing railroad right-of-way, and > Education programs. Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks due to lack of emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by grade-separated crossings. This impact is unlikely to occur with current local freight use of the rail line. 3.5.3.5 Mitigation of Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that might be implemented in coordination with a variety of parties. Measures include: • Provision of pedestrian facilities within the site with a design that provides greater pedestrian comfort through setback from the curb with an intervening planting strip, and/or provision of a buffer between travel lanes. An on-street buffer might consist of curbside automobile parking or a marked, dedicated bicycle lane. • Provision of pedestrian connections to the properties to the north within the northwest portion of the site to provide convenient access to anticipated future mixed-use development in the area and avoiding the necessity for out-of-direction movement back to the east to access the site. This pedestrian connection might be combined with a vehicular connection. • Provision of public access to public lands along the shoreline and other shoreline public access that connects to the general pedestrian circulation in the site and to Lake Washington Boulevard. • Provision of off-street trails within open space along May Creek connecting to the site circulation system at the northeast corner to provide continuity with the access roadway to the north and connecting to shoreline public access. • Provision of pedestrian and bicycle connections to Lake Washington Boulevard and a railroad crossing providing pedestrian crossing control, such as gates. • Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Lake Washington Boulevard consisting of sidewalks, in addition to bicycle lanes. • Transit service impacts of the proposal can be mitigated by integrating additional service on the I- 405 corridor to local Park and Ride Lots with adequate capacity for local demand, or by providing service on Lake Washington Boulevard with other transit enhancements. All of these measures are likely to contribute to an environment in which choice of alternative modes of transportation is supported by site design. The multiple issues faced in choosing something other than single occupant vehicles for trips will also be supported by employer incentives and system improvements, such as HOV lanes and expanded transit routes, as well as rideshare matching services, that are included in a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program. 3.5.3.6 Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected impacts of redevelopment of other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated by developing an overall mitigation program. The mitigation program could ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate future channelization and signal improvements. The circulation system could include provision for a City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-88 September 2003 gr de separated crossing of the railroad and other elements such as a street serving all properties west of th BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings. Such a circulation system could include abandonment of Ripley Lane between the railroad and I-405 right-of-ways. 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3. .1 Affected Environment e purpose of this section is to identify potential and confirmed hazardous materials that may exist on or ar and the Barbee Mill site, and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project design. The si a is known to contain contaminated soils and groundwater. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has ben prepared for the site pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and approved by the ashington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton. Scientific studies applicable to this site (' eluding the Independent Remedial Action Plan) and available studies for adjacent sites were used as th primary basis for the analysis. I ' 3 6.1.1 Regulations Governing Hazardous Materials H zardous materials are regulated at the federal, state, and local level and are classified based on the laws a d regulations that define their characteristics and use(i.e., hazardous or dangerous wastes, hazardous or t is substances). Facilities or properties that store or manage hazardous materials or waste in significant q antities, or have released hazardous materials or waste to the environment, are required to report these aItivities to both the federal and state agencies that regulate them. In addition, several local agencies p otect human health and the environment. F deral e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers several programs under a variety of regulatory a$thorizations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive E vironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and the Toxic Substance Control ct (TSCA). The EPA maintains databases that track sites with potential or confirmed releases to the e.vironment. RCRA regulates hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are in a a tive operation. CERCLA provides a means of discovering and listing hazardous waste disposal sites on t e National Priorities list, followed by EPA oversight or direct involvement of site cleanup. TSCA ✓ gulates toxic substances, which are a subset of hazardous substances. TSCA was adopted to require e aluation of new chemical substances and existing chemicals (other than pesticides) put to new uses for h alth and environmental effects. The EPA maintains files of hazardous waste management for facilities b sed on notification requirements; defines the type of handling to be performed; and in the case of spills o accidents, determines whether a release to the environment has occurred. S ate Ecology implements state programs that regulate hazardous materials and waste, in cooperation with the c rresponding EPA programs and regulations; MTCA regulations (Chapter 173-340 WAC) and 1 angerous Waste regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC) are the principal regulations in this regard. :cology maintains records and lists of hazardous waste sites, spills,and enforcement actions. ocal e Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates discharges to the air from hazardous materials and waste sites. Public Health Seattle and King County enforce landfill and waste disposal site regulations. The ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-89 September 2003 f—� __ City of Renton municipal code includes regulations pertaining to hazardous and toxic materials, underground storage tanks (USTs), and activities within wellhead protection areas around municipal water supply wells. 3.6.1.2 Site Industrial History 1~ Shannon and Wilson (2001 c) completed a search for hazardous materials in the area of the Barbee Mill site for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange DEIS. Historical and environmental records were reviewed, which included aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn maps, and a search of the EPA and Ecology databases. Historical information was also obtained from Hart Crowser(2000). _i The Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1)was first used as an industrial site in the 1920s by the May Creek Lumber Company and Railroad, which operated a dock and a railway in the southern portion of the site. - In 1943, the current site was deeded to Barbee Marine Yards, which built and operated a shipyard to construct barges, tugs, and other vessels during World War II. In 1945 the ownership of the Barbee Marine Yard was transferred to Barbee Mill Company. Filling at the shoreline in the 1950s increased the site area. In 1957, a fire almost completely destroyed the mill and most of the early records were lost. The mill was rebuilt and operations continued. The area north of May Creek was paved in 1974, f" including installation of a storm drainage system with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Mill operations have since been reduced, and only limited cut-line activities are current ongoing. The database information (Shannon and Wilson 2001c) indicates that the Barbee Mill is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, and that the Barbee Mill site has been entered on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list due to confirmed or suspected releases of contamination to the environment. 3.6.1.3 Locations of Hazardous Materials and Related Features Buildings The sawmill (A), planer (B) and press/old dry kiln (C) buildings were used as fungicide spray areas during mill operation (see Figure 3.6-2). An electrical transformer "corral" was located adjacent to the sawmill. The transformers were replaced in the 1960s without (polychlorinated biphenyl) PCB testing. There are some small transformers in the sawmill and the planer building that have been checked and confirmed as PCB-free. Activities in both of the buildings required the use of hydraulic oil grease, oil, I I and welding supplies. The original boiler for the old kiln is still in operation, and is suspected of having an asbestos wrap. It is a dual-fuel boiler able to use oil and natural gas. The shop(D)was used for miscellaneous activities for mill operation and maintenance. The parts wash is currently water-based and serviced by Safety-Kleen; however, limited amounts of non-chlorinated solvents were used in the past. The dry kiln (F)building, completed in 1973, is used for lumber storage and temporary storage for small quantities of waste oil and antifreeze. The area between the shop and the dry kiln is used for steam cleaning mill equipment. One of the oil/water separators is located in that area. The stacker(G)operates by means of a hydraulic system and electric motor,and required oil and grease. A bermed area waste material storage area is located adjacent to the Boise Building (H). Latex paint, hydraulic oil, saw oil, motor oil, StaBrite P, antifreeze, used oil, grease, and lubricants were used in this area. The black building (I)has a concrete floor and is used for equipment storage,which includes wire, motors,metal,paper wrap,and latex paint. The warehouses(J and K)are used for lumber storage. ) City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-90 September 2003 i / " 4: .., f//i • _ • f '`1 J.H. BAXTER /: . ff / •'>'•. /� 1 (NORTH) ,.f•. • 11 / y \\ TER ,:if , �' f .r ; ''' OUENOALL r /�,'� , \\\\ (1 TERMINALS `' \ 1 t, /''' • - t-f (-\r j fj:t\\'Ce r,:‘, • ' 7 /I/I.^'' ',I..I ;� _ ; X /'� \ i--.—__ . ,r=ram. ^; (ri I 11LLIE l• _ 1-1 1 4. •r i// /7 .MVUELit T _I L. /"ate---fir- ;;f .�...//�U i '� iil. o/ek s '. .),',4.1 ''''i ; ,I I t '`� jll/fsy, i r'--s it k ,,,4„..„, 1 .y0- , ! , i; • , , l% i______._____,___ "— :j=L.... I, . t_ 0 100 200 400 1 1 SCALE IN FEET s Source:Base Map from ThermoRetec,file 24385383 Parametrix Barbee Mill EIS 554-1779-017/01(10)6/03(K) ---- Estimated extent of arsenic impacts to ground water(Hart Crowser 2000) Figure 3.6-1 Site Map with •- - - - Estimated extent of arsenic and zinc impacts to soil(Hart Crowser 2000) r- , Adjacent Properties )j f' r,. , ..,,,,...'"� /„fr ' i j �. H_ t ' .1 J OHW-I -____-- _ f / i ..) 1 7 / '// / 1 q Al- i I 4:14 / 4/ 1 \ r- z ,Q,/ /// .,,, ..., \A ,e,„,. ./ ''/ I // (al- -\ ‘\\, F-11 / ' : 7 // / // N> i , ///// I/ 7 / /,...... /*/. / ' / i lJ ) / - ----5?„-::::;„!„..-..--,7 / // -4 '' //I „,<(.------- "7 0 ii"iii /4.4 .rz,-, ✓ yd / , ' 1-' //e LAKE i 1 / S 1: ," N I ` ' /f�? WASHINGTON -✓ 1 , e T ;a q i 7 , y �` Aylli li \II,11,, •,, / ›. /44//f t 7/i ii J J f : 1 - /mi l 4.://,- /,, ' /////,4,717 • ifr i / ''s ''‘'' '‘), /// .._,1 \\ ' 1 '. 7/'..• ,/,41,"1 .7,;:::: .....:Iii / / ' 1 7 ( '''''',.„,,,,/ . ,,,--- _____,-..--_,,r.---„,-5---_,-si •, • .' \ s i \ / / *# 4.*:\ ---, ----„, / MAY CREEK ~`' DELTA i,\ 1 . ` < 7 - - - _ f — N 40TH ST L__ ff . , 4. Parametrix DATE: 07/25/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.6-2 I W Building Locations o goo zoo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat For a brief period in the late 1940s, the mill used a new experimental arsenic-based compound to treat pilings in the northeast portion of the facility (see Figure 3.6-2). The mill owns a patent on an experimental water-soluble compound that contains arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate. Permatox 100 was used for sap stain control until 1978; it contains pentachlorophenol (PCP). The copper based PQ8 was used for sap stain control until 1988. Since then, StaBrite P has been used for that purpose. There were three areas on site assigned for spraying. Underground Storage Tanks Between December 1989 and February 1990, five USTs were removed from the site. The tanks ranged in size from 200 to 8,000 gallons and contained diesel, gasoline, fuel oil, and heating oil. Most of the site vehicles were converted to compressed natural gas after the tank removals. One 2000-gallon above- ground storage tank containing diesel remains on the site. Stormwater Outfalls The stormwater sewer system serves the portion of the site north of May Creek with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Two oil/water are in line for Outfall 001, which services the central portion of the facility. Outfall 002 drains the northwest portion of the facility. An additional oil/water separator is in line with the sanitary sewer on the northeast side of the property. 3.6.1.4 Site Investigations and Discovery of Releases Soil and groundwater contamination at the Barbee Mill site were first indicated by sampling results from ThermoRetec (1996) and confirmed in by Hart Crowser (2000). Concentrations of arsenic, zinc, and petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of cleanup levels were documented in soil and groundwater. ThermoRetec (1997) collected composite sediment samples from catch basins of the stormwater system and analyzed these samples for metals, chlorophenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total organic carbon, and PCBs. Carcinogenic PAHs, PCPs, 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorpenol, and a variety of metals were detected. Impacts to Lake Washington sediments from wood waste and chemical use from the Barbee Mill . operation were investigated by Anchor (2003). The Anchor work concluded that total organic carbon (TOC) was the only parameter that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values, and that concentrations of PAHs and other hazardous substances reported by ThermoRetec were well below sediment screening levels. 3.6.1.5 Chemicals of Concern and Migration Pathways ( Soil Soils beneath the Barbee Mill site consist of fill, alluvial, and lacustrine silts and sands, and peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser 2000). The silt and peat layers are discontinuous and the sand layers become more gravelly in the middle of the site. Screening levels applied by Hart Crowser(2000)for soil were based on MTCA Method A and B cleanup levels for soil, the default groundwater protection cleanup level, and the Puget Sound background concentrations for metals in soil. The selected screening levels are not the lowest possible applicable 1 , Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 ? Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-93 September 2003 1 I II I I, 1 le els for soils due to the elevated background concentrations of metals in the Puget Sound. The select s eening levels were used in the 1999 site investigations with the concurrence of Ecology. AI senic concentrations were detected in site soils at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg, compared to the soil ci anup level of 20 mg/kg. Zinc contaminated the soil in the same area as the arsenic and in the transformer area next to the sawmill, with soil concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil 1 ; cl anup level of 130 mg/kg). The approximate extent of these elevated concentrations of metals in soils _ is shown on Figure 3.6-1 and represents a pathway for migration of contaminants to groundwater. C ncentrations of metals detected in groundwater at the Barbee Mill site are discussed in the following s ction. L w levels of chlorinated phenols were detected in the soils from a few borings in the spray areas, but no --- d tections exceeded the cleanup levels. No PCBs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected i the sampled areas. roundwater 1 Depth to groundwater at the Barbee Mill site is 4 to 5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow on the site is to the west toward Lake Washington,with a northwest component in the northern portion of the s'I e. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, compared to t e selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L. The groundwater plume extends west and n rthwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the adjacent Quendall T rminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below the site cleanup levels. Low 1 els of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of 1 c lorinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. Neither - P Bs nor VOCs were detected in the areas sampled. 3 6.1.6 Cleanup Approach and Schedule S i it and Groundwater 1 e remediation program proposed by Hart Crowser (2000) and approved by Ecology (2000) for the :arbee Mill site is excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, and pumping and treatment of g oundwater. Site remediation will include: • Removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc; • Confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base; j • Dewatering of the excavation area; • Groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes including prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation,and adsorption; , I' • Discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington; • Removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location; -: • Demolition of building in area to be excavated, and rerouting utilities in the area; . • Stockpiling soil for loading and stormwater management; • Backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill;and • Implementing a groundwater monitoring program,and groundwater treatment,if indicated. II pity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-94 September 2003 1i , Sediments A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, adjacent to the Barbee Mill site, was conducted under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program, with input from Ecology. Between 1999 and 2002, approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris were dredged and stockpiled on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded the Method B carcinogenic PAH criterion; these sediments are currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments stockpiled at the site are awaiting on- or off-site beneficial reuse. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003). 3.6.1.7 Potential Impacts from Sites near Barbee Mill Quendall Terminals The Quendall Terminals property immediately north of the Barbee Mill (see Figure 3.6-1)was the site of creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969 (Hart Crowser 1997). The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic compounds. After the refining operations ceased, the site was used as a storage area for bulk fuel and for log sorting operations. Other than wood waste debris, investigations did not identify any contamination from subsequent site lease activities. Detailed studies of the site history and operations have not identified any industrial activities south of the former May Creek channel (Hart Crowser 1997; ThermoRetec 1996). These studies, in conjunction with the hydrogeologic system and environmental media chemical sampling data, have lead investigators to believe that the soil and groundwater contamination occurs from the area of the former creek channel to the north. Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt, and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake levels has been conducted which shows a consistent east to west groundwater flow pattern beneath the site in both groundwater zones(Hart Crowser 1997). The contamination identified on site includes PAHs in the soil, dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL), and benzene, naphthalene and benzo-a-pyrene in groundwater (Hart Crowser 1997). Wood waste is also identified as a contaminant in the offshore lakebed sediments. The area of contamination has been mapped numerous times, the result of which is consistent with the area of historical site operations and westward migration to Lake Washington(Exponent 1999) The recommended strategy for remedation of the Quendall site involves removal of DNAPL affected soil near the shoreline and capping of the balance of the site to control mobility of contaminants and prevent direct human contact. For groundwater remediation two DNAPL collection trenches and biosparging are proposed. As part of the Barbee Mill proposal, a roadway is proposed to connect to Ripley Lane through the Quendall site. The alignment adjacent to the BNSF Railroad is contaminated at a lower level than the westerly portion of the Quendall site. Concentrations of benzene, cPAHs, and PAHs have been detected within the roadway alignment with higher concentrations to the north. Documented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that flows are primarily east to west. Contamination from the Quendall Terminals site is not likely to affect the Barbee Mill site. Groundwater is not likely to flow from the westerly more contaminated portion of the Quendall site to the location of the proposed roadway to the east. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-95 September 2003 II J.IIH.Baxter Site it T e J. H. Baxter(Vulcan) site is located adjacent to and north of the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure 3. -1). This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s (Shannon Cd Wilson 2001c; ThermoRetec 2000a). The chemicals used on site included creosote and PCP; c ntaminants are present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. Dioxins, PAHs, and DNAPL are also present on the site. agreement between Baxter and Ecology divided the facility into two properties based on historical use a 'd contamination. In the south property, contaminated sediment is in Baxter Cove, listed hazardous w ste (K001) is in the lagoon, DNAPL is present in a former tank area that that will be removed a cording to the ThermoRetec cleanup plan (2000b). The material will be properly disposed of and the -as backfilled with clean material and stabilized. Capping the north property is the remedy designed to p(otect human health and the environment from the low levels of PAHs and PCP in the soil. D.cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the J. I;Baxter site would not affect the Barbee Mill site. Pin Abode potential site of contamination was identified at the Pan Abode site (Shannon and Wilson 2001c), ich is located across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1). Two ' u derground fuel storage tanks were formerly located on the Pan Abode site. Soil and groundwater s. piing conducted in 1996 indicated potential impacts to soil and groundwater from the former tanks, h storic use of wood preservatives, and metal slag in shallow fill. Additional investigations conducted in 1!97 concluded that chemicals detected in soil and groundwater did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels. I I ocumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the P: Abode site would not affect the Barbee Mill site. 3 6.2 Impacts 3'6.2.1 Construction Impacts se of heavy equipment would create disturbed soil, stockpiled soil, and bermed areas. Dust, erosion, a d sedimentation are impacts during construction activities that may pose a risk to workers, public h-alth,and the environment if contaminated soils are encountered. 6.2.2 Project Impacts he remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the Barbee Mill site to levels suitable for ture residential use. Removal of the contaminated soil (per the Ecology-approved cleanup plan) is the f.stest and most effective way to reduce the long-term risk from on-site contamination. Residual risk to ture residents from on-site soils that would remain at the site is minimal because concentrations of detected compounds in these soils not proposed to be removed are below action levels. The action levels - are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, contaminated groundwater would be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. The shallow groundwater system at the site would not be used for water supply. ti ! I ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-96 September 2003 Construction of the roadway across a portion of the Quendall Terminals site to the north is not likely to affect contaminant levels or mobility on the balance of that site. It is likely that remediation of contaminants within the proposed roadway, if required, could proceed independently of remediation of the balance of the Quendall site. Industrial use of the site would not alter impacts. 3.6.3 Mitigation Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material,and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to place limits on property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall site could be addressed by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to reduce mobility,to isolation from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway would provide an impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human contact with contaminated soil and reduce infiltration and leaching of residual contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The City of Renton, may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within the proposed right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a remediation program to be implemented prior to roadway construction and dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a cleanup strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as meeting the requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the north, must comply with the following requirements: • Protect human health and the environment; • Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700; • Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710; • Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410; • Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable restoration time WAC 173-340-360;and • Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600. = 3.7 AESTHETICS This section describes the character of the existing landscape, the visual impacts of the alternatives, and the extent to which viewer groups in the study area would perceive the impacts. Photo-simulations are provided for representative views. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-97 September 2003 3. .1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1 Methodology, Aesthetics, and Visual Quality e assessment of visual quality addresses both the character of the visual experience and the impact u on the viewer. For the purposes of this analysis,visual quality and aesthetics are analogous terms. The as essment of visual quality is subjective, from the perspective that the human subject perceiving the visual environment applies personal and cultural frames of reference to discern and evaluate visual in ormation. There is, however, broad-based agreement in federal, state, and local laws and regulations, a well as supporting research that establishes general public consensus of what constitutes a desirable visual environment. This broad-based agreement is the foundation of the process and defmitions put forth in' the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects Manual ( A Manual;FHWA-HI-88-054). V sual character refers to identifiable visual information in a selected view. The existing visual or a:sthetic environment is described using objective descriptors of attributes (such as form, line, color, and to re) and specific environmental features. Relationships between elements of the visual environment --' - described in terms of dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. Dominance refers to the position of . individual element, or its extent or contrast among all the other elements of a view. Scale refers to a.'parent size relationships between an element and the other components of its surroundings. Diversity is a function of the number, variety, and intermixing of elements in a view. Continuity refers to the intenance of visual relationships between connected or related landscape features. The integration of se elements into a complex characterization allows a more complete description of the character of a v'eIw as a whole. 'sual quality is the assessment of the value of the visual experience of a selected view. This analysis u 'es FHWA's definition of three descriptors: vividness, intactness, and unity. Vividness describes the emorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. I tactness describes the integrity of natural and human-built visual patterns and the extent to which the 1 dscape is free from encroaching elements or eyesores. Unity describes,the compositional harmony of t e landscape considered as a framed view, much as one would evaluate a painting or photograph. This d es not imply that all elements are the same, but that they are arranged in a way that is pleasing or ( i teresting. fewer response is analyzed in terms of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. These two elements fork together. Viewer exposure refers to the physical location of viewer, the number of people exposed t j a view, and the duration of their view. Viewer sensitivity refers to the degree to which a viewer p rceives elements of the environment and the extent to which those elements are important to the viewer. iewer sensitivity is affected by the activities in which a viewer is engaged; the visual context; and the ✓ lues, expectations, and interests of the person involved in the activity. Sensitive viewers are generally ✓ sidents of the area and are engaged in elective activities, such as recreation. Moderately sensitive v ewers are people engaged in other elective activities such as shopping, patronizing a restaurant, or a ending a cultural or sporting event. Travelers and workers tend to be the least sensitive group because o the demands of driving and the short time in which they are exposed to visual elements. 3 7.1.2 Methodology, Assessment Procedure e Barbee Mill site and its environs were visited in order to assess the visual character and quality of ! ? ill site and to determine viewer groups and viewer sensitivity. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as reviewed for open space, pedestrian/bicycle routes, and recreation plans and policies. The site is .0,of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 - I aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-98 September 2003 _ zoned for use as an office and residential center due to its location at Renton's northern city limit and at a major exit/entrance ramp from I-405. Graphical simulations for key views were created to illustrate the probable visual impacts of the proposed alternatives. Key views were selected to represent a range of views from locations where significant -- numbers of viewers are present,where representative features of the existing structure and alternatives are present in important views, and where the visual quality of the views is high. The view selection process included field reconnaissance to locate significant visual features and landmarks and to assess the intrinsic qualities of the landscape. The final viewpoints were developed,reviewed, and approved by city staff before preparation of visual simulations. Viewpoint locations are indicated on Figure 3.7-1. Photographs for the simulations were taken at a lens focal length (35 mm)that approximates the normal static field of view of humans at the scale of a standard sheet size at normal reading distance. This does not reproduce the entire field of view perceived by a human observer, but it does provide an accurate representation of the scale of a structure in relation to other objects seen from the viewpoint. The simulations are discussed in Section 3.7.2,Impacts. Building heights were determined by whether a building is within or outside the line of jurisdiction of the state Shoreline Management Act. The applicant has proposed maximum height of 50 feet within the area of shoreline jurisdiction and 75 feet outside of the shoreline area. The area of Shoreline jurisdiction is shown in Figure 3.7-2. Maximum building height under zoning regulations is up to 125 feet in the COR- 2 district. A 75-foot height was specified by the applicant at as a reasonable maximum for the duplex and town home residential proposal. For these types of structure, the 50 and 75 foot heights are conservatively high since it is unlikely that such building types would reach five to seven stories. 3.7.1.3 Existing Conditions The Barbee Mill property is situated on the southern third of the May Creek delta on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington. This shoreline had been periodically inundated and subjected to flooding before the Hiram Chittenden Locks opened in 1916, creating a generally flat shoreline terrain. The natural shoreline has been replaced by a manmade shoreline created with bulkheads and fill materials for the length of the property that contains the working buildings. East of present-day May Creek, the landform steps up to a gently rolling terrace, then rises to become low, rolling hills. Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 generally follow the terrace and visually and physically separate the shoreline area from the residential neighborhoods on the surrounding hillsides. Views of Lake Washington from the wooded hillsides to the east of May Creek are valued(Renton 2000). Viewer exposure east of the site is moderately low due to the limited number of viewers, tree screening, and the distance from sensitive viewers. Residents east and northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 are sensitive viewers; motorists and cyclists on these routes are less sensitive. Viewer exposure from Mercer Island and Lake Washington is high due to the popularity of boating and the density of homes on the east side of Mercer Island. These groups are sensitive viewers and have a clear view of the mill site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-99 September 2003 1 I_� • .O e � , i VULCAN .♦♦ tlr SITE �.�s� ' SE 76TH ST • • �* i • 0s QUENDALL y • ' TERMINALS yJ 44T /4 0 fr/f • PROJECT F SITE • w , , ., , , ., . . . , ,,y , , , , . ,. , d N OTH 5 t.• ., 'G•`L- ST N 36TH .• s ill '+ n w • w (3x''' a• 0 c MAY;T . I LCREEK ' ,r.;.:, PARK:°ems • . NE 27TH ST 0. Gene Coulon' ' Memorial. y Beach Park Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) W Figure 3.7.1 , Viewpoints • COR-2 ZONE •,� � r—�. �_ —1 f—1 of m ! STREET A — „ OHW-------__ "1 Lt-21 1: " 1 '\ '''/ " -- ,;. ...A-. ' . 7 ITract„B„ c�O -.. ...- Water Quality Q G'� ' `' % kullir°'�', °'�PUBLIC LAND Tract n ,,cs� `,,. 1�_: - I Open ■ O � •� •� f f Space • /� / 200'SHORELINE • ', t a IL Vii �' //a JURISDICTION ' _ • ,;\ t BUER Q 21=t_i LAKE „,iO a . . • 'k - oHW . 1— 1,,,,/ c, M. 3 Lam_ '' .- � � 1 4�' / WASHINGTON - e . f gWOO Wili " • 1!. N // / . 7/ ( *:,ii,‘ A , / li F� i ,• ' E: 71 •' dim' 1 �°• ,� .a �A/ --.-.` _..•-•--._._._..__ ii / _� 0 * '. 200'SHORELINE 4 �\ "., " 4`` • e / , t�tt JURISDICTION PUBLIC LAND ,j c-- �,i , / • ,. •. m ����t i ' .�� � �u.osaeo l MAY CREEK F S DELTA \ . ...., fir. le 411 ! > -, --�R_a_zDNE___.........y.—...s� y. r ,�,s N 40TH ST l / Parametrix DATE: 06/24/03 FILE: K1 77901 7P01 T1 4F-3-7-02 Figure 3.7-2 SCALE IN FEET 200-foot Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction 0 100W 2 0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat The site is presently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the mill site are small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with very large structures. The texture of the mill and the north end of the delta is coarse,with large building footprints and a great deal of open area. The texture of the surroundings is medium-fine due to the small footprint of the homes and lots. Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and slope steeply toward,Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. The area is moderately to heavily wooded, a feature that establishes visual continuity along the hillsides and lake. Utilities are above-ground in the neighborhoods and along Lake Washington Boulevard. There are no parks near the project site,but an existing bicycle trail follows Lake Washington Boulevard. The visual character of the site is industrial with highly diverse structure types and colors. Most of the mill's buildings are low, boxy, metal warehouses, painted white or aqua. They range in size from small sheds to very large open-bay storage or production buildings. The old mill warehouse is the only wood structure remaining from the original sawmill. The 1960s warehouses and shops on the north part of the site are arranged on a grid, while the new kiln, shipping shed, and a small storage shed are aligned with the railroad tracks. There are large open areas paved with asphalt between the buildings. The Barbee Mill water tower (108 feet) and the sawdust collection tower (approximately 60 feet) dominate most views. The south end of the property is grassy and open with only two structures: the 1960s office building near the entrance drive and the boathouse at the mouth of May Creek. Trees and shrubs have been planted along the new May Creek channel. On the waterfront, a wharfing pier extends into Lake Washington from just north of the sawmill building, and remnants of an older pier are immediately to the south. From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to screening from tall trees. The mill site is visible through gaps in trees, but it generally is not dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly intact because there are no incompatible visual intrusions. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides. The industrial operations on the May Creek delta (including Port Quendall) dominate the shoreline and disrupt the continuity, and hence the intactness, of the wooded hillsides. 3.7.2 Impacts Both developments proposed will affect the visual environment by removing all existing structures and adding new ones. The visibility of the new development will be determined primarily by the size and height of the buildings, but color and materials could temper visual impacts as well. Five visual simulations were prepared (Table 3.7-1) to illustrate the visual impacts of the alternative from key locations. Depictions of the gross bulk of structures were based on height, building coverage, setbacks required by city of Renton zoning standards, and specific commitments to height and bulk contained in the preliminary plat application. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-102 September 2003 II Ij , 1 -i Table 3.7-1. Visual Simulations V:ew Location Direction j 1 Lake Washington Boulevard,just south of Ripley Street SW 1 2 Lake Washington at 40th Street NW 3 Lake Washington Boulevard at 38th Street,looking northward N 1 4 Lake Washington Boulevard at 32nd Street N ' 5 Park Avenue at 40th Street NW 6 Lake Washington near Clark Beach Park on Mercer Island NE 1 T,e following sections discuss the potential visual impacts on the site and possible mitigation measures. II I P oposed Subdivision and Residential Development I 1 e proposed residential development would remove all existing buildings and structures and would c nstruct duplexes and town homes of four to six attached units. The vertical scale of the proposed d velopment is about double the height of the majority of existing mill buildings with townhouses up to 7 feet (seven stories) tall outside the 200-foot shoreline boundary and up to 50 feet tall inside the b undary. Footprints of the proposed townhouses are about 70 feet by 70 feet, or half the size of the w ehouses. Building density would be much higher than now exists, with only 10 feet between b ildings and 15 to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be r ained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds and approximately 520 linear feet of p 'blic land on the shoreline. May Creek would be preserved and planted with native and ornamental tr es and shrubs. A new road would be constructed from the north end of the property to a connection on - R pley Lane,just north of Lake Washington Boulevard. F gures 3.7-3 (existing conditions) and 3.7-4 (proposal), illustrate the change as seen by motorists and c clists on Lake Washington Boulevard near Ripley Lane. The low profile, high diversity, and overall o o enness of the existing mill site would be replaced by tall, uniform, closely spaced townhouses. The v sual impact would be moderately high because the height and continuous massing of the new townhouses would dominate the street and block existing views of the vegetated skyline of Mercer Island . d glimpses of Lake Washington. The visual character would change significantly since industrial metal b ildings in the middle ground would be replaced with residential housing in the foreground and 1. dscaping. Visual quality would depend on the site and architectural design, but could be moderate if 1. dscape and architectural designs create a development that has internal unity and coherence. I i lividness for both existing and proposed views is low because there are no striking or memorable 1 f-atures. 1 F'gures 3.7-5 and 3.7-6 are from a viewpoint near 40th Street and illustrate the impact as seen from the n'ighborhood due east of the mill. Visual impacts would be similar to those described for views 1 and 2. F om Lake Washington Boulevard,the distant view of Mercer Island's crest would be lost. Farther up the i I 1 hi 11 the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings and portions of the existing v ew of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. This simulation d.es not show the gateway to the development or landscaping along the roadway, both of which would 1 1 likely be positive contributions to the overall appearance of the site. As with view 1,visual quality could i _ improve if the development achieves unity and intactness through design of buildings and landscaping. The presence of access roads and buildings immediately adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and the limited building setbacks provide few opportunities for softening through screening by trees. i I it City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-103 September 2003 1 II , _I 1i i R!P , 14— .tz " aFT w wig' ,,a- r`,, z• ,' -J. 4 i t < _ N°' .s a i'."'"' Si,• r} ...IAA t. . *'a• te `SY,.+ try. • ,... # '.li fit. s,:• s yi u A r btii x. , 'x+• '+-.i kN ",'S, • ,y<�.w ti 4 ' . ''Ap Y' • .l 4 id' ` . w v u i�yM_� 4 f' t 4w • mill <y, .4 . rwr ' sly �,' . , .ir•. `�s � Pei ° ,,i.,, 7" ", ..•. .., ems: a �M 9 �, '�'<l",s.•`, �, yi ..;. �. 'sway .., ..'� �' . •>"v�s . «�'S�'.a :act-.h = .� h / .G 0, ' r. :*.{ rA 5 '“,; "". ' '§, .� 's b .,,, may.. �E,�^" y `1F9,, 40, ...y ` ar r s ,wr^� • . E+v tell'- 3. ^ } v.^ f' )�';r t�',' ;'w '>irn 'g . C�^ z .. ... -,:t.i';': ,• y :'' .s,T,1...y °A' r'0, ,A r F A. a '.t y F l =v »,. die a �'. Y r' y • • A. ::ik,,,,,,,...ti , -.- ,a 4.• r1 �,,,meyy `d"" "f ..r• F'• '�r �. u'� ,M ', '�' xYsr r ' ,s,'� 4 • Y ' x s ' M. �. [„ t x-s f ! t "` rY 3"`rF '3, . k �';'.�. .:.,r.rrw� .. �.:.. t"` 7- ;=`- a r;"�' .:� � �-° - , ...x .. �.,;� �,.K.yyYY ,r*.. rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-3 View 1—Existing Conditions as seen from Ripley Lane C 0 0 _ E J O d N p. wa itt r1 �� Nam' ii• •' M L 'S, S 'sp x ` �Ky'i>.r��q�c �yz s,,`�gc,>• Z f� c t '7 r �' �' r. ";*'sip a fi ,. , 4 i a,4` `;"" } } .", "• �`a ' ^ .; 0 a �'• .. '-*'i'I Fa3 • ...-i W fi ,,4' 4 si V ��i"' -.� #` 'r. t , , x k �r.P, �y .-�.# did, T .;0 1 y F 1, ��°J�. ij il. '. i ^c • y,,kj, 5.. )�`°C }`r' L • ' d"i '`. J''`•� 4 y'�.' '� 'R+ J- rA• ;�'.•. •a ,. 'r• , ," a+"4..-1-^ t 'RN�.13'k t,ie'as."' .?�_lR f li+•° +aes° :,, '+.* ti°,erg rr 'S, ,t •'.%4�' - x^,.` :',,,,.,' t > 'r.s 'e. a'' —„,li.,:,,,s„pl47,..'";,, e'L‘ x 4 t 6• �#a.' ,':M" z.��';"wa .<•;.rs `,i g"f\. te'_' • 4 s 3 3 �ft f sa •• '` •. , ' '-, :':-' " '':::::,. '1.:','..',,,,\ ',. '2\; i ? ' ,-'.- '`\:',,-.,1`;,,,'—'7,-*-0.'1., t iti7!:'''''.';''.':..s' `:• '''':' -',.;, .''''''' '''''''.4":,.':*; r q•+ . ., tea ,. y, ,�.. e '.' - �. �1Y' � Y� �,''-'-,: ,•i.°..,:•_.�-,,s s`.,,may?$ + . i ma w}`. rM „ ,, +'• ;> »" r a - ,,, ,i a,,'' '. • .< , - ' ', , •'‘ "-•:-.''',:,• '''' '.':',_'';', . ',..''_;.0,4 .1' :•''z'.:r...\ •--y—-..,--.-,A-,:-- ,,.;x4:-,---,--2,1',—, . • "" ..—..,.__-......M._-..., .,F.,.°-...._.�....._... ....5 vYL-' t e ,'"�1 Z. T U . 4.. 4.I . • �. r, .. a+ ., ,;• � �f.,,.IW�' '��`.. • '. �v..a "K % w,; Gib xs �,�:, a.,c ,r - -- __- _— _ ___� sF =Y�S ty ra� N�u ? ;� . . -`3 :�$10��F,',sE 'aa t^ M .: �� 's r ,.x ;� c.. .m s � � .sy :�s,�%.r ,,��," ,, i .�`✓f�'� `M' 3 3 . J ;:fin k r i. �: •e a ',,c. a r*:a p , 1 ' ': .,rlie ,. z.7 K ,'w Z �'`G,.� fig , ;A: �. 1 r 3°: e"d . d. y,.., cr .ate.'. • k �.n^.os da.. • 0 ' 1 ,;< t: � /u, Sii 1 L �X°• s"?:. .a'r .�' • ,�} ;'. "tip �' - z �+. �`x . h;'�> ."{5,` r� < .* �`s`'s £' '1'y 4.,i. 2,'^.-. :3' .� tea. t„ a pia'.•'''. .N`, . "{ 3''.l •� e $ e1F.< F . f fi ,y d '1 '' 4 ^, ^y'n ;:::,-.,.� �<'v=`,.i.i.'' '� �§ 'q.` ;,'.'>a -. '..v 5..E• :,s�„s. w���'Es k"' +, r� �\:3 � .. � � ,�y04r °".'��' �;�: �, 4.h,� ,a: '� :�, �� ,. W, ,..•• • .. t > 4, ,,,.`,:i... ' ' • ,'. •.��''. '"r-;°�, s:t. . . ue•;` 'rcx' • r r; ' * fie.,� - ,�"-,.,.,,,...,.... �` ;r a. .:r•'z . .. - 4+ t, r.r x�. , .°. ,.x{' n'a 3p3 gF s " v {'; ley. y'rN ° q^ s � •,+' ...> ,:,.rr= lit ..►�..M �is -.,��,� ���asaz � �r ✓�� �'� �,rl� ] K <' �!^ A yxy s�' ,.:' ,� 'f>'. t a d•'z� r a 4 arm .„„6 "° f • rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-5 D -- View 2—Existing Conditions as - - seen from near 40th Street • 1 I . a) O L 4.0 CO t 3� • a y . l tx; 241. II AWvi ' `.* ':: s • ?>y€ .. . qt r A j ' t 3• y yY '° `3>'+d 'aPay z`' _ + t , 1 x .S r •Y. fr '•#:1 S ..sz ;. r y . Ev; ' ✓ 7 � k,'" •i A s , 4, � . t , a3 i isi" O La S �� � s "r r,.>J 3 1 At .,'a } Y >ttM :i $ = . ,, , ;,„b j ° 5 �, . : ,ia ., ' ,:,,, ,,a ,�'p .; •°°€ sc{, r i a t •... g' ° jt . jr x h 'AW 3�. YY.,4'1 i `�N,• ki ie o S .k': «°, • ,x F ,0 ',, y '0 9Q1, jet- s{.- Y k ". =W j✓� ">., 9 °r5�`r"" ;j';,v. �'" �t ; �`£#'s i't3'S�*"xs CO V/ ?'" lj f cN * ► are a . _ —- ' � k<_� as t� �k � , sv xa sr , ' . :.lZ' s, � V. � W :;.:',.:-‘.:.:,1:,:,-, . ‘.....' - ..e••'-'....,',;,. -:-- -;;.-•-•«444=;4.: (*'-=''''' .',,=''...,*'; 04:•• 4..:‘ ,..;°.W? ''''''',4"":•$4 'N'44=7*= '•=, '** 4 4,•1;i:, tel e • . ' a'« 't ' VY ' €a to ., d 'd PPP v �.Y;�:.�,Via, ` C r{_ F fir' :..,A.S .s :<a '. , :".•yy • ' i;' •Pis-A�:' ,Y e S�J e = ' ,, affi 1 a,8 <' C 4 �, yIR;Y;: ta.�a' ,,�, C�, o,ete ,��,EM g q; :T .- �� e'" Y p p`£+�.o, :." ®.,,e 7�i'°> tc,.��a�' xM'.,` a�' -" ."�, 4i• 3 fq; .R'n ° C&, ,,.;; '> e '+ .fir 4'T a> "i' o •a t ,x' °•a, _ xrasX1€ '..s* a4.s . s r� " 4 s :y g o ""`, 1 J,".°",.^.,M `' _ am . ` r{ S t :§ ",, m r ;rye ? r • • f a �,,z - ; « as f *174. n,,,;,,;r.,-Pel. '.4...... . .•'..' f+.2.1',1, i• it•:',i, � tip.• r* o f` w • ,jc' 9 t"', ,i ..+tsr :•r, .a •� F +r r� ��,y.. ,.-; t� m t o .� ' .r�ks`":. 4 ' "C s*.41' 1”dF#t `x 4'- w4E4• 7 � � ,', Q Z. 1 s ``.•, t �; t'' •' F i :r A', •: 1.A., Ga ter s U 1 4 • • ar II I Fill ures 3.7-7 and 3.7-8 illustrate the potential impact as seen from the neighborhood near 38th Street so th of the site. This view represents one of the intermittent scenic views of distant hillsides and Lake ashington presently available from breaks in the tree screen. The visual impact would be moderately _ hi h because the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and n rth Mercer Island. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that is visible. As with views 3 and 4,this illustrates a change in visual quality available to motorists on Lake ashington that currently enjoy an almost continuous view of the Mercer Island skyline and intermittent vi ws of Lake Washington. The scale of the proposed buildings become a foreground and middle ground focus, as compared to the existing sawmill buildings that are lower in elevation and smaller in scale. V sual quality is likely to be higher than indicated in the simulation because the corridor along May C eek, which is between 20 and 25 feet wide can support screening and softening trees and other 1 dscaping. F gures 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 illustrate the potential impact from neighborhoods near 32nd Street. The new d velopment would have a low visual impact because the site is part of the distant view, and tall trees o scure the eastern portion of the site. Both existing and proposed views retain the dominant features of t e Mercer Island skyline and intermittent views of Lake Washington. Because of the small relative scale , o ll the proposed development in the distance, the visual character would remain essentially the same. dditional landscaping incorporated into the development isn't likely to change the visual impacts much b cause of its overall minor role in the view. F gures 3.7-11 and 3.7-12 illustrate the potential impact from the hillside neighborhood southeast of the s' e, near the corner of 40th Street and Park Avenue. Visual impacts here would be low to moderate d pending on the viewer's vantage point because Mercer Island skyline and distant views would not be ,- o structed, but a portion of the lake and Mercer Island's shoreline would be. The change from an I industrial operation to a residential development could be perceived as a positive change. The overall b lk and scale of buildings is not as intrusive as for views from Lake Washington Boulevard,but is likely 1 . tI be perceived as a substantial change from existing conditions. The dominant element in the view will I , r:main the Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington. I , i j e most significant visual impact would be from Mercer Island and Lake Washington (Figures 3.7-13 . d 3.7-14). This would be a moderately high impact because the bulk, height, and scale of the (IL velopmentwould be greater than currently exists and would fill the entire site, although the existing b ildings provide an almost continuous view from the distance. Construction of new buildings would not I block views of the dominant element of the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual ' i n terest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the e'isting industrial character. Indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land , between` the inner and outer harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings. Docks, if provided for shoreline lots,would be a minor feature and not visible from a distance, compared to the bulk of the buildings. NThe view from within the development would likely be that of a dense urban setting. Building heights -- (50 to 75 feet) are greater than road widths (30 to 36 feet), creating a canyon-like effect. The 10-foot seand limit setback from the right-of-way and between buildings will add to the sense of enclosure views rut of the complex. Views across Lake Washington can be had from the 24 shoreline lots and other r sidents using the shoreline open space. Views of the May Creek corridor with an expanded buffer area , ill be provided from about 40 lots. About 48 lots will have front views onto streets, although 20 of I I , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 ' Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-108 September 2003 - . '4,.'w•,:i•..•;:311W2 ' ! -r! ; I 1 I , I ! , 1 fa I vs en 11 I I C ID 0 0 , , < IP 11 11 , ., . .,i, 13 Cn C .:) --, 0 •lia • • , ,,,,,,, ,,,,:;::::,,'• . . -,-.,-.,,,,,:-.''.,-.--:,•!,•r. ,,,,;',,,..,.;1,13,s,,,!4; tx) L 11 „- ...,,, .:„.„.... „., ••,,„;•.,. ',.:',:ist;k,.e..,..,, •r,•,,,..,,,,,,,,.' fr ,-::::';'''''' '''i;''"'''''''*,..... •i‘i'4w,,s;,, '••••V3*441i,i'"*"' •-•.,',. : ;'''''':,'•''',:',:,'"aWr,ii<,,,q0 ii$4',,,"" ,• -...' S('''''"n: -:,'':' .-:-- io:,<•,..',1v:I. c co 1 I ... ,A,,,,,„,. c , ,,,, T., 1-,,,T, : ' ;'-:.,::' '''''',;!/'"::',4:,,,'i,i:t :'1„1:d.'"..,.. • ''',:i.4, .',,,tV,Q,f'-':,:kl!'?'..'W!'-•?' l't :"''''''';,:":lg..'• 4' 4''''',.,:'''''''t,4"':i tra , I lr'4/0'''.'...i,i,',',...„A.s,.* . ",'''''.,":- ' t "%,..,"-' •"; ..- • -.' :;,,,•::"‘k ,-.- 's`.'i,,,2',,:;4-"i'U;"'-'••• '',,,i,t,:"24,it,*,",;.: , .'r•-itis,*1 /... i I '",1-",,,•:',':'`,": '2:,Z-..tti ‘5,:, :- ;-,:-,'.= . , ,,-:-.,:, :, .•-::'.'-, . .,.-.'keJ,,,,..',,t,'74,44.4', , :‘', .-H.N,- '.''d! '' i''‘',,i),,i" is. X E ' ) 1 . ,::0:.4,,,,y-t4,-,--1,----0:,.- .,,,,,, ..„•:- '-,. ,,,,..,„,„,,,,,,„,?-.., ,- °i.;..! , ,, ,..%7i.,1%..,,,.. ."C•',',....".A„:'''‘''- ...- '::-sSkr,i-,..'' ':'' 14',-,4-.4‘" , -;:s•...:A"?:: cij WI 0 _ 1 :`"i'.'"4,)";•'"' ",'"--,', '"'*$!`,,,‘„,,„,„•,,-is,',-,;,'"•'!: t '"'""‘",":-..-;,,.":...i,"'to':',, ,s`•:.: "•::!:,"-:;-4•,,,,,..,•:1,,,„.;:,.7.11, taio,, 43f,k6,-''''•,o':,f.,.•,;',,,,...' ',"-„,,;1:, t'''''`..4,ic- .. I u. 1,,w,7, -, , „ ==?,•.„- .• ': -« s—,•' - j i: '4,"514*$4!•;ift•f*:; '•:, ST'':-• •.' :),..':„'''A 4,,,,-,V,;:!::02' , . '','••!Z,':•?-,00,i''''••`•7::!)i• ,‘,.,,,,,4,•,,,, .•;*,,,‘,•,-.4,-.,•„,. • ,,r..!,„,„ w cr) 4— ,- . 1 1 1'704 4:;4Li10%,:4;.'',';,:'',''''''' '''''''.',, '''-':;!" .[':j<te!';'C';''',2;•;:,,'''';<<L"',.,,, -i'4,4?i'i:.:ii. 'ii "th.:44,:—:%$44',,, ,,;.:,, ,•„i''',..1:7„4„ ,,,,.T.:.-1%,,,A'-'j Sm. ..,,,, L ' ,,'it" ,,''„,!.‘,:n,:',:,,,'?',:0,;','e4,f,,, . '''''f'),,' .',3:;4*''''',?;tirli7117."" '.. sr:r•:,.3;74,P,Akt:',4:::‘ :,;:::-,..'e•'i''''ItV.': 1-.42:"?'''''' '''.'.„ ' ''.r,',' CD.2 • '''''''44'.i'' ''''''<ii"A'',,',A:,‘S‘''':'''' ''''''',;-?:'''':ii".,,'''':7":::',:, Y,"";,';':: ::,:''..:4*;fi''''''-'''' ,., '4:q''''''''Si‘‘t' '''IYMJ: i'I''',',,i''''),"'?"7:,f,' „ ,"•";i<, .'''''4'''.''''''':;,'A LE > CaI I 1•;-, r'' #"'''''„,'''''''i• .'„ ',"'.';i, :"::<,,7A9Iti:::ii*it'ii.,""!,•';,'''''' ' ..." ""r': ,,,,,,,,,Rt.1.',,,*,. , „, 2,,,, ,, ',' a,,,, ' kt,'', , "t --, 4,,kil,:,,'„.•;•'',-- '''''''7'''''S,','',4';'1,''''''-:'!`)",tt;.1:14t1":, ''- ri4 4'. ,-:::,''.."\*I, ''''' '''`.1t ''",‘'-'':':1,„a,,k,„4'4:'4, '''' ''' '' '';',` 1 i 1 , ,t1 ''''',1n7,g? ''';•' '''''' , '',440%',7,,,'":;;',1'''''''''' ';' '''.` ''' ' ".' t"hi''''''' , r" - "-. 3, ''''' ''"i4'..'. .... - •.'i;!''..,, , 'v . '- • - -'' ' "'..ret.44,,t1A-..,-• • ..„, ,,-:''''' ',41!''',. ..'---.'-',.:::"" ': ‘;•,,,!$':i,":,4‘t.:A%.: -f.1;,,,.., - ,..'1,!':,...,.. ..,Wpk .„,ily.*:,.... t.,.,•=:. „!A:,':,;:,, --, '..,.,,,,,-;,'". .1,,.?-,-*....,,,,‘,--,.,,,,,,,, ,,:, „ -.---,,,-. - ,-.',..,p,,,::'t:IS,;".Y,-'''''.,., - % - ;'',...t::..'''',6 'N.:!,,. .-,',:..P:-..:. •,.c.:.--Ilti--7 ',i'.',. -,Y,. -,,ilw • ,.1,,,z,..,21.-,*,-,,,,,,-;‘, :.-ik,o. ----. --,, f' ;,'*!;'::•:.:*"...."' *-"<i .. „' sit ii•,it,,i.,, ,.;•',1t;i_„::74',Nto,,, ,,, ,,,,,'•••,. -<„,', .,':,,,,,,, •,:„<4 , • :.;,,, „'w.,:y4,*•,„,- -,, -,'-„,, -,',#,,••41.„i4....4.0,,,i,'-';,t,-‘1*.,..t.-;, . ,:. .,4,,,I, ,4A-4..f,,,,,,,,,tr,-,„ ,,-,..----,,,,,,,N-,.,'„,-•,,,, •,,,,y,'• '.'4 Artil: . , ,,, t„-, - •t-••,,,,, •. "•-• '4, ,.t ,,:s. Ice,,,,,,,,t-,,,,,s...„-, : ...--.Vq,:zi:-.w,,,,,,, •,,,,' - •'•-",t,,,-, ' 4.''''-'ilvii:41;. '; :,,•.. ''''''4. 1,4', '044,, ,,,,i.,'',' „ . "i:i<iiii • ' . ;,1:r;: ,""*,,,,o0,;,,,tv,,,,,,'1,:+r,"*.,, - '''"'''.,`,:',',z•s. •s,-,`,:,,,,,...,t,,%;410,,,,,,, . ''4"::''NA:=.:•.„. \*. s, li ,...,-,,,,40,,,„,, ,,;-;,,,-W4:, „„''•'''`„ , :,t.r,`':1,,,:!•,-‘44,,'"'Y% ',.1,i' -.;,•,:a4,,, ,,, .' Aitpk:44;,',Z,.. ,.."•,•,,. yVi==*,:4,'„'tAw r%•,$,,,,, ,,,,, :?':‘,,,,.4 ',,,;:iit, . 2.,,,:, • -;4:.,. - ,:‘.;;;;-,!,-,'.';',:' / ':,''..v.,:r. '. 1.'."7i.„:„. '; ,e,,,rt-.,;vq‘„- .-,,*.A i:, ',.,,,.-1, 4i=•:::,. ........; *;*,ii*,;.--,-. ,, ' -,'' °f-lci.cpt. .. ' ,‘,,,, - ,,,,-,,,. .'i • ---4-• '.-,..', 1' . 11: 1;$.4.,-.:•.,,,a,t,,,,,,,,,,I t ,,,,,,,,..\?,,,,,,I,,,, ,.,..347,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,, , . ::,,,,,,,:. ,,,, , . : ,2:,, , , . ,: ,, . . . , ., ,,......--,...,,,,,,...ou: 4,,,,,:*,. .„:„.''',-4'' •i:,,,r,, .D.• ,,';1„..?I'''.,'",li<,..,1 i. i. l'1, 4",.,'*"4:i:<:-,,‘,m,„, • -,""''''' . < . „ ;' ,'' 04A7: ''''''',<Z'-.<VI .,*.•4,,,VS''' ii,Y1*;;4;,4k'''io''''''''''''4,:<A,"": • , ..i!!<<"4?'';''''', " „:' '• ,'''''i-•-,":';‘,'",":„? ''';t'''',%. .,, , ' „ ;,c,, iii 0, ,,i,,,,,,,,,,;4,it.. t•,,,,i,j;j0;',.,,,-4,-,k-fr-nr.4''' -4-fr,,n;' •<::',,A,.: - ."-:,,,,,,,, ,,,,i,,•••.,,,,,,,. -.-,-'.,:• „ .,... ., ,,. ,' , = :„-..: ,,.‘il,rittz:,-;•,n,,,,,,i:„..... ., , ' .,, ,,,,,,,„1,,,,,„,.,,,, ,,i ,,,,,,,... „,,,,v,„.„.„.„.% r4i,..,„..i• „*.,,•,,,,i,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,;:,?•;;;, ..•,,,,,,,i,,,,, , ",..,,, 2,,- • ..0.,;:,::::, 404,,,;(0. ‘,k. ••,..;x:,-,.., .,,, i„,,,,*,%-.0,,,, ,24i7,,, •,i-,',-,:,;,4,,,., ...L;',.;,:....,:,,', ...+.14.,...'... .•-•' ...,...„:.;:-‘,,,;:-.,,,.‘..,s::,;,;,,,„'f...,,,:,,,,,.! •‘,„,,,.: f ,-, ,,,..,,,,:-,;;;,„:,,":,..:,,,,: ..i,x•-,.,: ,,,,,,.wit',:„.10.;..t... . .,j: ..yyzy,,',',„,,..,...!..,,,,,...:=.,,, ,:„...4-,,,',,,:: ..;:;.,„i4 , :. , .:4"Z'aW'r, •,-::-..1.::-..:. , ':'''''-:- ' - :-' '', -'',',': ,.:',..;ikt r:,:l. ;,..' ,i ,A-,--,;!!'..-• ':•',,' ,A=',-,',',:z"*.it,:t:.-tie- *.tv! I . , :54,;,,,,1'.4''',',..'1',.' ''''',1‘'$,L :, ''',''‘:•., k:4:' ':„'' ,'''' ,''''C, '•,•:::: AP'ki:...'',.!: ‘i... e27..:' ' , t A:4'4'','' ''ktN;:*,' ,,,,;.7;',. .':',':. „ I . il#1,41.4: '' c ' „t'S, : ,, •''t,',/.47:kl'i ' ','' :1,?:'',,'::::'':::"`'.*:..1. ''. Tr:,i'', '1,,,,',k''',"ik :',A,:•,',°;,:z?,,•'!'. 5.io,„4„: •„,,,A,1::J<',"':':'',4•10 „:'1'4 , ''',11*,0 ;',',,;,:7;,', ,„,c„,„; ",„.$1%!,:-;', ,,,',';'„ ' .' '',"''2,i'''';<<<"<' r"-: '• ,",;, "<",„i'; ,,,I,M7fi::"'.:",,',:. ,,;i'i,',---, •c,,10,;:,•'/'',0: -.4:i,,'",442,t,W,! . _ ''''' ,,,,,lit,ii,;, t,t':'''' '''' .:::,:k'''''"' ': ‘'''' l ''''' '''' ' ''' ''''''S:7'''''.""' ' ; ''' . '' '1*';i''''.I4V4`‘,:i'',z•• ''''''' ',-, „;,;;,,'''''' '',:44.,t;-lit,*'''' !fi'"4",! ,,,;A:, „ ''<„1: '' ,• =,<:', , ' - '•'''''' .:0:;I; 4 2„P4",,v,„„ , q`''; ,',01,<,' ‘;',:',/',1,qtNiv*-1,k,;:,,, 4,,,,,' ',,,,;:i,--,i''' i'''Ibi-,:e;'-',' ,,',, ; '' ''',<,°;::. ; ' ' - '.' 2: •''''''': ; ;i• .: -'1"' 1 4`••r•x-,, ""t• 3 ILti ALVN "`:‘,,-;'„-4-7, ,, -4".'14'.2 '`‘,7-V.I' . .: t" l' ''44:•'k",,"i;',4;•', ,'1 ,,s';•e•"%z•zti;:;",;;;--" '. '' ''','.• : :::•-,''",,•';' ,",•".„ 4;`::!14. 4'',,ts.*A.:..k,,,wt.,-,2,,,-*,... %,....t.,,o,,,..s, • -•,,": -,‘ .5. •,,,, :',,,,,,,,,' .4,-, ,,,,,,,,,' ':•,,,, , ,,, ,-.,,,,,,.., ,t,,,, ::',4, '':,,i).v:,‘.7.,‘,,,,:1, r ,!--,•:•'•,.,, ., . '•••7,''';'•:'''‘'''-:': i :.:'•,:044 i'l ..11-••••••',..--,i•A„i,",'''''.,:,.4„,..,','1.:Ce`,.;',:!7'.,:: ' ''‘, -- 4,''-ik:::°°..., '' 't''''t'",'‘,',..'`.t ‘'',",,,' P ',''''''''''' '1: ''„ ,,, ,',;;;',: ,.!:;:i: o,.-,-ISr,,''‘'':,...;• '' t 4",,Fe•rtt,,,Nt,', , , t=i;ft5,::',4-",:;=;:.,=t.,:i:',,a 0,7;4 '' '4,''''','4t",',' ••:,,•,--t$''' 'Y,',,,'', ';',''',,,, ''' , ''''':•,',";''1'',•' !I'', '4';',44., '‘•1•' ';',N, , .; ' ,'i..-.', 4.-vi4,,....:,'.. • -',,,:, .....: '''' .4'.*\*'''''t ''' ‘.. ' '''', .' - ...',.' - . :; ,,,A,,," ':•..,.....-e,:--,,,:..,,- -:..•,...,,,„ .,.•,,, •,,,„,,;,•„.,T.,..,,,,....„,„ 7,.:::•,,.,,,A F', i ! A‘tit,,:"ft,,,S ,', • :, ,-%', ,„, gta„,,',°--'' ''''t''''.-• ' ' ,'' '''',, '7,'1,',,,:;,', ''4c,'',','''N' " 1."]'k.i A.CS'A' ‘,,t14,-^-'' ;,,t4,t'4*'ttf! -T.:',Atr-,t::"'"1 , 2i , , 4, t;,, ,t1r ,',1" 1,,,',..'';', tr.,1' , "'''kt',1i,' 1•••.1,1";Z",••••••<ii."..;;;• ' Wi,!, ",''''W="k7S1 ,;;,,„, - :;.•,,,,','<,„'„''. , ;'', , ' '',' , '', '',,,,'1-W 4ita:,,"37...,i-At' ,,,?;" •<',:' :":,: ii'i <" ',"„' ' ',,, '.'.g,-,.7',:i'y-..,4i,.;!,-, ••;.- , • ',:., •,,• ::„:,,-,.v, .,,,, -11:11: .,..„ ,-,..i.;,, ,,,,,tt,. ,11; •::', ' *''''.:ti,":;*, i'7:-::::, ::•.,''' '' ':‘: '.,':' .7::::i:,hg:t:,..,-Z.TrilIttAY.' 4tAkt-Ilk:''"'":tP„+,, :i ll,''k:::•:;',:1141W . '''41 t• ' -,„: ,„': --:',',- ,,,,:t:,'`,:;:,",••:,‘----.7:1%"--"`-";',-`' " .- ••:•-'2;,,‘"::.-7=1;:..t,61-,!.„:S;,"!,,:pi,-*,;.‘:I,,f,' --'4,'?;„".:f.A.,:k4.2/2,..4,:' :,t;::,,,it.;,*voro :° —;,•-.'`,6•:: , ' •‘..,,>,' - -,,,,''''-‘- ‘' , :-:.:,.: -•:;:"•',, - ,,,ti-.,',., , —.41. ..,..,4:—A, / ,., ,...•••k.14,..::: p.,,. •!-.,,a?,,, ,,o,,,, ,,, i 1% ,:,„,-, ,,,t.-4,1 ,f,-;,,,,J„,2 ,,,,,,,..: .,, -„,,, ,,„;2 i-!:-,',:opos.b,.... •-. ',,--n•A,,,:‘,..-,..,,4,:,0 ,. ---•.-4,• ---.,,,-,,;, s-,,,,4,,,•,o"';‘'.,•-4,T,$,is .. '04'',V-td't iit',%-''t '',''r'It,''''',,,4' ',-''''',,,:,f;7,.'t 4.2'''',:':: '.' ''''' .''',-, '''Itt A i3,4',< „,.,e, ,,c,' `,,",,,,:; ''',,' 'Ow."4.=, ,i'AV-' , ,i,'„,• ft,-t-,.'''iN4- . „.\'‘,?.,"` ' ,,,,,:' 10',it( ,'-',•;-:''','''','1r'','S ';:::1,"..',-;'''''`i' ':.'.,., :•<' ..:1.,,,':f*.i.7'tof ',,;,',„,-.,.%,',4,„"7:""".4", -,'' -,,'',,,,,,'W,*-71-k•', .k.,,,'," ,,.',','":At4 ; c 00.; -, :*,,,,, t „•,-,-'-'.„:. •-,-t:,-''--;-":": ' " .' ;••,•,'": ",,,-"::::',"'=,!.4"', ) ',,,,, ,' ', . ''• '':zi:•;'.'---,',,,,,,,,,, 'x'.';-•,', 4-4..2,',, '''','*, ,:. . ‘,•• '• '-', *-- .•- . ',„:',,,V:.,-*; P:•;:',Aroti;','1' ','(;:,, ,, ,,f,'';',iiZ.•,."1••,• :ft:2::*itS% ,, I,.'•P" ,,•14Alil .4!*,4' ,-",,,-,;•• •",4: "-',-;',':-..:::,;,•,.;;;.:/-•.•,•,'•",---, :.. ••. ,.-,-•i:ik ••;•,:•t%*::7..:•," 1', '"..„•,**)., ,,,..,,,,,,,,',. iiii:144,,,,A, ,,,,,s--.. -•..,,:.4.,,,, r 4, „..,.,-t,„,,,,,,..,, , ,,,, • ...,,,,. ,..: .,.., -: 4,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,e.f.,,,,••.:••.:• ., ,,,,•-•:- =,..; ',.' . ' ,,,,,,o, -2 ' 't',‘ ,s,';',',',',1, ',,,'4'.,'",''',;,,., ,-,:',, , :''cl..,'44:' ;'''',7; ,...N,,A4!... ;ii p--1 ',.',A, =, ,•I• '''',11'.":"" 4ii 0 . .•1:‘,4'-',..'i,--;Z:'..S: .•.:4‘''''••,-'-'' °-- ,•'4-,,, ,-:•',•-• ?:: '''"'' ' ''' ';'•; .i.:.,t,i'.:7',:..:.:?',.;-iltAtc.'14;,,,:46i 'z '•*.:,,,,.,,,,,,',..°„,,'-' 4:. _,. ,;•,',1:ft .... ,,,,''''''• ,'.:; .•-••••• .-,-.47'' 'n',•••': '',.' '-'ri',-.'.f .'.' ,.. .,:',;;;:4;:,,•:441' A‘,,tr,ctl'Aer.,%-,ki:A ;.42413,, ,-,- :...-_, I:''., ;a,!'".-.`-' ":°:::,i :',-g;','. .".::',,' ,,,..,,,,,:, ,I..-!'w.;"'.**A• ':.'",ki:',ZiA0 ''.; 1, ,:,:•' ;'4, k'''.' •‘ ,.;;,:-',1-i-<,,,,I$w'I'k --;:"tVii0 g Iti,,1;+t'i„s4lARt•-'1''',':4',1 t-'fi;?k.0,1i';'';t'''*'7::.-"'.,''.:,:'-•::•tV."' ''",•...',',-,.',,•.i & ',r;-,7,,.•i'..'-,'.,,.,;",'''';,',.:,"‘',`',,.,,."'.;',•";:,2,:,•''''r-'.,',',.-2':,,,'''k:''k','A7,'":'Qr'•'4'•,•'44,i,-•o".`,•,:c.M.k•".;,,:,,:ti•t'i.;::",0T,::"'[:.14,'-,A,,"k,.Z,k.t,;;i"4„'04.e,,",,.,.:,,'-.,:,1.44,'.,?:':,1:....."'"-',''!,•::;',:,,,' 4 •,.4,•":4,.".,,4•,j*",0X:''*1.'v,'.:',7,'i1r>.;,„.;,,.,'. t A,4:,',.rL,"':,1e':'.,"T,.;,.''N",i';'•.i,v,,f',„:,17.t...2..i;2);,'::,'''..,,i,.",,i,,t.1*4,::i,-t',l;.i1-i',i'.,'1,-,v',7,7-,V"V*.,',•,,•t.r-,4'(.7,k4'-;'-.-::,,ti:,'';2.,',—'•4-%'.-,'-'.",._,.1,1,,7'•'-‘i•,.,;,'4 W,x[*,.4x..:..41.4„''.„'t.,2.;..i.',,.;,t°,,'*'i-''4i'"‘'7,.‘'?1„,'i..."'.,).,.:.',,,',2:,t'-','4'".‘'.''.,.v•.:,'k,,i k'f':,4:•P i'4',<''4',_;.'":::''*•-,;4 * ; 4eN 6 m .,'•;;'• i'7C14"ic.•..=a2.6-.-c:D- -"' - i11 ,',,,..„-,:.)p -,,./41;:, •:ti'‘,&;,,..„ <„:4•4N'''' .„1r, ,„,;%''''AY:, '',,,',•":1;";,:::.",'.7•::; -: .1. .44,'',2_'<;,,iv--;", ' '' -"'i ': " .a.• I, Pf it'`‘c.';,i4::).41 '-','4 • '$;,'',,,,,,ii4.7.Ti.':,:t :Y4 '''' ).' , . I 4';','").;'::; .':::, ''','''• •'''S 's '-:'--- - 4-) co I I ! ! ------ ----- — ) !'Yi t j Ems .. 3i. •• P PYs ':Ka've+ ', '. >: w?A,<'.' 3 a1 �<:P'a <z,<,.. i°3Y" ,a$, ",..� :-��' .¢. ".. >�` �•Y'�. '• ,.'�'�zg�,,» +�', max, .. ° �",.� <., ='�, ,."'s ,:tafin <fi, %t4.n 9� .. sj • <' ",k&c, mr. fig,., A' "Fy !.(;`.:,.'.z. ^„f 6.; ryF .sJ;8" .;r; . '',,,-.. „. ' 'S <; a ...';', w. ' .7 „ .rya, .,; ,•�M. ' . -rr xy, a �p � .� r .."''''T..,' w <' '.) f „. . .° 'r 4, i' II *may x�' - "' q'' z `�S s sw . ,:.tii >��s* R ac" # t E� ;,'r�"•':' a. wx "' �.,w'�• tm' ^' -�"' +�',. c.t ,1,f, A ,ri1''.....!"a.>,r3"" .1' ,.�+.,pie. w,+ .„.) �. ,� c r y, � a ': b s r� � a Via«. :�• '";�'6. <�� <, :..... .,;err �; , s ,k7, : } . i': xt,�` +K- - ; a' ` �.,: '- "� r`" ;„, r; ,a •. .,mot. kt;. i fir' y D?i+�,,, w•z � fk "v ggit:l,rr, ' .�' >:> s! yy , !pZ ✓;<,y 4t.x.,° " i b )£' 6n .! ,I°3K# ".4` V ->a, V. "y'"` %=''#xi , :..c'. 1�s. ,., �-'",».-» "6`,�. ,� '"�' ,N,t„-'.3 "r�,: .: e5.:: `,'`k-T,q a t £a.,„%;" s•.< ' z-, '. �y � ''• ,' ,r,� h,,,,*A. e'..e'''...Ittii.4 °.,°.,,.,'`.,,i;,* 44,..-..',F44.4.1., ,,,, ...1,4 `' w F .,.'''r`'.�,rfl¢a ¢ 3• �. 9.., 4_. r" ei:r .r3Y �,�.. {n`'f�f� ' :dam"�� ''' q� �e `J fi� �§�vlo•s.^.. 'Ti,3�i i3 � �• �,e, i�AR;,�� j' � p ° ° »aka „.�_"' mr� *w'^.+.: zx" .< �r ''��<, -����dl�" °�"�°`� '` �'�- a� r sue" z ,�w"' ,� r ,0 ". ^ • �, > .a ,, {•`, " q "v- , i, i ' %�"e'. �s> . : <„� KEY`, ,.....r.: 'F":, .. ��d .ry .. -; 43d �'<E`s 8,..,. ./�" :, d V,°a° >x:4„'�tt'. ,1p 3 ✓ "s ,< '�-Y 4 'm '�t:l,�>r ,„:. . y;� ffis A ;, � '"Y '.-. 5 r y5 x "3�w.2•'. d,- 'A F *R�N Tt .,!.r 5. 'a:h E'r; �T ''b � in .✓8`> � N ma' ( • 'f:' 0.a ,� x y4 aka ." '�` a{ ,z✓ , ,kt Parametrix •city of Renton/554-1 n9-017/01(14)6/03(K) ak Figure 3.7i-8 View 3-Simulation of Development W Buildings as seen from near 38th Street . ..,. '.' . '• ''''''`-'•• ,•.'''', .',i'' ',.'.7.",,,'"4 -,' .,.. ,,,.' .,,'!.,,,,-,',,-,s,1.,ii,',,,-,',,,,,,,,,,,'.4.'•,,,;,.. '',;;, „,f--,,':.;,.',,*,,-,...,--,,,rk,';,;',:-,e,',''''!';, ,i;,' i);..,:,. . -,-.,., ;''',:.:,,":.,,,,jil,---„,,;,A,•,.,1,,A•..;,,'„':,::'4:r,',,trl,':0::, :,,,''.; :.","'''' ''',"fl 5'1',,: '','''''•::';' 'Wr:':•!' ., ?„",',' ,,,;=.::',•,',"''',. . ',!:'''' ''' :4'•::.' : V"`''''"1:';''' ?"f'3';',41•'r:'••:•:''','''')"",.?;i:Are:5;*:"••`":"-:.''"; •': ; ,'Z'' '..',, 1•:•,'•:''•:t• .':''!::,:.''::: ''.,.;‘,,,V;:•?"',',,..•'f•'. ; ,•;.: '••''..•,'„"':':,,, !",:',.2„)::•,g, :,,.,,,,,,4,,•,,,,,iki,„: y„:,,,,,,,,,,-,,i;-::,,:41,--„, .,,,,, '',,,:,-.„.!--,-',.,. -;,.- ,,1,-,.:„i','";?', „:.••':'''','",:1:'' '''''' ,:",: •',';„'.5"--,,,-`,,i!",,,V-., ;',,',." - '-- ". ' ..; -, ' '.-,v,"„..'4,'- ', '-- ','' -•'.' ,',• ';`:. -:' ','.::::,", ;1,1- j k7',''.•''',:-;.•',.,'k"''•'`"--'; .'''',',i-;‘,„"''''-‘',•,f.t.,"Ni:r .':,'Y-! -?:,,,,l.i'i.,r,..'.,;,,,c-s::5V, :i„,4':.:V',,•.-; A.. vV v„'' „-!• 4; ' c:4,:;;';,;';;';;7:',!,:%'-•i-,'.,-,2',-';,",,','?-.,„:,','::v,,,:,/••:•,;;,;,,,,.,,,,.,g,,,,,,,,i'--,„::i v„, ,,''•1,,,,:'-.;,,,,,,,,,,'..- * r3A c1/4V ‘ , , '..-', ''-/'•'';- '''''',:r,:,'Z'°'',,'.,'':.-',.,','''°,,,?1,,C:'".(,.•'„."..,.,,':*:;:t•,;:.•,4.,•1:''::.I:•'i'-';-:',',i•,'-.,,:.'':,.,,:.'.,,',;,',`2...-,,1,:,:.,,,:..,','„,.',',,','•:'•;,:'„',-.'/...,.,„."-4,;•1,''„5'-„;„,„,,,.',,",,'::':,'•,•','.,‘"'-:',';,,,'''_:'-•,•'':'''4,- .^,. .i..,.;,,!:,;": ,,„;;V- ..'\,:..•‘c.A/,,i'."v,,,,'',- •",...,' ,,..'" ,', . :„ '";t:„''•::':,'--' : ' '':•' '" :2'2''''''‘''„S,:,:,';•';':."'''.'•:''''•;,.;,''': 1 :7'''.",',;,,S,,''''':'''''''i ,i;;;,,,, ,,,i0'4.,'N,',1';'f'2,!:-,.'f ....:' -;,.'y'2.!;-,,'; ''',, -'.; .'!,,; ,'"':,;",',1 ';,;',,;‘,`".„,„ '',", ,,-,V,,"-..'•',..,".,•,',„ :‘ ,„::: ,,, ' ',. , :. ' . ;,",,'".,..v:,,,,,,-: '',,,,.',. : F,,:,-,•,,,.;.,,,.",-.1:1;,::-';" ,v, , '.' 'I f7',,,.-!; 1' :-.'"""-"'''''','..:!''.'1:-,'.- '' --:' ..1.,', •.', "•%, :,,,i.% .',X,'..,-- •-. ' ':', .,,:'- ', ,-,-, •,;:' ' ,: .,,' ".• -; • ',- .`":,"-' ,..--.1 ::;04,1',,,,',,,,",:. 2--:.,:., ,'' ,,j ''.'.', .,' ,:, ''..;•:,:, :-,",.. -; 'V,!, ' . ' •°°,•.' ,,,.-% •-; :\/';', .. V ,, : ' ''," ':,.;,•.':;', ''',:,-:-„ ' • -,-• --'g • ",^':::' ,'- . '' -:•'2,••=,','N:1 ' :' ,, .• -.-•.,, ,:,=1 ' == •= , • -.•=.= '''=',"-,,,,:`,,:,=-,,,' ,•.:.., -,\!•',' .,.1 Nir-T'1:'''''';',';'=.,,1,:'&A''':''' ,==',..it ' ';''''' ''''* '''''''',• !,•""=',' ,,;'''''':::‘,-::: : . ,',i.,-;:', . „,, ':- • ,,'.,..-f'•=•. , ' ,, '2' ',',' ''''- .. •. '•'==';'‘.'Y'::'--''.';':''''.1;';',;':,; '!., ''''.. ,'', - ',:., : '''l VAZ,Ai;441%4-r;;;+:4Z4t4'''''.,..,:;;,‘ ,''' .\'-',7-.,'" :';',:;*: : " '''''''.; . 'i'..,,; .'' -:'''H ' '• '"' - - -:- .'" ' ' " — -„ ' ' — .2''''' ' ''" - . . ' ' ' 54,4Ht'kt-it*,'ti"ZI•ii,4;444;CN,•'_.,,,r''-:,-'."-':;-,, I.':,-''-,'.,,'‘'' 2 '', ...,•, ,, ', ,1'..:•,':::,:!,',;!, v •,'.' J4.-:.'- ... . >-,',-; ;',:.'.:•;':.',',,'';'-;•,?-•„-„•-.,';•,....' ,;','.•:'-.: ,'.''', '‘.:;-.--r''•;-0,,'' '''''''-t‘'t.,-. -,-;.4 3'vtt:;;,;c-.4•414';',''''t• ity•'''''•V-!:-;‘--- %..'1/4tC.,''''''. '-',„'' '.'.' 2 i'i' :I•'.'i,,,.7",,ll.2.«i:: ,;':',,- ::"'.:•• • '''„1,',; '.„ ':-‘,-•'.,- '„,„,„--. :':',„:,,,,:'',';‘•,r::•-- ''-::,','"1:',"'',''';'.-' '';,...'"41:".7.; P*:;;;,,,,VV.:`,,'''': .,4'A.4.,:.11's.t.';,4t,:•;,4,!*.'''''' ;,,.;'..:;'" ' '-';'•:-i;' ",,".,:,:',.' . ..2 . ;'''';': ;;,': :;i1''' -,ss.,,„y, .,-,41 v..:*; -,.. • .4*. "''Og '74,'"* "7'"'N..,„ '"'" - ..-" .,.. .- .:1.--- •-•,;''' ' ,;"'":, ; , „ . , ' ' v,..44.*;:" '''''',41.1.4";*,,,,iiit,*;...-' 1.'‘."..` ..,,;*'''''' " ' t,,.'. .' ,•.„,., ' ',,-7*"7:1777:',,:'‘...'i ' -'-- •,,, . ,,• ' -,' , " :-- '1 ; ' . :''''.',440- -, 4''',/,,,—'vq,"•?• : •• ' ' .w.:•.:•i4k2...„ ri:ii,f-41,u,,,,Af7+'r-3;.,z---:,.., -,,,,,.',0,i7g. :-, 0'.', •:,A.''. '',, . .',",-„:2.- -1-',,,,'''....;••-•„,„- ,2'.:" ,- ,'--,,'-',- .i.)..,r..'.4.14:',14.4!(.. ,•--'''''.."'=-`:*-. - ';.44 0 ..4.44 ,!.,,, ii.:4,i1:v-,,,, .."---':=.,,: . 4,.$ 4,..`4,7, i:g:.tiV.A."."-44: -; ';'-'1",t1'''',.,-,,,,,4,"',:.. ` ,:' '! •Z: ....1.4'.-"rs.,,.: :3'' ''--:,''.''!'-'1!r: .,",--,':!:,,I, '.°--..E4,1,,Vz..-?-,;',:-j,',i4.''.4.,v.:> ~,,i..1,,,wz.,..4.vt*•-:4.zii,to4•'''*tf' ZAt".":04,!,*4‘,;.'7.,:'.-',, I.•.'''':.• .'.:!f.i- :,;:';: ."!\ ‘."..,..f''.v. '7;4*". ',..":.^;.;•1'-4,...,. ' . ' •2':,".!i:''' 'Z:1;I''';'I''7',1'.,,,..'d 4,1";•!..".4,7-':"!II,,,:1/4 r,:':* .1 z"?..4.44#;-k'".:, .i ik:, ,it,1 Sg.:1'.; •4 !!',•:‘,1‘.7.:,',....,,,‘,..,..1,, ''.! is, „,,.• :„-s..,„- -.,4,,2.-...„*.4.,•:--,,,i.'1,-;!,-.7:q.:4040,,,F•tt,( :fr!.'1.*`...l''.":„.,,,z; :'-'4,:tik,,,N;Ait: 4.-:,.,-;,'..-'..44*' ?i,'-x'Ai-;?,- '.1C-..::: "..4'.A.?..,,r,, - '1, ':„.,,_'''...:-:;,,,,,::,',;.--r--':i;--40'.4,-,,,,.....-Itx.i4 ‘-!.7,:.,--litrii."-, --.'J.24-;-.----.. -.-.-f..1.-:-.<4.r4,6" .,;•rOi-A A—--i'4'''e--"0,?,7.1.! ';'`4„* .,:;:4.0%.1., '* 1$''' 1:44,,e1t1S.N.t41.4e‘1";-,;- %;,..'' :. -1-.. 4.,,..;YATgri,vol :•4-4.'spt,,,,t.-:4.•,.J7 7.7-: '4'7:./:';,•,.... ..v..,,-../...:-e;'--...%44.4?:,,,,,,ti-•:-.1-k4ttr. :47it--4.A.,,144..•• -", ',..--t,..AA.:4;,,,..,-. .,:.- -..,,-, ..:'•,,,,,:f.*;', -,,,,,,4:' ,:-.,,,,,,t ,,-'-4:Yria.,:1,-.•;i4tilt 7z..:`,.„,,,r:r.1.;a.;',..: ;, .':,,,,,„?,'..0' ,.1,----,-,--=' ,,i",s-:-.---zy--i.;-,,•,:..4Ai.;, =0'41 ..7:0. :,,,,,,. .„•;:.:4.„,„. ,. ' ,,,,,,,,,,..,:i1/4. -...5s4.4..r.,,,,,:.., .,,,,„•,.:;:,:.,, :,,,,!.,,ir n,„,,,,,,,,,,,,45.).,„,ii:,,,,"."..4,•"::::,4": 0.4446*-,''-";• ''''N-",‘;',`,:40"•:'7,' 1,)".'g.,,•*,:,•,'/'' • •••:,,•:' - ',, ..• .r,?,47".4.14""tr.': $01!:....-:••• yli:;-'. - .,:t. 4,,..:' -c-.., ..•,.. ell, - lr',...• V---;14-4: : ."... :, .;.:, ..:,,,' ''74''''S'''...t 7- ' .). '',.„- he ','%,, ,i1 ' tk-,':e• ''1,1,6,," -'-" , 4,...,,,to s.,, :,,,.. . , of,„,,,,r•.,,,, .1 ,...r.........•,, .... '''''• :. ,: 4,1.11.,,,',',...,r. .k..:,..,;:-,',:t>.; *-'s,,,,,ty„,,,;;.,-t?„..',,,,„:... .,„,,i",„- ', ,.4• .,.. -1,,,,..,. ‘",.:.,,,!;•.; -...----'.':.ipp,' ./.,te,e,..A.: ''' ' •"4',„ ' r.'',-...,;,,m. ,, _ 7,7,-,,NAt • .- - 14, .„. ...,..._ ,, - ifmr ,,,, ,. .• z........--:„. .., . 1.,_. lit • '.'", ,,tof..r. a k-1*- '.;.1 4 4-,,,,j0--„, _,t-,-;-,::zik:',,i•• :y,'p,‘,::' '. t;,,,,:•/3,7*-,.,,,,‘A„,-• ::i,,';,,,,, ,,,-:„,,,,,, ,,-.- ‘E:-_.-„„ ,,, ._*,:., ,„...g,:-.:*. ''.2,....,";.,,,,,,si-,:i.,,,„,1,.. .,-_,, -.4401.---- •,.....:- -,.,.. -ve.)ip f'l ;44"41,,,!','1'.: •:•••,.,,f ,',,,-,•.',1‘,-',• .-‘)*'1' .%,,:,:,':.:1,kf,,,t 1 ;2',,,,,,."'t,:‘,;,?.,,,,-,-,-'-:, ,,,'''2,:;'--1' --'-:, '."::. i ''r. ,.,, ' ''it.'1',:1117,04,4.1._, :1;a'E,':,>4 „amp,''''''' : ,,,,,,..—?:' ',: •L'''1,z'''';';''.4 it:1',,:' '44;;:i.'''51:44,- ...f."::',''‘% ! ...';', '47,$'S''''''','::' 1,''''.''''';':,' '''''''':::'::::;: ;1,, 4: , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,- t,;`''''''';';'"'47.'ne',. .';''''':2,,,64:: :'':,*' ' '•':.,?.: ,:-‘ ',''22Z-',,,,,,';",•!,,:- ' ',;.:,..v:- ',:•12 ',f;,:ci,'..:V ,',,::-..',';',,!4-','-,-.,'4‘,-;'''';it;:i''n';',..'::'''.'''''''' !' :". :. :••'1''''ior.-':',"'i,,-;,-1117.'',z''..Ay--.04-3.,..,:•,:m:„ .•-‘41,,,,,,,,1;.‘„,,,,-i'-:;-*:':,71.54,'-„:,-,,.-.'``".„-,,, ,,,;',,'; ;,‘'t:1•-',,,,7,, ,,:t),.:::,,*,:•14-w,-,,,:,,,,,,,,,:::, -iw ,',,,,,•+!..:1,-•':' „,::::'—‘,...),,,,,,,,-5‘ -,,, ,‘',.„ -,,"-r,r.:::•,,, :,.1•;s:4'.,:''''''=f4::2,4,'..te„:44.-1,k,-rti,-44,---,:44,L-,--,,,r,j„i-,:,,'‘,T.,,,,,,,,, 7;,,-,,?.„, - - ,,..:,,,,, ,,,,,,:.;2,-,t,,,'-'33t7,,,,,i!,,:-,;:cq,;;,•:::,';,,,,,,• :',.;',''•,;,.-,,,,,,,,,A, i *• .-• -,:;:,, :;--',/,v,t,„;,,„1,',:.:4;:„,.-:„>;-,_1-7,1.., ly,1,1,,,,..e.,-,;,;.-,' .".,,,,,,,..p-..- .*:412.--,-:‘,,---',T 0,v•,"''. '''".P",%4%4•5,-.'''';!1' '1,44.:-',..,'' ' , ',v-.'.v-,,,--'',:v.---,,,:•g, :: "i.'''' '''',-",•,'-'1,S,:k T -'>:""'''''.!a'',$,"1.",4` .."- '''' '':'*''''''''' 7;1''''.:i'.,*'''''' ''' l''''''''4,''''':;,;','';';',) ';''. '':,''''''''7,(4,44 ';'...1. .114,"' ,''''''.",''',;,k,,,,Y''':';,'.t.'„ J!",''',*'1''''*'$'.'''''' : '' ' .'.'' , '',,'.; . •.,4,.',,,,•1,-.•':,!1,,,,I.Zii,,,,,,,,,, ',',,V„,, '.',,:,,:,..;;;,..».1",.-., rf.:.',,,t,,0',,-,:`,•,x, "-,',:-, 0,1•,,,,,,• ' ''.. ,1?',#,,-,.-,'" „;:.,-'-ti,,--''A.,1,,J,-,,,,,-;-`'..:',i4-•.r •' - '- .-'-:. ,'•,,,,: ..,or ; ,, ,A A --t;,„,,,„,•:- -,06, 1„,r,.•,:.,1. •-,,,,_„,','",(4,,,,,I,A,,,,„i,;*„„,, ,,,,,,,:,,,,,37‘;>1,4,,,,.-„,,A„: ,-1 - -i•-,•• .4,-•,!,,z,, - -,, -zt,,,,'.' .; •: ' ,TP.:'-, " ',''''D'-'-i -''' ''-' - ' ooptegyie,,,- ':':----'-'- '-- ,.>./ii,:=,,•:' •*,.- -. .--...1-;,-,,,-,,,-i'„, aAt. ,, i, .,„-,.....-7-tc„,,,,i ' -'s - '`-' -4,,, ',,,,t-o' •,„, 4.,..1a, -si-ki- fi-,,,b, -,,-,' .-:4-,4... ,,,..t.- ..., . - , . 4,-,,,,,";*;«?,'- '-'el,,, ‘,),!-'--'..- ''.'N' '' '',, " •,- ,i,-1,-er 4, ..•,:,',,,,,"t:•.'i•3,.`',.,^„.;.",..,',.-„,:,-,.,1.. ',,,,,,,T4 wi-,,t,,,,, ,:,,,,„.,„,,,,,,,,,I,,,,k,-,,,„*,,,,,,,,„, , 1,,,. 42vA.,.!;',--1.),-- -,,,-.44v---.i.iii,„,,.-'-',7!,,,,,,,-,•,:l.- , •••,.,:'••,,-,-, - .--10.kr-,,-a.-.."7.„:•:.ti-- ','.,,-„,4„-,-",',V" --•,,- ,„ 4.AR:rm-i.,,, 5„,t4f :::-:,;.:4.5t,,,';',, I:::•••',41,,;s:,*:, : • . ,, ,:.,..:',';::NZ-,;'' -':, ,•'-' - ":•;:?1,•''':*,1"..../",..../.'''': .'""4:A'',-:.:t:',1' '...;•*:'': '. '‘,^% '•"•t" . . •''.41,:•,,'."•:V.,Ag•?,,..):•Ih/ ,•••Nfg."..,--",44" :4,4 i!'":, .,,?;'01, '.: i,;•,''.'2?,, ',,,: . :. • ,,,- ,•,',.4:.'':, ,., .";.,,,,,‘,2....'''."?,•1!:,4 :i,:•„011,,,-,:. ,::'''' ,',4i4,,:,,,.,.,,•42,„4,:::°'•,..,,,,,,':,•:. •,••.,•.:,:-:„,..,2,-,,,i.,-,0;,-1....,:',......ic,- 17 '.:!,i,...,,,,...:.„,,,,, r, ,_.,,,t,p,...c.,„ „.:.,. 4- •• ---1 , - • -'-'• ,- ,:°' .,,,,,0 ':',, -- , ,•••••e-----:' •• ,,.*. - - --- ' . , ,-.• •7.7-74,-•:-,,,,,,,,,:,:t.,,,,,,,„ . !,.:.;.-:,,iO4-fsiAif:z4, * --...7,,,,;,-:-;•-i:P",.. ' - - - 4:1', • 4,,,,f,...., 4,7-':°' ,:.f.':::ii-,..,,',,,,•-0,...- , '...., -,','„#•, -,t;• tz,t,,/.-.,.„v'.:', „;:„ ,,,,,,,e:,,-:P, ',,,z&zed,f:i..,-',,i;-;;P>',',',' ''''' ' '''' - ;0'it.';')i:: - ' . „4„.,,,,'„:4-;1*.ttin,,,'!:".,,,!,:,,,i.o .';';--,,'"'' • ' '''""4"74'4''' . View-f4r—oE-mxins:elanr..,g3C2on,dndSittlreenest as rarnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-9 ; _ . — , ' • — • `ne 6 �yyL•r..`,,� ?,�,,,. i°-'.'as,.35' " '9 br, • . ., ,r 3 y'' ., ` Q : c � " t r a= "e. ::fit"• F 4 w j • 'S;�^yy.�,��4'^.74 _1 N'.'11..y x ;,71 ' ,-y` a °•u� ".^�..: .}may ,,„7, 4"� YYF'•>•• '+'•'_ •e G. - r" `�.. �d, -*r,P,:4Y • '�.. ir1 �nc2"'t «s"`"� ,,�_ ;y>..' 'i'»!'' ��• •�° .:ti�f". H �f:, •�"r:a°``^ - � "Ms ` �.e: .r6.-t•.. •r "� ,°s: . c. uj-�:nay'"^:' y\" .,- `A :�� '?s�:' C� :• .�1 a. ' 't'k'y�`�fi,"'- '4..r«.ki vr, +5� .z t, • a ")'�••a' ',� + ,c.. sy�1 r 1 r .�+� -.t" �. � � 'a• '�: :+ `� +° r m.x., f.f•-- � � YgJ,�,., t+Yrf" S �, i.f: w' 4 €' x ,•-- yt' rz. �'9 E �,a ` x^+ 5 . +. y ¥,, ''r'1676 7¥i.'!•�` ., . 4 6. m,�' -+3s 's t;,S, •gr-' yci ::rs ` � '7-7'SF4.x'0VT,A- ->} , t-\.,.. a' t (✓�'- .- �ssk3 '�- - � F r' n" �"Y'' a''`2s » �" s��� `a • +em s-'C� '''''s. '7"„ryes alx.:E� Y R 4,-.—..-., 11.,; s--,` e - *•• .ram.."" •w I ;,.,5 ,.1 �3', ,,, 4„. t x "�',•a' .: 77.64; 4;1;1;.T'...- ...,rv .....-".» 1t'4 ' uyW. "3Y` 7`sY t . .�' � ' ,.E n+""Y 1.3•T,r/' ''.:AVA;1 14:',/. ''')..7: 0:1 A.: 'i /:,.. ;.0 A-., . , ::,vb. -..- -- • .;;;"Alt:'''''*7;44,1',.. .16,,,Fifi... .t7:4:4e47....41:, �� tt��� �. � �� � U�ls�` �` -'." ,C -* ..Yw ��.' "s `�` �. �.?. r•9'.xw i� : :�,Y'`"' ......, ,,, ,., }. �•k'AE f T .k ��. •� ,.�, , K K ^3 �.'"' h t .r � � �. � a T,Ys ax".KKc%maw"'-s -A �'? ,k '.. .s".r G{ -r1.-16...4fd ,.rx r'"r'."�ak_�94..+ `5 f "':^a- : ..sa A.*,{. +e—., y , ±; .q,;-, 'ba `xti� E,_'�� � r'� : :+. ,F�Fv4� � .._ e',x�'•� -t3r «sc:�.¥"•i.. at^'+ri~�.�El�a.._ _P:... Pararnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7.-10 View 4—Simulation of Development �� Buildings as seen from near 32nd Street w.. : .. . ...... __^_._. . .. .__ _47-e;=r" --,-,a , .u: :A ' 9 ,s L { � t� r. arm y e .<'a m°9. "f,�" Ny°< S"-r x� -rt i� „3 vA. ^So- r'v�. F i, ,¢`aYH -fix, �'a NY a'>�, „p c ,,F t,���p +4,....-=�:.v . -• W° /' f kx 4 .. ". cs # . �n •_ ax rk , �*vti- t" acv t fir°"e, y�ej c r �' r _ .x •r' Y+. _ fii x. ,n�`„ 'Si lf �li�S:.:s� a a.� x X11 _r it "n: iy ' .- �, y ' f 4 'tv '' ,.xk ,.. �` `; 5 1 xa.ira �t a' "is 1a F j . e t� °'2,2 X'- �,,,. f�." - . . :?-- ✓ _� ,x 3. • ;� '• „":_>;r.7... `- CS. `.sue.': � w .,� X.. a s yYy'.d s" aT .. - ? j: C.''vt 'f -1`:`.` � � — .;� .ram : 1 g ' ,4+ i'3` % 4 r,. 4•, ,�,yAt 3 °? i>..,‘,..;.;," ;."',?, '"`�'"'"n!"'•' '3: ' r £ . 1.{ } � ��Y.` / J Y't,. s ! _.• a ,"" a '� µa� 't .,.r'a'XI!W> 4Y a ,�Y 'k•s�'€ :.f N 4+f5 ?fff . `�' .rpFiW" '.;,, -41:•,. A .. i'; `" , rx � ST '«�s. }rr, �`ax'}. F y: y �` /`x r, d r 'q, E ,. r i`. �. . u .A'' „�.,j e y ' y#"! ,ro '.i °. '' ":-,A,rfit xt dt F*" '",,='' „t : t' itt . V",, ' '""•:0 > _a. y i i,rak :- f e €-''t ,x -s . ;tq. y t -„I'gVxw"`•,' h', '""r -°3''.;� .'.:.,«"F,{i,,>x°§Y M�,,,r �� 2 ., k,; 's°'� • �"` :; • .^ ,3 • a r :`'• • '.is a 4 �r .• . 4 -,;� p..'P• s *�k'`�b as q �" '°ft* Y - '' s '` ,.a' ,air _ 4• .�"€ - rtjliklA 4., ' 't: `s - 1r F ✓'a, Ap -:4y �r:' 'z•. y >° §'`<: �,^ '#'. ' .: �c ` r �•'d',r,, 'ro " PI ,r''' €'* x, 4F r 'CF" ', '1"' e�' 1' f :r'. t� `• a 1°h `} :,'E'; ,4 5, ,, „ fi; § g ,fix.`r ti- .x�.,. s`' '• w,, a,, w , `.`ii°, x «k : y. £ #0,40;^. x:� `.,�i ! wr,p z:" '%" "an s`'y- 'a,t r •rs l,i 4' �'. .. F a� �^ -,b^ ak & .� ' ',i; r a �J`1 14`§,;x 1' ' } > k,,f'. ,z49 y ; - `xa �{"`' -,� t'..i�"".! s-• -3,�`t„.P' A '' ,y' ik- .-%: ;.` A, sf:fit.. xt °ta g',,.: W ,Att;t6,0,0,440104.,1 , Zd€�r;+ r �a. �;�''�'r�f� ld' n �+�' �°, �. ° x r1 x� � -i'? '.,,axe x.r"' 'a € � � f � e r �# .4 ��.��, �Y ♦� ��,.,. � .� '^Y i&*�F°:*�. ,4��'4"���,sT�� ✓,� d.�, .`j'v ff�,,�`C .'��' �r �r`,z ,r. ' '' � � 'C=� rye �"�r�-� t �n ��� �." �� ' y��. �l� �'- .�.. -*; r5��a�� �'� �"�.7 .••!a .� y„� � �' '� .��`� «lx ��yf,��.� � 0�x.jj ��t 'irG �'°r ja +S '>€)^' �,v��a��'.,'�..' xf .Y7"'�^ wi N`"��z .. t. /,-;44,,A tY F1.,, - 3 -.,, S€ t „,....} r ::, t ' �&`r ta;.j;',,r'a.a _, ,f: f .a ,4 e.' ( , Y ;a-t ,p4, ,•"-"C�'--:rc PjQp . ��j, F : , , any(,$t s i s} )kl* t'YV ''''' f rT` j` "". i '7� R` /(ft "€,.fi + rxi ":."4�'� ii . itrP",'... ;, Z 4,,,i1,4,,S;r::-., . ,-/'?„{. _t•4, _�.s.; Y l.s "t :,may,^5"E,j•+F �t ttax� .9Y §y' '�' § z}} i 3..�4 {t�'.r '�. � .t��i;.''«.+j.S�M i i •^x*;',:• 11 1 . ° , * tie °5'� i.' :� d�. �rf. v S "l 5 �..0�t✓' d ..,f't €°'.kw' t` -'. af'..t-eT't' ...x .:a rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-047/01(14)7ioa(K) Figure 3.7-11 N - w-5 xin � from Park Avestinue nearitions 40th Street x Syr. >.d." •• d• c � SaSf ' L ap . '3- Y'y", z Y.T./�4, 'R'»'<^ .SzJ. '',�. '�'d""' '/,� „r5s �:Y'eN,/y' t"y,x{ r/`x' »fi y., �S+ w�, v;ty+ »r^ .6- f' s` • ram'" ry• t '3n Y. ei f ,� '3'. ,;E.o �.„'f.�. ,Y. •S. =.A '�1iF'h,4,','2 m:s},.y'r',..r >� --,,,,S "- r1�. 1 'h " . i' c 01ee .—'4 ca. W :` JB ,r-:,,i. �' `�� x 1 " � s .a b'a �. �1 � , �. ..r y t x e �..r F. ..,:'�``" h'.;7''>t rz`��c', <"71 'k., 4'Y.' „4 "t�. ..,,i, 9 $ ar„ ,:. +sa, '.i ate t ,w t ,, .4 ;'.. /,.w� ;~ f , rE . ', w m "P, r .4 . t • s s a s r n �' S N .E3t'� r � k .�„d,'a"*�`"t :. .. Asr?M* *,{ 'c * ..,,y� "' tee ' ".. • SY 'Y Y I'9 4 5t . 7ZS�. �' "`..--. • '""'�'^' $ '"f r 40i!_P "art art�< � , ,. ,- - f` .. r . 4 , //w '�' .ym, y - V . � ,ial �`i-�� s�•,,,'��'�.aa �'�� �}�'`+. spa t . ��a� .'�+�t '�`�esg�r��,,rc �'„`'� a?, •?,� ,�.�-a �' 4.a, y z� • •✓,�:. 4«s # a ' ', ,;., .... 144.,, J y y ��,3"F "..s� a " ,,s, air :,' .-x,�: t; c .z,,t y.,...., v, .,""'x i:.. 0.v< •, � ✓ ;it. .,At:'!`, 1 t' t'"• .. - i:bk re�„t».,.+. . a,,cr lily ,,. •vv'r ;s;.q y v i q 'tS• ,:� e • j: € ,t s I . ,T M ..k^ ,,,,`„+F:' '. Y R ate: .i R • "..�4 "`: 17 �% 43 ,4 �1 a .1 li 'pc ,� Iv' s ,s• �, a<^ "° B • ir:•;•§. �l�a t a }„ '.y.b' <{ .;,;l�,Y::., w"fii,°� o ,k� t :,, nli �` Y, .rr .a. +� ',d� " ;r. 4"zi� ; y .r?= v i' .<€' .Z.�; „s Y . r�,� �m. .fir. �,i.:' .t;it.,„,'' , �'�• :Y; " i" „,, � '''2 ;,�''roa..i "a a "k'a,;„ir:; -5 i,', ''Ilan :',p, ', ,v i.pi:,-:, p1ty+ pp t� 3 r� R ,:::,iv. i s' � .Ti���:a4,' ya'.���ti.�., �.<„!p;�'�t,ar,;,, „ ,.i E, §,�i s'",S t„5?;�,., 8°.� �, }� L`.< '�' �a, �'�P •�..� n`-E4;' �3:'� , '•.�;.'rA.,° 3s;'VYn�;,.F°i:�Fa,.,., T .tl�",'s•: .` "�g �' � ^� LTs «` `ri,: b _ Sk 'B'f�',„-',ry, y�,� +Yd''�s "t>f �:�`,, -:�� E �, �,., ; �` � ,� • t yzi.' ��.,�,a s 1r ''i,q>a.a,-��",c, � -vr� •r�' � ;. "ds ::L' a 1q ./ ' <.4 3 ,a•+ 1f,4•?`3r?3.',<',a?'.,,,;;$/ r:7° ' P`i y-k'V,q;, .'i • 3 .; .7,�"+a"f p ,"° 4'''P „ -k My' „ 8 '%'a p3- ^. � e 4aa*xi.:'t� g ' -s� axt a13F ..8 % ?''t „ o " ti" - ;;t iY3I Vit!,X15`,‘,*,:',',1::,;• '�� : +,• °' ��' Izt `�;'f� xJ t r 4:'i ; �a�:.�;�,� m} t. �� ` <� �,• ;�� s. r! �t; -,'� ,�z�;+»�'. c:N=ad >�, ...�;,,r ''M r??{"'+? °si'�, ;;a' x�,�,km ��;"'ia' �'�� '`' .c �:)° ��r �'rigi:A2',-- � r �' �",".�,"a �� _ 2 0„ ,,, es,x ,,,,,z'� ;`v '<.t 'r£ar, a :. 'ry ...? .,..5, '��t1'� '3,' -mi., _,' 4 2$ yik, ' rfr tT�,•),€,, ,"t,,,I ."f ••E ,+t n E. 'i2 " :, +�''a�,.s�, "�'� ;J4 ri4 `` '`¢>f` 3x,.s k vsr.�-Y'' v. ,r$ ! . ' '' �. r r:w>';i'z,:�} Y my� , rl f,►,..i:. 8 ? „,. 4 Y -v.t a . • B'�s"t,.; "` 'w""a P-s.• •, "4 -• t< 3'� 4.t � 4, . , i,„%.: �. .3 . ' t+.'X; k,Zo? � dl Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K) Figure 3.7-12 W View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as seen from Park Avenue near 40th Street -77 ,147',-.---S''''7'`'7''''''•''•17- II' A *--..i.• „;....:.41:, - , :,-, ,,,,,,44 .. ,' ,%,f`,.VI.,,f;',.*:',,:•",',';''.,:97,:',:•;`,,%,,1,4 .4,:,,,I,F. .4,„„..! Is 334. ,,;,0%$:;,, ,±_ _____ _ -- - -- - A-14g."--!:•71-,,,ili',,T„i-‘i'-'4,.,f,'.:' '1':f .-27,!: ';',#.,‘., ...f,,,,,g,..-4.,,,,,—P-.5ti--, 7-77.,,,,,--).77,„,',, .,... 7.,.. '-i, ,, —,,, w.., -4,, "7',-...-:pilitfrizp,ic....,.:,:'' ::: ,:,,,,y,,K,!,,, -,,,,,,-;:w,;.„,:a4i,f1.144. ,1-7,,-;-,-.:-.77,,*,,,,ix--..,,,,,, , ::.,,,,,,:c.:: ,.;,-_:,..--,,,,,,'„,,:.1 .:7,,,,,,, ,,l•-. -,,,,,,,,,, ,,,.,;,.' -v ,,,. .,,,-- .i.,,, , .:-4,.,-te . , ,,,,, ,-.;,,,,,,fvli,lriv,:', ,-.,, ,,/,,,i- 4,i,,Ir. M.**,'-•"<",A,-,4,,,-,-,- .1 i'-'''1,;*-.",?:',0I'• -„,;•,• iti'-:,,,,',,,-. ,,,,;,:,';''., '',q,-;--,f',•;:,„1.-,:if,..-..",2,;: , ,',4,f',•'"- # ------ - — 4,„'•,-, :,i.;',,,,::,•?,,:,,''.. 1:,,Z,T4 .,4'..',,4-1,1.:4,-,,,4,,,f 4',,,ts-i-:4fk,i,i. 4.*,,,1-::.: .-fr.:t;..-, ,:),*.,i-1..., 4ftiv„tr,', f'',',"Ltest.,;,74 ?^ '' .i':1'' -*„;,,,,,r1t,4.fe itv.,'4,..:-.14,,,-v- 4,-,,..1.,,,,A.44°., ,,,.„4, • ,.,..„ ,,. 1.k,7,'Fi. ••• .,.,..-., -";,7,.•-' :,.i,,c- ' ,7'7''' ,;.--.47-4.;/,'':-,'-7 'ff•:',1 ' 7 ;4,7 - 7-', -P''','-''-'4,"%, -;*./•4",til*'t•''..<a*v' ,...''44-7,4, ' -4;-01 ;41,,,, ',A, ,-,,,,,‘,. , •,-,..,..,,,,..." ,.-, T...,,,..„,,-,:.,,,,,, 4.....,,,,,.;,,,,,,.,. :,•.; • ,,, A; „.„:„_, ,, -,,,,, :,,,, ,_tx,, _ 41.-., . ,4?, i,zt -'..,,g.(• -.-y-r -- .,'-•.---.`• •4-f,‘,1“-, '1i, -' ,a. '' -'' ' -,-gt.'f. " • IS-•'' ' ,I,'",SI-,''z .44,', , -','Ke''''Ill''' '" ''.• : ,',;:, ''',''-,'f,,.-•',,',,,•:‘,t ,..k4:':^',.,'1, „A„ ::-,„r„.,,,' ;,-.'-'7,, ,',,,i-7-.7....',:p"'.4.,,i7),'" ';', '''''': -",'',:,, ,i, ,,?'"ig •,-;':i # ri';•:‘,"," ,' =`'.=tr,,,'-l'',''','* ='';','"'„ •-•': , =-, .•., %,:=1:::„0,01.',‘ •:.--,.e.,‘Fi',,i4,„-,,i,;-,.'.--, i,,',:{-;-,''.).-; ,', -44,:„11:-.: -.,.' .'',,,v .,..,!:.,,,,.t..40 t',?.r,'io-..,;,,,:,.,1',..' l';'', ,,1 ., :., -,..,,,,,±, A ;', 4''':::-;--4,,,,,10,.,:144if t f,::,„et,,‘,,,-.,'4,4-,,'- ,' .-.‘,:i.,,.;.7, .,,,,!:,:r,i': (' '' ,, ,-,4gi-'-'-,4x.:1Y'"k-,::?,::::: :.:,. z .,„..., ,,,....,,,..„„,,,, . ,, ,,,t; :,,,,,,-.;ie.; ,:,A,fico,/,'v-- .:,,,-,,„, .ff:01,„ . .4.„'•,,, ,,,, ',, 4,,-,,, .,,::.,',Y,-,' •• ''',,,,,,,' '.'','‘,--;/"2:,.."- ', ; t't-Vt',/ter',44',',';,;'-;" -;,!-.1071,.'44 it,,1 4M.414,„:;- ;,1.1"-,. .,,,t,,,,F,,,..,„Im ..,-p, , .,,4;,,,, ..,- .--:, ,„.. ..,- ,, ,,,, -, :,,,,:,-_, :,i .,.,:-.; ,)1, ,,. .,,,f,';?, :1;Alk•;,1,.4;F, 4..-0.514,41.1,,,0`4,ii....„,';-:":( ',, - ',..?,''.- .':,:.-7" ,,, ., ;t'`,%)4., ", .. ' " ? ,";,-• „'".':,;..-i,' .'.s.‘,;(4,,,,''.4,,,. ';°?;-:4, , ',5•,-': :,,,14 i /, Okr4I:Ity,,Z*31Arn::-2,, ni-, ,i. , ,,, '„,:,,,-,:-. ,,,-..-.,-:- ---,,,,,,:-., -.--,:',.....:,,,---,--;,, ,'1 k,:':o:',1' ',:‘X,4-,„",`;*'„;,.!-.,'z„i:..i.-,!;‘,„4:,:!,,7.-,:,-.-'s'i-:-V:;,--,,:.-,',•--.',t-2 2„1,.;..'.,:.,',7:,=;.°,,,\,,.,':A4:,,1z'-,.q:,.',1;,-,,',.-,.,-',,E,,°':'-,.''•,'••;,,.'';.':•''',-.:''::.:-:•,.:.'',''."A.:.*:i''.,,'-,-.:,'.,-:.:..',-,,P;..'.-:',:':,.;7,';,,:,,,,"'‘,,;','',-,',,.,':.-,)':','=',`":."‘'','.',.-",,,.,-,„,,:;,',.-;, ',:„.,",,.',',‘,;::,,',,•-"= ',,';;;;;;'-,-,,':'.,':•:?- „:„: "•'•,..„--,,.,-:,,%':,,;,.,,s;.!,:',1,,-',:,•,•..,.,.7',,,k,,..,:,k:-,. ',',,'''7I,,,,-'„,,-:,f,,:c',::a.,,,!,,-,?,"!;,'..,,..,"--'-,-,,•',-/,-'.,'.::--.;',,,-:,r';,:''.:7';,,,,,-;e';,';-',r,,:•,,,t,.,,:,,,.-,':;.,.,',,:., 2 I1IP , „ . ,, , .: . ,. ,. ., ..,.. , . . .~, • : ,-„, • , .::: .:: , '-,., , :, ,,, :,.1 ' ,k,,P•; ',,, - ,• -',.-- -' •:;'-''' ' f*,'-' •17."'"*41•411.,' I ' ;.•,,,--,'.-. ' :-.-:;',.-' :-.4 ,,;'V,..7- .iie „...-.`..," "-.f:,2'• i 2:'; ':'....-- • •.• , ,, '',',',''•.- .: '''''''•.:.'-:, 'z,,,:- . :;',.•'-'! ' •‘'?'1- .s''''.7- ';4---'2''''%:'?'•'•' -'- '-'-'',",;'-'/4-'' ''''';'?:';''1,- ''''''';'--.4V'iP.,,, ,L::;;:-;',,-.. .: •.,..'-:....:?;-..;,-,`,:,';',:;'.„-::-',., "..,i, ' ;',;..- !: :,,',.:::t;;:.!, 2 :„;',7:, ' ',,-;,,,::, , - !,.i'‘,v.,'-:,,,,''s , ,,', „ l' .:!': :,',,,,7,,,•27-1«::.;:,.',,,,•:,f=?,'",=,,' ,,,,:' =,•:";,,",;.V ,;,q' q = -: .; ,,„2_,,,1,.4",",:i:`="=,,,,,,:i-,•: =p;,4:,.. ,4" "!=.''',,2:"=',",:,1 ,,,,,,==,.:•',,', •'.' ' ' :,,` .,,', ""'.,z".•';''', '•,,;,2'''.4=.,•1 • ..-"=: = .:-i;',/,:'?''';',.::‘e`• .": .:.:',?;.''''. '''4''';,,,'..,,,';`'::';4,:,'„?",',; , .,,; ':%,,AfiA, •*:=:: „5-,---,;„,f-,&7,ix: ,,i.:,,,,i,.,,,,,,',,, . ,-,f ,'•y J: ; •l'•47''''''': ' •""4-';''%•:::'; i '"'... "::;' ")%i" ':z1;•''5,,-*,:'%'=4"'•:1?1, • - ',...e‘O'‘::'0:fr ''', ‘Y.-r. 7g.t Yk›,,,,'"V",-!-, ,) • ‘ , 'fAi,4•,•''%-fifig: ''-•,,7,',',,,41,W--,t;"'4'§=if,•i.•=f1'''' '•:...":'''; -.'.=,•=,;'=';',.‘" ..:-..%, " . 1, . itt;le..,, '' .. . :,i%'i.,,,,.* ,•=',,, •"L Vii;',;;;,,,„,7-4'''',=;f:7 '-',.,74:"•" qt,,A,,c,7%.',: ,'",,,!"4tRW ' /".- ''' "" .! ..,- ''t'7''''.'"'' '-.': :'4:1,12- :*"'!""=;;".5,...., '.f r tee.34.." '..gc /4-:, :,.t.,.. . 7. ,i'',e'; ' ,—", -,..'", ' :-:,.'''•:,4:',.'?::,' i ,,''..4- .. ' '.'.,::.;or'' .c.7%.: At''';'...i..)/1,* ,..4,13'•.°Y.- .!--,71...-.-r-,,,,,,,,.... ,4'1'1 -' . 7,:' ,-, •.- , 11-,,, •-•.. .. - - • : '!".15:"*::"":4,.„,- 1- .- !' :.... ,..•4 % .. •- .;......;:-.tA,*4---f;"%"=,77.it* .2.•,,,;*'%**.t1= <17, 71,,,. •7,.::, -1-e7,.r., :' .. •*•,z• „. :,,r,,: . , • ',. -1. 'r•= . e...". .....*.7., ".,. 1,-',4,..+7,•,,!,-..* ' , . ,, , • *,:.,,'•''.4.4", ",1,:`,",„,,,,,,,, , '„,.4.*Ha,„„,,•; ..,7 '7 I'''''' **'f'.- 4'--.'.''--''' z ''' .-''7% t7' ' t. 4,*es'*'''',:., ;‹, '.•;,,,;',..'. .A<.•'4 1. ' * . **,.4' .:‘ .- 14 *: . .1. '; '''?'':"::;;44t4i;,,;.,t,^3-. .-;,r•:4.-.ti',777.'Ai;e:. -t:''4':'''' Y$'4;,,,,,,4;:',.n., !,,:,,',. :*:;'''‘i• '''''-If' '.. :7"'r";:"''°' ..r74* ;*:•;1 .:-7, ".:--, - ,r '‘,wo' '.4 f.:r-#iiir%fik,;.17':•, '.,;r7f r""4;;,:'.4.ar 4-;',.,'' :.fi..",M,';',i"','',.•-I-.1:.:e''''';.:• ':-r',-f'.i. 'i'''',:--,''.. ';''' , r:= k:":;"l';'-*"':*' '''''''''-'q4.7,1"1"te44'7:41.44:4(4477::..,4ii, "T'.",,'1 f v f',.:''''f";';:' :Vill;','41/4'41.4,--i*(4/4 ...-;.,-.•'.;.r.'/- ;,,,t' -:-'7'.",:'It,''- 11f;-.'-`° s''..S.'\'..i`14:i:4-.,:',.".....;',.64• 1-,-•",s,,t::„.4.-''.. :,'-'.„_. t:0;0:.,.i.. „,-*,;%,',f:'' =-- ?'''”:"'"*.:,:"4r74't;'',t•"*fe-=tr,.., -,,,,-,4,-.4'74 :k -/,','-',;:-.t...'c't;<-1 •;-,.41.,.,:st-, 11:tt,,44-'4-,0''';, -*:,. • ,'',.,„'. .=:',.,/,':-e.-',„',11,.. ,.%„-,,41, -,•!..-.1..--..-. •.,-,•'_,.;:::_--••••-.--P•.-:- -,--;.-Ti,- -../if&---,.!= -_-_7_ '-'.-'.7-- ,.•-,°-:"-fqtft-_-#:°-;•-•...; ',7,1:',i''*,%,"!-:,-;.-,,%„,.".j.tf:Tokilre.„R,,‘1:14',7 •;":7','',,-''' ;;T".'.4- i..*:-;,,','-';<': :::-.Z;f7`',::''Y 'r',,'',1k ,-':7./.'";'',:'"11'''':, ,..: ::.-s,',:Pt:1"•,' :P:I'*,17 * CP),,"':**f;)1",..d., , ,iik„..„q;‘, .41,';'rr44AAtirfteVit,4-A.,.:.*fillitff, Ki :wg-r,''S"'',.,' '',;:';‘4-.. -*:--' ‘:47'41"-"', .--v.; 54.14:: :.,44...1 ,„.!',-,',;*,w,-.' ..."-vez.: 1;.,-.7 .";"t)--.°-.7-.2•• ,.,..... ; itioo**1*,--,14 C..,--0W''."', ---•-' Noi#' '."-.74.''''''71.&.' .r•''''"04 -4,*40'-,--tA,,-vt'•,•,-,..,,,-,; ',`,,,,igigh,,e, ' ,'. '..• "*.f‘ ;,= '...• -4*A47 .* :.'•;7-,:16,,-,1-7. %;;, ,,;'*-.-2'.40,tri-W,....•,,,,tk;N.P".,' •t.t:'--4 le#':?.,lig,i: ,70.1.4%;'4::rttZr<%•.,,,i','''1.0;1...,6",';'''',4,;tellik,401Sei.r.P'...'*,,,,,',,,,ii17 4',,,':''.t..4 A '41;%.*.f,,4,'''''S..V," ','''''.e,,,;',,lf f„ '44,.,,,:.. ''.',f,V,1.*:.',:,..7.115. ,,;:,„,,, .' : '', ,,,,,,,,,,,,;0?A.„,,,.,::Le,;*.f,,,,7v'.',,„',.X.1!;4!,,,It fat`'41. roif'.„'":41.1:Nk1V.,.''''''''44;1140:..,t:.4.,. *. ,. 1.12,.C.,,, ,Iiirrlk,., ,,,i,',p..4,1* *.:**'±4 4'''''" , +.0.4'kt , ':*...... 4..*`.•;. '".:', ''' '4.1 ,*: ''''' 4r, ....,75,,,,,,y,„„:„„, .,..,..,,,„lit,,,,,,:.„,„i. ,..„.....4:.4,1„,.....47,..viov, 4, „:,y,,,,_:„,...._...Tettl;,,.:,, ,,,,,,t,,,,tilV4)," VC,4tyz.- igk,.4. :,•.•, ,,o,,, ',sr',, -4-:,. ,1 : ,I. ,,r,„1,-,-, ,,, ,..,,,,-,,,...L.,,'•4,„;,,,,,*,4,.04,.'0,f,4.401,0,7'.*,,;,, ',196,..,4q. 4;7,04;,fi...'''''',I* 7%''''' - ,' ...-.7 0,4:11,10=7:*.1k7A7U. ;*,•iii*17.*444 ' 7`'0,,-. ...f.... -,, ,I., , . ,„..--„,, , .,,„ .,,,,,....., 4.- k:`'i,',.-"xs4;lt':#41>t,F;;-."c(cc,„,1e3«t.11,,,..,,,;t7, -;:,.."--.,- ::c,”.,,..444 •,t,w,,tr..z", 4.,.„7 ,-:vt-,•"'" ..f..gzmt?„,-:-..,.._-!, 4::.t.;=,-.14.:„...-,-,,,--A,,,wr ,,,02,...e-- 7,4,..,r..,....;..-•„...,,ort,z;,ft ,,,,,,,,, ,,.,-,.' ,7,-,,,,t-- --,,,,,,),-...:43,1t41.4-1., vii:,--,-,..-r.,,, ,,,, :itrz,.;,,,-, . --ir . -,_,.......'.%-.., .. ..-....•..."[,...‹,,:,0 v-;,4,F.t:1.,;.,,,iZt..;.",-*•44..ts..,,:°"=.,,i35'''.AVAt:,;"'"".•'.-Z":': '"1"',',1:1; `,"..`;',',-,k .-..,,,k,'",0;1 44to* ''„.,,,. W4 C.'. .. trik'-',',.t•-leu "", l•-,.....,..-,*t., - - "'`-: ',.---' ,--, -.4".'10 -47....;=,'N.'„,-,:a...'t,%%,-."0.4,•%7'..,W...**t.4.,4,,7444,,:fV,,,,',',57'7 t, t z 7';:ihAtt.,,,„: 7,i,71" ..---',e4f,„gi:04•0't,','**„*At,'.4-•• *‘.",„- *.'44(f.!';i4.1***-Z,.‘' ,,,Ar•'.****-- '-''''-f. ,,,,it %(°-#74"`"r-4,:**4." 7'.**..71"..0'.1%r*'-•-•• •••••*':-V7"7--.47,....«.ik,7'''' ''"7' ' ';'; 7. - '-' ,,,,,.'47 ,77** ,*7.;-°.:*':'t.774.7*Z-4'-'''' '''44"''-:P.77..T.'-'447tto*Ii*N***''SW•*"."*T. ::::-4,174.vvistrei-,vri;••• .:-tredcr,:t.-,' t...., - •''.."--.•::,7 ..1%,...:4g.- -A.41.4':,.:,:...;;..- :, -., .... ki;:-.,.:-,--,:-.....v.;•;:*•-4-41-yait,,..-:;%..-,-0.2*,:,,,:,-----,,... --:::."'•:;Lit....,7;,..4,,i,b,_ ,_ .," *".-;.,,,*-.17.,-i,i;,,';;;',7-,:-,7-..,:•;5. -AVitt- .- ..-. --- - -.----..,--:---N.,74,-.... ....,,,_ ,... .!---.--,,.., . ---.-, ,. . „,.:, •-- 42:„, ,- --,..4:4,-,,;•-•;:.,- _...,...7 -., !,.,..ii,,,,,,,,.„,,,,,,,,4z-,,,,-,- ;;,... , , ,.,. gz,:::,-,-s-• . .4%. , ,,. .,-- • __,.,...*.-' --.4.-•N;;.. ii•r4.,t,-•-",-.7...g.,.--'--; 714-4,..,..,,,,4,..4:,,,„1.1.,. ,,:ay:,:. , --. -...--A - - ...„,:- --,.. ,..• -•--.7t--,1.2,1.,7,2-A,(.4,,„, #--, ,._._.-t ...,. - - - , . .--_, --•.---., ---.4..i„ -1,-... ..,,-...........„---...._,.---- ,,,'. • ,:',I.i. 1,..., : .',...e., .4*1 "- "* '' .. •N'' ' ' 4,:f 444—%-.,-'';.---.'"*.''- **"• ' • ': -,--; ' • • ,,,,:.„, ::; 4. .... .,.,„„....4.,..„:, * . . !•,•.",' „,..,., :.,.. , ,...%.' '*.:.,' .... — . 4, .'"4.";l' :1±,t;..041.--* * ':**'. ‘".0 Z'''''*`-1:"**ft.• '.`r",* -. .r.:.''' ''''.:";''...".' '''''1.'.* .'- .' ' .t.:,!.......,.., . ... ,...,..1t.:, .... • . ''' rametrix.City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure 3.7-13 ; View 6-Existing Conditions as seen . from Lake Washington near Mercer • 1 Island 1 , i , , , 1 , , -- , !-- - , [ • ' •- - 1 , _ - - - - • , I , 1 _ , 1 J CA el =CO 73 '▪C ▪ CD '.Yzia.`�! e ` "... ....4?t.°'.Y' ""'9 1a x� 6 f _ y j C ^ .v` 'S>° pa• A`t. ... s £ :a, y P JS c 03 �s��.. .� ����;;. .: 4i'• 'III, 3 sa� x , ' oe F e I•'fir i .}<ti'i. L tifil:I ;. v:=,3 ` s ^ x..",+.sa:;°�: < a { :;5, g•� .'ia , �r. .z /E� CD c f° •„\ti";'..'."^"p=ia.t::�: s ae `� b:'Xf• : ' l ",471 ' ,4;f4p v ay yz :� ii : :s:: 1;:t: I : • sy 0 • • ,•= �i'�.r; a' "'"£k; ' €teaco urd'• r s r > " C CU , . . •, • ...m ,vv, ,,S .. . �• • ir '^ ° ., 2 "d S • i `iAi E • •,!ei °} t� ,f f 7 co •; • '`.�°`• :<\;�. ,... - .'`' '`:;eau "` #jE �3 :` a T �, r E J ,,,,,,,,i, . :,,, i ems' 3� 4.•...- :°:,= ?.; A ,,,.� ; { :-,,,,,,,,!, fi,,,,..-111*C7T‘''L",°'-'4‘-'.''''' '! 5NE' ll'Artiri'r,i .:1 '., 13).ma 0 :trik.• ,of :��,'+a"'`H °l\y,< •� r`aax..a d- ^-sP ,� > S �f^' f E EF :"yS (' Iy� V ••`'• ` < � `' �' , •€.k fix 's o-° ,,• • € , •• • ..e � k ; - • �LL L.• : .: ' -,`-- v„ . < k �,,�� y£ 4f _,P �,' - , ".U,..�..£.;; • < , • Y°�ti,> t , € F ASEY ,' ‘0 •ii r • 3.: ..', . . �� ,':s! y'-•'' r` , '' 1F; � ,9• «ia�`>e-aH • -f.: y, :, �{.:l p >., r • 3 ai a • t� y 3' '� � zl ( #E . y '' , .::fa•.�� } Sa � ' ..'_ ., £4t�f�`'`.. ��:.��� e :. ;k;s,, .; M°A S M H •v'' "• .ms • 11111 •>�� <,°`.k<�p,r Y.a�e ,� «�; -, �<aL'"° �. .E=�, n �t � � , � � � :fir i4' r a m'aea • ',',re a 's'- °:,`9 Em,, € • \ °gq t 'e i 1�C9 �' �` ' r ye as «a«"`' ;,'4 ' „.-.' 'r :,e •w r m . to a�. z .. ',1; r . . i e,�„�� • `fi'k ! >amig'Y..:. °a ',44,;;, . °{?:t,„;` ;'' 1, �• .rr� .: .t.�s1ra l4' 3�k ;ti °' :, t•• v� ,fit s t'}P' q '}� a A s -- :mt� •im♦ _ - �EYis � tF• �y � £t Pl� t"� 4�.�x�'F{k<��T. i,��� 4 �,� s. °�� 1 ie . b b, IN1. • Y i sr ,1,;'',''�• •,fig y7 ,* a. lwr�. . t„" ty�,> j Nk s��'�t� &�}�'• ��; s� � >. '- .: n'�' �` � r� �x�.�i, ��.. `� s?�<{ `ate S • '., °d='.i«.\"; i �v�:'<4..`k at 'L`ra«>'t F bipy+`��;• ..gn g a a B t 3 <P., A e'A"' v i T 'kc ''• e •:�''. .,P v7,,---a,s�<� .,,,, rP .'€;bx 1 i ,, ... P r. f c 4• m aN`:' ..w� -goo,'''• ', :. � - • z" kc >t3s ' '• "� ^nT °. .a • �i,� t' RvR <o %:nt-s�;ey8 .e. :., ,, ' .r,.e <3Te ',.;i'x•.�•." ,` � ,, 1 .+ a a .'_t o uay,\>, - �. ,,.».. �a.: .<wx-:,'4 ....i,,I., ;? ih :> 44 r+kT •ctk [rIVA rn • p,8,"r e'.,"yA\iaH;= <ai•ds e»e a�� S 0 cc '2Y's a � 1 r1•° ;''' � a• ; X �pCkt3° i `� .Ee$ F��(h(rfS.�� IT��y(�.'`4` 7T 0 Y ea,>,°•.3 \>•. •_ x�d°= • MEt.:i"fF l•, v "�Y•:i< il.p .. O U c) I) !.y 1 • is i a 1I III I � 'I Ii 1 t ose will have vies of the water quality tract with ponds and proposed low vegetation There are limited o Iportunities for landscaping in front of the buildings where a 10-foot setback is proposed between the ewalk and building front. For the most part, however,the only landscaping will be at May Creek and e stormwater tract. At the latter, proposed shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees will provide limited v sual relief. C ntinuation of Industrial Use T e visual impacts of this alternative would be moderate to high, depending on the infill density and new b ilding heights. Assuming maximum allowable height and a higher density of buildings that extend s i uth to the mouth of May Creek, the visual impacts could be similar to those for residential d velopment, except that the visual character would remain industrial. The simulations approximate a lly built-out condition. New buildings would probably be similar to the existing metal-siding industrial rehouses and therefore have a neutral to negative visual impact. If infill construction were limited to le northern end of the site where operations are now,the visual impact would be less than the residential p oposal since the new structures would appear to be part of the existing building mass. Vividness, i actness, and unity all would remain low, contributing to an overall low visual quality. More 1.1 dscaping is required if new buildings are approved, therefore tree screens and restoration landscaping could be mitigate some of the negative visual impacts although landscaping of the public land along the it s oreline probably would not occur. Far both alternatives, shading and shadow impacts on nearby areas might be slightly greater than existing c nlnditions because of the density and possible heights of the buildings. The impacts outside the property •uld not be significant, however, due to the distance of the nearest residential neighbor. Proposed b ildings would be set back from the shorelines of Lake Washington and May Creek, so new shadowed c nditions at these locations probably would not be created. 3 7.3 Mitigation F1r the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic i pacts could be reduced by a number of strategies ranging from changing building height and bulk to s ii ecific building design features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening. C anging building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height. T e proposed 50 foot height within SMA jurisdiction results in buildings that are about 60 percent as high a V they are wide as seen from the street. Buildings outside SMA jurisdiction are proposed to be up to 70 f:et high, or almost as high as wide. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce b n'ildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. It may be o a served that duplex structures likely would not achieve the full building bulk presumed, since a 50 foot high four story building on a 40 by 100 foot building site would have a floor area of about 16,000 square fret. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between b ildings,either separately or in conjunction with reducing building height. This would produce less of a c. you effect on streets within the development and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings •m outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building h 'ight,bulk, and setbacks. This could include a transition in height with the lowest buildings and greatest s:,11 ltbacks near the shoreline, providing opportunities for buildings further inland to enjoy view corridors o er and between buildings and presenting less of an apparent wall of buildings when viewed from the ter or from residential shoreline residences to the south. Another option would be to step building h-ights from east to west across the site, or maintain lower building heights at the site perimeter with h'Igher buildings in the center. I " Ciy of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D iaft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-117 September 2003 The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape design, could provide a number of features which reduce apparent bulk of buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety, depending on the use of common elements and the variety of size,position, or design provided. Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that would not be expected to mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can provide a crown area that is higher than building roofs, or screen a substantial portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide for large species that would provide crown area that could provide visual relief, as opposed to the dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way. Such additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective because existing structures would remain. Painting existing structures a color that would blend with the surroundings better than white and aqua could reduce negative visual impacts. New structures that are taller than the existing buildings should be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A formalized entry into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen from the roadway. 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE 3.8.1 Affected Environment Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have some shielding, but probably date to the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass. 3.8.2 Impacts Potential light and glare impacts for both alternatives would be minimized by incorporating preventive measures in the project design;therefore, low-level impacts would be anticipated. The impact from glare could be mitigated by careful design and placement of the buildings, especially with respect to windows. Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to prevent spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall brightness at night and would reduce glare. Under Alternative 2 (Continuation of Industrial Use), the dominant light sources would be building-mounted and pole-mounted security lights. The density of such lights could increase, but the overall impact would be moderate if modern lamps with shielding and low- intensity filaments were designed into the project. The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level of ambient light. Impacts from the four other views would be lower since there are already streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-118 September 2003 H adlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade bei een the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the roidway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south, he) dlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family re idences. ' 3. .3 Mitigation F r both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, s ielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding gl e from glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists. is project is not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant after m tigation. 3. NOISE 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.•.1.1 Background on Noise Definition and Measurement Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound(EPA 1971). e human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The decibel scale (dB) used to d:scribe sound is a logarithmic rating system, which accounts for the large differences in audible sound in ensities.` This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an increase of 11, dB; therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. People g:' erally cannot detect differences of 1 dB; in ideal laboratory situations, differences of 2 to 3 dB can be d=tected by people, but such a change probably would not be detectable in an average outdoor e vironment. A 5-dB change would probably be perceived under normal listening conditions. Sound le els associated with a range of common noise sources are shown in Table 3.9-1. en addressing the effects of noise on people, it is useful to consider the frequency response of the h an ear. Instruments are, therefore, designed to respond to or ignore certain frequencies. The fr'quency-weighting most often used is A-weighting; it approximates the frequency response of human hearing and is highly correlated to the effects of noise on people. Measurements from instruments using th s system are reported in A-weighted decibels or dBA. All sound levels in this evaluation are reported in A-weighted decibels. D stance from the source; the frequency of the sound; and the absorbency of the intervening ground, o,I'structions, and duration of the noise-producing event all affect the transmission and perception of n ise. The degree of these effects also depends on who is listening and on existing sound levels. The v. iability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one i o ividual will respond to a given noise; however, when the community is considered as a whole, trends e erge that relate noise to annoyance. Two main types of health effects may potentially occur from e `cessive noise: auditory and non-auditory. Auditory impacts are caused by high noise levels that can p 'tentially damage hearing and produce either partial or total deafness. Non-auditory health impacts include sleep disturbance and speech interference and may also involve human physiological (other than hearing damage)or behavioral effects. Ciy of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 September 2003 3.9.1.2 Regulatory Overview Washington State and City of Renton Noise Standards The City of Renton has adopted the state of Washington's noise regulation in WAC 173-60-040. Maximum permissible environmental noise levels are set based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement(EDNA)land use categories in both the noise source and receiving property. There are several important variations and exemptions in the noise regulations, including the following: 1. Day/night noise levels are set a standard 10 decibels lower between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 2. An exception is provided for short duration noise levels exceeding the standard, which provides for exceeding the standards above by one of the following amounts for the following periods: a. 5 dBA for 15 minutes in any 1-hour period b. 10 dBA for 5 minutes in any 1-hour period c. 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes in any 1-hour period I 3. The following exemptions from noise regulations are relevant to this project and the surrounding context: a. Sounds from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt at all times when received by Class B and C receptors (commercial and industrial) and are exempt when received by Class A receptors (residential) during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). b. Sounds created by motor vehicles are exempt when regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC. c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight are exempt. d. Sounds from railroad operation are exempt. e. A variety of emergency and warning devices are exempt. f. Bells, chimes, and carillons are exempt. The regulations apply differently according to the use of the site. For industrial use, the maximum noise level for the residential area across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site is 60 dBA, based on a Class C source and a Class A receiving property. For residential use of the site under the proposed residential use, the maximum noise level is 55 dBA, based on a Class A source and a Class A receiving property. Noise levels for individual motor vehicles are regulated by performance standards in WAC 173-62, also adopted by the City of Renton. These rules set limits on the noise generated by various classes of motor vehicles. These standards are based on noise levels at specific distances (e.g., 50 feet) from vehicles moving at particular speeds (e.g., 45 miles/hour). These limits range from approximately 72 dBA to approximately 90 dBA,depending on the class and speed of the vehicle. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-120 September 2003 1 I 1 Table 3.9-1. Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources ' Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective Possible Effects on Noise Sources (dBA) Evaluations Humans(a) uman Threshold of Pain 140 Continuous exposure to arrier jet takeoff at 50 feet levels above 70 can , iren at 100 feet cause hearing loss in Loud rock band 130 majority of population .et takeoff at 200 feet 120 Deafening I Auto horn at 3 feet I Chain saw oisy snowmobile 110 ocomotive Horn 11 pact pile driver awn mower at 3 feet oisy motorcycle at 50 feet 100 Very Loud Heavy truck at 50 feet 90 Pneumatic drill at 50 feet ydaytime..... ...P................................................_.._ $�---___..___ Loud ormal automobile at 50 m h 70 us urban street, acuum cleaner at 3 feet — - .._...-._.__.............._........._..._... — --- _ — __.. _ Speech Interference it conditioning unit at 20 feet , -conversation at 3 feet _.................._.._.._.........-......._....._............._._._._.--.._...._._._...__._..._.-_60__........._...._...._._.._ Moderate ______...--.---...__....---.._...__.__.__....__.._.. uiet residential area Tight auto traffic at 100 feet 50 ' Sleep Interference Library 40 - C uiet home Faint Soft whisper at 15 feet 30 Slight rustling of leaves 20 Broadcasting Studio 10 Very Faint Threshold of Human Hearing . 0 I Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Consequently,overlaps exist j among categories of response,depending on the sensitivity of the noise receivers. (a)Source EPA 1974 The maximum noise levels are indicated in Table 3.9-2. Table 3.9.2. Noise Levels i- I EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property Class A Class B Class C CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA ' CLASS B 57 60 65 CLASS C 60 65 70 'I Source: WAC 173-60-040 . CI ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-121 September 2003 1 I j Noise levels from railroad operations are governed by federal law (the Swift Rail Development Act, enacted November 1994) that requires that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopt rules to { regulate railroad crossings. The FRA rules require locomotive horns be sounded upon approaching every "unsealed" public grade crossing. An unsealed public grade crossing is defined as a crossing without grade separation, quad gating, or crossing guard with median barrier. The rules also require each lead locomotive to have an audible warning device that produces a sound level of at least 96 dBA at least 100 feet ahead of the locomotive. The minimum noise level of 96 dBA(with averages between 100 and 110) ensures that it can be clearly heard and recognized over ambient background noise in a variety of environments, such as inside an enclosed automobile or truck cab and by railroad employees. In addition, all major railroads have operating rules that require their engineers to blow train horns at rail grade crossings as a warning to motorists and pedestrians(FRA 1999). 3.9.1.3 Existing Noise Levels Existing sources of noise near the site include the following: • Noise produced by operating the Barbee Mill Sawmill. This mill site is presently a relatively small noise generator. The main sawmill is operated intermittently to saw the small amount of unprocessed logs currently on hand. Machinery in the main sawmill building and the planning building is completely enclosed, which reduces noise levels. The sawmill and planer buildings are about 800 feet from the closest residences east of Lake Washington Boulevard, which attenuates noise levels. There is also a fmishing operation for windows and doors located in a building near the northeast corner of the site about 250 feet from the nearest residences. • Noise from operation of the Quendall Terminals, located to the north of the Barbee Mill site is largely from loaders used to store and sort logs. The major source of noise is the operation of heavy diesel machinery, which generates noise levels from 90 to 100 dBA. The Quandall Terminals is approximately 500 feet from residences on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard and an equal distance from residences to the north on Ripley Lane. • Noise from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals is caused by heavy machinery and noise from maintenance of boats. Residences abut that property to the north. I • Noise from arterials in the area is largely related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard,which currently carries about 400 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Noise levels for residents close to Lake Washington Boulevard are typically 54 to 64 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-3. Table 3.9-3. Noise Measurement Results Location Noise Measurement Map Code Street Address Ley Lmax Date Time 1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 64 05.11.2000 1:45 pm 55 79 05.22.2003 11:20 am 2 Eastport Shores Apartments, 59 68 05.11.2000 12:20 pm 4100 Lake Washington Boulevard N 3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 62 05.11.2000 3:30 pm 4 3940 Meadow Avenue N. 68 71 05.11.2000 2:15 pm Source: WSDOT 2001 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-122 September 2003 I I • Noise from the I-405 freeway about one quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residents adjacent to I-405 typically range from 68 to 71 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-2. • Noise from train operation includes engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive j ! horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Dane 1998). Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks. Horns would not be sounded at the existing private driveway entrances to the Barbee Mill site or the Quendall Terminals site, unless vehicles or pedestrians were observed in the vicinity. Four trains a day typically use the BNSF rail line to the east of the Barbee Mill site (Cowels 2003 personal communication). Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA. Measures of existing trains indicate average sound levels of about 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile away from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings. Sounding practices of railway engineers typically result in whistle durations from 20 to 40 seconds(FRA 1999). Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes, hiispitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site. .ise levels in the vicinity have been surveyed recently for studies related to I-405 improvements and for is project. Noise measurements are indicated in the table below. Traffic noise was the dominant noise s.urce at all locations monitored. T I e primary source of noise for receptors 1 and 2 is Lake Washington Boulevard. Receptor 3 receives no ise from both Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 because of its elevation and direct line-of-sight e ','Iposure to both roadways. Receptor 4 is located north of the existing noise wall on I-405 and that fr'-eway is the primary noise source. 39.2 Impacts 3''9.2.1 Construction Impacts • D' ring construction of any of the alternatives, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels along e proposed new alignments and existing access areas due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling o construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being u ed, and the amount of time it is in use. Table 3.9-4 displays ranges of noise produced by typical c i;nstruction equipment. i � I I addition to the noise levels associated with these typical types of construction equipment, construction o this site may require driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations due to the loose delta deposits in the a. The depth of foundations would depend on the depth to cohesive geologic deposits that could s I pport foundations without risk of settlement or failure. Generally,the depth to consolidated deposits is eatest in the westerly portions of the site. P le driving is potentially the greatest source of noise and vibration generated from construction activities. T ere are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce a high 1; el of vibration for short periods(0.2 second)with sufficient time between impacts to allow a building's rasonant effects to decay before the next vibration event. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type o source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver,which can operate at different frequencies,vibrates the pile i to the ground. Cty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-123 September 2003 I _ , As shown in Table 3.9-4, sound levels 50 feet from construction equipment exceed the levels recommended for residential land uses. The residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. Construction noise is exempt between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. from the maximum permissible sound levels specified in the noise codes of Washington State(WAC 173-60)for residential receiving properties. Construction noise impacts to most existing residences are likely to be moderate because of distance attenuation. The likely exception is access roadway and bridge construction impacts on existing dwellings along Lake Washington Boulevard. The greatest noise impacts are likely from pile driving. The greatest impacts would be experienced by occupants of the initial dwellings constructed on the site from foundation pile driving over the build-out period. Table 3.9-4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) Construction Estimated Leq Types of Range of Noise Levels Activity 50 feet 350 feet Equipment 50 feet 350 feet i Clearing 83 6$ Bulldozer ; 77-96 60-79 Dump Truck 82-94 65-77 Scraper 80-93 63-76 Grading 75-88 58-71 I Bulldozer 77-96 60-79 Paver 86-88 69-71 Paving 72-88 55-71 -.._.._.— Dump Truck 82-94 65-77 ti Building Construction 85-90 Impact Pile Driving i 90-105 Vibratory Pile Driving j 85-95 Source:EPA 1971 FTA,Noise and Vibration Technical Report,1995 3.9,2.2 Rail Noise Impacts Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. This would impact the residents on the east side of May Creek, next to the BNSF tracks. Locomotive horns sounded at the rail crossings of the proposed public streets will result in noise levels of 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings. The creation of public road crossings would make horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore, increase the frequency, as compared to current discretionary sounding. At the current frequency of four trains per day,the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight, especially because most existing trips are during the day or in the early evening for the Dinner Train. If train frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington, which is generally a residential area from the south end of the lake to where the railway crosses I-405 in Bellevue. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-124 September 2003 3. '.2.3 Transportation Noise Impacts No ise impacts from increases in traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard related to regional growth and ter.s from the project are within the range of traffic volumes and noise impacts previously studied for the I-1 05 interchange at 44th Street. Future projected noise levels in Table 3.9-5, below, indicate that in i reases in noise would range from 1 to 5 dBA. A change of 3 dBA is generally is the threshold at w ich a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. , ! N o ise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are still well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that th Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a noise impacts (FWHA 23 CFR 772). e increase in noise at 3940 Meadow Avenue N is related primarily to I-405 traffic. The level of impact o i traffic from this project on I-405 would not produce a detectable noise impact. 3.4.3 Mitigation 3.9.3.1 Construction Impact Mitigation S ii to and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Construction noise, however, can negatively affect people living nearby. The noisiest activities, such as p'I a driving, could be restricted to start later and end earlier. A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the extent to which people are air ected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with enforcement standards requiring fflers on equipment. Practices such as turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise. S'ationary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as possible. Portable noise if b� iers could be placed around equipment, with any openings directed away from the residential r-ceiving property. These measures would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound . d would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment at would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. Substituting h ldraulic or electric models for pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement b eakers would also reduce construction noise. T e effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible d pth(depth may be limited on this site the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete c be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed u ing an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal,thus eliminating e need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for 1.teral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. 1 3 9.3.2 Rail Noise Impacts I e FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of 1 o comotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The regulations have not y-t been adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures that might be taken if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of increased use of the rail line. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-125 September 2003 Table 3.9-5. Noise Modeling Results Modeled Peak Hour Leg(dBA) Location 2000 Existing 2025 1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 58 2 Eastport Shores Apartments,4100 Lake Washington Boulevard N 62 63 3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 59 4 3940 Meadow Ave. N. 68 71 Source: WSDOT 2001 The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian conflicts at rail crossings. To accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a "sealed" status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by four-quadrant gates, median-divided barriers incorporating gate arms long enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates. Gates would also have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to range from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with traffic signals and based on the number of lanes of roadway and the number of rails(FRA 1999). 3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable adverse noise impacts include the residual noise from construction,trains, and use of the site that cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described below. The most _k substantial unavoidable adverse impacts would occur from impact-driven pilings for foundations, if less noisy alternatives should prove infeasible because of the character of geologic deposits. 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ( This section considers potential historical and cultural resources at the Barbee Mill site, discusses probable impacts on these resources, and suggests mitigation measures. A brief history of the Barbee Mill site and an inventory of existing buildings and structures are provided. The analysis presented here draws upon previously recorded investigations, in particular the following documents: Archaeological and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment (LAAS 2001), Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington (LAAS 1997), and Historical Resources Discipline Reports (BRA 2000). These reports (completed for other development proposals) were in-depth and comprehensive investigations into the significance of possible cultural and historic resources at the Barbee Mill site. The Renton Historical Society and Museum was contacted, resulting in a telephone ate, interview with Mr. Stan Greene,a researcher for the Society. 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3.10.1.1 Applicable Regulatory Compliance Prehistoric and Native American resources are protected by federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines. Washington State laws addressing cultural resources are the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act(RCW 27.53)and the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44). Under these acts,the agency is responsible for making a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Indian Tribes that attach significance to this site. To comply with this act, Parametrix contacted the State Historical Preservation City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-126 September 2003 I I ' '1 I O f ce (SHPO) by letter, on behalf of the city of Renton, to solicit existing information on historic and c tural resources on site. Similar letters were sent to Tribes that may have an interest in the site to solicit th-•ir input. The SHPO (Dr. Robert G. Whitlam) responded with a voicemail message acknowledging ' re'1 eipt of the letter. Letters describing the proposed action were sent to the Duwamish, Kikiallus, M ckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes. 3.10.1.2 Historical Background of Barbee Mill Tract 'I' I e Barbee Mill property was once part of a larger (160-acre) parcel purchased around 1875 and owned 1 b J.Madison Colman. In 1903,the Northern Pacific Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way through th- property along the eastern edge and built the railway in 1905. Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and b.i ge building company, purchased the southern third of the Colman property in 1943. The Barbee Mill C(�impany, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the sa ill operation but abandoning the ship building business. At that time,there were numerous sawmills o.ierating on Lake Washington, but the number had dropped to thirteen by 1950. Today the Barbee Mill is e only active sawmill remaining. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the Barbee water tower and the wooden mill w ehouse. The mill was completely rebuilt in 1959 and incorporated these two existing structures. The w•ter tower, built in the 1930s, was purchased in 1943 and was barged from the Seattle-Renton Mill `' Company in Bryn Mawr by Barbee Marine Yards. The mill warehouse, also known as "the black b lilding," was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the ij years, including replacing windows and the sliding door. H storic Resources I ITie HRA report,Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange(2000), ws undertaken to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,which contains the c i teria for determining if properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A p operty may be eligible for listing if it is at least 50 years old and qualifies for at least one of the f•I lowing: • It is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history. • It is associated with a significant person. • It embodies distinctive characteristics of the period's style or method of construction, represents the work of a master, is of high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entry whose components may lack individual distinction. j • It may yield information important in prehistory or history(36 CFR 60.4). I B ildings or structures that are less than 50 years old can qualify for the National Register but only if they e integral parts of districts that meet the criteria for Register eligibility or are of exceptional historical i portance(HRA 2000,p. 16). e report covered the three properties on the May Creek delta: Barbee Mill, J.H.Baxter Company, and e Quendall Terminals. Historic property inventories were completed for the Barbee Mill Warehouse a o d the Water Tower, neither of which was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic P aces. The mill warehouse and the water tower are associated with the sawmill industry on Lake ashington,which was important to both the local and Puget Sound economies. This meets the criterion 11 f•r being associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history; however, the s 'rvey indicated that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or, City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 - Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-127 September 2003 r r ' of the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" (HRA 2000, p. 1) as individual components because the original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. The buildings that now comprise the sawmill ,_ operation are of a distinctly different character from the wood warehouse and are less than 50 years old. Since the Barbee Mill does not qualify as an historic district, nor is it of exceptional importance, it was �_ determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing in the National Register. 1 ' The SHPO concurred with the finding. A site inventory was conducted in February 2003. For completeness, the structures are briefly described in Table 3.10-1, below. The list is generally from north to south Locations of structures are indicated in Figure 3.10-1. Dimensions are approximate,as scaled from the CADD survey drawings. _.` Table 3.10-1. Structures on Barbee Mill Site q--; Map# Resource Name Year built Description 1 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal; partial lease for storage 80 x 160 feet 2 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal empty 80 x 140 feet 3 Mill Warehouse 1945 One-and two-story,wood-frame 120 x 80 feet "The black building" 4 Boise Building One-story, metal, "Cut line"shop where timber trusses were - made 140 x 95 feet 5 Green Shed One-and two-story, metal,storage of wood from Shop(#4)310 x 40'feet . 6 Wharfing pier Early 1940s Wooden dock for loading/unloading barge. 7 Sawmill Complex One-to three-story buildings,metal,for unloading, barking,and (Note: buildings are on slicing logs. Includes shop on first floor,production equipment DNR-managed area on second floor,and storage for blades and saws on third floor. outside'inner harbor'line) Total=260 x 60 feet i 8 Waste Wood Complex Assemblage of conveyor belts, ducts, chipper,associated machinery and support structures. Includes a small building for office and rest rooms,and a sawdust collection tower. Approximately 230 x 200 feet lL 9 Planer Building One-story, metal 100x 140 feet plus two small rooms 10 Water Tower 1930s 108 feet tall. Transferred to site in 1943. 30-x 30-foot base 11 Old Kiln One-story, metal;dry kiln and cooling shed 160 x 50 feet - 12 Shed 45 x 35 feet 13 Garage One-story metal 60 x 50 feet I. 14 New Kiln One-and two-story metal 190 x 45 feet 15 Boxcar Building One-and two-story wood frame with metal siding for loading wood products onto boxcars for shipping 120 x 40 feet 16 Sheet piling 1960s Constructed dock edge of property 17 Office 1960s Main office building for Barbee Mill 60 x 30 feet 18 Boat House Two-story metal 60 x 30 feet r _. r City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-128 September 2003 I A'l /J.dF f /+r,i+ r'"' �7 t i t OHW---______ r1.• I/„7,:z2.: -A..a„-i- .---.,,.,,,„..-,ii,,)..,).W.Aqt—az,,,,,r m..+d7m2'le.-tm.N.—i=.'";";--7::/1 ,1., \i.r.-i`ir,›-114•1' ii\/A I (isi)1'r 7 4-7—y,7/7 4 -- irf.L , .,._ -I / (� —' ` 5 s/� / f f f i� -„- / r 7 ! / J 1 6\\I----j / p„,.„,/ I I / 7 / <7 A \ r / ri / 1 tO r------1 /±,,..,,:7-- -;'... ' 7 i / / .__ cE1-4 ,....-- - /* 1 i / • i i 4 t_....._ O "lZ 1 1 , i /I 4(''''''" ,,, 1 \ 14,-,---- ,/,/,:// \C.1---hi ''''\ 7/ . , LAKE � ' f , /I /iui1 / WASNGTON 15 „'///A 1 ' ` j.0 i 'f" • __ t i f 1 1 `(.rt i i E E /�. A I /44 1 ). / hiii//11 / ,.7el/r/ ///' .__,,,....- I i/ / / 1/ 16\ 7,/ ,7<:,-,1.71—__/, . -7- '' '---,,,, / i, . /,,,,,,,,2 ii r vx/-- ---,-------z-- .7, / , , , ,,,,, (2 , ,,,i/fr v, ---,, (.,,,,7/ / \),,, ,..,,,_ _ .,, I' / , , 47 / , NNN:; ------7 ___„:„..,..., „,, , • , , A __ \__ _ ,„--- „,,,,, ,_, ,,,,,...„,„,, , .. A, ,,,,,,„ / \..., ._..,...„.„.... ,7 MAY CREEK rr \�ti,,,. ' r` 77 % DELTA * -/ v'�-, ' ," / / ' - :‘,7,----- ..,,,,de (7-if .7/ 1 i I / / N 40TH ST / I�<< Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-10-01 SCALE IN FEET gib .Figure 3.10-1 NOBuilding Locations o ioo 2lo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 3.10.1.3 Cultural Resources Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding hunter-fisher-gatherer cultural resources is near the original location of May Creek(LAAS 2001;LAAS 1997),which was at the north end of the May Creek delta. The original May Creek was the home of the Lake Washington Duwamish, who knew May Creek as "the place where things are dried"because they gathered and dried salmon there. As Euro-American settlers began to occupy these traditional gathering and fishing places, the indigenous people moved or were moved to other locations. The combination of unsatisfactory treaty terms and the occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering places resulted in skirmishes between some tribal groups and army troops and volunteers. Apparently the May Creek villagers remained at their village for several months after the war ended, living in three houses. Eventually most of the tribe moved to reservations. The USGS surveys of 1860s did not record any Duwamish houses at May Creek. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately 9 feet. There has been considerable disturbance of the land over the last 100 years for industrial uses and then for construction of I-405. Material from the upland portions of the site was used as fill to create usable land for the shipbuilding and sawmill operations. The changing shoreline of in the vicinity of the May Creek delta is illustrated in Figure 3.10-2. No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified anywhere on the delta, but it is possible that some remains exist in the northern part because of the historic tribal uses of the original May Creek. Only the northeast corner of the Barbee Mill site, near the black building, falls into this area. Since most of the site is paved with asphalt, it was only possible to do shovel probes at the south end of the site. The holes immediately filled with water, indicating that there are several feet of fill here. This is not unexpected since the shoreline was moved farther to the west by constructing bulkheads and backfilling, and May Creek was relocated southward twice. Based on the above findings,the cultural assessment reports indicated that it is unlikely that this site would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources, but that the northeast corner had the potential for deeply buried resources. 3.10.2 Impacts 3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts Direct impacts on the buildings and site within the Barbee Mill site would occur from the demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings. The buildings have been determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register; therefore, there would be no effect on historic resources. It is unlikely that there are any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources on site, except at the northeast corner near the black building;therefore,while unlikely,the potential exists for impacts to cultural resources. 3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts Operation of a development under the Barbee Mill development plan would not affect cultural or historic resources. Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-130 September 2003 _ .... .. Shoreline Boundary V 1 0 „....., 14 '. .. ' 1 - •• _t ' .• .... "alt,-t ilk, • . "- • (United StatesSuryeyor General 1864) I;: t 0 ., . „ ., ,i 1!f.,. .tx 0 .,.;', :' r --H, :: '- May Creek ' ' 1 '. * \'' ' i, '' ---•-• (United States Surveyor General 1864) / ::*‘, :::,,ii, ',. :-.?, 1864 Wagon Road t . 1 , • Trail .. . ' . .I/ .- .1 '14.- (United SatesSurvayor General 1884) • .' if e0.1113 -- ''.1,'', ,, , ,. 1. .1 l'ira • :;:: '. 2,---4\17.. • Shoreline Boundary ,, , .",./../..,,.. a t'i. (United States Corps of. ngirisera 1920) .'",•,—...1:Q, i ' •-lk ..- ,-7 ,•;,,,,," ,,,,,,, .,! 1. hi a -1 ...••••••,•...,--i, , Mey.:Oree.li ,_.;., -:-:!•-',..,-----''A i..„4. rgl, :. '''t . • (OnitOd:$.tittei.4krmy corps of Engineers,1944 •''•,-'' ''-i4'o,'iif• ' li.:,, fl 1, •• ' ' H. .1,1 '!sm.mem!ow Fanner Rellroad‘ , -,,,,,,, „ir ....., or .ip .. :,,,,.,,,,, -,-- .0 IP (tkite;d1StateS,A0yr!Orps..of.Engineers 1920) ! •\.• 1 ..1:`" - „,,,tr .)1 ' A. ' ' $ '.....• SN...*,,xdeen, .,.... '. 0 (_ . • ' ' 1 PresentMay'Creek, •' "r..Z.,..,— -; •'.•.1 ,9-- -• 4,-• . . -, 9 Marsh. • .si,,,..,:‘,..„. „4, ..._. , :-.1c,, - • . , „.,.... . „.. ..•, -- (itnitett•States MO Corps ofgngineers•1920) :.,,, ..• .0 .-,1 (tr .e .. ,• . 0 _ :'1 _ 1 , • • • 4$0'.7 I - 0.4- •':,-.1, .• 0 't7 11 :11 . , - ,.;lr.,.47,/ ir C .. ,'' i 1. /I • 170 Shoreline.'''. .:i.,44.:LI, . .,z) '.,-Prki .. /,'•„l' I, Lk'. A,Nri. P.,.. ;I- ,/, 'AI t7 .. .s. i'-: f ..-.'''- ", '' .-- ,I .. • . , 1 ...",'or- • 4,: ,,,i*•• ,. q.,..,e.g..' / , .•'; ''; vf ..,' •., ; '' 1 '- , 'j .. ''''‘`, V7 Vil°it*'' • 1 .14.° .' 1 C .. . . • ,,:ir i. x,, r!' , •-' 1864:Shoreline $.1 , . 11.-'. / .A. 4•!', .,.• .vz.r....,t,:.....s.,---- • --,. . ., , , . ,, , ,4 • c ..• ,- ,--.-..--,\. - ti--,----- .j, .e..? ,,, •AQi;..if., ., Q .-,;,(.,,,..,,,,;t '''r] I t •a ,,.... , . , . ''''''''' -`.,..\\.1 .-<.-ifi.. . /rr 4 -i''114.',,,*• — 7''!'- ':'.'it' V 1 1 / •- - , , t:,:i14141- , ,* I. .1,2 ., y‘i.y •:,1,i, ..":''''' ,i A`e-1" ,:', A'''. . . _ • E . ..1...,' it . •N• ieff,efti.;.:.%,....,,h.. .k.oit.- ''''IT.,,,t. . -, 1 . • • • . . . k.,22.)(sijlfgetii.71 ,:,;"•'"?'t . . . •'..,...°... . 1 i .. ...._, -...r... • - : 1, ,i „._ . . •,,i(. -., .,..!!....."7 •- , . ., :....j.,,::,,,,.*•;ii ..,,,?,,.,,,„', .,,: , ,, ,.,, , 1 . ,,,,,, ,,,:,_ _ —....,..411.........„; ?..,...z. ,..7..ty,'k •, , ...ir',.., ,AA s. : :':,,,,,,.!,,,,,,42,,, -, • • : ,,, .. . . . .. •,.. '..-... ..- .--- i I:.i , I:.1 i,...._.i. . 4 • ,t-4-,,,--,.,,,-,:. :,':".. n .:. :iitl , ' . . „ ,--'• 1. : co .. . , , ,,,.....; . . , 7 ,t., ,.-_,,,,. „,,.. . , ..„.." .. ,,:, 1 0 if.,,,., Of. 1 • 1 -. • - . . ..- ;I : i ; i - • • • ' i t---- y, ,• - -• . V )11., . •L,,, , • May PreaK , A? 4 • T6 . I . •ti ' y — i r '".i. • ‘ ' ,. . - ..J. . . P . ...-, . ' • in 1920''.:, c? - t..„ 3. t ." , ---, • • . • • l,,''' . • .. • ;*!.- ' • - --%.,...citng. it' , -, Marsh in.1920., • • .... .i'.4(•i.. .'. ,4, -, -,4..4. ,.. •. . • • .„...2 ... -.Ir;a A.s a , . , k • . :- i, c) :... .,$i '• . .4 •,,,,,,_?:.K...": C.":"1 ii \ r\ 0, •...,.... \ • - • . •• . .,. : . , 1.:, , • ,. .. . • -I "frt, ' ' • • .1%, , •%,,, . \ '•' - , % • i -, "''( • • . . , , . 1,4 .ait . 0 in ,. 6.43 --'` • -'''''."--'1‘.\\* ill % . ft * -1'864 1 • . .-...,.-4.A.,,x...-,-,v, ••, , ! , .--,-• . . . -6.-,,,-t,,,, - 4/A1 . •L V "A" rt .'. 1 :•.,‘.\ • - ..:t . : ,../ ':1,0". ...-74. ./4?-„,/.,-;,• ', 4 1.864 Trail: i •:[,, ..May Creek. 0 , ' 41 RI 1997 .a f . ' •• , Z ; . i ' \ . ) . UtiW.Yrr,4 ' 1 • fl''''t N , ' / - . • ''. .. q i 1 /it'' i 1/2:se .,-.' ..: . .' . - .... -.1,:ig • ,' .1.,' j:i 0 a-. 1, • A - SOO .1000 , ,,,/, ily-11.f."---7. -:,,. ..,-. ,...,- ..- ,,L,.:c....:-.:::_t. ,• 1_, ? 1 •f :cl it .. .. ' , , ,-t.- ,^-7,..„."..=,, :AMC - . :A., , '.' * .I\1 'Feet. i "' i/4: •74 47 - ' .,...,,, ' ,k . • ' 1.‘) ; 1000 feet=i 305 nietere . . .. ... 4- •tn.A' . '., ,..1,,,,-, .,4 / : , / . 'i ‘, ..i. c y .....- e - - sc AT.. Bate Map froni USGS BelleVue South, .. .. 'Washington,.1988: Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K) . PAI Figure 3.10-2 , 40 Lake Washington Shoreline Changes 3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts Indirect or cumulative impacts on cultural or historic resources within or near the site would not occur under this development plan. 3.10.3 Mitigation 3.10.3.1 Historic Resources Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. Although the original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is ' the last of the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an opportunity to commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display could build on a brief description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a history of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near May Creek and its delta. 3.10.3.2 Cultural Resources An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction, the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would also contact Dr. Robert G. Whitlam, Washington State Archaeologist (360-586-3080), who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources due to this development plan. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-132 September 2003 i 4. REFERENCES AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington,D.C.:American Association } of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington: Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617 Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of Jj Transportation. Seattle, WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002. Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374. Bucknam, R.C., Hemphill-Haley, E., and Leopold, E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V.258,p. 1611-1614. Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp. Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and California. U.S.Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp. Cadman, M.D., P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. 617 p. Chrzastowski, M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal,King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182. City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended October 25, 1999. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone communication, 05-20-03 CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues, Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003, http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf 1 Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 September 2003 C_, ili I Dane County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane County Regional Planning Commission, Madison, WI. Available at http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/fmal/html/chap5.htm D.vid Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property. 14 pp. plus appendices. I. i ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm. I � i I ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm. (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on August 14,2002. E ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Program,Olympia,WA. August 2001. E ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. E tranco, Inc. 2001. I-405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report. Prepared by Entranco,Inc. for the City of Renton. E ponent. 1999. Noson,L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November 1 99 F deral Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054. F MAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland Oregon. F=IWA 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002 Fbster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and City of Renton. August 1995. I � VIA (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999 F esh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management 9(1):148-151. C ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 D loft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 September 2003 FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16. Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development,Golder Associates,April 4,2002 Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development, Golder Associates,May 5,2003. Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene, Researcher,May 2003. Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on the foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and R.J.Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology, University of South Carolina Press,Columbia, South Carolina. Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340. Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan,Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16,2000. Revised September 6,2000. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc. HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capcity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center. University of Florida. Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science, 236, 162-168. Houghton,L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994. Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53. Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158. BRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange. May 2000 http://vvww.ce.washington.edui—liquefaction/html/main.html International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm Jacoby, G. C.; Williams,P. L.;Buckley,B. M., 1992, Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1621-1623. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 September 2003 Jo son, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 95 pp. Jo son, P, D Mock, E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study:Phase I,Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 00-06-016. Johnson, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111;no.7 p. 1042-1053. Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to the City of Bellevue,Bellevue, WA. Karlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620. King County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department - Surface Water Utility. 'ng County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. September 1998. 4 ing County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. 4 ing County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm utson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. AAS. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. March 27, 1997. arson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001 e Universityof Washington Press, R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. gt Seattle,Washington. 320 pp. I loyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994. oyd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company, stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie, Washington,for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 craft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 September 2003 �I I Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. r Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10 November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxzl6/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf. Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999. http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf. May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap County Natural Resources Department. Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001. Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey:Prentice Hall. Mockler,A, L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream Mitigations in King County. King County DDES,Renton,Washington. MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. hllp://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.httn, last updated November 18, 1997. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T.C.Wainwright,W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp. Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office of Habitat Conservation. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January 1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/. Noson,L., Qamar, A., Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al, US. Geological Survey Open- File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofO1-029/. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 September 2003 O I OT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3- 6.pdf. O ak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. P.'rametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19,2002. Piaskowski,R. and R.Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. Available at:http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf. Pollack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit Foundation,Washington Environmental Council,and Point-No-Point Treaty Council. Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 246 p. Q igley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057- 1,713 pp. ' Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000. edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton, Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton, Washington. August 26,2002. such 1997, EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction- Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-219182249741411/unrestricted/Chp03.pdf enton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of Renton Planning Commission. Tenton, City of 1999. N. 40th Street Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage report. City of Renton PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility. I ' Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. Cp of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Daft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 September 2003 I' - Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV:University of Nevada Press. 604 p. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press, Vancouver,B.C. Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137. Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100- 111. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson,June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon & Wilson,June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson,June 2001. Shannon&Wilson. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405/NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson, June 2001. Sherrard, David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development, American Planning Association,January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999. Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12. Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept, Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett,WA, September 26,2002 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis, Oregon. 356 p. Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington. Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,Washington,April 2002. Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington,December 2002. ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property. ThermoRetec,April 5,2000. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 September 2003 Tri-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey, Washington. U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington. November 23, 1999. .S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map. Assessed on April 8,2003. - SCE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1- 1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace- docs/en -manuals/em1110-1-1905/c-l. df. g p SCE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001. http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf. SDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/ U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map. • ssessed on April 8,2003. ISEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation,Building Equipment,and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971 2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. ana-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological report 82(10.154)46pp. ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia,Washington. - ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. ashington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report by Washington Department of Natural Resources,Olympia, Washington. ashington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington. Report 92-22. 125pp. i'ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 raft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 September 2003 - Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, WA. 704 pp. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff - WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. HDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001. WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Department of Transportation,Design Manual, 1998. Olympia, WA. Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington: US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147,37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000. Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land. s— . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 September 2003 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Renton Federal Agencies City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce Fire Renton Historic Society Police King County Audubon Society Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Environmental Services Libraries King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library King County Surface Water Management King County Library, King County Dept. of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library Tulalip Tribes Media City of Newcastle Seattle Times City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal State Agencies Renton Reporter Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Transportation Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Department of Natural Resources City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 September 2003 APPENDIX A Scoping Determination BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING DOCUMENT Uti�Y �.A City of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SLOPING DOCUMENT In roduction 1 D scription of the Proposal 1 Project Site 1 -' Proposed Action ... 1 Relationship to Remediation Process 2 Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals 3 A ternatives Chosen for Analysis 4 E S Approach 4 E ements of the Environment 4 Natural Environment 5 Built Environment 7 F nal EIS 12 1 I I _ P oject Name/Number: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat File No. LUA-02-040, ECF, PP L-ad Agency: City of Renton R sponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) do Jennifer Henning Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ' P oponent: Barbee Mill Company Alex Cugini P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98057 Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner Development Services Division, P/B/PW Renton City Hall-6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (425) 430-7270/ (425)430-7300 fax 1I INTRODUCTION The City of Renton has requested comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. Both public and agency scoping meetings regarding the project have been held. Comments submitted in writing or given through testimony have been considered and incorporated into this document where appropriate. All comments received during the scoping period are contained within the official land use file and are available for review. This scoping document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives as well as those elements of the environment identified for consideration and analysis in the EIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Project Site — The 22.9-acre site is located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard North between North 40th Street and North 44th Street and abuts Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary. The property contains 16 buildings, some of which are currently utilized for limited lumber operations with the remaining buildings unused and in disrepair. Existing development within the vicinity of the site includes predominantly detached single family housing located within the Residential —8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zone. The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning designation, which is intended to provide for a mix of intensive commercial, office and residential activity in a high quality, master planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Stand-alone residential development is also permitted in the zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) is satisfied. The site is located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines and is, therefore, subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. The property is relatively flat with approximate grades ranging from 0.5% to 4% to the west for areas north of May Creek, from 1% to 7% towards May Creek and Lake Washington on the south side of the creek, and from 7% to 35-40% along the banks of May Creek. The City's Critical Areas Maps designate the property as containing potential high seismic hazards, steep slopes (15%to 25%) and flood hazards. Proposed Action — The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 square feet to 7,336 square feet. The proposal would result in a net density of approximately 8.35 dwelling units per acre (22.9 gross acre site — 9.13-acres combined sensitive areas and public roadways = 13.77 net acre —* 115 units/ 13.77 net acre = 8.35 du/ac). The lots are intended for the development of townhouse units — most of which would be constructed as duplex structures along with some 3-unit, 4-unit and 5-unit structures to be located on the southeast side of May Creek. Lot lines will be located along common walls with separate units on each lot. The shoreline fronting lot lines would extend to the inner harbor line. Scoping Document A-1 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat L ndscape,;roadway, utility improvements and four utility/open space tracts would be established with the plat. With the exception of the existing building located on the shoreline (within Department of Natural Resources lease land), all buildings would be demolished as part of the project and lumber operations would be discontinued. Access to the project would be provided via an existing 60-foot wide access easement, which would be dedicated to public right-of-way, from the Lake Washington Bolulevard/Ripley Lane intersection through the abutting property on the north side of the si The project would provide 42-foot wide internal public roadways throughout the m'=jority of the project with a 32-foot wide roadway proposed on the south side of May C eek. Private streets and driveways are also proposed in specific locations within the pl-t• In,order to provide connection to the secondary access point at the southeast corner of th'- property, a bridge crossing over May Creek (at the location of one of the three e isting bridges) would be necessary. Installation of new foundations for the proposed b dge may require work below the ordinary high water mark of May Creek and if so, would require approval of a variance from the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing R,I gulations prior to the installation of required plat improvements. An additional existing b I dge is proposed to be utilized as a pedestrian crossing. T e western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake ashington shoreline — for which a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark would be maintained. No other alterations or improvements to the lake shoreline are in luded with the proposal. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta w thin Lake Washington. The project would provide a buffer from the May Creek ordinary high water mark ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet in width and would restore c rrently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. All mature trees to ated within the May Creek buffer area are proposed to be retained. T e project applicant has also identified two category III wetlands with associated - b 'ffers within property boundaries — one adjacent to the southeasterly property line near t e end of street C (aka "northerly wetland") and another at the southern edge of the site n ar the south end of street C (aka "southerly wetland"). The applicant is requesting to b ffer average the minimum required 25-foot buffer for the northerly wetland. In addition, approximately 400 square feet of the southerly wetland is proposed to be filled, With enhancements to the northerly wetland and buffer area proposed in order to itigate for loss of wetland area. roject construction would require extensive grading and excavation activities throughout the site for the removal of existing asphalt areas and the creation of new b ilding pads, roadways, and utilities. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at a' proximately 32,000 cubic yards of excavated material and 38,000 cubic yards of fill IIlIlIaterial to be imported to the site. In addition, approximately 18 trees would be removed as part of on-site grading activities. Relationship to Remediation Process — The Barbee Mill Company has proposed an dependent remedial action plan (IRAP) pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act TTCA) to the Department of Ecology in order to perform excavation and removal of proximately 21,500 cubic yards of arsenic contaminated and elevated zinc level soils ( hose exceeding MTCA method A levels) that are contained within the uplands portion --- f the property. The environmental investigations and proposed remedies for the arbee Mill site are documented in the following report: coping Document A-2 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas, Barbee Mill Company, Renton, Washington prepared for the Barbee Mill Company dated September 6, 2000 by Hart Crowser, Inc. The IRAP was reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Department of Ecology on September 12, 2000. Subsequently, the City of Renton conducted Environmental (SEPA) Review and issued a Special Fill and Grade Permit for the remediation project on September 9, 2002. The permit will remain valid for a period of 4 years with the requirement for either an extension or new permit upon expiration. Although the approved remediation is anticipated to occur concurrently with site preparation activities for an approved development project, some analysis regarding the intended clean-up levels and the appropriateness of those levels for the proposed residential development will be necessary in this EIS. Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals — The following permits and approvals will likely be required for the redevelopment of the site: • City of Renton: Preliminary Plat Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval Level II Site Plan Approval Level I Site Plan Approval Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable Wetland Buffer Averaging and Compensation Approval Street Modification Approval Railroad Crossing Access Approval Site Preparation, Demolition, and Construction Permits Final Plat Approval • King County: Shoreline Permit for DNR lease lands • Washington Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste— No Further Action Letter National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable Water Quality Certification • Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) • Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: Approval of Railroad Crossing(s) • US Army Corp of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits, if necessary • US Environmental Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance • All other applicable licenses and permits necessary to allow the redevelopment of the site under the proposed action. Scoping Document . A-3 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I A L TERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS In addition to the proposed action described above, the following alternative will be c nsidered in the EIS: Now Action — Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property (the specific in.ustnal activity on the site may change over time, but on an overall basis would remain cs'nsistent with its character). Some form of clean-up would likely occur per the a proved IRAP, but the specific cleanup plan and the timing of remediation would likely b:I different and extended. E S APPROACH E S Re•uired — The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have significant adverse impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (:IS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. T e EIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a r suit of redevelopment to the site. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of d tail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA will not be n cessary. Tie EIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for the site and c imprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton. Some of the d cuments that will be consulted and incorporated, as appropriate, into the analysis of t e EIS include: • Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS (January 1992 and February 1993). • City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS (December 1994 and February 1995). • Port Quendall Preliminary Plan Draft and Final EIS (September 1981 and February 1982). • May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report(August 1995). • Barbee Mill Dredging, Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated, LUA-02-067, ECF, SP, SM (August 2002). • Barbee Mill Soils Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated, LUA- 02-069, ECF, SP, SM (September 2002). E, EMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT T e lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct, i direct and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal a d alternative will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the e vironment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted. T e items discussed within both the natural and built environment categories have been p leliminarily listed in order beginning with those that should be studied most extensively, ftIllowed by items requiring lesser levels of analysis. Although the analysis of the less s gnificant items will likely be minimal, it is necessary due to the inability to fully ascertain the breadth of such impacts based on the information provided. Therefore, the coping Document A-4 arbee Mill Preliminary Plat identification and disclosure of those potential impacts as they specifically relate to the proposal, along with associated mitigation measures as warranted, will be contained within the EIS. Natural Environment Earth —A site specific analysis of soil, geologic and hazard conditions will be prepared. This analysis will build upon the data provided in previous documents. The discussion of existing conditions will address the soil and geologic characteristics of the site and the sequencing of the geologic strata that underlie the ground surface and the offshore area. Any limitations of the site's soils for grading and for support of structures and roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided. In addition, a discussion of applicable geologic hazards as established by the City's Critical Areas Maps with emphasis on the site's potential as a seismic hazard area. Seismicity of the region will be discussed and will include a description of some of the larger historic earthquakes that have affected the area, as well as the potential for the site being affected by larger earthquakes that have occurred at times that pre-date settlement of the area. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction will be addressed. The susceptibility of the site's soils to erosion and sedimentation, and existing sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will also be described. Appropriate design of the foundations and other supporting structures, as well as anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described. The general nature of these types of building foundations will be discussed in order to provide a baseline for evaluating potential impacts of construction. An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be conducted. Impacts associated with cuts and fills that would be constructed in association with access roads leading to the site and general site grading will be addressed. The quantities and depths of cuts and fills will be estimated, and any need for import/export of material identified. The potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts will be evaluated; specific emphasis will be placed on any potential impacts to May Creek. Any potential slope stability impacts will be defined for steeply sloped areas along May Creek. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified. Soil and sediment contaminant sources and levels that exist on site will be identified based on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion). Plants and Animals: Shoreline and Wetland Habitat — Existing upland habitat conditions and values on-site will be described. An analysis of existing on-site wetlands will be performed with functions and values of the wetlands and their habitat relationships to May Creek and/or Lake Washington to be described. This analysis will build upon data provided in previous documents and field confirmation of present conditions. Scoping Document A-5 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I , An assessment of the proposed shoreline buffer areas of Lake Washington and May reek will be provided relative to any upland habitat value and identified critical habitat a leas. Potential impacts to upland habitats and any identified wetlands from project c nstruction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from i creased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. In addition, a alysis of cumulative impacts from reasonably expected unrestricted landscaping and f ture applications for residential use docks from the lake fronting lots. Cumulative i 'pacts from future use or alterations of the DNR-owned uplands will also be addressed. pportunities for enhancement of resources will be examined, particularly in light of e isting conditions. Plants and Animals: Fisheries — Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake ashington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of fi heries habitat and functions. A plan view and side view maps of shoreline fisheries h bitat will be prepared. The examination of existing biological activity, as well as the c ndition of the near shore lake bottom sediments, will build upon existing studies. This d ta, together with the assumption of fish use, will be used to characterize existing c nditions. P 1 tential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the p oposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on critical habitat areas d e to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in ter quality conditions, the influence of in-water structures (docks, bulkheads) on ;_ s lmon/predator interactions, dredging-related impacts and increases in lighting on s Imon migration. Mitigation plans and/or opportunities for habitat enhancement and the a equacy of the proposed shoreline buffers will be examined. Water Resources: Stormwater Draina•e / Runoff / Floodin• — Existing drainage p:tterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described, with particular attention to peak fl ows to May Creek. Drainage sub-basins within the site will be located. Specific fl oding and sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will be addressed. P•st-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Potential i pacts to May Creek and each surface water discharge location will be evaluated, i cluding possible increases in erosion and sedimentation due to construction. Ao ditional analysis of the upstream drainage basin for existing and future developed conditions will be conducted to address the potential need for upsizing existing culverts. A alysis of detention, water quality and compensatory storage for filling within the floodplain will be included. In addition, options for alleviating sedimentation problems at t e mouth of the creek will be examined, specifically addressing the continued dredging o the creek relative to potential flooding impacts and expansion of the 100-year floodplain into developed areas. The appropriate design of bridge foundations located mthin the floodplain will be discussed. The relationship of the proposed drainage system to the adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed, and the need fcr any mitigation identified. Water Resources: Groundwater — Groundwater levels on-site and immediately adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based on past and current investigations. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. Any I 1 Soping Document A-6 8 rbee Mill Preliminary Plat potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed. Groundwater contaminant sources and levels that exist on-site will be identified based on information. generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion). Water Resources: Water Quality — Existing water quality conditions in lower May Creek and Lake Washington will be described based on available data and previously conducted studies. An assessment of the current conditions of any wetlands, seeps or swales will be performed. Surface water contaminant sources and levels that exist on- site, if any, will be described based on information generated as part of the IRAP. City of Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to shoreline areas, wetlands, surface water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified. Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed, including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of urban runoff. Potential impacts to May Creek, Lake Washington and any wetlands will be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for May Creek and Lake Washington will be compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will be described and examined. Air Quality — The analysis of air quality impacts will be not be requirerd. Construction- related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for generation of dust during site grading activities, will be mitigated by normal conditions of approval . Built Environment Transportation — An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Lake Washington Boulevard, Ripley Lane, Park Avenue North, Burnett Avenue North and WSDOT 1-405 facilities at the NE 44th Street and NE 30th Street interchanges will be included. Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed with levels of service at nearby intersections to be analyzed. There are several transportation issues regarding the proposed development that will be addressed, including impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington Northern Railroad and availability of public railroad crossings, access to the 1-405 freeway, impacts from increased trips through and on Newcastle streets, and cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed development and existing, as well as future, land uses. In addition, safety, pedestrian and non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access, transit impacts and the design of the railroad crossing(s)will be addressed. Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and alternative and will build upon previously conducted studies. The City's transportation model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will also be used to determine future year (year of opening for the proposed development) traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified Scoping Document A-7 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I I by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the tdtermination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway , , work will be analyzed for the project during the p.m. peak hour based on a level of s rvice (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted in ersections, including site access locations. Al, propriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include o tions for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could in'i lude options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode s lit to transit; HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also a dress, where appropriate, design of railroad crossings pursuant to WUTC and BNRR r quirements, as well as safety and emergency vehicle access. The proposal's p rticipation in planned off-site improvements, and additional improvements not currently p nned, will be evaluated relative to mitigation. T xic and Hazardous Materials — The site is known to contain contaminated soils — p imarily contaminated with arsenic and zinc. An Independent Remedial Action Plan p rsuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) has been approved by the Department o Ecology and the City of Renton (file no. LUA-02-069) that would bring soil conditions u to residential standards. The IRAP has not yet been implemented on the site. Discussion of timing of the intended clean-up as it relates to site development p separation will be included in the EIS. 1 I addition, analysis of contamination levels on adjacent properties and compatibility with t e proposed residential development will be completed. This analysis may build upon t 'e on-site analysis conducted for the site but must specifically address the compatibility a; d appropriate proximity of the proposal with heavily contaminated properties abutting t 'e site. esthetics Li•ht and Glare — Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the s°te and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The i dustrial character of both the upland and marine portions of the site will be described. description of the general view shed to the site, which includes surrounding residential ( o the north and east), 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard, and portions of the West ill (unincorporated King County), Mercer Island, Newcastle and Lake Washington itself, ill be included. Photos from these representative viewpoints will be provided to visually dl cument existing conditions. he potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be aluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline features will be c nsidered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal during the different phases of redevelopment, as seen from selected viewpoints, potentially including from ake Washington and Mercer Island, area parks and roadways, and representative fisting residential areas, will be evaluated. Visual representations such as view corridor maps, conceptual drawings, photo simulations, computer simulations, or other it ustrations will be used in this analysis. he change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to residential will be valuated, particularly relating to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the urrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any isual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are arranted will be evaluated. coping Document A-8 arbee Mill Preliminary Plat I ' Existing sources of light and glare emanating from the industrial use of the site will be identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding land uses (especially residential uses to the north and east); residences across the lake on Mercer Island, and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. An assessment of the impacts of night lighting on fish habitat will also be discussed (integrated with Fisheries analysis). Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare will be identified, as appropriate. Noise — The analysis of noise related impacts will include relevant federal, state, and local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on surrounding uses. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual distances to potential receptor locations in the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. Potential means for mitigating any identified traffic and other noise impacts will be discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified, as warranted. Land and Shoreline Use—The Land Use analysis will not be analyzed. All issues related to land and shoreline use will be analyzed separately as part of the permit review and approval process. The permit review will consider relevant issues including conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and related plans, ordinances or regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal. with the City's Zoning Code, and Office/Residential zone provisions, the proposal's relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Regulations) and he relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program. Public Services and Utilities: Fire Police and Emergency Medical Services — This element will not be analyzed. The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would increase the capacity demand of the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Fire Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat. Public Services and Utilities: Parks—This element will not be analyzed. It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for park and recreational facilities. The proposal does not include the provision of on-site recreation areas to meet the full park demand of future residents of the proposed plat. This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Parks Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat. Public Services and Utilities: Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste — This element will not be analyzed. It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for utility services including water and wastewater. Impacts of the proposal will be met through the utility services capital improvement and financing program and may include on and off-site improvements, utility hookup fees or other charges. Sco in P 9 Document A-9 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat � I I P blic Services and Utilities: Stormwater — Stormwater impacts will be analyzed as !- part of the Water Resources element. P blic Services and Utilities: Schools—This element will not be analyzed. TIe project will have a marginal impact on schools, but is within the growth projections anticipated by the current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities, o 'make facility improvements, including transportation services. Historic and Cultural Resources — The analysis of historic and cultural resources will b utilize existing information resources. Cultural resource records and reports on file at th State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be researched, along with r ports, maps, photographs, etc. available at the University of Washington and State iraries. Consultation with appropriate tribal sources will be conducted. Based on th se sources, and with consideration of the recent industrial use of the site, any areas o I potential cultural or historic sensitivity will be highlighted. If the potential does exist, p Itential impacts from construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed. M asures to mitigate any potential impacts will be identified, as appropriate. S cioeconomics Po ulation Housin Em to ment — This element will not be a 'alyzed. T e projected growth is within the general future forecasted population, housing, and e ployment characteristics for which the city has developed its Comprehensive Plan aid facilities plans. I i I I FNALEIS en the Draft EIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and a ency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment p riod (usually thirty days)will be incorporated into a Final EIS, together with appropriate r=sponses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to the is.uance of the Final EIS. I . I I I ' I oping Document A-1 0 arbee Mill Preliminary Plat I �' I MICROFILMED Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 Appendices B - E Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington • Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com August 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 APPENDIX B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report t ' Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report Prepared for City of Renton Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com August 2003 Project No.554-1779-017(01/06) TABLE OF CONTENTS Li 1. INTRODUCTION B-1 2. METHODOLOGY B-3 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS B-3 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY B-3 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS B-3 • 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport B-4 • 2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling B-4 2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS B-5 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model B-5 2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping B-10 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT B-12 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA B-12 3.1.1 Channel Morphology B-12 3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION B-12 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN B-13 3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions B-13 4. IMPACTS B-14 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 —50-FOOT SETBACK B-14 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2— 100-FOOT SETBACK B-15 5. MITIGATION B-16 6. REFERENCES B-17 ATTACHMENTS A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents 1 I City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-i August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LI T OF FIGURES B-1 Project Vicinity B-2 B-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates B-11 LILT OF TABLES B-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows B-3 B-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results B-5 , B-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry B-6 B-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness B-7 - B-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness B-8 B-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages B-9 B-7 Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results B-9 I , B-8 Increases in 100-Year Floodplain Depth with Setbacks B-15 1, } Ci n of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) , Ball bee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-ii August 2003 i I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS cfs cubic feet per second EIS environmental impact statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System i ! HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN mm millimeters RM river mile USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey WSE water surface elevation '�r y ,. City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-iii August 2003 • 1. INTRODUCTION • This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed _ redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate approximately 115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is adjacent to the 111 site, has been periodically dredged since the mid 1950s to maintain water depth for storage of logs in Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging operations artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth. Periodic dredging is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential development. Ending dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of Mill Creek. This -- floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the stream and the floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with proposed development alternatives. Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes in delta levels (aggradation/degradation) due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain under estimated future delta and channel elevations and flow conditions. � f J-_ 1! J Ciry of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-1 August 2003 2 5 405 522 DUVALL 202 REDMOND KIRKLAND 202 203 520 SEATTLE Lake,/ BELLEVUE 1Nashingfon,;:::• .,, z ,.. 90 ISSAQUAH " �,. NEWCASTLE 900 RENTON PROJECT 405 SITE Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure B-1 W Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I } 2. METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative. 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed (King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic model was prepared for the May Creek - watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model(Table B-1). Table B-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured 1990 Flood Event 598 Measured FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled Source: King County(1995). ' Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table B-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed, which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed. 1 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY Based on review of existing and historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April 2003, the proposed alternative is located on the May Creek Delta. The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately river mile (RM) 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King County 1995). The 1897 United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. The low gradient of the stream in the project area is influenced by Lake Washington. 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates, which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and the supply of sediment ' available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion creating a wider channel. CityRenton o.f 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-3 August 2003 n ; I ' 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport Cons ruction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet I to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel, resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate flow n a fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream ";r ener is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could only et a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along with he relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations), woul limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. Aggr dation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant upstr am sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the delta Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the mout of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build (King Co 2001). Ag dation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and sedi lent transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect woul be temporarily lessened, and some short-term incision upstream would be expected. I _ Wi ut dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by agggr (ding. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth, caus ng flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed way s would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet Ibove the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the wint,r lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom. Survys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002(Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation has Incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge, and about 0.5 foot downstream of the main brid 'e relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 1993). These differences indicate the potential for grad I changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade control structure at the stream gage at the BNSF brid"e controls the upstream incision, but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main sour'e of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area. I 2.3. Sediment Transport Modeling Bas Id on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from sandy gravel to sand within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May Creek channel, until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However, based on &liment transport modeling and literature information(Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be expcted to be so easily transported to this point(Table B-2). City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbe Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-4 August 2003 ' I - Table B-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results Mobile Particle Size(cm) Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a 25 cfs(mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0 I} ` 2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3 589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0 1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0 Source:Andrews(1983). a See Figure B-2. The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and jI small magnitude floods,giving the May Creek Delta layering. Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to the delta(Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion occurring further up May Creek Valley. ti— A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate. When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington. 2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback alternatives. The 100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year return period, or the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year. 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model (USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included river system schematic data, cross section geometry and downstream reach lengths, bridge data, and energy loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge _ information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections. City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-5 August 2003 I 2.4.1c 1 Geometric Data Rive' System Schematic The Ludy reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at I the c,nfluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0), with the stationing increasing in the upstream direc ion. Cros,1 Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths - Ch. el cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and elev. ion points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed _ usin_,a topographic survey conducted by OTAK(OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and HEC- RAS mi odel is NAVD 88/91. ' I ' For :ach cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between ma' channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using , I note- made as part of the OTAK survey. 1 The .eometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the no ern bank (Figure B-2). The survey data indicated that the northwest bank (levee) was the high point and it at the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding condo Lions, the cross sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation. 1 , , This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents - , ' floo.' g conditions at the site. , I Cros. sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric chanicteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections(Attachment A). Brid,.es The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in HEC-RAS. Bride geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was veri''t ed using the results from a previous study(Table B-3)(INCA 1993). Table B-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry ' Bridge Opening Low Chord Height High Cord Bridge Deck Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet) ,- 1 Low-IL Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14 Midd a Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4 1 Upp=r Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38 i ' A n:w bridge is proposed for the site; however, no design information was provided, so it was assumed that the iridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow. Ene'gy Loss Coefficients r _! The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction and !xpansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses. City o.1 Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barb a Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-6 August 2003 ; i 1 Manning's Roughness Coefficient Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte 2001). The results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the upper portions of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site,downstream of the lowest bridge. Overall channel and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the USGS methodology(USGS 1989): H n=(nb+nl+n2+n3+n4)*m Where: nb=Base value;channel substrate n1=Degree of irregularity n2=Cross section variation n3=Obstructions n4=Vegetation m=Degree of meandering The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, n1, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general 7 ^ characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and observations(Tables B-4 and B-5). r- L Table B-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness Range { Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 ni Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 ns Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 0.000 0.004 percent of the cross sectional area na Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059 City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-7 August 2003 Table B-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness 9 9 p 9 Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 ni inor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in 0.001 0.005 many locations nz la n3 egligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004 floodplain I n4 mall The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations 0.001 0.01 with minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel m la 1.0 1.0 n llanning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054 The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values of 0.)6, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0, because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07,which is higher than the USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative. Exp.nsion and Contraction Coefficients HE III RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to chan:es in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach was odeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values reco mended in the user manual for gradual transitions(USACOE 2001). Ent ance and Exit Loss Coefficients Ene : loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion and ontraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each brid;:e. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the exp. sion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the HE 11-RAS recommended values for bridges(USACOE 2001). • 2.4.P.2 Steady Flow Data Disc arge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the ' met Iod summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used for iI is analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the criti al depth. The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using US• COE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE)measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE WS on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This diff:rence, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to con left the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in whi h a 100-year storm event is likely to occur(November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake City Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barb-le Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-8 August 2003 r-� level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling. 2.4.1.3 Calibration The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over. This 1990 event was modeled,with the model predicting similar results(Table B-6). Table B-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference (feet) (feet) (feet) 8 25.6 26.5 0.9 7 24.9 25.3 0.4 6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9 6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9 6 23.3 24.5 1.2 5 22.6 23.8 1.2 4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1 FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however, the FEMA study did not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge (approximately RM 0.14)and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that L services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate the results(Table B-7). Table B-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results 1�! Depth(feet) Width(feet) Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference 11 3.5 6.6 3.1 50 36 14 5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 52 18 a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference. I- As shown in Table B-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FEMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow (using the right bank elevations), the HEC model indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is due to the influence of the bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC- RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FEMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed). City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-9 August 2003 1 i.i 2.4. i 4 Model Limitations _ Dep Oition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The HEC RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood level . The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this anal Ilsis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions. 2.4. Floodplain Mapping The , oodplain depth during a 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the proposed alte ative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The floodplain -- ' widt on the north side of May Creek(right bank)was estimated to extend to Lake Washington(Figure B-2). ii ' I11 1 ,I' I � � 1 , I - , i City c f Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) I Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-IO August 2003 r � /,,\, j/ /,)• J , , /1 , f:'•'f i ,...----. , , �i`I ,,,,, ._ ..- _ ,,,,_,..„,„,„„,„,•,,,,,,,,,„:„ .. ,„...„,_,_________, r .7 A/ • / r { ( � / / / // i/1K; 1 ,,, '‘,\j ,„„,-''''' \ \ /r / II I �. �' LIMITS OF FLOODPL�►IN f / / 1 /. 14 !, 1 } / 7k // / 4 / 41, i Via ! 0 i 7 N., 7 I/ 7 / i L. �_=�, - %,4)/ri/ r. j gip, );), ...„,i . _ , r: 1 \ ,,-- --- -,7 C I i -S6.75 , // / /, ‘ /4 l'y / LAKE i i Rs�s%. A4e% i_ == I i. , i` j LIMITS OF WASHINGTON ' 1 y' RS,,� ? f 1';: / r FLOODPLAIN E ,. /f j I 1 a j!i ' ), /•t J MAY CREEK 1 \ R f RS4.35 " `//� / \' . S. RS 4.25 / 7 / ' ,\\. ; Ili)/ 1 .4 .e. _ ..,,,, 4,;, i , ,f, K7 /fre` q i 9i _ t �. " 1� ,,� IDLE RIDG �� -- j j/ RS 2.1 , / / ffi 0 GF -------�-..-.�.._i � .:.;' . "/ / IN4OTHST 1 , LOWER BRIDGE Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-B-02 Figure B-2 4 Ala 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach W NO SCALE —•••—• MAY CREEK CENTERLINE 100-yr Floodplain j RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates ii_' 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills. This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the Railroad Bridge. 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However,I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. The low gradient of the stream in the project area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. 3.1.1 Channel Morphology Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed'single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations (Kind County 2001). 3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower portion entering Lake Washington. The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs, grass,and alders are located along the tops of the high banks. Trees,understory vegetation, and large woody debris,which are a critical part of the formative process for'stream channel substrate, streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed r- alternative site. City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) ''~ Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-12 August 2003 1 t I i III 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the proposed alternative study area was mod=led using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE 2001). HEC-RAS was used to calculate flood is lain widths and depths for the 100-year future condition flow rate flood event. In general, the 100- year 1 oodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the predicted 100-year floods lain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section 9 (Figure B-1; Atta ent B). 3.3.1, Hydraulic Restrictions Hydrlulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the ,, flood slain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive pow, of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made. I I 1 3.3. y 1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions Natu al hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater than e channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed d alte lative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the strea ,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach. 3.3. .2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions ' With the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper Barb le Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In addit on, as previously discussed,the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up with ill and are armored with riprap,which confines the creek to a single channel. --. 1 City o'Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbe Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-13 August 2003 4. IMPACTS Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors, including the erosive force of the river,the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the thalweg of May Creek)were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table B-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration, delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. The three proposed alternative scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued (thus allowing the delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the winter lakes level (el. 16.9), which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the individual proposed alternative scenarios assume the following: r ,k • Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill; • Scenario 2—The proposed alternative is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water;and • Scenario 3 —The proposed alternative is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback -, from ordinary high water. The proposed alternative within the 100-year floodplain is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition due to natural channel processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed alternative is difficult to quantify due to the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition,flooding,and channel migration. There is a strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream. Stream and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would encroach on the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees within the floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank storage and increase water surface elevations,which in turn could result in upstream and downstream erosion and flooding. In addition, stopping annual dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which would likely increase floodplain elevations. Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport, sediment deposition,and scour are addressed in the Fisheries Technical Report. 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 —50-FOOT SETBACK Under Alternative 1, existing constrictions on the floodplain and encroachment into the floodplain resulting from the proposed alternative would result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in the model (Table B-8). The project would be constructed with a 50-foot setback from the top of the stream bank, and it was assumed that the development would be built on a levee that would be high enough to protect against flooding during a 100-year flood event. It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site would remain with no modifications. The proposed alternative condition also assumes aggradation of the City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) - Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-14 August 2003 i 1 strea channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in increased channel scour and lank erosion,which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality. Table B-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks 100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet) j Proposed Alternative Scenario° 1 Cr'.ss Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill I� 1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 0 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9 l § 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8 1 ' 6.4 6.4 7.8 7.6 ''I I 8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5 1 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8 5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3 5.9 6.9 7.5 7.3 I 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 , 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1 Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995) 2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg. 3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges. (Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. ---I The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because the ite is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue and oodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-100-FOOT SETBACK Alte, ative 2 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Alternative 1 (see Table B-8). I I 1 , • ', City, Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) ' Barb e Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-15 August 2003 1 5. MITIGATION Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include constructing levees or constructing the proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level (King County 2001). The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1-ft above the ground surface during the 100-yr flood. Therefore,the levee or fill should be at least 2-ft above the existing ground elevation, to provide 1-ft of freeboard as required by RMC 4-3-050.I3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to evaluate a design. These mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding and reduce the chance of the stream migrating to a new location. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all existing bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain. However, potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with fill placement and levee construction y�l could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the greatest benefit to the stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to a— the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain elevation. Unless sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable flooding and floodplain impacts could occur. r—, _ Tfl 9 _ City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-I6 August 2003 6. REFERENCES Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of America Bulletin 94:1225-1231. Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County, [- Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725. Ii�' INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County,and L _ City of Renton. Job No.930120,3/23/93,by R.G.Hilliard and M.J.DuBray. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department- Surface Water Utility. King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division. Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources Research 6(5):1357-1365. Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center- River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, California. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union 35:951-956. City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) r Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-17 August 2003 Attachment A Hydraulics Support Documents — Results • • �I_ • River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=11 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 10 07-- —.06--34 It .07 34 .07--.06 >�< .07 Legend Legend 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future MI WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood II Ground . Ground v �, v0 c 28 1 Bank Sta 28 Bank Sta as ' 26 = m 26 }r, .r. 24 a �. 24 W p .0 22 22 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80, 100 120 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=9 River=May:Creek Reach= 1 RS=8 32-< .07 Vic=-.06 + .07 30 .07d . It .07 Legend 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 30- WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 28- • • i. :Ground Ground �, �. 26 ® 0 C. Bank:Sta. �. < Levee �������� , Bank Sta w3` w 24 4. 24 .- .. 22 22- - ,< 0 .20 40 60 . 80 . :. 140 . 120 140: 0. 100 200,`,;,. 300;,,. 400- , .500 . : . 600 Station(ft) „"Station(ft)::, River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=7 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=6.9 ¢.0731 1 .07 d .¢.07� I" .07 28- 0 Legend 28. 6 Legend - 6 i ♦ WS-FEMA 1996 WS FEMA'1996 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26-1 WS 100-yr Future Mi ■ WS 1990 Floodii a W5 1990 Flood Ground Ground 24-1 0 ! v 24- "` Ineff o - x. a 2 - Bank Sta m Bank Sta W 22- - M 22- 20- -, 20- 181 . • ., . , , , , , • , . , , 18^ T r 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=-6.75 River=May Creek. Reach= 1 RS=6.7 28 0'0 1( .07 1 .07 I Legend 28-7-6 d Legend -7 6 -7 6 WS 100-yr Future Mi - WS 100-ye Future Mi 26- WS FEMA 1996.: 26:. WS FEIVIA 1996 WS 1990'Flood ; ` .. ' WS 1990 Flood ■ Ground, : ■ Ground 247 ._'' ;V 24,. ;2;, 0 Levee. .. .: . Levee o. m 6 .•z. :Ineff. *§ ;y" Bank Sta • m' ,. ..Bank Sta 'u.. ,22- ;, -.3r; 20- 20 0 18 :18 , . , r • , . ,.• • . r , . r . • , • r • , 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Station(ft) Station(ft). River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach= 1 . RS=5 .07 ') 07>.; .07 28 7 6 . :Legend, 30 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100=yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 •WS FEMA.1996_ WS 1990 Flood 26 WS_1990 Flood �. . s.. • Ground Ground 24 I El a 3 c Levee. 24 • Levee. 6 s Bank Sta Bank Sta . Ill 22 w 22 , 20 20 18 1 18 16 1 , 1 ' l 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River= May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.4 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.35 J. .07 >I J. .07 28 0 6 • Legend 28 07 6 Legend a 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26: WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 24 WS 1990 Flood 24- •-WS 1990 Flood ' .. - ■ .Ground Ground 22- .1 22- �i - • Levee 7 Levee o p. - o T Bank Ste Ineff m20- w 20 w - Bank Sta 18- 18- 16- 16- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 . '100 . 200 ' . 300 ,400 500 600. Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.25 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.2 .07 .07 7I6� - Legend . . .. 28 7�6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi ' " WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 24 Ground 24 Ground v ' G. . . v. n Q o lir Levee . , . .il!. Levee 22 ineff i 22 1 .Bank Sta w Bank Sta w " 20 , 20 a�+' A kk 18 . 18 '1 16 16 , ... 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) - River=May Creek Reach.=1 RS=4 River=May Creek. Reach= 1 RS=3 .07 > .07 28".�6� Legend 34' 0"2 Legend. WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 6 WS'100-yr Future Mi 26 " WS FEMA 1996 3U" WS FEMA 1996 WS:1990 Flood WS;1990 Flood' 24 . ......- 28 �. Ground;. :: Ground:, levee; 26 Levee 22 M ,ij Bank Sta 1 Bank Sta iu m 24 ur 20 • 22 .a. 20 1 ... 18 : 18 16 16 0 200 • 400 600 800 1000 ' 1200 1400 • ' 0 200 400 600 ' " 800 1000 1200 1400 Station(ft) Station(ft). EXi4,-rfr t.• errs r icigs MAY I.N. 2003 River= May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach=.1 RS=2.25 24 li 014.. .07-) .- - 24 d 07 4.2 . Legend . Legend 6 WS-100 yr Future Mi ; . WS 100-yr Future MI 22 WS FEMA,1996- 22 r WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood- I WS 1990 Flood Ground •Ground 20 Ci. . "A' 20 w.l Levee_ c Levee o �.- o A } Bank Sta y Ineff _ N e w 18 J 18 Bank Sta 16 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.15 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.1 It .07 .07 d 24 20 Legend 24 2 Legend 6 6 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS:FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood . WS 1990 Flood ii I . . Ground • illi Ground 20 ill L1 Y 20 II 17 c Levee c Levee o A _o p al Ineff > Bank Sta 0 e d W 18 Bank Sta W 18 1616 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) • River='May.Creek_ Reach=.1: 'RS=2 River=•May,Creek '•Reach 1 , RS= 1 • 26 • -.07)o . • .07 24. 07 026 -- .07-=— . 2 Legend Legend. . • 6 S-100- rFute, i _,2 -,WS1990 Flood . • 24 • . .:, W$,FEMA'1998 WS 100-yr Future Mi • ru WS 1990 Flood 20 - • •W$"FEMA 1996 • Ground 18 . Ground • Levee- ;, Bank Sta 0 20 • =° 16 s �` co y Bank Sta > y: ,r - 14 ,. • 18 , !fi 16 10 14. 8 • 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 .0 50 100 ' 150 200 250 • 300 350 400 Station(ft) Station(ft) . , HEC-RAS ReitfPlan:17-. ,Riyer::Mayk,Creek` Reach:4=: .•, `" . . . . .. 3 ; EkistirigConcliticiir►�;�G.�.orAeirry�gti9� � . '�•,.. .��: •"'‘. . . ... . . ... . . ._ '�:: °Ft fiver Staj >• ..;, • :11TOO: bescriptir FlowA.read th 11 598 1990-flood • 22;0 27:6 .. ..;.5;6 • '' 5.9. ::101 5• 30 4 11. 1;059 100-yr Future,. 22.0 29:0 7.0 7.3 1:5:1:2`:_ 42.2,., 11 870 FEMA 1996 22:0 ., • 28.5. 6:6 6.7 133:5 36.2 10_ 598 21.4 - 26.7 514 6.3 94:5 28:9 • 10 1,059 -21.4 ' 28.0 6.6 8.0 135.4•,._ ' ',36:6 10 870 2.1.4 27.7 6.4 7:0 127:1 9 598. 20.3 26.5 62 4:4 137.2 . . .: 31:1.' 9 1,059 '20.3 27.7 7:4 : 5.9 199:6 81 3:•":. • 9.. . . 870 . .. " 20.3' : : " 27.5 7.2 5.0 186:5 72:7 : 8 598 20.0.. 25.6 • 5.6 .4.1 176.4 77.1 8. 1,059 20:0. 26.5 6.4 5.4 257.4. ',11.0.7 8 870 20.0 . • 27.3 7.3, 2.7 652.4 '_ 489.4 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 1352 36.7. ., 7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 7445 :. 558:3 7 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1 262 8 : 600.0 6.9 598 1.8.3 24.8 6:5 5.5 1326::. :: .35:3. 6.9 1,059 18:3: 26.4 8:0.`" 3.7 7261;; •.5579 :. 6.9 870 18.3 '•;27.3 8:9 ' 1.7 . 1,252 8. 600:0 6.8 Bridges , 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6. 4.7. . 1:37.6 42:1`: 6.75 . 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 . 61,66 ;. 5897 6.75 870 . 18.4 • 24.9 6:4 5.8 6.7 598 18:4' 24.0 5.6 4.2. 160.6 42.2 6.7 1,059 18.4. "..25.3 . 6.9 3.8 647.5 . 589:7:':': 6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5' 5.2 202:5 58:6 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9 6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9, 7.2 173.2. : 54.7' ' 6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 . 54.4 5 598 1.7.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 143.7. 48.6.:: 5 . 1,059 17.5 24.2. 6:7.. •. 3.5 . 876.4 1:,471..1 5 870 17.5 23:5 5.9 . 5.3' ':188.8 " 52.0:..: • 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 : 6:6 5.9. 130.4 49:4. 4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8:0 . 297.5, 560:6' 4.4 . 870 ' 15.3 . 22.8 7.5 6.5 179:0 53:8 4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 6.4 116.1 48.5 ' . I I , =RAS 'lair ,pl.M ._1:; w ,' ;:>;.: >: M!i~C;, P aii ,7:y River May.Crka 'Reacl w1:`•':mY ,4 <�, Existi,ng,,xGoiitiitiaris�Geaina rjt'�g�0'I� . .�� .,-.y •i��o-'"' .� -•" .•: .: .. NV ,} S«?d .A#ea.� �S>;' at :.�� .% .,H G ri'": a,.% /!�.y` T:1J rg 1 •�;tla �r I o-' o° - �. ..-,A.i ofr• a,3+. • River 8ta� .�> �°]'otal: �-t3escri"`tiiiri:':Min-C�i`E1 IAtS:� E1ev De���#�`::.�1lei.Ciitl��, t=liv��Area �=1IVicl4i'V.. :R cis' 'ft:`.: ° ft ft, F ft/.s ;` s" t"t -'i 4:35 -1;059 «15:3-•' ,,•-:..-. .23.1 •.7.8:.•:•:"......7:5':`, .' ::;..;:�174.5`-- ; �•560.6" ' 14:35. _ . - 870' - .153 . 22.5 ,,'-':-•'<7 2 ,., :, .,7'2:; ......:;150 8' - .:52:5-. ' 43 • . . Bridge' ' " • .!425. 598 . . .::16.7 . '• 21:62, - 4:9-.: : '3.2 - ' :108:2 - • ' 45..1 . .1. F. ; , • ".14.25" ' 1,059 . • - 16:7. 23.0 • ': .6:3' ' -• -7:4 - 165:4. . . : .'63.4. .. 14:25. 870 - 16:7 22:4 5.7 . 7.1 141':6 ' 48:1 , N . 1 4.2 598 - • 16.7 • 21.6 -':4:9: 6:0' ' 1.16.8' :'.45.0•, ' , I '4.2- 1,059 . - 16.7 - 23:0: • 6.3:.. ..-::-,7.1 185.0 .53.3- -I I1 { 4.2. 870 - 16.7 22:4 :.` : • 5.7 .'6.8; . 155.7 48,1: , �. 4 598 17.5 21.1 ' 3.6 • '.6:0 - 101.1 38.4 , 4' 1,050. . 1.7.5 22.6" ..5.1 :6.9 167.1 . • •52.5 4 870: 17:5. 21.9•. - 4:5 ' 6.8' . : 135.1 '43.7 1 1' I 3 598. . • 16.3 . • 19.9 . .-- ... 3.7 7.7 '- 79..3.' , 3:4.7_ 1 i i ' I 3 1,059 - 163 ' 22.2 ,- .5:9 ' 7.1 ' 1.87:0, - '55:3 • 11' i 3 870 . 16.3. ' •21.3. ; - :-5.0: " " 7:4•' .159.5 '5.1:7 • . l .• 12.3: _. . . .598 14.9. 19:9 5:1 • 6 7<. . :101..7: . -.28.6. •.. , '2.3 1,059 • ' . ' . •14.9 21:8 -- -6:9.. - ,'. 8:2: ' ,., ..157:7., .. ,.;..,:32,7.. . . I ,: ' • i. '2:3, • 870 • 14.9 •. 21--.1' :: 6:2.. 7:6, .. ,'1:36:2 '• ;:•3;1.2 - , 11 2.25' ' 598 14.9 19.9., : 5.0 : -::-.6-.8 . ... '100;9 -:28:6 _ 12.25. - . 1,059 14.9 :21:7 -• 6:9:' - 8 2 - 156 2 :: '•:32:6' I. 2.25 . 870 14.9 .'.'21.1 .. . • 6.2 ' .,7.6 .. 135:9. •-.31.2. . ! , !! 22 Mult Open ! , r r I I 12.15 ' 598- ' ' 15.5 1.9:2 : . .3.7 ; ° 8.3 .80.1' ' .30.0 , j I'2.15- 1,059 - 15.5': 20.5.'' ' . . 5.0: . 9.9:• .121.6 '. .32.3, - LI, ' Hi 2.15' 870 15.5 20:0 4.5 •9.3 105.3 .31.4 p , '. 2.1 598 - 15.5 .18:8 . : ' 34 • - .9:2 71.1 :: 29.5 ' -- I - 1 2.1. ' 1-,059 15.5 . 20:1 - 4.6 • 1.1.1.: - 107.9. • ... 31.5 ' I I! "2.1 ' •870. . . 15.5 19:6' . ' 4:1 - : 10.4 . :: 93.3.-; • 30.7' . : !.. .2 . '598 16.0: 18.7 2.7 . 7.7 77:7 42.2 1!1. 2 ..• . 1,059. • 16.0 - ' 19:6- ` • 3:6 , 2 . '9.2 : 1:16.4 ' ': 44:1 - 2 ••870' - ..16:0 . 19:3:''.. - 3:3: 8.6 • 1.00:9. ' . 43.4 ! , `) 1 598 14.7 -16:9 22 - • 1:4• • 495.5 1.76:7 - , 1 1,059 • '14.7 16-.9' '2.2. ' 2.4 495:5 176:7 ! 1 870 14.7 ' 16.9 • 22 2.0 .-. 495:5 . 176.7 I - Ilige-RA5 Nit:Plan 17:; gl'ilak,I: 1144-::Oreek .130a6h: V;i,:$:::,. --.;.,:: ::.., ‘.'°':::::,:::::,,,,,,,,,;•: -.:',;.:,::,: : ','!,, :,',.,., ,,,,,- :, ,,':,,.',,,,,:',,,'::,:,:'„,:-_,:,,, [Riiiiti$*1 Conditions,Addre01:401A0 No Middle Bridge Geometry,=-7:g.09::‘, lop :lili‘ieri,:.‘5,ta,.s'.-: ;44',tatal Description Miri:01E11,At.:$. :Ele*, -,,:',,f‘:)3:01$6 ;:c •-Ate1:01:01::: FloiiiAfea,,'.. VicftW,-,; (c,f.WE-:,::: `',;,,,':M::::,:,:-,,,, -'n• ,:4'.i(ft).4::;' ,,i';',,„:(1) (ft),' '',.',',:;,-Vtis:Yr 4 '-,(4cik,ft),;.':'':',;:,7Ifti:pi:::;:z 11 598 19904100 22.0 27.5 : ' 5.6 ::: 5,9(,:".::"'.:::..1 0,15':.'' , ...':30.4' ' 11 1;059 100-yr Future. 210 " 29:1 7.1 7.2 r::: : 156i2:,:-. 43:0- 11 870 FEMA'199`6 220 28.5 66 67 1335: ': : ..'352 10 • 598 21.4 . 26.7 54 6.3 ,: :945 : , 29.0 10 1;059 . .21.4 28.2 6.8 7.7, .,14Z9 : : 38:8 10 , 870 . 21.4 27.8 :6.4 7.0 1272 "352 9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 44 : 1373 .: : ; 311 9 1,059 , S 20.3. ' 28.0 7.7. 5.5 228,Z , -114:6 9 870 20:3 27.5 7.3 5.0 : :138.5„, ;: 74.1 8 598 20.0 ' 25.6 5.6 4.1 : „1765'::. .s' 77.1 : 8 1,059 - 20.0 26.5 6.4 .6.3 258.6 , 482.0 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 2.5 685.0 ', , 490,5 7 598 . 18:3 24.9 .6.6 5.4 135.3 36.7 7 , 1,059 : 18.3 26.4 8.1. 31 754;4 558;5 7 870 133 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 : 600.0 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 r 1321..-. 36.3:' 6.9 1,059 . 18:3: 26.4 8.0 31: : ,7365::' 6.9 870 183 27.3 9.0 1::6 .:. ,1303;2: :,'5660:0 6.8 Bridge . : 6.75 598 ' : 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 .: 1377 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.0. 6385: .: 58911 : 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7' 1753 : 593:: ' 6.7 598 .. 18.4 24.0 56 4.2 1601 .42.3 : • 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 5891 6.7 870 18.4 25.0 6.5 5.1 207.3 : 602 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 6 1,059 18;4 24.4 6.0 , 7.0 178.1 55.0 ' 6 870 18.4 . 24.4 6.0 5:8 " 178.2 55:0 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7' 144.5 48.7 5 1,059 17.5 '. 24.1 6.6 4.2 6,87.0 1470.9 . 5 870 17.5 23.9 0.3 4.6 :'358:.6 ' 1470.5 4.4 598 153 21.9 6.6 5.8 : 1323 49:6 ' 4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 87 3.6. . 754:9 : 561.1 4.4 870 15.3 238 8.5 3.4 .6749 561..Q 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 _ 6.5 6.1 127:0 49.1 1 ! . 1, 111071.34s,'Pie11:Riek,17•‘,:igiet-tMekOre,01, 'Reec,11:14..;.4, ,::::;:4°: }PrOP0e4.11:46n11ifkiltle;Aqgre11eiiiin-en11140:.Nli111114::BridOetPeaFil046r7,460ilik:„-:„17,;‘,tm. :43„i;', •;'.3''''';'' : ' ';'";4"itl:'%i,i6:Z''':'::.' :', '';:::';'-'n",jT''';.'4:;',,,;4-.,,:::: '-':':"-*,;',:': 1'...1,,,4,.'; '' -'4'. ;,','..:•:V,:,', „:‘., -::!If's l''',-i-,.,'%4I;T:altt-i:T , ;',' ,e, ,,':‘ ,‘' ', =.:'4': Ri)i.er;Ote:',": :4441:i>ter,. .110e0riOtiervIIVIe;rch:"El WISFIPV:.. ?De011** NetoQ111* Flow Area .rniii,10:11bi1 4 (dfe) --,::''`.'S.';'',:c!''.4i.:,;:':K°:-.4:1,'2-; ' '''''1:qt11;':''''', . ‘,;:' (11M: '.:1,',',' (ft):7'''7',:', 01.i),:,,,:.; R( cf ft).1`,3:, lftrE 4.35 1,059. ,' " 1.53 23.9 8.8 . '37 . -,.,'.,. -..74,2i.3.:". ': ':::;'.::50.1.1A 4.35 . 870 • ' . 15.3 :23.8 ' 8.5 - 3.4 . ::064.1, : ',501.0 ! II 4.25 598 , ' 16.7 21.8 5.1 56 127.1 :' :458 _ I 4.25 1,059 , ' 16.7 23.9 , 7.2 4-.1 - 024.7 555:6: I I 425 870 " ; ' 16.7 23.7 7.1, .. 3.8 :„ " 550.9 555.5 1 , 1 ' I 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 , 45,6 , I 4.2 1,059 , , 15.7 23.9 7.2 , „ 4.2 ' 611.3 - 555:6 I ' ! 4.2 870 .. 16.7 23.7 71 3.9 534.2 „ 555.5 r 4 598 . 17,5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 , . 1 i 4 1,059 „ 17.5 23.4 5.9 : ;. 5.8 , 220:3 127:1 4 870 , 175 23.5 6:0 4.4 364.2 1286.3 „ 1 ,I 3 598 : 16.3„ 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 '51,2 : I .. 3 1,059 . 16.3 23.2 69 5.7 245.4 61:5 1 " 3 870 : 16.3 23.3 7.0 , 4.5 254.6 : • 63.7. , II 2.3 598 . * 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 :101 3 -; :.:. 29:8'. S I 2.3 1,059 ' 15:9- 22.4 6-.5 ,8.5 156.5 : 35.'.7 2.3 870 ' ; '159 • 229 70 6.4 176.1 . " - ' 459• 1 . ' 0.0 • • : -' ,.• ! i , 1 2.25 598 , . 15.9 .207 : 4.8 7.0 ' 1002 • ' 29.7 ; . 2.25 1,059 , ; 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 , ; 1545 35.7 . ; 1 II 2.25 870 ".15.9. 22,9 7.0 6.4 •-: 175.7 45.5 III, 2.2 Mult Open • , 2.15 598 15.9 , 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31,0 Il 2.15 1,059 , 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 ' 124.6 33.3 " II 2.15 870 :15.9 20.6 4.7 9:1 109.0 32:4 . I 1 2.1 598 15.9, 19.5 3.6 9.2 730 30.3 , 1 2.1 1,059 15.9 ' 20.7 4.8 . 11.2 110.4 32A I; 2.1 870 :15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6 i 1 I 2 598 . 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8 11 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 : 115.3 ' 44,0 2 870 .- 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 ' 100.5 , ' 43.1 I '1 1 1 598 . • ,14.7" 16.9 22 1.4 4955 , 1763 1 1 1 I 1 1,059 ' : 14.7 ' 16.9 , 2.2 2.4 495,5 176,7 , i I 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 '2.0 495.5 176.7 1 s , . i I ; . , 1 I f 1 r i , I ' . HEC-RA$ 'PI ". .an:,:Plan 1"7 �R�ver�iUfay=Creek".:';Reacli �;1 Proposed,:Conditions,Aggredation.,anid,Ke Middle:Bridge :60:#t":Setback°>Geometry=g 1t0 °-.2-; <.. IRiv r r ti :iltl. Elev e .Sta: . :;c�•-r�tai'."',�:pesc �pto. ;t�ir�CtiAAI��. . s _ a (ft) ft ft" f#!Y s.::ft 11 598 1990-fiood 22:0 27:6 5:6 5 9. :. '-101 5:.' .'. .30,4:% g 11 1;059 100-yr Future ; '22:0 . 29.1 7.1 .71 15,56 435 11 870 FEMA 1996 • 225 28:6 67 6:5 • 137:2 1 36:8 10 : 598 21.4 " 26.7 5.4- 6:3. 94.5 28..9 10 - 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3 1,51.1 ' 42.1 10 870 -21.4. 28,0 6.6. 6.6°• 136 1 36:7 9 - .598 20,3 26.5 6.2 4.4- 137.2 . 31,1 9 1,059 20.3 ' 28.3 8.0 ' 5,0 " -246:9.. ' 83:2. 9. 870. . .. • ..20.3 27.8 7.6 . 4,6. 212:8 • 82,8 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 . 4.1. 176.1. 76:9 8 1,059 „ - 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 ` 370.3 103.0 8 870 ' '20.0 27.5 7.4 3.2 334.3 93.9 7 598 1.8.3 24.9 6:6' 5.4 1365 36.6 7 1,059 . ' 18.3: 27.5 .9.1 .5.0 ' 36210, 126,9 7 870 18.3, 27.1. 8.8 4.6 31:8.3 126,9 . 6.9 598 18:3" . 24:8 6.5 5:5 132:7 35.3 6.9 - 1,059. ' 18:3:. 27.4 . . 9.1 . "5.1 354.9 126:9. 6.9 870 18:3, 27.1 8.7 4.7 312:4 126:9 6.8 Bridge.' 6:75 598 18:4 24.0. 5.6 4,7 137.7 . 42,1. 6.75 1,059 . 18.4 • 25:5 ' 7.1 6:1 219:5" ' . . 84.1 . ' 6.75 870 .. 18.4' 24.9 6.5 5.8 177.2 . 78,5 6.7 598 , 18.4.. 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42,3 6.7 1,059• 18.4 25.5 '7.1 5:4 • 256:8 84.2 6.7 870 . .18.4 '24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8' 80.3 6' 598 .18.4 . 23.3 4.9 .5.7 '122.8 51.0 6 ' . 1;059. . 18.4 " 25.0 6.6 " 5.8" ' 236.9 106.8 6 .870 18:4 24.3 5.9 5.9 ' " 174.2 54.8 ' 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144:5 48.7 5 1.;059 . " ' .17.5 24.5 ' 7.0 . ' 4:9 276.4 98.2 5 870 " • " 17.5: ' 23:6 6.1 5,1 198:2 ,,.... 53:5 4.4 598 15.3: 7 21.9 6.6 5.8 132:7 49.6 4.4 1;059 . " =15,3 ' . 24.2 8.8 ' 5.6 , '272.1' ' 71:0. 4.4 870 ', 1.5.3 23.0 7.7 , '6.6' 188:5 ' . 70,3 4.35 . 598 ,15.3 . 21.8 6.5 . . 6.1 .'127.0 : 49.1 . - i . , , ., . • ... . .... . . . . .. - , , I li0:;;R:Aa',,J Plan i PIO et;47:‘‘.01',ii,et'...j..11:11.:4)A,Ci*Iiki,.J.RoOM1:1;:‘:j;.:,.';,Ji`,j'a. -241.i'.:;..j:••;',;•,.:J..';.,.".j',:', ',';'.:4d'jjJ.;:,',2Z-..''',.,j..,; ',j,' .. ' IRkiiiittiObitalitlitiptis;:MgiedAtiiiiiiiiiiiigo'Dittddleatibib‘i.;500'S:etjtiekkOitflOttft#,. 1"0:?;„:',!!.;i',',:::::, 1 ,!.i -‘4. ::-'-,,!;C;?;," ,:--;;'-'J''75;:ri.f,l';',:.?:::;';"2,'5:,::; ft:.*4..i,,:i,447,:-,.:44,g;;,;;•I'':';'• ';;?'''•i'k-'4'', : . ';:: f''-';Aii :;;:':''''''' '.:;,;--.24'::,,';''';',";i'•';f:!i,3,6;%:::-. 4ti'2,:' 1 ; L 10 4: .ireii- t, . .`, i;,!.,!„ :i 4 46:41i;„;J:ioier,i0ii.,i,ii-t",yfiniii'46`;,Ef.Mt,,•-:1 . 00-tif:li--.-'1)!`i-6Iiii,41.';`,l‘i.:61.,dtint:- Klo,*=Aii AJj,tilliffi11:. 1 . ''..jj';:j1;: ',:-.- --.-.::'::.•' "' OIC:f§rt-j:J.J.j"Ji.:4-2-';.:: ',..,4,',2‘:::. .:: -':-.(It)1'7':, `:‘!.1 .'=:(f0$1:'"-;',,':','"4#0:';'ill'' %;:kftl:$1,!::.,;,! -::- le.4-.:#) :‘,, i=:-:"S (It)f .:'i'.`,`k; li4.35 - ' :j jt;059 j' . 'J.: 1 1.5.8 244 - -• 8.8.:j- jj ' "5:0;‘::'-' :,j'--"•":269''.3•(:,:jj'.,j• ''''''''."ij 717-.0-:!-- 4.35 870 • . 15.3 22.9 j.: (7:6' ' 6.4185j:1...,j j.j.: ' 58..5 , '11 4.25 ". - .598 " J 167 21.8 5.1. . .5:6 . ..127:1 ' 45:5. 4.25 - .-' 1,059 : : • : .16.7 24k 1 j :. :7.4 j • . . 5.4 I•. ::259. 5 " • :.79:7 ': ; : : , 4.25 : . . :.870. • • •' . 16.7 229 ,-• •'62 .-;, • 5,9 . • '1,81.1 ::52.4 ,,, • -: ! . . . . , , . ..• .: , : . 4.2 '.: 598 , , 16.7 21.7 51 :: •• - 51 124.1 '456 l• ' ' i - ' . I '. 4.2 :. • 1,059- , • - ' . 16.7 24.1 , ' -, •'7.4: '. • 5,5 257.2,' '797 ... 42„ .:,870 • 10.7 ' 22.9 6.2 ' ,'-6.0: . • :1787 . . 51.8 ;• . . :i• , 1 !, , . . - - ;' •• 0:0:-2 .- . . , 1 ; • • ., ;I : 1 :4 • : 598' ' : - 17.5. 21:4 4.0., - 5.4;- ' 114.2 40.2 •1 - ::4 ; '1,059 ; : . - 17.5 23.9 ' 6.5 - -;4.8 273.2 93.5 H 4 .870 ' : • 17.5 22:6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2 !I - - ! ; . 3. ' - . •598' : •. • 16.3. 21.1 4.9 . ;5:3 132:9: 51.2 I, ., - . 3 1,059 - 16.3 c!..•:-23-.8. 7.5- 5.1 . --284.4:- 703 • j .j, - j J • ' j 3 870 j - 16.3 .j :22.4 • 62 J •5.5" , '2027 • 56.:,5 1jjj -j • ` 2.3 598 ' ' 15.9 . 20.7 4,8 6.,9 j• . 101,3 . '.29.8 2.3 : 1;059 ' ' 159 `,'. .23.1 7.2 ' . 7:7: '.. :188.7:: 2,80i0 23 ;. '::875•. 15.9. :2-. 21.8 5.9' - 7,7 137,3'; . 32.7 , . . . 225 ,'- -' 598: , : - - 15.9 20.7 4.8 ; : -. TO . 1002- :- :. .297 2.25 : -• 1,05,9 : • ' 15.9 23.1 • 7.2:2 . .. 77 1857. • . . :790 ' 1 ! 2.25 , : 870 " ; - • 15.9 21:8 ', 5.9 - 7.7 : :1362. •,.:. .,32.7 j1' . • j- i i • . j j1 jj • j 2.2 ''Mult open , .. , . . , 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 . 8.0 84:9 31:0 - 1 ,2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 '9.8- 1246 ' 33.3 J ; 2.15 H870 - 15.9 20.6 4.7 " . 9:1 : 109:0 32A i 2.1 598 _ 15.9 19.5 ' .3.6 : 9.2' - 72.8 '30.3• ,- , I i• :1, 2.1 -• - 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 .. : 11.1 • 110.4 32 A , I, , I 1 , ' L 2.1 . ., ' 870 , • . 15.9 • 20.2• ' 4.3 . . • 10.5 :-95.6 31.6 •-- .2 598, . :. 16.7 : 18.9 . 2.2 . 7.7 77.4 ' 41.8 2 . 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 • .100.5 43.1 1. - - 1.-- • • , , I I : 1 --: 598 . 14.7• 16.9 2.2 1 A- 495.5 176.7 •i '1 - 1,059 1 870 14.7 16.9. . 2.2 . : ":2.4' , 4955- :. .176.7 : • 14.7 16.9 2.2 , 2:0 :4955 176.7 1 1 1 _. I • • : 1 , ; 1 !I HEC-IRAS°Pla PIan22:'Rivtr Ma Creek:'f Proposed Conditions,Aggredatiori-:and.No Mi ldle=Briag+e�100=ft Setback:3eometry=g:06 Ma'"> ° ,°� i_ ^?.a1: "•ems•: - ., Ri ,er:�St. �,C�•Tritai: escr ptia Nlin:,Cl.f�t :S.-�EIe �G1ep. t = • �':V�1:Chril.•;�.�Flririr'�irea�::.Tcp.ltUidth; (fit),. ..,, (ft}:` ....° N(Ills},;`. <.. {e+ :'ft�` ;(ft),? . .a 11,.. 598. . '19904floo4 22.0 27.6 5:6 , • 5 9':::: :1:0:1:5-,. :"30 4" • 11 1 059 • 100-yr Future 22:0 29.1 7.1' 7:2 1'53.7 43.2. • 11. 870 FBMA:1996 22.0 28,6.. 6.6 6.6' 135:8 36i6 10 598 21.4 26.7• 5.4 6.3 `...94.4 28:9 10 1,059 •21.4 28.2. : 6.9 7:6.: 14'4:5 39:5 10 870 21-.4 • 27.9 6.6 6.7 : 133:5 36:2 9 598 . . 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4. • :: 1,37.1.. • 31..1 9 .1,059 20.3" 28.0 7.8:.. 5.4: 235.1". . 11:4.6. 9 . 870 : 20.3 27.8 7.5 4.8: 205.2 " 896 , 8 .598. :20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1' ,: • 175.8 '" 76;8 8 1,059. :20.0 27.6 7.6 . `3.6 . .412.E 146.0 • 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 • 32 382:4 1.42.6 7 598 183 24.9 . 6.6 5.4-. 135.7 3fi:5 • 7 1,059 1,8.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 449.9 '176 9. • . 7 870 18.3 27.2 8.8. • 3.9 414:4 176:9 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5. 5.5 1324 35 2• 6.9 1,059 . - :1:8:3 27.3 8:9 4.5 4336: ` :'1:7.6:9 6.9 870 18.3 27..1 8:8 .4 0 40,9:0 :1.769• 6.8 . Bridge' , 6.75 598 : 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137:5 : 42:0 6.75 .1,059 . . .. 18.4 25.4 . 7.0,. 5:81 261.7 134:1• 6.75 870. 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 " 197.3 128.1 6.7 • 598 ' , '18:4 24.0 5.6 4.2. • 160:7 ". . 42.3 6.7 1,059." 18.4 25.4 7.0 , . 5.2 ' 298.8 . 134.1 6.7 870 '18.4 24.9 -.6.5 5.0.. . . . 229.7 . : .129.7 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7: 122.8 51.0 6 1,059 . . . 18.4 24.9 6:5 5.9 : 243.4 ." .156.5 . 6 870 . . . '. .18.4 24.3 . 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6 5 598 1.7.5 22.6 5.0 4:7 144.5 48:7 5 1,059' .17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291..6 . 148.0 5 870 . 17.5 23.6 6:0 . -5.1 . " :, .194:7 52:4 4:4 " 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5:8 132.7. : 49.6 4.4 1,059 ' . 15.3 24.0 . 8.7 5.6'. 31.5.7 ' 121.0 4.4 870 • 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 , , 187:4 . 60.5 4.35 598 . . 15.3 21.8 .6.5 6.1 " . 127:0 49:1 FKO,:P:Ak.,$'4::1P,Jert::,,,Pleii:'2Z-1.1-31v-dr :MaY1:=0,telek1,;',1RIOAat,1 '=„'',; ,,': ,1,4:'''„ •1:-'.: ,•:;,::,;:1,,,A ; ::'-':.!:..:;.,:,,,..k4-,': ,..i,,-,*,',:-. ..T•-:,:iz‘z,,,:::!',::-‘,.::::!,,Tii':',..,-..:,,,$ i _ ' ' . Ptcto:A-ofci*Olticii*A0diteddtiOmOttNillitelOWIEfirOig 0';A0014t$ettliatt(;46iirriatiy";#4:06 - : ‘:11:',.Piiiti:79": .-';,,,:‘,„-,•,'C-11,,Y•1:-;,;::'''';:','?2:;.:,,i': ';';,:,':',•, ?-1. ...;.,: ;:';:::.,,,-..., ::‘ ;=,,,,-..:: :::'''::::;:-;"''''' ,''' '''..;',t2,'.::.'-i:,:2 :- . ''',:t;i-,1:...' ;,-;::•4!.,i 'l:.,.', 2,.:;:;::- ,;:.:-.==2.:':'''' '.;i:', 1'4',4'4,'-,§',ili''''',;;:!:''; '; ' ‘ FR:liei-iie :4,,Ift'ithi'i kr.)6 ,4iiiii-aii, Man:.0.6':Ell, ',,,A0y.:Eto,;1::.:1,14:fei4iiir, ?.=;,,:v.,oif. iiiiii.1 Flowy:; 400a.-,,;-,'7,f4p;:tiviiiiii; (.00) -:::::.:., :;.---i,:y:::-:::,,,,-„ ,,. ..,.-.:,.. ..--.;:,-,:,,(ft):,,:: .,'4!,;,5: 64:.„,-':: f:f.;'2,-=,(ft) --z`;4-; 'otip),4::;:::,: ,,,;..,=::',Ticifty,;J:,-2,::, io5 . 1;059: . : . ' 15.3 240 '' 8.7= - -.• ' '51.: i''';'f-' ';' -4';=311h.0'''''-::::: ''....-':1120I9'... : .-- , '; I 4.35 ' 870. ' 15.3 ..• ': 22:9 • ' 7:6. ' ' 6,4 .. •:.. : '185.5: .; - -0:0.: • : ‘ • '- • . 4.25 598 -16:7 ' ' ' . 21.8 " . 5.1' ' ' 5.6 127;1 .45.8 4,25 1059 ' '16.7 • 23.9 ' ..:. .:73',' ':,-• - 55 ' 299.5 . :129 . 4.25 • ;870: . • 167 ; 22.9 ''4' ';6.2 ..' :'. ' 5.9 1812 ' .524 . , 4.2 598. . , - 167 21:7 .: .: : 5:1: ':: 5.7 ' ' 124.1 . 45:6'• 4.2 '.1,059 ' . 16.7' :. 23.9 - 7.2': - , 5.5 .294.7 . : 129.5 ir : 1 0 . 4.2 870 - : , :. ' :: 1.6.7 229 • 6.2 : '. 6.0 ' - 1787 ' 51.8 1, : . . , • - - : • 4 598- :' , - 17.5 . 21.4 : • -40 : ,5.4, 114.2 '402 . 4 1,059 . ; .. 17.5 - • .218 ' :. 6.3; ' .:, 5.0 ' 277:4 143.0' 4 870 . . 17:5 -_, 22.6 . 5.2 5.6 ' 169.9 53:2 ;; - • 3 598. ' ' 16.3 ' 21.1 4.9, - : . 5.3 132.9 51.2 , I 3 1,059. : 16.3 23.6 : 7.3 1:': :',- 5.3 . .2702 57:2 I . 3 870' , ' . 1,63 , 224 . 62 , ::'• ''.5.5 ' • 202,7 56.5 .. 1 I , . I I ! ' . 2.3 598 - 15.9 ,207 4.8= :.:'. . 6.9. - 103 29:.8 !, 1 1: 1 2.3 1,059 ': „. ' 15,9 • '22.9 ' :,-. i 7:0!:: .:. :,`1,,,..' 7,8 ' • 1760 , 458 2.3 870. ' • : • 1:59 „21.8 ::. . 5.9''. '.: :- 7.7 .1373 : . 321 2.25 598 , •' ' 159 ' 20.7 ,- 4.8.:. ',,,',, --T.(), - 100,2 , " 297 1 .1 2.25 • 1,059 ' '. .15.9 -- ; . 22.91, -,- '' 7:0- :' ' 79 . .:1741 45.1 2.25 , 870 .: • - .159 ' .:- 21.8:' 5.0:-: :, - '.77 136.3 - . 327: ., . . 2.2 'Mult Open . , . 1 1 : - , ' 1 215 , 598 15.9 19.9• .„4.0 ' , 8.0 ::84.9 31.0 ,f ' I 2.15 1,059 ,, 15.9 , '21.2' " 5.3: . :-' ' 9:8 '124.6 33:3, I . 2.15 870 . . 15.9 ' 20.5, , 4.7 .''.1 ; 9.1 • 109:0 1 i , ' 32.4 , I 2.1 598 159 19.5 - 36 '9.2 : 72.9 30.3 II 2.1 1,059 . ' ' . 15.9 20.8' , . 4:7-• ' - 11.2 110.4 32.4 1: , 2.1 870: . : :• 15.9 20.-2 ' '4.3 - '10.5 95.5 31.6 1 ' 2 598 - , 16.7 189 - 2.2 , • : 7.7 ,: . 77.4 , 41.8 2 1,059 16:7 19:7 3.0' I '9.2 • 115.2 44.0 2 870 . 16.7 .19:4 2.7 ': •: ,.'8:7, 100.5 ' .43.1 . . . i 1 598 , . : 14.7 , 16.9 22- : - , IA .' " 495:5. 176:7 ' 1 1 1,059 . 14.7 , 16:9 2.2 -.': ' 2.4' : ' 495.5 176,7 1 i 1 870 :14.7 16:9 2:2 2.0 495.5 176.7 ; 1- ' ' : 1 1 , L ' 1 Attachment B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A Grain Size (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 Percent 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %,Finner 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 90 + 80 _ 70 60 _._..... u 50.; a 40 --- -- 30 29 30 19 20• 1-1 10 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 0 0 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 I I I I 90 - I i I I t250 j } a.a440 . 30 ' 20 + f 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 Grain Size(mm) 11 .I: ! , I , l'! , H ' ay Creek Subpavement MC-113 i' i Sample Date: 9/27/01 , Volume , •' - .1 i „ 't! Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent I ; (mm) (m1) Percent Retained : .Finer may„Creek • . Pu0PaYen19: -: . '. I , , 1 75 :0 0.0 0.0 :•' 100.0_ ' : •,, 50 soo 40;9 f. '40.9 :.' 59:1• ,. 25 640, 29.1 - 70:0 .30.0 c i . . 115 270 123 "'..=.82.3, : 17.7 9.5 '80 ,r ,3.6 : ' •5869 , ': .. .14.1 ?: .,! 55 2.5 :„ 88.4 ‘: :..11.0 HI I 335- 50 2.3 90.7 9.3 55 .2.5 93.2 ; e.8 I .i „1 0.85 20 OA 94A :••: 5.9 " [ , ! •0.425 " 25 1.1 ;95.2•,' '' 4.8 • ' 0.075 95 • 4.3 . " 995 '0:5 ': . ! Wash -y'; 0.01 • 10 0,Z •; 100.0 - :- 0.0 . i 1 sum • * 2200 f•• - I 1 ' - , • 1 r 3 1 1 ' May Creek Subpavement MC;•1B •„ ! 1 „r 45 40: . ,! .--' S .40";-,.." , .'Imilym: . • „ 35 6.,i , !' 30 : ,i0.5t-oc• 1 • , ' I'll ' 1 1 24).20 . 'o.„ i :., 123 . • 1 ,'75 50 25 12:5 9.5'. 6.3. 3:35 • 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Washah , , Grain Size(mni) . ., P May Creek Subpavement MC-1B • 'il I !., 100 , ! 1 90 ;- „ 1 1 , „t3 . , C it: 60 - : . . , '5 0 .11 „ -0 40 2.. „ *:II a. 30 : • . • . , li 1 20 , - --^-•-•1r-- : ; 1 1 ' Ili 10 0 • ' •...41 -- , * i:. f141 1 1 100 10 1 • 0.1 0.01 . 1 Grain Size(rrim) I I 1 , :•,.II - 1 „ •I 1 „I i „..i I I ! May Creek Sample MC-2 Sample Date: 4/25/03 .` Volume;:. Grain Size Retained ` Cumm.% Percent (mm). ;•.:1ml) : ;Percent Retained Finer May CreeK; • Sample MC ;:.:..1`.7;•i.: 0 ;0.0 0.0 ..:: 100.0 0.85 : '21.49:;:'.':';0.9 • .. :0.9 99.1 0.425 :.:,.429.36::>'.::`'18:2 :..::. 19.1 80:9 ;0.3 .:`'826.64: 35:1. :54:2 '45:8 0:106 . = 345.51. 14.7 97.9 2:1 0.063: ..:r;•;29.24 :::: .:1:2 :::.:; 99.2 0.$ Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 `•:100.0 0.0 sum ,•. `235732 Pan . . May Creek Sample MC-2 35:` 20 eee� � 14:7; Q-.15 • k .r 0.0 • 1 .` ri„� 1.7 ` 0.85 0.425 ;: .=.0:3: :0 21 0.106 0.063'1''' ` Pari Grain Size(mmj May Creek Sample MC-2 90. 80 � 70 • m 50" a: 30 20.. 1: 01 Pan' Grain Size(mm) { 1 , 1 . I i ) i I , , 11, M.;y Creek Subpavement MC,;•S I 1 Sample Date: 5/25,03 i 1 _ Grain Size. Volume Cumm.% Percent II 11 (mm) Retained(m1) Percent Retained Finer :: 1, may,t,4reeK , 1 Subpavement [ ''. Plit',3., • 75 ' ' 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5 25 : , 1060 33.9 374 62.6 . Y 12.5 ••• ' " 610 19.5 - 569 43.1 1 ; 9.5: : ; ;120 3.8 60.7 39.3 , , , 1 - !,1 1 0.3 '.- .136 •4'.2 -. 64.9 35.1 ; • 3.35 : : -.•220 7.0 71:9 28.1 I 1 . I, .1 1:7 •, ' 160 " 5:1 77.0 23.0 ' „0.85 ..' s, 200 , 6.4 - : 834 16.6 :•,.,.1 ,,, 9.6 93.0 70 '0:075 H..': '. ;205 • 6.5 99.5 0.5 ,1 11 Wash 0.01 .• .. •: : 15 f 0.5 100.0 0.0 sum : •'',3130 : ., 1 ':i --' May Creek Subpavement MC-3 • . ,...i i l ' i 40 . . , - , : 35 33.9 , ii: II ' ,,,S7:-.•.195 . .".1 !I 1 8 20 ' '''•'' ' . 0, ; I i 1 . a• 16 =.1 1 0 7.0 11 : g 4 6:4 4,,,,.. 0.5 ., •„ " g - " r.3t,-,..:.-5.... .47.,./.L..-w-4........ •'!..,,,-t.*.;,,,.t-if. :.,•:3r 8...,., 42 r v„ i*•/,:,,..„..--.1..1.:4.;:,,4-.„,',7,,:,w4,7-,,;%4,,7,.,,,Y... 0.0 ?CI JJ 1 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 ,6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85. 0425 0.075 Wash Grain Size(mm) 1 ;I I, li I II May CreekSubpavement MC-3 I 1 1, 100 a ,, i. 90 --\ ..I II I., 80 •:•: . 1 I.i 70 o 1.. 1, L.,: 60 .: ca li .. 1 I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 .sf, 1, I 1 Grain Size(mm) 'i -.••••i 1 .. . 1 I •,.,sl 1 i - May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 Grain Size (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.1250.062"0.031 0.002 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 00 0 00 0 0 Cumm% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40"80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %Firmer 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0', 0 May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 100 90 80 70 . d 60 50 39 30 . .. .. 27.. ! . i• 20 • 13 ti°' Y 10 10 0 0 .. 0 0 0 " - 4 ��," .., 0 0• 2048., 1024. " 512• 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 ." '2 1 0.5. . Grain Size(mm) May Creek"Surface Substrate MC-4 '100 _ ■ a a a aW40 - • 30 20 10 10000 '1000. • 100 Grain Size.(mm) • APPENDIX C Water Resources I Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C Water Resources Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com August 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 1 . [ C. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES C.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, at the mouth of May Creek,as indicated in Figure C-1. C.1.1 Studies and Coordination This section of the Draft EIS includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. These analyses provide a basis for assessment of impacts on wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been prepared based on review of existing data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the applicant, and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the potential impacts identified. Surface Water Bodies • May Creek The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington (Figure C-1). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-mile area located in KingCounty, southeast of Lake Washington between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and tY, � Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily within unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin(approximately 12 percent of the total area) are within the City of Renton (King County 1995). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, • and commercial land uses(King County 2001). During the past several decades,the lower portions of the watershed have undergone intensive residential development while the upper two thirds of the watershed have retained a mix of rural residential,small farms,and some forest areas(King County 2001). Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent. Under, current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective impervious surface to 12 percent (King County 2001). Over the past several years, annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark debris from mill operations and to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek. The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site (Figure C-2). Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high water mark (OHWM)is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). Lake Washington Lake Washington, the largest lake in King County and the second largest in the state, receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers. Lake Washington drains approximately 472 square miles. The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steeply sloping side slopes. The lake's average depth is approximately 108 feet with an average water volume of 2,350,000 acre-feet. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature; 63 percent of the watersheds are developed (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington • City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-2 August 2003 1 � , ---- , . v _ __ __. --- , , ____ - i l'.%?'•• . -- "' - Z'-'------''* —zT";•':*1;-"6 7!*7:::"; --'';'.3: ' 'II' A SEATTLE ::;,'' • :::: . f.; /0/ , 2. i'-f• . - Lake : . , Washington „ „ . -., -. : -,,,,,, 'i ,- -., . ,- eillH 11ELLEVUE A-mite r . i • ''" , . •, MERCER „.•:--•ei" -.101, " ', f4) , . ' ISLAND „ '•- ' -19W4 '' '' .. --•,',. • '-",' ' 4 : "', -',- ' lit4IN• ,1 ..'';','•• ,..•' '''''''z.01— . , -'1'.( .54', 4 : 1 r .i4 4 •,-(a, ...'.'..-;-"TLI:, - - ,.C,,,,, ,-':,,' ,.4,1 '',' : ;r1•*1-'''--‘1;•,i,"'?':*..,V4.., ..,,s...49 ISSAMJAH ‘. - ,',.. .-, ,',,, •-; -- - ,,, • A ,,,'? ',"`":'•",;;'^, ,,,4- "—..."7,;;;•;:r,:, , ,, „ , , ,„,-- ..-•,„ i>> ,;,4rroPil„,.‘4"4--,- ,„,',/ •V:".,,,,;':,. 1;'','' '''''"4';'''/•,.,,';,''!,>./',..,*"'W •''.;i';''i;.,1'4'•,(4.:•';etl':'.>'s, - . '' ' s '•' „ ,„ 47# ; ..',.., ::;„:;;;•;'"ici*,1*;,,;0;,,,,,,,'::4';f:' ;;',4'"'1;47.,t,'iik;:bi;';:j',:i4t 7,,,,,, •.... 4 ‘ , '....la ' , . '•. :.;„,:: ,*::, ' "c!f*:;': - '''''''''Y' ''; i41/K•''.$;',,;{:,':";',• ,.??..,Nr4y/4.,...; .,',':i• :>: ; ,'• \ • '1'4‘' Q°P". * .. . iii: 4.3 lif .t•-.. : - 1r li ...: RE... 99 TV LA .....e c--.) ,z4 Date of map,October 1998 Pa rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure C-1 o 1 2 Miles May Creek Basin /villa Vicinity Map lap mmm ,. ` _ v SYMBOLS r ii,y>. _ �, % . PASSABLE - BARRIERS-IMPASSABLE ,i I !,`tiw. _ .mot .c; 1.'4 ts: (j} - tiiia_ Palls t�tt j' 7 1n Cascades V ...;� '. , • . � r Log Jams \,' *E J ti >;:» 1 [ ;.,p 3: p f p,eca o \`—r/ Dams ,, , 3:1 `z%.''sal c 2 y1 , E ::: .. -(-.Ca/Z.r ) eii Salmon Hatchery Y C i �e .X <7.>4 Fish PCssage Facility m y t72 d,- G Stream Osage Cr ete.... ,,,t?. . CT o tp Str2anj 'MrIk ' • `�r`. a7 l� '' • '< .0 44-4 -��L_ - CIr p, Reference. .Paint. wIII Coo/ .. f- +d:SITE :„�''�•r�• {fir1 cz,„ \5.4:\ r1.�•• 411 `e`er Apr ��� "ems 1';t.; C.. s a3�`` r d (5 r29r. c5; . ;:;q ., ;; s O C^ Lei CI ??y�y, ;}•a i,Xi"+ sew 0 B' 3: aY�, Q Er` t 1/2 0, I_M I L E 13 +<,t t«b ♦�►4°'�4:b in 4 SCALE: 1". I MILE m 4�'b*sb �`44b:0 4,� 1 d,. ...t 4O4ii:�i+j1j#;y4f,- ;se- Renton ''f' 4i♦• 4`44t4.,dta,.►'i,�. :SOU I TH `-'' ''' '�''`.'+`**•: LAKE WASH! N G T N 10. 4,444♦b*f 441 ' I♦e.****,g♦,,b;4 DR A) NAGES /.,, Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams ' and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1. Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K) Figure C-2 1110 May Creek Location and Stream Type Map , r ' Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. Construction of the canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. On-site Wetlands Two palustrine emergent, persistent (PEM1) wetlands were identified within the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the eastern property boundary (David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997; Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Small portions of the two wetlands (less than 1,000 square feet total) extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are managed as lawns(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002). Classification of Water Bodies May Creek May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in WRIA 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). May Creek flows approximately 1,000 feet from I-405 in a southwesterly direction through the Barbee Mill site and outlets ti into Lake Washington near the south end of the site. The portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002, Figure C-2), based on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different categories. Class 1 streams are those that have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's Shoreline Master Program. Class 2 streams are smaller than Class 1 streams, and either flow year-round under periods of normal rainfall or are used by salmonids. Unlike Class 1 and 2 streams, Class 3 streams are intermittent or temporary during years of normal rainfall and are not used by salmonids(King County 1991). Lake Washington The project site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The Lake 7_ Washington Basin, known as WIRA 08, is comprised of waters funneling into Lake Washington and hence through Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal to Puget Sound at Shilshole Bay (Williams et al. 1975). On-site Wetlands The two small portions of wetlands located on the Barbee Mill site have been highly disturbed by human activities and meet criteria for a City of Renton Category 3 rating(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). Water Quality Classifications May Creek The water quality classifications of the tributaries located on site, as well as those downstream receiving I waters, determine the nature and severity of the potential impacts and the type of on-site water quality treatment measures necessary to mitigate the potential impacts. May Creek is listed as a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water Quality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. Water quality of Class AA waters markedly and uniformly exceeds the requirements for all or substantially all uses. The uses of Class AA waters listed under WAC 173-201A include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. Also, these waters provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, clams, oysters,mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish(e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-5 August 2003 I wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, - 01 ' boatingIli , and aesthetic enjoyment), commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet certain water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas; I temperature; pH; turbidity; toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A(MRSC 1997). L ke Washington Lie Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A). W1 ter quality of Lake Class waters should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all usi'JII s. The uses of Lake Class waters listed under WAC 173-201A include domestic, industrial, and - aTncultural water supply. Also,these waters provide migration,rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat , foi salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scl illops), as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact I re reation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment), commerce, and navigation. Any water listed ag Lake Class must meet certain water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dii solved gas; temperature; pH; turbidity; toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; nutrients, and ' ailsthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A(MRSC 1997). L e Washington serves as a valuable natural resource to all King County residents. On the whole, the \I' 1 lace's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good raring habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities, 1 s pports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a beautiful focal point for the surrounding communities 1' I (II NR 1999). Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of LL, e Washington sockeye, coho, and chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining, — hiI,wever. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998). r I I,'can Water Act Listing 1 e section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State I a being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead, aiid fecal coliform bacteria (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired_wtrs.html) and www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf). Specific information on the 303(d) I li tings include: • Zinc is listed based on two excursions beyond the criterion collected by King County Surface Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994. • Copper is listed based on one excursion beyond the criterion collected by KCSWM at the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994. • Lead is listed based on three excursions beyond the criterion collected by KCSWM at the mouth _ of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994. • Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out of 92 samples (29 ' percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between January 1991.and April 1997. identified Management Strategies II I The May Creek Basin Action Plan(King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines 1n action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to: 1) I I reduce the threat of flooding to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm 1 I Pity of Renton 554-1779-017 II 3arbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-6 August 2003 i1 flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; 3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. Primary basin-wide recommendations contained in the Action Plan include: • Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water iM qualities facilities for site development. • Develop basin stewardship and community coordination and participation through creation of a May Creek Basin Steward. • Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions. The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional subarea identified in the Action Plan as the Lower Basin Subarea,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile 3.9, above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for the Lower Basin Subarea specific to the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No. 10: Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May Creek delta, and that increases in erosive storm flows associated with basin clearing and land development have increased the need for dredging to allow the mill to continue its commercial operations. Dredging was estimated to be approximately 2,000 cubic yards per year. Dredging will have to be undertaken more frequently in the future to maintain adequate access for the mill operation, particularly as a result of increased sediment transport as further development occurs in the basin. Furthermore,the Action Plan notes: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance dredging." C.1.2 Existing Drainage Impervious Surface Areas a i Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. An existing bulkhead extends along the majority of the Lake Washington shoreline owned by the Barbee Mill. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore midway between the northern property boundary and the mouth of May Creek. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-7 August 2003 I I II \, mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 20012). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single lane wooden structure located at the mouth of May Creek. The bridge provides vehicular access to so�lthern portions of the mill. The middle bridge is a narrow foot-traffic only wooden structure located approximately 200-feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek. The northernmost bridge is a two lane c crete structure that provides the primary access for the mill(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). ��Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge , The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the aii ndustrial activities,and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities (Loyd d Associates 2003). The following outfall drainage information is based on information contained in '-_ th Barbee Mill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)(Loyd and Associates 2003). Ngrth Outfall �- T e north outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of the Barbee Mill site. The north o tfall drains approximately 40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area, which primarily contains p 1 vement and storage buildings. With the exception of minor amounts of lubricants, no chemical usage o curs in the northern portion of the site. A petroleum product storage area is located within this area; h wever, this storage area is covered and bermed. A wash area is located near the east side of the facility I n,�rth of the dry kiln. The wash area drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm d I ain system. e north outfall does not have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake ,}' ashington, although numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling _ o potential windblown dust and debris. Because the entire north outfall drainage area is paved, and ' dustrial activity is minimal in this area, there is very little accumulation of dirt or debris in the catch b)l sins. 11)(iddle Outfall The middle outfall discharges stormwater collected from the central portion of the facility near the I slawmill. The middle outfall drains less than approximately 10 percent of the facility's industrial activity area. This outfall has an oil/water separator to trap residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product (brincipally lubricants) from the sawmill area. Because the sawmill operates on an infrequent basis, the I potential is small for oil and grease from heavy equipment to enter the storm drain system. The storm I I drains, catch basins, and the oil/water separator are cleaned periodically to maintain flow and to minimize I I the potential for oily residues to reach Lake Washington. south Ou fall I! I The south outfall discharges stormwater from southern portions of the site. When the sawmill is operating, this area may have considerable activity. The south outfall drains approximately 50 percent of tie facility's industrial activity area. The storm drain system consists of a series of catch basins and lines terminating at an oil/water separator at the south outfall adjacent to Lake Washington. The catch basins, /, storm drains, and the oil/water separator are periodically cleaned to assure that the stormwater collection , I system is operating properly. Because the sawmill is operated on an infrequent basis,the primary activity Ii 1 ity of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-8 August 2003 ! I� occurring in this area is the temporary storage of bark and wood debris derived from dredging in Lake Washington. Non-Point Drainage Areas Portions of the site are not involved with industrial activity and are non-point drainage areas (Loyd and Associates 2003). These include the southern portions of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May Creek, and primarily consist of facility offices and an employee parking lot. There is no industrial activity associated with the May Creek corridor. Wetlands The northernmost of the two wetlands on the Barbee Mill site, drains via a ditch that connects the northern portion of the wetland to May Creek. The southerly wetland seeps into ditch that connects to an approximately 150-foot-long storm drain pipe that flows to Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). See Section 3.4 and Appendix D. Adjacent Upstream Drainage A drainage basin located in the neighborhood near North 40th Street between I-405 and the BNSF railroad drains towards the Barbee Mill site. Under existing conditions, stormwater is conveyed in a southerly direction along the east side of the railway where it flows through a crossing 24-inch diameter concrete pipe to the west side of the railway embankment. It daylights into a surface ditch that is approximately 4 feet wide and 1 foot deep, then enters a 15-inch diameter drain line which carries the water across the Barbee Mill site and discharges to Lake Washington(Otak,Inc.2002). C.2 IMPACTS C.2.1 Impacts of the Proposed Alternative The proposed alternative involves removing the existing Barbee Mill Company facilities, including all buildings, asphalt surfaces, and other associated structures. The proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on the 22.9-acre site. New impervious surfaces would include rooftops, driveways, walkways, and stormwater facilities. The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately 85 percent down to about 57 percent (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). This would be accomplished through the removal of existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures. New pervious areas would include residential yards, and setbacks from Lake Washington and May Creek. The development of the site will be governed by the RMC and the COR2 zoning which is designated for this property(Otak,Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. The project proposes that all residential structures to be constructed along the Lake Washington shoreline would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City of Renton (1998) Shoreline Master Program. The project also proposes an average buffer of greater than 50 feet for May Creek that would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet at the Tract F roadway to a maximum width of approximately 100 feet. Setbacks from May Creek would be planted with native species to provide forest cover for the stream 'i (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of an existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and is City of Renton 559-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-9 August 2003 11 , I , p I ' I 1 III presumed to include no work within the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained and converted to II foot-traffic-only use. SI ormwater Discharge Unmitigated development can substantially alter a natural hydrologic system. Typically, the most NI i apparent hydrologic and hydraulic impacts are related to removal of vegetation, compaction or removal of soils, and increases in impervious surface areas, such as buildings, streets, parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks. These changes can result in increases in the volume, velocity, frequency, and duration of ,' I st�rmwater runoff. Changes in the hydrologic regime can result in increased flooding and frequency and ' dII ration of high stream flows, leading to erosion, channel scouring, and loss of hydraulic complexity. In , al dition, less stormwater may infiltrate,resulting in a decrease of groundwater recharge. ' e proposal would result in a reduction in impervious surface area,which should reduce stormwater run- of velocities and volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. This could lead to more r~ stable flow regimes and decreases in peak flows during storm events (Schueler 1994). Scouring of the II May Creek streambed could be less likely to occur and could lead to an increase in stream habitat 11 c 9mplexity (Schueler 1994). In addition, reduction in impervious surface area could increase the amount o,stormwater infiltrating to groundwater at the site. \ , A previously discussed,the drainage basin located in the neighborhood near North 40th Street between I- 4 5 and the BNSF railroad drains towards and across the Barbee Mill site. Under developed conditions, j II s bypass lin is to be redesigned so that it has capacity to convey runoff from the developed, offsite basin. The line's outfall location will remain the same for existing and developed conditions (Otak, Inc. I 2402). Impacts to Water Quality 1 De gradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater pollutants, such as associated with runoff from roads and parking lots, or increases in erosion and sediment transport due to uncontrolled runoff, result in higher discharges of contaminants to sensitive r receiving waters, such as lakes, streams, and wetlands. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater I , pill llutants from a developed site can include oil and greases, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), to is organics (e.g., pesticides and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), metals, and suspended solids II (articulates). In addition, long detention periods in stormwater detention ponds and water quality I I treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure. I Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under King County Storm Water Drainage 11 Manual (KCSWDM) Core Requirement No. 8 (King County 1998). Under proposed conditions, I I stormwater would be routed to stormwater treatment facilities before being discharged to Lake Washington. The proposed stormwater treatment facilities are described in Section 3.2.3, Mitigation Measures. Proposed treatment of stormwater would be an improvement over current conditions for the site as sediments and pollutant loads to Lake Washington would likely be reduced. In addition, the I ; p roposed reduction in impervious surface area (relative to existing conditions), and the proposed May Creek buffers,which would be restored to pervious conditions and would be enhanced with supplemental `' plantings of native vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition,would likely result in an overall beneficial effect due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002). I' Floodplains and Flooding I See Appendix B. c y of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources -10 August 2003 ,r II it r� Maintenance Activity Impacts Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers,pesticides, and/or herbicides. If used,these could potentially affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise mitigated. In addition, sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in stormwater discharges, particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods. Construction Water Quality Impacts Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings located on the property, removal of asphalt, excavation, and backfill for utilities and water quality ponds, and grading for road construction. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes. Large earthmoving equipment probably would be used on site to clear the property. Soil excavation, grading, and removal of vegetation during construction can expose soil that potentially could be eroded and transported with stormwater runoff. Removal of topsoil and compaction can decrease stormwater interception and infiltration, which can increase rates of surface water runoff. On- ---, site use and maintenance of construction equipment, construction staging areas, storage and use of chemical products, and on-site wastes generated during construction activities can produce pollutants, includingpetrochemicals e. oils, gasoline, and degreasers), concreteproducts, sealers, and paints, and ( g•, wash water associated with these products. If not properly mitigated, surface waters can be impacted by the construction-related sediments and other pollutants. C.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative were assumed to be similar to current site conditions since the existing structures would remain, as would all existing impervious surface on the site. r-- If triggered by new construction, appropriate mitigation measures conforming to applicable local, county, j ti and state guidelines would be required. C.3 MITIGATION ti C.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation Site Hydrology Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998); however, water quality treatment is required under KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8—Water Quality(King County 1998). Table C-1 summarizes the design basis for the proposed alternative(Otak Inc.2002). _ I City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-Il August 2003 1 , I . I 1 Table C-1. Basis for Stormwater Design (Otak, Inc.2002) i 1 Water Quality Pond Capacity Required Provided Treatment Design Standard Device Design Criteria (cubic feet) (cubic feet) i R I noff Control KCSWDM1 NA Lake Washington 0 0 Direct Discharge I 1 Exemption I Runoff Treatment Basic Basic Three Times Runoff Pond No. 1 Pond No. 1 56,902 j1 Wetpond From Mean Annual 48,811 Pond No. 2 Storm Pond No. 2 11,026 I 9,523 1 1 - , 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual 2 Direct Discharge Exemption—Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control I The proposed alternative would reduce the amount of impervious surface relative to the existing condition, which should decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater infiltration and groundwater _ recharge.harge. Decreasing the amount and/or the effect of the proposed alternative's impervious surface could p l tentially be enhanced by the following methods: • The use of porous(pervious)pavements on driveways,parking areas, and/or sidewalks; `" • The use of tree and brush cover in proposed parking lot landscaping areas to provide additional interception of rainwater;and 1 • Infiltration of roof drain discharges. S ormwater Discharge i, e proposed stormwater drainage system (Figure C-3) is sized to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm 1 .th the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Operation and maintenance of the proposed , srmwater drainage system would be designed to conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements. If mitigation measures were properly implemented and maintained, adverse stormwater Tcharge impacts would not be expected. The following brief description of the proposed conveyance 1, 1 sstem is based on the Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(TIR) (Otak, 1 I lie.c. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides the preliminary calculations showing that the storm water i , conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards. Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ1 I 1?ree storm drain lines (Lines 1, 2, and 3) would collect flow from the area north of May Creek. The pipes were designed to convey the 100-year flow rate without overtopping the rims. The 100-year design flow rates at selected catch basins were determined by using the Rational Method. The King County Backwater model (KCBW) was then applied to the storm drain lines extending upstream from Water Quality Pond WQ1 to catch basins D, G, and J. The backwater elevation during overflow operation in ' Water Quality Pond WQ1 was assumed to be 21.5 feet, 0.5 foot above the water quality surface elevation. I' Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ2 \: �Ine 18-inch trunk line (Line 4)would serve the area south of May Creek. Water surface elevations were i determined at selected catch basins using program. the KCBW The tailwater at Water Quality Pond WQ2 during overflow condition was assumed to be 20.5 feet. The preliminary conveyance calculations are provided in Appendix D of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc.2002). 1 ,t City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-12 August 2003 Discharge to Lake Washington Following water quality treatment, water from each of the two water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (Figure C-3). The discharge pipes would outfall to an invert elevation approximately 0.5 foot below the mean-lower-low- { water (MLLW) for Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Discharge rates for the larger of the two ponds would range from approximately 2.5 cfs during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to approximately 8.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and water velocity at the pipe outlet would range from approximately 1.4 feet per second during the 6-month/24-hour storm to approximately 4.5 feet per second during the 100-year, 24-hour storm (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Discharge rates for the - smaller pond would range from approximately 1.6 cfs during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to approximately 5.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and water velocity at the pipe outlet would range from approximately 0.9 foot per second during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to approximately 2.8 feet per second during the 100-year,24-hour storm(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). Adjacent Upstream Drainage L An existing bypass storm drain line would be removed and replaced with another line that would have a capacity adequate to serve the developed offsite basin in the North 40th Street neighborhood between d_- I-405 and the BNSF railroad. The preliminary conveyance calculations are provided in Appendix E of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). Mitigation for Water Quality KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8—Water Quality requires that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated (King County 1998). The water quality treatment is necessary because more than 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface area would be created at the site. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before discharging it to Lake Washington(see Figure C-3). ' Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities would have to conform to City of Renton and 1988 KCSWDM requirements. If mitigation measures were properly implemented k_1 and maintained, adverse water quality impacts would not be expected. The following, which briefly describes the proposed water quality treatment, is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat li (Otak,Inc. 2002). The drainage area north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1. The area would include I the residential area consisting of approximately 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres (Table C- 2). It would also include Streets E and F, which connect the site to Ripley Lane. These streets have a drainage area of approximately 0.89 impervious acre. Approximately 48,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1988 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (Otak, Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 Ij�,tl cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would discharge directly to Lake Washington (see Figure C-3). t___' City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-13 August 2003 1 _ i \ ' 4 4 fit i 1ip ' t � , , �� . Ilan" pI �I- -iI TT - JJLL " LJ� �( 1,7441 l , —.41 4 L,/,,LI _J _J L__;114_;_liiii#V ,t / / Jf, T a . \/ LEI L / 4 1-- -i 1".1\ !L\'\---7------ . 11--- 1 \ `--.'-; f I ry I I, /\ �/ \ . .. /1/4' * /_-\ -----/ ,7/ <e \t'��•",� .�-„41• 7lp d'( 7 i . \\iilltirr/ /\\. ? , I Iva A< ..\\"I>,..„::•W 0 --c \ . .\••••...„..,,.../,7 ./0, I VVQ•1 0---r,.g mla-_,_„_'g"_,\,i_e.,‘. '1:/:"7'.•,i;', /-/ - ;III.__ �, ✓\<',,/1 i\l • ,, ,-' ' r..-:.....-s' ..-' 'ri',i • 6i1/ /,r•4/ / 2! l-1 \\i\,v•P \ i / yam' .. ; -- c� ,•,'l, ,1/,I 1,,, y.,,; :„..//hs —, w 7 „1s, y,i f,r LAKE ` ` ;, ,� <;. 1�`JJ/ ,J//ty, WASHINGTON ` 3 ` , , ., ,ie q / , / / /� - t • , Ili / ,i ;-- IIV.('' -- :if 4; . 1,;.1 iti-N" ,i; // / // , ,* ‘, 40,iO4. ,i ,,, K;if 74 ' /— fm '' /i///,',0 .4.—' '''•v_.., -,_,,/,-/ /2,1 ‘‘"\ \''\ •Ifil 444421), --i), / !,_ ,,,7( ,\* iiHil 7 , I: $. f74:14,,,,, .4, -/ / 7// \ • �{�� \, ff MAY CREEK �. � �� c DELTA � � f s _.fr1)./ t�� s O i r � '��\!L �1_,___ / � . �.P „.J s \ LEGEND •'^sexy i Flowp h s 2 0 ._. ,. N 40TH ST at �� `"'"—' Basin bounder Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3 Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04 Figure C-3 SCALE IN FEET Proposed Water Quality Treatment W and Stromwater Drainage System n 100 2I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Table C-2. Contributing Areas for Water Quality Pond No. 1 Developed Area Impervious Pervious Total Land Use [Acres] [Acres] [Acres] Residential Lots 4.92 4.54 9.47 Water Quality Pond Tracts 0.36 0.99 1.35 Onsite Roadway 2.89 0.00 2.89 Offsite Roadway 0.89 0.00 0.89 Total Area WQ1 9.06 5.53 14.60 Source: Otak,Inc. 2002 The area south of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2. The area would include. residential areas, streets, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious (Table C-3). The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet. The pond shown on the plan sets would have a water quality volume of approximately 11,026 cubic feet if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment, water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(see Figure C-3). Table C-3. Contributing Areas for Water Quality Pond No. 2 Developed Area Impervious Pervious Total Land Use [Acres] [Acres] [Acres] Residential Lots 1.07 0.27 1.34 Water Quality Pond Tract 0.03 0.08 0.11 Onsite Roadway 0.75 0.00 0.75 Offsite Roadway 0.12 0.00 0.12 Total Area WQ2 1.97 0.35 2.32 Total Area WQ1 and WQ2 11.03 5.88 16.92 Source: Otak,Inc. 2002 The possible increased temperatures of sormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds 1 f during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. Mitigation for Maintenance Activity The water quality ponds would be privately maintained and would require preparation of an operations and maintenance manual for the final design (Otak, Inc. 2002). Maintenance would have to conform to City of Renton and 1988 KCSWDM requirements. Guidelines provided in the operation and maintenance manual should be implemented once operations begin and should be updated, as needed, on an ongoing basis. Impacts caused by sediment removal from the proposed water quality treatment ponds could be decreased if the maintenance activity were scheduled during periods of little or no rain. Impacts from the possible use of pesticides for landscape maintenance could be reduced or avoided with an Integrated Pest Management Plan, as described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). This source control BMP outlines control of fertilizer and pesticide application, soil erosion, and site debris and includes the City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-15 August 2003 i i 1 u e of pesticides/herbicides only as a last resort. Measures listed as part of this BMP include the following: • Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of 1 stormwater in landscaped areas; • Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems; 1 • The practice of mulch-mowing; and • Disposal of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation by composting, if feasible. i e of the above BMPs would reduce and/or eliminate the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, �_ d,therefore,would reduce the potential for pollution to stormwater runoff. I mitigation measures were properly implemented and maintained, adverse impacts from project-related m intenance activities would not be expected. C 3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation 1 1 B V113s for sediment control should be implemented according to the standards specifically outlined in 1 98 KCSWDM, Appendix D. Impacts resulting from project related construction activities would be . 1 �I'nimized through implementation of an appropriate SWPPP, including an approved Temporary Erosion 1, I d Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts I fr m project-related construction activities would not be expected. The SWPPP should provide a careful 1 a sessment of the risk to May Creek and Lake Washington. The risk assessment would integrate site- =' r ated elements, such as slope, soil types, geotechnical stability, groundwater, off-site sources of water flowing into the construction area, and proximity of site stormwater discharge to critical areas. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following measures(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002): • Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked. This element is one of the first steps in most normal construction plans. ' • Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required for plans that propose winter grading. • Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site ' under construction. A detention pond may be needed to construct and use to control flows during 1 construction. • Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met. ` • Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time _ periods of allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part of the construction plans. 1. • Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows II • until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place. 1; I :1 • Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden 1 water. II ' C�{ty of Renton 554-1779-017 B bee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-16 August 2003 -- • Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require protection. • Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems. • Control Dewatering: The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations would be discharged into a controlled system. • Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project. • Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control. It would cover phasing, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for notice of problems, revisions during construction, and contingency planning. One of the most important elements in project '—' management is planning for contingencies based on the risk of exposure during phases of the development. Ongoing planning throughout the life of the project would be essential. JI Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002): • Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30 because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively. • The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a TESC pond. Most construction stormwater runoff from the site would be temporarily routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project, stormwater would be routed via permanent drainage pipes. • The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. • Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be a ; controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. • Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be ti paved,and dust control. `�..w • Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Plans would make j1 provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over slopes. A monitoring plan,with independent testing, should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum, require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. The monitoring and sampling would be done in a professional City of Renton 554-1779-017 yr Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-17 August 2003 I manner consistent with current sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The sampling points would be shown on a map and marked on the ground. The updated Ecology Manual(Ecology 2001)requires the use of grass-lined channels in place of unlined- ditches, which are allowed under 1998 KCSDWM. Also,the Ecology Manual does not allow the use of filter fabric alone as a storm drain inlet protection measure. The Ecology Manual contains additional ersion and sediment control BMPs that would help to mitigate impacts described in this Draft EIS (Ecology 2001). These BMPs include,but are not limited to,the following: • Limiting disturbed areas as practicable; • Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas; I ; • The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure; I. • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces; • Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site discharge; • Specialized concrete handling; • Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals; • Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill containment features, and a spill clean-up kit; • Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction; • Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and ' • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures. I I� I I ' I ' I City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-18 August 2003 ACRONYMS L_ APA Aquifer Protection Area BA Biological Assessment ✓ BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations C i cfs cubic feet per second CMZ channel migration zone COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement -" i EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration I-405 Interstate 405 KCBW King County Backwater KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter - mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act City of Renton 554-1779-017 jr Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-19 August 2003 i C 1 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water I OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark I I RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl , PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act j SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ;- TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon _' TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service F I1 USGS U.S. Geological Survey • I' UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound '' I ; WAC Washington Administrative Code ,1 WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife N WDOE Washington Department of Energy , . WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation I d I1, ' I City of Renton 554-1779-017 1 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-20 August 2003 I APPENDIX D Terrestrial Plants and Animals I , Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D Terrestrial Plants and Animals Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE, Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com August 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, about a quarter mile south of the Kennydale interchange on Interstate 5,as indicated in Figure D-1. D.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to most of the shore of Lake Washington and in most areas along May Creek to within 25 feet or less of the water. The shoreline generally is riprapped as indicated in Figure D-2. A relatively narrow band of riparian vegetation occurs along the banks of May Creek as it flows through the southeastern portion of the site(King County 1995;Raedeke 2002). ' = A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification 94-2-00196. It has been partially implemented, as indicated below. The plan provided for planting of about 4,000 shrubs and small trees in an area of about 52,000 square feet, a density of about one plant per 14 square feet, or about 3.5 feet on-center. The majority of plantings do not appear to have established a stable vegetation community. The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn r- grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. Dominant species in these managed lawns are non-native, weedy species and include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), red fescue (Festuca rubra), bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), and a variety of herbaceous weeds such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and selfheal (Prunella vulgaris). In places along the west bank, paved surfaces extend to within 5 to 10 feet of the OHWM and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25 feet wide along the stream(Raedeke 2002). Some frees and shrubs do occur along the west bank,but they are scattered through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing, and in general are too far from the stream bank to provide significant shade to the stream. Trees and shrubs are a mix of native and non- -- native species such as red alder(Alnus rubra),black cottonwood(Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). Large portions of the riparian buffer along the west bank are dominated by the non-native noxious weeds Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Japanese knotweed(Poplygonum cuspidatum). In recent years,the Barbee Mill Company has planted additional shrubs and small trees to improve shrub cover in the buffer(Raedeke 2002). Species such red- osier dogwood, Scouler's willow, Pacific willow, twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and red-flowered currant(Ribes sanguineum)have been planted into the managed lawn area along the stream. For the most part however,these shrubs are located away from the stream edge. Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge,there is a forested buffer of red alder and black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-1 August 2003 ir _.. ' ) 405 S522) 4 ,____ el ‘_ _ ,,_., ,,,,,. . ,,,„„ DUVALL 202 1 ', / REDMOND " _; - KIRKLAND 'w',: .a " 202 • 203 20 SEATTLE .' "Lake. BELLEVUE :, -wAliirigforr` j;, 90 . ISSAQUAH V �� NEWCASTLE 900 RENTON PROJECT 405 SITE i Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure D-1 . . Nip Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I A I ( r ) OHW� f 1 i C I ,�-- 1772 // PIER "., ( �•/ i \ / � • • • 1 / rf • • • ilaj ` ��i _ • • •7 .7/ \ N'sr / ` LOG I 5 t 4 t' rrA :74.'''.:::%'-iv'' ,__, • • •ca [(C\I"2 ----- ..--- :47„:„.„:_„,,,,,:--".- w I / , „,,,0:71,,,WV ,,,,-• 47 / /1 /„ 1/74,err'" _. • 4 I LAKE 0 00 1 t a-- _f i y/WASHINGTON ,o °* tll�lt.;?t� ! , ��r /.r I 7.'�� la'p ,ler r/ v) r t�11 r 0/t.J, 5 ,^ , ,b, t i•&t ill / * / _ - - ft ( j" f 1/ r ' 7---„„, 00,4J . ..•,„,.. _ ., \,. (-) gr 10 ... i Zi '''',, yl l •• •• ••i \ ,,,/ / MAY CREEK �. e`A1 1 �rf DELTA dI a� ; - _. . :/r, �_.._—. l y 'r'�r 1 / } t _ I ' -11 , /-_,.4--, - N40THS ._ , e....f ,.., 1 i f- -I ir '9, r „, , , 1 .0, .,./// , , ,,,,-...- , , , / 1 ,f. i,.,,,,,,,,",,..,/ ,..,.., ,, Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01 CD BROKEN ASPHALT SCALE IN FEET lArk SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure D-2 —B— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection 0 100 200 C.D O RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 6 • • • LOG PILES ti In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water, non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, and the large areas of managed lawn that line the stream in the project area. The lower portion of the west side of the May Creek corridor(below the first bridge)was designated for replanting in the 1994 plan with low plantings of native shrubs at the shoreline and extending inland consisting of a mix of willows, dogwood, and mock orange shrubs. The area below the lower bridge along the west side of May Creek has a relatively sparse understory of willows and other shrubs; however, a few red alder have established in riprap along the creek and Douglas fir recently has been planted at spacings of about 20 feet behind the bank. The area from the lower bridge to the upper bridge _ was designated for intensive plantings of willows in annular spaces in rockeries, with plantings of shrubs and small trees designed to reach a height of 25 to 30 feet. Surviving plants in this area are very sparse between the lower bridge and the footbridge, where new riprap appears to have been recently installed. Between the footbridge and the lower bridge, little understory is present along the streambank,however a few red alder have established in riprap along the creek and recent plantings of Douglas fir has recently been planted in the grassed area between the stream and pavement. The west side of the creek north of the upper bridge also was designated for relatively dense plantings of shrubs. Current vegetation in this area varies from riprap with little or no vegetation cover to areas with some overstory of alder and fairly dense understory near the stream. The eastern bank from the upper bridge to the BNSF railroad is the most densely vegetation portion of the site with fairly dense alder and understory adjacent to the stream to a distance about 200 feet north of the upper bridge. The west side of the stream between the upper and lower was designated for intensive plantings of willows and shrubs with a goal of reaching a height of 25 to 30 feet. This area is largely grass with a stand of very young alder near the footbridge and a stand of 40- to 50-foot-high Douglas fir near the lower bridge. The lower portion of the May Creek below the lower bridge and adjacent to the existing boathouse was to be planted with shrubs and vine maple. Vegetation in this area consists largely of grasses. The stream bank appears to have been recently riprapped. The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap, which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along the edge of the water. Most of the shoreline vegetation is managed lawn or disturbed area. Managed lawn areas are dominated by lawn grasses such as fescues and bluegrass (Poa spp.), weedy non-native herbaceous species such as dandelion,English daisy (Bella perennis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and reed canarygrass. Significant parts of the delta consist of disturbed soils that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Along the immediate shoreline, soft rush (Juncus effusus) and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks. The Lake Washington shoreline south of the log loading area, including a small area of public land waterward of the inner harbor line,was designated for low plantings of native shrubs consisting of a mix of willows, dogwood, and mock orange shrubs. This area appears to have been cleared as the result of dredging and related spoil piles dating from 1999 to 2002. For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-4 August 2003 I,_ , U land Habitat U land vegetation is limited on the project site due to the narrow corridor along the riparian zone of May C -ek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary of the site. Most of the project site is occupied by buildings and paved surfaces associated with the Barbee Mill Company op-rations on the site. W idli e T is section describes wildlife use of the riparian, shoreline,and upland habitats within the project site,as w;11 as wildlife use of the adjacent open water habitat,Lake Washington. The narrow strip of low-quality I I ri•arian vegetation along May Creek, the shoreline lawns, and the small patch of upland vegetation near th creek provide limited habitat for wildlife. Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, m llards,Canada geese,northern flicker, spotted towhees,white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows,house spa ows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American cro ws, muskrats, and possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek 1. its its value as a habitat corridor,although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site po ion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. A d jacent to the project site, Lake Washington provides habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as p o ential foraging areas for gulls, and other predatory birds. During a site visit on April 8, 2003,wildlife o'served on the lake included double-crested cormorants,hooded mergansers,American wigeons, scaups, b ffleheads, and common mergansers. The limited human presence and activity of the project site, as w 41 as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhances the lake habitat in the area, re ative to other nearshore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher. Two w ldlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use the project site vicinity,as described further below. M: mal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek c. idor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian h. •itat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice, w i ich are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and m grating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include th- Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off- le sh dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at ' th- site. Small mammals such as mice and voles are most likely to be successful in urban and suburban a ri a arian corridors because their rapid reproductive rates allow them to persist despite frequent di turbance. Aquatic species, such as the beaver, muskrat, and river otter, are less frequent in urban s .reline areas because their forage habitat requirements are larger (Larrison 1976). Forest-dwelling m:mmals, such as deer, are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and have been observed to s im from the delta area to Mercer Island. Muskrats were observed on the site during field visits in April 2102. O prey T e osprey has no state of federal listing status but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and th RCW. The Act makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, o export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg; and under the RCW 77.15.130, it is a misdemeanor to d stroy the eggs or nests of protected species, including the osprey. Ci of Renton 554-1779-017 i B bee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-5 August 2003 1 Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers, light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant(i.e., up to 14 km but typically within 3 to 5 km) from foraging areas (Poole 1989). The majority of nests in Oregon and California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers(Zarn 1974;Vana-Miller 1987). Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists r from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns 1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987). They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime thereafter(Cadman et al. 1987). The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996(Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on 4--_ April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity. Bald Eagle Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive. Bald eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby large trees for nesting,perching, and roosting(Stinson et al. 2001). Habitat quality is also associated with freedom from human disturbance; however, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of urban areas with significant human activity is not uncommon. ' Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting territories as early as December(Stinson et al. 2001). Each eagle pair maintains an active nest and often maintains an alternate nest(s) within its territory; successful nests ; may be used over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two, and in western �_. Washington, young hatch by late April, after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001). Young eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington. { Eagles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north to British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults generally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington.State generally arrive from October to December and leave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia,Alaska, the Northwest Territories,and the Yukon. r No bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee mile project site, and the two closest nest sites are approximately 1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site;however,use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable 1 large trees for perching and roosting. Wetlands Two small wetlands(Figures D-3 and D-4)occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property (Raedeke 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend onto City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-6 August 2003 i / r f../7 l\� fr ' , f of L_. -- a- ,r. uniVi/ , 0 /. - re. f , ir ,.//' ( i . -, 4 Milc2c; -4,-/\ ' i t.� , jar:^ _.-_ -R i -, / i / i , rr_ s, �� `v / t ,,,i \4,- ,w /4? All-,u,,J / I . 9- 1 11 / eJs i ; / t t }1 5 C/ 1i (1 i\ii, , , ,.fir; /i. 4_1 \ I i 1 1. • ;_, : i * / / . Mr ‘./. \\ \A r ', -I( 1,,..- , / / _. , ,, , / • - / \ 1 re V/ . / / / KEY MAP \ , 112 y. le._ , 4...?/Ari / \ ,-- , 0'14 \A \/7 siTO°Ak .1,-"7 ,;(- ,i, -% „ir g , \N\ .,_ / / N�11 = i ! t , �� Al / ift „--y tk-j 1 lk /_ I 1 .." :".;-,-/ . if / /WETLA D / i •-'''-7 A„;zr „if BOUN6AR if ---/ ' -- / ,L/ / / tii ‘, \ // A \\ \108 Li/ fr/ /ETBAC t \ -Y /�ir / ,� j r 106 ' / �� / / PPROXIM T AREA +,/ / ' / /OF CONS R TION � / l / �2 .�,'l / / ,/ DISTUR A E i 1 l • r r ty / /*/ / 7 7- p / .,,, i ' / / 4y3T / f / o . ... / / �4 1*---; . N #// >% Y0/, / / / / Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02 SCALE IN FEET Figure D-3 W WETLAND Northerly Wetland 0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat iti / \ .1--7 --1-05 i / 111/ ,,,,,..„ Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - if / ( ' , 1 ir /i i r- i 7-1,1, ,„..„----- , ____ / IMl dr imi immimplij - /// ,, -I, ---- _,,, 104 it.-..,... ......-----, •...,,,, / IN 1 / i v mo e•'' I )01' • 4&.7`, _ -----'•• ''''"-- / / IF 47 r? • 1•:.6.:. -'' -- ----- ___ • • flp 'lit,' ----,,,, / . . /2..4_ ,A,..-4,... .. . „... ,- . i . . ,..,__ 41P.,Ah. / If C%-• --- ' - ---3-.?>' eift-- ,„ / / / g / efr %r74\ - ,-*A,,,o.,. /... 4',/ 00 .')' -0' / / s 431' 0 ' 11110111 'I i 'I/ f, .4, ,*". s4 'NOW iti -- „... '' / -4,...t.. EP '\ \'..e fri i it-A/ I .41. 1 •FP's„ --..• 171. oh / 1 \ \ ,,,/\ / #/, e.,z......- 0 1., souTHER0r7/7 ---___ 7 , r ' / 1, _•L A 4, ‘ ,,,,,,v-0 , .„, i ilk • ,s', 447 N•4r \ 4.0 •• \ \ - 4.,'• • / v4Fa . I/ kt- /4r \ N74 4 co \ 1 S' V:4. • .//\\ 99, • * \ , •,:•:•\ •,, Air ,A6- , 4 ' / 1 ' . . \' --------4._ ,c fr / / I / 1_ \ *,•!.. \ V WET . 0••-•. / / '''' / \ . "il'1, \ ,/ ''":1'14.. ..-',. / /„.., .....„,1/..1r \ / / 7 \ IIL ''--S...\.....'-'--7,-4-' n• ' 1 -•ZZ4•41a-ii,Zio / / / A,_ , / \ i 4° ' • i \ N,swir / i / „.. .,,.._,Nr ----4 -f— • _, .,4.,„ _N_ / / - spiz. ___i_ / L Ao„, --254TBACK 0 dc k / 0 '•- / 6 ,„!.,-.'-^1.--::::'--14„ ' (e vyfr \\ ' „ / `•-•.*S- edp4/ NN ii /1 1 S• / ' ) /1. , 40: 74/1,/ ,/,//7 *t 97_ , /47 // " , ,ii r ,/ ke ii\pi4,1110, /7 r oy,, J7 , ,? 1 ,fr --- ________, ,, e , 1 •e/i / /, // 'V/ N 40TH ST / .77 ,i,„,/ ,,..„.., , 1i /1 xj.„4/ / 1 1/// .,/ i1/ /, // / / Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-03 SCALE IN FEET Alk — — _u, WETLAND Figure D-4 1 Nur Southerly Wetland 0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat it i4 II the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands were classified as Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine { emergent wetlands (David Evans 1997). These two wetlands are dominated by non-native herbaceous vegetation, in particular reed canarygrass,tall fescue,velvet grass(Holcus lanatus), bentgrasses, creeping buttercup, and a variety of native sedges and rushes, such as small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius), and sawbeak sedge. Wetland hydrology is provided by surface runoff on the site, runoff from east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow subsurface flow through the BNSF railroad bed (Raedeke 2002). Both wetlands have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. The buffer areas around the wetlands are characterized by turf-grass lawns,railroad right-of-way(ROW), or a narrow fringe of young red alder,Himalayan blackberry, and willow. A portion of the buffer for both wetlands on the site is the BNSF railroad track and ROW. Two Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)wetlands are mapped to the north of the project area on WDFW maps. These wetlands are classified as forested, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands associated with May Creek and its tributaries; however, these wetlands lie to the north of the project area and are not associated with the lower reaches and delta area of May Creek on the project site. General wetland functions include wildlife habitat, critical groundwater recharge, additions of organic matter to stream food webs, nutrient cycling, sediment trapping and other improvements in water quality. In addition, wetlands are valued for their ability to provide floodwater storage capacity that attenuates floodwater peaks downstream. Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment retention and limited water storage. Both wetlands, due to their small size, limited buffer area, and periodic disturbance associated with mowing, have low species diversity and probably provide minimal wildlife habitat. D.2 IMPACTS D.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision Construction Impacts Vegetation Communities Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and construction of residences occurs over several years the impacts on disturbance sensitive wildlife could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. Addition, animals using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee MiII EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-9 August 2003 hi 'h noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when construction doesn't take pl ce. T e effects of human activities on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project sit may be greater. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost certainly wi 1 not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving. T e high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sa dust tower from relocating in the vicinity. � rl W tlands e northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of Street C and th townhomes it serves will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code minimum of a 5-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland. The roadway constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction impacts likely will e i end approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach within about 10 feet o the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at it- smallest dimension. e southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an ar-a of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet. Modification of th- drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely will remove the source of water to re harge the wetland, resulting in loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be eliminated. 1).2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities S veral natural and human processes are expected to influence the long-term impacts of the site on plant a d wildlife communities. Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need t I maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial amount of ti e to fill in the deepest dredged areas that are up to approximately 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump d sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. The long term effects of delta deposits is li ely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta h s expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s, r suiting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003). e proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the aters edge to about 100 feet and averages about 60 feet. A stream buffer is designated on the project c nceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and densities of planting are not s ecified. I addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor l'n es will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from t e northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet a ong Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing s'wmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more ity of Renton 554-1779-017 arbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-10 August 2003 natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3- 090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis, public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms: • Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. This area is about 16 feet wide at Lot 24, 20 feet wide at Lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space tract and adjacent to Lots 29 and 30. • A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the water's edge, to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible. • Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek, including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings. The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek with 300 feet of road parallel to May Creek and a 120-foot-long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty four lots are proposed along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, 8 front on the public land managed by DNR, leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10-foot setback or no building setback. A 280-foot-wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in that tract. The vegetation plantings associated with the project, specifically those along May Creek that range from 20 to 100 feet, averaging about 50 feet, would provide an area for an enhanced community of native riparian vegetation and related habitat. The lack of specific restoration plans precludes evaluation of the potential effectiveness of such a buffer area. Establishment of a community of native vegetation on a site largely characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, compacted soils, and in the absence of nearby communities of native vegetation to provide seed sources for a natural succession of plant communities requires human intervention at every stage of establishing and maintaining a viable community of indigenous vegetation. Specific considerations for establishing a similar community are discussed in the mitigation section below. The May Creek Final Action Plan recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001). The water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress(Chamaecyparis obtusa gracilis). This native of Japan and Taiwan typically grows between 6 and 12 feet tall at maturity. It is primarily an ornamental with irregular spreading branches that give an interesting appearance. This proposed plant community has limited habitat value although the area pond and upland area has the potential for an indigenous plant community and wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-11 August 2003 ' , 1 T e 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely -- th.t common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, absent specific co ditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil ' . endment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping. I ldli e 1 H man disturbance associated with the proposed project would generally have minimal effect on the e isting patters of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Construction of residences c� Id take place over several years time and high noise levels associated with construction may disrupt use of resident wildlife and wildlife using the stream as a corridor. Most of the existing animals that use th area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the creek as a orridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These 1 I w ldlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels,or may limit their use to nighttime , a d other hours when construction doesn't take place. The establishment of greater wildlife populations 'I , m y be delayed until after construction on the site ceases. This also would be expected to coincide with th time period needed to establish new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor. T e effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site may be slightly greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. I Tlh e relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as observed during the April site visit, may reflect the existing relatively low levels of human use along the lake's shoreline at the project site. Increased I human activity and noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings,may result i reduced waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further r-'duce wildfowl use. The impacts of public access will depend on the location, width, and use character o the public facilities. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest i pact because: I • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the littoral edge. • Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area; I • Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may disturb plants,especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion. P-destrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl. The ,I lil elihood of users leaving the trail can be reduced by fencing and controlled public access for shoreline ii v ewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas at the shoreline. 1 ','sk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase because of the project, as 11 11 w speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. I he vegetation plantings associated with the project, specifically those along May Creek, would result in . increase in forage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also 1 elp to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers e proposed to be narrowest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between I ' treets A and F on opposite sides of the stream. This represents one of the greater sources of disturbance om vehicle noise and lights and is provided the least buffer. The Street D bridge crossing also rl presents a direct disturbance to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design. The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife ity of Renton 554-1779-017 arbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-12 August 2003 movement that has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project may provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's edge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress has limited habitat value. The proposed open space area and the wet-ponds, however provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below. The May Creek Final Action Plan recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan { also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001). Osprey The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not find and use an alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site. Bald Eagle The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, noise levels would be r reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of - the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced. Wetlands Maintenance of residential landscaping could potentially impact native wetland vegetation and water _ quality. Addition of fertilizers for residential lawns and gardens, as well as the use of pesticides and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially impact both wetland and aquatic wildlife via surface runoff. In addition,pesticide or herbicide drift during application could impact aquatic organisms in May Creek or Lake Washington and non-target plants or animals in the stream or shoreline buffer areas. D.3 MITIGATION Impact mitigation includes the following steps: 1. Avoid the impact, 2. Minimize the impact, 3. Reduce the impact over time, 4. Rectify the impact,and 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact. Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed with the specific City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-13 August 2003 s:tbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand e beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and a sociated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal. ' l itigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline R gulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be c nsidered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the e vironment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of e specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and d veloped shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources(RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and ldlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). I ligation of Subdivision Construction Impacts itigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native b ffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing. S .ging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native v getation. During construction, any cleared or regraded areas on the site during construction should be k.pt covered and/or reseeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of i asive weedy species. In particular, in portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed c. arygrass already occur, clearing should be done as quickly as possible to completely remove these s ecies and the area should be replanted with native species. 'ttgation of Development and Use of the Site getation Communities P•oject conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation along the shoreline, a ough assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental getation is a long-term maintenance and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation would p ovide some habitat, although the quality of the vegetation community within a 25-foot setback area •uld be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides and r=duce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek and L= e Washington. Use of native plants,plants suitable for the specific site conditions, or drought tolerant d disease resistant horticultural varieties could further minimize reliance on chemical fertilizers and p sticides. Designing the residential landscapes consistent with Integrated Pest Management principles c. also minimize use of chemical controls. In addition, importing high quality soil material and ensuring a'equate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping can decrease the need for c emical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance. itigation measures for installation of additional vegetation in the proposed buffer area along May Creek 1 a le addressed below in discussion of mitigation through alternative buffer areas. "ildlife lil aterfowl, cormorants, and other birds would benefit from maintaining the existing log rafts and pilings • Lake Washington,adjacent to the project site,which provide perch and loafing sites. I I i I C of Renton 554-1779-017 B bee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-14 August 2003 II Osprey Osprey mitigation measures are described in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by Raedeke L_-' Associates (2002). In summary, mitigation measures will include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A WDFW biologist will be consulted during relocation of the new nest site,which will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures(Saurola 1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). As of 1994, regional data indicated that approximately 64 percent of ospreys in the United States nested on artificial structures, particularly artificial structures erected specifically for the birds(Houghton and Rymon 1997). A study in Saskatchewan showed that the overall breeding success improved from 45.9 percent in natural trees to 62.9 percent in human-made platforms (Houston and Scott 1992). The International Osprey Foundation (1992) and Link (1999) provide recommendations for construction of osprey platforms. Potential sites for relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek. �-i Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement Avoidance The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the townhomes on Lots 109 through - 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the same setbacks from May Creek were maintained,this would shorten the depth of the lots, which range from 85 to 104 feet in depth to 60 to 75 feet. These lot depths are more typical of dimensions of proposed duplex lots such as lots 99 to 102. The result of such modification would likely be the creation of four to six duplex lots instead of the eight townhome lots proposed. If the roadway and townhomes were shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance and restoration, eight townhome sites could be retained. The displacement of wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot-wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the - immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed Lots 99 and 100 and require reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant should be relocated outside the wetland and buffer. Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement Restoration of buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native vegetation to replace the existing vegetation displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Replacement vegetation would consist of nursery stock of trees and shrubs to provide at least a 25-foot buffer around the western edge of the wetland on the project site. This replacement vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species, such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir, big-leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red currant. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-15 August 2003 I I • E i hancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland, which consists of in oduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants. S b species such as twinberry, red-osier dogwood, and willows such as Sitka, Scouler's, and Pacific w How could be densely planted around the edges of the wetland. In the central, lower portions of the w-tland that tend to be wetter, native grasses, sedges and rushes such as slough sedge, small-fruited b Il ush and dagger rush would provide increased diversity and water quality enhancements. Only a small p•rtion of this wetland occurs within the project site however,most of the wetland is on the BNSF ROW. y wetland enhancement would require the cooperation of the BNSF railroad. Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The Cityof Renton specifies a 1.5:1 P P m nimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement with the provision for additional area in c es where there is uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; si:nificant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in - fu ctional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e). 0 a most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland adjacent to th- proposed May Creek buffer area. This area is north of the area proposed for development and could b: used to replace wetland area lost by filling the southern wetland, as well as to enhance the northerly w-tland. A wetland mitigation plan has not been proposed by the applicant. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be addressed include the following: • Adequate groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation community. The existing hydrology supports the existing northerly wetland. There is currently no indication that surface water or groundwater resources are present that would support a larger wetland area. It is possible that surface water runoff from the proposed roadway or from building roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. Surface water runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology. Roof runoff generally avoids such pollutant; however, any runoff source is subject to interruption during low rainfall months and is a less reliable source to sustain wetland vegetation than groundwater. In addition,much of the project area exists on fill and removing fill and regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology,along with surface runoff,to ensure adequate hydrology to support additional wetland area. • If hydrology is adequate, it is likely that regrading would be required to provide an area to hold surface water or tap groundwater. Grading will remove existing vegetation and soils, requiring soil amendment and replanting of both wetland vegetation and appropriate buffer area. Replacement wetland areas would be planted with a mix of native shrubs, sedges, and rushes, while the buffer area would be planted with a mix of native trees and shrubs. The specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology and soils following regrading, however, the wetland would likely be planted with species such as Pacific, Scouler's and Sitka willow, salmonberry, twinberry, red-osier dogwood, slough sedge, small- fruited bulrush, sawbeak sedge, dagger rush, hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) and northern mannagrass(Glyceria borealis). • The degraded character of the existing vegetation within the northerly wetland should be addressed through enhancement plantings. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the existing reed canarygrass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and trees. The location of most of the northerly wetland on a different property may render enhancement and weed control measures problematic. The degraded li condition of both existing wetlands,however,makes enhancement desirable, if the cooperation of ,- I � I C ty of Renton 554-1779-017 B,rbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-16 August 2003 I I � the BNSF railroad can be gained to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity. • Monitoring and enforcement are critical elements of successful wetland compensation. To ensure successful establishment of a new wetland, there should be a monitoring program, qualified reviewers, and the performance of a bond to cover the necessary costs of control of invasive species and possible replanting is an important measure to ensure successful establishment of a wetland replacement. Recent studies at King County(Mockler et al. 1998)and Ecology(Johnson et al. 2000) have found that 79 percent of County mitigations, and 65 percent of Ecology mitigations, failed to meet assessable performance standards. Failure has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement. In this case, the provision of the proposed buffers along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline have varying degrees of impacts, as compared to existing conditions and provide some degree of mitigation of some adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas The scientific information cited above suggests that greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities. These buffers could support reestablishment of indigenous elements of the Lake Washington shoreline,which would reduce long-term impacts of residential development of the shoreline and expand the beneficial use for wildlife. Concepts related to the restoration of natural vegetation communities include the following: Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. It is not always desirable, feasible, or even possible to replicate the natural structural complexity of target plant associations. A mature, forested riparian corridor or lake shoreline cannot be instantly created or restored, but a young sapling community can be planted that will develop into a mature system over time. Site design must reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. To replicate structural complexity, several elements must be addressed in the restoration design. These include spacing, patch size, interspersion, and persistence. It must be understood that natural succession within a vegetation community is generally not possible within a restored vegetation community in an urban setting. The complex interactions with existing stands of vegetation are not present in fragmented or isolated stands of vegetation. Sources of seeds from existing stands of vegetation may not be available; therefore, a complex vegetation community that contains as many features as native communities must be created within the restored vegetation community. Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships should be replicated to the extent possible. It should be noted if species tend to grow in clumps or clusters of multiple specimens or if each specimen is represented singly. Patterns within communities should be distinguished and replicated to the extent possible. Patterns of vertical stratification should also be replicated. Many communities are composed of species with different vertical growth patterns. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter. Interspersion. The structural patterns within the overall targeted vegetation and wildlife community must also be replicated. Different animal species have different requirement for optimum patch size. "Interspersion" refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among various plant communities. Plant community types are distributed throughout an ecosystem in spatial City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-17 August 2003 arrangements that range from simple to complex. Simple patterns often present an orderly progression of establishment of plant communities in concentric rings or linear bands. More complex patterns of plant communities may be a reflection of the maturity of the system. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely high, the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost. Of special concern for establishment of vegetation communities in an urban setting are the adjacent land uses and the degree of disturbance from those uses, ranging from noise and light to disturbance and predation from domestic cats and dogs. Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill -' materials and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native species. The persistence of newly established indigenous plants will require long-term management both to monitor and replace plantings that die prior to establishment, but also to control invasive "weed" plants and to monitor plantings to identify those that are most suitable to the site and most likely to be sustainable over the long term. Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require: • Removal of existing impervious surfaces including pavement and foundations of buildings within the restoration area; • Removal of contaminated soils, and amendments to restore an appropriate soil chemistry, which may be needed because remnants of building materials and leachates from cement and asphalt as well as chemicals used on site that can affect soil pH and other parameters of soil chemistry. '+ • Reducing the existing compaction of underlying fill. Compacted soils have soil aggregates that are broken into smaller particles, reducing the amount of pore space in the soil, which hinders aeration, water infiltration and results in low soil oxygen and poor water drainage. All of these factors retard root growth and jeopardizing the health of new plantings. Given the character of the existing fill and weight of buildings, lumber and vehicles used on the site, reducing compaction is likely to require: > Deep plowing with a plow or backhoe when the soil is dry to break up compacted soils, or holes can be drilled to provide drainage and better root penetration; ➢ Rototilling and disking to break up compacted soil aggregates(Miller 1997). • Mixing compacted fill with fully composted organic mulch is beneficial in improving the soil structure (up to 50 percent volume of soil may be needed) and is also necessary to provide soil microbes and invertebrates that are largely missing in urban soils and provides a very limited food source and results in a poor food web and unhealthy soil. __I City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-I8 August 2003 Persistence of the established communities will require replacement of plantings that die or are replaced by invasive "weed" species. Several strategies are available, each with associated advantages and disadvantages. In most cases,a mix of strategies is appropriate. • Overplanting may compensate for lack of knowledge about appropriate communities in a particular setting as well as compensation for the normal mortality of installed nursery stock. In most cases, a survival rate of between 60 percent and 80 percent is specified in planting plans. It also may be appropriate to plant a mix of species at densities in excess of final expected densities of mature specimens to allow competition between various species to establish an appropriate species mix. It is not always possible for a landscape designer to discern the soil and other conditions that will favor species in a particular site. Overplanting also may be used in an attempt to compete with invasive species. This strategy is often inappropriate because invasive species by their nature are more aggressive and overplanting can retard the establishment of desirable species through excessive competition for resources. • Irrigation is likely to be required for a period of 2 to 3 years until plants are established, especially during the typical Puget Sound drought period of July—August. • Monitoring and intervention to replant specimens that die, or actively remove invasive species. The extent to which existing non-native species can be removed or suppressed prior to replanting would be a benefit in reducing initial competition. Ongoing control of invasives as a major component of a successful the project because of the aggressiveness of invasive plants and the lack of existing plant communities on the site that might indicate an appropriate mix of new plants. Control of invasives is likely to require a long-term management commitment, including an initial 3 to 5 year establishment period and a longer-term monitoring and replacement period to identify plant communities that fare well and to continue to eradicate new infestations of II invasives. This will be required for both upland areas and newly formed delta deposits that will be colonized both by species on-site and a variety of local ornamental plants common on the Lake Washington shoreline. The provision of a management entity for areas of restored buffer areas is likely to be a critical factor in successful establishment of a viable community of native plants and associated terrestrial and aquatic species. Management will require a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting successful plant communities,removing invasive weed species, controlling the impacts of use by adjacent residents, or the public using trails through the area and possibly mediating between the view and animal control interests of residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department and DNR, who has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands, WDFW, who has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources, volunteer participation by the public using shoreline access, and the adjacent homeowners, or a homeowners association, or cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Mitigation of bridge crossings may include greater height and width to allow penetration of light and ! - precipitation to maintain plants and to provide for animal movement between the waters edge and bridge abutments to maintain the migration corridor. Vegetation species planted in the riparian and shoreline buffers would be basically the same under the different buffer-width scenarios. Some important considerations for buffer plantings to enhance the beneficial functions of buffers include dense plantings of native trees and shrubs to maximize sediment i4 retention, water quality, and nutrient cycling functions. In addition, planting a variety of species with different life-forms (e.g., groundcovers, short and tall shrubs, small and large trees) enhances the structural diversity of the buffer, which increases the habitat quality for wildlife. Finally, planting a City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-19 August 2003 variety of different species ensures that there are a variety of food sources available for wildlife. Buffer planting plans for the riparian area should include native trees, such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, big-leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs and small trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red- osier dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and Scouler's willow should be planted in the buffer. The shoreline buffers could be planted with lower-growing species to provide some views of the water, but should include the three native willows and shrubs such as red-osier dogwood, twinberry, salmonberry, red elderberry, Pacific crabapple, bitter cherry, beaked hazelnut, and vine maple. These species can provide some shade and cover along the shoreline, as well as providing sources of organic material to the food web of the lake,and food and cover for terrestrial wildlife. Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Shoreline and May Creek: Option A, 50-foot Buffer Under Option A, (Figure D-5) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the buffer adjacent to May Creek: • Reorienting the turn-around for Street A to project to the interior, rather than into the riparian corridor. • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four proposed townhome units to one or two. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: ➢ Elimination bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for plantings near the water. > Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront with viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be fenced for privacy. _I City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-20 August 2003 COR 2 ZONE _ 17, g:I ,oI , 1 1 I II�` 91Ig1l�s11 1 I�- � f�- OHw�_f'l a�11� I1 „ I`, " 1 _ I_ _ II " ' 11a I! a Il • al l ,� / a !l 5 1 a 9 STREET ' — !0 ' 50'SETBACK / m ^�- I I ! f_. �� / ` // L — I 1 m- II` - 1L' "/ v - -� — 1 // 1 I Aa / Tract"B" 9 / l .,/ '/ ■ Water Quality \\\ j/ /\ � �/ �I/ `•�f PUBLIC LAND Tract"C" y � ' Open 9\ \\ • / Space \\- , .. ao \ / 1/ / - - - - �.\\i y:ytl \ °°�% ' / 1,: � �—g—I � 7 i\\ Q\ �` ��/ ,>o �, \v / U;,FE_ Q::--f:/7":-2::::: ,;MI ,\\' •••••.----,..0 • -•,„.:v / A' ro op `�1 • Wil ' // //,'�"� O ' j/,Ao' _// /LAKE 1 \ / / Q WASHINGTON - - ��\ 7' �/ j/ Q,_ 40 50'SETBACK Tif I /1/. M. /7 ,.// , 1 . . ,*'/'‘ lat ' ty PUBLIC LAND , -/ �.. \ , // \\ ,ly ) ,ApAy , f.\- • ---- - . •••••-•,, „..." ti ltes/ i 88 villil'tdMAY CREEK ` �d DELTA abile'' . ` 1 `/.., R fl.ZONE 1 s l / :t+mn>.'.X REVISED 50'SETBACK FROM OHW 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04 SCALE IN FEET ,Ak Figure D-5 n I lir Option "A" 50-foot Buffer 0 goo zoo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat I The following likely differences in impacts exist between Option A and the Proposal: The large width of the buffer area that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Option A would provide a greater degree of roughness and,therefore,would provide increased sediment retention,nutrient cycling, water quality improvements, and organic matter inputs to the stream and lake than the Proposal. In addition, Option A would provide slightly more riparian habitat and a greater distance from human disturbance then the original project design. Consequently, Option A would create better conditions for riparian-associated and aquatic wildlife(i.e.,muskrat,riparian songbirds, and waterfowl). The provision of a 25-foot-wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake shoreline under Option A with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a very limited strip for reestablishment of native vegetation communities. The presence of public access trails in the area also would lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. The creation of a more natural edge at the lakeshore would be the feature that differs most from the probable bulkheaded shoreline under the proposal. A much more varied community of plants could be established at the shoreline with regrading to remove or reduce the height of existing bulkheads because of the presence of water and the favorable environment provided for a wide variety of vegetation. That complexity would be reflected in value to wildlife. The potential value of revegetation, however, is limited by the narrow width of the buffer, which provides little opportunity for complexity in transitions to upland plants. A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The potential for conflict for areas exist where lots are proposed along the shoreline. In many cases, homeowners are likely to desire views of the shoreline that would not be accommodated by typically dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. One strategy that may serve both goals to a certain extent would be to emphasize groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations where views corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-22 August 2003 i 1 -- �COR-2 ZONE • / . . _- r �! v r / 1-- �- ,I l o -11- ,1 F -i I- I- -11 r- —I f— - ' l I /�� 7� IH OHW� , r / 74/ „100'SETBACK — cA m ) I I ` �/7 I Tract"B" \/ — , Water Quality C;N°' / i PUBLIC LAND ♦ Tract"C" • . . � , Open " / • ', yr I Space V �/ • " !\-- C: -1 . 44 ''\ till* ". -.11t* • 7/ • ' n g / \,''''', ..0.0611 • ///7e// 0%IE/ J� . 19 • • " • • ,/,•' !"'" i i / q) • �� I -�' --;1 I'.'"> • jr 1 / 03 J �, OHW ,, co LAKE �. • / ' °' '•- WASHINGTON ! 4_V/ _100'SETBACK \ II/ '/ • 1'' V PUBLIC LAND • 03 wu�' • %� • , S1 *7 , V • t 4 V 4 / ---- / \�� / 7! / / N / MAYCREEK v „ = ,."• / DELTA °° / 1 1 _ . o-g r H •`=- R-_R_ZONR TA____""; " 'F r N 40TH ST -- _. 1 ..,..r._ -s ,,.I . - REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW 50 BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05 SCALE IN FEET Figure D-6 W Option "B" 100-foot Setback 0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Option B, 100-foot Buffer Option B (Figure D-6) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific changes on the May Creek corridor including the following: • Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream. • Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15. • Elimination of most of the development on both sides at the mouth of the stream. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • A 75-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: > Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope. > Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that could be accommodated in the wider buffer. area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15 to 25 feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area and ornamental landscaping, probably marked by the subsurface containment walls that would likely be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and also likely to be fenced for privacy. The following likely differences in impacts exist between Option B and the Proposal: The greater width of the buffer area along May Creek planted with trees and shrubs under Option B would provide a greater degree of roughness and, therefore, would provide increased sediment retention, nutrient cycling, water quality improvements, and organic matter inputs to the stream and lake than the proposal. The additional 50 feet of trees and shrubs under Option B would also enhance these functions relative to Option A. In addition, Option B would provide more riparian habitat and a greater distance from human disturbance than the original project design or Option A, and consequently would create better conditions for riparian-associated and aquatic wildlife (i.e., muskrat, riparian songbirds, and waterfowl). The provision of a 75-foot-wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the Lake Washington shoreline with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to building sites would provide a more complex plant community and greater buffering for to the most productive natural edge at the lake shore. The larger depth of the buffer provides substantially greater opportunities to establish more complexity in transitions to upland plants and more potential to allow plant communities to develop that have more upland transitional areas or edges for a greater variety of wildlife habitat. The location of public access trails further from the lake shoreline would provide less disturbance to the lakeshore, which is the most sensitive element of the plant and wildlife community. The potential conflict for views of the shoreline by adjacent residents would be greater with the larger buffer area. The width of the buffer would substantially impair the potential for direct views. With such a buffer width,the primary visual access to residents may be provided by public access trails provided to the buffer area and associated shoreline viewpoints. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-24 August 2003 +-I ACRONYMS APA Aquifer Protection Area BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CMZ channel migration zone COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration I-405 Interstate 405 KCBW King County Backwater KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter r_ mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act City of Renton 554-1779-017 r Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-25 August 2003 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Energy WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation -, City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-26 August 2003 APPENDIX E Aquatic Species ' I i 1 � Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E , r Aquatic Species , r. Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington la Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425)822-8880 www.parametrix.com August 2003 Project No. 554-1779-017 ? E. AQUATIC SPECIES } E.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the a ' City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, about a quarter mile south of the Kennydale interchange on Interstate 5,as indicated in Figure E-1. May Creek The Barbee Mill site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin, where May Creek discharges into Lake Washington. The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-mile area located in King County, southeast of Lake Washington,between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily within unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin(approximately 12 percent of the total area)are within the City of Renton(King County 1995). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land uses (King County 2001). During the past several decades, the lower portions of the watershed have undergone intensive residential development, while the upper two thirds of the watershed have retained a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forest areas (King County 2001). Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent. Under, current zoning, full build-out of the basin would result in an increase of effective impervious surface to 12 percent of the total basin area(King County 2001). May Creek is identified as tributary#0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 08 (Williams et al. 1975). May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to Lake Washington. On the project site, May Creek flows approximately 1,000 feet from I-405 in a southwesterly direction through the Barbee Mill site and discharges into Lake Washington near the south end of the site. The stream was rerouted to flow to the south, parallel to the Lake Washington Boulevard and the BNSF railroad some time after 1950. Historic maps and photos show the stream flowing at various locations generally in a more direct westerly direction through delta deposits. {_ti May Creek has a mean annual flow of 25.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the portion of May Creek on the project site is classified as a Type 1 stream(DNR 2002)based on its size (>20 cfs mean annual flow) and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different categories. Class 1 streams are those that have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's Shoreline Master Program and May Creek within the project site is listed as a designated Shoreline of the State (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-18-210). Class 2 streams are smaller than Class 1 streams, and either flow year-round under periods of normal rainfall or are used by salmonids. Unlike Class 1 and 2 streams, Class 3 streams are intermittent or temporary during years of normal rainfall and are not used by salmonids(King County 1991). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single lane wooden structure located at the mouth of May Creek. The bridge provides vehicular access to the southern portions of the Barbee Mill site. The middle bridge is a narrow, foot-traffic only wooden structure located approximately 200-feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek. The northernmost bridge is a two-lane concrete structure that provides the primary access for the mill. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix E-Aquatic Species E-2 August 2003 I 2 r le. 405 522 %CO DUVALL 202 c7---- - REDMOND KIRKLAND q 202 203 520 ' N`L` k BELLEVUE %`;%;:: SEATTLE ' y=', Lae"-;;,; .:� Washington-;;:'>' : etc,ter,;: 4 Jo 90 ISSAQUAH 41 TI NEWCASTLE 900 RENTON PROJECT 'c c 405 SITE Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 i-` Figure E-1 W Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Within the project site, May Creek is approximately 10 to 20 feet wide, and the channel gradient is less than 1 percent. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's OHWM is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream (Raedeke 2002). Riffles and glides characterize the creek northward from the northernmost bridge to the eastern property boundary. Riffle substrate is redominantly cobbles and gravel that may provide some spawning habitat for a small number of adult salmon and trout. Fine silts and sands are the primary substrate downstream from the southernmost bridge. Only three pools were observed during the April 8, 2003, field visit, two were associated with bridge abutments and another was associated with some woody debris upstream of the furthest upstream bridge. Substrate in the deeper pools in the northern on-site reaches of May Creek consisted of fine silts and sands. Water depth during the April 2003 site visit varied from greater than 30 inches in pools and about 8 to 16 inches in the riffles and glides. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. Both east and west sides of the stream bank are armored with riprap at the mouth of May Creek in the vicinity of the southernmost bridge and portions of the west side of the stream are armored with riprap between the southernmost and northernmost bridges. Riprap is placed intermittently along the east and west banks of the creek from the northern bridge to the eastern site boundary(Figure E-2). Under current conditions, May Creek buffers are sparsely vegetated on the west side of the stream. In most cases, buildings and paved areas on the west side are 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the water. On the east side of the stream, the site is largely undeveloped between the BNSF railroad and the stream north of the existing bridge. This portion of the stream is fringed by red alder trees that overhang the stream; however, the width of the buffer in this area averages approximately 30 feet and includes only a single row of trees directly adjacent to the stream. Existing buffers along the lower half of the east side of the stream consist primarily of lawn and the majority of the on-site portion of the stream is poorly shaded. Scattered clumps of shrub vegetation and small trees are interspersed throughout the southern portion of the buffer. These areas have developed primarily as a result of recent buffer enhancement efforts by the Barbee Mill Company; however, shrubs and trees are small, located approximately 5 to 10 feet from the stream edge and do not provide substantial stream shading. Impervious surfaces (pavement, buildings, and other structures) cover approximately 85 percent of the project area and extend to much of the Lake Washington shoreline on the project site. Over the past several years, annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark debris from mill operations and to remove sediment that is transported from the upper reaches of May Creek and deposited in the lower reaches of May Creek and the delta area in Lake Washington at the mouth of May Creek. Dredging operations annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the May Creek Delta, which has served to prevent aggradation of the May Creek streambed, thereby maintaining the extent of the floodplain. A detailed floodplain description and analysis is found in the Floodplain Analysis Technical Report (Appendix B)of this Draft EIS. Recent surveys found that bark removal operations have been successful in improving substrate conditions in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site (Harza 2000; Meridian 2001). City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-4 August 2003 I It , ------ , _____,, OHW am /� - k. �-- 1 ( r"1J I 4) ':ate \, 6 - x 1 ,-- 1--- \ ///// 40 PIER 1- - 11 1 " 1 • • •if \ ‹) c67-`1 r____) V / / ) • • •mr \131/) ,p ,..;•-•-• ,y TA /idea COG) +�� ram2 V 7.- ../A fi a© a/ < AF II1 '-' \''''\ ) /1:"..7' ,---,;(:.'''. 7 / 11 //A-Sey : ‘.-4„ LAKE �'� � � C9 - WASHINGTON �I� � �I I I` i k_ f 1 / I % Jt f / A� j, It lb.)/ t� t V�( /4 / ii-1/' ••4„T/ff k '6// , — .::'/ i'ss"-,„,,,,,,,,,,./ - \.. e i , , ; / - e, ‘ / i —..--7 . .. 7 MAY CREEK / ip. / .------'--.- / // / '''., - DELTA _ 1 ---- fr/ x i / _....--.--___. _ __._ N 40TH ST f f , f �� /t �'h; , .r , / . Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01 CD BROKEN ASPHALT - SCALE IN FEET SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure E-2 Ur —B— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection 0 i00 2I0 � RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • • • • LOG PILES • • • • Lake Washington Lake Washington, the largest lake in King County and the second largest in the state, receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers. Lake Washington drains approximately 472 square miles. The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steeply sloping side slopes. The lake's average depth is approximately.108 feet,with an average water volume of 2,350,000 acre-feet. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature; 63 percent of the watersheds are developed (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. Construction of the canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by about 9 feet to its present level. Lake Washington serves as a valuable natural resource to all King County residents. On the whole, the lake's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding communities (DNR 1999). Nearshore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for chinook,bull trout, and other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are uninterrupted. Chinook and other juvenile fish migrate along the shoreline. Shallow water can provide protection from larger predatory fish. Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food sources, and eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in shallow water increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone. The shoreline vegetation helps maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food web and provides crucial in-water habitat. During the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have simplified the nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat (USCE 2001). ti The Barbee Mill project site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The Lake Washington Basin, known as WRIA 08, is comprised of waters funneling into Lake Washington and hence through Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal to Puget Sound at Shilshole Bay (Williams et al. 1975). Riprap and bulkheads(consisting of either logs or metal sheet pile)reinforce virtually the entire length of the Lake Washington shoreline on the project site. Riprap extends northward along the shoreline for approximately 150 feet from the mouth of May Creek(Figure E-2). Beyond this extending to the north, a reach of shoreline approximately 100 feet in length (the former log-loading area) is reinforced with a sheet-pile bulkhead, as is the area where logs were loaded into the sawmill. Large pieces of asphalt and other debris are falling into the water in the log loading area. Beyond the extent of the sheet pile, the City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—AppendixE—Aquatic Species E-6 August 2003 entire shoreline is reinforced by log or riprap bulkheads to the northern extent of the project property boundary. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the existing sawmill building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed in the lake and extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points. Lake depths along the shoreline are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek and the log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing sawmill and are 3 to 4 feet below the OHWM. The greatest depths are about 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. An aquatic habitat survey of Lake Washington around the May Creek delta and shoreline within the project area revealed that high densities of elodea (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.), and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) occurred in shallow (less than about 3 meters, or 9-feet deep)near-shore portions of the project area during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance appears to be in depth of 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) whereas very few macrophytes were found in depths greater than 5 meters (15 feet). Abundance of plants is low in the winter. Substrate in the project area is a mixture of silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel (Harza 2000). Where observed, gravel was mostly located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter), whereas silts were the dominant substrate in deeper water. Fish Species Use WDFW Priority Habitats and Species data indicate that May Creek supports five species of salmonids, including chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), winter steelhead (O. mykiss), and resident cutthroat trout (O. clarki). Of these species, chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Environmental Species Act (ESA) and coho salmon are considered a candidate for listing. Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish species. Resident rainbow trout (O. , mykiss) are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) are federal species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site. ni ESA-Listed Species There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Fisheries has identified the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of chinook salmon as a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has also identified the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU of coho salmon as a candidate for listing under the ESA. Coho salmon have been considered in this Draft EIS to preclude additional analysis should coho salmon become listed in the future. In addition, the USFWS has identified Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as a federally threatened species that occurs within the project vicinity. Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) On March 24, 1999,NOAA Fisheries listed chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU as threatened under the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance compared to historical levels (Federal Register 1999a: 14308-15328). Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks have shown long- and short-term negative City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-7 August 2003 trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat degradations that include stream blockages, stream bank instability and modifications, increases in sedimentation, widespread removal riparian vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading, alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of streams, and loss of estuarine and nearshore habitat (Myers et al. 1998). Harvest and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of chinook salmon are also considered factors of decline(Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater and salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of chinook salmon, including those found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit an "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during the first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles have been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time (Harza 2000). Juvenile chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and nearshore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open ocean,Puget Sound chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas of clean gravels and cobbles,and generally in the mainstems of rivers(Myers et al. 1998). Chinook salmon use shoreline areas of Lake Washington from January to July and the distribution of juvenile chinook salmon has been demonstrated to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest densities of juvenile chinook salmon have been found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel) during day and night, and in areas having gradual slope (less than 20 percent Tabor and Piaskowski 2001). From February to March, chinook salmon commonly used overhead structure during the day, but rarely at night. In contrast, chinook salmon do not appear to use overhead structures during the day or night (Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at night they have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water,close to shore. Woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by chinook salmon in March and April, but are used less progressing from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2001, Tabor et al. 2002). It is at this time when predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often utilizing such cover and other overhead structures. Most habitat used by chinook salmon within the project vicinity occurs along the Lake Washington shoreline. Lake Washington is a major migration corridor for chinook salmon and is also used for rearing juveniles. Most juvenile chinook salmon that use habitat within project vicinity originate from the Cedar River. The Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery stocks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock chinook salmon enter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late ti August. Spawning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with peak spawning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994). Fry emerge from February through March (Harza 2000,City of Seattle 2000). Chinook salmon are known to use May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project site. While May Creek does not have a self-sustaining chinook salmon population, some individuals believed to be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Spawning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found chinook salmon population densities in May Creek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Population surveys conducted in 1983 did not find chinook salmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-8 August 2003 1 of 1 fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live chinook salmon and 4 carcasses were spotted in May Creek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001). From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that study, densities of chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas (Tabor et al. 2002). Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus) ! On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a fmal rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Thirty-four subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading, altered flow regimes),hybridization and competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al. 1997). Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life historyforms. Bull trout have more specific habitat �' r3' P requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to undisturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut banks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992). Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding and/or migration(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Cold-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature considered to be suitable for bull trout are 8 to 10 degrees C for spawning 2 to 4 degrees C for egg incubation, 4 to 10 degrees C for rearing, and 10 to 12 degrees C for migration (USFWS 1998). Areas where water temperature exceeds 15 degrees C (59 F) are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning occurs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic debris,vegetation,or undercut banks as they grow(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area boundary(Lucchetti 2002),which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in the Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper Cedar River watershed(WDFW 1998). Bull trout have,however, been sighted within Lake Washington and its tributaries over the past 20 years(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999; and WDFW 1998). The origin of these fish is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations from outside of the Lake Washington Basin(Harza 2000,WDFW 1998,USFWS 1999,Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). -I� City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-9 August 2003 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) On July 25, 1995, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for coho salmon to the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the future listing (Federal Register 1995:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and stream blockages. Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After entering Lake Washington, adult coho may remain in the lake for up to several weeks if necessary until river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake Washington basin streams occurs late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000). Spawning generally occurs in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in early March to mid-May (Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). After emergence,juvenile coho salmon rear in freshwater for 1 year, migrate to the ocean, and return within 5 to 20 months to spawn. The stream distribution and abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel morphology,vegetation type and abundance, and channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region. However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions(Harza 2000;Fresh 1994; WDFW 1994). Use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood,but juveniles are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area. Spawning surveys of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho salmon densities in the lower reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 fish per mile (Harza 2000; Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth of May Creek, juvenile coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake Washington in close proximity to the mouth(Harza 2000). However,juvenile coho salmon are not generally known to reside in lakes for extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore, most use of the Lake Washington shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May during seaward migration. Other Fish Species Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch (Perca flavescens), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin i_. (Cottus aspen) (Harza 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000, the most abundant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch and juvenile smallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-IO August 2003 studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine stickleback were observed (Harza 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters(about 6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in the existing dock,boathouse,and submerged logs. Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further added the following interpretations to clarify this defmition: • "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate; • "Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; • "Necessary"means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem;and • "Spawning,breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity"covers the full life cycle of a species. NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including chinook salmon, within Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000). Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Chapter 3, Section 3.2.5.5 of Amendment 14 (NMFS 2000b) addresses construction/urbanization impacts upon salmon habitat. Construction projects can significantly alter the land surface, soil, vegetation, and hydrology and adversely impact salmon EFH through habitat loss or modification. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect EFH, should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would: _ • Alter sediment delivery to,and quantity in streams and estuaries; • Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature, or chemistry; • Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey; and • Discharge pollutants,nutrients, or contaminants. The use of BMPs during construction will avoid and minimize any potential effects upon salmon EFH. Examples of BMPs, as stated in the NMFS EFH guidance (2000), include avoiding ground disturbing activities during the wet season; minimizing the time disturbed lands are left exposed; using erosion prevention and sediment control methods; minimizing vegetation disturbance; maintaining buffers of vegetation around wetlands, streams, and drainage ways; avoiding building activities in areas of steep slopes with highly erodible soils; and using methods, such as sediment ponds, sediment traps, or other facilities designed to slow water run-off and trap sediment and nutrients. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-11 August 2003 � I Critical Habitat On April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast, including the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. The designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA. The ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5)(A)as"the specific areas within the geographic area occupied L by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection." r- Before the rule was vacated, NMFS (2000a) designated critical habitat to include all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in Puget Sound. NOAA Fisheries is currently reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. In the event that critical habitat is redesignated before this action is fully implemented, an analysis of the effects of the project on critical habitat, as defined under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS. This analysis may be relevant in determining whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is redesignated. if Currently,NMFS has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a candidate species and their status has yet to be determined. Recently,NOAA Fisheries proposed that critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years)and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats(NMFS 1999). Should Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing,then a definition of critical habitat similar -; to that of Oregon Coast coho salmon critical habitat is conceivable. Lake Washington and May Creek in the general vicinity of the project site provides both spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and would be considered critical habitat under the definition proposed for Oregon Coast coho salmon. The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout by USFWS (1998) due to �.r the meager understandingof the biological needs of bull trout. A critical habitat desig nation g is generally r expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this designation will be made for the Puget Sound bull trout DPS(USFWS 1998). E.2 IMPACTS The determination of impacts to fish species and aquatic habitat due to construction and implementation of the proposed alternative is based on the ecological health of the species and cumulative impacts that threaten survival,the seasonal use of the project area by fish species, the existing site conditions, and the design of proposed alternatives. Impacts can include direct mortality, disturbance, degraded water quality,and habitat degradations. Because of the relatively similar life history requirements of chinook and coho salmon, impacts resulting from project construction and implementation would likely be similar for both species. In general, the proposed action alternatives have some potential to impact the habitat of chinook and coho salmon during either construction or implementation, but mitigations should improve the overall condition of the site over time. Habitat for other aquatic species should also be improved over time as mitigations promote more natural stream and lakeshore conditions on the project site over time relative to existing conditions. Short-Term Subdivision Construction Impacts The direct impacts of the project are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-12 August 2003 result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, would potentially cause some disturbance from the demolition of existing buildings and clearing of existing impervious surfaces, which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of constructing the proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports from the stream. Increased sedimentation and in-water disturbance may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term. Suspended sediment originating from urban landscapes contains higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes and high turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). In addition, young salmon and bull trout may avoid increased turbidity when lower turbidity water is available (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an area(Spence et al. 1996). The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important consideration will be conducting construction efforts during periods when use of the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal,as discussed in the mitigation measures. In general, impacts to listed fish species can be minimized if in-water work is done during the time of year when fish are not present (as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology),and if other appropriate BMPs are employed. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge below the OHWM of May Creek. In general, impacts to listed fish species can be minimized if in-water work is conducted during the time of year when fish are not present (as prescribed by WDFW, NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology), and if other appropriate BMPs are employed. Short-to Medium-Term Impacts of Development and Use of the Site The proposal includes a 25-foot building setback from the OHWM along the Lake Washington shoreline for the 22 lots with potential shoreline frontage, or that are adjacent to public land less than 25-feet wide. The land ownership for 16 shoreline lots is proposed to extend beyond the OHWM of Lake Washington to the inner harbor line. It can be reasonably assumed that development of these lots would be typical of most residential development and would include landscaped lawns, shrubs, and small trees. In addition, it is assumed that bulkheads to prevent shoreline erosion would be installed, consistent with common shoreline building patterns on Lake Washington, along with the recommendation that containment walls are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. Impacts of future development of duplex and townhome residences is likely to result in construction- related temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts that can be addressed as outlined in the Surface Water section of this Draft EIS. Impervious Surfaces The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. Although a specific plan is not included in City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-13 August 2003 the current application, it can be expected that setbacks from May Creek that are proposed to be an open space tract would likely be replanted with native species to provide forest cover. _ ' The Lake Washington shoreline, however, is proposed to be retained as part of individual building sites and planting as lawn and ornamental landscaping can be expected adjacent to the lake. A reduction of on- site impervious surfaces is likely to have a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, runoff from lawn and impervious surfaces such as patios are expected to sheet flow directly into the lake. This will result in additional runoff directly into the lake, as compared with existing conditions, but more importantly will result in erosion and sedimentation from construction, as well as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides from residential lawn care. Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and it would likely increase the amount of pesticides and herbicides running off the site from lawns. However, under the current application, stormwater would be routed to an on-site stormwater treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington as described in Section 3.2 of this Draft EIS. Establishment of vegetated setbacks and stormwater treatment would likely reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and Lake Washington from the project area. Therefore, the biggest impacts to May Creek flows and water quality will continue to originate from upstream of the project site. Vegetation The proposed buffer (approximately 50 feet) along May Creek under the current proposal would be an improvement over existing conditions in some areas, and would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing salmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functionality. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May 2000). The required width of the buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate; therefore, a wide range of recommended buffer widths is common among studies. However, none of the reported studies recommend 0 width, nor do the studies recommend the equivalent of more than several site-potential tree heights (SPTH). A SPTH is the height of a mature tree that can be expected on any given site. In western Washington, a SPTH may range from 50 to 250 feet, based on a 300-year period of growth. Pollack and Kennard(1998)recommend that a buffer width of one SPTH of 250 feet on all perennial streams would be required to reasonably provide a full range of riparian functions and not contribute significantly to loss of salmonid habitat. May (2000) and other extensive reviews provide detailed summaries of buffer width sizes necessary to achieve stream and riparian functions(Knutson and Naef 1997;FEMAT 1993). These studies generally conclude that one SPTH will provide a reasonably full range of riparian functions. Buffer width recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables E-1,E-2,and E-3. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-I4 August 2003 Table E-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26—600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment erosion control removal Pollutant Removal 4—262 m(13—860 ft) 30 m (98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33—328 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term natural levels Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36—141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive Microclimate 45—200 m(148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support Table E-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft) Water Temperature 35—151 Pollutant Removal 13—600 Large Woody Debris 100—200 Erosion Control 100—125 Wildlife Habitat 25—984 Sediment filtration 26—300 Microclimate 200—525 Table E-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft. Shade 0.75 150 Microclimate up to 3 up to 600 Large Woody Debris 1.0 200 Organic Litter 0.5 100 Sediment Control 1.0 200 Bank Stabilization 0.5 100 Wildlife Habitat --- 30—183 m(98—600 ft) The Tri-County response to NMFS's 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban streams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch buffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer (Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ allows for natural channel City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-15 August 2003 migration processes to occur and promotes floodplain connectivity,which is integral to the formation and maintenance of stream habitat (May 2000). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999). Based on the recommendations presented in Tables E-1,E-2, and E-3, a buffer width of approximately 50 feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site, will not provide the full range of habitat functions and protections that streams require (Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993; May 2000). In Lz addition, the proposed buffer would not be measured from the CMZ, which would provide for stream migration and habitat formation. But some stream habitat functions may be improved. Stream habitat functions such as pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation (particularly on small streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet, particularly in areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997) and some additional LWD recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely. Therefore, a fully functioning riparian stream buffer would not be achieved under the current proposal and substantial improvements to instream habitat are unlikely. - Lake Washington Shoreline The Lake Washington Shoreline is proposed to be developed into 24 duplex lots. Eight of these lots would not have direct access on Lake Washington because of intervening public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,which is 15 to 20 feet wide across lots 23 to 28 and about 80 feet wide across lots 29 and 30. An open space tract about 200 feet in length is proposed adjacent to public land on the shoreline. The relatively narrow 25-foot setback would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline environment through establishment of a vegetation community more consistent with a natural vegetation community for aquatic species. This impact is discussed in more detail in the following Mitigation Section,which outlines potential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are generally associated with residential and ornamental landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected i- - from over spraying and inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23-28, and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment, including trails, benches, and interpretive facilities. This would include removal of the existing sawmill and related structures bulkheads on the parcel,which would allow for the formation of more natural shoreline habitat for fish species over time,particularly for juvenile chinook salmon, as discussed under long-term impacts, and mitigation below. If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in y_ an industrial site where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-16 August 2003 informal access to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow areas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish. The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot. For the current application, this would result in 16 docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes,that would potentially impact the migration and feeding patterns of juvenile salmonids as well as provide habitat for predators of juvenile salmon. Currently, there are numerous pilings, a large raft of logs, and an existing pier. The addition of more docks would further impact juvenile salmonids in the project vicinity. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur as a result of nearshore permanent shading such as that created by overhead piers, boathouses, and log booms. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore (Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures(Meridian 2001;Piaskowski and Tabor 2000). Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish species and continued effects from the retention or replacement of existing bulkheads can be expected. As summarized by Kahler et al. (2000),bulkheads act to: • Disrupt the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon, • Prevent recruitment of sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow- water habitat that provides refuge, spawning,and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species, • Promote bulkhead toe or lateral shoreline erosion,and • Create an inhospitable high-energy environment for juvenile fish. Artificial light cast from overhead piers can also adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999) by causing delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light intrusion into Lake Washington would also occur from adjacent residences and street lighting, in addition to overhead pier lighting. This source would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad et al (1999); therefore, the intensity of artificial lighting expected from the current proposal may have some affect on salmonid behavior, but the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently,the City of Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3- 090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program; therefore, for the purposes of this j analysis, it is presumed to take one or more of the following forms: • Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line is presumed for general public use. This area is about 16 feet wide at Lot 24, 20 feet wide at Lot 28 and around 80 feet wide at the open space tract and adjacent to Lots 29 and 30. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-17 August 2003 • A public walkway is presumed along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the edge pf the water to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible. • Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek, including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings. The impacts of public access will depend on the location,width,and use character of the public facilities. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact based on the following: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use provided by reestablishing vegetation. • Use of walkways is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads, however, periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances. • People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities. Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts of the loss of the opportunity to reestablish shoreline vegetation. The tendency for users to leave the trail can be addressed by fencing and controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas at the shoreline, with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits. Impacts of Long-Term Development and Use of the Site The major expected long-term change in conditions at the site are expected from resumption of normal delta formation from sediment carried by May Creek after the termination of the dredging that has traditionally taken place on the site to facilitate loading and storage of logs in the water. Past dredging has resulted in near-shore depths of about 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. This compares with the existing water depth of 3 to 4 feet on the west side of the sawmill. _ As described in the Floodplain Analysis Technical Report(Appendix B) of this Draft EIS, aggradation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant upstream sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the delta. Historic dredging operations annually have removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the mouth of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build(Barbee Mill 1999). Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater upstream that controls the gradient and sediment transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the gradient and backwater would be temporarily lowered until the floods filled in the channel. Following dredging, some short-term incision upstream would be expected. Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix E-Aquatic Species E-18 August 2003 and the channel would adjust by aggrading. Subsequent increases in flood stages would result in increased channel scour, bank erosion, and likely impacts to habitat and water quality that may not be compensated for by a riparian buffer width of 50 feet, as proposed. In addition, the mouth of the bar would block the channel mouth, causing flood and low flows to shift to either side, further distributing the sediment. Wind and waves created by the wake from boats would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. Waves would also limit how high the bar at the mouth of the river could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level. The deposition of sediment to form a delta and the redistribution of sediment can therefore be expected to create more shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront, which would potentially benefit all aquatic species, including salmonids, such as juvenile chinook or coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally beneficial by increasing the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone and reestablish a shoreline supporting the food web and providing in-water habitat. If docks are developed to serve new residential lots, and the existing boathouse to the south of the proposal is retained, delta formation can be expected to reduce water depth and the usability of the docks over time. This is likely to result in a desire on the part of residents to extend docks, with resulting impacts of additional cover for juvenile salmonid predators and potentially greater disruption of salmon migration routes. Residents may also choose to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, __ thereby reducing the habitat benefits potentially provided by the natural creation of more shallow water habitat due to aggradation of May Creek sediments along the shoreline. E.2.1.1 Cumulative Impacts As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have simplified the nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the - existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. More than 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from _ complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001). The proposed residential subdivision provides some benefits from increased buffer areas on May Creek, however these buffers are not sufficient to provide for a wide range of riparian functions. The proposed residential development on the private shoreline of Lake Washington would continue the pattern of bulkheads and docks and preclude improving the beneficial use in respect to aquatic resources. The proposal is likely to continue the trends that have resulted in degradation to terrestrial and aquatic habitat that is illustrated by the decline of salmon species. E.3 , MITIGATION Impact mitigation includes the following steps: 1. Avoid the impact, 2. Minimize the impact, 3. Reduce the impact over time, City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-19 August 2003 4. Rectify the impact,and ,r 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact. Provision of the proposed buffers along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline have varying degrees of impacts, as compared to existing conditions, and provide a degree of mitigation of some adverse impacts on aquatic resources. Impacts that consist of narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use of the shoreline are inherent in the permanent change of use to the proposed residential development, with the specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. Mitigation that will illustrate opportunities to expand the beneficial use of the shoreline to include greater benefits for aquatic species is outlined below. Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically City of Renton Shoreline Regulations. These regulations require that the potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation,water life, and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration, natural habitats, and feeding) be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the environment(RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); and require a provision that landscaping be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, and marshland) and shall be compatible with the Northwest image. The ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines also require recognition and preservation as valuable resources(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K- 6). Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts c Mitigation of construction impacts can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important consideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not present. Mitigation of Impacts of Short-to Medium-Term Development and Use of the Site Impervious Surfaces Currently, the Barbee Mill site is approximately 85 percent impervious surface. Converting the site to residential development would convert a substantial portion of the site to pervious surface in the form of lawns as well as the proposed open space. This would improve infiltration where extensive areas are provided,however,the 10-foot building setbacks from streets and other buildings and the 25-foot setback from Lake Washington do not provide appreciable areas for infiltration. Mitigation could be provided by providing greater areas of pervious surfaces. This could either reduce the number of units, or the unit count could be kept constant with utilization of larger or taller buildings as allowed by current zoning. Vegetation A 50-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek will enhance riparian function for May Creek. Some functions provided by streamside vegetation may not provide much benefit to the site because many habitat variables (e.g., water temperature and flows) are largely controlled by conditions upstream of the project site. Some functions of vegetation, such as sediment and pollutant filtration, are expected to be controlled by stormwater management. The proposal currently contains no specific revegetation City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-20 August 2003 proposal. Mitigation, including establishment of greater revegetation areas, is included in Section 3.2.1.3, above. There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. The Renton Shoreline Master Program provides general guidance stating that landscaping is to be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and compatible with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3- 090-K-6). Landscape practice for residential lots has not required native plantings, low fertilizer, or herbicide plantings, or plantings designed to provide shading or further habitat values. The project could be conditioned to require revegetation of the publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines and of private lots to provide shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat and other values, such as shading. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, an interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the shoreline setback by an entity other than the individual property owner likely would contribute to better maintenance of non-ornamental vegetation. Erosion Control Under the current proposal, approximately a 50-foot vegetated riparian buffer would be established along May Creek. This buffer would provide an additional measure of streambank stabilization and control of bank erosion; however, some natural erosion can be expected during high flow periods. No vegetation buffers are proposed along the Lake Washington shoreline within the proposed 25-foot building setback, which may be occupied by lawns or patios or other residential). Erosion from construction sites would migrate to the lake over the 25-foot buffer unless substantial BMPs were implemented and maintained. BMPs for water quality are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Maintenance of existing bulkheads or construction of new bulkheads would effectively control shoreline erosion from wave action. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration A 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek is expected to provide some natural control of pollutants and sediment runoff; however, it is expected that most control will be attained by stormwater management (see Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources). On the Lake Washington shoreline, additional pollutant control could be accomplished by adding surface water interception to the 25-foot buffer area between the shoreline and building setbacks. This would involve technical feasibility issues because of the difficulty of achieving gravity drainage from these areas to treatment ponds due to the flat site, but it would add runoff from these areas to water quality treatment facilities. Water Temperature Regulation An estimated riparian buffer width of 50 feet would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek because of shading, but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading would most likely serve to prevent or moderate further increases in water temperatures prior to water entering Lake Washington that would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-2I August 2003 — short distance of stream on the site stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. There will be little effect on Lake Washington water temperatures from the project's proposed 25-foot setback where private lots abut Lake Washington. It is assumed that little shoreline vegetation would occur in the setback under existing Renton land use regulations, and shading on private lots would be negligible. The project could be conditioned to require revegetation of the publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines and of private lots to provide shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide some shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide some temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the morning, because the sun ruses north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Solar radiation in the spring and winter will be from the south and will shine under overstory vegetation during those periods; however, the intensity of solar radiation is less than those periods. Plantings of overstory at or near the shoreline will contribute to less total daily solar exposure during the summer and provide some water temperature mitigation for the shallowest near-shore habitat that is most likely to experience elevated temperature, solar exposure, and provide some mitigation Large Woody Debris Recruitment The current proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment. Mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat, but this should only be considered a short-term solution and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. Little vegetation is expected along the Lake Washington lakeshore except for along the publicly owned land, and LWD recruitment would be minimal. As with May Creek, LWD could potentially be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline as habitat. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile chinook salmon in early spring (through April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non- salmonid predators such as bass. Regulation of Microclimate Regulation of microclimate would not appreciably improve under the current proposal and effective mitigations that would provide the benefits of microclimate control are highly unlikely. Herbicides and Pesticides Application of herbicides and pesticides associated with the development of lawn areas would be expected to increase under the current proposal. It is assumed that on-site stormwater treatment facilities would be able to treat all water leaving the site prior to discharge into May Creek or Lake Washington, but due to the proximity of the developable lots along the shorelines, infiltrated waters containing pollutants may enter Lake Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-22 August 2003 Bulkheads Shoreline protection on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary on the site due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-handling areas and are not necessary,for shoreline protection. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline. The removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline would allow for the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume some area available for natural processes and may be difficult to install in areas where a 25-foot - building setback is proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in the public lands between the inner and outer harbor lines provides the potential for bioengineering options that could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle allowing more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure E-3. Further options may be explored of varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in Figure E-4. 11 Design Typicals A+dequateSotbackof Sue' clines -4.to Avoid OverignOng aartk and PardeeSafety Factoe., kt Mee qt Sank*Ream • Conettato Seats knit Gr e+Surface to Control Swim laif4tooted Vegetation to Reduce ie $uncoi Srotioi4 Aograde tm MAW Slope y ■j • provide Bete Rratmage el'Water owe cueitappinstT tv 1i � Stable Arm ee Starke an Stable Slop ",�, + 1 y w1MSes Mind r may« • . . . • ••+ /•••1 Jp � k 1P�^ Stable Toe Pro•ecFn • •Sirs4N Pete.'eritiG e•illotb 7a •'';r l i'Ol.tt1HCAA3R` —-� • Not Shown«Struseutk Bade lied into M Y;4 ti •� ab,..� y i Samoa Minunize rmo a fo.. >.•ti" :r.. Flanking-Erasion " • . • Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure E-3 Bulkhead Modification City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-23 August 2003 ,�-` 6 C.> z FtVm id ':.t9 F4€E1!POW Large Boulders tarovbd4 yab1tst end Protect Beaches • � koffe)Arcs, A, y * ,re? i p ar k tlI�t.W f� t r c a,#. P.Ax sr / Jr y'i�a7 r"• i�t i r•_ tS got -aoktititagh% Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure E-4 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket beaches and other features Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington DNR requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented: • Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side will reduce the negative impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation. • Riprap revegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or rooted plants, which provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf litter, browse and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient- laden sediments. • Add small gravel substrate along the shoreline that is more suitable for juvenile salmonids. In-Water Structures Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings and log booms would improve conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Therefore, any measure to reduce the number of overhead structures within the project site would likely benefit juvenile salmonids. Mitigation Ciry of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-24 August 2003 of the adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies ranging from avoiding construction of docks, to reducing the number of docks, to specific design and construction measures. Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock construction. This would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off- site marinas or could provision of alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at a distance from nearshore habitat for boat moorage and recreation. The latter option could include a dingy dock,for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common area, or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid proximity impacts on adjacent lots. An option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two or more property owners. In such a case, docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent properties, or a single moorage facility to serve the entire development. Dock construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents to dredge that would reduce the benefits of creation of shallow shoreline habitat. Residential Noise and Lizhting Under the current proposal, it is anticipated that noise and lighting effects along May Creek will be reduced over time as an approximately 50-foot riparian buffer is established; however, a 25-foot setback along Lake Washington with no replanting requirements will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however, this would be very difficult to enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. Discussion below of greater setbacks and more effective vegetation buffering has the potential to reduce this impact. Public Access Disturbance Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the shoreline where public land is present ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide. Setbacks would allow runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by soils and plantings established adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits. 1 In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks, as discussed below. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-25 August 2003 - Mitigation to Impacts of Long-Term Development and Use of the Site The resumption of normal delta formation is largely expected to produce beneficial impacts as discussed above. There are no readily available mitigation measures for potential adverse impacts of extension of docks or resumption of dredging to maintain usability of the existing boathouse and residential docks that may be constructed. Avoiding construction of new docks in recognition that an area of delta formation is not an appropriate location for moorage is the most effective means of avoiding future impacts. Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Area Width The scientific information cited above suggests that greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of riparian functions on May Creek and would provide for reestablishment of natural elements of the Lake Washington shoreline, which would reduce long-term impacts of residential development of the shoreline and expand the beneficial use in respect to aquatic resources. Greater buffer areas also would provide the opportunity to provide public access and other use of the shoreline with fewer tradeoffs for aquatic resources. The following two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Shoreline and May Creek: Option A, 50-Foot Buffer This is generally consistent with the proposal for May Creek. Specific changes on the May Creek corridor include: Design modifications to increase the buffer slightly are proposed adjacent to May Creek: • Reorienting the turn-around for Street A to project to the interior rather than into the riparian corridor. • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from the OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces the number of townhome units from four to one or two units. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include two components: • A 25-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: > Elimination of bulkheads or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient above the OHWM and providing substrate for plantings near the water. > Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-26 August 2003 L JCOR-2 ZONE r — /, t � n%I I N3A�1'l I '''"°9�I ''''''l I'''''4I I N''''''0 l I'''''°9I I'°'90 sl I �0 sl I m gl a YA 4 '1 OHW n) III III III II_ II „ „•II ,° ° I1 ° ' HH ° ° Il ' ' I a — _ STREET - // ' i 50'SETBACK °s � � // ,.//„ „ // .a..,.,s .„sI I <,�sl i`9/I �;' f - ' Tract„B„i d I-- - --1 / , / L._ 1 _ _ _ _ L ___ / ,;,,/ \ a J s // g/ s/*/ Water Quality "/� ��! PUBLIC LAND ,' Tract"C" ,\\ / ° / gyp If �� Open ■ / A . \\/ /\N/ — / / Space \l N. �/ / 1 , V\ _-\ \ '\ , .wu-eaa 9 / x V o /// A l/ • %g / ! S EE JO , WA_ %\.,/ ,,,-,-,, , f L OHW / C� i "� f � LAKE 1"u\ / '" /Au. ` A 7 y/ WASHINGTON g 1�� I r j„ / f/ , \�, ,,,'��f jc., 50'SETBACK 111111111"��� / 'I ,fie / , ___ _______ I lib /* 1 ,:',' 9:2'7/ // , 44 , . .,... . ‘', ilk , / , ,,,,,, ,./ ,,, . .,./., PUBLIC LAND— �\ ,l, , \ F ,E�' t''' ` `ice • !4 it* .+®r r,,��i(( /\__ • ----- • ,,, , / e At/ < ` MAY CREEK + y it Jr DELTA - * **.// - form r----- _ ' u'al,///1/..1 ` ,,, , 2_._..__-.R,ELZONE_..___.........� .`.. „r'k!" / A :�ro:�s:'"Tki AATLI CT / . '"j, ' / ! REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES r 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04 Figure E-5 WVSCALE IN FEET Fi g I Option "A" 50-foot Buffer o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, and that would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and would also likely be fenced for privacy. This option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout of town homes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicants proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Likely differences in impacts between Option A and the Proposal include: Impervious Surfaces The current proposal and Option A will have similar setbacks for May Creek, and there will be little difference in impervious surface or its effects on habitat or water quality. The setback for the Lake Washington shoreline, however, would increase from 25 to 50 feet, including a 25-foot vegetated buffer, which would potentially double the impervious surface area which likely would be large enough for natural infiltration of most precipitation, providing for support of vegetation in the setback area and reducing total runoff from the site somewhat. The additional area would provide for other potential mitigation, as outlined below. Vegetation A minimum 50-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek would provide additional area of buffering vegetation at a few additional areas where the proposed buffer narrows and would provide a limited amount of riparian function for May Creek. The mitigation provided by intensive plantings of native vegetation discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals, would apply. Overhanging streamside and lakeshore vegetation would provide cover for fish, particularly salmonids, such as chinook salmon, that have been found to associate with such cover (Tabor and Piaskowski 2001). Several effects of landscape and riparian vegetation, such as microclimate control, will,however,not be improved. With a 50-foot buffer, evenly split between residential ornamental plantings and a 25-foot natural planning area, the general policy in the Renton Shoreline Master Program for landscaping representative of the indigenous character of a lake edge could be established with fewer conflicts with property-owner desires to control the character of residential lawns, patios and ornamental plantings. The provision of a 25-foot revegetation area adjacent to the water would provide limited opportunities to establish native plantings as discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals. The immediate waters edge could be planted with shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat and other values, such as shading. Some conflicts with the interests of adjacent property owners to enjoy views of the water would be present, depending on the intensity of indigenous plantings and the design of residences. Opportunities to provide view corridors between tree plantings and could be explored. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Maintenance of a separate privately controlled area on lots with the 25-foot-wide section adjacent to the water with a public City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-28 August 2003 easement or dedication for vegetation management (and public access) would make enforcement of planting and maintenance requirements more effective. Erosion Control Under Option A,the buffer along May Creek would be similar to the current proposal and afford a similar level of protection as described for the current proposal, except where the current proposal contains a narrow buffer adjacent to access roadways near the mouth of the stream where Option A would provide additional area to filter sediments. Along the Lake Washington shoreline, an additional 25 feet of vegetated buffer area would provide for a greater setback of construction from the water. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious surfaces and regarding for planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alternation would be separated by a buffer which would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building construction. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration Pollutant removal and sediment filtration along May Creek will be similar under Option A as under the current proposal. The provision of a 25-foot buffer area of restored vegetation would provide limited pollutant removal as discussed above. The provision of an intervening area of more natural vegetation not subject to fertilizer and pesticides would result in some interception of those chemicals from infiltration of sheet runoff and would also largely eliminate over-water drift or accidental spillage. Water Temperature Regulation A riparian buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek would have approximately the same benefits as the current proposal, as discussed above with some potential benefits in areas where current buffers narrow to approximately 20 feet. As discussed above,mature vegetation in a 50-foot buffer may not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek due to shading, but would provide some additional shading as vegetation matures over time. The 50-foot setback, split between residential lawn and a revegetation area would provide greater potential for planting of shoreline shrubs and trees that would provide shading of near-shoreline areas through overhanging vegetation and especially in the summer when the sun angle is overhead and would not penetrate overhanging branches. A 25-foot buffer of indigenous plantings at the shoreline would allow substantially greater shading than -- plantings that could be accommodated in an area of residential lawn. Large Woody Debris Recruitment The 50-foot buffer options, like the current proposal would provide for approximately a 50 foot vegetated buffer along May Creek which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment. Mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat, but this should only be considered a short-term solution and the subsequent effects on channel migration due to the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-29 August 2003 r Establishment of a 25-foot buffer of larger vegetation, such as native trees, would provide little opportunity for LWD recruitment along the Lake Washington shoreline. As discussed above for the proposal, LWD could potentially be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline as habitat. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile chinook salmon in early spring(through April); however, it would also provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators, such as bass. Herbicides and Pesticides Application of herbicides and pesticides would be expected to be reduced under Option A compared with the current proposal because less area would be developed as lawn under Option A due to the additional 25-foot vegetated buffer along Lake Washington, which would eliminate lawn and ornamental landscaping at to the waters edge and would provide a 25-foot buffer from the waters edge for infiltration and filtering of surface runoff containing herbicides and pesticides. Due to the proximity of the developable lots to the shorelines, however, infiltrated waters containing pollutants may enter Lake Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input. Bulkheads The additional setback of buildings from the shoreline would allow additional area for regrading the shoreline to a more natural grade and allow more space for natural shoreline processes to occur with bioengineered shoreline protection measures without endangering buildings. This would make bioengineered solutions as outlined in the previous section more feasible. In-Water Structures The same mitigation measures described above for the proposal, involving the removal of existing in- water structures, such as pilings and log booms,would be appropriate mitigation with a larger buffer area. Under Option A,however, it is anticipated that individual docks would not be developed. Public Access Disturbance Under Option A, public access could be provided further from the waters edge. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters edge. The larger setback accommodates the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for "significant" public access on Lake Washington with less potential impact than accommodating the access within a 25-foot setback. As under the current proposal,the following mitigative effects would apply under Option A: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required and would allow of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use provided by reestablishing indigenous vegetation. • It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks. Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous vegetation area. • Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings directly to the adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-30 August 2003 enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits. Option B, 100-Foot Buffer This proposal would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek. Specific changes on the May Creek corridor include the following: • Eliminating most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream. • Reducing the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15. • Eliminating most development on both sides at the mouth of the stream. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include two components: • A 75-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: > Elimination of bulkheads or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. > More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope above the OHWM. > Planting of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees that could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent -- residential development. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15 to 25 feet from the water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront with viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline and benches or other passive features. • A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area and ornamental landscaping, and that would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and would also likely be fenced for privacy. This option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to 70, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicants proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five- to seven-story buildings that could accommodate more than 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Likely differences in impacts between Option B and the Proposal include: City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-31 August 2003 1 COR-2 ZONE - ' r-__!,2' L L _JL _JL __IL __IL __IL_ __H__ __H___ __I L., y / r 100'SETBACK , — — \/ \,7 "7 L I I ——// �`/ Tract"B" • � �~ Water Quality °' °' '�/ PUBLIC LAND 0 Tract"C" • ��\,: ® ,,i / ' I OpenZ '\ % . • / t�f I Space " i NOM . '''\ . .,`"/// i / / ',... "" BU:FEI3 f ,z)/ • . • . - - • ,, e'.:151'?' is; ,.4. //427/ : v ., � p J L • AOHW , 1 , ` �of LAKE �, , / / " 1 17 , i.e WASHINGTON v J/i /,,, / / / / 100.SETBACK / ) ‘ I: i .• ii. Z.''," // i ------------- , : \ • It • t: d / l / PUBLIC LAND u • • / \ " l'� f / o I /\._ . . .r: . .":7 1 , ('4**---- \ l MAY CREEK mom ` -,-- . DELTA K fit / LT, � ' ®,i, ' -_._______._R=asoNE._,__. ! _ _ N 40TH ST a *./..- am +, �;7 i REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW 50 BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05 SCALE IN FEET IA& Figure E-6 Option "B" 100-foot Setback o �o0 2I o NO Option Mill Preliminary Plat Impervious Surfaces Option B would increase the setback along May Creek by a distance of 50 feet, thereby reducing the potential area of impervious surface. The setback for Lake Washington would increase from 25 feet with no vegetation retention requirement to 100 feet, including 75 feet of replanted vegetation directly adjacent to the shoreline. Combined, this would potentially reduce the impervious surface area. The impervious area likely would be large enough for natural infiltration of most precipitation, providing for support of vegetation in the setback area and reducing total runoff from the site somewhat. However, as previously described, there will be little effect on May Creek flows and habitat due to the reduction in impervious surface due to the location and size of the project site relative to the rest of the watershed. Vegetation A minimum 100-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek would provide substantial additional area of buffering vegetation and riparian functions such as erosion control, pollutant removal, sediment filtration, water temperature regulation, and LWD recruitment for May Creek as described above. The mitigation provided by intensive plantings of native vegetation discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals, would apply. Overhanging streamside and lakeshore vegetation would also provide cover for fish,particularly salmonids, such as chinook salmon(Tabor and Piaskowski 2001); however, some effects of landscape and riparian vegetation, such as microclimate control, will not be improved With a 100-foot buffer, split between residential ornamental plantings and a 75-foot natural planning area, the general policy in the Renton Shoreline Master Program for landscaping representative of the indigenous character of a lake edge could be established with fewer conflicts with property-owner desires to control the character of residential lawns, patios and ornamental plantings. The provision of a 75-foot revegetation area adjacent to the water would provide limited opportunities to establish native plantings as discussed in Section EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals. The immediate waters edge could be planted with shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat and other values, such as shading. Some conflicts with the interests of adjacent property owners to enjoy views of the water would be present, depending on the intensity of indigenous plantings and the design of residences. Opportunities to provide view corridors between tree plantings could be explored. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over,shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Maintenance of a separate privately controlled area on lots with the 75-foot-wide section adjacent to the water with a public easement or dedication for vegetation management (and public access) would make enforcement of planting and maintenance requirements more effective. Erosion Control Under Option B, an established mature 100-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek is within the range of effective buffer widths for streambank stabilization and erosion control, as outlined in Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 (May 2000; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993), whereas the 50-foot buffer options, including the current proposal, is not. Some natural erosion can, however, still be expected during high flow periods. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-33 August 2003 Establishment of a 75-foot buffer along the lakeshore would provide substantial additional area to control construction erosion and sedimentation, although removal of impervious surfaces and regarding for planting would require extensive erosion control BMPs. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration As with erosion control, a 100-foot buffer along May Creek is within the range of effective buffer widths for pollutant removal and sediment filtration functions as outlined in Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3. In contrast, the 50-foot buffer under the current proposal and Option A are generally not effective at providing fully effective pollutant removal and sediment filtration functions. Establishment of a 100-foot buffer on Lake Washington, split between a 25-foot residential lawn area and a 75-foot area for reestablishment of indigenous vegetation, would also allow for effective pollutant removal and sediment filtration. Water Temperature Regulation A vegetated buffer width of 100 feet is within the range of effective buffer widths for providing stream shading and control of water temperatures where as the 50-foot buffer under the current proposal and Option A is not(Tables E-1,E-2, and E-3). Stream temperatures will be greatly affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site,but fully functional shading would have the potential of reducing water temperatures on the project site,thus improving habitat for salmonid species. The 100-foot setback, split between a 25-foot residential ornamental landscape zone and a 75-foot-deep area revegetated with indigenous species would provide greater area for planting of larger trees. This would provide more extensive summer shading from two sources: • Greater tree height and density would block morning and afternoon sun. • Overhanging shrubs and trees planted near the shoreline can provide extensive shading, especially in the summer when the sun angle is overhead and would not penetrate overhanging branches. Large Woody Debris Recruitment The additional 50 feet of vegetated buffer required under Option B would provide a riparian buffer of 100 feet along May Creek which has been identified as a minimum recommended buffer width for providing effective LWD recruitment in western Washington assuming the buffer consists of mature forest(Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3). Therefore, while fully functional LWD recruitment may not be achieved with a 100- foot buffer depending on vegetation characteristics, Option B affords recruitment potential that natural levels more closelythan either of the 50-foot buffer options alongMayCreek. approaches p Herbicides and Pesticides Application of herbicides and pesticides would be expected to be more reduced under Option B compared with the current proposal or Option A because less area would be developed as lawn under Option B, which would eliminate lawn and ornamental landscaping at to the waters edge and would provide a 75- foot buffer from the waters edge along Lake Washington and a 100-foot buffer along May Creek for infiltration and filtering of surface runoff containing herbicides and pesticides. Due to the proximity of City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-34 August 2003 the developable lots to the shorelines,however,infiltrated waters containing pollutants may enter Lake Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input. Bulkheads withthe As Option A, additional setback of buildings from the shoreline,would allow additional area for regrading the shoreline to a more natural grade and allow more space for natural shoreline processes to occur with bioengineered shoreline protection measures without endangering buildings. This would make bioengineered solutions as outlined in the previous section more feasible. In-Water Structures The same mitigation measures described above for the proposal, involving the removal of existing in- water structures such as pilings and log booms would be appropriate mitigation with a larger buffer area. However, under Option B, as with Option A, it is anticipated that individual docks would not be developed. Residential Noise and Lighting Residential noise and lighting would be reduced by moving the sources of noise and light further from the streambanks and shorelines by an additional 75 feet under Option B. In fact, direct artificial lighting would likely be virtually eliminated after replanted vegetation matured over time. Therefore, any impacts from direct lighting on migration or habitat use by migratory sahnonids would also be minimal. Public Access Under Option B,public access could be provided even further from the waters edge than under Option A. The proposed trail system could meander further from the waters edge in-between lake access points. The larger setback accommodates the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for "significant" public access on Lake Washington with less potential impact than accommodating the access within either a 25- or 50-foot setback. As previously described for the current proposal, the following mitigative effects would apply: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required and would allow of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use provided by reestablishing indigenous vegetation. • It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks. Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the 75-foot public use and indigenous vegetation area. • Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings directly to the adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits. City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-35 August 2003 ACRONYMS APA Aquifer Protection Area BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CMZ channel migration zone COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration I-405 Interstate 405 KCBW King County Backwater KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-36 August 2003 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Energy WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program - WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation City of Renton 554-1779-017 Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-37 August 2003 f Final Draft Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement r Appendix B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report Prepared for: City of Renton L k_Y• 'I, Para metrix June 2003 Revised March 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS j ! 1. INTRODUCTION B-1 2. METHODOLOGY B-5 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS B-5 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY B-5 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS B-5 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport B-5 2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling B-6 2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS B-7 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model B-7 2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping B-11 2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION B-11 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT B-15 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA B-15 3.1.1 Channel Morphology B-15 3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION B-15 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN B-16 3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions B-16 4. IMPACTS B-17 4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL B-17 4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK B-17 4.3 SCENARIO 3— 100-FOOT SETBACK B-18 4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE B-19 5. MITIGATION B-21 5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 B-21 5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 B-21 6. REFERENCES B-23 City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-i March 2004 LIST OF FIGURES B-1 Project Vicinity B-3 B-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates B-13 LIST OF TABLES B-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows B-5 B-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results B-6 B-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry B-8 -, B-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness B-9 B-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness B-9 B-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages B-11 B-7 Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results B-11 B-8 Increases in 100-Year'Floodplain Depth with Setbacks B-18 ATTACHMENTS A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results • B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-ii March 2004 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad cfs cubic feet per second EIS environmental impact statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN mm millimeters NAVD North American Vertical Datum RM river mile USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey WSE water surface elevation yr year f . I-- City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-iii March 2004 1. INTRODUCTION This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate approximately 115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is adjacent to the site,has been periodically dredged since the mid-1950s to maintain water depth for storage of logs in Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging operations artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth. Periodic dredging is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential development. Ending dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of May Creek. This floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the stream and the floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with proposed development alternatives. Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes in delta levels (aggradation/degradation)due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain,under estimated future delta and channel elevations and flow conditions. -I City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) I Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-1 March 2004 I _ I • 2 5 , / 405 5222 U :,-, fbNa�,�b', 'i'i DUVALL , - it?w.a. 202I '+NLV�y T tza ih `' �,- REDMOND sai- a;r; ''r�.r.. KIRKLAND 4 off` 203 SEATTLE .1;s°3 .ktx``' BELLEVUE ::Lake:...„ ,3 ,fv. �,t,..a,t si Wastingtonis;.t' ,4,4-e c,.` A.,b .'hft li:i, t3v a yoe •; x` sf:" ISSAQUAH 'v,r= V e Ga r re AD ,,,,€"s x,,..4 1 NEWCASTLE 4 4 .:. ''= -;{a 900 t+;rat:-'��-�. RENTON PROJECT , SITE 405 Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure BA W Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat { 2. METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative. 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed (King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a Hydrologic Simulation Program—FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic model was prepared for the May Creek watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model(Table'B-1). Table B-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured 1990 Flood Event 598 Measured FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled Source: King County(1995). Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and' mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table B-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed, which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed. 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY The geomorphology of May Creek within the project area was determined based on review of existing and — historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April 2003. The proposed alternative is located on the May Creek Delta. 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates, which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and'the supply of sediment available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion creating a wider channel. 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-5 March 2004 i flow in a fixed single uniform channel,and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. Aggradation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant upstream sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the delta. Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the mouth of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge, where a river mouth bar would naturally build (King County 2001). Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and sediment transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect would be temporarily lessened,.and some short-term incision upstream would be expected. Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by aggrading. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth, causing flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed waves would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the winter lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom. Surveys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002(Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation has incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge - Id about 0.5 foot downstream of the main bridge relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 19931 and. hese differences indicate the potential for grade changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade co • structure at the stream gage at the BNSF bridge controls the upstream incision,but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main source of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area. 2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling Based on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from-sandy gravel to sand within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May Creek channel, until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However,based on sediment transport modeling and literature information (Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be expected to be so easily transported to this point(Table B-2). Table B-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results Mobile Particle Size(cm) Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a 25 cfs (mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0 2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3 589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0 1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0 Source:Andrews(1983). a See Figure B-2. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-6 March 2004 The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and small magnitude floods,giving the May Creek Delta layering. Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to the delta (Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion II occurring further up May Creek Valley. A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate. When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington. 2.4 - FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback and mitigation alternatives. The 100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year return period, or the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year. 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model (USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included river system schematic data, cross,section geometry and downstream reach lengths, bridge data, and energy loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections. 2.4.1.1 Geometric Data River System Schematic The study reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0), with the stationing increasing in the upstream direction. Cross Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths Channel cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and elevation points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed using a topographic survey conducted by OTAK (OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and NEC- RAS model is NAVD 88/91. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-7 March 2004 4 For each cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between main channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using notes made as part of the OTAK survey. The geometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the northern bank (Figure B-2). .The survey data indicated that the northwest bank (levee) was the high point and that the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding conditions, the cross.sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation. This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents flooding conditions at the site. Cross sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric characteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections (Attachment A). Bridges The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in.HEC-RAS. Bridge geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was verified using the results from a previous study(Table B-3)(INCA 1993). Table B-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry Bridge Opening Low Chord Height. High Cord Bridge Deck Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet) Lower Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14 Middle Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4 Upper Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38 A new bridge is proposed for the site; however,no design information was provided, so it was assumed that the bridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow. Energy Loss Coefficients The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction and expansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses. Manning's Roughness Coefficient Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte and Abt 2001). The results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the upper portions of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site, downstream of the lowest bridge. - I, City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-8 March 2004 II I � Overall channel-and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the USGS methodology(USGS 1989): n=(nb+nl+n2+n3+mein Where: nb=Base value;channel substrate ni =Degree of irregularity n2=Cross section variation n3=Obstructions n4=Vegetation m=Degree of meandering The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, ni, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and observations (Tables B-4 and B-5). Table B-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 ni.. Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 n2-• Alternating occasionally he main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 - n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 0.000 0.004 p-rcent of - r•s - '••- . na Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059 Table B-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many 0.001 0.005 locations n2 na n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004 floodplain na small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with 0.001 0.01 minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel m na 1.0 1.0 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054 City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report . B-9 March 2004 The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values of 0.06, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0 because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07, which is higher than the USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative. Attachment C provides a complete summary of Manning's "n" values that could be used to represent potential mitigation scenarios where large woody debris and riparian plantings could increase the channel and floodplain roughness. Expansion and Contraction Coefficients HEC-RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to changes in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach was modeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values recommended in the user manual for gradual transitions (USACOE 2001). Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficients ji Energy loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion and contraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each bridge. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the expansion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the HEC-RAS recommended values for bridges(USACOE 2001). 2.4.1.2 Steady Flow Data • Discharge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the method summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used for this analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the critical depth. The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using USACOE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE) measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE WSE on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This difference, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to convert the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in which a 100-year storm event is likely to occur (November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling. 2.4.1.3 Calibration The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over. This 1990 event was modeled, with the model predicting similar results(Table B-6). FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however,the FEMA study did not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge (approximately RM 0.14) and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate the results (Table B-7). City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-10 March 2004 Table B-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference (feet) (feet) (feet) 8 25.6 26.5 0.9 7 24.9 25.3 0.4 6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9 6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9 6 _ 23.3 24.5 1.2 5 22.6 23.8 1.2 4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1 Table B-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results Depth(feet) Width (feet) Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference 11 3.5 6.6 I 3.1 50 I 36 14 5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 I 52 18 a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference. As shown in Table B-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FNMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow (using the right bank elevations), the HEC model indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is due to the influence of the bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC- RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FNMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed). I .' 2.4,1.4 Model Limitations Deposition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The HEC-RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood levels. The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this analysis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions. I 2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping The floodplain depth during the future 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the proposed alternative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The floodplain width on the north side of May Creek (right bank) was estimated to extend to Lake Washington (Figure B-2). The existing floodplain is described in the affected environment section and was considered the existing condition for this analysis. L/ 2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate potential impacts associated with a range of development and mitigation scenarios. • Scenario 1 - Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill would be constructed to protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report B-11 March 2004 I i The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. • Scenario 2—Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does hot affect the floodplain. • Scenario 3—Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. • Scenario 4-Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain; dredging operations would be discontinued. • _ Scenario 5 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. \• Scenario 6-Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain. The existing channel cross section would be modified to create a floodplain bench; dredging: 0tohld be discontinued. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-12 March 2004 7 r 4 I / !-- 4 Y✓ I / _._ ._____4 ,„, r 2 / /9/ ....„....,..._ „,..., ..,. _ 1 / g ,..r.-7------- , ) i-- .e,/,);4 . , t \ x• / j / ' 1 y /1 S? I I , I i ice_ �' r/ r�. / �O i .• \ LIMITS OF FLOODPLAIN 7 � / A, 1/ , / ,O�/ L�i, /// / / Rio /1 C \ ) / Rs,f 11/ c//4/...\Nri #06, z,„-:// 9S-'--v-.:---7:„, -,1 i,i ' i ,--' •-.. I I RS 6.75 �,f `1 ' `., / / 1, / 1 R LAKE i I ,%' {b°� � / LEA /, LIMITS OF WASHINGTON 1 y '�N RS �. I � / ' FLOODPLAIN 1 ` i / / f 1 t / r� if// /AY CREEK ///) tRS' RS 4.35• RS4.25 / 7// i r / ��`sd v\k e/ s 4.4 /` y / N^ `' ' / `��r.,. if, UPPER BRIDGE,„ / // ," • / ( ''..,,,, _,,,�./'r ,g�'.Vim` . / 4, / i / \\-- • . ...--,( -i.r41. \/,,,./__‘./ 7,1/7,,,BRID EN \--\,,_,,,.„...„ / " { / / , t ; i , ..,, __*._41,7 ! 7://1 '' is. i / i ./ "r N 40TH ST o 1 0,11)A , LOWER BR IDGE r j Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-B-02 Figure B-2 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach NO SCALE —--•—•••— MAY CREEK CENTERLINE 100-yr Floodplain ��� �iI RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates • 3. 'AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills. This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the Railroad Bridge. 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. Under natural conditions, streams generally form a number of distributary channels in the delta(USACOE 1994). The low gradient of the stream in the project area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. 3.1.1 Channel Morphology Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill north and west across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the 1 lake backwater effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000 cu ards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations ( nd Cinnty 2001). 3. CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower portion entering Lake Washington. The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs,grass,and alders are located along the tops of the high banks. Trees, understory vegetation, and large woody debris, which are a critical part of the formative process for stream channel substrate,streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed alternative site. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-15 March 2004 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the predicted 100-year floodplain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section 9 (Figure B-1; Attachment B). • 3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions Hydraulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the floodplain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive power of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made. 3.3.1.1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions Natural hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater than the channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed alternative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the - stream,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach. 3.3.1.2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions Within the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper Barbee Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In addition, as previously discussed, the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up with fill and are armored with riprap, which confines the creek to a single channel. • Ci o Renton 554-1779-017 02.02 n' f ! Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-16 March 2004 I - I 4. IMPACTS - I Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with'the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors, including the erosive force of the river, the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table B-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel_ configuration,delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. The three proposed development scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued(thus allowing the delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level,for this analysis it was assumed that the delta elevations would be equal to the winter lakes level (elevation 16.9), which is approximately 1 foot higher than the existing channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the development scenarios assume the following: • Scenario 1—No levees or fill; • • Scenario 2 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water; and • Scenario 3 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water. c 4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL Under Scenario 1, the proposed development within the 100-year floodplain, as mapped in the affected environment section, is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition due to natural channel processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed alternative is difficult to quantify due to the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition (channel aggradation), flooding, and channel P� migration. 4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK Under Scenario 2,a levee or fill would be constructed at a 50-ft setback to protect the proposed development from flooding. It was assumed that the development would be built on a levee or fill high enough to protect against flooding during a 100-year flood event. This would confine flood flows to a narrow corridor and result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in the model (Table B-8). There is a strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream. Stream and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would encroach on the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees within the floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank storage and increase water surface elevations, which in turn could result in upstream and downstream bed erosion flooding, lateral instability, which results in bank erosion, and channel avulsion, which occurs when the stream leaves the main channel and forms a new channel in another location. In addition, stopping annual dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which would likely increase floodplain elevations. Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport, sediment deposition,and scour are addressed in the Fisheries Technical Report. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) _ Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-17 March 2004 It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site would remain with no modifications (the potential benefits associated with the removal and/or replacement of these bridges is discussed in the mitigation section). The proposed alternative condition also assumes aggradation of the stream channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in increased channel scour and bank erosion,which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality. Table B-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks 100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet) Proposed Alternative Scenario 4 Cross Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill 11 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 10 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9 9 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8 8 6.4 6.4 7.8 7.6 7 8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0 6 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5 5 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8 4 5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3 3 5.9 6.9 7.5 7.3 2 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995) 2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg. 3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges. Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because • the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue and floodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates. As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter slope). In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel" (USACOE 1994). In addition, the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994). 4.3 , SCENARIO 3 -100-FOOT SETBACK Scenario 3 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Scenario 2(see Table B-8). City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report B-18 March 2004 4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE The main bridge proposed to access the site was independently evaluated (Attachment D). In general, the proposed bridge does not span the floodplain and would result in some backwater effect during high flows. This bridge was modeled assuming the modified channel mitigation scenario, and still results in some overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr storm event. It is likely that without the modified channel the bridge, as proposed,would result in more flooding. I ' I\ _ City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-19 March 2004 «<THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY>>> • City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-20 March 2004 5. MITIGATION Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding could include constructing levees or constructing the proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100- year flood level as discussed in the Impacts Section (King County 2001). The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1-foot above the ground surface during the 100-yr flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2-feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1-foot of freeboard as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to evaluate a design. These mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all existing bridges could be removed or replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain. However,potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with placement of fill in the floodplain and levee construction could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the greatest benefit to the stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain elevation. Unless sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable flooding and floodplain impacts could occur. As part of this analysis two mitigation scenarios were further evaluated: • Scenario 4-remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain, and • Scenario 6-modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench. ' 5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 Scenario 4 would remove the bridge at Station 6.8 and replace the bridges at stations 4.3 and 2.2 with bridges that do not encroach on the floodplain. Under this scenario May Creek would still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, the proposed mitigation scenario of just removing and/or replacing the bridges would not protect the proposed , deTo merit from flooding and a levee and/or fill would be needed. Potential impacts associated with a levee at a 50-ft setback were evaluated in Appendix E as Scenario 5. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E. 5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 Scenario 6 would include a floodplain bench, in combination with removal and/or replacement of the existing bridges. It was assumed that none of the bridges would encroach on the floodplain. The proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below the existing grade). It would be constructed by removing material, likely historic fill, from the floodplain. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood elevations, which would reduce bed and bank erosion (Attachment E). In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows; therefore, during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the north. This would protect the development from flooding, but could have long term effects to stream morphology. In addition, as previously discussed, in a delta levees may not provide long-term flood protection due to channel aggradation. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-21 March 2004 As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994). In addition, the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated (USACOE 1994). • • • _i City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-22 March 2004 6. REFERENCES Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of America Bulletin 94:1225-1231. Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725. INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County, and City of Renton. Job No. 930120, 3/23/93,by R.G.Hilliard and M.J.DuBray. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department-Surface Water Utility. King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April2001. King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division. Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources Research 6(5):1357-1365. Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. USACOE(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design-Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418. USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center -River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, California. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union 35:951-956. ATTACHMENT A Hydraulics Support Documents — Results I 1 1 I _ River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 11 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 10 .07-- —.06 07 1 .07---+--.06 )]a .07 34 34 Legend Legend 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood ■ ■ Ground Ground 0 28 Willigl Bank Sta g. 28 • Bank Sta m72„ Vann m lL 26 Et. �,_ a. 26 �'r"r -� C d x?} w �, .k Y4T \i „I F 5 24 tiL4 24 �V�O, 22 .22 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=9 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=8 32 It--.07 �< .06 �< .07 .130 .07�0 1( .07 Legend 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 30 WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood ■ • -I Ground Ground - • V 26 Mr pp Bank Stagy, Levee 26- „f ,L x �1 a s" • > = }cis as as fry_ Bank Sta w L �'; ',---?-24 w 24 _ a., 24- t ; 7. ,-. € r 22 {" t 20i i 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=7 River= May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.9 <.07)1 .07 <_ .07 >I 28- 0 28 07�0� 6 Legend 6 Legend - ♦ ♦ ] • WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 • • r i WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS 100-yr Future MI 2B- - • WS 1990 Flood - • WS 1990 Flood u4 . - - Ground 4,14 a 24- v 24_ Ground • c u Levee c - I Ineff o - ,; •• O ;,; Bank Ste > �^ Bank Sta w 22- '~ w 22- t. r - P ic fi. • 20- 20- 6 _ 1 1 . 18, , , , . . . I 18 i • 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.75 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.7 28 0 0 .07 Legend 28-�I6� .07 d Legend • WS 100-yr Future MI - WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 I WS FEMA 1996 26- WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood - _ WS 1990 Flood IIIGround Ground 24 C g 24 ❑ Levee - . c i•'<� c Leveeis Ineff do - a' Bank Sta > Ill 22 ,. Bank Ste w 22- ;, 20 20- r • f..-. 18 18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=5 t .07 28 0 I 07>.< .07 >{ 7 6 Legend 30 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi • 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood 26 • WS 1990 Flood Ground Ground g 24 I ^ F 0 c Levee c 24 - Levee o Bank Staet 0 Bank Sta Ili22 w 22 20 20 ) i 18 18 16 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.4 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.35 • I < .07 ( .07 28 6 Legend 28 8 Legend 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 24 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS 1990 Flood • ■ Ground =IF: Ground 22 III Levee g 22 c o PI �, 0 Levee 0 al Bank Sta• m c ! Ineff w 20 ( w 20 rl • Bank Sta 18 ? 18 16 1 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.25 River= May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.2 28 O I O 07 28 0I 0I� .07 yl 7 6 Legend 7 6 Legend • • WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 24 • • Ground 24 Ground x C v r' c Ems`' Levee ow Levee 22 a • 22 III • a) .ff Bank Sta w 'R, Bank Sta w 20 20 c' t R r3 18 18 i 16 16 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=3 I .07 ).1 < .07 28 0 Legend 34 0 0 Legend r Future Mi 32 6 WS 100- Y WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 24 Ground 28 Ground Le- vvee - 0 c 26 Levee • • is 22 Bank Sta A Bank Sta io 24 w 0 w 20 I 22 8 18 18 16 16 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Station(ft) Station(ft) • ow CRO ELM ED Preliminary Technical Information Report Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat King County, Washington Submitted to: Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N PO Box 359 Renton,WA 98057 Prepared by: Otak, Inc. 620 Kirkland Way Kirkland,WA 98033 Otak Project No. 30209 April 4, 2002 0 Preliminary Technical Information Report Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat King County, Washington Submitted to: Barbee Mill Company 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N PO Box 359 Renton,WA 98057 Prepared by: Otak,Inc. 620 Kirkland Way Kirkland,WA 98033 1' wAof , Otak Project No. 30209 c4 V •�1 ,\ %1 AL 041 o¢l Zpo April 4, 2002 Table of Contents Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Preliminary Technical Information Report April 4, 2002 Section 1 —Project Overview Section 2 —Preliminary Conditions Summary and Conditions of Approval Section 3— Offsite Analysis Section 4—Flow Control and Water Facility Analysis and Design Section 5— Conveyance System Analysis and Design Section 6— Special Reports and Studies Section 7— Other Permits Section 8—Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design Section 9—Bond Quantity Worksheet, Facility Summaries and Declaration of Covenant Section 10—Maintenance and Operations Manual Figures: Figure 1 —TIR Worksheet Figure 2—Vicinity Map Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics Figure 4—Soils Map Appendices: Appendix A—Soils Descriptions Appendix B —May Creek Floodways Appendix C—Water Quality Pond Design Appendix D — Conveyance Calculations Section 1 — Project Overview This project involves developing a preliminary plat for 22.9 acres on the Barbee Mill waterfront site in Renton, Washington. The site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard N. and the Lake Washington shoreline near the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange in north Renton. The owner, the Barbee Mill Company, is proposing the development of 112 lots for townhomes on the site. The development of the site will be governed by the Renton Municipal Code and the COR2 zoning which is designated for this property. The project lies within Section 32 in Township 24N, Range 5E, in King County, Washington. See Figure 2— Vicinity Map for the overall project location. Site Drainage Characteristics Refer to Figure 3 —Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics for subbasin locations. Drainage water from the developed site will discharge to Lake Washington after treatment in water quality ponds. Soils The site soils in the project area were identified by USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey for King County (see Figure 4—Soils Map). The site consists of Norma series soils, identified as a SCS Hydrologic Soil Group D soil. Norma soils are alluvial soils which are underlain by till soils. See Appendix A—Soils Descriptions. The following figures are included in this section: Figure 1 —TIR Worksheet Figure 2—Vicinity Map Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics Figure 4—Soils Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1 otak }];\p ject\30200\30209\T1R\pplat040302\le,t.wpd Section 2 — Preliminary Conditions Summary and Conditions of Approval Conditions and Requirements are yet to be established by the City of Renton for the preliminary plat application. , Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 2 otak H:\project\30200\30209\TTR\ppint0.10302\te<t.xpd Section 3 — Offsite Analysis There are no significant offsite drainage issues on the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. The Burlington Northern Railroad bordering the site on the east intercepts any significant upstream drainage. Streets "E" and"F" connect the residential site to Ripley Lane. Drainage from these streets is collected and conveyed via proposed storm drain lines to the water quality pond WQ1. The site outlets into Lake Washington, which has a High Water Mark of approximately 19.5 feet. (Reference: Land Title Survey of South Parcel for JAG Development, Renton, WA Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 11/6/96 Sheet 2 of 3). The finished grades of the site have been set accordingly to provide adequate conveyance and prevent flooding. This high water mark on the Roed & Hitchings plans compares to published Lake Washington Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM) of 15.13 feet (NGVD 1929). May Creek flows in a southwesterly direction through the site and outlets into Lake Washington. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the 100-year flood level ranging from 21 feet (NGVD 1929) at Section A to 23 feet (NGVD 1929) at Section C. See Appendix B for delineation of 100-year floodways. May Creek does not appear to be a flooding risk since it is well contained within its banks. There are three existing stream crossings that do not obstruct the creek and will be maintained for the future development. The stream buffer, however, will be increased to 50 feet. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 3 otak H:\project\30200\30209\TTR\ppint0d0302\te,t.npd Section 4 — Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Flow Control and Detention Detention ponds are not required for this project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM). The site discharges to Lake Washington, a major receiving water listed on page 1-29, Table 1.2.3.b. Water Quality KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8— Water Quality requires that runoff from pollution generating surfaces must be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before discharging to Lake Washington. The water quality treatment is necessary because more than 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface area will be created at the site. The drainage area north of May Creek will drain to water quality pond WQ1. The area includes the residential area consisting of approximately 8.02 impervious acres and 4.89 pervious acres. It also includes Streets "E" and"F" which connect the site to Ripley Lane. These streets have a drainage area of approximately 0.89 impervious acres. Approximately 47,301 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per the KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage will be located at 19.0 feet and the design WQ surface elevation will be located at 21.0 feet. See Appendix C— Water Quality Pond Design for calculations of water quality volumes. The measured volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. The area south of May Creek will drain to a smaller water quality pond WQ2. The area includes residential areas, streets and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.18 acres, of which 1.93 acres is impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area is 9,210 cubic feet as shown in Appendix C. The pond shown on the plan sets has a water quality volume of approximately 11,026 cubic feet when the water quality surface elevation for Pond WQ2 is set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment, water will discharge directly to Lake Washington. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 4 otak H:\project\30200\30209\T1R\pplat040302\text.wpd Section 5 — Conveyance System Analysis and Design The storm drainage system (Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics) is sized to convey the 100-year/24 hour storm with the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. The following briefly describes the conveyance system for the preliminary plat. Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ1 Three storm drain lines (Lines 1, 2 and 3) collect flow from the area north of May Creek. The pipes were designed to convey the 100-year flow rate without overtopping the rims. The 100-year design flowrates at selected catch basins were determined by using the Rational Method. The King County Backwater model (KCBW) was then applied to the storm drain lines extending upstream from water quality Pond WQ1 to catch basins D, .G and J, respectively. The backwater elevation during overflow operation in Pond WQ1 was assumed to be 21.5 feet, 0.5 foot above the water quality surface elevation. Appendix D provides preliminary calculations to show that the storm water conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 stormwater conveyance standards. Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ2 One 18-inch trunk line (Line 4) serves the area south of May Creek. Water surface elevations were determined at selected catch basins using the KCBW program. The tailwater at Pond WQ2 when in the overflow condition was assumed to be 20.5 feet. See Appendix D for preliminary conveyance calculations. • Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 5 otak }S:\project\30200\30209\TTR\pplato 10302\text.n pd Section 6 — Special Reports and Studies A geotechnical report was prepared by Golder and Associates, Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development dated August 9, 2000 (revised on December 18, 2001). This report was developed for a previous site proposal developed by Triad Associates. That proposal is summarized in the Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Storm Drainage Report dated July 10, 2000. There is a category 3 wetland located adjacent to the site boundary within the railroad right of way. The wetland was determined to have an area of 6,151 sf in a wetland study by David Evans and Associates, Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property dated May 1997. This wetland was field verified by Raedeke Associates in March 2002 and was found to have a slightly larger area of approximately 6,250 sf. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 6 otak \PMed\30200\30209\77R\pplet040302V ezt.ayd Section 7 — Other Permits The expected permits for this project are: • Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Renton • SEPA Threshold Determination from the City of Renton • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from the City of Renton • Clearing and Grading Permits form the City of Renton • Building Permits from the City of Renton • HPA from the Department of Fish and Wildlife Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 7 otak H:\p.J..\30200\30209\TIR\ppin10d0302\texl.wpd Section 8 — Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment control shall be implemented according to the standards specifically outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D. An expanded description of the following standards will be provided with the final design for this project: • Clearing Limits • Cover Measures • Perimeter Protection • Traffic Area Stabilization • Sediment Retention • Surface Water Control • Dust Control • Wet Season Construction • Construction Within Sensitive Areas and Buffers • Maintenance • Final Stabilization Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 8 otak H:\project\30200\30209\T1R\pp]at040302\tezt.wpd li__I Section 9 — Bond Quantity Worksheet, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant Bond Quantity Worksheets Bond Quantity Worksheets will be provided with the final design. The worksheets will provide an estimate of construction quantities and an estimate of improvement costs for each project. Declaration of Covenant A draft Declaration of Covenant will be provided with the final design. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch A Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet will be provided with the final design. It will summarize the design parameters and will show a plan view of the water quality ponds. • Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 9 otak fl:\project\30200\30209\TIR\pplot040302\text.wpd Section 10 — Maintenance and Operations Manual The water quality ponds are to be publicly maintained and will not require the preparation of an operations and maintenance manual. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 10 otak H:\project\30200\30209\TIR\pplat040302\text.epd co King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part I PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LObATION AD : Project Owner Project Name Barbee Mill Co. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Address Location 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N., PO Box 359 Renton,WA 98057 Township 24 N Range 5 E Phone 425-226-3900 Portions of Sections 32 Project Engineer Government Lot 1 Dan Dawson, PE Company Otak, Inc. Address/Phone 620 Kirkland Way Kirkland,WA 98033/425-822-4446 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 0'00 REYIE*SAl*PEROT'S: • Subdivision UPD • DFW HPA • Shoreline Management O Short Subdivision 0 COE 404 • Rockery O Grading 0 DOE Dam Safety 0 Structural Vaults O Commercial 0 FEMA Floodplain 0 Other- O Other 0 COE Wetlands Part 5T' SITE:0011;111/10NITY;MO DRAINAGE BASIN • , Community City of Renton Drainage Basin May Creek/Lake Washington Part 6 SITE CHARACTEIISTICS , t O River 0 Floodplain I Stream May Creek • Wetlands O Critical Stream Reach 0 Seeps/Springs O Depressions/Swales 0 High Groundwater Table O Lake Lake Washington 0 Groundwater Recharge O Steep Slopes 0 Other , „ „ . , • e Part 7 SOILS , , • : Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Norma Sandy Loam 0 to 2% Slight 1 to 3 fps Part 8 DiE1-001VIONt'LltOPOS . REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT • RMC 4-4-130 Stream • 50'buffer from high water • RMC 4-4-130 Lake II 25'buffer from high water • RMC 4-4-130 Wetland • 25'buffer from wetland O 0 O 0 O 0 O Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS i?;'• „ ' MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION • Sedimentation Facilities • Stabilize Exposed Surface Stabilized Construction Entrance III Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities III Perimeter Runoff Control Clearing and Grading Restrictions II Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ▪ Cover Practices II Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities II Construction Sequence II Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation areas • Other:Silt/Water Quality Pond 0 Other Part 10' SURFACE'WATER BYSTEM O Grass Lined 0 Tank 0 Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel O Pipe System 0 Vault 0 Depression Compensation/Mitigation O Open Channel 0 Energy Dissipater 0 Flow Dispersal of Eliminated Site Storage O Dry Pond 0 Wetland 0 Waiver MI Wet Pond 0 Stream 0 Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation Drainage water will be conveyed to a water quality pond. It will discharge to Lake Washington without detention. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation 'Paif 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS O Cast in Place Vault 0 Drainage Easement • Retaining Wall 0 Access Easement Rockery>4'High O Native Growth Protection Easement O Structural on Steep Slope MI Tract O Other O Other Pad 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Rtr—er-Od 4 f4/ 02 Signed/Date •XREFFL�ST 1 'Ned C209R270 Figure — Vicinity Map ii 0209R500 C209E130 SEAL 9BI90 ' ILK MATCHLINE — LOWER RIGHT 0' 40' 80' 160' o J 7-77 COR-2 ZONE_ _, .. • ,.. o. _/,,,,. ,, , __ __ ,, u, ,, // / //,,--- ,.. z / I � \./ 1 1 I I I, ,— --, 7- -71 r- I I I I 1 r� — 1 E [11L74' / / / /\ 21 \ 20 I 1 11 11III r— I I I /-- 1 1 // \ 16114I �♦ / j ; ' ` \ / �JL I I II I II 11 5 11 4 1 31 I 2 / / / /, / 7- \\ , ``J1 113 1112I 111110 9 8 7 I � 6 II I I / /� /♦♦ / / �O� ,/• id& , /. [ } wm �� 23 ` ,p/� ram'''' �-- 1 11 1 II I L---J L-J__J L— /i /♦ / /. , LAKE 0 .'. i! I > / J L I J L J �.� / '♦I WASHINGTON I ;i r h W 24 f / STREE0.°' \•� / .� S _ i / / /,• / /I T B o, ;STREET A ,..n/' / /'/*♦ /( (' Jv 1 1 r` � —�-� r// / / /. / /25 j 1 1 - 1 - 1 169 170 1177 1 1 r----, 1 `08 ,r I I I I I 1'O • :'/4,♦ / / ; IM. 0 � o a L-_- I I I I 172 I I 1 1 . ' I I I I I i 64�✓//,///I♦ / % �`. r.,0 ��I 26 I L- I -JI i 1173 741 I ( I III / :/ / /♦ // .w•"a `LI Ii I I II 75 \ - \ 59160 1161 621 p.3 I //6 / /♦♦ / cam'LFD ml I _JI I 1 Ie/ / /,♦ / / L— 7---WAN. , - r' I aIIIIII / w T ' ��a r- I --1 I / r---, �/ ./ ,s / / , , ,;., • q s r— -1178 1771 i76 58 I /' ' �i♦/ /c / `: z y \� I e • wi r n -�I80 179 i 1 I i ✓/' �\ ��I /r a,♦,// {� 3 .• Qe�. �: P \ '�. ilir :.:, I a _,181 •I 1 I K� `�\ se� •♦/// / < -.t viz.z..-a/';° 7�=1r •i s to r I 1182 1 I �K. /\ / // I vmx.ri' oita tri a183I IIo.., _�`� \\ \\ 55 / • ///// % II♦ /a/ _ `/� . _ � UCO W' _--I I I V .3 \ \ 54 v • / %• / ♦ -4'/.,.•f � ill11 C4 \ 27 I r- I 1 I 84 I ¢�$ i \ 1 1\ 53 \ / • // �" / ,♦ / 7./.,.a mp t jl W L 7 o m • I---- 1861 85 I / '/ \ \\ 1 \\ // •/ i ♦) / �� ..,.•-,.:•.7 ,•- t� oi' I 28_ I I I/ \49 \50051 \ ,/•// • ,♦♦ / ,y LLxi. t. E 1'-.'''... tq fi • W R.otro L--__-, 1 1 /) '^\ \ \ _,\�_ 1 �' • �. //%' ! ,♦ / 500' 0' 500' 1000' W n ' �/ I 1 I, /e" , \\ 48\ \�� mac,/ / / / _��= 0 I� CO 29 -I 1�/ 9q` n�� ,,.�,9 % G`ri� / % ♦�G /°/ SCALE IN FEET - o kf w j -- 1 > — . /' /// VICINITY MAP KE II -- _ i� �` � y / i� % ��WASHINGTON E' 1 1 32 j 1 44 \'N/ % � e. w `_33--\I 43 / / / %/ • < \`\110`1\ // ♦�// 4 // / Z ♦/ itii Asa ^pl , `\.' 8' //I ♦ / /'/' , � . / \/ ♦/ 04 rg El 1-4 .7.7•7., \/'''\\\\\\:38/ /7...• .//..,/,//i,()// . .i(..: : _:/, fir //// 0:::#':;:,7:' ' II L / vvv40 v / // /\ ) / • /�� �./ . / �i// 41 ♦ / _ / . ./ • Y / ii,ci ,4 I/ / ts, 97 4 ;74./ CO ••••4 III 5 f ,...t,7 > „...1 <4 5- /e.r.„,,,,--tYi ' /�\5 r N*i .,', o a,, ,..__.__-. ' //5/ .SS�Cj�� Incorporated /-) ... - / / {;�yv -- E • a/ Twln \ /'91/ // I ♦� - ....w�x/ MAY CREEK / �O 620 Kirkland Nay 1100 ' / / %:\ \/ / ♦I/ / -_ ,dKukland,We 98033 • tera �' I I♦// \ -aro ran ♦`�� sf ♦♦• �y Internet: 001.0 o,olt / ..__.__..._.._...__..........._. Project No. r, R-8 ZONE �'°Y • ♦♦♦' N 40TH STREET W MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT Figure 2 / 7- Sheet o. / " — (CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 1 of 1 SEE DRAWINGS ) ich . ?4,64 , -Rtfolt 3 glif ,19001 ;--7-- .. - • • •. . . ‘-- P 1 . 1 • • Newport " - Shores ' lif vi ••?••L• ;:.i :11 Eiilir•t I. i5 v: • (1--Iiii„,- . .... .. . ..•::.,: : 1 ;.4.,*:::- Ur• .... •.. NC9 • • •• . III 11 . " . '..... ' • • c-71__..,{. • '• 4 I Kgd.IIIIIIIIIIII.ADiftAIIII : • AgD • • • KpID - • •2_,r..._: :i 11 :.:Illie 4;41° 11.."-E• .. • . 11.„ IN ...10 • _. ..m, LJklvlai... /trestim. KpD.4.1 C1-:::--":. . :. . if i .' .:\\' • .., 4/1 l ..":•'\ . : I : , .... ----C-<---- „ .--- —,5. --. _,....e , KpB --9) .I. . • I iffs5 / ..4 : . , :At.:•ii.iti li _.„ Ltotto : 040, ji KpB )77.: - . %.__r\_, ,,:_____1. j[S :,,.:•;,•.:,i,,,....,:c 1.. ‘`---,__- ' P 47-14%* littip .„ - ) ) er‘• :1-e:e.,:h,a ,1 /0 ' -...• I .S.' -V i- .• ,-- • --, D. sland, •:r,. / I . :...r" .. Bm•:1.,. Dahl\ ' ,,[ i,',,:.,.:,::'1' ... ).24: 4.• , 6. ack IIIIII t • Ples6're B ,..,/,// (:). ;.;f3 I itIV• 1.1 PoInt 21 / 7 :..: :,, _.. Is :m• .. . . ,I itt •,. • Is . • I rest wirffii it; Park : Pc ft . AmC - • - .. Miik-- .. • • . • . 7 _lik willo w • : II I . . •. ,, ti AgC iii'.. t, . . • I*: .11 AkF illi • „ ii : BM • . . 1 ..:' 0, IKpD . ""29 'I I' .2".P. • •AgC • '=, .,...B ' ' --11'`m. wi- \I 9 il i • .. '2 <??2• : : 0 AgC Al •r in" • ki. • i I :::: ....i.",P..in,;. ..,...1: 0 —1 'Newpoll It Hills --- ____ ill AgB • I a Olt InA i i • . ------ Golf Course 1111 1 , C.' •- ' • •• Evi31 40') .1 7=. --• ,, Kp De ..(-, ! AmB gB Air . . •.ttli , 1 , /- ..• .2/ . . I q t . • "hi EwC • BM '. • XI-es' '44,11 pC ..k• -9 j ..% m'III La eridge Sch i 109 •'. 1:0 • -6,-' I i.,". .4./ .411111 * _ ___7t;,:, ,,,a,..._A . _____-_ :,_-.. !..., __ L OvD I'sb Aidif< ; :17,,,/ r tri.. AgD . . •• .. ... . ,i .. I .:7,i. 0 . . BMA ... D 1 605 r /Ill': .:,-;..,\• 1 \ KpB • • (1---) 1 " \ Aji .....„...it,„.. ...11: .....--...... ..,„. ......:: ..... .. .., .,.,, .• „,,... - /pi' ' •v__,••• ..: •:. k .. :AgC h Point " rmillii.iirriE. ii\cl',\ii r Ilk Agc, IN i. . • . k 6-.„,z1/4 , 1 --.. : :J.: -:- ' 1. '... .. ...• . 4._____„,,Or 1I• • :•.:.: ..I " . ):. ,. ....El:3 ' ---"00- \ ' ------,.; 0 Itennydalel • . •-• .. • I : • S . ..— :...AdVir- '''' ... .N. ; • AkF I •••-'-.... viri "• . •InC AkF l'iiiii ';:••,...:.:.".::11:3 ... I * ._ AgC • Coleman Poin pale:: ...: 1.• - . . •-71;;, --- GRAVEL : .. ..., . I .1-... • J -- , . PIT I : • • •. : .0 I i 5.111M•In•A• •i I. . " AkF •• I CI. ' •• • , Nxi$7._..tr,mic, __e . T-7- ... .• -,1?- _------&---- r9 - ' •• EvB 1 .,:-- - BM.: BV\A•pe. ARD • ii ''' —•--L----------P—'7.:-.. ,1 BM 111 /-•, -- N. - / . . ,1 z ' • • •• I m ',' Figure 4—Soils Map __. -- , • • - :I- Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 04/04/02 i ,...,. • • . ,,_ '. ' 11 . •": — - _ . ,..,. -47 I II•,-., - - \ ):;;..„--fb.t 1 %‘, II AmC ' ----- .,.,,. • . „.:?:.:,: .. a .• ' 11' _„ „ -1!. - , _ c� •� Appendix A — Soils Descriptions dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable; medium, subangwlar blocky structure; hard, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; neutral. friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common roots; medium acid; clear, smooth The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown boundary. 17 to 21 inches thick. to very dark brown. The C horizon consists of layers C1--29 to 42 inches, dark grayish-brown (1OYR 4/2) of silt loam, very fine sandy loam, sandy loam, and grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silt loam and loamy sand, and sand; the thickness of each layer thin lenses of very fine sandy loam, light varies. Mottles occur at a depth below 30 to 40 brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; massive; slight- inches in some places. ly hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; Some areas are up to 25 or 30 percent inclusions common roots; slightly acid; clear, smooth of somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, and Wood- boundary. 10 to 15 inches thick. inville soils; and some are up to 10 percent the C2--42 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/3) silt poorly drained Puget soils. Total inclusions do not loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; exceed 30 percent. massive; hard, friable, sticky, plastic; com- Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting mon roots; medium acid. depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water table is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available The B and C horizons are mostly silt loam and water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the very fine sandy loam and have lenses of silty clay erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of stream over- loam and fine sandy loam. The C horizon is dark flow is slight to severe, depending on the amount of grayish brown, grayish brown, or dark brown. flood protection provided. Some areas are up to 5 percent included poorly This soil is used mostly for row crops. Capabil- drained Puget soils; and some are 10 to 15 percent ity unit IIw-1; woodland group 2o1. the somewhat poorly drained Oridia and Briscot soils. Also included with this soil in mapping are areas of the poorly drained Woodinville silt loam and a Nooksack Series few areas of a Woodinville silty clay loam. Included soils make up no more than 15 percent of the total The Nooksack series is made up of well-drained acreage. soils that formed in alluvium in river valleys, Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting under a cover of grass, conifers, and hardwoods. depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water table Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipitation is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available is 35 to 55 inches, and the mean annual air tempera- water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the ture is about 50° F. The frost-free season is about erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a mod- 190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to erate to severe hazard. S00 feet. This soil is used for row crops and pasture and In a representative profile, the soil is very for urban development. Capability unit IIw-1; wood- dark grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, and grayish- land group 2o1. brown silt loam to a depth of 60 inches or more. Nooksack soils are used for row crops and pasture Norma Series and for urban development. The Norma series is made up of poorly drained Nooksack silt loam (Nk).--This nearly level soil soils that formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass, is in long, narrow areas that range from 5 to about conifers, and hardwoods. These soils are in basins 300 acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent. on the glaciated uplands and in areas along the Representative profile of cultivated Nooksack stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The silt loam, 1,800 feet east and 500 feet south of the annual precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, and the west quarter corner of sec. 4, T. 24 N., R. 7 E.: mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free season is 150 to 200 days. Elevation Ap]--0 to 2 inches, very dark grayish-brown (1OYR ranges from about sea level to 600 feet. 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) dry; In a representative profile, the surface layer is few, fine, faint, dark yellowish-brown (l0YR black sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil 4/4) mottles; weak, thin, platy structure; is dark grayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, non- extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. plastic; many roots; slightly acid; abrupt, Norma soils are used mainly for pasture. If smooth boundary. 2 to 3 inches thick. drained, they are used for row crops. Ap2--2 to 11 inches, very dark grayish-brown (1OYR 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) dry; Norma sandy loam (No).--This soil occurs as strips weak, coarse, prismatic structure; slightly 2S to 300 feet wide. Slopes are less than 2 percent. hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; Areas are level or concave and range from I to about common roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth 100 acres in size. boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Representative profile of Norma sandy loam, in a B2--11 to 29 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) pasture, 725 feet east and 50 feet north of the silt loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; south quarter corner of sec. 31, T. 20 N., R. weak, medium, prismatic structure and weak, 7 E.: 20 Appendix A otak Ap--0 to 10 inches, black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam, thick. The next layer is yellowish-red sphagnum dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dry; moderate, peat that extends to a depth of about 60 inches. fine, granular structure; slightly hard, very Orcas soils are used mostly as wildlife habitat friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth Orcas peat (Or).--This level or slightly concat boundary. 10 to 12 inches thick. soil is in irregularly shaped areas that range frc B21g--10 to 30 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) 2 to about 10 acres in size. Slopes are less that sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) percent. dry; many, medium, prominent, yellowish-red Representative profile of Orcas peat, under wi] (SYR 4/8) and brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles, very cranberries, 600 feet north and 650 feet west of t pale brown (10YR 7/4) and reddish yellow east quarter corner of sec. 8, T. 24 N., R. 6 E.: (7.5YR 6/8) dry; thin platy structure; hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; 0i1--0 to 6 inches, dark reddish-brown (SYR 3/2) slightly acid; clear, wavy boundary. 19 to 24 sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7/3) ell inches thick. soft, spongy; many roots; extremely acid; B22g--30 to 60 inches, dark-gray (SY 4/1) sandy clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 8 inches thicl loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; common, fine, 0i2--6 to 60 inches, yellowish-red (SYR 5/6, 4/6, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6) and 4/8) sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7, reddish-yellow (7.5YR 6/6) mottles, yellowish dry; soft, spongy; few roots; extremely acic brown (10YR 5/8) and pale brown (2.5Y 7/4) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, The Oil horizon ranges from dark reddish brown nonplastic; few roots; slightly acid. reddish black. Only slight decomposition has oc- curred. The 0i2 horizon is uniformly sphagnum pet The A horizon ranges from black to very dark that ranges from dark reddish brown through yelloo brown and is as much as 15 percent gravel. The B ish red to very pale brown. horizon commonly is sandy loam that in places is Some areas mapped are up to 20 percent include stratified with silt loam and loamy sand. It is as Seattle and Tukwila mucks, and some are up to 5 pc much as 35 percent gravel in some places. The B cent the wet Bellingham soils. horizon is mottled gray, dark gray, and dark grayish Permeability is very rapid. There is a water brown. table at or close to the surface for several month Some areas are up to 5 percent included Seattle, each year. In areas where the water table is con- Tukwila, and Shalcar soils; and some are up to 5 trolled, the effective rooting depth is 60 inches percent Alderwood and Everett soils, at the slightly or more. In undrained areas, rooting depth is higher elevations. In the area northwest of Auburn, restricted. The available water capacity is high. in the Green River Valley, there are areas of Norma Runoff is ponded, and there is no erosion hazard. soils that have an organic surface layer as thick as This soil is used mostly as wildlife habitat. 12 inches in some places. Also included are small Capability unit VIIIw-1; no woodland classificatic areas of Norma soils that have a silt loam surface layer. Permeability is moderately rapid. The seasonal water table is at or near the surface. In drained Oridia Series areas, the effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. In undrained areas, rooting depth is restrict- The Oridia series is made up of somewhat poorly ed. The available water capacity is moderately high drained soils that formed in alluvium in river to high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is valleys. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual slight. Stream overflow is a severe hazard in precipitation is 35 to 55 inches, and the mean ann places. al air temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free This soil is used mostly for pasture. Drained season is about 200 days. Elevation ranges from areas are used for row crops. Capability unit IIIw-3; about 0 to 85 feet. woodland group 3w2. In a representative profile, the surface layer dark grayish-brown silt loam about 9 inches thick. Orcas Series The subsoil is grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, and gray silt loam and silty clay loam that extend The Orcas series is made up of very poorly drained to a depth of 60 inches or more. organic soils that formed in sphagnum moss and small Oridia soils are used for row crops and 'pasture amounts of Labrador tea and cranberry plants. These and for urban development. soils are in basins on the undulating, rolling glaciated uplands. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. Annu- Oridia silt loam (0s).--This gently undulating al precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, and the mean soil is in irregularly shaped areas. Slopes are annual air temperature is about 50° F. The frost- less than 2 percent. Areas range from 10 to more free season is 160 to 180 days. Elevation ranges than 200 acres in size. from 100 to 500 feet. Representative profile of Oridia silt loam, in In a representative profile, the surface layer is pasture, 850 feet north, 620 feet east of the dark reddish-brown sphagnum peat about 6 inches southwest corner of sec. 12, T. 22 N., R. 4 E.: Appendix A otak Appendix B May Creek Floodways • 'o determine if flood insurance is available,contact an insurance agent or all the National Flood Insurance Program at(800)638-6620. 1111 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET • 500 0 500 1----1 • NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM • FIRM • FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS • PANEL 664 OF 1725 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX KING COUNTY. UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 0664 F RENTON.CITY OF 530088 0664 F MAP NUMBER 53033C0664 F MAP REVISED: ' x MAY 16, 1995 • Federal Emergency Management Agency, Appendix B otak • LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED :^:.::::�; BY 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain(; average depths determined.For areas of alluvial fan flooding. e velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by Federal flood protection system under - construction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action);no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. Flood Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary Slat 7al%f Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary • "w Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations • Within Special Flood Hazard • Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; 513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. OO Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone. • See Map Index for Elevation Datum. RM7X Elevation Reference Mark • • M2 River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North 97°07'30", 32°22'30" American Datum of 1927 INAD 27) Projection. • NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program; it does not nece' arity identify all areas sehiect to floodino.uarticularly from local drainage Special Flood Appendix B ota k Coastal base f the effects of from those even wine nlanninn • JOINS PANEL 0675 t (n , ZONE X 0 1- w N -r I_ LIMIT OF '+0 111). 1—[1.1 co p DETAILED STUDY �, K- • _-•- ,,� w ....„,„ , .:„..„ • <, ZONE X ;��;-M _ OCO © w May Creek %`, ZONE AE 0 0 ...) 0 iiiii, O r► $ �� pOP RM210 A� ZONE X �� ,.> N 40TH STREET QD v_*,i ; Q i ¢ Q� O c� 0 �Qr MEADOWTpNORH II• O o F�Q it 470 p w r NORTH 38TH STREET z D / Z w w Z Q if w z NORTH 37TH STREET EF" o 152 o NORTH ( TH STREET Q z Lj z li �, ¢ NORTH 36TH STREET } / 0� NORTH 36TH STREETS 32 z /-9Z KINI_ NORTH 35TH STREET 3 • 6 UNINCORI 9/0cc 0 ¢ pLij Ogib �` O NORTH 34TH STREET 6j . : tz: w May z D NORTH 33RD PLACE r� Creek m • ZONE X 72NORTH 33RD STREET ZONE X 1,1 ti STREET id© f r O Q NORTH 32ND 2 77 p NORTH 32ND STREET ZONE w ? r al NORTH < 31ST STREET c�'� I �P� ZONE A %, N. CIO NORTH 30TH STREET NORTHEAST 30TH ZONE X • I STREET AZ. 22 `- H .1 \ NORT Note: Datum 1929 NGVD s Appendix B Scale: 1" = 500' otak IAIC11 ITu •lorU nl Art I 1 I I I NI- 7oTL1 • _. _ / ii`1'I FLOOD I •L \//. ; . A).... ...,-,;,iiir, , INSURANC -.. '-°. :„— .... -----J-b-,e,, E.__ A r .,i.. •. . iiir' ,12.- ' ' -- 0110 STUDY . .,.,.....,, ii**41,,i-jr"4\,* „ ,, (17--.7.48:4 iliklim ..... • •Iy s. le,- , ._ , r, . .„,...„ . F _ _.... ...... • w. >,a''. / '% �' Nia KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 3 • COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER AUBURN,CITY OF 530073 BELLEVUE,CITY OF 530074 BLACK DIAMOND,TOWN OF 530272 BURIEN,CITY OF 530321 CARNATION,TOWN OF 530076 DES MOINES,CITY OF 530077 DUVAL,TOWN OF 530282 ENUMCLAW,CITY OF 530319 FEDERAL WAY,CITY OF 530322 ' ISSAQUAH,CITY OF 530079 KENT,CITY OF ' 530080 KING COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS . 530071 KIRKLAND,CITY OF 530081 LAKE FOREST PARK,CITY OF 530082 NORMANDY PARK,CITY OF 530084 NORTH B Y OF 530086 (:12 • PACIFIC,CIry ITY OF OF 530086 REDMOND,CITY OF 530087 RENTON,CITY OF 530088 - SEATLE,CITY OF 530089 SEATAC,CITY OF 530320 � SKYKOMISH,TOWN OF 530236 ll 11, SNOQUALMIE,CITY OF 530090 TUKWILA,CITY OF 530091 WOODINVILLE,CITY OF 530324 • •G��cY`er'MgN9 • REVISE®:MAY 16,1995 c ,�v4 o F , , ` a fs .: a dl Federal Emergency Management Agency y o�_: Appendix B otak i FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION SECTION MEAN REGULATORY WITHOUT I WITH INCREASE CROSS SECTION DISTANCES WIDTH AREA VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER FEET) SECOND) (FEET NGVD) May Creek A 0.14 34 158 5.5 21.0 21.0 21.5 0.5 B 0.16 60 239 3.6 21.8 21.8 22.2 0.4 C 0.24 42 99 8.8 23.3 23.3 23.3 0.0 D 0.25 42 110 7.9 25.7 25.7 25.7 0.0 E 0.31 31 121 7.2 29.0 29.0 29.2 0.2 F 0.39 40 150 5.8 32.5 32.5 33.0 0.5 G 0.46 28 87 10.0' 35.8 35.8 35.8 0.0 H 0.52 23 123 7.1 40.0 40.0 40.6 0.6 I 0.57 45 165 5.3 41.8 • 41.8 42.5 0.7 J 0.63 31 89 9.7 45.3 45.3 45.3 0.0 K 0.78 33 133 6.5 55.2 55.2 55.2 0.0 L 0.94 79 143 6.1 64.7 64.7 64.7 0.0 M 1.09 33 113 7.7 76.4 76.4 76.6 0.2 N 1.25 39 128 6.6 85.4 85.4 85.4 0.0 . O 1.36 32 89 9.6 93.1 93.1 93.2 0.1 P 1.39 40 172 4.9 95.6 95.6 96.0 0.4 Q 1.41 33 90 9.5 95.8 95.8 95.8 0.0 R 1.42 33 111 7.7 96.4 96.4 96.4 0.0 S 1.46 30 95 8.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 0.1 T 1.54 22 91 9.3 106.8 106.8 106.9 0.1 U 1.56 8 68 ' 12.5 112.2 112.2 112.2 0.0 ✓ 1.61 • 43 283 2.9 114.2 114.2 115.1 0.9 •W 1.74 27 81 9.9 120.9 120.9 • 120.9 0.0 X 1.83 38 170 4.8 125.0 125.0 125.7 0.7 Y 1.96 52 101 8.0 135.8 135.8 135.8 0.0 Z 2.02 42 130 6.3 140.4 140.4 140.5 0.1 b b �� 1 � Miles Above Mouth 11, 11 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTAGENCY FLOODWAY DATA KING COUNTY, WA AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAY CREEK .a ELEVATION (FEET NGVD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 , 1. ." 1--+ r- .._....' 1 4 ;.-.1. •-I ' j__i..-�-4 1 •'..;.a'..}.__ I. .1...�. 1 .1_Y_..i r-�- ! I I _ I. 1 f i-'4-I__ '�..i...l...l_''� { ...I...I I I " { 1 1 1. L. • ` I ' 1 •1 I , ..r.. j....... '_1 1- ..1._,--i-�._._..1......_._y._. .i_..I_. :..1 _:_ • • ,-..............1.., !--- \) I ....,. : '-'..;-1 I .t- ROE' 1) I - 1 R1OA�D 1. I j_1 L.,....._ _ {... ::_L:--- t (P F AT-E;RO AD) ., .L.1.. ,. :......:... .1 _ I 1 •. i i : 1.• : t 4 - 4.4 .1 _. .I - i_4. - ' i i--a-, ..,._.. ,j 1 �_ 1. i i .. ' + . , 1I � • � I � 4- i � r. ' J � 1..... . -I- -1- { , _. -ii. 1.. .; 1__ i....J...Li I - _ .. __..J__ _t... .,_ _I_..1..� •' !_ �..: f .I _i._;..- OI t : 1 ; i ', 1. .---1_.._�• , y 1I L 1t___ 1 _- 1 i t f I , I_t__1 _ N ...1 I , I i 'I .'..t 1 I {.. ,..1. I 't a i, 1 I n. il+\ .. .1. .; :. ..1 t---=1 L ! ! ':;:._ . ...,. ._i_{._ _ �.1J..�i 1-:IN. ,N 0RT 1 ERN RAIL . ..i. ; I I � - - = T N ROq - � �' • 1. ; 1......'. I I\I j.. I. LA14E+W 1 HI JG O I I" , _ 8 I:�LEV -I .:.:.I . .i 4_4' . ..+..,I.... :..J-'__.. -__'.._1. ! .J-. ..I .1 _ .I. _1 _HI A ,- , - ' - I--1- - +._ _.I • -' - --i.._ 1I ,_iII '...1. -T_ i..i /..1. ---t: ___.!...1.._ - ' .� * ..�- _,_...: 1 ,_ ,__i_ l._.,_.. A . 1 1-- 1. 1___ l ,". ._I 1 1 I . I ! t _1 ..1 - .. I .I 1 t- .i.. . i .t..+.. I �j.i.. I t.----1.._L.-:.. _!_ _1 1 .4 1 _ I 1 -' I 1 1. , • f • _.: :. .,._1. :..1...1_....�...;-.-.;_-'..1__ ._- 1 .'.__1_.. , -.1-..! '' .., ..1.I 1 --I•_ --1.I I---I J t--1. • I _.--fir•---'_.:_.,__:.-'- --;-.� I ' . H-I- i i �!.. -1-i _-- - - ..1-H-.l.-L ...1 1. : 1 1 4.4-: ' lu 1 ' i ; I I ! 1 .,1._.,_.,.. !.. .1.. _.,,. .J�_ .i�. J_. _ 1.._''�..1._. _ _ __ ..-i... 1 1 -I ' --,-'.�-1.'._l. ; i : I I 11y- 11 '.._! _1. ...1 I , 1 �, i I I I ; 1 ; 1 1 I i..'. ..1 r i....l.. .. _ _ ..��i ---I- .-1�-;---,._..,..-'- -{ -•-- - :�: � �-T--"t'----{-' -1'�-- 1. I . - ._.;...., I ._.._1.._..... ...•.....1 1 _1...! ./._ _.1._.:__ • : 1 1 _1_... _.......,.' ., .!..__..... ....._._._.. .._. .... ,; : _..... ; � . ; TATff N1'GIHIW- Y 4db I ! 1 i , J...j..-:.... • ,_--, : . -I. .L. .. I.-I.-1.......L. -•1 ..I V-.. :..1_ ; . ...1.- I 1-.._'....I..4..._--:..1'' 1 . 1 7_..1_ �. I H J1.. ;"...1 ,._,..1...._.;_,. .. ..1 ..._.... ' 1 __:._ ... . ' ..... .... ...I _ I I , 1.. .,I_ , , I , 1 I ' I I I 1 ,. • O - ' 1 ' 1 �1_ _ t � i ., I. .1. 1 i 1' r , ' 1 , , : � I I I i I � i-•...I'_ - ,...:._.1...{.._1--- ..:{..1 _- ~�-' -_• "-i-'1...1 -- - -. (._.,._.`.�_L.J -�: -1.4.: ,._ 1._:._1-..: 1. J. . 1_ 1 1 1 i 1.. i.. ..L_ jl I_._ • •I • � • 4 . L : y • i-I_ 1 I ! 1' 1. _� 1...1 T .L..i. _.._ -;-�_..1 -f...t.. '1- ..j_..`_ _1..1_..f....!-_f_.-_1 - 1 -I� --'I • ...... ..:.. . ----1 1._. _ f ... ,_ 1 _.i I i - 1 -I4-1 ij. 1 1 j--.;.. ...1.- _ .._..t- I f� l. t t- D I i I , ; ..�._!.--`- --t'--1--_�.._t_.+._i_.. 1..._t.I �. - --- - - ' 1 .1. I 1... I f i 1 ' ,,_t_ 1-;- 1 .1 . .1. 1 ._ 1..1, _,1 1 �_..,. _1.__.6 1. I I 1 ' � `_, , , I 1 : I r-. !- ;. ..i. .-+- -I--- - -.1-1-1.--r-1. _ ..1..l._,... 1_..1...1_. �_i... {. 1 , 1 I I I I : ! y + 1- -�, • ..1. .;....!-i-"--� -a-•_..i. .i-�-i. _ I _'__ ._.1'--• _ ...L 4..4 .....t._-- 1--;.;- . L..•...-. 1...,_•--t- -� , !.1 4-I -1,--,:-. 1. I-1- 4_1. 1 ' I ' I 1 .1 D ! • ! :.«__ _I 1 1 1 !...., Ni, 1 , 1 ! t ? 1 1 • r... .t_ _.t._1 }_ ._. Z J I I I I 1 .... i : I �' -; - -' - - 'r- ---.,._.j_._1 ...��..J- ..i_1� _ � _ J J_. J--.; 1 -r- I I I o 1 I_..1. 1 t ( .,�, 1_-_ I ..�.._{..1- .i_ .J_...1....'.` _ I.j.. _L_4._ __ _ __ ;____i__,,_,__,_ _ __ 1 { m I , I � I I } { � ..;. 1 ..;. � 1 V. - -• - i.__'t...',-,f__L•.. ._,_.�_j._._i...i.._.--1�•-_I .:i.:-1_ y..-._ 1 ..1. 1 r ' - $'-j-'- i- ; '--i--+ ;�-`- '1'-1-'-i-. -1"-�- ;-" { - -,-'L-.\ _. ' .�__• _ .i_..!...:.....:._I__ __ � ..�__l__I �--'i. _ ___� � �I' 1 J ' • I .I1 Zr 1- 1_ . . ...,._ i 1 ' I • 1 , ',._1_..1.._ t . t I1 1t ' IIIi .4 , : I ! i-J ... t_l. �_.y... ;-..1. ,_i 1 ; , , I ; ! 1 I • I • 4\ -1 4- i---1 ,'-i--. - _4...-..j_.1_4.f_ _'--I -.-�- - -J,- -....{_...F....._1.-- I • m -i I • , , III . I I 1 ; I I I , I ' ( ; 1 ...j._l - +--I---t" �r.-i-. ,_ _ r. ..-''--;....� ' • • '--.: ' 1 I.. _.11.. > • .-----,-1--!-CO CO ..:_l_:. -_'-`-+- '__'-1-' � t ! --! t� {_;_` 1 1_ '-�1 j.•�_, ; .___! 1 I l ! I 1 1 ! I r-. 1 t�_ l--_}--+--;-t---� -1 -�--i-- a'_1 - _ l I I I I 1 1 ._1..._. .1_., - -...._1..._......I 1 1•-'1 ' ii ,..J._ \:..: .. I ' .i:.._. _.� ! i I --r-.1_.1_.;._.ir.. t I I , I-1-1-, )1 ; I i 1 I' , ',-- ::'.-i-.._'j� +'_}._(l �I: I- f._ �:._,_.�_. -a I I 1 i... i 1' r • 1 ..I.._i ,...., • ,...i--"-I..1. ,.-....,.-1-_......-}-. _t 1..1.... l.�__ ..i._..' L - - 1 i-i.. _1 ; 1 , 1.... i ..L. .. �_. k. g H-.j..i..-.;..,_.. - .i-'----.' ri............__L.i ...J....i._;._.1_.1... .. ._. .-1 1 \I` 1 F,. i i i _i_.. 1 1 � 1 I ! 1... 1 . I - -- � I. ;...i.._ 44 '--;-. , -•;--'--1-�'-j-- i--I-�-}--i-......'. O -.«_.,.._1..1...,..i,. ._...._...1...1--1-.-. -a-- - - .1-'-- -.1_.1..._1.... .-.y...4_.1. - -- -..i.. __ I ...I.. . ....I I_I 1.1. - 1_-' - - ! - --- -- ' --1--i_...1_... 4._.,__+... . .__ ....1. _•1... _, !_ ; .1 1 -` i ; ,-... 1 1.,_1.._l._. _ ,- _ 1. 1__.i I c I J ".4_I 1 I L-.1- 1...l. i.--1-- ' i -- ' 1 1..-' I j - ; 1 I ,-r 1 1 1--T--- '--I--.. ._I .: �_..I._.-..-1_..! - -. - -+ .......- - 1- -.ice_ 1.._;__1._. _ �, I I t-`- - ' . I 1 f•'I ; 1 r-.! ,_... ....1. _.,...1..___... -1__�_ _._i._.J--1 _I_- - .._1.... _ _+..1._.1.'_1- -_ = t, I I 1 I i I I `_1.! L. 1 r _ ,...r....i.._i.._.....1._ ._....L. --+--�- -+--� ' �- -1--' -' - - - !- -- - '--1--' ------ I_ ! "1�- .f_• 1 ? `- ' t 1 1 : 1 1._ I I . ..{_.i.:.1. 1.. ! I. i....I-i t. 1 _,_ ..._ 1 1 1.._f.. I 1 I , I I --I--'1- - -I._i_-',.....-- 1--1.-- .__1-._. I I - 1_ I } •.' 1 , i ! . . i. ..i. I j 1-i 1 f { ' I I I i I I I _1..-. _,._.;L_1.,_1...,....._.L._._.._J...L.......} I '1"- ' -'--'--J- -- -1-1.- -'L- ' -L......!-- -- - � -- 1-� ! I 1.. ' i .._,_..{........ 1 I i I I .L....... ! I I I I I -, � ,. ....: i_1_..;'.-!. T--"� .-'t - _...�:.:......._1 1 --- -_-' --�---�-. L........._.,_..._. --'- •_. -..._..�__:....1_4_1--•. ..1.......1_.i._1.- 1 IL ! 1 - 1I� 1 I 1 ; � ! 1 ; I I i 1 !. _ �..1.__ «_.f.iHiL: i- ._aH mo' , I . I �. ._ _-I-�-.-- � .t-"-t}- - --1___ ; _+ �1_� �_ __ .. - r_:---I__ i:_ -i--I1 I I 1 � I I__I_._.._....« ..-__ I 1 ..._t_..__:_. I 1 - I ...,.._._I. 1 1. 1......;_! { J }T. - ;- I {-- � { ! r i__.1 ._.....1..;..^ .I - _ i.....,- - - ..,.___ _ 1-4 -i- ;�- -1'_ __1-_f-.i.....�. . ; _1.-1:-- - - I7 �! t ...>_-^-- + !--I •1 --1. _L.. .i_1._._ _ ..1.-:_! _--4.. _ 1 1.i-.1..I-_l-_;_. .1_.,.T I �. I._ _'1 ..A ._.}....._l._' L. _ 1 y_-�_ I_ I 1 I I . 1-' ' 1 1 , ( - i I t •I , -1--.._-1. ._i 1._.__ _ +...1._. + : {' ! _. ..; -+ 1 ? 1- + ;-,... 1 .f:_..r i 1. �.1. ._�. j_ k, ! f • _ I i I 1 ! 4_4_-�_ ' I I ' I ' ; i ; -__,•_.i.-.I-1- i.! ' ._L_L_l_! - ' 1\t I i' �-; -......1.__-r-(-, -j-�-- ----t'- - --1--{--}--�._i_.. 0 .._;..A..1.._i-;-"1-'I--=-'-_._ ' I 1 1 1 �....I I 1 1 i I I ' l 1 1 ! i t I._.1.._,...l.....!_. . ,.__lam _...L-1 -` •I --I '-.1...I 1.-1_. .i.....;.._._.1._1 ._+. _,.._\_ - - 1 1 1 --I ..I- : I : } 1 -t 1 ; .. f I i y .._!._J... _.I-.,.-"-"-1'--'1....... ._J._-1-_.l I::i._..._i._f _ -:1 J .�. ., 1 f t + I _i.. ...... It 1 1 I" -_ .-.1--1 1 i.i...,.....1.. _�. y...j, _..i . ..L.. I I_.: �J r: j- 41-J T 1 , . , I I J , I ..!• _......1...!_L-1_ 1. .1._...1...{- -i_.. �..4.4...I _-' -- L' �J.._....1-- --'\ I -I- -I-I I-I.-1 - -1-- -4_ '1-_1_..1...1__1 1._i_L..1.. 1 1-1- I _ _..1.....1..,1.I I 1 -1 1 , }- '.. ' L,_,__, ..,._,.,..,. , I ,4 1 {' 1 ..._�._.,. _i..I_ i_1: .1_...1.1r_r _.1 --i ..a_.� -_..f._T.1!_ 1 ! 1 ____ 1. L' Il_t 4- } 1`---i i.. .. ,-" ' 1 1 ! i 1- '-- -1-- ' ..1 __I'_.j- "_}_ -i I F ;-i_-1... y...i_ , 1._. 1 1 1. i. j 7; ?.1_.,._ _L...,'.._._(._.a_1_.a_.a..i j + 1...._ !_i. . I.I.! 1....' j I I_1 1rt ,. J_,-.1-t. �. T 1 1_1. -�--. i � I 1 J • I I i--.._1..1.� L: I I _1 J - -- -f..'.7----I_._�_-4---1--- -1. -'I1-•-•-+ -- - -,-_-{-_i...i.-1--1 i-'j --!-`--..1....1.. I 11 N , ! Ir l � I t I I i I _-1__._ :_1..._i.-1._�+ .• .i. _ ._1 _: 1- .....1 ;...� _ .i_ _1_t..l...._l.._}.��...1-'' � - - _- - i -+-.:_i__.-L-!- I- i i ..- l._ i - - r - _i. I 1 I I I I I_ �I I 1 i I I ! ! �1 I -`r r- i t II �1 m h1 I -i t �.:.. : I _. J J .� Z i 11 , i � I I ''�.�_.-� 1 i- ..L... -i- y I�1 1 1 ` nN cn to ............... ,..--:--.,..........,.!..�_+ ...1._ _( - I -1-, ...1.-1 •Fri a.. ..._� 1 I _ 1 ! --{ r 1 na 0y m 1 ,I_, .' ; , 1 1.. + 1-L1 ! l I l- T1 I ,.._' EA D m m -< 1 r--4-7 I -i 1 I I ;. --- W I : W D m D D D D }._I 1 a: 1 { 1 ! 1 }..r__...4 1--1..,..!. ; t. 1- r Y-1.-a' , . i _- - -- 1,70 77 1 ! ...f . L_.I:..i.' '1 i_ i_+. : {,. � ..J_i 0 -.1 m 91 m33 73 T .�.._ I I 1 -, _- - - -- ..1 - I a Z OO r O i1 ' - t b 0 0 O i - _ 11 I . 1 ! ...' i 1,kJiILLLLIHLLH1 _.a_I I I 1- {. .1._.y I ,I • il ' Hii±ijt • 0 el JCD J 7C COA ® 0 0 O O 0 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROFILES o KING COUNTY, WA co AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAY CREEK Appendix C — Water Quality Pond Design Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Wetpool Volume WQ1 Step 1 - Wetpond volume factor,f: f =30� , Based on the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). Residential area: Step 2 - Rainfall for the mean annual storm, R: Impervious area =8.02 ac, pervious u .,.... ...,x,._ =4.89 ac R>I=>047 , 1998 KCSWDM Fig 6.4.1A(p. 6-69) Streets E and F: Impervious area=0.89 ac, pervious Step 3 - Runoff volume of the mean annual storm,Vr: =0.0 ac. Vr=(0.9A;+0.25At9+ 0.10Atf+0.01A0)x(R/12) where: A;= area of impervious surface including pond,sf 'Ar,` =8 91 Acre Atg=area of till soil covered with grass,sf A tj ` 489` Acre Atf=area of till soil covered with forest,sf A;44 Acre Ao=area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest,sf 'A : 0:0i Acre A tot := Ai +Atg+Atf+AO A tot= 601128 sf V r = 15767 (cu.ft.) Step 4- Wetpond volume,Vb: Vb := f•Vr V b = 47301 (cu.ft.) Check actual pond volume, V := 56902 using 3 foot WQ depth Appendix C otak Project: Barbee Mill Plat 4/4/02 H:\project\30200\30209\waterres\WQvolume98.mcd Barbee Mill Plat Wetpool Volume WQ2 Step 1 - Wetpond volume factor,f: fY 30 , Based on the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). Step 2- Rainfall for the mean annual storm, R: Residental Area: Impervious area= 1.78 ac, pervious=0.25 Acess road: Impervious=0.15 R := 0:47 , 1998 KCSWDM Fig 6.4.1A(p. 6-69) <.. �.•.. h:,. acre, pervious=0.00 ac Step 3- Runoff volume of the mean annual storm,Vr: Vr= (0.9A,+0.25At9+0.10Att+0.01A0)x(R/12) where: Ai= area of impervious surface including pond,sf . iy�}41t93 Acre Atg area of till soil covered withgrass,sf ti5 Acre is= � .g•v �5>� Atf=area of till soil covered with forest,sf A3 ij.„!i Acre Ao=area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest,sf 0:0 Acre A tot := Ai +Atg +Aff+Ao A tot= 94960.8 sf V r = 3070 (cu.ft.) Step 4- Wetpond volume,Vb: Vb := f•Vr V b = 9210 (cu.ft.) Check actual pond volume, V ;= 11026 using 2 foot WQ depth i Appendix C otak Project: Barbee Mill Plat 4/4/02 H:\project\30200\00209\waterres\WQ2volume98.mcd Water Quality Pond 1 CELL 1 ELEV AREA VOLUME VOLUME CHANGE SUBTOTAL FT SQ FT CU FT CU FT Bottom 17.00 0515a322 0 0 Top of Sediment 18.00 fklPZ;i‘ 0 0 19.00 Ni'1,7,666,4: 16,382 16,382 , 20.00 26259 18 948 35,330 ,,. 21.00 T--,22,91;3=F' 21,572 56,902 Water Quality Pond 2 CELL 1 ELEV AREA VOLUME VOLUME CHANGE SUBTOTAL, FT SQ FT CU FT CU FT Bottom 17.00 :883' 0 0 Top of Sediment 18.00 !.T; '883 : 883 883 19.00 ":::-A411 1,137 2,020 20.00 ';:2%259 9,005 11,025 - Appendix C 30209\WaterRes\WQPondvol.xls ota k . 6.4.1 WETPONDS—BASIC AND LARGE—METHODS OF ANALYSIS FIGURE 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES(FEET) ST 1.0/ LA 1.2 ST 1.0 LA 1.0 ST 1.1 ._ ,F .3, I,A 0.8 LA 0.9 ._ J ''�.` r .. .,j.,-•i,is_- -\: i ,s.',:• ":•J':';LIT',,/-1,./.r:-,-1:•,i".,, . ..: ,C.%''',/,',F:.i.,7-1,-;--7-s..4 f'1..11.- • • t% "/ .1 r, - ,' /[▪ `'I'- �'• • //'' `` 1 l / ri i -- r i's1, xr'„,No•f rY'r x,q.a:; i▪ f" saw' .. ... _: '� . a � - -rr r °% ! .\ • ' !y a ��iw , ;r � ` .irr{1 '• ��f j I __�' •":.SM '. _ / _ ,Q'::ra: J• „ t ^ ".___......t.. i'' .,.� " ' `i v ? - -.,.•tS � Q( 7 •'r Q Sdr , Ie \ 9 ..�. � 0.54" 7-'7:0'1.1 o i l'_•,.:,,, • .-,', \'. • . _ .• -4 . (0.045' ) '�� °; 0.47" \\ Incorporated Area ------ c--! River/Lake 0.47" -' �; Major Road (0.039') 0.52" — . _._ (0.043' 0.65" NOTE:Areas east of the eastemmost isopluvial should use 0.65 _• 5 6" (0.054' ) inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest (0.047' ) 24 The mean annual storm is a conceptual storm found by dividing the annual precipitation by the total number of storm events per year result,generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils,and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet)by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service(SCS)hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B,most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. Appendix C 1998 Surface Water Design Manual otak 6-69 Appendix D — Conveyance Calculations - i - Areas Preliminary Calculation of Areas for Barbee Mill Plat ' ^ VVQ1 1lX5 OJ}O 0.0 1.05 O]}O 1.05 1 1.07 0.58 0.48 1.65 1.10 0.58 2 1.97 0.58 0.48 2.56 1.53 1.03 3 1.47 0.50 0.48 1.97 1.20 0.78 4 0.45 0.05 0.48 0.51 0.29 0-21 5 0.35 0.26 0.48 0.61 0.55 0.06 G 0.66 0.36 0.48 1.01 0.84 0.17 7 1.03 0.31 0.48 1.34 0.95 0.39 8 1.31 0.36 0.48 1.67 1.17 0.50 9 0.33 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.38 0.10 10 0'26 0.24 0.80 0.49 0.44 0.05 11 0.28 0.14 0.80 0.41 0.38 0.06 1� O.71 O.42 O.80 1.13 O.S8 0'14 � � 13 0.00 0.16 0f0 0.15 O.15 0.00 14 0.00 0i33 0.80 0.33 0.33 CLOO 15 OOO O5G O80 O5G O5G O . . . . � .DO Note 48%impervious area was assumed for single family housing 8o%impervious area was assumed for multi family housing � � � � ' ' | _ Appendix ` 30309\VVaterReo\RaUona|-SHN_03_22_02 otok Barbee Mill Line 1 &2 Runoff Computations Using Rational Method (Preliminary) Barbee Mill Plat Reference: 1998 KCSWDM Equations(Section 4.3.3) Definitions R=return period(years) 100 PR=Total precipitation for R-year, 24-hour storm(inches) 3.85 - 25 yr 100 yr OR=LIRA A=subbasin area(acres) From isopluvial maps(Figures 3.5.1 C to F3.5.1 H) aR _ 2.66 2.61 • iR=aRTc-bR aR,bR=coefficient(Table 4.3.3.B) 2.61 OR=Flow for individual basin(cfs) bR 0.65 0.63 IR=PRiR C=runoff coefficient(Table 4.3.3.A) 0.63 QT=Total flow for sequential basins(cfs) PR 3.35 3.85 To=Max of Tpipe+Tc prey,6.3,or Tt se=slope of flow path(ft/ft) Tt=U60V iR=unit peak rainfall intensity factor Tc=time of concentration for sequential basins(minutes) , , V=kR(so)°5 , IR=peak rainfall intensity(inches/hour) Ti=time of concentration for individual basin(minutes) kR=values for T,(Table 4.3.3C) V=average velocity across land cover(feet/second) L=flow length(feet) • ,. __ s.. x• ....... f' ,. «s ♦. r._.< .. .. _ ., wn ,'s.,M .+.'T_W,.`,a_. t S:e• .t .s F t _ .. ♦ ., ! 8. 1" E r .... ..... :.:...:r, 't�'�iri �,j. �„? `:'� ,.it:;,. € „ � ,,_ Pi b Calc�iatioris; � culati s. u �� , .. _>,<, �.Basin Cai on � � ,. ,.. >, < ..�.,,,... t.- _<•,.,. I.II1 _ >, w a 4° € • _. _ .,a ,.:-_ 3.- � b;. „��;:_ R?`a i'7 P "Y s {{ , y „ .e. -«. .. .,. ._ .,. . v .,> <.. ,. ,,, <a--♦ ,.,. � _... s Yam; '.`',-% < .. ,. { .. > ..E ,\ <,,.._ ,,a < �, .... •. . . a.r.a .3.a _ m.k<, $ n� =»£ is<:'.e< -jt''-`,.` C;£i;« .P `C. F .' 1,<F-,3±•.,> _x .. •� ,, �. as ♦<... ." .♦., >x. � .< . .,,1 _.•,.... ) .,$, ,} M�y .N, '"`u , .. .. .. <. ,..< ... ..tee ,-, _• .. w.. _ e .. . ,.: ._.& r < _a?+_'a 4i'�;a�`a,.'--...,.?`S:�_a.>,^y,.,. <__,.., _<. d.a•w.<.<�.>"�. . s. ...,. . .<r;�; e '>.'�P�S�,ra r,.< - ._ .t.,. ,> ,. t _, ,♦ .,_ .. ..__. <_vA,, a. , ,,. .> .,,,t= .< ^3�'.�':arr-,..».tt« <. > `�<.., a ,t_ �.�' <_ ._.,_._. .. � . ,? > e ♦ . .. -a ,.. �.. . ...>c..«3v tt.. ,n .,...p, ., s_..sS_::'P. eF^.• -<s, ...__..._,...< n-- .♦ < ';� , � t., lmpenr3ous ,_�.,,��,... ,}t,,,Pervwus. _ _._, „� „ �}< .,,, -., .<.,,... ,�: ,t>. �:; >:. .:.;..3, ,�� <-;�;,",; Basin Cl Al C2 A2 C0 <,,,,rc • kR < .• _ s, V L Tt TO IR IR A OR Or • Lpipe . n D . Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB 15 0.90 0.561 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.0030 1.10 300.70 4.58 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.56 1.591 1.591 150 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.26 2.52 0.99 14 14 0.90 0.328 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.0030 1.10 460.00 7.00 7.29 0.75 2.87 0.33 0.849 2.440 460 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.39 2.83 2.71 _ 3 3 0.90 1.203 0.25 0.763 0.65 20.00 0.0030 1.10 350.00 5.33 10.00 0.61 2.36 1.97 2.999 5.439 405 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.87 3.51 1.92 2 2 0.90 1.529 0.25 1.027 0.64 20.00 0.0030 1.10 535.00 8.14 11.92 0.55 2.11 2.56 3.442 8.881 436.5 0.012 24 0.0030 4.27 13.42 0.66 3.95 1.84 1 1 0.90 1.096 0.25 0.556 0.68 20.00 0.0030 1.10 422.00 6.42 13.77 0.50 1.93 1.65 2.167 11.048 375.8 0.012 24 0.0030 4.27 13.42 0.82 4.19 1.50 WQ Pond WQ1 0.90 0.000 0.25 1.047 0.25 7.00 0.0170 0.91 50.00 0.91 15.26 0.47 1.80 1.05 0.472 11.520 117 0.012 24 0.01 7.80 24.51 0.47 6.57 0.30 Lake WA 1 P C t -Basin Cak:u ations � F -,..,,',:::,:;`,1',.' j - ,, _... ..._. _ • .... ... < .. . to I .. ..> _. R _ S t, • :L, I - 1 I I I I I I '1'';:": :.--'''''''''' I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Sum Area 4.716 3.392 8.109 Total 8.109 Ql= 11.520 cfs �4*« cT t. �',rt� _ rP Calculations 1 1 -t e-2 Basin:Calcu at ons Lt -t. pe g { mpe .., Basin Cl .A1 C2 A2 Ce kR- so V L Tt TO IR IR A OR QT Lpipe ri D Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB 6 0.90 0.843 0.25 0.169 0.79 20.00 0.0020 0.89 149.90 2.79 6.30 0.82 3.15 1.01 2.523 2.523 0 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.50 2.46 0.00 5 5 0.90 0.551 0.25 0.057 0.84 20.00 0.0020 0.89 305.30 5.69 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.61 1.609 4.133 269.2 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.81 2.81 1.59 4 4 0.90 0.295 0.25 0.210 0.63 20.00 0.0020 0.89 269.90 5.03 7.89 0.71 2.73 0.51 0.869 5.002 256 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.98 2.96 1.44 1 QPii4':-, < >. a..... _. > k. . ,_ , «va. .- tv3 :-,z, .. "Y'n�!A�i. .>,rwr; . .. ,.,,_ ..., .,„__„� „. R y._r. ,., .< , ;;;.'-'4 s �., 'a.. P 'a culatiio s=. `'C I„aiera �• �.' � . ... ..... ...r. _ t<,. .... _ _ .. .><.(,,.,.,<,, � :as„< ;a•,`; •:S` wts^s'5. .•C .SS"�` a. nax <.. _ „ P o .'-'4,'.-.;:':''. 1 _ 4 < -.. <. ..._ i. �. .. .. .: . .. `< .>. a s.t ., •'r:'. .fit,. t , < I 1 I 1 I I ,I _j_` j- �. .T I I~ a1.. h. bl3 �I-� _I I �I I I I» I I I I Sum Area 1.689 0.437 2.126 Total 2.126 Qr= 5.002 cfs - I Appendix D otak -- 30209\WaterRes\Rational-SHN_03_22_02 Barbee Mill Line 3&4 Runoff Computations Using Rational Method (Preliminary) Barbee Mill Plat • Reference: 1998 KCSWDM Equations(Section 4.3.3) Definitions R=return period(years) 100 PR=Total precipitation for R-year, 24-hour storm(inches) 3.85 25 yr 100 yr QR=CIRA A=subbasin area(acres) From isopluvial maps(Figures 3.5.1 C to F3.5.1 H) an 2.66 2.61 iR=aRT,-bR aR,bR=coefficient(Table 4.3.3.B) 2.61 QR=Flow for individual basin(cfs) bR 0.65 0.63 IR=PRlR C=runoff coefficient(Table 4.3.3.A) 0.63 QT=Total flow for sequential basins(cfs) PR 3.35 3.85 T,=Max of Tpipe+Tc prey,6.3,or Tt so=slope of flow path(fUft) Tt=U60V IR=unit peak rainfall intensity factor T,=time of concentration for sequential basins(minutes) V=kR(so)os IF,=peak rainfall intensity(inches/hour) T,=time of concentration for individual basin(minutes) kR=values for T,(Table 4.3.3C) V=average velocity across land cover(feet/second) L=flow length(feet) • to _ _.,.....,._ �_ .., .,_„_,. . .. «� ti. ., a..., .,. - .;�--�'?: , < eett Basin/'��.Iculat an < . < <. ... ,. _. _ _„ . =_;,.�r ":.�;-�, i e .r, .<. ,. ,. FY _ _ ,.. VG �'� - is Linea; ,.,;,,i_ P!� < _ - m t a t .i ,i - ,• - _ .<. ,f,.,t r „ a,s. r -_s,c, x x n,.., ~��.• ^� _ _ _ w - f , L,. v .._ < „f`. f `i. _ ry _ z ... _ < .a. .. .r � «n ._ _ x�� y�'i:�sr.m-n,,; :�1- ',l a �:l„i � - L<, 3 Y� :L{ ...c: .. t ..-,., zr .. r. :- .. t y. x _. ., a _. ... .. _ t .,, ... jc;,::,;: pe ,. ,na , _ r.. .. „ .... .. .... .-y:S--mT}'r':' _ • .. ._ , -. _ '{.�"�• si.�,l•'_. , _ v .. �.:1*<• .-.... _,��-�,x.; --- Basin Cl Al C2 A2.. • C, -kR . ,s, V L Tt T. { IR IR A OR QT Lpipe . n D Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB v 9 0.90 0.377 0.25 0.101 0.76 20.00 0.0050 1.41 138.80 1.64 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.48 1.148 1.148 48 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 . 0.14 2.78 0.29 8 8 0.90 1.168 0.25 0.505 0.70 20.00 0.0050 1.41 297.10 3.50 6.59 0.80 3.06 1.67 3.607 4.755 304.2 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.59 4.08 1.24 7 7 0.90 0.950 0.25 0.387 0.71 20.00 0.0050 1.41 310.30 3.66 7.83 0.71 2.75 1.34 2.615 7.370 210.9 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.92 4.59 0.76 4 a ;::Pi Caicutafiiohs"." Later is a ., < , . ....... :.... .. . . .. ..:..<. ...... > ... >� - . > < -,: '.>:,r'"r'.,.x,..s. a�1,,..a.'e'--••:�"..-<^'SS.. `-3 :t a,v.+L. i ::.�:^ ,,.^e.:,.a• ':: 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I- I T I f, I :. Sum Area 2.494 0.993 3.487 Total 3.487 Ot= 7.370 cfs U ne4. 4- ,. .r.• 3ve, ., < :',1,;!';‘'. 1 s ;t,. .P.. ...,n >.. ..rc waaBasin.0 alcua nC. ., ... - . _ .<.4` .d<' . " :i i p' - tip PiIze.i C atula# s=':{,',f ' gt. .mly rvous. t . _. _ ° ernou n N 1,xe" ,• ,. _ '_z . :. ">, ,' ,.' Basin Cl Al C2 A2 C. kR , so V L Tt T. In in A OR QT Lpipe n D Spipe . Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB 13 0.90 0.148 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.1690 8.22 106.79 0.22 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.15 0.419 0.419 106.79 0.012 18 0.1690 26.47 46.78 0.01 7.64 0.23 12 12 0.90 0.990 0.25 0.142 0.82 20.00 0.0050 1.41 382.90 4.51 6.53 0.80 3.08 1.13 2.855 2.855 546.7 0.012 18 0.0050 ' 4.55 8.05 0.35 3.56 2.56 11 11 0.90 0.358 0.25 0.056 0.81 20.00 0.0050 1.41 216.70 2.55 9.10 0.65 2.50 0.41 0.841 3.697 158.9 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.46 3.81 0.69 10 10 0.90 0.442 0.25 0.052 0.83 20.00 0.0050 1.41 192.30 2.27 ! 9.79 0.62 2.39 0.49 0.982 4.678 133.2 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.58 4.06 0.55 WQ2 r. �p :,-- �. .:P Ca cu at ans t s as Calcu ns. - ;'�'"�La eras 8 in iaho t�. ._Iry «F t _ P ,. a.. , r, > .s, .. xr... .. ..:,.t.x.; iG `..t• m.�ir..:_ tC�+,. a+��.•�;'• ._.-. . .. . pia,. ,. s , .. ,� ..... ...,_ .._ _ .- ... < .. ,t.-. _%'�.' .,, ... `i�,J:,,tt . .. , ,_ .,... .. < _.. .a.,x< . .. .. -s ,. fz x. ... _ .., ::f" .. _.x:�l'S...' > T.�� -a ..r, ..< f. .,. " _. :.. ,,....,n s y5.,.:„:.i.,F ... « ,sx •.:v';n '.t:. �•.,t. e ":a..,,. .. ;�..a, `-;._ =...M-. x L � ,_y^. -°.nt" I I 1 I . nI I I I I I I h_- . l I I _I I J I I I 'I,,••, : . x ,�: xM,''^ I, _ d..e,;:1 Sum Area 1.791 0.250 2.041 1 Total 2.041 Qt= 4.678 cfs Appendix D 30209\WaterRes\Rational-SHN_03_22_02 otak Barbee Mill Backwater BACKWATER CALCULATIONS (Preliminary) Barbee Mill Plat Submerged Critical Velocity Specific Head- Head- Total Inlet Outlet Pipe Full Full Depth Barrel Tail- Friction Entrance inlet depth at Head @ Entrance Exit Water Water Approach Bend Junction Head- Inlet Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Manning Barrel Pipe Pipe Design of flow Barrel Velocity Water Head Hydraulic Threshold of flow Critical Critical Head Head Outlet Inlet Velocity Head Head Water Rim Rim PIPE SEGMENT Elev. Elev. Length Slope Diam. Coeff. Area Capacity Velocity Flow in pipe Velocity Head Elev. Loss Grade line Equation in pipe depth depth Loss Loss Control Control Head Loss Loss Elev. Elev. minus From To L S D n A QF VF ad dd Vd Hv TW HL HGLE 'Qd/AD°.5 2d, Vc HC 3HE Hx HWo °HWI 5HA 5HB 'Hj HW (Rim) HW Elev. CB CB (FT) (FT) (FT) (%) (FT) (SF) (CFS) (FPS) (CFS) (FT) (FPS) (FT) (Fr) (Ff) , (Fr) (FT) (CFS) (FT) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (FT) (Fr) (Fr) (FT) (Fr) Line 1 1 WQ1 20.10 20.00 50 0.20 2.0 0.012 3.14 11 3.50 11.0 2.00 3.52 0.19 21.50 0.10 _4 21.60 2.49 1.17 6.15 1.76 0.10 0.19 21.88 _ 21.98 0.10 0.01 0.02 21.90 23.00 1.10 2 1 20.50 20.10 376 0.11 2.0 0.012 3.14 8 2.55 8.9 2.00 2.83 0.10 21.90 0.40 22.30 2.00 1.05 5.82 1.58 0.05 0.10 22.45 22.16 0.44 0.60 0.12 22.72 24.00 1.28 3 2 23.50 20.50 437 0.69 1.5 0.012 1.77 9 5.35 5.4 0.91 4.76 0.35 22.72 2.37 25.09 2.51 0.89 5.34 1.33 0.18 0.35 25.62 24.92 0.51 0.03 0.18 25.32 26.50 1.18 14 3 26.50 23.50 301 1.00 ' 1.5 0.012 1.77 11 6.45 2.44 0.53 4.39 0.30 25.32 1.39 _ 26.70 1.13 0.59 4.37 0.89 0.15 0.30 27.15 27.40 0.10 0.03 0.05 27.39 29.50 2.11 15 14 28.00 26.50 460 0.33 _ 1.5 0.012 1.77 7 3.69 1.59 0.57 2.60 0.11 27.39 0.74 28.13 0.74 0.48 3.93 0.72 0.05 0.11 28.29 28.72 0.12 0.01 0.07 28.67 31.00 2.33 29.00 1.5 4.00 Line 2 , 4 1 20.53 20.10 215 0.20 2.0 0.012 3.14 11 3.50 5.0 1.04 2.92 0.13 21.50 0.30 21.80 1.13 0.79 5.04 1.18 0.07 0.13 22.00 21.74 0.12 0.15 0.02 22.05 23.50 1.45 5 4 21.00 20.53 270 0.17 2.0 0.012 3.14 10 3.26 4.1 0.97 2.63 0.11 22.05 0.30 22.36 _ 0.92 0.72 4.80 1.07 0.05 0.11 22.52 22.09 0.16 0.01 0.05 22.41 - 24.50 2.09 6 5 22.00 21.00_ 256 0.39 1.5 0.012 1.77 7 4.04 2.5 0.68 3.14 0.15 -22.41 0.60 23.01 1.16 0.60 4.40 0.90 0.08 0.15 23.24 22.92 0.12 0.01 0.06 23.20 25.00 1.80 23.00 1.5 3.50 _ .Line 3 7 4 21.00 20.53 63 0.75 1.5 0.012 1.77 10 5.58 7.4 1.09 5.33 0.44 22.05 0.43 22.48 3.41 1.03 5.76 1.55 0.22 0.44 23.14 22.71 0.21 0.01 0.05 23.00 - 24.00 1.00 8 7 21.50 21.00 211 0.24 2.0 0.012 3.14 12 3.81 4.8 0.96 3.07 0.15 23.00 0.32 23.32 1.07 0.77 4.98 1.15 0.07 0.15 23.54 22.67 0.20 0.01 0.09 23.44 25.00 1.56 9 8 22.50 21.50 304 0.33 2.0 0.012 3.14 14 4.48 1.1 0.53 2.35 0.09 23.44 0.27 23.72 0.26 0.38 3.49 0.57 0.04 0.09 23.84 23.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 23.82 26.00 2.18 23.00 2.0 4.00 Line 4 10 WQ2 19.67 19.00 133 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 4.7 0.91 4.07 0.26 20.50 0.53 21.03 2.16 0.82 5.14 1.23 0.13 0.26 21.41 20.96 0.26 0.01 0.04 21.21 23.00 1.79 11 10 20.46 19.67 159 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 3.7 0.79 3.82 0.23 21.21 0.55 21.77 1.71 0.73 4.85 1.09 0.11 0.23 22.11 21.59 0.33 0.45 0.06 22.28 28.00 5.72 12 11 23.20 20.46 547 0.50 _ 2.0 0.012 3.14 17 5.53 2.9 0.64 3.51 0.19 22.28 1.10 23.37 0.64 0.60 4.38 0.90 0.10 0.19 23.66 24.09 0.13 0.17 0.06 24.20 , 29.00 4.80 13 11 23.73 23.20 107 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 0.4 0.37 2.12 0.07 24.20 0.11 24.32 0.19 0.25 2.81 0.37 0.03 0.07 24.42 24.09 0.07 0.09 0.04 24.48 35.00 10.52 24 _ 1.5 4.50 Note: I 1)OF/AD"<3.5 =>unsubmerged inlet contol condition. 2) Determined from trial and error method of solution to Q2b=gA3,or from DOE drainage manual(Pg.III-2-39,Figure III-2-19), An approximate solution is calculated for circular pipes by D„=0.420(Qd)o.s/D025) 3) Entrance loss coefficient is from DOE drainage manual(Table III-2.3,pg III-2-21), Ke=0.5 4) Constants for inlet control eqns from FHWA charts. See DOE drainage manual(Table III-2.6,pg.III-2-31). Using FHWA Chart 1,Monograph Scale 1: K M c Y 0.0098 2.0 0.0398 0.67 5)Set the upstream approach velocity head'to zero,if the upstream pipe is significantly higher or lower,than the entrance to this pipe 6) Bend Head loss coefficient is from DOE manual(Figure III-2-5,pg.III-2-12). This coeff is structure specific,vary Kb at each structure. If you assume pipes are not installed exactly linear in alignment,upto 10 degrees of deflection Kb= 0.05 7)Junction headloss coefficient is from DOE manual,Kj=(Q3/Q1)/(1.18+0.63(Q3/Q1)) i . Appendix D Project: Barbee Mill Plat otak Otak No.: 30209 r By. SHN Ex,srf^A ('viv,,ITi chi s MA'/ I'! 2003 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.25 0 24 0 07 d Legend 24 00 .07 Legend 22 16 WS 100- Future Mi 6 3 WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996 IWS 1990 Flood I WS 1990 Flood • Ground Ground 20 o 'a" 20 ,„�. c Levee c Levee o -_, A Bank Sta Ineff w 18 m 7� • w 18 t,' Bank Sta I . kr 16 f 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.15 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.1 It 07 )1 . •It .07 24 2 Legend 24 2 Legend 6 6 • - - WS 100-yr Future Mi - - WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood Ground i! Ground 20 i 20 0 Levee Levee • m Ineff Bank Sta 8 • m i 18 Bank Sta W 18 -, t�FswQ f�:� 16 1 16 Y 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) 6— EX15T mi[X COM)i" c;y•tS MAY 1144za River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 1 . 07 .It .07 24 26 .07 �� 026— — —.07 � 2 Legend 6 Legend • WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS FEMA 1996 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 1990 Flood 20 WS FEMA 1996 ■ 22 ol Ground :I: Ground C• o Le ee o "t 4 m �3 GrounBank-S a 20 .11 y Bank Sta• .; F. ry ,; w03 IIIiii w VRAZtIlitt- 18 14 -- 16 ` 10 14 8 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station(ft) Station(ft) ' fillim vi1R-4,1(4'.41i! , s I 0..lrild.411:"I q'ir,Vtia' Unqitsi, kP.;44.,r,s4;.fi ,,gal ,- P''''':::'"2:-;:l. --:"::::::, '-•.:A,‘ frn,",,,-,...7,',:.4-6...1J' ,01,-'iv A pz.'-;f:' -•„q Pf4rViOg-34-tkr 5-:`.!-. 1'l'gue.-"'NZt t'4;`,:: ;'''''P le 71b ,';',..7 :•),.:31.1943sDin -:'di le .,::,,,,fa 1,4-Ad.:,,,!:pii lib k;;0,' Pais 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.0 7.0 7.3 151.2 42.2 0 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.5 28.9 I I - 10 1,059 21.4 28.0 6.6 8.0 135.4 36.6 - 10 870 21.4 27.7 6.4 7.0 127.1 35.1 9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1 1 . 9 1,059 20.3 27.7 7.4 5.9 199.6 81.3 9 870 20.3 27.5 7.2 5.0 186.5 72.7 I ' 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.4 77.1 8 1,059 20.0 26.5 6.4 5.4 257.4 110.7 _ ' '' 8 870 20.0 27.3 7.3 2.7 652.4 489.4 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.2 36.7 _ 7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 744.5 558.3 _ 7 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1,262.8 600.0 . _ . 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.6 35.3 I; 6.9 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 726.1 557.9 6.9 , 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1,262.8 600.0 _. 6.8 Bridge _ _ _ 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.6 42.1 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 616.6 589.7 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.4 5.8 171.6 58.1 -' 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.6 42.2 1 _ 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.8 647.5 589.7 6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.2 202.5 58.6 _ . .._ . 6 598 , 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9 _ 6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9 7.2 173.2 54.7 6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 54.4 ! , 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 143.7 48.6 . 5 1,059 17.5 24.2 6.7 3.5 876.4 1,471.1 7 I , 5 870 17.5 23.5 , 5.9 5.3 188.8 52.0 1 . 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.9 130.4 49.4 _ 297.5 560.6 4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8.0 4.4 _ 870 15.3 22.8 7.5 0 6.5 179.0 53.8 4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 6.4 116.1 48.5 f , < , t E d s ' fS r r; e,r J ti F . ki F ( 1 'i 7i 'f;tli�7xi F�'�Y' �i ,r JaF�W y (`�.'tYQ' ,h t rE{� /.1 t�-',0, :4 k-. �' F49 yiNF'� %?(2A U�r D 8 9 a! > r. S ..-.Ji ,};i_.a:F {i;r icy S7 a h.�..=... t,.k Y FS. .i ; �r_qq{.� ��j,may- �'}�+ (� ..s r i p �„� �) 'L41� f.�',S�l:1.���1�'lrl3-l��w.��i._. ,,'flr-e�"� � t n - .7I.� ..c_.�.I a, � �+ �� tk 5 S'..rj �Fx;.r yr 1,a-. A "n1, +r 3 St-tyl ,�fl�7 3 7 f4,f Jt#1 t, , Jrr.,t a4'...n+r :��-snt{? 1"t r 9'f7 -.'f F� tfi j+P� r i i w ,i ! o o gI S:? 1 tGr rl 7,,.r`=.".;�y .��1 '7��,'�,-'7'7��}%'�tN..c��t`a,�r�+;�i'i.....�k SN�� :..! xti yz p{r,iPt +�' ;5.��.�4�S � ?jl�r�'irt,�,r; ,. 1�, �a3� t.Yt ,.r.,. �C a t. �'t q r! ,; a`S L�°l,Afra,r a7 v-'h-^/`:` °j' ° i°El r. _ . `yr`)' n F' �5 C 3rt , o m y it (ff ! ., � n �, ) i an l � f �nl„ h1dna 'J >rK7'� "nn' 1 wppd�A?it ln��ks{.;��`�rr 31 "t ((�� '-�SrJ fl�,�Fr.u�i 6"d'tt,Fix trt4,7 a, e'V51t.� �..��. E 1%1 � r �ti' al{.(� } 1$ r�-kr p. � � J t �,., is i41 �i r,il!.i t t)glow d F e a 6! ? Y t Y.. i ,/ y t l�LCr>-fn. s x /(J1 ) 1. 7 � Li i, �-nn{' ar r3��>< .l: sv..,�� l��:e�.t S�. li=..-(�,.,Y� clot"'=€_ .ta9�,.a��aa�,..t.�11�.�rNrryr I i,1 .ftiihc���rr ��tS 3 Y�;^41�,- 1 4ze�,i..?r3.l4��-"rG_��,,...� iaz��" .l ili I! 4.35 1,059 15.3 23.1 7.8 7.5 174.5 560.6 4.35 870 15.3 22.5 7.2 7.2 150.8 52.5 4.3 Brid•e -----. 4.25 598 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.2 108.2 45.1 4.25 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.4 165.4 53.4 4.25 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 7.1 141.6 48.1 4.2 598 __ 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.0 116.8 45.0 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.1 185.0 53.3 4.2 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 6.8 155.7 48.1 1 4 598 17.5 21.1 3.6 6:0 101.1 38.4 4 1,059 17.5 22.6 5.1 6.9 167.1 52.5 4 870 17.5 21.9 4.5 6.8 135.1 43.7 r 3 598 16.3 19.9 3.7 7.7 79.3 34.7 3 1,059 16.3 22.2 5.9 7.1 187.0 55.3 3 870 16.3 21.3 5.0 r 7.4 139.5 51.7 2.3 598 14.9 19.9 5.1 6.7 101.7 28.6 [ -` 2.3 1,059 14.9 21.8 6.9 8.2 157.7 32.7 2.3 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 136.2 31.2 2.25 598 14.9 19.9 5.0 6.8 100.9 28.6 2.25 1,059 14.9 21.7 6.9 8.2 156.2 32.6 2.25 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 135.9 31.2 1' 2.2 Mult O•en ---- - 2.15 598 15.5 19.2 3.7 8.3 80.1 30.0 2.15 1,059 15.5 20.5 5.0 9.9 121.6 32.3 2.15 870 . 15.5 20.0 4.5 9.3 105.3 31.4 2.1 598 15.5 18.8 3.4 9.2 71.1 29.5 2.1 1,059 15.5 20.1 4.6 11.1 107.9 31.5 -I 2.1 870 - 15.5 19.6 4.1 10.4 93.3 30.7 2 598 16.0 18.7 2.7 7.7 77.7 42.2 2 1,059 16.0 19.6 3.6 9.2 115.4 44.1 2 870 16.0 19.3 3.3 8.6 100.9 43.4 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 r 1 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 L 1 --/TATT,TA 77--liriF,m,:p:piiyik-06)--mv, w.„..17,,,,,,;( I , b'tfTt'o7jit°.f'at-391WjAWPWait "Willt11 Ii:O -01111f0 - 41.2:1ai'Iii.;-41 'ilEff,01ZE, ,,,,,..r,,V.,T4f.4.1.',.;`,1'Z''--71 e'rr,"r-V',Z,r.47:Ft•.75.4VirklVe(1,11741;,,,,W±,z,T,,,i P"77-Aitnielti-A;"f.r4F,'"'114.:4,,IP3i.fril7441,:ctIrlifg1777,1,r(115, R4.Rerr-NvZ7A;C,iv4'11!t2:,,b41, 11 ,,,IgiirtIJI`16: PY:i;Fi'Y.':`,".f:,,:,111 ,ArAW:VtilDri-,,Pf;b,:11,1Z,',11A.41:19,,!,V;Y,-;142, 417410ra1:4""q61P 1-115 -Virdig'T1 Wit eVt-'1110 ,-- .,. 4:5;Wiagiv, TT.17,wp,3-4-; , ,, A = ,141 wiiaMOYA' !g`igl 'qz ifoRtiAtio'il lettl ti)•,,,-q,ii,'w ,mo,v ont:1 ,,,11‘m t.fr It i,,,,:oks! 11,:„g', VN:110,':74 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 11 ' 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.2 43.0 I 11 MI FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 1 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 -94.5 • 10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.8 7.7 142.9 38.8 10 870 21.4 27.8 6.4 7.0 127.2 35.2 9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.3 31.1 9 S . 20.3 28.0 7.7 5.5 228.2 114.6 9 870 20.3 27.5 7.3 5.0 188.5 74.1 I ' 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.5 77.1 • 8 1,059 20.0 26.5 6.4 6.3 258.6 482.0 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 2.5 685.0 490.5 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.3 36.7 7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.1 3.7 754.4 558.5 7 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3 6.9 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 736.5 558.1 6.9 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 i 6.8 Bridge 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 6.75 1,059 • 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.0 638.5 589.7 , - 6.75 870 . 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 175.7 59.7 - 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 I l' 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 589.7 6.7 870 18.4 25.0 6.5 • 5.1 207.3 .5 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 6 1,059 18.4 24.4 6.0 7.0 178.1 55.0 6 870 18.4 24.4 6.0 5.8 178.2 55.0 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 5 1,059 17.5 24.1 6.6 4.2 687.0 1470.9 • 5 870 17.5 23.9 6.3 • 4.6 358.6 1470.5 I 4.4 598 • 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 3.6 754.9 561.1 4.4 870 15.3 23.8 8.5 3.4 674.9 561.0 4.35 • 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 r gr '`,rzt r-i-no �i { n` r. y v14 Cs (+fit '_y*�-'�.-,7i�3,�'�. �S :4,. ip wa; 3i."^µ° `�st '��r t e a' z y L: '�71 �7a �.�� ��'A.�...I�AuS 1 . 3a� :r an a.�t r r €S 1 x � S lr �, Sr< r"- }1'(�,��^( ^z. ,j�y��?, '1'f '� ¢(tr^ _.,�.�Yf,1'r -ate f,.{� ;��r�, L ,�r...1 � r fp )p X �i p.:_:QX��A�J n x{- Q 2-J,M1 6:t.�9 ,41 C "t0 A !_.;,Mpl1"T--' g�.T - it"M` {;•Nr.,tils. fpv f Zl.�,h:: ,LL, ,u �Y 5 - ,- � a 65r N " 4i S a { r :.'!:T {A 11,#1 a- i 2 yE � IW0'�' yi AAe ; j00 < 1 11 � , s 1vj) • f w " 1 � r �" X 1 , p 17�t�j�'�r�.,�L<sp�x� �St � z e3i� ol iF�,31l,e S'91> �.L�'>"o�.^.�y IV ry a 1 f S.- x ,n F f,t ,�-fr' r-�)� -�Y e g rY V r,. 4.35 1,059 15.3 23.9 8.6 3.7 742.8 561.1 4' 4.35 870 15.3 23.8 8.5 3.4 664.1 561.0 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 4.25 1,059.. 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.1 624.7 555.6 4.25 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.8 550.9 555.5 ': 4.2 598 16.7 L-21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.2 611.3 555.6 4.2 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.9 534.2 555.5 4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 !' 4 1,059 17.5 23.4 5.9 5.8 220.3 127.1 ' 4 870 17.5 23.5 6.0 4.4 364.2 1286.3 3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 • 3 1,059 16.3 23.2 6.9 5.7 245.4 61.5 3 870 16.3 23.3 7.0 4.5 254.6 63.7 2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8 2.3 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.5 156.5 35.7 I 2.3 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 176.1 45.9 l 0.0 2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 1 2.25 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 154.5 35.7 2.25 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 175.7 45.6 2.2 Mult O•en ---- 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 2.15 1,059 15.9. 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 p i 2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 ,' I 2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 73.0 30.3 2.1 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.2 110.4 32.4 2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6 2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.3 44.0 ' 2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 - 8.7 100.5 . 43.1 1 . 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 - 495.5 176.7 I 4 1 . f 1 TiffMtVVW,R6A-SIWIY=1141/Wgr_rfaMIlkatrtAlian'A kLIPNNiVn.tNIN,illIfettg'611 F;IftfiLt)-5;r°,t'-°-°1 °AO) !,(42-0,9_491:93,0t4itanNtam2rig.wz.1„ka:sallipA„...wm_,,,Lijil qt,,:.,._. -,w--;;Folotoiomt7,1,-,m--;--t5w5e,gse,1:140$ka.-1:0V.,741,..mcio tvic,,z;:0,:,w,,'..4m,,e,31,14;,P-RT:e 1354:40.P.Et ,ittt,lg. •;:,'1,,Yit ,L2 1,6'141U):'4-,'": I :;‘tin-Vatt$101!11M1011TriM:FIV,10-+%ItA kV 1 itt Q' 'ffRI4i1ZA,ik". 4etV 1943P:0%11 q'4 k ,,G qftic.iirt9.3,,w -a vim . i ALV.X;115-417VRIzi,VNV;11VVAKQggntaif'WA-:;' 04.11.P:MtiViefatailailMMIDai 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 11 1,059 100- r Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.1 155.6 43.9 , i 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.7 6.5 137.2 36.8 H 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.5 28.9 1 , 10 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3 151.1 42.1 10 870 21.4 28.0 6.6 6.6 136.1 36.7 9 598 20.3 26.5 ' 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1 9 1,059 20.3 28.3 8.0 5.0 246.9 83.2 9 870 20.3 27.8 7.6 4.6 212.8 82.8 , • + ,' - 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.1 76.9 8 1,059 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 370.3 103.0 8 870 20.0 27.5 7.4 3.2 334.3 93.9 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.0 36.6 7 1,059 18.3 27.5 9.1 5.0 362.0 126.9 7 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 4.6 318.3 126.9 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 ' 132.7 35.3 6.9 1,059 18.3 27.4 9.1 5.1 354.0 126.9 6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.7 4.7 312.4 126.9 6.8 Bridge 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 , - 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 6.1 219.5 84.1 , . ! - 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.8 177.2 78.5 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 , q 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 5.4 256.8 84.2 6.7 870 18.4. 24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8 80.3 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 6 . 1,059 18.4 25.0 6.6 5.8 236.9 106.8 6 870 18.4 24.3 5.9 5.9 174.2 54.8 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 5 1,059 17.5 24.5 7.0 4.9 276.4 98.2 5 870 17.5 23.6 6.1 5.1 198.2 ,53.5 1 . 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 4.4 1,059 15.3 24.2 8.8 5.6 272.1 71.0 ,I 4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.7 6.6 188.0 70.3 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 1 , R_ 1�., )_,r y f"` S r•1 a l i 4v�^�`yin 1 kh, '} CG 1� c [�' isi�'�� "s.G jM��.1 i r�.v zcE n ,. 1f' j I oliS�yvft,,..' ac` r r I}r� „ :?_�'N r, i, I 79 �,.J{ItU� '� r..df�`�71.(�I'aU�f [ t t.f' �, �� - .I� �,,y-o-T t,� (L. �.gi ,y' v 7 y9��, {.'S'7'¢�' '.}4 r `�' -is T ;"• v 1`�i.il.°- °I ° ,:�.IlS1.I:.�(l� f ° ° °� t4,,,5!'lA.°l3ti +�iJ�kk°t i4M � :r•n_..�� tk :', e]1�71 ifg)Ll7n'.�.°lA. .I,,;.f!�..i.,, S ° o �Y 1 L c , c a y,, T , +t7� r rtt�.JuY 1'��ryt'.{fis; }'.!.j:":r' �,.(} I�' Y,i-:{P f S};JJ}i'il?r t`F tlyv"� .§I 1.15 ;14 e:t'.v.,sf �.�,d 'r4 tl.rr�' ,y/��7r•�rdy���} f rl.�yf"a7J rl y�ic i'i:l/�y,°u.� WINy. , lin,lii�f.rl iv ,to I) l �+�r••_,_S 7f;;R,rYd, .f ,m" 3�,,Jt1.lr7d�f:l t Y v7�`4iri'l�J1 1 :r iIM,.`!•'Jt' ...{'R.mL� J r � �i 'jai '.`�.:� , .)uyaS.Yus.i'a �t �:W. �% L...larc L;<..r� t�»�� 4.35_ 1,059 15.3 24.1 8.8 5.6 269.3 71.0 4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.1 58.6 , 0.0 --- g 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 4.25 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.4 269.5 79.7 4.25 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.1 52.4 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 1 4.2 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.5 267.2 79.7 4.2 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8 0.0 --- . 4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 4 1,059 17.5 23.9 6.5 4.8 273.2 93.5 , 4 870 17.5 22.6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2 3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 , 3 1,059 16.3 23.8 7.5 5.1 284.4 70.3 3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 5.5 202.7 56.5 2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8 2.3 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 7.7 188.7 80.0 2.3 870 15.9 .. 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 32.7 2.25 598 15.9 20.7 '4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 2.25 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 , 7.7 185.7 79.6 2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7 2.2 Mult O•en --- - 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1. 109.0 32.4 1 2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 . 9.2 72.8 30.3 , 2.1 ' 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.1 110.4 32.4 2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 . 31.6 2 598 16.7 18.9 . 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 ' 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 . 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 ", , , i i , vitto, - P.7 T 92,19,VW' .L'IrSifite40',11,11P:;12.*P 335"fr,.!;,31U'i. ::t,,N;;gr4:4W.:1411k.'4A 1::,';LY,14'-'31'1-7, I ' lial.2414P-i `11.'GiAlajt-i),!ii.tdrattlf tiValitall 4016S1A. iNot.t: _if, kiklifi,k0 4*.i, 6-:2414,43 00-:'1/2,:i11.;!rk;$,iie,PV: fittgi•g1,414V0-0 !.M.Aittkilt ,4011-4%.1-1if, gtet:itri ',V,'1, ',ty0 1 1811-116-1. ',li, WSM);`4 9 z,:311,, Afcth e %.iiii;;Joi,071., Tlt-o`Itt.V.iiik.i' ,113 waiNgi w, z,.-.f,-IA._,,y 7.10174':$1,„,lid iy‘,,tor p 0,11.,A p,1440.0t74 V 411 i'V ?!1250 Iiiri!t'l'r::''''Iii!,R 6S2,'g.4 0,$!. POO 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 • ' ', 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.7 43.2 1 j 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.6 6.6 135.8 36.6 I c 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.4 28.9 1 11 10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.9 7.6 144.5 39.5 . 10 870 21.4 27.9 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 + •1 1 9 598 20.3` 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.1 31.1 9 1,059 20.3 28.0 7.8 5.4 235.1 114.6 9 870 20.3 27.8 7.5 4.8 205.2 89.6 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 175.8 76.8 8 1,059 20.0 27.6 7.6 3.6 412.6 146.0 1 i. 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 3.2 382.4 142.6 JJ 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 135.7 36.5 7 1,059 18.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 440.9 176.9 7 870 18.3 27.2 8.8 3.9 414.4 176.9. 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.4 35.2 6.9 1,059 18.3 27.3 8.9 4.5 433.6 176.9 6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 4.0 409.0 176.9 6.8 Bridge , .. 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.5 42.0 , 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.8 261.7 134.1 1 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 107.3 128.1' 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 JI 6.7 1,059 18.4 . 25.4 7.0 5.2 298.8 134.1 6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.0 229.7 129.7 ' I 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 6 1,059 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.9 243.4 156.5 6 870 18.4 24.3 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6 _, 1 1 J _ 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 5 1,059 17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291.6 . 148.0 5 870 17.5 23.6 6.0 5.1 . 194.7 52.4 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 .6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 4.4 1,059. 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.6 315.7 121.0 , I 4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 187.4 60.5 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 ! 111 w. J _ , 1 1 . , • fAIMIK:',,MOROMIMMI-2104-folAVOWiliMVAMAg3 0;',AiziWARn174,40kAlsi-V Ipv.lve,,ApAll `1 4iqTArairdM:14-trigNATriglirEMV-WaroMilialrWIWW.'fad;X:Trf,-aiirmv.lf,,,: agtiLKOVV44 Aff;'?,,?iff:',V-49 Ff-,YMVOI*M R\RIR, irii,VAPV fa,M1M"'ttiK,Atrirg0.0 , A:(44110Atillate,110,41t0- :',A,[0.-_--ailktVld Ith ii.iti Ph*?if:A!'[11101,5, OTS, , 1 OZZ,;;,gil kg alms swaptraiittviagol oikliD)ribit LiCISIGLAT,EntileVsilkOnfiak a kiiimatzt 4.35 1,059 . 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.7 310.0 120.9 4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.5 59.0 0.0 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.3 5.5 299.5 129.5 ' 1 4.25 870 • 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.2 52.4 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 5.5 294.7 129.5 4.2 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8 4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 1)1 4 1,059 17.5 23.8 6.3 5.0 277.4 143.0 4 870 17.5 22.6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2• 3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 3 1,059 16.3 23.6 7.3 • 5.3 270.2 67.2 3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 • 5.5 202.7 56.5 )1 I 1 •2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8 2.3 1,059 15.9 22.9 • 7.0 7.8 176.0 45.8 2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 32.7 2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 ) 2.25 1,059 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.9 174.7 45.1 2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7 2.2 Mult 0.en 1 t, 1 2.15 598 • 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 I 1 2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 1 2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.9 30.3 2.1 1,059 15.9 20.6 4.7 11.2 110.4 32.4 I 1 2.1 870 • 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.5 31.6 2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 . 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 1 870 14.7 • 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 1 1 - i ATTACHMENT B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A • Grain Size • (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 Percent . 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %Finner 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 - 90 80 70 ; i 60 • P. 50 `. c. 40 . 30 . zy 30 20 `. ly � it 7 10 ; 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 . ■ i --■ --■ 90 80 ; • 70 ; — - ;60 ' a 40 30 20 10 ` 0 ` ■ 10000 1000 100 10 1 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Sample MC-2 Sample Date: 4125/03 Volume Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent (mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer may Creek Sample MC- 2 1.7 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.85 21.49 0.9 0.9 99.1 0.425 429.36 18.2 19.1 80.9 0.3 826.64 35.1 54.2 45.8 0.21 685.49 29.1 83.3 16.7 0.106 345.51 14.7 97.9 2.1 0.063 29.24 1.2 99.2 0.8 Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 100.0 0.0 sum 2357.32 Pan May Creek Sample MC-2 40 35.1 35 30 • .. • 29.1 r7-7 -111111111111111111111.1 t 25 ' • - ' 2'2 20 11.111.111,1 w EMI 11111111.1111-'7, . ! •:1 14.7 ra- 15 • • - , • 10 11. =MI 5 11111.11111,, • • 0.0 I.9 , 1 • . 0.8 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.3 0.21 0.106 0.063 Pan Grain Size(mm) May Creek Sample MC-2 100 90 80 • 70 60 E 5 0 • 40 a. 30 20 10 0 1 0.1 Pan Grain Size(mm) I ' 1 1 j May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B Sample Date: 9/27/01 Volume Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent (mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer May Creek Subpaveme 75 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 50 900 40.9 40.9 59.1 25 640 29.1 70.0 30.0 12.5 270 12.3 82.3 17.7 9.5 80 3.6 85.9 14.1 6.3 55 2.5 88.4 11.6 3.35 50 2.3 90.7 9.3 1.7 55 2.5 93.2 6.8 , ! 0.85 20 0.9 94.1 5.9 0.425 25 1.1 95.2 4.8 0.075 95 4.3 99.5 0.5 1 Wash 0.01 10 0.5 100.0 0.0 sum 2200 May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B 45 ,s 40 __ 35 , , •!; =I; 29.1 30 a)25 c. I., -,•: i ((, t 20 1 a15 i 10 El' ; 15 II 36 43 0 a.,-_ Mac 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash Grain Size(mm) i May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B 100 - 90 j 80 m 70 it 60 - d 50 V 40 ea. 30 i 20 • 10 0 ...* 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size(mm) f 1 May Creek Subpavement MC-3 Sample Date:5/25/03 Grain Size Volume Cumm.% Percent (mm) Retained(ml) Percent Retained Finer May creek Subpavement MC-3 i 75 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5 25 1060 33.9 37.4 62.6 12.5 610 19.5 56.9 43.1 9.5 120 3.8 60.7 39.3 6.3 130 4.2 64.9 35.1 3.35 220 7.0 71.9 28.1 1.7 160 5.1 77.0 23.0 0.85 200 6.4 83.4 16.6 0.425 300 9.6 93.0 7.0 0.075 205 6.5 99.5 0.5 Wash 0.01 15 0.5 100.0 0.0 sum 3130 ii May Creek Subpavement MC-3 40 35 33.9 30 ,~ 1 .. 25 �, a 20 19.5 n. 15 ='. ----11111111111111111111111 `I 10 a 9.6 3.8 4.2 r 5 1 5 - II { 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash Grain Size(mm) May Creek Subpavement MC-3 100 ♦ - 80 - a 70 = 60 c 50 - 40 a 30 20 - - 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 Grain Size (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumm% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40 80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %Finner 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 100 90 80 70 `. d 60 `. u 50 a 40 27 30 20 . 7 10 : i . :: ... F : 0 I i I I I 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 Grain Size(mm) May Creek•Surface Substrate MC-4 100 - ■ ur-= -o 90 80 '. 70 • ,60 u _u'40 • 30 20 __ 10 10 = 10000 1000 100 10 1 Grain Size(mm) • • • i 7 1 ATTACHMENT C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness Orginal w/Floodplain Bench likely mitigation Range Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 n1 Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005 n 2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005 n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004 cross sectional area n3 Minor obstructions generally occupy less than 15 percent of the 0.005 0.015 cross sectional area n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.01 m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1 1 1 1 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059 0.037 0.07 k t e`Anal, ..V -g -- % �Ualue�a;IsieLl�ll�l '[�`��-yam.�{/S,rs�fo�r�t�e�C_h�nn� �'""� ��.��"�` .�_�.,r�` = ��� � c fix• ,�,... i? _ r .,� :ti- �� "�:.'uTig•5��..��..,-3 -e '� !���,.�e'C. OIG�"-?�'��fi ~�v. �`� Zj't- • City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment C March 2004 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness Orginal w/Floodplain Bench likely mitigation Range Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm • 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 n1 Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many 0.001 0.005 locations ni Moderate has more rises and dips than minor-some hummocks or 0.006 0.010 sloughs may occur • n2 na n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the - 0 0.004 floodplain " n3 Minor Obstructions occupy more than 15 percent of the 0.005 0.019 floodplain n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with 0.001 0.01 minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel n4 large 8 to 10 yr old willow or cottonwood with some weeds and 0.025 0.050 brush m na • 1 . 1 1 1 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054 0.064 0.114 1%reitardinthaFAM Ialiti a 1a`a la ri` ` e°; ,- r' : it - : , - 7 • City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06) Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment C March 2004 ATTACHMENT D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation ATTACHMENT D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation Attachment D is a summary of the modeling results prepared b e .• on February 13, 2004. Under Plan 29, which is their proposed conditions model for the 10t +od, the bridge proposed at cross section 4.01 would cause backwater that would result in the s u =- overtopping the right bank at cross sections 4.325, 4.555, 4.775, and 5. Therefore, additional mitigation such as fill or a levee would be required to protect the proposed development from flooding. In addition, the proposed bridge does not have 3 feet of vertical clearance between the low cord and the water surface elevation of the 100-yr flood as required under Renton Code. City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report Attachment D March 2004 Memorandum 9a To: Jenna Friebel, Parametrix From: Robert Schottman, PE, PhD 620 Kirkland Way,#100 Russ Gaston, PE Kirkland, WA 98033 • Copies: Campbell Mathewson, Matt Hough, PE Phone (425)822-4446 Fax (425)827-9577 Date: February 13, 2004 Subject: Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling Project#: 30209 During our meeting on February 5, 2004, a few questions were raised regarding the HEC- RAS modeling that Otak performed for May Creek. These included • Increased velocities for proposed conditions, • Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors and • Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models. Increased velocities for proposed conditions First, it was noted that the velocities for proposed conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 29) are higher than those for the existing conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 18) and that flow areas were somewhat smaller for the proposed conditions. Modeling results are summarized as Figure 1 —Plan Layout and Table 1—Modeling Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions. Four plans are included: • Plan 17—Parametrix Existing Conditions Model • Plan 18—Otak Existing Conditions Model • Plan 29—Otak Proposed Conditions Model • Prop_High_n —Proposed Plan 29 with increased roughness factors For existing conditions, the flow areas are generally larger for the cross sections upstream of Cross Section 7, primarily because the existing bridge at that location produces deeper water upstream of the bridge. The proposed removal of that upper bridge will allow the water surface levels to fall and will produce higher average velocities for the proposed condition. The slope of the energy grade line upstream of the upper bridge steepens when the bridge is removed. In contrast, the slope of the energy grade line flattens for the cross sections immediately upstream of the proposed roadway. There, we find lower velocities and larger cross- sectional areas after the proposed channel modifications. Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors The final choice of roughness factors will occur during final design based on the ultimate channel/overbank design. We believe that the proposed n values are ap propriate p p based on H:\pt•oj ect\30200\30209\Admi n\Corresp\DEI S\Friebe1021309M.doc Jenna Friebel, Parametrix Page 2 Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling February 13, 2004 the USGS methodology for roughness determination. Channel roughness is influenced by several factors with the primary variable being the roughness of the channel bed material itself. We observed the channel stream bed material to be gravelly, an observation supported by Parametrix's pebble counts. The gravelly channel creates a base roughness of approximately 0.028. Other variables that increase the channel roughness are surface irregularity, variation in shape and size, obstructions to flow, vegetation relative to flow depth, and degree of meandering. The U.S. Geological Survey method for estimating stream roughness factors incorporates all of these factors as shown in the attached sample calculations. In previous modeling, we roughened the proposed channel to account for the presence of some woody debris and plantings within the buffer. We have summarized four HEC-RAS plans to determine the effect of a roughened channel on our predicted water surface' elevations. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarize the assumed n-values for different plans. The modeling results in Table 1 show that increasing the channel and overbank roughness factors causes water levels to rise. Figure 2—Stream Profile shows the resulting water surface profile for the four plans. Both of the proposed plans give lower water surface elevations than do the plans for the existing conditions. Figures 3a—3h—HEC-RAS Cross Sections shows the 100-year water levels for all plans. The plan using the higher roughness factors predicts that water levels will rise above the existing ground along the right overbank. Note that the adjusted roughness factors appear to be conservatively high based on Chow's method for assigning n ' values. Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models Earlier modeling showed nearly two foot difference between water surface levels for the Parametrix existing condition (Plan 17) and the Otak existing condition model (Plan 18). Rechecking the model shows that a HEC-RAS optimization feature associated with lateral structures was not operating properly. The lateral structure in the Otak model allows water to sheet flow to Lake Washington. Flows in the downstream channel are reduced accordingly. The model was rerun and the difference in water levels was reduced to 0.7 foot at Cross Section 8 as shown in Table 1. At the upstream end of the reach (Section 11), the water surface elevations match within 0.01 foot. Reference: USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. H:\project\30200\30209\Admi n..Corresp\DEIS\Friebe1021304M.doc • •• 11 1 ! , •• • 10 9 I---' E, -1••• 8 c-) ) (1)-- 6.75 • 6 V 5......... • 4.55* „...•;„. 4.1 • • 3.9 3.45" ' 3 •• 2.53333* ma& 21* •• 1.8* • • ••• •••• 1.4* • • • Barbee Mill Figure 1. • tzl 0 0- m May Creek at Barbee Mill Plan: 1)Plan_29 2/13/2004 2)Plan 18 2/13/2004 3)Plan 17 2/13/2004 4)Prop_High_n 2/13/2004 to 30.,f—.. -- - -- May Creek 1 z{ , Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi:Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 28 �. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 • ■ Ground wv 26 : '1�j' .I :: . I l l - • I I 20 • { - i • • ? i i . i i 18 i I • 1 I i . I I in N i!'j in I j •• ..�.N. N M, C7: c� 4 7_ 4 4 tn;, ( ( (0 (' O) Q C 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 co Main Channel Distance(ft) ' 1 tzJ A 1 Cr r0 WY C.e..0 8.N..2ui Plan. 1)p7n_19 2/121200a 2)Plan II 771172004 0)Plan 17 2/10/2001 4)PlapHly/_n 2/13/2004 Mai C!.LL.t Bubes MA plan 1)PIen29 7113.0071 2)p4n la 711372004 2)P1an17 211372004 4)Propll/Hn 211372014 re RS=11 RS=10 Copy XSEC 11(poor survey data) 0 .07 P-55oa .07 1 I 1 _ til 07 07 40r Legend 40 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 35 i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29 Ground 1 ° Ground Bank Sta ° I Bank Sta`_.__.___ _____ __.I r n o 30iI 30 W tu i 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station(ft) Station(ft) y ..k.l Berber.Ma Plen, n Plan 20 2713/2004 21 Plan la 2/12/20071 3)Plen n 7r1012004 a)Pmp_ugn n 7/1372001 Orley Creek el Bathes 390 Plan: 1)Plan_29 2/1372004 2)Plan 1e 2/13/2004 3)114,117 27134004 a)Prap Hlah n 27104004 RS=9 RS=8 R-.07 40 .07---4.067i0_-.07-7{ 40. Legend 40_ --- Leged_ -'I I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 - WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 I I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High n - WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 • 351 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 Ground . Ground • ° Bank Sta - Bank Sta I s o •m 30 0 m 30 tu W I II 25- 25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 200 50 100 150 200 250 300 WStation(ft) Station(ft) 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 1 a y Q' MeY Craae a1 B&0..400 Plan; 11 Plen 29 2/12 2004 2/Plan 18 1132004 0)Wen 17 2/10/2004 4)Pm0_H/0 n 2/10/2044 M.YC,aah elBvbes 444 Plan: 1)Plen_29 2/112004 2)Wan 10 2/112004 0)Plan 11 2/I012004 al Prop NO n 2/1120111 A ro RS=7 RS=6.9 Copy CX 7 for US Bridge r<- .07 --r ..1-- .07—0 •<—.07—I .06 T .07 1 Legend —'-...------._... I 8 Legend WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 1 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh_n 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 � WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29 Ground Ground • Bank Sta . • Bank Sta 30. r 30- '— -- 1 i ) Li) — — w • 25' --- 25- \ '. ,,_,_ • 20; - 20- 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station(ft) Station(ft) , 14YC,4ea el Barbee 14a Pun: 11 Wan 20 2/102004 21 pan 18 2/112004 2)Pun 11 2/13/2004 4)Prop Kph n 1112004 MayC,aah!aortas 1.21 Wan: 1)Wen 29 220/200a 2)Pun 18 2/122004 0)Wan 12 2/11I004 4)P,ap_nIgl,n 2.I3/2004 RS=6.75 RS=6.7 00f.0641—.07--,;;1 1<,07+.06+11--.07---)41 — • _— Legend Legend i WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n - WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 35' WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 . •Ground • Ground i Bank Sta ° Bank Sta E 304 r 30- 0 a'r 25 25 20: 20 f0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 ' 250 300 Cl,Ql„ Station(ft) Station(ft) 1 in Horiz. = 120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 2 • l t A 0 Cr M.7 Croke.el a.m..M01 Pion: ))P149_29 2)11200e 2)Plan II 211312004 3)Plan 17 2/13)2004 /)PRP1009n 2/1312004 M.7Greek ela.rbea ML Raw I)194.-29 2r1212009 2)Ran0 2/13/2004 2)Ran 17 2r12R004 4)Prop_Hlynn 2/1312004 to RS=6 .- f RS=5 E —.07----_.._71409}1— � .07 I .07 >�C.U6+� .07— -I I Legend ---- -- t-... Legend ____..___, ti WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh n 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100.yr Future Mi-Plan 18 . Ground 30 Ground • • Bank Sta 30 1 Bank Sta a c )0 °1 25 w 251 1 - 20 20- • 050 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station(ft) Station(ft) Ma70m.1 el au0e.M0 Olen. 1)914922 2r112004 2)44.410 2)32004 3)P..V 2r12,2999 4)PmP_M90_4 1nM200a May Creek el Bu0.a M0 Plan: It Mon 29 2/11,2004 2)Ple9m 21112004 2)Ran 12 2/13)2004 4)Prep M9nn V1212004 RS=4.775' RS=4.55' >j .07 01<.00-n .07 I Legend Legend 35 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 Ground Ground • i Bank Sta Bank Sta 30 I 30 i • 25- LT., • V_______. 20 I 20 ir rJ I 1 l 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 r3 - Station(ft) - Station(ft) . 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft - 3 • tv a 1 O• (p u.Y Cr...0.7.1. Pt.. II P0,29 113/200. 3)Plan le 2/13/2004 3)Man 17 1110004 4)Prap_1112/n 11312004 44.YCr.ee al Bue.a hW Pl.. 1)Pl.nfe 1 04 43/20 3)Plan le 2/13/3004 3)PI.n17 2113/ H 2004 4)ProP .Ohn 3/112004 m RS=4.325• . RS=4.1 ! Legend 4—07-.0b�3--.07—el __ _ ~l I Legend 35 il WS 100-yr Future MI-Prap_High_n 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n� 1 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 1 . Ground Ground 1 Bank Sta • a Ineff 0 30 I 30- Bank Sta • o c w 25' w 25 I i . I 1 1 20, 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 . Station(ft) Station(ft) 13.Y Creak.l e.e1aa M9 M. 1)P.n n 71112004 2)Plan 1e 1113/2004 3)P4n 17 3/112004 4)Prnpfr A_n 213,1004 12.C..al Buhae M0 Pun 1)Plan_29 11121)04 2)Pan le 3/13/3004 3)Plan 17 2132001 4)PmP—all.n 3/1312004 RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge a 04 1'4.040;1 .04 •r .04— .043-r--.04 Legend i Legend 35. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop High n 35 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 Grond au Ground a lneff inelt 1 • • 30 Bank Sta 30 Bank Sta z g 7.44 '`^a x,._.tx 533'�rn a�i 7iat 'af,-..40 w 25 -74i4".t`,M."..� e; pi 25 t�'' i=..0 li I I1IIME i 20 20 , a4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Rom.. Station(ft) Station(ft) 1 in Horiz.=120 ft ' 1 in Vert.=8 ft 4 i a Cr (0 May Creek al Barbee M0 Near n Plen-29 21n2004 T Plan 1e 2/132004 3)Plan 12 2132004 l)P1aD 1U9h_n 2111-2001 May Gael at Bubo.W Maw 1)Plan_29 v132004 2)Plante 2/132004 31 Ten 17 v1Y30U4 4t P10P_nqh_n v102001 lb RS=3.9 RS=3.45' �1 4 .07 ->a.06>%1 .07- r .07—+03al< .07-42 I Legend --------Legend..-_ - --I • e" 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 Ground Ground Ineff Bank Sta a _______ 30- Bank Sta 30 r • o a c al251 ' m w 25 i 20 Ilk 20 IF 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station(ft) Station(ft) WVCMet Barbee.. Plan. 1tP1n_28 2/13n204 2)Plen IP 211.001 3)Ram 17 1/I3I2004 1)P1op_nlpil_n 2/132004 May cm...n.Ae.eeo Ten: 11P1en_29 7.,13 2Man le v1Y3004 4)Plen 17 v1111W1 4)Prop jlipA, v1YSW4 RS=3 RS=2.76666' .07 .035 -.07H Legend Legend 351 WS 100-yrFuture Mi-Plan 17 35 . WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 Ground a WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 Bank Sta 30- Ground 30 i Bank Sta -52 o t c I 'm v >y w 25 i w 25 ' ../.. I. 20- Y0 ..,...„. ..,,, I _., • CiD 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 (O Station(ft) Station(ft) . 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 5 ti a '1 Q' Wry creek al0er0ee AMl Plan n PIanJO 2113/2004 21 Plan 14 2/10/2004 2)Plan 12 2/12/2004 4)P2P_11Ig1 n 2)3/20W CO WyGaak el sane.1.4,9 PWI: 1)Plan_29 7/I11004 2)PYn 10 7/13I 00• ])Plan 17 2/13200a .4)Prop_Npl, 71112004 CO RS=2.53333' RS=2.3 Aggredatlon R.07 0n.03S0n-•-.07--7j 1.r.035<—.07H j Legend 7 Legend 35 1 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 • WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 l Ground WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n Bank Sta WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 301 • 30 Ground Bank Sta 0 0 II W 25 W 25 • INIIIIM 201 20 . . .. ,• , r " . " . . , • 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 ^ Station(ft) Station(ft) • ey a creel el •1E•e 1k0 1)wen 6161,79 2/1072004 21 Plan 10 2/1012004 2)Plan 17 2/102004 4)Pray H n ly11 2/IL2004 MM.yCnek al eubea 1.40 Plan: 1)Ple6_20 2/131004 2)Km 18 2/12 2064 ])Plan 17 2/10I2004 4)PropJlye n 211]/]004 RS=2.2 BR Footbridge RS=2.2 BR Footbridge rc Ay)0354<• .07 - 14.073-.035- —.07—r 'g. Legend r.__._-- _'_Legend_._. .. —1 351 WS 100-yr Future Mt-Plan 17 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 • WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop HIgh_n • WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 JI WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 30.j Ground 30_ Ground • • . Bank Sta - • Bank Ste r i z . O • c m 0) w 25- w 25- I 20- 20- RN Si (75 0 l 50 T 100 150 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station(ft) Station(ft) 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 6 . to a y . Cr M.r Gesell el ea/bee WI a Pi.n 29 a/112004 2P.I.A 10 111200. al PI.n❑ 2/1120 4 41 RlP Hl h n 111200. ' rb vi.n May et e.,baeta0 Mew It Pl.n 29 11120W 21 Ran II 2/112We 3)Pie.I) 2/n2004 .)R.P_NipAn 2/n/200. In RS=2.1' RS=2 Aggredation k-.07 r}e-.035.t.....07---h 07— .035 07 -1 - Legend — _ ti. 1egen`i i 35y WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 - WS 10.0-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mt-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 • 30' Ground 30- Ground • l Bank Ste - Bank Sta 1 c 0 w 25: m to 25- II 1 • 20- 20- 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Station(ft) Station(ft) Maly Creak.l Babe.tag Plen: 1)1,1e11_29 2/13/2004 2)Men 1a 2/10n004 31Plen17 2/112006 4)P/oe_e14A_n 2/112004 kley Creak.IB.Nn Mel P.n I)R.n29 2/11R004 2)Rao to 2/112004 01 P4n 12 2I13I2004 41 Prop HIpA_n 1112001 RS=1.81 RS=1.61 I f4—.07—o4—.035 >je .07—•I Legend . Legend • 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 I WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n Ground I • Ground • Bank Sta ° Bank Sta 3011 30- , o c .m w 25- lu 25- �,, 20I 20- _ • I 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 uO l Station(ft) Station(ft) 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 7 . . CV .. A .1 O. 44),Cres0 eillelbera 0441 Nur 1)9)44_29 3/1343004 a PI.IS 3M/3004 3)94)4)2 341343994 4)9,49_00_4 40342904 4441Cree4 41 Bub.449 Nam I)Plen_39 2/13/2004 3)Pt..,le 2/13/3004 3)Ran 17 2113/2004 4)4,49_190 A 2/13/2404 CZ . et RS=1.4' RS=1.2* ., 07 I-‹ 035 ,., Legend 14—.07 + .035 )1-, .07 d . I '''' '• --Ciifend• 1 ,..... 35• . WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 ....., WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n 1 WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n l i . Ground Ground 1 • Bank Sta • . Bank Sta 30 30- ' . E :e g • § . 3 >'' 25 (-11 25- u.I 20 20- . . • . ........,------r- 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station(It) Station(ft) May Cr.el 84.44 MA Ran. I)Men 29 3./13,2004 2)Plan 19 2/13,2694 3)Ran 17 2/13/2004 4)Pm:Q.90,4 2113/2004 RS=1 XSEC F .035— + .07 Legend • 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 • WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 Ground A• Ineff 30• • Ban;Sta E I . . B . ?. . 'th' 25- • 20- 1 l _ si CO 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 P— Station(ft) . 1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 8 - , _— _ Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 11 Plan29 1059 28.1 2.86 7.24 3.98 49.86 677.52 331.63 62.38 0.57 11 Plan-18 or*. 1059 29.03 2.2 7.26 0.72 19.02 1039.51 0.47 42.66 0.58 11 Plan 17 PAI)t 1059 29.04 2.2 7.24 0.73 19.26 1039.23 0.51 42.85 0.58 11 Prop_High_n 1059 29.08 2.24 6.02 2.67 67.9 674.23 316.87 83.43 0.44 10 Plan 29 1059 27.34 4.19 7.87 4.43 176.68 468.03 414.29 61.82 0.61 10 Plan 18 1059 28.1 2.19 7.8 0.18 13.22 1045.78 0 37.69 0.64 10 Plan 17 1059 28.15 2.19 7.71 0.31 14.06 1044.93 0.01 38.46 0.63 10 Prop_High_n 1059 28.37 3.07 6.46 2.94 188.75 459.95 410.3 86.03 0.46 9 Plan_29 1059 26.93 1.72 5.51 3.1 8.32 776.3 274.38 61.78 0.42 9 Plan 18 1059 27.87 5.62 1.05 1022.49 36.51 105.05 0.42 9 Plan 17 1059 27.94 5.53 1.04 1017.35 41.65 114.02 0.41 9 Prop_High_n 1059 27.93 1.41 4.46 2.47 12.3 744.88 301.82 65.28 0.31 8.65384* Plan 18 1059 27.42 4.52 1.12 796.6 262.4 349.82 0.35 8 Plan_29 1059 25.82 2.74 5.95 3.21 70.32 687.38 301.3 66.09 0.45 8 Plan 18 1059 27.2 0.36 4.12 1.97 0.29 747.38 311.32 117.07 0.32 8 Plan 17 1059 26.51 6.08 0.82 959.55 99.45 482.06 0.5 8 Prop_High_n 1059 26.68 2.38 5.45 1.83 85.93 727.27 245.8 111.48 0.38 7.66666* Plan 18 997.12 27.1 1.28 4.1 1.73 20.48 697.71 278.93 123.18 0.3 7.33333* Plan 18 901.23 27.02 1.4 3.98 1.49 50.68 604.93 245.62 129.37 0.27 7 Plan_29 1059 25.06 3.27 6.59 3.49 121.24 614.12 323.64 62.66 0.48 7 Plan 18 775.55 26.79 1.09 4.95 1.85 62.62 611.71 101.22 99.5 0.32 7 Plan 17 1059 26.38 1.58 3.72 0.95 74:15 433.89 550.96 558.24 0.25 7 Prop_High_n 1059 25.88 2.71 5.63 2.72 132.09 597.46 329.45 69.75 0.38 Barbee Mill k:\project\30200\30209\waterres\hecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls 1 ota k • Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude# Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 6.9 Plan_29 1059 25.04 2.38 5.5 2.86 43.54 791.4 224.05 60.28 0.4 6.9 Plan 18 729.84 26.73 2.03 5.16 1.89 95.34 547.47 87.03 54.01 0.33 6.9 Plan 17 1059 26.34 2.12 3.75 0.94 92.42 436.07 530.51 557.8 0.25 6.9 Prop_High_n 1059 25.83 1.93 4.71 2.38 47.5 770.1 241.4 63.3 0.32 6.75 Plan_29 1059 24.93 2.05 5.51 2.75 24.59 822.25 212.16 56.92 0.39 6.75 Plan 18 729.84 24.42 6.19 2.22 681.81 48.04 42.96 0.48 6.75 Plan 17 1059 25.3 4.1 0.95 609.92 449.08 589.71 0.29 6.75 Prop_High_n 1059 25.71 1.69 4.77 2.32 27.19 800.55 231.26 59.49 0.32 6.7 Plan_29 1059 24.93 2.08 5.15 2.68 27.42 791.07 240.51 66.93 0.38 6.7 Plan 18 729.84 24.5 2.11 4.68 1.65 34.5 651.79 43.56 51.28 0.36 6.7 Plan 17 1059 25.29 1.73 3.82 0.88 37.58 611.13 410.29 589.69 0.27 6.7 Prop_High_n 1059 25.69 1.75 4.55 2.02 31.55 792.32 235.13 78.62 0.32 6.46666* Plan 18 729.84 24.37 2.54 4.81 1.51 84.5 609.67 35.68 62.9 0.39 6.23333* Plan 18 729.84 24.17 2.73 5.18 1.23 117.83 599.53 12.49 64.06 0.43 6 Plan_29 1059 24.48 2.56 5.76 3.15 174.11 566.69 318.2 83.72 0.43 6 Plan 18 729.84 23.86 2.72 5.76 118.19 611.66 52.98 0.49 6 Plan 17 1059 24.27 3.76 7.28 207.93 851.07 54.61 0.6 6 Prop_High_n 1059 25.18 2.24 5.04 2.25 202.74 556.64 299.62 100.56 0.35 5 Plan_29 1059 24.09 2.5 4.7 2.2 197.69 590.26 271.05 95.59 0.33 5 Plan 18 729.84 23.19 2.33 4.77 1.61 80.47 639.6 9.77. 50.95 0.39 5 Plan 17 1059 24.41 1.45 2.69 0.55 83.09 455.06 520.85 1471.43 0.19 5 Prop_High_n 1059 24.59 2.28 4.48 1.24 209.83 607.09 242.08 190.96 0.3 4.775* Plan_29 1059 23.98 2.67 4.88 1.93 194.84 596.53 267.63 116.34 0.35 4.775* Prop_High_n 1059 24.46 2.28 4.49 1.42 191.89 591.76 275.35 165.61 0.31 Barbee Mill k:\project\30200\302091waterreslhecras\roughness sensitivity.xls 2 otak - - - C --- - - - - ----- I-- -- - - -- - -- -- -- - ---- - -- - --- '---- Table 1 - Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 4.55* Plan 29 1059 23.88 2.53 4.88 2.11 169.99 582.79 306.22 111.7 0.35 4.55* Prop_H7igh_n 1059 24.3 2.18 4.59 1.64 169.06 587.62 302.32 143.42 0.32 4.4 Plan 18 729.84 22.68 2.09 5.63 2.53 21 543.73 165.11 52.51 0.41 4.4 Plan 17 1059 24.34 1.01 2.7 0.86 16.86 335.18 706.96 561.36 0.17 4.35 Plan 18 729.84 22.55 2.37 5.99 2.98 22.48 564.83 142.53 52.64 0.44 4.35 Plan 17 1059 23.67 2.87 6.64 3.82 37.14 749.22 272.64 560.94 0.45 4.325* Plan_29 1059 23.78 2.51 4.83 2.43 154.65 563.17 341.18 95.71 0.35 4.325* Prop_High_n 1059 24.13 2.28 4.72 1.92 158.79 584.13 316.08 117.15 0.34 4.25 Plan 18 729.84 22.47 5.81 2.72 632.93 96.91 48.39 0.46 4.25 Plan 17 1059 23.47 6.6 3.61 863.09 195.91 555.16 0.48 4.2 Plan 18 729.84 22.47 2.59 5.55 2.45 36.86 604.03 88.95 48.37 0.44 4.2 Plan 17 1059 23.59 2.44 5.23 0.99 52.35 697.96 308.68 555.31 0.37 4.1 Plan 29 1059 22.98 5.45 7.73 5.41 143.4 774.98 140.62 69.63 0.61 4.1 Prop_High_n 1059 23.33 4.87 7.29 4.83 139.91 781.67 137.42 71.64 0.56 4.01 Bridge 4 Plan 18 729.84 '22.24 1.88 5.18 1.4 13.12 707.7 9.02 47.99 0.45 4 Plan 17 1059 23.11 2.4 6.07 1.27 31.78 1003.04 24.18 74.61 0.48 3.9 Plan29 1059 22.09 6.09 8.96 6.54 130.72 774 154.28 66.59 • 0.76 3.9 Prop_Hi_gh_n 1059 22.97 4.9 7.39 5.19 135.49 768.93 154.57 71.55 0.57 3.66666* Plan 18 729.84 21.97 1.68 5.55 0.89 16.79 711.86 1.19 44.21 0.49 Barbee Mill k:\project\3020000209\waterresthecrastroughness_sensitivity.xls 3 otak Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 3.45* Plan 29 1059 22.0.6 1.97 7.22 2.66 69.82 731.71 257.46 76.71 0.6 3.45* Prop_High_n 1059 22.79 2.31 4.94 2.95 116.53 580.86 361.61 80.86 0.38 3.33333* Plan 18 729.84 21.83 1.3 5.63 22.93 706.91 46.66 0.49 3 Plan_29 1059 21.99 1.7 6.45 2.35 74.9 748.66 235.44 86.94 0.53 3 Plan 18 729.84 21.81 1.04 5.35 41.01 688.84 53.93 0.44 3 Plan 17 1059 22.87 1.39 6.03 95.07 963.93 58.26 0.46 3 Prop_High_n 1059 22.52 2.12 4.67 2.77 123.12 604.61 331.28 90.01 0.36 2.76666* Plan_29 1059 21.73 1.72 7.36 2.55 40.15 797.91 220.93 76.89 0.62 2.76666* Prop_High_n 1059 22.25 2.21 5.44 3.09 72.74 660.47 325.79 80.11 . 0.43 2.53333* Plan_29 1059 21.48 1.87 8.04 2.76 20.16 818.15 220.7 66.56 0.69 2.53333* Prop_High_n 1059 21.91 2.38 6.19 3.48 34.37 694.56 330.08 69.11 0.51 2.3 Plan_29 1059 21.06 1.76 9.21 3.1 5.34 842.42 211.25 59.31 0.83 2.3 Plan 18 729.84 21.67 0.95 5.72 1.11 12 694.7 23.14 32.48 0.41 2.3 Plan 17 1059 22.51 1.21 7.25 1.22 20.18 1004.46 34.36 37.25 0.49 2.3 Prop_High_n 1059 21.31 2.33 7.51 4.13 8.54 733.9 316.56 60.31 0.66 2.25 Plan 18 729.84 21.69 1.41 5.54 1.84 17.99 674.33 37.53 32.53 0.4 2.25 Plan 17 1059 22.52 1.19 7.19 1.66 20.03 996.47 42.5 37.33 0.48 2.2 Bridge 2.15 Plan 18 729.84 19.86 1.74 7.91 2.98 6.26 691.91 31.68 31.19 0.72 2.15 Plan 17 1059 20.52 1.42 9.88 2.57 7.15 1016.59 35.26 32.31 0.83 2.1* Plan_29 1059 20.05 1.7 ' 9.71 1.31 2.55 1054.25 2.2 41.78 0.99 Barbee Mill 4 k:\project\30200\30209\waterres\hecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls ota k r Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 2.1* Plan 18 729.84 19.35 2.03 9.26 3.11 5.35 698.78 25.72 30.33 0.91 2.1* Plan 17 1059 20.05 1.59 11.14 2.45 6.35 1023.24 29.41 31.51 0.99 2.1* Prop_High_n 1059 20.05 1.19 9.75 0.92 1.77 1055.7 1.52 41.74 0.99 2.05* Plan 18 729.84 19.32 0.08 7.99 0 729.84 39.39 0.92 2 Plan_29 1059 19.68 1.47 9.3 1.25 1.32 1056.99 0.69 44.85 1 2 Plan 18 729.84 19.13 7.64 729.84 43.13 0.9 2 Plan 17 1059 19.58 9.18 1059 44.14 1 2 Prop_High_n 1059 19.68 1.03 9.31 0.88 0.92 1057.6 0.48 44.84 1 1.8* Plan_29 1059 19.46 1.2 8.28 0.83 0.77 1058.02 0.21 53.72 0.93 1.8* Prop_High_n 1059 19.46 0.84 8.28 0.58 0.54 1058.31 0.15 53.72 0.93 1.6* Plan_29 1059 19.38 0.99 7.23 0.58 0.56 1058.36 0.08 62.69 0.82 1.6* Prop_High_n 1059 19.38 0.69 7.23 0.41 0.39 1058.55 0.06 62.69 0.82 1.4* Plan_29 1059 19.26 0.81 6.57 0.45 0.35 1058.61 0.04 71.82 0.76 1.4* Prop_High_n 1059 19.26 0.56 6.57 0.31 0.25 1058.73 0.03 71.82 0.76 1.2* Plan_29 1059 19.12 0.61 6.16 0.34 0.16 1058.82 0.02 80.86 0.74 1.2* Prop_High_n 1059 19.12 0.43 6.17 0.24 0.11 1058.88 0.01 80.85 0.74 1 Plan_29 1059 18.95 0.35 5.97 0.25 0.02 1058.97 0 89.49 0.74 1 Plan 18 729.84 17.01 6.51 . 729.84 177.08 1 1 Plan 17 1059 16.9 2.06 2.42 810.45 248.55 176.65 0.39 1 Prop_High_n 1059 18.95 0.24 5.97 0.18 0.02 1058.98 0 89.49 0.74 Barbee Mill k:lproject13 0 2 0 013 02 0 91waterreslhecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls 5 otak Table 2 -Plan 17-Parametrix Existing Conditions , Manning's n Values River Station Frctn (n/K) n #1 n#2 n#3 . 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 5 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 6 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 7 6.8 Bridge 8 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 9 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 10 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 , 11 5 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 12 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 13 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 14 4.3 Bridge 15 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 16 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 17 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 18 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 19 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 20 2.25 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 21 2.2 Mult Open 22 2.15 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 23 2.1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 ; 24 2 n 0.07 0.026 • 0.07 25 1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 1 1 Barbee Mill k:\project\30200130209\waterres\hecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls 6 ota k Table 3-Plan 18-Otak's Existing Conditions River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 4 8.65384* n 0.07 0.06 0.07 5 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 6 7.95 Lat Struct 7 7.66666* n 0.07 0.06 0.07 8 7.33333* n 0.07 0.06 0.07 __ 9 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 10 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 11 6.8 Bridge 12 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 13 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 14 6.65 Lat Struct 15 6.46666* n 0.07 0.06 0.07 16 6.23333* n 0.07 0.06 0.07 17 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 , 18 5 , n 0.07 0.06 0.07 19 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 20 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 21 4.3 Bridge 22 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 23 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 24 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 25 3.66666* n 0.07 0.049 0.07 26 3.33333* n 0.07 0.037 0.07 27 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 28 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 29 2.25 n 0.07 0.04 0.07 30 2.2 Mult Open ! ! 31 2.15 n 0.07 0.04 0.07 32 2.1 n 0.07 0.04 0.07 33 2.05* n 0.07 0.04 0.07 34 2 n 0.07 0.04 0.07 35 1 n 0.07 0.04 0.07 Barbee Mill • Ic\project\30200V302091waterres\hecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls 7 otak Table 5-Proposed Plan Having Higher Roughness Factors 1 River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 1 11 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 2 10 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 3 9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 4 . 8 • n - 0.1 0.08 0.1 . 5 7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 6 6.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 7 6.75 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 8 6.7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 9 6 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 10 5 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 11 4.775* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 12 4.55* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 13 4.325* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 14 4.1 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 15 4.01 Bridge _I 16 3.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 17 3.45* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 - 18 3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 19 2.76666* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 20 2.53333* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 21 2.3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 22 . 2.2 Bridge 23 2.1* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 24 2 n 0.1 0.035 0.1 25 1.8* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 26 1.6* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 27 1.4* n 0.1 . 0.035 0.1 28 1.2* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 29 1 n . 0.1 0.035 0.1 Barbee Mill 9 otak k:lproject1302001302091waterreslhecrastroughness sensitivity.xls • Sample Calculations For Estimating Manning's n Reference: USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. The following calculations serve as the primary design basis for determining Manning's n values for the existing and proposed channels. They support n values in the following ranges: Existing channel 0.035 < n <0.045 Proposed Channel 0.060 < n <0.075 Overbank 0.065 < n <0.075 These roughness factors will be adjusted during final design. Existing Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11 1. Channel bed material: Coarse gravel n 0 := 0.028 2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.005 3. Var. in Shape& Size: Minor n 2 := 0.003 (Occasional shift from large to small section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Neglig. ( < 5%section area), n 3 := 0.002 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Low(Flow> 2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005 6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity < 1.2), m := 1.00 n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.043 River Station (RS) 1 to RS 3.9 Stations downstream of RS 3.9 should have lower n values based on the sandier channel bed materials and the regularity and smoothness of the channel. These values are not as important because flow in that reach are heavily influenced by tailwater conditions near Lake Washington. Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak By: RWS 02/13/04 Proposed Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11 1. Channel bed material: Medium Gravel n 0 := 0.028 2. Surface Irregularity: Uniform channel in good condition, n 1 := 0.002 3. Var. in Shape& Size: Occasional shift from large to small n 2 := 0.010" section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Appreciable (additional woody debris n 3 := 0.015 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005 6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity < 1.2), m := 1.03 n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2+ n3 + n4) , n = 0.062 - Proposed Overbanks: River Station (RS) 1 to RS 11 1. Channel bed material: Gravel (d50—2.5"), n 0 := 0.02 2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.01 3. Var. in Shape &Size: Minor n 2 := 0.00 (Occasional shift from large to small section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Minor( < 10% section area), n 3 := 0.015 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.025 6. Degree of meandering: Applicable (1.2 < Sinuosity< 1.5), m := 1.00 n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.07 Application of Roughness Factors Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the Manning's n values used in the HEC-RAS modeling. Table 2 shows results for the existing channel, Table 3 for the proposed channel and Table 4 for a conservatively rough channel. Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak By: RWS 02/13/04 ATTACHMENT E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results ATTACHMENT E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results Mitigation scenarios for the 100-year flood were evaluated independently of the proposed development scenarios using HEC-RAS. Each of the mitigation scenarios assumes that the dredging operations have been discontinued and that the existing channel has aggraded as discussed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 in the Impact Section. A brief description of each scenario and a qualitative summary of the modeling results is provided below. • Scenario 4: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, remove existing bridges at stations 2.2 and 6.8, and assume that the bridge at station 4.3 would be replaced with a bridge that spans the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario,the stream would still overtop the existing right bank and flow onto the floodplain. • Scenario 5: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 4, then a levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream would be evaluated. A levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream could be used to prevent the site from flooding. This would result in increased flood stages, and potentially increase scour and erosion. • Scenario 6: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, OTAK modified channel configuration, and the bridge at Station 4.01 is assumed to span the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario the stream would remain in the confined channel during flood flows and the site would not be inundated. This scenario would benefit the stream by reducing flood stages, scour and erosion. However, confining the stream could have long-term impacts as discussed in the Impacts and Mitigation Sections of the report. • Scenario 7: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 6, then a levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream would be evaluated. This mitigation scenario was not evaluated because under Scenario 6 the site would not flood. 1 HEC'RAS RiverMayCrook Raaoh 1 Profile: 1OO'yr Future NU O= 1O0-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,05Ods �� --------'----- L �eyu� - M�r�%�a��������AV�U QHAR -MI-71W EYNONiA ������� 11 P�an17 ExCondm�AggnodaUon 22O 291 . | --22-- 72 ~--`~~'�~~~~�~�~~~�~~°==��~=°��"=�°�,===�"=� ' ' '�/ ^' . o./ 3.3 2.5 1582 43.0 11 P|an0i Goenaho4No8,�geuNoLevee 22.0 29.0 7.0 2.2 7.3 0.7 3.3 2.5 151-'4 423 ' 11 P|anU2 3oenoho5 Levee��5O'� 22.0 28.0 7.0 2.2 7.3 0.7 3.3 2.5 151- 42- '4 11 P|anO3 Scenario Mod. Chni 22.0 20.1 0.1 2.9 7.3 4.0 3.2 2.0 184 62 11 Plan 29OTAK Ol7\K Bridge 8D4.01 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 72 4.0 3.2 2.0 194.3 62.4 10 Plan17 ExCondw/Ag0mdation 21.4 28.2 6.8 2.2 77 03 3.8 3.1 142.9 38.8 10 Plan 01 Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 21.4 28.0 0.0 2.2 8.0 - 4.1 8.5 130.2 36.7 10 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50'ft 21.4 28.0 6.7 2.2 7.0 ' 4.0 ' 3.4 137.0 30'9 1O Plan 03 Scenario 0 Mod. Chni 214 27.3 0.0 4.2 7.8 4/4 3.7 2.3 1844 61'7 10 Plan 29Ol7\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 21.4 27.3 6.0 4.2 7.9 4.4 3.7 2.2 195J 01.8 ' 9 Plan1T ExCondw/Ag8nedoUnn 20.3 28.0 TJ - 5.5 1.0 1.9 0.7 2282 114.6 9 Plan O1 Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 20.3 27.7 7.5 - 5.8 1.1 2.1 1.0 202.3 85.2 u PianO2 Scenario 5 Levee @5U-ft 20.3 27.8 7.5 - 5.7 12 2.0 1.0 207.8 82.7 D Plan 03 Scenario Mod. Chni 20.3 28.0 6.7 1.7 5.5 31 1.8 1.3 233.3 01.7 8 Plan 28O77\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 20.3 20.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 31 1.8 1.3 234.2 01.8 O Plan 17 ExCondw/AggrodaUon 20.0 20.5 0.5 - 0.1 0.8 2.3 0.3 258'0 482J0 � 0 Plan O1 Goonar4NnBhdQeeNoLovee 20.0 20.0 0.0 - 4.6 1.0 1.3 0.8 437.8 ' 482.9 n P|anU2 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.0 27.0 6.9 0.2 4.5 2.4 1.3 0.8 288'7 85.8 8 P|anO3 800nadoO Mod.ChnL 20.0 25.8 ' 5.72.8 0.1 3.3 2.1 1.4 231'1 65.8 8 Plan 29Ol7\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 20.0 25.0 5.8 2.7 6.0 3.2 2.1 1.3 235.1 00'1 7 PlaniT ExCondw/AggreduUon 18.3 28.4 8.1 1.8 3.7 1.0 0.7 02 7544 558'5 7 P|anO1 Scenario 4No Bridges No Levee 18.3 25.1 0.8 4.4 91 3.0 4.8 2.9 143.7 30.5 7 P/anO2 Suenaho5 Levee V�50-� 18.3 25.3 7.0 ' 4.4 9.0 1.3 4.6 1.5 153.0 78.7 7 P|onO3 Scenario 8Mod. Chn|. 18.3 24.9 0.0 3.4 6.0 3.8 2.7 1.7 213.3 02.1 7 Plan 29OTAK Ol7\K Bridge @4.O1 18.3 25.1 0.7 3.3 6.0 3.5 2.5 1.5 223.1 62.7 0.9 Plan 17 ExCnndw/AggnndaUon 18.3 28.4 8.1 2.1 3.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 736.5 558.1 6.9 P/an0i Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 18.3 24.4 0.1 4.8 10.6 4.7 6.8 4.6 118.6 32.6 6.9 P(unO2 Scenario 5 Levee @5O'ft 18.3 25.1 0.7 4.4 9.2 3.1 4.0 2.9 142.3 39'0 6.9 P|anO3 Scenario 6 Mod.Chni 18.5 24.9 6.4 2.5 5.7 2.9 1.9 1.2 231.2 59.7 0.8 Plan 28OTAK DT8K Bridge*g4.Oi 18.5 25.0 0.5 2.4 5.5 - 2.9 1.7 1.2 240.6 60.3 ' ^ - - - HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi - . Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs c! k".x T•Sw -. .,„^ ''" .4.x.. r0`�+ ---''�` ^cs"`tl4' k z k �`,'S�k 4..a' W-X,- Phee iver � rev° : �.. x; n=Ch••EI 4W Si vP,-- ��,;� . � � R- :e1�C�Li�L �. R,19� �'����A..�e��rt�.l._.w� o '��t a--r._ ta'-I?la!?�K , ,$,Desarii`jtio. : .l ,L `I , 's. _ ; `. MOM .�n , . d.a��. ,_, ._.-�',���- � __.,_R._ �rr.�-'�.� . � :_. ..N� ���. (ft)���'_(�#�.'.�,Nx(�)�,A�>��s�� ;�` ._(##%s,�.� ��"';( �r Ib�s Ib s �s�`°' , 68xist n g B 9e aiag a- + w r- -1 ;@ g?Hit,'' ^ W- BM=- ,a r;.. - c;" ' _nr x - a 6.75 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.0 5.6 - 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.2 137.7 42.1 6.75 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.8 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 . 634.9 589.7 6.75 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 251.8 84.1 6.75 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.4 2.1 5.7 2.8 1.9 1.2 228.7 56.4 • - 6.75 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.5 2.8 1.7 1.1 238.4 56.9 6:7 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.7 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 669.3 589.7 6.7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.2 6.8 1.8 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 617.3 589.6 6.7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 247.7 84.0 6.7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.3 2.2 5.4 2.8 1.7 1.1 244.9 66.3 6.7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.2 2.7 1.5 1.0 256.6 66.9 6 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.4 6.0 3.8 7.3 - 3.4 2.5 178.1 55.0 • 6 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 24.7 6.3 3.0 5.4 0.6 1.8 0.1 478.8 1,495.2 6 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 24.8 6.4 3.4 6.2 0.8 2.4 1.0 214.5 106.3 6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.1 5.7 2.7 6.5 3.5 2.5 1.3 238.2 81.8 6 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.5 6.1 2.6 5.8 3.2 1.9 1.1 267.6 83.7 • 5 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 24.1 6.6 1.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 687.0 1,470.9 5 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 23.8 6.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 2.0 0.1 299.4 1,470.4 5 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft. 17.5 24.1 6.6 2.9 5.5 1.0 1.8 0.8 236.8 97.5 5 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.5 23.6 6.0 2.7 5.3 - • 2.7 1.6 1.0 281.7 84.2 5 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.5 24.1 6.6 2.5 4.7 2.2 1.2 0.7 327.8 95.6 4.775 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.4 5.8 3.0 5.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 273.0 89.9 4.775* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 24.0 6.4 2.7 4.9 1.9 1.3 0.6 333.6 116.3 4.55 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.2 5.7 3.1 5.7 2.7 1.9 1.1 267.4 89.5 4.55* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.9 6.3 2.5 4.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 331.5 11.1.7 HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs • ,µj p..3 ,,aid- .5., -t- .=��,��'" ` ',.,ti. __.' r1* W ` vt, = ,. - .t �' :IMI 'm; :•'�' F" '�_ IILI .. _-rtklllvei ai;Y?T. 'r a:ye ,,,.K. iptYa,�: ��` .. 4�. ,s>.ga '4-ks.--4 .`-l:. l _,..,.pr.td, ; 4 x. .nlc i ti`E^'ems. •t: � � M EEf A l { a , •el�CFi, .. '�1/e e n:' -�. :�K - �.1�.-_,...�.nl�:.�.�.,�911�� h�� ivEloY.�Ayea��T,o'p',�idt�; Tow `r5',•i;.o� =�'�' _ ,.. �:.j.. ,:1t2�.��?LC:v's �•�'•.nti° - ..[e;r:-- -- s� - - - - - LIERMI �--)v �� ):�:�: (ff!s� r� ftf'_ -�;;� � )�. �(��/sq����1_�%Xsq ��' MI .�,"�-�r.(f1:)��• 4.4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation _ 15.3 24.0 8.7 1.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 754.9 561.1 4.4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.3 23.7 8.4 1.8 4.7 1.1 1.3 0.2 586.3 560.9 • 4.4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.5 8.2 2.5 6.8 2.8 2.6 1.3 223.6 70.6 • 4.35 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 23.7 8.4 2.9' 6.6 3.8 2.5 1.7 560.9 4.35 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.3 23.4 8.1 2.4 - 6.4 1.1 2.3 0.3 419.3 560.8 4.35 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.4 8.0 2.6 7.0 2.8 2.8 1.3 215.3 70.5 • 4.325 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.6 23.0 5.5 3.0 5.8 3.1 2.0 1.2 254.0 81.6 4.325* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.8 6.2 2.5 4.8 2.4 1.3 0.8 318.8 95.7 4.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 7.2 - 6.6 3.6 2.5 1.9 624.7 555.6 4.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.1 6.4 3.2 6.9 3.0 2.8 1.8 191.0 54.7 4.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.6 3.2 6.9 2.1 2.8 1.3 203.2 78.7 4.2 Plan 17 Ex Cond wl Aggredation •16.7 23.9 7.2 2.4 5.2 1.0 1.6 0.2 611.3 555.6 ' 4.2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.0 6.4 3.3 •7.0 3.1 2.9 1.8 188.0 54.0 4.2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.5 3.3 7.1 2.1 3.0 1.3 196.4 78.6 • 4.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.6 ' 22.8 5.2 3.3 6.1 3.7 2.3 1.6 227.6 68.4 • 4.1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.0 5.4 5.5 7.7 5.4 3.6 3.2 152.5 • 69.6 4 01F.P4- Psed-=O TA ER cl g M IUM FRE MIE agil Ali:gi��� WAWA - h ^��:��ss `� �: ��F�"_` _� #�. ,.a ��t f �,,�-�s ,�.: ��- ��_ ��+.r�„� - 4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 23.4 5.9 2.4 6.1 1.3 2.2 1.2 220.3 127.1 4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.1 57.1 • 4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.0 57.1 • HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi • Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs �*`�x�'n-=aa.�: _,'�; .�'�.�'-'.-�x�� .F' �-���"a�a�,y '�"i',t�-�},._dc: ;:.; :3,,;,._a nny::�. Yeay :a.-r;",-z F,.� - :� �, _k ,.}"c a"', 2, %w,r ..,,i„: _ .t .. P - ' rji •y W tic}'r"".. 14' ';^,�'c ti "-"s .f. va.,z:.RM1 �,„ . i ti ;..,�x -_ a a s :, �a ` ._�ix.5--- � _42 c C :' ,ears 'Bear -.; as m .Essr = � tiY a -r rr' ,. ,, ,. �t -v, E Rive 27,--l r: k, . gailli i z;Mtn ChtE 0.01$ E Depth, dl L ft Chnl r WOW. , �Y....�....�_ �_ .._.� ,�xel��!9ht:`� _. �`,. To"faL w;F�aw�f�ea ��,op�,�,+ iltl1 (%"5�4 �:�� ."'..°Ti.'-'2:.ra�+,--- _.>';�Y; ..' �.X _*'y�-� -�:.y�q'i7.ai�c;�,t_-x•s-.,:Fi,•,:__�>�i..i; __"T� "-3ii�.:' -_ '-�2C - -_ .Y".- MOW MAW_ _ tSa•:Pian.V e`en`:icon tE x �.Y = _ S. M •r- - . a..�..f._,1_....._ _....tip,,..�-��:�..�u.vP_. , .��-���.:��.�.-�.�:���e��(f�): :�.a�»�,3(ft)a1���,x,�ft},��__' .(if/s} �:��,� ��ftls� Wrap �W2 M�),`��. 3.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.4 22.5 5.1 3.2 5.9 3:8 2.1 1.5 234.8 68.8 - - 3.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.4 22.1 4.7 6.1 9.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 131.5 66.6 - 3.45 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.1 22.0 4.9 2.0 7.3 2.7 1.1 0.8 232.0 76.6 3.45* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.1 22.1 4.9 ' 2.0 7.2 2.7 1.1 0.8 . 233.7 76.7 3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.3 22.9 6.6 1.4 . 6.0 - 0.4 0.3 245.4 61.5 3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3 3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3 3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.4 2.3 0.9 0.6 .:261.1 87.0 3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.5 2.4 0.9 0.6 260.5 86.9 2.767 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.3 2.5 1.2 0.8 219.1 76.9 76666* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.4 2.6 1.2 0.8 218.4 76.9 2.533 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 . 193.4 66.6 53333* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 192.5 66.6 ' 2.3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.3 1.2 0.5 0.3 156.5 35.7 2.3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.8 31.5 2.3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.9 31.5 2.3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.8 3.9 1.9 10.1 3.3 2.4 1.7 146.1 58.2 2.3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.1 4.2 1.8 9.2 3.1 1.9 1.4 162.5 59.3 -2.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 154.5 35.7 2.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 107.6 30.3 2.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 107.5 30.3 • 2.15 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 21.2 5.3 1.4 9.9 2.6 1.1 0.9 124.6 33.3 _ 2.15 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.6 33.1 2.15 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.7 33.1 HEC-RAS River:May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs r_��kr- �"' C.,�. �. ' � a '.'� .,�s�.:-s;�.R 6_ �" �.saSl .,a .�='.;= ..u. _:� r: .='?�; ��,�� ,�:,�_?�,4 .a -�K,.4F':.,::l,c �-`� t._ a,4' i,;;„ic,•,ati�`w _t��'.-�.r- �-<�:.`y,,_ .: :a��.:�r, ,:..�:x. t ;'�- ,.•r,.ta :�.�r::-'t�' _ �t- �.�•+._,�r .r.,�-"a} ,�� ,-5c-.,..->f`�:,y"45i'-.'`�' - .t.�r�:� .-yJ....`_ .�'' „�^ 5�. ,�r��pi`.�:_ .-�-,.�;� ...� - �M� N,�. ��, ter- �- •;�;�. �;� -�w .;� ��. ��=' ,: '�; �,�. .�_` r�. ear{_ S,.ear �, -...r�: ;fit.� Y� „.�.-:"7 .c '�'^. ,..,.,� �,.-�x its±±,r.�:a,�;�;r.:.' = `.a �s� '•�a�;s�� ;�, ''�" [� t. ,,���; `.N�'3 �`r� _1 E�. - ���:�•c�.°�i�-�..�'<�'=.,A_` .�'�;�,-'� ,,, ��'..�Y. *C:.,".�.+�*mini .L�,7, ��,._ „�'''',,�-...�.��""'�o., „- �.K e.,� --.�.`� �cv-.-�3.�;,,r`�iic �y-;,,�.a.:w=�;p L.c• ,' � - RNeF_ 1 C - Tyr. ,C, .. rY ta° �a x,�..s e ,.-y* =�-•a Z, ;i_ �''._or. a _ 3,"_ -.,,F. a r,y _ -' �:•.. :,�..:.,,_ �:,:��r��..w •.� �:�.�,��.:� ����;�;v .�� �N1in=,Cfi EI�1N�:S ;E1e��De•th �V'e�Lefh:.Ve-Chnl��.Vel .�• � z�; �:, sa->�: _w- R�'��� _Ghan "Total .�A, T'�" Nall t �.,- €.� _ _�.. _...._1? �J,..�_ ..,�-� .�,z.. _,L.�>,...>rc�. _ ...�;, �r ��,Fto� reap�.,;aP 1�G�h. -r'r... �:r�5c-��'.�� �c;"'!,.. _,y��.y.-�'•° :s:x= ,:;.��r�t�r',��' - '2.. ;'S ,v _:X *z: r�s _ _ NORM _ _ _ _ , �.Sfa Pfah-���y - Descn•t�on��-:-- :�. - '�,� � .=caSt..�.wow`�;s.' mm�.,,�, �- 't a �ss '�_;"3 SWIMS F ��s" �:.:� � ,�. � >_ �,,. `y�j}, -�(ft)` �(ft) r ftls• t��,{}�� { �}`x�16�s.(�7..�`, I�6s���it. s'=� ft,_ ��A&......._. ...__...rv._ .-::5:'.t^.'"*?5;...r,3+a,_.r.-.........I]-_.._.Fne..�:_.!� _ Ip,.:ftK's::r:il�.:`xi e:'...:«YG:'�.:£'S.:ti.(}r),.nK.+G�e'k�at=.._ _ .. ?�.'°.. i - (•.}'S"� L��.Y`e�'w( � ��J'n'.'�. `tZ,t /�`�� ) Q 2.1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.6 11.1 2.5 1.5 1.2 110.4 32.4 2.1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.7 11.1 2.8 1.5 1.3 110.5 32.4 2.1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.6 4.7 1.7 11.2 2.8 1.5 1.3 110.3 32.4 2.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8 2.1* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8 2 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0 2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0 2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.2 44.0 2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 . 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9 2 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9 1.8 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 -1 127.8. 53.7 1.8* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge 16.9 19.5 2.6 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 128.7 53.7 1.6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 145.3 62.6 1.6* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 147.2 62.7 1.4 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.2 2.3 0.8 6.7 0.4 1.2 1.2 158.1 71.7 . 1.4* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.3 2.4 0.8 6.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 161.7 71.8 1.2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 18.7 1.8 - 7.6 0.2 1.7 1.7 139.8 79.3 _ 1.2* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.1 2.2 0.6 6.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 172.2 80.9 1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.1 2.4 - 0.1 0.2 495.5 176.7 1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0 1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0 1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.5 0.5 235.3 182.8 1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.0 2.1 0.4 6.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 177.4 89.5 MICROFILMED BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT MITIGATION DOCUMENT Prepared by: City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Planning August 16, 2004 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 16, 2004. Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Mitigation Document for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted a Land Use Master Application (LUA 02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance on November 5, 2002..The City of Renton, in accordance with the State.Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, issued a Scoping Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10, 2002, a public scoping meeting was held to receive written and oral comments on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping Document was issued .on January 10, 2003. _A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued by the City, of Renton Environmental Review Committee on September 2, 2003. A public hearing was held on September 23, 2003. The public comment period for the DEIS closed on October 8, 2003. The Final EIS was issued on May 3, 2004. The impacts described in the. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and FEIS) and other information on file with the City of Renton are the basis for the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. This Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document for the proposal. The project is also subject to preliminary plat,.site plan, and shoreline reviews. Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E.4.a.iii, the adequacy of.the Final EIS and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific Objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 7, 2004; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals must be addressed to Fred J. Kaufinan, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055 So. Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055. If you have questions or require clarification of the above, please contact Susan Fiala, Project Manager at(425) 430-7382. For he Environmental Review Committee, efr Gregg Zimmerman Administrator,Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 P. E 1V T O N AHEAD O F THE CURVE R V E This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer , Summary Table of Mitigation Measures A. Earth, Soils and Geology Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and site construction. A2. A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized;OR A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed;OR A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading;OR A5. Comparable engineering design. B. Surface Water Resources 131. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation. B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid restriction of flows during regulatory flood events. AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of B4,or B5,or B6: B4. Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream channel, removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream / buffer improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design. B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume(i.e.a flood terrace excavated on the west side of the stream). B6. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel. C. Groundwater Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. D. Plants and Animals D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. • D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas. D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat approvals. D4. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain vegetation. D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. D6. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement. D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer. D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site. D10. Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing buffer vegetation. D11. Either: a)Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established(where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks); OR b) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap. D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings. D13. Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids. D14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation. D15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare. D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35) feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area. D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- shore habitat; OR b): Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c) Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such as the homeowners association or a similar entity. E. Transportation El. Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF. Pre-cast concrete crossings shall be utilized. E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC. Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s). E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be provided. E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the approved Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. F. Hazardous Materials Fl. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16,2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat ii G. Aesthetics G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color, including sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets. G2. Relative building bulk may be reduced by screening through large vegetation.Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings may be required. H. Light and Glare H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated. H2. Buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection. I. Noise 11. The pile holes shall be pre-drilled to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited by the character of deposits). 12. If feasible given soil conditions, less noisy pile installation methods, such as vibrating piles into place,cession-type piles,auger cast piles or other methods shall be used. 13. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels shall be provided. 14. At-grade rail crossings that meet a "sealed" status to qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration (FRA) designation of a "quiet zone" for locomotive horns shall be provided with public railroad crossings. J. Historic and Cultural Resources J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer.The design and location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior to recording of the final plat. J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s). K. Public Services K1. The applicant Shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to determine the location and design of the public access.The system may include a soft surface trail along May Creek,sidewalks,and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat iii Introduction and Purpose In order to meet SEPA requirements, the Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on September 2, 2003 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement on May 3, 2004. These documents are referenced herein as the Draft EIS (DEIS)and Final EIS (FEIS). The purpose of the Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant impacts identified in the DEIS and FEIS. The mitigation measures apply to the proposed preliminary plat. Use of Terms The subject site may be referenced as `Barbee Mill" or "site" or "subject site" in this document. This document includes mitigation measures that are tied to the approval of site plans, termed Level 1 or Level II site plans. City regulations require a "site development plan" for development in the Center Office Residential (COR) Zones (RMC 4-2-120.B and 4-2-120.C). Site plan regulations are found in RMC 4-9-200! SEPA Requirements State regulations(Washington Administrative Code 197-11)and local regulations(City of Renton Title 4, Chapter 9) govern the development of mitigation measures to address identified environmental impacts.The primary regulatory chapters are cited below. WAC 197-11-060, titled Content of Environmental Review states in part, that agencies shall "carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects," including"those that are likely to ariselor exist over the lifetime of a proposal"or, in some cases, continue beyond the life of the proposal. WAC 197-11-330, titled Threshold Determination Process requires, in part, that the responsible official take into account the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposal when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts. In reaching a decision, SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. WAC 197-11-768 titled Mitigation.This section defines mitigation as: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; S. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -1- WAC 197-11-660(1) Substantive Authority and Mitigation. Decision-makers may impose mitigation measures designed to mitigate the environmental impacts, subject to the following limitations: a. Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies,plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency; b. Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker; c. Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. d. Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. e. Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. f. If, during project review, a jurisdiction's development regulations or comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action under RCW 43.21C.240, the jurisdiction shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter. Mitigation Document Based upon the DEIS and FEIS, this Mitigation Document identifies mitigation measures established under SEPA rules to address specific impacts identified in the DEIS and FEIS. Numerous state and local regulations will govern development of the subject site and application of those regulations will also serve to mitigate certain significant adverse environmental impacts. Additional consistency review under the site plan review, preliminary plat review, shoreline permit and other permit approvals will be required. Provided below for each element,of the environment analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS are: 1) References to text for Affected Environment and Impacts sections within the DEIS and/or FEIS; 2)Mitigation Measures; and 3)Discussion of mitigation measures. A. EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY Refer to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pages 3-1 through 3-7 for a detailed discussion of the Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. 1. Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation Mitigation Measures: Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and site construction. Discussion: Site work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas that are under construction. To control erosion during construction, contractors would use Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard mitigation measures approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) and by the City of Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -2- Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans would be in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs, erosion, sediment-laden runoff, and dust would be controlled, and adverse impacts would be reduced. A variety of best management practices, as listed below, should be included as part of the overall BMP program for the project to limit erosion and sedimentation: a) Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the site would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate measures for each phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for stockpiling of erosion control material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of problems may be appropriate. Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the plan should be provided. b) Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1 and April 30, because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. c) Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at any time.Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies. d) Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake Washington shoreline. Where possible, existing vegetation should be maintained as a buffer. A barrier should be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them from construction activities and prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within those areas. e) All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part of the construction plans,including: i. Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved,and dust control. ii. Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and establish temporary and permanent cove. fl A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent sediment transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric shall be installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season grading occurs. g) Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include: i. Detention for runoff from a site under construction.A detention pond may be designed to contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected during construction. ii. Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water. iii. Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance systems to prevent erosion during and after construction. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -3- iv. The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required for sediments or pollutants. h) Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment, leakage of fuels,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems. i) In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively. _ j) A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality assurance plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule shall, at a minimum, require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff,as well as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. 2. Seismic Hazards Mitigation Measures: Prior to submittal of building permit application(s),the applicant shall provide supplemental geotechnical analysis to determine the appropriateness of the following: A2. A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized,OR A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed, OR A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading, OR A5. Comparable engineering design. Discussion: Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the presumed extent of liquefaction, with varying levels of risk. The following three basic strategies were identified as potential design alternatives (as necessary) by the applicant's geotechnical engineer: Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002). The use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense deposits not subject to liquefaction. The most reliable foundation system would be founded on the dense glacial till. Shallower pile-supported foundations might be acceptable with appropriate geotechnical evaluation and design considerations. Piles driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer would not only have to carry vertical loads from the superstructure, but also would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and bending moments induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could be achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition, it is important that the piles be connected to the cap in a manner that allows Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -4- some rotation to occur, without failure of the connection. If pile connections fail, the structure may fail due to overturn forces. Stone columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of providing drainage. They are routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe into the soil using a water jet to the required depth. While adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and lowered to form a dense column. A system of closely placed stone columns provides areas of compacted soils not subject to liquefaction. In addition, stone columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil, which would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil particles. This effect, however, is not the most important one, since time for a positive effect of the drainage is limited to the duration of the earthquake,which means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only affects a rather limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is especially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage effect becomes negligible (Madabhushi 1999). Jet grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is the most common stabilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a drilled hole from the existing ground surface down to the desired depth. A rod containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high pressure. The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix. The jet is rotated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of improved soil. Numerous columns at close intervals can be used to create a block of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with cells of unimproved soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil without having to treat the entire area (Berger/Abam 2002). Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground surface to create dense and compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard, modified, or specialty machines and dropped from about 50- to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height,number of drops per point, and the spacing of the grid. In general, treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in granular soils. The major limitations of the method are vibrations, flying matter, and noise (Martin 1999). For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and constructed to tie all elements together to make the foundation move or settle uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful for bridging over areas of local settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation also reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002). The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can resist the load applied from the untreated deposits located behind the treated area depends on a number of factors. Such factors include the area of liquefiable soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -5- materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with retaining structures to contain lateral movement due to liquefaction. Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural challenges due to the depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more feet and the extremely high forces likely to be bear upon such structures if large areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend below the liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One -retaining structure option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The walls consist of reinforced concrete shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of unreinforced concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves drilling shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary shafts to be reinforced with steel and higher strength concrete are drilled between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The process is repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together. (Berger/Abam 2002) It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil improvement and retaining structures between building sites and Lake Washington. Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they are extensive linear facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep foundations, the cost is generally a limiting factor. Ground improvement measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in shallow liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral movement. Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to resist breakage from minor displacement together with sections of flexible line to allow displacement without breakage. In addition, having emergency backup facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire fighting and water supply. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Commercial and industrial uses may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the potential loss of life may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an active state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -6- building type, size and location. Additional environmental review may be required at that time. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Uniform Building Code (RMC 4-5); City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060) B. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-8 through 3-14 for the Affected Environment subsection. Refer to the Final EIS for the Impacts subsection, pages 3-14 through 3-22.The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. 9. Pollutants in Surface Water Mitigation Measures: B1. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation. B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid restriction of flows during regulatory flood events. AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of the following: B4. Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream channel,removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream/buffer improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design. B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume (i.e. a flood terrace excavated on the west side of the stream). B6. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel. Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding are presumed to include the constructing of levees or constructing the proposed development on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented under Scenario 2. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100- year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet above the existing ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -7- mitigation measures would protect the development from flooding. The analysis presumes discontinuation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek as a conservative scenario. Continued dredging could, however, be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures to increase stream capacity and reduce flooding. Dredging of the delta is associated with adverse impacts on aquatic habitat. Mitigation of impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction to reduce associated upstream degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter slope) includes three mitigation scenarios which are described below: Bridge Removal - This scenario would remove the existing bridges and replace them with bridges that do not encroach on the floodplain. This would reduce potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or increased scour and erosion. Under this scenario, floodplain modeling indicates that May Creek would still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, this mitigation scenario alone would not protect the proposed development from flooding, and a levee and/or fill would still be needed. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E. Compensatory Storage -This scenario would include a floodplain bench or terrace (in combination with removal and/or replacement of the existing bridges with bridges that would not encroach on the floodplain as discussed above). The proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bank full elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below the existing grade) as shown in Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-9 illustrated in the Final EIS. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood elevations,which would reduce bed and bank erosion and benefit the stream(see Appendix E). In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr. future mitigated flows; therefore, during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the west. This would protect the development from flooding,but could have long-term effects to stream morphology. A modification of this scenario was analyzed by the applicant with placement of the main bridge for vehicular access to the site near the stream bank at ordinary high water. This bridge location would interrupt the floodplain bench and would result in some backwater effect during high flows. A bridge at this location would reduce the effectiveness of the floodplain bench and result in some overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr. storm event,necessitating levee construction. Additional Setback - Levees or fill could be constructed at a distance of 100 feet from the existing stream instead of the proposed 50 feet. The approximate Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -8- location of the levee on the west side of the site is indicated in Figure 3.4-5 as illustrated in the Final EIS. This mitigation scenario would reduce the impacts associated with construction of a levee or fill at 50 feet. However, this mitigation would still require construction of a levee or fill to contain the 100-year flows in the channel and protect the development from flooding,and would have impacts similar to those discussed under Development Scenario 2, but reduced in scope because of the greater flood storage. This mitigation scenario could be used in conjunction with mitigation strategies of bridge removal and compensatory storage,described above,to provide additional benefits to the stream. Water Quality - City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged. The facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. Several recommendations include: a) Use of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of stormwater in landscaped areas (See additional discussion of remediation of the soil/plant community in the Section 3.4.3 in the FEIS). b) Prevention of discharge of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. c) The practice of mulch-mowing. d) Disposal of grass clippings,leaves,sticks,or other collected vegetation by composting,if feasible. Best Management Practices for sediment control during construction shall be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002): e) Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing, the limits shall be marked. fl Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a stabilized construction entrance(or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed,geo-textile fabric shall be installed under the rock. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -9- g) Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction. h) Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment shall be removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met prior to discharge to Lake Washington. i) Stabilize Soils:All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans. j) Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place. k) Protect Drain Inlets:All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden water. !) Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require protection. m) Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris,would be handled.This would include maintenance of construction equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems. n) Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations would be discharged into a controlled system. o) Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs,as well as their removal at the end of the project. p) Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control. It would cover phasing, training, coordination, monitoring, reporting, and contingency planning. Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows (Raedeke Associates,2002): q) Limit land disturbing or grading activities between October 1 and April 30, because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. r) Limit in-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings to the WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively to minimize impacts on aquatic resources. s) Route stormwater during construction to a holding pond for sediment control. The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is proposed by the project engineer as the optimum location for a TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes. t) The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility shall remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. u) Control and monitor stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. v) Stabilize soils at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering,erosion control matting,a gravel base for areas to be paved,and dust control. w) Install matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -10- x) Monitor water quality throughout the construction period.A monitoring plan shall be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule.The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the ground. The Ecology Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs that include the following: y) Limiting disturbed areas as practicable; z) Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas; aa) The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure; bb) Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces; cc) Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration,as needed, to reduce turbidity in the site discharge; dd) Specialized concrete handling; ee) Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals; ff) Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill containment features,and a spill clean-up kit; gg) Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction; hh) Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead;and ii) Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures. If mitigation measures such as bridge removal or excavation of a floodplain bench or terrace were implemented, additional Best Management Practices to control potential discharge into surface water shall be implemented, such as silt curtains within the stream adjacent to the construction area. More stringent protection of cleared areas and assurance of establishment of revegetation, or non-floatable erosion control measures shall be implemented prior to the time of the seasonal flood hazard. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual;2001 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual C. GROUNDWATER Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-22 through 3-24 for a detailed discussion of the Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below ` address identified impacts. 1. Groundwater Contamination Mitigation Measures: Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -11- 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. Discussion: Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic and other contaminants. No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the aquifers below the project site resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal. Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the community, it is important for on-site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the impacted groundwater during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic. Shallow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of subsurface utilities or other intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table is likely to be low during the portion of the year when precipitation is minimal, the chance to encounter groundwater could be minimized by conducting intrusive activities during the dry season (late spring through late summer and early fall). Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); State of Washington (WAC 173-340) D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Refer to the Affected Environment section in the Draft EIS,pages 3-24 through 3- 34. For the Impacts section, refer to the Final EIS, pages 3-16 through 3-25. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas. D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat approvals. D4. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain vegetation. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -12- D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat approvals. D6. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer. D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site. D10. Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing buffer vegetation. D11. Either: a) Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re- established (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks); OR b) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks); OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap. D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings. D 13. Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids. D 14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation. D 15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare. D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35) feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area.. D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-shore habitat; OR b) Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c) Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such as the homeowners association or a similar entity. Discussion: Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed. A major contributor to the beneficial use of the shorelines are the specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined below illustrates opportunities to expand shoreline buffer areas an implement other specific measures that increase the beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -13- Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline Regulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: "the potential effects on wildlife should be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the environment" (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); "landscaping should be representative of the • native character of specific types of waterways (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources" (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and "wildlife habitat should be incorporated into the site" (RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Subdivision Construction Impacts - Mitigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation shall include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing. Staging and access areas shall be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site shall be kept covered and/or re-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species. Construction of the proposed bridge presents a substantial potential for impacts to May Creek. These impacts will depend upon the design of the bridge; specifically how close abutments and fill structures are to the stream and how well erosion control measures are implemented. Selective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species. Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation as outlined in the Best Management Practices (BMP) identified in the Water Quality section of the FEIS. Perhaps the most important consideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, shall be located as far from water bodies as possible to reduce potential for accidental spills. Implementing a revegetation plan for the buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids piecemeal implementation as each lot develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of vegetation cover for interception of runoff from building sites. Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities -Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots fronting the Lake Washington shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife,native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in Lake Washington. In addition, importing Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -14- high quality soil material and ensuring adequate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the need for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance. The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001) recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks,and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta (King County 2001). Establishment of a viable community of native vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be aided by inclusion of the following concepts: Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation community. Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships shall be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid- story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter. Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among various plant communities. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife,both in numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost. Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native species. Establishment of soils for native vegetation will require extensive soil amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -15- replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control of invasive "weed" species. The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting, to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton .Parks Department; DNR, which has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources;volunteer participation by the public using shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for management by a public entity, may be required. The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas shall be varied and include a variety of plant communities. For the purpose of this analysis, it is presumed that the Renton Shoreline program requiring planting of native vegetation will include native trees such as western red cedar, western hemlock,Douglas fir,black cottonwood,big leaf maple,Oregon ash,and bitter cherry, and native shrubs and small trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier dogwood, Pacific willow, Sitka willow,Scouler's willow,twinberry, and salmonberry. Such plant communities also would enhance the wildlife habitat of the landscaping around the water quality ponds and reduce the potential need for herbicides and pesticides near these waters. Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement Avoidance- The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of the existing degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be retained. The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant shall be re- located outside the wetland and buffer. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -16- Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement- Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland, which consists of introduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants. Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced, together with likely changes in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1 minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in functional value (RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e). The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that should be addressed include the following: a) Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology. b) Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and trees. Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement (Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity. Wildlife- Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and precipitation to maintain plants, and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -17- Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat,provide screening from human disturbance,and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by shallow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the existing log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide perch and loafing sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species, pilings in deep water areas are the best candidates for retention. Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value. Osprey-Osprey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A WDFW biologist shall be consulted during relocation of the new nest site, which will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek. Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola 1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site may, however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early fledging period of late April to late July. Aquatic Species - There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is covered below under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such functions as LWD recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads,artificial light,and public access. Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings, the existing dock, and log booms would improve conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies ranging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number of docks, and or through specific design and construction measures. Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock construction. This would avoid impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-site marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at a distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common area (that could be Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -18- reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots. An option that would reduce impacts,but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two or more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent properties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat. Alternative Buffer Areas-More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re-establishment of natural characteristics of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long-term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use for wildlife and aquatic species. One conceptual scenario (Option A)is proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and two (Options A and C) are examined for May Creek: c) Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A on the west side of May Creek from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project to maintain the 50-foot setback. d) Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four proposed town home units to one or two. e) The entire 50-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species. For the Lake Washington shoreline, this option is presumed to include the following two components: fl The outer 25-feet adjacent to the shoreline would provide a vegetation buffer that would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: v. Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. vi. Limited re-grading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for plantings near the water. vii. Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development. Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. g) The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would be oriented to intensive residential use. It would provide few benefits to the adjacent shoreline except for distance attenuation of noise and other proximity impacts. This area probably would be used by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -19- liquefiable alluvial deposits. It is also likely that this area would be fenced for privacy from the 25 foot area of indigenous plantings and public access along the shoreline. This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning,however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings to the proposed height limits would result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 115 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Cross-sections that indicate the building setbacks for Option A are provided for three different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline as illustrated in the Final EIS. Option C, Flood Terrace and Reduced Planting in May Creek Buffer - The applicant has developed a third mitigation strategy (Option C) that is shown in Figures 3.4- 5A (illustrated in the Final EIS) and analyzed below. Option C applies only to the May Creek corridor. Differences from Option A include: On the west side of May Creek, the turn-around for Street A retains the original proposed orientation towards the exterior of the project,resulting in a setback of 25- feet from Ordinary High Water. The setback narrows to about 20 feet further south toward the mouth of the creek. On the east side of the May Creek the original proposed configuration of Tract F and the adjacent townhomes is retained resulting in a setback of 15 feet at the narrowest, with setbacks varying up to 30 feet further to the south toward the mouth of the creek. The 50-foot setback along the May Creek corridor north of the proposed bridge would consist of 35-feet of native vegetation and 15-feet of lawn and other managed landscape vegetation. It is unclear from the proposal who would manage this area, since it is outside of the residential lots. - Buildings on the residential lots are proposed to maintain a 10 foot setback, resulting in the setback from the stream in this area consisting of 35 feet of native species and • 25 feet of lawns and other residential landscaping. The lot layout and number of lots is the same as the proposal —1 A flood terrace would be excavated along the west side of the May Creek corridor from about Street A to the property line to the north. This terrace would extend 30 to 40 feet from the existing OHWM and would be three to five feet deep. The result of the flood terrace would be an increase in capacity to convey flood waters as discussed in Section 3.2.3, above. Impervious Surfaces - Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake Washington would be doubled. Total impervious surface would be reduced by about five (5%) percent under Option A as compared to the proposal. The decrease in impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -20- the Lake Washington Shoreline, where the 50 foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except under the most intense storm events. Option C has the same amount of impervious surface area as the proposal. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat - The buffer area in Option A (50 foot buffer) would be planted entirely in native vegetation. The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Option A would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only more wildlife habitat, but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would encourage species with less tolerance to humans. The Renton Shoreline Master Program, which provides general guidance that landscaping be representative of the native character of specific types of waterways (e.g. stream, lake edge, marshland) and be compatible with the Northwest image (RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth of the creek where Option A increases setbacks to 50 feet in areas where the proposal includes setbacks that range from 15 to 30 feet. Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of native vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native plantings adjacent to the lake and a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate only one or two native trees (at maturity) between the residential lawn area and the shoreline.A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases, homeowners on the Lake Washington shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated by typically dense communities of native species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an effective community of native shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -21 - Shoreline Management Act, supports planting native vegetation as a means of enhancing environmental values. With the 25-foot buffer of native planting on Lake Washington under Option A, some accommodation of both interests could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of native plantings. The 25 foot buffer in Option A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR,which manages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for removal of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which could include some combination of the City of Renton, DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the shoreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by an entity other than the individual property owner, would likely contribute to better maintenance of native vegetation. Option C proposes a 50-foot buffer on May Creek consisting of 35-feet of native vegetation, and 15-feet of managed landscaping. This is less than the native vegetation area in the applicant's original proposal The 30 percent reduction of the width of native vegetation on May Creek (with respect to the proposal and Option A) substantially reduces the ecological complexity and potential to provide riparian habitat functions. The narrowing of the total buffer width to a minimum of 25 feet on the west side and 15 feet on the east side near the creek mouth further reduces the riparian functionality in those areas. In the short term, construction of the flood terrace on May Creek in Option C would remove all of the existing riparian vegetation on the west side of the stream and would degrade riparian habitat. Construction of the flood terrace would also likely introduce sediment into May Creek in the short term,unless appropriate BMPs were used. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -22- Upon re-establishment of native vegetation, however, the flood terrace may provide an environment more suited to riparian vegetation dependent on ample water supplies because of decreased distance to the groundwater table. This may result in a plant community composed of more willow, cottonwood, red osier dogwood, and similar species. The 35-foot width of the area designated for native plantings, however, provides limited area for establishment of large trees that provide stream shading or potential large wood recruitment. About one-quarter of the width of the 35-foot native vegetation buffer area on the west side would be on the 3:1 slope providing a transition from the flood terrace to existing grade. This slope would present few constraints for re-establishing vegetation, but would only accommodate one or two native trees (at maturity) between the managed landscape area and the streambank. A 35-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely only allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. In comparison, the area of the site that currently has the most heavily vegetated buffer located on the west side of the stream north of the northerly bridge is about 60 feet wide. It generally contains a single row of mature cottonwood trees, smaller trees such as willow,and a dense understory. Option C is identical to the applicant's proposal on Lake Washington where a 25 foot building setback is proposed with no proposal, and little opportunity to re- establish native vegetation. Stream and Lake Morphology- Under Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing limited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in its existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation and a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional buffer area provided by Option A. Option C would provide an area within the flood terrace that would allow the stream to re-establish some additional instream habitat-forming and floodplain processes, such as meandering and channel migration, due to the removal of existing bank protections. However, the 20 to 25-foot width of the terrace would limit the extent of these processes. If the stream did meander to the west, the 35- foot native vegetation buffer would be reduced and provide less buffer between the stream and proposed residences. The overall potential to re-establish more natural stream processes would be somewhat better than under Option A. Near the mouth of the Creek where the Option C buffer is 15 to 30-feet on the east side and 25 to 35-feet on the west side, there would be fewer opportunities to re- establish a natural stream morphology as compared to the 50 and 100-foot buffers under Options A and B. Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington. Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -23- accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing erosion to form a more natural shoreline. Option C is the same as the proposal for the Lake Washington shoreline and provides no mitigation of impacts of the proposal. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration - Under Option A, the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its ability to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff except near the mouth of the stream. - Option A differs from the proposal near the mouth of the stream where, under the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide additional area to filter sediments or runoff. The Option C 35-foot buffer of native vegetation provides a moderately effective width on the west side of the stream of about 25 feet of level native vegetated area within the stream terrace for removal of pollutants and sediment by overland filtration. The slope at the edge of the terrace is unlikely to provide any pollutant removal because of the velocity of surface water moving across the slope. The slope may contribute to erosion due to surface water movement. This slope is also likely to speed the velocity of surface water flows across the remaining 25 feet of flood terrace, reducing its effectiveness. For much of the proposed 35-foot buffer, there is no native vegetation beyond the excavated floodplain terrace. Fertilizers,pesticides and sediment from the managed landscape zone is likely to be filtered less effectively than either the proposal where the entire buffer would be vegetated, or under Option A that would have a wider buffer area than Option C. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional pollutant control would be provided by Option A, which doubles the width of building setbacks and providing an additional 25-foot buffer area of native plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff would be moderately effective with the 25- foot planting area. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building construction. Option A would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the Lake Washington shoreline as compared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington as compared to the proposal and can be expected to have the same impacts from chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that can be expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing these chemicals. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -24- Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate-A riparian vegetation buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek as in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading may serve to prevent or moderate further increases of water temperature prior to entering Lake Washington that would otherwise occur if there was no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. Option C would provide even less shading potential since a reduced native vegetation buffer width of 35 feet would not support the same number or density of mature trees as would a 50-foot buffer. Option A would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's proposed 25-foot building setback (presuming that few large trees.would be planted on private lots and shading would be negligible). Native shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would, in time, grow to provide shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the morning,because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown shading from trees along the shoreline and inland. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Shading is dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. Large Woody Debris Recruitment - Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited increases in LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat, but this should only be considered a short-term solution, and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. Since Option C has the least amount of native landscape, it can be expected to provide the lowest LWD recruitment potential on May Creek of all the options. Option A would provide more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the proposal or Option C. As with May Creek,LWD could also Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -25- be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Bulkheads - Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed 25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline. The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Option A provide greater potential for removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, removal of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is available for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is proposed. Bio-engineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 as illustrated in the FEIS. This may be especially applicable in publicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural Resources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in Figure 3.4-10 as illustrated in the Final EIS. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline. As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads, the following could be implemented: h) Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads,or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -26- gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation. i) Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or rooted plants, provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden sediments(WDFW 2003). Residential Noise and Lighting- Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Option C, with a 30 percent reduction in the width of the buffer area devoted to native vegetation, can be expected to provide a reduction in effectiveness in blocking light. The limited effectiveness of vegetation in providing noise buffer would likely result in little difference in noise attenuation between Option C and Option A. Along Lake Washington, the proposed 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Option A. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however, this would be very difficult to enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. Public Access Disturbance - Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of Renton s Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks, as discussed below. Under Options A, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to Option A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide. Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option A. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established through delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for "significant" public access on Lake Washington. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. If a public access trail were placed in the Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -27_ managed landscape area, impacts on May Creek would be similar to Option A, except near the mouth where the buffer width is reduced. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Environmental Regulations (RMC 4-3); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) E. TRANSPORTATION Refer to pages 3-61 through 3-89 of the Draft EIS for the Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigating Measures: El. Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF.Pre-cast concrete crossings shall be utilized. E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC. Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s). E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be provided. E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the approved Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. Discussion: Site Access and Rail Impacts-Impacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well as other impacts,can include a range of potential measures,as follows: a) Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and intersection approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8 as illustrated in the Draft EIS. This may place crossings closer together and increase the potential for blockage of both by a stopped train.This could be mitigated by connecting the existing access point at the north end of the Vulcan property with this site through a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF right-of way.That would provide a separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. b) A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings, ranging from: warning lights and bells,gated control of approaches, and quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian approaches. c) Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad right-of way can be addressed by: Fencing railroad right-of-way, and education programs. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -28- Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks due to lack of emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by grade-separated crossings. This impact is unlikely to occur with current local freight use of the rail line. Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected impacts of redevelopment of other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated by developing an overall mitigation program. The mitigation program could ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate future channelization and signal improvements:The circulation system could include provision for elements such as a street serving all properties west of the BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527; City of Renton Street and Utility Standards (RMC 4-6); State of Washington - Transportation(RCW 81.53) and (WAC 480-62) F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Refer to pages 3-89 through 3-97 of the Draft EIS for Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures F1. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards. F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided. Discussion: Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings shall address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be developed. It is to include specific worker and public health safety precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options foi' these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to place limits on property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall site could be addressed by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -29- removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to reduce mobility, to isolation from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway would provide an impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human contact with contaminated soil and reduce infiltration and leaching of residual contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The City of Renton,may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within the proposed right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a • remediation program to be implemented prior_to roadway construction and dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a cleanup strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as meeting the requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act. Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the north, must comply with the following requirements as stipulated in WAC 173- 340: a) Protect human health and the environment; b) Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700; c) Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710; d) Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410; e) Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable restoration time WAC 173-340-360;and i9 Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); State of Washington (WAC 173-340) G. AESTHETICS Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-98 through 3-117, for Affected Environment and Impacts.The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures: G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color, including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets. G2. Relative building bulk shall be reduced by screening through large vegetation. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would be required. Discussion: For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic impacts can be reduced by a number of strategies ranging from changing building height and bulk to specific building design features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -30- The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape design, can provide a number of features which reduce apparent bulk of buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety,depending on the use of common elements and the variety of size,position,or design provided. Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that would not be expected to mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can provide a crown area that is higher than building roofs, or screen a substantial portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide for large species that would provide crown area that could provide visual relief, as opposed to the dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way. Such additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective because existing structures would remain. Painting existing structures a color that would blend with the surroundings better than white and aqua could reduce negative visual impacts.New structures that are taller than the existing buildings shall be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A formalized entry into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen from the roadway. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Development Standards (RMC 4-2);City of Renton Landscaping(RMC 4-4-070) H. LIGHT AND GLARE Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-118 through 3-119, for Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures: H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated. H2. Buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection. Discussion: For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights shall be used to reduce the visibility of light from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings shall consider avoiding glare from glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists. This project is Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -31 - not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant after mitigation. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Development Standards (RMC 4-4-075) NOISE Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-119 through 3-126 for the Affected Environment and Impacts and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures: I1. The pile holes shall be pre-drilled to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited by the character of deposits). 12. If feasible given soil conditions, less noisy pile installation methods, such as vibrating piles into place, cassion -type piles, auger cast piles or other methods shall be used. I3. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels shall be provided. I4. At-grade rail crossings that meet a "sealed" status to qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration (FRA) designation of a "quiet zone" for locomotive horns shall be provided with public railroad crossings. Discussion: A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices can reduce the extent to which people are affected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with enforcement standards requiring mufflers on equipment. Practices such as turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise. Stationary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as possible. Portable noise barriers could be placed around equipment, with any openings directed away from the residential receiving property. These measures would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound and would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. Substituting hydraulic or electric models for pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement breakers would also reduce construction noise. The effect of impact pile-driving can be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited on this site the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in less noise impacts. Cassion- type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile, which is installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal,thus eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -32- option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. Rail Noise Impacts - The FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory.The regulations have not yet been adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures that might be taken if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of increased use of the rail line. The FRA proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian conflicts at rail crossings. To accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a "sealed" status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by four-quadrant gates, median-divided barriers incorporating gate arms long enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates. Gates would also have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to range from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with traffic signals and based on the number of lanes of roadway and the number of rails (FRA 1999). Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070) J. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-126 through 3-132 for Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer. The design and location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior recording of the final plat. J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s). Discussion: Historic Resources - Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an • important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. Although the original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is the last of the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an opportunity to commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -33- • • development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display could build on a brief description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a history of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near May Creek and its delta. Cultural Resources- An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources- were encountered during construction, the construction foreman must direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would need to contact the Washington State Archaeologist (360-586-3080), who assists in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Archaeological Sites and Resources (Chapter 27.53 RCW) K. PUBLIC SERVICES As stated in the Scoping Document for the Environmental Impact Statement, Public Services was not an element specifically analyzed. However, the proposal would add new residential units that would increase the demand for Fire Services and residents that would generate additional needs for park and recreational facilities. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts. Mitigation Measures: Kl. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to determine the location and design of the public access. The system may include a soft surface trail along May Creek, sidewalks, and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington. Discussion: Public access is discussed in section "D. Plants and Animals". To reiterate, the Shoreline Master Program requires the provision of public access on Lake Washington. Additionally, May Creek is a part of the continuation of the Mountain to Sound Greenway of which the public access trail is to be constructed along in order to connect to the existing trail system. Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -34- Policy Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527; City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090; Ord. 4716) _ I Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat -35- MICROFILMED Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for City of Renton Renton,Washington Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425) 822-8880 www.parametrix.corn May 2004 Project No. 554-1779-017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CITY OF RENTON Plenning;Building/PUblidWorks•DepartmCnt 104317 Kr:otker-Whetkr Muyor • • "6ng.Zimmorman.le.E::;AOininistroor . . „ • May 3;2004 •Dear Readk :Attached is-a copy of the Final Environmental Impact IStaternentTEISYfor The Barbee Mill Preliminary In May 2002 the Barbee Mili ComPahy,Submitted..e.t.arid UaMester,Application-,(L .02-040) for.0 Preliminary Plat. The City:Of ReritenlErivironmental,RevieW Committee• •issued a Determination.of Sienificance on November 5 2002 The City of RentOn, in. accordance yirith the.,State,Environmental Poficy.Aot(SEPA) prpcess;-,IbSued a,Seeping NotiCa.,Ori..NOVenibef.21.,',2062, •On December 10;'2052., a public:sOoping meeting was iield,tb:.i'eceive Written,and oral comments on the proposed scope of study;A" copin'g' - Doconieht:WaS:isstied on January 1 o, 2003 A.Draft EnvironmentallmPacl Statement (0t1 ) .was issued by the City of Renton' Environmental Review demmittee.,on September 2 2003 A public hearing was held on.Septeniber:23;- 2063..1-he public cciMment"peribd'for the.DEISolosed'on.,Qckiber 8,0063, . . . . . . . The'Finat'ElS':a0gments:the Draft EIS by Providing additional researati,publishing and answering comment letters received on the Draft and making correCtiOns,The Draft,EIS. should be referred to for:te):thot revised in this Final EIS Purs Ont.to.pFPArbles'.(WAC 197-11),follqWing,the'Issuance the seven day. waiting period wilt baestablished (May 4*-throUgh May'1 b„ 0,4)-duting•Whiph...hO actions on the:Proposed: liMinary plat Will be.made. pre, . . Upon issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):41-iere will be a twenty:(20)a4::.6006.61.por10.,..Any•.aPpeal must lje..based.on the-adeqUeci,britikDratt .and Final EIS; Under the City of Renton Municipal docte::(RMg-'4,8L.f.10:.;E.44iii); an appeal ofthe'FE'S muSt be made tothe Heeling-niarniner.The-appeal,peried Will-.end on May24 •..2004 at500pm Actions taken':-'based„upon-the Final EIS, Mitigationi'Document;:Site Plan and Preliminary Olat),May,alsolbe-aPbealed,OurSilant the applicable prOVIsieri .Of the Renton Coda and state law . , If.you haya•i4uestIons:orequirer 'clarification'of the,abeve, please,'contapt:Susan:Fiala, Project-Mariager•.0t.(425)439!7.382: The City of RentOn•appreciates your interest and thanks you for your ParticiPatibri. i Fort e:EnyirOntneritel,keVieW•POrnmittee;, •t _regg.Zim1 rm ri ,•• • • .Adifilnistrater,-Planning(Building/Public Works • i:955•Sit)14 Grady Way-Renton Washington 98055 RENT-0 N:.: (E),nspw•wo,lins rrbFri", ii 61; rii City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement May 2004 • This Page Intentionally Left Blank FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of a 22.9 acre site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. The site is ! on Lake Washington. May Creek flows through the easterly portion of the site. Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two - connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at- grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. A new bridge crossing of May Creek is proposed. Utilities include water, sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls between property lines. Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE Renton,WA 98056 Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc. Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson Century Pacific,LP 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle,WA 98101 (206) 689-7203 Lead Agency City of Renton Contact Person Susan Fiala (425)430-7382 Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging • Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval • Clearing and Grading Permit Approval • Site Plan Review • Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street modification for access to the development by Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement i May 2004 • Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project (continued) Approval • Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits • Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease termination assessment and restoration order • King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill buildings within public aquatics lease area Authors and Principal Parametrix Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200 Contributors Kirkland,WA 98033-7350 (425) 822-8880 Date of Issue Draft EIS: September 2,2003 Final EIS: May 3,2004 Date of Action on Spring 2004 • Applications Location of Background City of Renton Information Planning/Building/Public Works Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 (425)430-7200 Parametrix Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE Suite 200 Kirkland,WA 98033 • (425) 822-8880 $ 10.00 Final EIS Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS $ 15.00 DEIS Technical Appendices $ 5.00 CD version of DEIS • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement ii May 2004 I II TABLE OF CONTENTS i` VOLUME 1 — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COVER LETTER • FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS iii ACRONYMS vi 1. SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1 1.1.1 Proposal 1-1 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1 1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1 1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1 1.2.2 Impacts 1-4 1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES • 1-5 1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5 1.3.2 Impacts 1-6 1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-7 1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-7 1.4.2 Impacts 1-7 1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7 1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7 1.5.2 Impacts 1-8 1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10 1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11 1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11 1.6.2 Impacts 1-12 1.6.3 Mitigation 1-13 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1-14 1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-14 1.7.2 Impacts 1-15 1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15 1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15 1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15 1.8.2 Impacts 1-16 1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement iii May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-17 1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-17 1.9.2 Impacts 1-17 1.9.3 Mitigation 1-18 1.10 NOISE 1-18 1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-18 1.10.2 Impacts 1-18 1.10.3 Mitigation 1-19 1.11 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19 1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19 1.11.2 Impacts 1-20 1.11.3 Mitigation 1-20 2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1 2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1 2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4 , 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1 • 3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY DEIS pages 3-1 to 3-7 3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-1 3.2.1 Affected Environment DEIS pages 3-18 to 3-14 3.2.2 Impacts 3-1 3.2.3 Mitigation 3-5 _ 3.3 GROUNDWATER DEIS pages 3-122 to 3-24 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-16 3.4.1 Affected Environment DEIS pages 3-124 to 3-34 3.4.2 Impacts 3-16 3.4.3 Mitigation 3-25 1 3.5 TRANSPORTATION DEIS pages 3-161 to 3-89 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEIS pages 3-189 to 3-97 ' 3.7 AESTHETICS DEIS pages 3-198 to 3-118 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE DEIS pages 3-118 to 3-119 3.9 NOISE DEIS pages 3-119 to 3-126 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES DEIS pages 3-126 to 3-132 4. REFERENCES 4-1 j 5. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5-1 6. COMMENT LETTERS.RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6-1 j 7. DISTRIBUTION LIST 7-1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement iv May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES A Scoping Determination(Bound with Draft EIS Text) Volume 2 —Appendices B —E (Distributed with Draft EIS Text) B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report C Water Resources D Terrestrial Plants and Animals E Aquatic Species F Revised Floodplain Analysis Technical Report(Bound with Final EIS text) LIST OF FIGURES 1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2 1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3 2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2 3.2-3 Floodplain 3-4 3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-7 3.2-5 Floodplain Terrace Mitigation Option 3-9 3,2-6 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 3 3-10 3.2-7 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 4.1 3-11 3.2-8 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 6 3-12 3.2-9 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 9 3-13 3.4-4 Option"A"50-foot Buffer 3-34 3.4-5 Option`B" 100-foot Setback 3-35 3.4-5A Option C,Variable Setback with Two Management Zones 3-36 3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27 &28 3-37 3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-38 3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 & 36 3-39 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-45 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of Pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-45 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures 1-20 3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-22 3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-23 3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-23 6-1 Barbee Mill Draft EIS Comment Letters 6-1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement v May 2004 I ACRONYMS APA Aquifer Protection Area BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second _ CMZ channel migration zone COR Center Office Residential dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration I-405 Interstate 405 KCBW King County Backwater KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual KCSWM King County Surface Water Management Leq A-weighted energy equivalent LWD large woody debris mg/L milligrams per liter mllw mean lower low water mm millimeter mph miles per hour MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service • I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement vi May 2004 I i -' NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHW Ordinary High Water OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RMC Renton Municipal Code PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCP pentachlorophenol PHS Priority Habitat and Species RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SMA Shoreline Management Act SPTH Site-potential tree height SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control TIR Technical Information Report TOC total organic carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOE Washington Department of Energy WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmenta 1 Impact Statement vii May 2004 This Page Intentionally Left Blank i li 1. SUMMARY 1.1 ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EIS,with additional analysis in the Final EIS of impacts on Surface Water Resources and Plants &Animals. 1.1.1 Proposal The 22.9 acre project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure 1.1-1). May Creek flows through the easterly portion of the site. Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with a new bridge crossing of May Creek. The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railway;with one bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet that would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging about 50 feet in width along May Creek; and displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline to protect buildings and associated private lawn area. Public lands consisting of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are presumed to be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails,benches, and interpretive facilities. 1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site,with different uses than the existing sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads, the existing driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses and new structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building area. 1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY 1.2.1 Affected Environment The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited)and lacustrine (lake-deposited)geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand, as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 May2004 . 2 IP 405 522 5 4 . .. . . DUVALL . 202 k . REDMOND KIRKLAND s- " 202 203 520 SEATTLE Lake BELLEVUE• y 'r Washington, v�Pp z 90 1 0 CC ISSAQUAH '1 NEWCASTLE 900 {7 RENTON PROJECT 405 SITE Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01 Figure 1.1-1 W Vicinity Map Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • --,, ,. lir,,..,r, ,.,, . . . .:..:2.: .... . , .. ., . . .. . . .. . ,,....„ f___. , _ .,.; ,., leilirsit it, ,, ..!. , - T f' .s.,:,,. , 1 t �'- RE ?STET .•...r.. ..:._..._...........„... , SITE I1 N .. •\ p O CJ1^ 1'. Z i C - LcxKF:WAS.t'iENG'I'GN-: .ram v. F' I - N , ) ...110:,•inAfit)r#t....:# ,N 1,e°.„, 4gINM-inME M1fti.1,11-t1-"-..„s, •m - �1. 11. 1.r. 0,0. 0:0'i1.d 1li,1: 2•' , �o r ,-,;' � ♦ J 1 . .°s R : : 4ft ,' f' L® iio iI mgII1 CITY fi iJ' RENTON '•''. 0.7: ..,_..............,.. .: ..:„..iii:I.111,41 114, ....,..7...:.:_; limo 4441, ...:1,_,,ms ,•404 . 2.1. ,50.- t. ' . ---, ._ i..... „ _ m __.. Ito ,,,.,A.: 110_ ..,7•.". --.'-NI ':. .; ,.., A11111111111LT/4 7 -, • isieri Nit ukoAri ‘ ‘..... .. ,. ,-. ........ .4,i,___ Er 1>" , , •,_,.. . Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)B/03(K) At MOCity Limits Figure 1.1-2 • Local Vicinity Map The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site. The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years)because of known earthquake epicenters in the region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta. 1.2.2 Impacts Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the site prior to grading. This project may cause erosion, sediment-laden runoff, and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek. If a terrace for floodplain compensatory storage is constructed adjacent to May Creek, there will be higher risks of erosion resulting in sedimentation of May Creek. Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures;utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That,together with the gradient provided by lake depth could result in movement of portions of the site to the west. It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings,roads, and utilities due to the complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site developed to date. There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement. 1.2.3 Mitigation To control erosion during construction, contractors would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction. Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by: • A deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. • Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 May2004 • Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral spreading,particularly near the shoreline. The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally,public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost, and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected,the population at risk, and specific building type, size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time. 1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1.3.1 Affected Environment The site lies on the shore of Lake Washington at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake Washington. The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. Under State Water Quality Standards,May Creek is to be protected for the following designed uses: Salmon and trout spawning; non-core salmon and trout rearing and migration;primary contact recreation; domestic; industrial and agricultural water supply; livestock watering;wildlife habitat; harvesting; commerce and navigation;boating and aesthetic values(Ecology 2004). The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State as being impaired for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria. Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife,provides multiple recreational opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries,and acts as a focal point for the surrounding communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good,natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood. The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to(1)reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2)make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; (3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and(4)take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored." Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 May 2004 associated with industrial activities. The 100-year floodplain covers approximately half of the site west of May Creek. 1.3.2 Impacts The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately 85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition,reduction in impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site. Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would cover a substantial part of the site. The proposed development is within the May Creek floodplain. Construction of the proposal would require structures to be protected from floodwaters through fill or a levee. Potential impacts of containing 'the floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space area with a width of about 50 feet include increases in the base flood elevation,potential bed scour and bank erosion and downstream aggradation, sediment deposition and flatter slope. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel." 1.3.3 Mitigation Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff. Impacts related to construction of the floodplain through fill or levees to avoid flood damage to the portions of the proposed development located within the floodplain inchde: • Removal or replacement of the existing bridges on the stream with new bridges that span the floodplain, and therefore do not obstruct floodwaters. • Provision of compensatory storage at the project site. This may include excavation of a floodplain benches/terrace on the west side of the stream within the Barbee Mill site by removing historic fill adjacent to the stream. • Construction of levies or fill at a greater setback,providing greater flood storage. Analysis was performed for placement of levees at a 100-foot wide setback from the stream. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 May 2004 1.4 GROUNDWATER 1.4.1 Affected Environment The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area..General groundwater flow on the site is west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the site,with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)were also detected in specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST) areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment. 1.4.2 Impacts Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces,the stormwater conveyance system,and potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up- gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of foundations. 1.4.3 Mitigation Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic and other contaminants. 1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1.5.1 Affected Environment Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes substantial upland vegetation adja cent to the riparian zone of the stream. Invasive species such as blackberry also reduce habitat value of the riparian zone. A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification for dredging operations,but the majority of plantings do not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation community. Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water utilities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 May 2004 Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese,northern flicker, spotted towhees,white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows,red-winged blackbirds,tree swallows,black-capped chickadees,house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants,hooded mergansers,American wigeons, scaups,buffleheads,and common mergansers. Mammals and amphibians on the site include voles and mice,the Norway rat, opossum,house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the existing riparian habitat along May Creek limits its current value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site. The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site. The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act,which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill,possess, sell,purchase, ship, transport, or export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of Washington laws. Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however,use of the actual project site is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery,the species has been proposed for federal de- listing and state down-listing to sensitive. May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site. There are three fish species that are present, or may be present,within the Barbee Mill project vicinity that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment(DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project vicinity. 1.5.2 Impacts The existing osprey nest will be removed during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site. Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in the area. The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 May 2004 proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress,which will result in limited habitat value. The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying,inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species. The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. A 50-foot width(Options A and C)would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD)recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and pollutants,regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of mic roclimate. The required width of the buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate. Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels,or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction,human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity. Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The long- term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about 100 feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous native species. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project due to low speed limits that would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities,whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would potentially cause some disturbance,which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of constructing the proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports from the stream. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 May 2004 Bulkheads are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences on Lake Washington because the proposed 25-foot building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without potentially threatening buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon,preventing recruitment of sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating an inhospitable high-energy environment for juvenile fish. The analysis assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16 additional docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns,provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may also desire to institute dredging,which would deepen shoreline areas,thereby reducing the habitat benefits provided by the May Creek delta. Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting,and piers can also adversely affect juvenile salmonids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program,which requires"significant"public access on Lake Washington. The applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species. • 1.5.3 Mitigation Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations, may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur,clearing to remove these species would be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species. Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant communities and provide for animal movement. The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer. If impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment,plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation communities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 May 2004 Adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic species of residential landscaping can be reduced by choice of species and by maintenance practices that minimize the use of fertilizers,pesticides, or herbicides.. Enforcing restricted planting choice or use of chemicals on private lawns and landscaping is,however, difficult in the long term. Mitigation for adverse impacts to May Creek can be accomplished through alternative buffer areas involves three conceptual plans that vary in setback widths from 50 to 100 feet. Both Options A(50-foot setback)and B (100-foot setback)would be planted with native vegetation. A larger buffer with native vegetation planted not only provides the capacity for mature canopy overstory, but also creates greater ecological complexity. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities and support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and persistence of native vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and replace plantings that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants. The 50-foot setback of Option C is segmented to include 15 feet of managed landscape,reducing the amount of natively planted buffer to 35 feet and represents a potential increase to impacts on May Creek. Generally,managed landscapes used as a buffer are not functionally equivalent to buffers with native vegetation because managed landscapes tend to receive chemical additives (e.g. fertilizers,pesticides,and herbicides) and generally lack canopy overstory from large trees needed for large woody debris and stream temperature regulation. For the Lake Washington shoreline;both the 50-and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts such as the introduction of fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading, recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline. Some of the mitigation through larger setback areas could be implemented on the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private shoreline frontage will allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor. Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW,to allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, or utilize vegetative stabilization instead of bulkheads or riprap. Where bulkheads are not avoidable, design to provide for plantings,. These options have limited application under the proposal because of the 25-foot building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in dredged areas but can be more readily implemented with greater buffer areas. Impacts of future construction of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on near-shore habitat can be reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration. 1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1.6.1 Affected Environment The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railroad right-of-way. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway. City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 May2004 All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service(LOS) A or B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard) at NE 44th Street that operates at LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation. Existing pedestrian,bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transit service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405. 1.6.2 Impacts Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2 transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity. The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials. Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad. Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings. Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site. All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project, due to heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn movement. The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007 baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp operations. Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 May 2004 A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential alternative arterial routes,however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips can be addressed,by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405,or by retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersections,that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes. Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project. Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north. At the least,residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips and would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections. 1.6.3 Mitigation At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes. The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection also meets volume criteria for signal warrants. The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of $75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system.impacts of diffuse new trips from the development on the general circulation system. Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan property. Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches: • Grade separation, which removes potential vehicle train conflicts,but is more expensive; • Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails; • Active control of at-grade crossings,which consists of signals and gates designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 May 2004 The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required. Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation. 1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1.7.1 Affected Environment As part of lumber processing,various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks (USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals, fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations. Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in concentrations up to 490 mg/kg(compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)were detected. Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon(TOC)that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest of the source area,with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were not detected in areas sampled. A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA) includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base; dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including prefiltering, oxidation,precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington; removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location;backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring program and possibly an ongoing groundwater treatment program. A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington,next to the Barbee Mill site,was conducted between 1999 and 2002,under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon(PAH) criterion. These sediments are currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County,Washington. The remaining City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 May 2004 clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003). Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property immediately north of Barbee Mill,which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to constructing a roadway. The Vulcan(J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site included creosote and pentachlorophenol(PCP). Contaminants present in the soil,groundwater,and sediment of the site include dioxins, PAHs, and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL). Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site. 1.7.2 Impacts The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal,because concentrations of detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply. 1.7.3 Mitigation Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety precautions,protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work. 1.8 AESTHETICS 1.8.1 Affected Environment The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 May 2004 shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures. Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and slope steeply toward, Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from viewpoint to viewpoint,but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale,bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides. 1.8.2 Impacts This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15-to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide. Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of views from the vicinity to 32nd Street,to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer to the site,the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that is visible. For closer views,the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground. For viewers farther up the hill, the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings, and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the entire site. Construction of new buildings, however,would not block views of the dominant element of the distant view,the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation of indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings. Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect. 1.8.3 Mitigation For the proposed subdivision and residential development,reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 May 2004 One strategyis change to h buildingbulk,which could take several forms. The most obvious would be to g reduce building height. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of a canyon effect on streets within the development,and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings from outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building height,bulk,and setbacks. Common design features,materials, and color, as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual interest and provide both visual unity and variety. An additional mitigation strategy is screening the buildings with large vegetation. Vegetation planted on site,however,would not be expected to mature for a number of years. The current design also does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. Mitigation would consist of providing larger areas for planting around buildings in conjunction with the design of landscaping for open space areas to provide for large species. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the access road on BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in that area. 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1.9.1 Affected Environment Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have some shielding,but probably date from the 1960s;many need repair. There are no glare sources on site because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass. 1.9.2 Impacts Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street and/or sidewalk lights,building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall brightness at night and would reduce glare. The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees. Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south, headlights generally will point into the bank,which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family residences. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 May 2004 1.9.3 Mitigation For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast, shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding • glare from glass surfaces. 1.10 NOISE 1.10.1 Affected Environment Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently, operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs; and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise from arterials in the area and I-405. Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA. Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks. Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA. Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools,nursing homes, hospitals, or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site. 1.10.2 Impacts During construction,there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use. In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment,use of driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower noise levels over a sustained period. The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest noise impacts will occur to residents occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings. Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA. This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3 dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 May 2004 residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise impact. The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore,increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four trains per day,the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service,however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads. 1.10.3 Mitigation State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and would be especially appropriate for compressors,welding machines,pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal,thus eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. The Federal Railway Administration(FRA)has proposed regulations to allow designation of a"quiet zone"that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed"status to fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn. 1.11 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.11.1 Affected Environment Barbee Marine Yards,Inc., a ship and barge building company,was established on the site in 1943. The Barbee Mill Company,Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last active sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt, and additional structures have been added since then. The oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This building and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack"integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site"as individual components because the original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 May2004 historic district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register. Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened,the shoreline dropped approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources;however,the northeast corner has the potential for deeply buried resources. 1.11.2 Impacts As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of privately owned structures. 1.11.3 Mitigation An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction, the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded. Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Earth,Soils,and Geology Erosion and sedimentation --Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control prior to construction Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system,such as pilings,that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits Install ground improvement measures,such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the hazard of lateral spreading,particularly near the shoreline City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 May 2004 Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Surface Water Erosion and Sedimentation Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan Pollutants in Surface Water I Construct,operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities Flooding • Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space I corridor of approximately 50-foot width , Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and providing additional storage volume. One means of accomplishing this is a flood terrace excavated on the west side of the stream. This mitigation has the potential to contain the floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space corridor. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in I flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow Build new bridges to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid restriction of flows during flood events. Groundwater Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater,if monitoring after soil removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site Plants&Animals Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity Removal of existing vegetation I Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from �Mm. disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer areas Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species buffer areas Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain vegetation Loss of vegetation in flood terrace Plant open space area with native vegetation (only Option C) Restriction of animal movement at I Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement bridges Lack of habitat value of residential I Use native plants in residential landscaping landscaping Surface water pollution from Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, — fertilizers, pesticides,or herbicides pesticides, or herbicides with resulting impacts on wildlife and I Provide greater setbacks(50 to 100 feet)from surface water with native fish vegetation to reduce overspray,spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into water Wetland and buffer displacement I Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer I Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 May 2004 Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing buffer vegetation Bulkhead impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks) Providing plantings in rip-rap Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline plantings Loss of waterfowl habitat through Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from removal of pilings and other in-water the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids perching sites Lack of large woody debris(LWD) ' Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow recruitment - establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow temperature I establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade Light and glare impacts on wildlife ' Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow and aquatic species ; establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to intercept light and glare Direct disturbance of wildlife and I Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer public using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline Impacts of docks on juvenile ? Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near- salmonids shore habitat Reduce the number of docks through shared m oorage Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than shoreline vegetation residents Transportation Increase transportation demand from ' Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard)intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal. standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets volume criteria for Signal Warrants Geometric limitations of propose Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek Potential safety impacts at railroad i Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts,but is crossings j quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative I impacts of development of adjacent properties City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 May 2004 Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and pedestrians Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of conflict points Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings Increased pedestrian/vehicle Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide conflicts safe pedestrian circulation Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee circulation system Hazardous Materials Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminant from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control Act cleanup Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan during construction Visual Impacts Building bulk and scale will dominate Reduce building bulk by reducing building height near views of the natural features of Reduce building bulk by increasing setbacks between buildings Lake Washington and the Mercer Island skyline Reduce building bulk by varying building height,bulk,and setbacks Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color, including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would be required Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare Noise Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby residences would be most sensitive Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving Pre-drill pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the character of deposits) Require less noisy pile installation methods,if feasible given soil conditions,such as vibrating piles into place, cassion-type piles,auger cast piles or other methods Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, equipment welding machines,pumps,and similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 May 2004 Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued) IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES Noise from locomotive horns ; Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration(FRA)designation of a"quiet zone"for locomotive horns Historic and Cultural Resources Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area Potential disturbance of -r An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the archaeological resources northeast corner of the site,and if deposits are found, consult with the I Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological l deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area and should be conserved Public Services Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts(see Appendix A) public services City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-24 May 2004 2. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed. 2.1 PROPOSAL The current proposal of the applicant contains the following: 1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into lots include the following (Figure 2.1-1): • Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet is proposed. • • Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads. • One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed to be retained for pedestrian use. • Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek consists of a water quality pond with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet. • A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity. • An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Approximately 6,500 square feet of this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities, which would leave a net area of approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not developed a proposal for public access to this area. ( • A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed. • Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced, together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots. Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland. • Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce the wetland setback below the minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance. • Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets. • No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or the shoreline. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 May 2004 I I A f/ t/ / j% f `/ ) ,/ f/ j/ f i `l/ if " " \\--,/// /2 — ,{----, =-- , /%''';-4 //,'//17-'- \ \‘ '‘'\ COR-2 ZONE e 2111. ..`.... / /7- i 1 T-,--., 11, Maw q Eng _/ , / (WO 1 i 1 \ . ; • .v, // , 1r) "wag / , yy F �III���ME / S r I � { s®. . j Tract"B" 4Ir,Y /`ract'C Water /;71::// '� Open ' Quality, IPUBLIC LAND P Y // f I �;2`.v:'Space \; . / \ '4'„ I- tl. / #0,2440\„. • *%' U�FER ' \,-.1.- , /44, . „,-;,/ ONEr I , P---% yis -. . . . .;,., /// �, LAKE / _ �y WASHINGTON Nt. 04\77:2)"nlivv.7/ ice. I//I itTAF ' 1 - ----- PUBLICCVP/ / i 44 '• / f NiNiN, , LAND k4 j:�y. .\Ar •` ~ • . \ z, / it ,,N, ,"7 /7( )-- —2'''''t,„,,.,,,,, Ail Asa � k��/ "0- ' -N, AY CREEK � DELTA , , — _- _' / R_41,14 N 40TH ST ti 1 ter t ¢'` f 1 , -,,, _/ ff`. .w° •v/ Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01 SCALE IN FEET lAt Figure 2.1-1 I_ Overall Plat Plan 0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following: • Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two structures with five units are proposed east of May. Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate design and environmental review. • On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning, which is Center Office Residential 2 (COR-2) and Shoreline Urban Environment designation: > Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district, which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review. The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units: — Street setback— 10 feet — Rear lot setback— 10 feet — Side lot setback—5 feet — Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum ➢ Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2. — The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet. — Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70- foot building would be up to 7 stories high. • Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific proposal for shared moorage. • Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building patterns on Lake Washington. • Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future. 3. Washington Depaitinent of Natural Resources (DNR)managed lands: Features presumed to be developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract,Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails,benches, and interpretive facilities. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 May 2004 1 1 This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to: (a) Foster water-dependent uses i (b) Ensure environmental protection (c) Encourage direct public use and access (d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources (e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city limits of Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line. 2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site,with different uses than the existing 1 sawmill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made: • No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access would continue. • Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses. • Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained, including structures on public lands administered by the DNR. • New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-2-080,Footnote 23). > New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum shoreline and stream setbacks. > Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland setbacks, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. > All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer areas, which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings. > If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would be implemented to meet current codes, which would result in somewhat larger, open stormwater treatment areas, due to the larger impervious area. > Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings,would meet current codes. • Specific presumed building area and uses on site include: > Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet Warehouse: 272,500 square feet Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet > Parking Area: 220,000 square feet 818 (based on pro-forma sheet) spaces City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 May 2004 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES The Impacts and Mitigating Measures Subsections of Sections 3.2 Surface Water Resources and Section 3.4 Plants and Animals have been revised 3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-lthrough 3-7 of the Draft EIS. 3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3.2.1 Affected Environment The Affected Environment subsection has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-8 through 3-14 of the Draft EIS. 3.2.2 Impacts This Impacts subsection has been revised. Please refer to this text rather than the Draft Environmental Impact Statement text for Subsection 3.2.2 on pages 3-14 through 3-22. 3.2.2.1 Impacts of the Proposal The proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed.Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on the 22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land that is waterward of the Inner Harbor line. This strip of public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Sixteen lots front directly on Lake Washington with no intervening public land. Residential structures along the lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from the waters edge. The proposed buffer for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing bridge close to the mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance north of the northerly wetland. The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the May Creek buffer area has not been proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis,it was presumed to be restored with native vegetation. (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). A new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of the existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. Stormwater Discharge The proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek and Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary 55 - Plat 4 1779 017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 May2004 • Impacts to Water Quality _ Degradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater pollutants,or erosion and sediment transport,,result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving waters. If not properly mitigated,potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil • and greases,nutrients,toxic organics,metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater detention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure. Water quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment facilities, described in Section 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington. —' The reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed, enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide beneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002). Maintenance Activity Impacts Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers,pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods. Construction Water Quality Impacts Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, as well as excavation and backfill for contaminated soils remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for utilities and water quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after completion of subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes. These activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff, and soil compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and maintenance of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated, surface waters can be impacted. Any work required in or adjacent to the OHWM of May Creek could also have temporary water quality impacts due to erosion and/or sedimentation. Floodplains and Flooding Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors,including the erosive force of the stream,the nature and location of levees or fill used to protect the proposed development from flooding, and the mitigation provided. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing two development scenarios to the existing condition using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate of 1,059 cfs(King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration, delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and the three existing bridges. The assumptions for each scenario are summarized below: Scenario 1—Development with no levees or fill Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill used to protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site would be removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. The 100-year floodplain as mapped for the existing conditions would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on Figure 3.2-3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek. The almost level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow to City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 May2004 the west,potentially flooding 25 buildings and the southerly roadway providing access to the site as indicated in Figure 3.2-3. Scenario 2—Levees or Fill Constructed at a 50-Foot Setback Construction of levees or fill to protect new construction from flooding is required by Renton codes. For this analysis, it was presumed that levies or fill would be installed at the edge of the May Creek open space area. For floodplain modeling,this was placed at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream. This would contain the 100-year flows and protect the development from flooding. This would result,however, in impacts to stream and floodplain hydraulics by reducing overbank storage. This would increase water surface elevations up to about 1.5 feet in some areas. The reduction in storage capacity also could result in bed scour and bank erosion. In addition,the Army Corps of Engineers Manual(1994)discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel,instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels,the levees can lead to upstream degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation(sediment deposition and flatter slope). In addition,levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994). The potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated as part of engineering plan review of the proposal. Bridges The proposal would remove the existing middle bridge across May Creek and replace it with a new bridge. The existing bridge affects the hydraulics of the floodplain; however, it was assumed that the new bridge would be designed to comply with the City of Renton regulations and that floodplain hydraulics would not be affected. If the new bridge was constructed in a way that would influence stream hydraulics,potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or increased scour and erosion could occur. 3.2.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site conditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net impervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same. It was assumed that any existing or proposed buildings within the 100-year floodplain would be susceptible to flooding. Potential impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground floor uses and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the flood elevation. Potential impacts to the stream and floodplain could occur if fill and/or levees are used to protect existing and/or new development on the site to support continued industrial uses. Impacts could be similar to those discussed under Scenario 1 and 2, above. 3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact Cumulative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water resources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal. Future off-site development resulting in increases in impervious surfaces within the watershed was accounted for by using the predicted future developed flow rates for the 100-year floodplain analysis. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 May2004 i , Ialww= COR-2 ZONE — I ‘ r r -,, ;"-,,-,r.--„ •-•,.lz-.11 7 11171.-1 It')-, I i ,-. i . •, . . m., .:,,, STREET — ti, ) . k - ___;\ i - - - — --7 , 1 - i-a -..'t ••-.7 - .-''' 7-- [.... t. ,..t.... ... • / OHW--__ I "/ .7 ‘ , 1 1 / / ,.0/ 1 ..;,:... ,.. , / , 4, , ,.. ..... 1 L„ . 1 . . . ./ / ,_ _ 1 .1_ _ __i - - - - - - // .,V .;\/ F --.•-... ) i - !, Tract"C" r,, °A.-As • lo PUBLIC LAND I Space s t--- . ' .......r'''• ' " 1/ / / ,., / c3. ...... . . c--- .2. .. ..•y\ . ,,••-• A . ....., ,.., ... . „ . . . . /, ,, • 1, , , , _ „.... , ,/ , ../.\... ,..._ __ • .,. . • _7„. , 0 E -...) ,,,,i'2••••.'.'- if ' 4, i•, .. ..2 1" .Y ,.. ,.. *. ' -z- - x. • — .-/ ---''sr • t J 1 41 ilIlllrrL- r-:---- 2•&1---:-----__:,:--,--,,-.5 . • i / 0 i'• 1 .g, / d 1--- ' • - ,,. gil L_ _-= .;/.., /. ---45,:' . • - - -OHW ) , fi WASHINGTON 1 . . ... 4, "1" rlP 4 /h trn" ) r4 .... -CL:. , ‘Ilaira• /4(f . 4i:-.14414k* /I I/ • • it / & illiii_ d_ Illai t- 't 411) 7- . f ..• • ! (,.. . i ,, is. ,/ ,,f / , .m.. 4 •`•• ,„,"" :.--.‘ ./"..„,„0::. 884,;,, .... ,,,,, „... , 14. PUBLIC ti\b\,,.0 .1....> ;444:-. /2,...... ( 1 , ,.;,..\\.‘1V4,h,."' / / i / \-- - ---- . .(4i41/4kip.::: , i MAY CREEK I 1 / DELTA 7.4-41-00:Nt:--- ...,* 44t / .„.. tiz / • i l''' 411\ ' ' 4*,/- ,,,7 ..(A*..r 40 .1, , ......R,a.ZONE _9 .4' .- ''' /e x l' '' N 40TH ST e I . LEgra,... ....... —i I I i Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-03 SCALE IN FEET ,Ir'N Figure 3.2-3 I Ilar Flood Plain 0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat ! ! 3.2.3 Mitigation 3.2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation • Site Hydrology • Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998); however,water quality treatment is required. The proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount of runoff could be enhanced by the use of pervious pavements on driveways,parking areas and sidewalks,using tree and brush cover to provide additional interception of rainwater, and infiltration of roof drain discharges. Stormwater Discharge The site is proposed to be served by a stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 that is sized to convey the runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm from all impervious surfaces on the site, including future residences. The conceptual proposal includes water quality ponds for treatment of pollutants in runoff. Its operation and maintenance would be required to conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements (King County 1998). If these proposed facilities are properly implemented, adverse stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The following brief description of the proposed conveyance system is based on the Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (TIR) (Otak, Inc.2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides the preliminary calculations showing that the stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards (King County 1998). Discharge to Lake Washington Following water quality treatment,water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs during the 100-year,24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Adjacent Upstream Drainage An existing bypass storm drain line that crosses the eastern portion of the site between proposed lots 99 and 100 would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve the stormwater discharge from the developed offsite N 40th Street basin. Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding are presumed to include the constructing of levees or constructing the proposed development on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented above under Scenario 2. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100-year flood. Therefore,the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-, 050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures would protect the development from flooding. The analysis presumes discontinuation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek as a conservative scenario. Continued dredging could,however,be combined with one(or both) of these potential mitigation measures to City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 May 2004 increase stream capacity and reduce flooding. Dredging of the delta is associated with adverse impacts on aquatic habitat as discussed in Section 3.4. Mitigation of impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction to reduce associated upstream degradation(bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation(sediment deposition and flatter slope) includes three mitigation scenarios: • Remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain; • Modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench or terrace; and • Provide a 100-ft setback from the existing stream. Mitigation through Bridge Removal This scenario would remove/replace the existing bridges with bridges that do not encroach on the _ floodplain. This would reduce potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or increased scour and erosion. Under this scenario,floodplain modeling indicates that May Creek would still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore,this mitigation scenario alone would not protect the proposed development from flooding, and a levee and/or fill would still be needed. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E. Mitigation through Compensatory Storage This scenario would include a floodplain bench or terrace (in combination with removal and/or replacement of the existing bridges with bridges that would not encroach on the floodplain as discussed above). The proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below the existing grade)as shown in Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-9. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood elevations, which would reduce bed and bank erosion and benefit the stream(Appendix E). In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows;therefore, during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the west. This would protect the development from flooding,but could have long-term effects to stream morphology. As discussed in the affected environment section,the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The I_ Army Corps of Engineers Manual(1994) discusses additional problems with levees in delta settings, such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels,the levees can lead to upstream degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel" (USACOE 1994). Also,the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994). A modification of this scenario was analyzed by the applicant with placement of the main bridge for vehicular access to the site near the stream bank at ordinary high water. This bridge location would interrupt the floodplain bench and would result in some backwater effect during high flows. A bridge at this location would reduce the effectiveness of the floodplain bench and result in some overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr storm event,necessitating levee construction. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 May 2004 1 , lfI tY i r t • h . 111INIF 71, :IL- 71 r —lir -1F 11 T'I I :‘ I ' I r/d/4 t /1/ limi - I 1 . 1....c lij ,. I ,%,1 i,, I „ __IL: _its,/ / / II tl I 1 1 wIr—' i--7 -- --' <MIA( ItEi j Lv I Ihk AVIS-7 ,Mill EMI :7/ i/ 11117L1\\* _ v .. , ./im." ......_ ,..),,,,,,--/-„ , . 1, /7 , 7 / 'r '4'1 ' _<-" /7 - -4 --/ / / 21:>1' 4v- -/ - / 7 , \ Oa . 4 ,.. s __ , ,,,.. , 4 , , ,_ ,,,, / i<., ,\, , ,, , ‘.„.• . _____..„ „, s \., , ,_ , ,,,,,,—,—,-, ,,/ / / ./' /, ! f \.\p"..,79 %// / ,„ t r < - ,,y-.. „<- � ., I �� jam;- / ? - 7,-- 77// / f C j ill III- l'''''' All . \ � ","fs ..�= ", ,� ) / ,1/45 LAKE i,, r / 1 1/' . 4/ WASHINGTONop, �s •fj;,jjiJ 1 'VIM\ , l i ,f ` �71 1 !+ 7/7 49/ ' 1 ;�7&kJØI � ` r 7 v' _ _ _// .,, ,,-/ / m 1i1 f y /- IA /7,N ••.j.4"-If.. .„ / / 40I,k 40)„, ,/ , ,7,/oieltiratit, __. ,,,,,/ / 2---., 'A' . A.\'\- 7/,,, 40P\44'. ,-44.or ,,e-4/i/ ( (• (,Alk, o...-, /11., 7„,41-et-',,,:-i 7 _ ‘ -\\ \‘‘, . ____,,,.....-,,..„:„,-..-...-_-_-,---„ /7110, ire ----,,,7t --/ >\ / MAY CREEK 7� �!t • \ V DELTA , ' �,' r, �: -- 020 +/ � r: ��/"`- ,,-/j r 1 LEGEND =`d's—• -�. Vim. J — Flow path - - P" • , ,., / K tf' Fw N 40TH ST i , _" / /". Basin boundar Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3 Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04 Figure 3.2-4 SCALE IN FEET Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 0 100 200 WirBarbee Mill Preliminary Plat Mitigation through Additional Setback Levees or fill could be constructed at a distance of 100 feet from the existing stream instead of the proposed 50 feet. The approximate location of the levee on the west side of the site is indicated in Figure 3.4-5. This mitigation scenario would reduce the impacts associated with construction of a levee or fill at 50 feet. However,this mitigation would still require construction of a levee or fill to contain the 100-year flows in the channel and protect the development from flooding,and would have impacts similar to those discussed under Development Scenario 2,but reduced in scope because of the greater flood storage. This mitigation scenario could be used in conjunction with mitigation strategies of bridge removal and compensatory storage, described above,to provide additional benefits to the stream. Mitigation for Water Quality City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged(see Figure 3.2-4). The facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM(King County1998)requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality q g P P Y � P � q tY impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The ' area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre.Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of May Creek(see Figure 3.2-4). . The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet, or 11,026 cubic feet if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington (indicated as WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4). The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. Mitigation for Maintenance Activity Maintenance of the water quality ponds would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998)requirements (King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal from the ponds could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts from the possible use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan, as described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater runoff would be reduced by the implementation of the following BMPs: City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 May 2004 r ,/„.;„:_,,,._,,,,, / • ,Afr-2?. ; .. i ST�.FT__ i . - - Tom_ - / \ R / _ STREETA r/1 / TRACT"C" TRACT"B' m 83 �a7'j «/% / . ! W '''''.411,1111141".z•••••--/ fri:0/1 , /// fri % --- sliFLeel 8 ,if ,/ / 1 tg 4 V 57 +to//7/1 /// / u •i.�.r. ( &,fie\. / '//yC iff /:// j%r ' CC I xl %��PyGSACT"D" f< if �/ iv /2 z i /l I, 6 . lg. ,:';" * (/J /J 6 1/7 AIIIMINIOR ;••' '••,,z'L-zr . // to • ----•-•---____ 411111111"11111444,kii„.41411)/". ttil ihill%;ce" fri' /// :, . /77/*%5‘171111tS7 ---/ :/ 17/7/ - ''''''' / / « 5 46- a ^ ///` J /, ' fA // N>N fig � N \ , / /MAYCREEK -i / ` � N77 // / / DELTA �� �✓ I #6.4V411)/% / r • / v • R'�' d , i /j P��l Parametrix DATE: 03109/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-5 A LEGEND Figure 3.2-5 „ „ Floodplain Terrace 'S;,Asi,, APPROXIMATE TERRACE 0 20o Mitigation Option _� :�;�,��,�' FLOOD BENCH 9 P S IN FEET Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 0 33- CO 4- 0 W 31- 30 \ I o La gl 29- • 27: \\ • 26 \5 25- � I i 0 \ 24 J'--— — 23: \ r 22 \ v 100-yr WS P � 21- EAST �\,.. / WEST • 20 j- DOMING GRADE 19- BANKFU WS. v / 18 MCA!( . . .S.p 1 ` E / \\ / PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 17- _ i ! 16 15- _ t 14 0 • 20 40 60 80 - • • � 100 • • • 120 140 • • • 1i60 Station (ft) Parametrix DATE; 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-6 Figure 3.2-6 Scale:Horiz:1a=20' Floodplain Terrace Vert:1a=4' Cross Sections -Section 3 __ Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1 i I ! i 1 31 i i 7? 1 I I i ; I I j W 1 I ! 1 '' I 1 T lal I ! 1 1 I 1 I 1 3•Is-I. I 29 8 I I 1 8 I { E I ; i II j 1 ? 1 27 —'-1,` { , I I 1 I 7 I ; I j I ; I 25 i 1\ ! I j I ? ; I I i \ 1 23 I i 100-n WS l — i — —1_ 1 i t. I. ,. ES EAST I ' 21 ' /{ 1 ' YY T I I \ I j I ; 20 --.._._....-'--"-'----"---'--__....-._._DOSING:GRADE_..--'--}. 1 ._._.. .__-___......_`......._...._.........__._...----._...._.. I _._................._ ..._.......__._.. { I I BANKFULL WS (PROPOSED 0HW)Q_ I .........._..----....__.-_-__.'..._-. �... I I I 19 I I I / i�EAN ANNUAL WS_ p/ i I ....._. I I i -- 1 i 1 1 I 1 �'y ; ..._.....-.....__.i_._..._ "-PROPOSED FINISH'GRADE 17 1 I 1 I I ' I I I , I I I I I 16 I '20 40 6I0 a'0 160 1 R1 1 d0 Station (ft) Parametrix DATE: 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-7 Figure 3.2-7 Scale:Horiz: 1"=20' Floodplain Terrace Vert:1"=4' Cross Sections - Section 4.1 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 32 I I. . i _...I. 1 I I 1 i 31 lE1 1 f I i I t • IRLd I 1 1 i I 1 29 I I I I I I ! �1 28 I i I I l 1 i I 1 i I i 27 I 1 ' 1 P. I I —` 1 I ' v 1\025 I, - 1 1 p.t0 0—Yr WS i — — _..I 1 1 T _ i -— I i 1 23 'EASTI \ , i WEST I 11 ;_ I 1 11 1 1 1 j t BANKFIILL WS p I ! i 21 1 EXISTING GRADE I �(PROPOSED OHW)— / I j 1 I 1 PROPOSED FINISH GRADE �MAN ANNUAL WS _ = I I I I --/ l 1 1 I 1840 60 80 100 120 1'0 1.0 Station (ft) Parametrix DATE: 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-8 Figure 3.2-8 Scale:Horiz:1^=20' Floodplain Terrace Vert:1^=4' • Cross Sections -Section 6 -- -- — Barbee-Mill Preliminary Plat - • 32 w 31- °o= a m 30 \ o 29- \ 28 _ _-- 27- 1 . _� - 100-Yr WS. 0 ` r -- -r.. : _ 9 26- EAST ` I WEST Lu? 25 I 24 EXISTING GRACE 1r (PBANKFULL ROPOSED OS -v J I 23- ' ) \-PROPOSED FINISH GRADE LMEAN UAL WS,v_/ 22 21- 200 20 40 60 80 - 100 120 Station (ft) Parametrix DATE 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-9 Figure 3.2-9 Scale:Horiz:1°=20' Floodplain Terrace Vert:1°=4' Cross Sections - Section 9 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat � I • Use of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of stormwater in landscaped areas (See additional discussion of remediation of the soil/plant community in the Section 3.4.3) • Prevention of discharge of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems • The practice of mulch-mowing • Disposal ofgrass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation bycomposting, if feasible p PP� g > g If mitigation measures are properly implemented, substantial adverse impacts as a result of routine maintenance would not be expected. 3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation BMPs for sediment control during construction should be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM,Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP),including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002): • Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked. • Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed,geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. • Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis,it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction. • Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met prior to discharge to Lake Washington. • Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans. I - • Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place. • Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden water. • Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require protection. • Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris,would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction equipment, fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water treatment systems. • Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches,vaults,and foundations would be discharged into a controlled system. , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 May2004 • Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and installed construction BMPs,as well as their removal at the end of the project. • Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control. It would cover phasing, training, coordination, monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning. Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows (Raedeke Associates,2002): • Limit land disturbing or grading activities between October 1 and April 30,because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest. • Limit in-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of bridge footings to the WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively to minimize impacts on aquatic resources. • Route stormwater during construction to a holding pond for sediment control. The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is proposed by the project engineer as the optimum location for a TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms, and later via permanent drainage pipes. • The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized. • Control and monitor stormwater released from the on-site TESC pohd during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements. • Stabilize soils at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include,but are not limited to,temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching,plastic covering, erosion control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved, and dust control. • Install matting,plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. • Monitor water quality throughout the construction period. A monitoring plan should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations,background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the ground. The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs that include the following: • Limiting disturbed areas as practicable; • Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas; • The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure; • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces; • Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed, to reduce turbidity in the site discharge; • Specialized concrete handling; • Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals; City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 May2004 • • Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill containment features, and a spill clean-up kit; • Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction; • Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures. If mitigation measures such as bridge removal or excavation of a floodplain bench or terrace were implemented, additional Best Management Practices to control potential discharge into surface water should be implemented, such as silt curtains within the stream adjacent to the construction area. More stringent protection of cleared areas and assurance of establishment of revegetation, or non-floatable erosion control measures should be implemented prior to the time of the seasonal flood hazard. 3.3 GROUNDWATER This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-22 through 3-24 of the Draft EIS. 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E. of the Draft EIS 3.4.1 Affected Environment The Affected Environment section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-24 through 3-34 of the Draft EIS. 3.4.2 Impacts This Impacts subsection has been revised. Please refer to this text rather than the Draft Environmental Impact Statement text for Subsections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 on pages 3-34 through 3-61. 3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction Vegetation Communities Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation. Wildlife The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is discussed below. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 May2004 Impacts on existing wildlife communities during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a • substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when construction is not taking place. The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving. The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity. Wetlands The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained;however, construction of the adjacent Street C and the town homes will eliminate the buffer below the Renton code minimum of a 25-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland(as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass with encroachment by a stockpile of stored soil. The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an area of about 10 feet by 40 feet,with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3). Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source of water to recharge the wetland,resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be eliminated. Aquatic Species Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of construction activities, aquatic species use at the time of construction activities, and the extent and nature of habitat modifications that would result from the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are below the water level of May Creek Sediment may be discharged into May Creek and Lake Washington as a result of construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads,bridges, stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities. Increased sedimentation may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term and long-term. Suspended sediment originating from this site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes. High turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993), and juvenile salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased turbidity(Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may also cause spawning City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-17 May 2004 salmon to avoid an area,thereby delaying or diverting spawning runs using May Creek(Spence et al. 1996). The magnitude of impacts will,however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction,to periods when use of the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by in-water work windows accepted by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology). 3.4.2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site This subsection assesses impacts of the development of 115 townhome units on the site and future use of these residences. Vegetation Communities Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s, resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003). The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the waters edge to about 100 feet,with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans,but specifics of proposed plant species and densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential on- site native vegetation compared to existing conditions. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract,Lots 29 and 30. The existing sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of native plant species. , The uses directly adjacent to May Creek and Lake Washington may have a number of direct and indirect impacts on the character of vegetation and habitat. The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on the proposed May Creek open space area,with an additional 300 feet of road parallel to May Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those,eight front on the public land managed by DNR,leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building setback. The 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely that --, common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, without specific conditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil amendment likely would be required for existing compacted soils to support landscaping. A 280-foot wide Tract"C" Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and is proposed for a water quality pond that takes up about a third of that area. An additional - irregularly shaped Tract"B"is located near the center of the site and is almost entirely occupied by a City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-18 May 2004 water quality pond. The upland portion of Tract`B"is proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress. Tract B is proposed to be planted with turf and ornamental shrubs and trees. There are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of plant communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a community is discussed in the mitigation section below. The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, increase shading, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. (King County 2001). Wildlife Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. Animals using the creek as a corridor have adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed in the vicinity. Most of the corridor,upstream of Lake Washington Blvd.,however,is contained in buffer areas that average about 300 feet in width. These wildlife populations may have developed some tolerance for high noise levels and other disturbance, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when human activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife populations on-site may be delayed until new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have sufficient time to mature. The proposed setbacks of approximately 50 feet for most of the May Creek corridor as indicated in Figure 2.1-1 are greater than existing vegetated setbacks on the sawmill site. However the use of the areas adjacent to the stream during sawmill operation generally was for log and lumber storage. The major processing functions of the sawmill were 300 to 500 feet from the stream. The presence of 38 residential structures directly fronting on May Creek at a distance of 15 to 80 feet will introduce a more constant source of daytime disturbance. Residential pets also will provide potential disturbance from barking dogs and potential predation(especially of amphibians,birds, and small mammals by free-roaming cats). The portion of the stream corridor potentially most impacted by the proximity of residences and roads is near the mouth where the closest proposed residence on the east side is 15 feet from the edge of the stream and on the west side where building setbacks are from 35 to 60 feet south of Street A. The buffer area downstream of the proposed bridge location is proposed to be 15 to 35 feet from the edge of the stream. This narrow buffer area provides limited opportunities for attenuating proximity impacts such as noise and nighttime lights and is likely to have little habitat value and be an impediment to movement of larger terrestrial species. Plantings of native vegetation,which is presumed for the entire proposed May Creek open space area, would result in an increase in forage, and cover for wildlife compared to existing conditions. The creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential impediment to wildlife movement along the stream corridor, depending upon its design. If the bridge design does not provide sufficient City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 May 2004 setback from the edge of the stream and sufficient height,the movement of large mammals such as deer would be restricted. Construction of bridge abutments at the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)would force all terrestrial species to climb and cross the road,which would substantially impede animal movement along the stream corridor and substantially reduce the habitat value of the buffer area by impeding access to it. The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife movement that has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed near the center of the site may provide limited wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's edge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. The potential for wildlife habitat can be enhanced as discussed in the mitigation section below. The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed,may reflect the existing low levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce - waterfowl use. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program which requires"significant"public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3- 090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis, public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms: • Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas are about 16 feet wide at lot 24,20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30. • A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots,which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the water's edge,to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible. • Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek, including pedestrian crossings. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the littoral edge. • Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area. • Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may disturb plants, especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion. I " City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 May2004 Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as discussed in the mitigation section below. Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Osprey The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation,the birds may or may not find and use an alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of artificial lighting, may also influence osprey use of the site. Bald Eagle The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be reduced, however,human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced. Wetlands The desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way could lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality. The addition of fertilizers,pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially impact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application. Aquatic Species May Creek The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce surface runoff,but is likely to have a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed. Development of the site would result in an increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated pollutants. However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on-site treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface Water. This may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and Lake Washington as compared to existing conditions. Aquatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer along May Creek. Additional buffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing salmonid habitat. However,the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of providing a full range of stream habitat forming functions and processes. The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD)recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and pollutants,regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate(May City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 I May 2004 1 I 2000,Pollack and Kennard 1998;Knutson and Naef 1997;FEMAT 1993). Buffer width recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3. • The Tri-County response to ESA 4(d)rule that was issued by NMFS for the taking of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban streams like May Creek(i.e.within the designated urban growth area [UGA]) ,the Tri-County response recommended maintenance of a minimum no-touch buffer width of 115 feet,plus an additional 65 feet of restricted-use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer(Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone(CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as reviewed by May(2000) and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999). Channel migration zones are typically located in lower floodplain and delta areas such as the mouth of May Creek within the proposed project site. Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of approximately 50 feet, as proposed for most of the May Creek corridor on the Barbee Mill site,will not provide the full range of habitat functions and protections that streams require. The buffer width of 15 to 35 feet south of the proposed bridge will provide very limited habitat and stream functions. In addition, the proposed buffers would not allow stream channel migration and floodplain processes that would support the formation of instream habitats on the Barbee Mill site. The proposed buffer,however,would provide some limited improvement of certain stream habitat functions. Pollutant removal,sediment filtration,and some water temperature regulation(particularly on small streams)can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet,particularly in areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site(Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional wood recruitment and bank stabilization due to streambank vegetation is likely. However, at a minimum it would take many decades for any large wood to become established along the streambanks and be available for recruitment into the stream channel Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May (2000) Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment erosion control removal Pollutant Removal 4-262 m(13-860 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal '_- Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term natural levels Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36-141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m (33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive Microclimate 45—200 m(148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 May 2004 I I I Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(ft) Water Temperature 35-151 Pollutant Removal 13-600 Large Woody Debris 100-200 Erosion Control 100-125 Wildlife Habitat 25-984 Sediment filtration 26-300 Microclimate 200-525 Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT (1993) Function Number of SPTH a Equivalent Width(ft) Based on SPTH of 200 ft. Shade 0.75 150 Microclimate up to 3 up to 600 Large Woody Debris 1.0 200 Organic Litter 0.5 100 Sediment Control 1.0 200 Bank Stabilization 0.5 100 Wildlife Habitat --- 30—183 m (98—600 ft) a SPTH=site potential tree height which is the maximum height of a mature tree that can be expected to occur on any given site. As described in Section 3.2.2.1 and Appendix B,the proposal would remove the existing bridge across May Creek and replace it with a new bridge. The existing bridge affects the hydraulics of the floodplain; however it is assumed that the new bridge would be designed to comply with the City of Renton regulations and that floodplain hydraulics are not affected. If the new bridge would influence stream hydraulics,the potential impacts such as increased scour and erosion could occur. Lake Washington Shoreline Aquatic species would benefit from normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into Lake Washington after dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create additional shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront more typical of the natural Lake Washington shoreline,which would potentially benefit many aquatic species,including juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines would be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline processes in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section contains additional discussion of this option. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 May 2004 I � If this area is developed for public access,human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not currently present. Disturbance from human activities may include informal access to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow areas,which can disturb the use of nearshore areas by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both passive public enjoyment and a productive natural environment are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section. A 25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake Washington. This limited area would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community sufficient for providing natural shoreline habitats and would preclude many opportunities to enhance shoreline habitats. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section,which outlines potential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical fertilizers, herbicides,and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental landscaping. The application of these substances would likely occur up to the limits of the lot,which would be the waters edge. Some direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected from overspraying and inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow directly into Lake Washington. Fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment,which can increase plant production and biochemical oxygen demand. The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting public land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers,boathouses,pilings and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns,provide refuge for predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation,phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore due to shading(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001;Piaskowski and Tabor 2000). The proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta formation creates shallow areas that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake bottom is shallower,natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur,but these would lead to some loss of setback area through erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water areas that provide refuge, spawning, and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species, and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish. An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999)by causing delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street lighting,would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad et al(1999);therefore,the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently,the City of Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting. Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 May 2004 Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline edge. This would result in the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above, and the loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation.. • The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads, however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in the discharge of soil and other substances into the water. • People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and in doing so, may disturb substrate or directly disturb aquatic species and shoreline habitat Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the mitigation section. 3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have simplified the near-shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington,introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001)with a range of adverse impacts on resident and anadromous species. 3.4.3 Mitigation Impact mitigation includes the following steps: 1. Avoid the impact 2. Minimize the impact. 3. Reduce the impact over time. 4. Rectify the impact. 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact. Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed. A major contributor to the beneficial use of the shorelines are the specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined below illustrates opportunities to expand shoreline buffer areas an implement other specific measures that increase the beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal. Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline Regulations,which sets forth several requirements as follows: "the potential effects on wildlife should be City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 May 2004 considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the environment"(RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); "landscaping should be representative of the native character of specific types of waterways (stream, lake edge,marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources"(RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and"wildlife habitat should be incorporated into the site"(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). 3.4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts Mitigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing. Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or re-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species. Construction of the proposed bridge presents a substantial potential for impacts to May Creek. These impacts will depend upon the design of the bridge; specifically how close abutments and fill structures are to the stream and how well erosion control measures are implemented. i Selective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species. Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation as outlined in the Best Management Practices(BMP)identified in the Water Quality section of this FEIS. Perhaps the most important consideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located as far from water bodies as possible to reduce potential for accidental spills. Implementing a revegetation plan for the buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids piecemeal implementation as each lot develops,provides for oversight of the removal of impervious surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of vegetation cover for interception of runoff from building sites. 3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and Use of the Site Vegetation Communities Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots fronting the Lake Washington shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation within the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the quality of the vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers,pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife,native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and ensuring adequate soil health,prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the need for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance. The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-26 May2004 Establishment of a viable community of native vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be aided by inclusion of the following concepts: Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation community. Spacing. Within each target plant community,the patterns of species and their spatial relationships should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy,trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter. Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among various plant communities. In general,the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such transitional areas or"edges" are rich in wildlife,both in numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost. Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native species. Establishment of soils for native vegetation will require extensive soil amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control of invasive"weed"species. The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting,to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR,which has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands;WDFW,which has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources;volunteer participation by the public using shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for management by a public entity, may be required. The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and include a variety of plant communities. For the purpose of this analysis, it is presumed that the Renton Shoreline program requiring planting of native vegetation will include native trees such as western red cedar,western henilock,Douglas fir,black cottonwood,big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry,and native shrubs and small trees such as red currant,red elderberry,vine maple,beaked hazelnut,Pacific crabapple,red-osier dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow, Scouler's willow,twinberry, and salmonberry. Such plant communities also would enhance the wildlife habitat of the landscaping around the water quality ponds and reduce the potential need for herbicides and pesticides near these waters. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 May 2004 Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement Avoidance The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer,with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet,but allow construction disturbance of the existing degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be retained. The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer. Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs,With some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. — Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western red cedar,western hemlock,Douglas fir,big leaf maple,vine maple,beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland,which consists of introduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants. Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes in hydrology,would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1 minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in functional value (RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e). The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be addressed include the following: • Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology. • Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and trees. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 May2004 Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement(Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity. Wildlife Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and precipitation to maintain plants, and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement. Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat,provide screening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by shallow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the existing log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site,would provide perch and loafmg sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species,pilings in deep water areas are the best candidates for retention. Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value. Osprey Osprey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site,which will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola 1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site may,however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early fledging period of late April to late July. Aquatic Species There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is covered below under"Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such functions as LWD recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads, artificial light,and public access. Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings, the existing dock, and log booms would improve conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies ranging from avoiding construction of docks,reducing the number of docks, and or through specific design and construction measures. Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock construction. This would avoid impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-site City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 May2004 � I marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at a distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common area(that could be reduced in area)or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots. An option that would reduce impacts,but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two or more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent properties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents - ' to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat. Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re- establishment of natural characteristics of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long-term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use for wildlife and aquatic species. Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and three are examined for May Creek: Option A, 50-foot buffer Under Option A, (Figure 3A4-4)the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the buffer adjacent to May Creek: • Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A on the west side of May Creek from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project to maintain the 50-foot setback. • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four proposed town home units to one or two. • The entire 50-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • The outer 25-feet adjacent to the shoreline would provide a vegetation buffer that would include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through: > Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads > Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for plantings near the water > Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential development > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the I water,with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 0 May2004 • The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would be oriented to intensive residential use. It would provide few benefits to the adjacent shoreline except for distance attenuation of noise and other proximity impacts. This area probably would be used by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. It is also likely that this area would be fenced for privacy from the 25 foot area of indigenous plantings and public access along the shoreline. This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning,however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act(SMA) jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings to the proposed height limits would result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 115 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Option B, 100 foot buffer Option B (Figure 3.4-5)would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek,with specific changes on the May Creek corridor including the following: • Elimination of the turn around for Street A to maintain the 100-foot setback. This would displace most of the potential for development fronting May Creek below the proposed bridge on the east side of the stream. • Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 100-foot setback in this area reduces the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15. • Elimination of most of the development on both sides at the mouth of the stream. • The entire 100-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species. For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components: • The outer 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline,would include restoration of the shoreline to more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as Option A, including: ➢ Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads. ➢ More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope. > Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent residential devebpment. > Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15- to 25-feet from the water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or other passive features. • The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences,would be the same dimension and would accommodate the same uses as Option A. This would likely include yard areas and ornamental landscaping. The subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits could be located in either this area or the 75 foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 May 2004 Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning,however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet within SMA and 70 feet outside, other types of PP P P � jurisdiction residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings to the proposed height limits would result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 115 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction. Cross-sections that indicate the building setbacks for Option A and Option B are provided for three different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline. � • Figure 3.4-6 shows proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options. • Figure 3.4-7 shows proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline has a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing public land. • Figure 3.4-8 shows proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options. Option C, Flood Terrace and Reduced Planting in May Creek Buffer The applicant has developed a third mitigation strategy (Option C) that is shown in Figures 3.4-5A and analyzed below. Option C applies only to the May Creek corridor. Differences from Options A and B include: • On the west side of May Creek,the turn-around for Street A retains the original proposed j orientation towards the exterior of the project,resulting in a setback of 25-feet from Ordinary High Water. The setback narrows to about 20 feet further south toward the mouth of the creek. • On the east side of the May Creek the original proposed configuration of Tract F and the adjacent townhomes is retained resulting in a setback of 15 feet at the narrowest,with setbacks varying up to 30 feet further to the south toward the mouth of the creek. • The 50-foot setback along the May Creek corridor north of the proposed bridge would consist of 35-feet of native vegetation and 15-feet of lawn and other managed landscape vegetation. It is unclear from the proposal who would manage this area, since it is outside of the residential lots. Buildings on the residential lots are proposed to maintain a 10 foot setback, resulting in the setback from the stream in this area consisting of 35 feet of native species and 25 feet of lawns and other residential landscaping. The lot layout and number of lots is the same as the proposal , • A flood terrace would be excavated along the west side of the May Creek corridor from about Street A to the property line to the north. This terrace would extend 30 to 40 feet from the existing OHWM and would be three to five feet deep. The result of the flood terrace would be an increase in capacity to convey flood waters as discussed in Section 3.2.3, above.. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 May 2004 Impervious Surfaces Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington as compared to the proposal. Total impervious surface would be reduced by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B as compared to the proposal. The decrease in impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where either the 50-or 100-foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except under the most intense storm events. Option C has the same amount of impervious surface area as the proposal. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat The buffer area in Option A(50 foot buffer) and Option B (100 foot buffer)both would be planted entirely in native vegetation. The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only more wildlife habitat,but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width in Option B because of the greater habitat area, the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater potential for complex vegetation communities. There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. As indicated above, impacts of the proposal were assessed based on the presumption that native vegetation would be planted within the entire May Creek buffer. This is consistent with the Renton Shoreline Master Program,which provides general guidance that landscaping be representative of the native character of specific types of waterways (e.g. stream, lake edge,marshland) and be compatible with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6). Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth of the creek where Option A increases setbacks to 50 feet in areas where the proposal includes setbacks that range from 15 to 30 feet Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of native vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native plantings adjacent to the lake and a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate only one or two native trees (at maturity)between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 May 2004 I 1 _.COR-2 ZONE W y r� asr , - .age ,,. °,® � .�,,m s� gl <,'s� ,��� s�OHW 2.=j -j -- I- ,. I�`° ° I__I._ „ 11 ° ' II ' ' II , II ' 1I I € STREET — f' ,../-:,, // .--7' I ' 111 50'SETBACK '.._. ,'._.3w g iir ` m �. / \.,....,.9 I W sl I . / ;/ —77 � / Tract„B„ \ / �7/ . .,, /// ' s/j�' • PUBLIC LAND '•Tract"C" Water Quality \V " / ` . / =/// / /� :.. Open ■ / \\/ /\\/ — „/ N� Space \ . \ ,/ %;.\\/ ce \V ° // 12— � - \ / �� f BU FE O l / • ,. %g -- //72, ir E v Ar Jam,.... 0,4i I / f OHW /��; /� ��� / /1 / 4/, i. LAKE �;\ f NI: ,�WASHINGTON . ' ,.7 ! .�ei ,, 50'SETBACK WM/ I }/I .l' LW // 1 PUBLIC LAND �/ \ / j`\ / // r "5-4...(' ---..04°# _______ /*- ."/„.: 40 4° •:,,,j \__. , ----- . ----- AT 147 %41tV- MAY CREEK `. `Ate „ ' � • � DELTA " \ , i // ""° r a'/ C r,..1.,a .--_R-a_20NE.._..._—._...r,.11_ `..15 A j{F '' x f- s.' '"hI A i1TL1 CT REVISED 50'SETBACK FROM OHW 88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04 SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.4-4 Option "A" 50-foot Buffer o 100 2I0 W Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat COR-2 ZONE • / { ( z ` p' ,, 1 . t__-] L_ _J L_ _J L_ __I L- / / ,/ OHW i n ! i� //,,m /7�� 1>° ° „ II „ �, //// ,`/ / [ — _/ ", 100'SETBACK — — \/ \// V L ° I I - // f Tract"B" — / Water QualityqVir °' °J // PUBLIC LAND �.°' '�� �\ / Tract"C" � �-_ � �/ • I Space / i °//, J % / ` P / . • _ / ///��// BUFFER!Q 10NEf/, g, -.--1 1-0-> . ./r----z-,_-_-_ -<4 . • 1 it. / e / re • !li I/ OHW • i / i A9 ' 1 , /7 /fLAKE %, /„, , / ri "' ��. 4100'SETBACK WASHINGTON �J i ,%i , ,,.for` //v/Vr - _________-._._I LAND //„ • /"' /V / PUBLIC • ¢ 7 off, / `� 41 ' , i/ .../.6' / jf ' • /\___ . ___-- • ' ,c. / I ,." ;-- / MAY CREEK a- °` � _/� s• ,, /1 DELTA / k�"�j^3,J:. , .t` /,...____ * \„-- 7/ N, I sj... >, '.• __.....__...RWe_.zoNs___.. ..< .ikr,'r / ' , ' N 40TH ST j / pry ` - — REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW 50 BUILDING SITES Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-4-05 SCALE IN FEET tlik Figure 3.4-5 U Option "B" 100-foot Setback o 100 200 Ur Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat //:/" � %j f ,/, ___.,_, / f J Z. /c __ \ ;Z • °. / )/2( i , L-a I L_ �� _I L _J L I L _Ii _ L- —I L /" /2J/// '_I L; ,S(/ / /STREET A_ r � C - , , �,� <'/ LA -II - -II - �j/ , 1/, I / N �� - -7 7/ g /i // / TRACT°C° TRACT"B° / l cn 41Wl° .._jf ?:eri::'. //I // // , -4 l 'L . / 1 /" / 44‘ \/ , #-5"....:./.-,...: : cr' // ,/ 41,( — —.7- .is•Iej -s, 1‘1%124*'1;. 4,;' /' / '''''',,,,,,, . .:•::::--:4:-,.:. .4, /1 / / \. ailial .... Jan.._,; j •Juj r m :::,),,;-,-, "w./.-.7,-,-,.... :7„;.., :.,..:),.. / // / r,I . ilibk\ 1 — L., TRACT �`. / Ln L --' i:il ,..e.:N10) / ? P. //' \-- --.---\ 1-Wii.:.-ii; 4.-::v.:§cok.q0( //v///eV , ....*016 :ii:'.:415.Qi ,0 - ,t,/ / //49 ---------- - ..._____ / :. , AWIlif.,..,47.')IfiiiNi /-;,./;/ / is-• ,, / NNI H y�Q�' �'r, ro . / ! / 1 / ,30.:;,.:,;,/,'iie," - ,,,„, ,i7 / ( --,„ 1 — � 4 s Mgr ^ . f /il_ii—___.7' / MAY CREEK .9���! a^. y f ! J / / / DELTA / --I //1/ 4, a, /` 1. / `mot 1:10,i /1/ N. -........__ ..-_.._�_...._._.._.—._ ii t OIL -_.. 1 4 4,4,2 /, . _ _ _ _ l l% ..__. -__ ___. _..___�. . _ _ .. . � _ ----c- ;Ay) Di 1 Parametrix DATE 03/09/04 FILE K1779017P02T02-F03-4-5A A LEGEND -•-`.: Native Landscape Area- Figure 3.4-5A N ::: Buffer Plantings limited to 0 Native Trees,Plants and Grasses Option "C" - SCALE IN FEET Managed Landscape Buffer Area- Barbee Mill Preliminary Plan .............. Buffer Plantings may include Lawn 1 and other managed Landscape Materials 1 Public Land Existing Inner Harbor OHWM Line Existing Warehouse 30- I OHWM 20-—• - ,_._.._,..._..�....-._-_ — Existing Log Bulkhead • Lake Bottom EXISTING SECTION I- I Public Land Existing I OHWM r,LI Street 1 I , 75' Existing Log I I Building 50' I I I 50' Bulkhead 30- \Ir_—IL_ _ _ - _ _I--1 _ -,I I 20--0H —..-\. _..--L J 25'Building Setback Lake Bottom PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK Public Land -Existing Inner Harbor OHWM Line Street q 1 75' Regraded I I I Builhingi9h 50' I I I 50' I Shoreline \f,_ I 1 - 30- OHWM L _I 1 1 'll 20--• • — "]--E. 25'Lawn i Lake i 25'Revegetation Bottom -I 50'Building Setback • ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK T _____ _ _, Public Land Existing Inner Harbor I OHWM Line P Street q 75 I Building Regraded • I I 50'high I I 160I I It 9 ' -' Shoreline I L 30- _` , OHWM _ __l_ ___ _ I_ _ 1 ..... _ _ 75'Revegetation Area —►{ 25'Lawn 1-4- Lake Bottom 100'Building Setback 200'Shoreline - ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 08:59am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-06 Figure 3.4-6 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections Lots 27 & 28 0 30 60 I I Existing Public Land Inner Harbor OHWM Line II I Existing I ' Saw Mill ((( 30— OHWM _._.., 20 •—1 -1 64'Public Land Lake —- Bottom EXISTING SECTION r I Existing Public Land Inner Harbor .— OHWM LI a Street I I II Building 75' Building 50' High Regraded High Shoreline I I 3°— L 20—— _ _ _ — p l — — — — _.._._,_. �._ — OHWM _ — +— 64'Public Land —.1 Lake Bottom - 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction PROPOSED SECTION r II i Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street OHWM Line r -- — Building 75' I I Building High 50' I High Regraded I I Shoreline 30— _J OHWM .--. --. 20--'_— — :1 64'Public Land - Lake 75' 25'Lawn Boltomi 100'Setback 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction I ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01TO2F-3-4-07 Figure 3.4-7 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections Lots 29 & 30 0 30 60 Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM I I Existing Paved 30— Storage Area OHWM -,.,.. • ....--. � Rip Rap Bulkhead �..-. Lake Bottom as dredged EXISTING SECTION IPublic Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street t { I I 75' I i I Building 50'ih I I 50' Rip Rap 30— Bulkhead I OHWMLawn L._....,w. ......._._....._ �. _.._.I—... ._.... 1 ...... ........_.__.l._..._.._._. 25'Building Setback Future Lake Bottom 1 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction �{ Delta as dredged J PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street i75' Building High 50' I I I 50' Regraded I Shoreline - i l� —I m..._..._ _ _I... 30- OHWM 2:1 25'Lawn Future — 25'Revegetalion Area Delta Lake Bottom 50'Building Setback as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street q . I 75' I BuilHding igh 50 I I 50' 1 • Regraded 1 30— Shoreline OHWM I_— .._ ....—..._.. ._._...—r� — 20--.—.=.—.-- • 3:1 """' 75'Revegelation Area —..- 25'Lawn f— Future Delta 100'Building Setback • Lake Bottom as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction Al TFRNATIVF RFC:TIf)N WITH inn.SFTRAC:K Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-08 Figure 3.4-8 SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections I Lots 35 & 36 0 30 60 I I Option B which provides a 100-foot area for native plantings on May Creek and 75-feet on Lake Washington would provide for a much more varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake shoreline and would allow regrading to provide a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater • complexity of vegetation would be reflected in value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public access would be reduced as discussed below. There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases,homeowners on the Lake Washington shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated by typically dense communities of native species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an effective community of native shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the Shoreline Management Act, supports planting native vegetation as a means of enhancing environmental values. With the 25-foot buffer of native planting on Lake Washington under Option A, some accommodation of both interests could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks,while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located'closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of native plantings. Option B with a 75-foot buffer of native plantings on Lake Washington provides few opportunities for view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer of native plantings. Property owners would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy unobstructed views of the water. The development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline may contribute to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with value for the community as a whole, rather than being primarily an amenity(or inconvenience) for adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996). Such public access can more readily be provided with the wider setback in Option B with less impact on maintenance of native vegetation and less impact on adjacent property owners. The 25 foot buffer in Option A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR,which manages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for removal of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which could include some combination of the City of Renton,DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non- ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the shoreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by an entity other than the individual property owner,would likely contribute to better maintenance of native vegetation. Option C proposes a 50-foot buffer on May Creek consisting of 35-feet of native vegetation, and 15-feet of managed landscaping. This is less than the native vegetation area in the applicant's original proposal City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 May2004 The 30 percent reduction of the width of native vegetation on May Creek(with respect to the proposal and Option A) substantially reduces the ecological complexity and potential to provide riparian habitat functions. The narrowing of the total buffer width to a minimum of 25 feet on the west side and 15 feet on the east side near the creek mouth further reduces the riparian functionality in those areas. In the short term, construction of the flood terrace on May Creek in Option C would remove all of the existing riparian vegetation on the west side of the stream and would degrade riparian habitat. Construction of the flood terrace would also likely introduce sediment into May Creek in the short term, unless appropriate BMPs were used. Upon re-establishment of native vegetation,however,the flood terrace may provide an environment more suited to riparian vegetation dependent on ample water supplies because of decreased distance to the groundwater table. This may result in a plant community composed of more willow, cottonwood,red osier dogwood,and similar species. The 35-foot width of the area designated for native plantings, however,provides limited area for establishment of large trees that provide stream shading or potential large wood recruitment. About one-quarter of the width of the 35-foot native vegetation buffer area on the west side would be on the 3:1 slope providing a transition from the flood terrace to existing grade. This slope would present few constraints for re-establishing vegetation,but would only accommodate one or two native trees (at maturity)between the managed landscape area and the streambank. A 35-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely only allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. In comparison, the area of the site that currently has the most heavily vegetated buffer located on the west side of the stream north of the northerly bridge is about 60 feet wide. It generally contains a single row of mature cottonwood trees, smaller trees such as willow,and a dense understory. Option C is identical to the applicant's proposal on Lake Washington where a 25 foot building setback is proposed with no proposal, and little opportunity to re-establish native vegetation. Stream and Lake Morphology • Under Option A,the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing limited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in its existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation and a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional buffer area provided by Option A. Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the proposal. This would provide a much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering. Maintenance of existing streambank protection would be required only in exceptional cases. Option C would provide an area within the flood terrace that would allow the stream to re-establish some additional instream habitat-forming and floodplain processes, such as meandering and channel migration, due to the removal of existing bank protections. However, the 20 to 25-foot width of the terrace would limit the extent of these processes. If the stream did meander to the west,the 35-foot native vegetation buffer would be reduced and provide less buffer between the stream and proposed residences. The overall potential to re-establish more natural stream processes would be somewhat better than under Option A and substantially less than Option B. Near the mouth of the Creek where the Option C buffer is 15 to 30-feet on the east side and 25 to 35-feet on the west side,there would be fewer opportunities to re- establish a natural stream morphology as compared to the 50 and 100-foot buffers under Options A and B. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 May 2004 I � Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington. Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing erosion to form a more natural shoreline. Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes to occur. In both cases, areas previously dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take several decades to re-establish shallow depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads. Option C is the same as the proposal for the Lake Washington shoreline and provides no mitigation of impacts of the proposal. Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration Under Option A,the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its !. ability to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff except near the mouth of the stream. Option A differs from the proposal near the mouth of the stream where,under the proposal,the buffer width narrows,while under Option A it would provide additional area to filter sediments or runoff. Option B would provide the greatest amount of pollutant removal and sediment filtration due to greater buffer width. The Option C 35-foot buffer of native vegetation provides a moderately effective width on the west side of the stream of about 25 feet of level native vegetated area within the stream terrace for removal of pollutants and sediment by overland filtration. The slope at the edge of the terrace is unlikely to provide any pollutant removal because of the velocity of surface water moving across the slope. The slope may contribute to erosion due to surface water movement. This slope is also likely to speed the velocity of surface water flows across the remaining 25 feet of flood terrace,reducing its effectiveness. For much of _ the proposed 35-foot buffer,there is no native vegetation beyond the excavated floodplain terrace. Fertilizers,pesticides and sediment from the managed landscape zone is likely to be filtered less effectively than either the proposal where the entire buffer would be vegetated, or under Options A and B that would have a wider buffer area than Option C. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional pollutant control would be provided by Option A,which doubles the width of building setbacks and providing an additional 25-foot buffer area of native plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff would be moderately effective with the 25- foot planting area. Option B would provide the greatest pollution control along Lake Washington through an effective 75- foot wide buffer. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious surfaces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the waters' edge by a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building construction. Both Options A and B would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the Lake Washington shoreline as compared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks. i ! City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 May 2004 Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington as compared to the proposal and can be expected to have the same impacts from chemical fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides that can be expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing these chemicals. Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate A riparian vegetation buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek as in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading may serve to prevent or moderate further increases of water temperature prior to entering Lake Washington that would otherwise occur if there was no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will,however, largely be affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. The greater buffer area in Option B would provide more vegetation and shading benefits on May Creek at maturity of vegetation because of more extensive native plantings and greater tree crown height and density. Option C would provide even less shading potential since a reduced native vegetation buffer width of 35 feet would not support the same number or density of mature trees as would a 50-foot buffer. Options A and B would increase sha ding of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's proposed 25-foot building setback(presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and shading would be negligible). Native shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would,in time, grow to provide shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the morning,because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west,allowing crown shading from trees along the shoreline and inland. In addition,the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Shading is dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more effective with the greater buffer width in Option B. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. Large Woody Debris Recruitment Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment,but limited increases in LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term solution,and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would have to be carefully considered. Option B with a 100 foot vegetation buffer would be within the lower ranges of appropriate widths for LWD recruitment on May Creek as identified by Knutson and Naef(1997). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 May2004 Since Option C has the least amount of native landscape,it can be expected to provide the lowest LWD recruitment potential on May Creek of all the options. Options A and B would provide more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the proposal or Option C. As with May Creek,LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Option B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD recruitment potential for both the creek and the lake shoreline. Bulkheads Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed 25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log- handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline. The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, - - removal of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is available for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Option B decrease the potential adverse impacts on adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term bioengineering options. Bio-engineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.49. This may be especially applicable in publicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural Resources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and --, pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in Figure-3.410. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline. As an interim measure, short of bioengineering,or for those portions of the site where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented: :- • Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads,or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side,will reduce the negative impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 May 2004 I i Design Typicals 4$dequate Setback al Structures • to Avoid Gwt7lasiting Barak enat Wavide Safety Factor is ca of Sank Cagap e , - Cabatri>act Brain and Grade Surface to Comet Surtaae Water • , c Weit•Raated Wegetatioa to Reduce Y Surface£ramie!! ' €iegredr to Stabt}r5[ap. • PtQ k e tar thatroage 0 1 water. ".r : ,1.- IMMO fsvertnppina Waves I ;*,�, �0 i ; habits Ararat Stone an Stalale dope •" cps-,,74.. �c ,' .r '•• ±_1 . ;" r wp� a Yritlh Spaces�'{t1ed iw t a c}..1:b � , a. : may •' [kid,' - 1.. r ' ry.`f:,, « ,+ + .08,1•� Statita�a4 _. • • • •''�. s ,�r ' f1*:V � F Protection I yer-, , tar Str c re ' •' •.. - .' • ' Gravel r a Cloth:-7`.•,,s.:r�•'•s'a'4► Nat Shown:Strudcrr8 Ends 7 ieti into a a t :;.sue.-: '. - Bankto Minimize Damage icatli . - tire.,:_ :.. Flanking Erasion - , Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification • a a ,� . Ealating Riprap ReposItl•,Ns..t4 POO point . Large Boulders Provide Habitat - and prcatect Bombes ' ,k12'2,,R. ' " ''a'' Cr() 4;I 1.3s •, .- je 5}' 1.1,i.4 .)4` '•,y"a 'ram-:�•,+•• Ivr ;; �,' i R}E•:' 1iYP 1r1N1(1►d .. . Source: Tri-County 2000 Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of Pocket Beaches and Other Features City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 May 2004 , • Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or rooted plants,provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf litter,browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden , sediments (WDFW 2003). Residential Noise and Lighting Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option ! ! A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Option B would provide greater noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions. Option C,with a 30 percent reduction in the width of the buffer area devoted to native vegetation, can be expected to provide a reduction in effectiveness in blocking light. The limited effectiveness of vegetation in providing noise buffer would likely result in little difference in noise attenuation between Option C and Option A. Along Lake Washington,the proposed 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A and B. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will f provide greater noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. Public Access Disturbance � f Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake,public access would likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks, as discussed below. Under.Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to Option A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide. Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A or B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option A, and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established through delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington. Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A: • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use provided by re-establishing native vegetation. • It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks. Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and native vegetation areas. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 May2004 • Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal. If a public access trail were placed in the managed landscape area,impacts on May Creek would be similar to Option A, except near the mouth where the buffer width is reduced. 3.5 TRANSPORTATION This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-6lthrough 3-89 of the Draft EIS. 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-89 through 3-97 of the Draft EIS. 3.7 AESTHETICS This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-98 through 3-118 of the Draft EIS. 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-118 through 3-119 of the Draft EIS. 3.9 NOISE This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-119 through 3-126 of the Draft EIS. 3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages 3-126 through 3-132 of the Draft EIS. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 May 2004 4. REFERENCES Changes in references are noted in underlined format. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington: Science,v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617. Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation. Seattle,WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002. Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374. Bucknam,R.C.,Hemphill-Haley,E., and Leopold,E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V. 258,p. 1611-1614. Buehler, I .A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp. Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho,Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp. Cadman,M.D.,P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. 617 p. Chrzastowski,M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182. City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended October 25, 1999. City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities. April 2000. Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone communication, 05-20-03. CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues, Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003, http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 May 2004 Dane County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane County Regional Planning Commission, Madison; WI. Available at http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/final/html/chap5.htm. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property. 14 pp. plus appendices. DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm. DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm. DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on August 14, 2002. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Program, Olympia,WA. August 2001. Ecology(Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water Quality Program. Entranco, Inc. 2001. 1.405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report. Prepared by Entranco,Inc. for the City of Renton. Exponent. 1999. Noson, L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November 1999. Federal Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054. FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland Oregon. FHWA 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade , Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002. Foster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and City of Renton. August 1995. !, FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999. Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management 9(1):148-151. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 May 2004 I FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16. Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development, Golder Associates,April 4,2002. Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development, Golder Associates,May 5, 2003. Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene, Researcher,May 2003. Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk cf predation, and visual ability on the foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and R.J. Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology,University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340. Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan,Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16, 2000. Revised September 6, 2000. Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc. HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capacity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center. University of Florida. Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science, 236, 162-168. Houghton, L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994. Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53. Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158. HRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange. May 2000. http://www.ce.washington.edu/-liquefaction/html/main.html. International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm. Jacoby, G. C.;Williams,P. L.; Buckley,B. M., 1992, Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science, v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1621-1623. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 May 2004 Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 95 pp. Johnson,P, D Mock,E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study: Phase I, Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia,WA. Publication No. 00-06-016. Johnson, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111; no.7 p. 1042-1053. Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to the City of Bellevue, Bellevue,WA. Karlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620. King County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division aid the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department - Surface Water Utility. King County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources, Seattle,WA. September 1998. King County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. King County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm. Knutson,K.L. and V.L.Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. LAAS. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development,King County, Washington. March 27, 1997. Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001. Link, R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle,Washington. 320 pp. ti Lloyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994. Loyd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company, stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie, Washington, for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 May2004 4 Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth areas: methods and fmdings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002. Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10 November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxz16/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf. Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California Y g g q Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999. http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf. May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap County Natural Resources Department. Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001. Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Mockler,A,L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream Mitigations in King County. King County DDES, Renton, Washington. MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.htm, last updated November 18, 1997. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J. Bryant,D.Teel,L.J. Lierheimer, T.C.Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp. Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office of Habitat Conservation. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January 1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/. Noson,L.,Qamar,A.,Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia,Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al,US. Geological Survey Open- File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/0fO1-029/. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 May 2004 • 1 ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3- 6.pdf. • Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. Parametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19, 2002. Piaskowski, R. and R. Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf. Pollack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit Foundation,Washington Environmental Council, and Point-No-Point Treaty Council. Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 246 p. Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057 - 1,713 pp. R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton, Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton, Washington. August 26,2002. Rauch 1997, EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction- Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd- 219182249741411/unrestricted/Chp03.pdf Renton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of Renton Planning Commission. Renton, City of. 1999. N. 40th Street/Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage report. City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 May 2004 • Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV:University of Nevada Press. 604 p. Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press, Vancouver, B.C. Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137. Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100-111. Shannon&Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson,June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. 1-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon & Wilson, June 2001. Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &Wilson,June 2001. Shannon&Wilson. ,Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405 /NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson, June 2001. Sherrard, David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development,American Planning Association, January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf. Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999. Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12. Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept, Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett, WA, September 26,2002. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis, Oregon. 356 p. Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington. Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,Washington,April 2002. Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington, December 2002. ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property. ThermoRetec,April 5,2000. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 May 2004 i f Tri-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000). I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington. November 23, 1999. U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map. Assessed on April 8,2003. USCE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1- 1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace- docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-1905/c-l.pdf. USCE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001. http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/. U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map. Assessed on April 8,2003. USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design - Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation,Building Equipment, and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971. UW 2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering. University of Washington, Seattle,WA. Vana-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological report 82(10.154)46pp. _I Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries,Washington Department of Wildlife,and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes,Olympia,Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report by Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,Washington. L I j City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 May 2004 Washington Depaitinent of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. Washington Depaitiuent of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington. Report 92-22. 125pp. Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization,Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Depaitiuent of Fisheries: Olympia, WA. 704 pp. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff. WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. UDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001. WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Depatluuent of Transportation, Design Manual, 1998. Olympia,WA. Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington: US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147, 37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000. Zarn,M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 May 2004 1 7 5. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Comments received on the Draft EIS have been summarized below. In many cases, similar comments from different commenters have been summarized as one comment. Responses below generally indicate where the response has been addressed in additional text added to the Final EIS,or was previously addressed in the Draft EIS, or may indicate why the issue raised by the comment does not change conclusions in the Draft EIS, or in some cases, that the issue raised will be addressed in other phases of the permit review process. General Responses A A number of comments addressed the merits of the proposal, or indicated a preference for,or opposition to, alternatives or mitigating measures, or opinions on the legal basis for implementing mitigation. COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Mark Hancock, Jan Hicking,King County Wastewater Treatment Division, Cyrus M.McNeely,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle, Sarah C.Nicoli, Port Quendall Company(PQC),Larry Reymann,Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Natural Resources,Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission RESPONSE: The purpose of the EIS is to provide information on environmental consequences to decision makers. Comments that do not address the adequacy of the environmental information and do not indicate a need to change the content of analysis in the EIS do not require a response in the Final EIS. Comments relating to potential conditions of approval relate to the decision-making phase of the proposal. All comments will be available to the decision makers in reaching a decision on the proposal. The decision making process must include consideration of environmental impacts as documented in the Environmental Impact Statement,but also will include a balancing judgment that includes social, economic and other requirements and considerations of policy as outlined in WAC 197-11-448. B Comments were received on elements of the environment not included in the EIS. COMMENTERS: Jan Hicking, Sarah C.Nicoli RESPONSE: The City of Renton limited the scope of the EIS to elements of the environment likely to be experience significant adverse impacts pursuant to WAC 197-11-408. These comments are not been responded to because they are already addressed in the Scoping Document in Appendix A of the Draft EIS. They will,however,be available to the decision makers in reaching a decision on the proposal and may be relevant to other criteria of approval. C The applicant provided comments that reiterated aspects of the proposal or reiterate the content of the EIS analysis. In some cases these comments are combined with assertions of conformance to existing codes or other commentary. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: In those cases where analysis was based on accurate information, comments are not further responded to. The EIS is not intended to contain an analysis of the application of Renton codes,but rather to assess impacts of the proposal. a : City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-1 May2004 D Some comments request additional information,but did not suggest that additional information was critical to adequate disclosure of impacts. COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle,Port Quendall Company(PQC) . RESPONSE: Where information is not readily available, and is not essential to understanding the impact, or in cases where information can be provided and issues resolved in the design or engineering stage of the project, additional information has not been provided in the FEIS. E Comments were received from different parties requesting both more and less analysis of cumulative impacts. -- COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Cumulative impacts are appropriately discussed pursuant to WAC 197-11- 060(c) and(e) in order to understand how the project impacts relate to impacts of other development to the extent that a) cumulative impacts may result from this project, in conjunction with others, that are greater than impacts 1_ of the proposal alone, and b)the proposal may foreclose options for the productive use of the environment pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii) and(6)(c)(ii). Cumulative impacts do not include impacts of other development where impacts of the proposal are on discreet resources, and combined impacts are not likely to be substantially different in character or magnitude. F. Minor corrections and clarification were provided in comments. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Greg Fawcett,Mark Hancock,Jan Hicking,King County Wastewater Treatment Division,Cyrus M.McNeely,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle, Sarah C.Nicoli, Port Quendall Company(PQC),Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission RESPONSE: Minor corrections noted were not sufficient to change the conclusions of the DEIS regarding impacts and mitigation. Revision of the DEIS text is not required. Specific Comments and Responses Comments below are organized by chapters and subsections of the EIS. Within a section, comments are arranged in the order the issues are discussed in the DEIS text. Similar comments by more than one commenter are summarized and responded to as a single comment, pl as provided by WAC 197-11-560(2). Section 1: Fact Sheet and Summary 1.0-1 Federal permits are likely for bulkheads and the stormwater outfall. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The FEIS Fact Sheet is revised to list permits required for the proposed subdivision and subsequent approvals of single family development including such features as single family bulkheads. - It is expected that the stormwater outfalls required likely to be covered under an Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit rather than an individual permit. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-2 May2004 Section 2: Alternatives 2.0-1 The applicant requests restatement of Applicant's Objectives as: "The Applicant's objective is to construct a low-density townhome project that complies with applicable city codes." COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: This specific wording is not contained in the applicant's Project Narrative dated September 13, 2002. The substance of the applicant's objectives, as included in existing application materials, is included in the Description of the Proposal on page 2-1. The applicant's current restatement is consistent with the understanding of objectives that guided the DEIS content. 2.0-2 Other alternatives, including office use or mixed use allowed by existing zoning, should be analyzed. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe, Sarah C.Nicoli,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: A mix of other uses, in addition to residential, is not consistent with applicant's objectives as provided for in WAC 197-11-440(5)(d). Such an alternative could be included as a"No Action Alternative"to illustrate development that might occur if the proposed development did not proceed, however such an alternative would not necessarily have a lower environmental cost or level of environmental degradation and therefore would not meet the criteria of WAC 197-11-440(5)(b). There is reference in the text to the potential to utilize the zoning potential to develop other types of housing and maintain the same unit count if May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline buffers are increased. 2.0-3 The stream, and shoreline buffer options and access route options described as mitigating measures should be described in the Alternatives Section. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe, Port Quendall Company (PQC) RESPONSE: The buffer options and rail crossings are discussed as mitigation measures for specific identified impacts. They are not proposed as alternatives because they have been developed in response to specific impacts. They do not change the use or design of the proposal as a duplex and townhome subdivision, although they change the number of units. Mention is made of the possibility of changing building type to maintain the same total number of units. This is an option under existing zoning and is relevant information. The applicant is ultimately in control of whether to maintain a development objective that may result in loss of units, given the flexibility provided by the existing zoning. 2.0-4 It is difficult to distinguish between elements of the proposal and elements presumed as part of the analysis. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The elements of the proposal are described in Section 2. Specific presumed elements of future buildout are enumerated. Elsewhere in the text, specific elements of the proposal are identified as well as potential elements that may be required by conditions of approval pursuant to Renton codes and policies. 2.0-6 Clarification of the number of lots fronting on Lake Washington was requested. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: A total of 24 lots front to the southwest toward Lake Washington. According to the plat maps and survey provided by the applicant, 9 of those lots have intervening public land located beyond the property boundary at the inner harbor line. The applicant has stated in DEIS comments that the public land in the vicinity of Lot 92 was removed during recent dredging operations. That information has not City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-3 May2004 been confirmed by survey. Either 15 or 16 lots have direct frontage on Lake Washington with no intervening public land. 2.0.7 Clarification was requested of the proposed setback from the water for lots with direct frontage on Lake Washington. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: In the absence of an alternate proposal by the applicant,the EIS presumes that setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Line will be the zoning minimum of 25 feet as indicated on DEIS and FEIS page 2-3. 2.0-8 Assessment of the potential ecosystem functions of the Tract C for stormwater detention facilities was requested. 1 COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: A stormwater pond is proposed. Details of other uses are not specified in the proposal. -+ Some open space uses are presumed as discussed in Section 2.1. The DEIS on page 3-38 and FEIS page 3-20 indicate that the proposed mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. Mitigation of installing indigenous vegetation is discussed on DEIS page 3-45 and FEIS page 3-27. 2.0-9 Clarification of the future use of the DNR managed public land along the shoreline was requested includingprovisions for access to this land and the compatibility with use if restoration t3' adjacent P to natural and aquatic habitat occurs. COMMENTERS: Greg Fawcett,Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC),Washington Department of Natural Resources RESPONSE: Open space use is presumed as described on DEIS and FEIS page 2-3. Land use is not an element addressed in the EIS,however aquatic impacts are addressed. Provision of access will be addressed during permit review. 2.0-10 What is the basis for the presumption that bridge abutments will not be located within the Ordinary High Water of May Creek? COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Although conceptual plans have not been developed,the stream is not wide and construction of a span length outside of the stream banks is a reasonable presumption of future requirements given Shoreline Master Program WDFW Hydraulic Permit Approval policies and I regulations and City of Renton Critical Area Regulations (RMC 3-4-010-I-4)that prohibit encroachment in the floodplain that results in any increase in flood levels,or produces an adverse impact on the property or adjacent properties. 2.0-11 Construction of new bulkheads should not be presumed. Existing bulkheads should be presumed to remain.COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As discussed on DEIS pages 2-3,3-42,and 3-58,and FEIS pages 3-24 and 3-44,existing bulkheads are presumed to be retained in cases where a 25 foot setback from the water is maintained. Because the entire shoreline is not currently protected by sound bulkheads, and because bulkheads are a common feature of residential development on Lake Washington in Renton and because bulkheads tend to deteriorate and require replacement over time,construction of new bulkheads is an appropriate City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-4 May 2004 assumption for future actions related to the proposed residential development. Retention of existing bulkheads are presumed in impact analysis. Removal or alteration is discussed as mitigation. 2.0-12 Are drainage facilities proposed to accommodate offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property, Lake Washington Blvd. or I-405?. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Site drainage facilities are proposed to serve the proposed development only. Other sites would discharge to surface water in proximity to those sites and would be responsible for mitigation of any impacts on receiving waters pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030. 2.0-13 The option of one access point to the property should be examined as an alternative because the applicant does not have control over the proposed northerly access point. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The applicant has proposed the northerly access and will be responsible for obtaining dedication and constructing the roadway. The City staff has determined that a single access to a public road from a development of this side is not a reasonable alternative because it does not meet Renton code requirements and does not provide adequate emergency access. 2.0-14 Derivation of the amount of industrial use in the No-Action Alternative should be explained. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Discussed on DEIS page 2-4. Section 3.1: Earth, Soils and Geology 3.1-1 Analysis should be based on foundations required to support single-story townhomes. COMMENTERS: Applic ant RESPONSE: The EIS analysis is based on the proposal as defined by the applicant,which is not limited to single story structures. The applicant specified building heights of 50 feet within the shoreline and 70 feet outside the shoreline. 3.1-2 The applicant claims that public land at the north side of the May Creek delta is not accurately depicted. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: This public land is shown on surveys submitted by the applicant. If this information is in error, it should be corrected in revised application material. The applicant should also document that the Department of Natural Resources, as trustee for these public lands, approved the removal of this public resource. 3.1-3 The applicant provided a variety of characterization of the Golder Associates geotechnical information in relation to liquefaction and appropriate mitigation. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As stated in the DEIS, adequate geotechnical investigation has not been performed to fully assess existing soil and geologic conditions on site. It is not possible to adequately assess the potential extent or severity of liquefaction without considerable additional geotechnical investigation. In the absence of such information, speculation about design parameters for foundations or containment of lateral spreading is premature. There is currently little basis to determine appropriate foundation pile City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-5 May2004 depth on most of the site. Given the lack of information,the DEIS necessarily provides an assessment of the range of risks. Further assessment and development of specific design approaches is appropriate for the design stage of the proposal. , 3.1-4 The applicant suggests deletion of mention of the Seattle Fault because it does not cross the site. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As indicated in the DEIS page 3-2 the Seattle Fault is in close proximity to the site,if it does not directly cross the site. The proximity of this feature is relevant to the risk of seismic activity. The text appropriately includes the location of this fault in the assessment of seismic risk. Section 3.2: Surface Water Resources 3.2-1 State Water Quality Standards have changed by WAC 173-201A effective August 1,2003. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The August 2004 revisions State Water Quality Standards provide for classification based on aquatic species utilizing the waters. There is little substantive difference in the new classification and the former classification of Class AA waters.. The conclusions about the extent to which water quality standards are complied with are not changed by the revision in classifications. 3.2-2 Function of the storm drainage outfall in relation to future delta deposits is not analyzed. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Absent a specific proposal, detailed impact analysis is of function is not possible. Assurance of adequate hydraulic function is largely an engineering issue. The general impacts of the outfall on aquatic species is discussed on FEIS page 3-40. i 3.2-3 The conclusion that future stormwater contaminants will be reduced is not substantiated. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: A comparison of the existing stormwater treatment facilities on site and the treatment facilities required by Renton codes substantiates the FEIS page 3-2 conclusion that contaminants will be reduced. 3.2-4 Benefits of reducing impervious surfaces should be acknowledged. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The reduction in impervious surfaces and reduced stormwater runoff is referenced in the DEIS including page 3-14 and in the FEIS pages 3-5,3-8,3-21, 3-28 and 3-46. ; 3.2-5 Questions were raised regarding potential adverse impacts,including flooding,that may occur on properties upstream from the site as a result of discontinuation of dredging or the proposed May Creek stream buffers. COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Port Quendall Company(PQC) ; RESPONSE: The DEIS analysis does not state that any actions on the Barbee Mill property relating to dredging or other aspects of stream management on the site will affect properties upstream of the Lake Washington Blvd.Bridge. The gradient of the stream and the presence of an in-stream structure at the railroad bridge as part of a gauging station generally indicate that it will not. The analysis examines effects of discontinuation of dredging on the floodplain on capacity of the floodway as it affects the extent City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-6 May2004 of flooding on the site. In general,the aquatic sections of the DEIS attribute overall positive impacts to ceasing dredging. 3.2-6 Support was requested for statements regarding stream aggredation over time as well as the effects of levees on channel migration. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The Final EIS addresses aggradation and migration on page 3-13 and further discusses stream migration in terms of aquatic resources on Final EIS page 3-22. The Final EIS contains additional background information on stream aggradation as it relates to stream morphology,referencing the USACOE Engineering Manual EM 110-2-1418 October 31, 1994. This document discusses deltas as features that"occur on flat slopes where a river discharges into still water and deposits its sediment load. Under natural conditions the river splits into a number of distributaries,whose bed levels rise over time as the delta extends into the water body. Flood control levees adjacent to deltas can require periodic raising, particularly if the river is confined to a single channel. The potential for channel avulsions upstream of the works requires consideration. The effects of the different options for stream buffer areas on stream migration and resulting impacts on aquatic resources are addressed on FEIS page 3-20, 3-24, 3-41 and • 3-43. 3.2-7 The need for compensatory storage to protect upstream properties from flooding was questioned. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: An additional mitigation measure of including compensatory storage in the form of a floodplain bench or terrace is analyzed in the Final EIS based on a concept proposed by the applicant. As • indicated in the response to comment 3.2-5, the presence or lack of compensatory storage on the Barbee Mill site will not affect upstream properties. In addition,provision of an alternative 100 foot wide stream corridor dimension is examined as mitigation for impacts on a number of elements of the environment. The alternative setback dimensions have different stream and flood conveyance capacity. This capacity is examined in terms of the extent to which they protect the proposed development from flooding and reduce scour and bank erosion. The two options for stream setbacks, and the option for compensatory storage were examined in terms of increases in flood elevations on-site (primarily cross sections 3 through 8). Reduction of flood elevations would reduce local flooding and would reduce the potential for localized bed scour and bank erosion. The applicability of the"compensatory storage"requirements in RMC 4-3- 050.I.6.a. will be determined at the time of permit review. 3.2-8 The adequacy of analysis of floodplain flows upstream and downstream of bridges was questioned. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The HEC-RAS User's Manual defines ineffective flow areas as areas in which water will pond and velocity will be close to zero. The model includes this water in storage calculations but does not account for it in the active flow area calculations; as a result the water surface elevations would be higher if the floodplain is defined as an ineffective flow area. Based on field investigations and site topography,which indicate that if May Creek overtops the existing levees water will sheet flow northwest to Lake Washington,it was assumed that the floodplain northwest of the stream would not be an ineffective flow area. Additional modeling was performed for the Final EIS that analyzes the removal Of existing bridges. In addition, analysis performed by others is referenced which addresses the impacts of bridge construction near the line of ordinary high water. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-7 May 2004 I , 1 3.2-9 Was the cross sections of levees analyzed? COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The boundary of the setback was modeled as a levee. The design parameters of a levee or fill have not been developed and do not affect the analysis of flooding. 3.2-10 Was NAVD datum properly converted in analysis of FEMA study results? COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: Section 2.4.1.2 describes how the water surface elevations of Lake Washington measured by the USACOE was converted to the project datum. Information on the lake level was downloaded from the USACOE website on 4/22/03 (USACOE 2003). 3.2-11 Dredging should be acknowledged as a management option. j COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett RESPONSE: Dredging is discussed as a management option on DEIS page 3-12 and 3-19 and FEIS page 3-5. • 3.2-12 Access to floodplain model information was requested. COMMENTERS: Applicant { RESPONSE: The modeling performed for this project is a public record and available from the City of Renton. Section 3.3: Groundwater 3.3-1 No impact on local or regional groundwater resources should be expected. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As stated in the DEIS page 3-24,impacts on groundwater used for domestic water supply are not expected from the project. Section 3.4: Plants and Animals 3.4-1 Additional information resources on wildlife and aquatic species should be referenced and used in the analysis. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: These references have been reviewed. The results are consistent with the analysis in the EIS and do not change the assessment of impacts. 3.4-2 The applicant asserts that proposed removal of two bridges will compensate for the addition of a bridge. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: Until the width and height of the proposed bridge are approved in final form,it is unknown whether removal of existing bridges will fully mitigate the impact. Removal of the existing bridges is noted as a mitigating measure. Removal of existing bridges in analyzed in the Final EIS in terms of mitigation of increases in floodplain elevation and other impacts related to restricting the existing floodplain by the proposed development. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-8 May2004 3.4-3 Analysis of the proposed May Creek buffer and other aspects of the proposal,as well as alternative buffer widths should be analyzed for a variety of ecosystem parameters. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe, Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Analysis in the DEIS and FEIS text addresses effects of proposed buffers, as well as mitigation options for impacts on water quality, flooding,terrestrial species and aquatic species. Analysis is based on functions provided by various buffer widths. Specific reference is made to the functions provided by the buffer widths in the proposal. Additional mitigation is described in terms of how different buffer widths provide additional habitat and aquatic functions. The extent to which the proposed buffers limit long-term productivity of natural systems is an impact pursuant to WAC 197-11- 440(6)(c)(ii) and(6)(d)(iii), even if proposed buffers are greater larger than existing. 3.4-4 The FEIS should discuss how riparian buffers on May Creek will improve water quality if the stormwater is routed to Lake Washington only. COMMENTER: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The majority of stormwater from the site is proposed to be routed to Lake Washington. This includes all the storm water for the portion of the site west of May Creek. The 22 units on the east side of May Creek are proposed to utilize a detention pond near the mouth of May Creek and discharge to the south at the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington. The effectiveness of riparian buffers on May Creek on providing riparian functions such as moderating water temperature,pollutant removal, large woody debris recruitment, microclimate moderation and wildlife habitat is largely determined by width and vegetation community. The mitigation options presented in the Draft and Final EIS for additional width and re-establishment of native vegetation are more relevant to buffer function that the location of the drainage outfall. 3.4-5 The applicant requests a number of clarifications of current use of the site by wildlife. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The current use of the sawmill site by wildlife is of limited applicability to impacts of the proposal on wildlife because the physical characteristics of the site will change substantially. Existing wildlife use does not add relevant information to potential impacts,it does not warrant additional discussion. 3.4-6 The reference to work by Knudson and Naef on buffer function may not be appropriate for urban streams. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The work by Knudson and Naef analyzes buffer function based on in-stream resources utilized by aquatic species. From the point of view of a fully functioning ecosystem, this information is relevant to the impact on aquatic resources. The question of what an appropriate set of functions to apply to an urban stream is a decision-making function that balances aquatic resource needs with other goals. 3.4-7 How will modification of the drainage system in the southerly wetland change hydrology? COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As stated in the FEIS on page 3-17, excavation for the roadway is likely to intercept groundwater and may drain water that currently moves slowly through the soil. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-9 May2004 3.4-8 The applicant asserts that proposed buffer width is not reduced near the mouth of May Creek, rather the OWW mark changes. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: Buffer areas measured from the edge of the water are proposed to be less near the mouth of May Creek. Buffer areas described in the report are all land areas. Generally speaking,buffer areas are measured from the resource being protected and in this case are measured from the edge of the stream. Water area can't reasonably be considered a buffer for a water resource. • 3.4-9 The EIS should discuss how the proposed setback and future vegetation along Lake Washington compares to the 1994 401(c)permit 94-2-00196 and discuss why the permit was not enforced. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The status of past permit conditions is not directly relevant to impacts and potential mitigating measures identified in the EIS. Issues regarding enforcement of past permits are not directly relevant to potential impacts. Conditions of past permits,however, may be relevant in imposing conditions of approval for the project. 3.4-10 All of the reasonably foreseeable dock alternatives should be analyzed in terms of the potential to interfere with the Muckleshoot Tribes fishing in the area. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The presumed most conservative case discussed in the EIS is individual docks at the maximum dimensions allowed by Renton codes. Other dock options are discussed as mitigation for this case. The maximum dock length does not extend as far as the existing log-boom on the shoreline used for log storage while the sawmill was in operation and would have less impact on fishing access. ' I 3.4-11 Existing docks and boathouse are more likely to provide habitat for predators rather than salmonids. - COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) I I �, RESPONSE: The DEIS page 3-42 and FEIS page 3-24 make this conclusion. ' I 3.4-12 The impacts of docks and bulkheads on aquatic resources should be fully analyzed, including construction impacts. The adequacy of mitigation measures for docks, bulkheads,and homeowner access to the water are not evaluated. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The impacts of docks,bulkheads and other features of the proposal, and features of future use of the land within the subdivision,are assessed in the DEIS and FEIS in terms of effects on a variety of ecosystem functions,based on best available scientific information. Mitigation measures are identified which avoid or reduce the structures or activities that cause impacts. The exact effect of the proposal and mitigating measures on the resource cannot currently be completely assessed. Specific methodologies to exactly evaluate the impacts that result from specific structures and activities and specific mitigation measures generally are not available because the aquatic resource affected is complex and not fully understood. Impacts and mitigating measures are assessed from the perspective outlined in the ! I cumulative impact assessment on DEIS pages 3-29 and 3-43 and FEIS page 3-25 that the degradation of the complex ecological community of Lake Washington and the continued operation of existing bulkheads and other structures constitutes an adverse impact by continuing the degradation of the a, resource with resulting impacts on aquatic species,including endangered species. The assessment of construction impacts of docks or bulkheads is premature, since the purpose of the assessment of impacts City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-10 May2004 • ' f is to compare the impacts of many, few, or no docks or bulkheads developed to serve the future residents. The question of"adequate"mitigation is a permit decision that must include consideration of environmental impacts but which also will include a balancing judgment that includes social, economic and other requirements and considerations of policy as outlined in WAC 197-11-448. 3.4-13 Construction impacts of existing bridge removal and new bridge construction are not adequately addressed. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Construction impacts are addressed on DEIS pages 1-8,3-5, 3-14, 3-21, 3-34, and 3-37 and FEIS pages 3-17 and 3-22. The existing and proposed bridges do not involve in-water abutments; therefore construction during low water periods is likely to have similar impacts as other construction on site. Additional discussion of potential impacts of excavation of floodplain benches is included in the Final EIS and applies generally to construction near the water. 3.4-14 Chemical runoff may adversely affect aquatic resources as well as water quality. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: Addressed on DEIS page 1-9, 3-42, and 3-44 and FEIS pages 3-24 and 3-26. 3.4-15 The buffer areas width that ought to be provided for a properly functioning upland corridor for May Creek is not described. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The decision on what ought to be provided is a permit decision that balances a wide range of values. The DEIS and FEIS provides a description of different functions accommodated by various buffer widths. 3.4-16 What impacts will delta formation have on salmon entering May Creek? COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett RESPONSE: Delta formation is expected to have no impacts on salmon movement up May Creek. Salmon have evolved to successfully transit a variety of natural barriers such as deltas and waterfalls. Channels through deltas of similar streams are adequate for salmon migration. 3.4-17 The ditch that flows from wetlands to May Creek should be assessed for salmonid habitat. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: The DEIS does not address salmonid use of the ditch providing outfall of water from the wetlands because no viable passage or habitat exists in the ditch. Section 3.5: Transportation 3.5-1 Compliance with the Renton Transportation Concurrency Standard should be addressed. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The City of Renton has determined that this determination will take place as part of permit review rather than through the environmental review process. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-11 May2004 • 3.5-2 The City's Level of Service standard should be confirmed to be LOS D. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The City of Renton concurrency standard is contained in the Comprehensive Plan and does not rely on individual intersection LOS alone. The concurrency standard relies on more complex mobility measures on major corridors. 3.5-3 The viability of the proposed northerly access should be discussed. If this access is not available, traffic impacts will change. Impacts of a single access point should be analyzed because the applicant does not control the property to the north. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The proposal submitted by the applicant includes two access points. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain rights-of-way to implement the proposal. If the proposal is changed in the future to propose one access point, supplemental analysis may be required. A single access point is not a reasonable alternative or mitigation measure to be considered by the City of Renton pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(5)(b)because one access point would not have a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation due to the potential adverse impacts on emergency access to the site. 3.5-4 Location of both access points north of May Creek should be considered. COMMENTERS: Larry Reymann RESPONSE: Providing two access points to the site from the north is theoretically feasible from a geometric road layout point of view. It also would reduce impacts on May Creek by eliminating the bridge crossing. It is not,however, considered a"reasonable alternative"because doing so would require - a roadway through the westerly portion of the site to the north. The owner of the Barbee Mill site does not control the site to the north. In order to be considered a"reasonable alternative"pursuant to WAC 197-11-(5)(b)(iii)the City must have the authority to implement through requirements imposed as permit conditions. The city does not have the authority to impose conditions on this application that would require actions to take place on the site to the north. The applicant,however, could voluntarily.propose such an option, if the right-of-way could be obtained. 3.5-5 Some projects trips should be routed through the northerly access point. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: As indicated on DEIS page 3-71,two distribution scenarios were analyzed. A conservative ! !I scenario routed all PM peak hour trips through the southerly access. A Second distribution routed trips from the northerly 50 units,43 percent of PM peak hour trips,through the northerly access. Table 3.5-2 provides LOS results for both scenarios for the intersections affected by the difference in distribution. 3.5-6 AM Peak Hour analysis should be provided at selected intersections. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: The City of Renton has determined that AM peak hour analysis for this project is not warranted for the following reasons. Project AM peak hour trips are likely to be predominantly home- based work trips and are likely to primarily access I 405 at North 44th Street where right turn access to freeway ramps is available with few capacity constraints. Other primary routes are likely to be on Lake Washington Blvd.to the south. Trips oriented to the north are not likely to substantially impact the intersection at Lake Washington Blvd. and 112th Avenue SW. That is reported by the City of Newcastle to operate at LOS F. Detailed AM peak hour operational analysis provided by Mirai Associates indicates that current AM peak hour volumes are heaviest on the Lake Washington Blvd.northbound(or nominally City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-12 May 2004 eastbound) approach and the northbound approach from 112th Avenue SE. The capacity constraint results from the stop sign on the northbound(or nominally eastbound)Lake Washington Blvd. approach that makes a left turn. This intersection has very complex operating conditions due to the five approaches. The current LOS F operation could be improved to LOS C by stop control on all approaches (except the southbound free right turn). The City of Newcastle proposed signalization of the intersection in the future should solve the LOS problem. The high northbound approach from 112th Avenue SE,that connects to SE 69th Way, indicates that a substantial portion of the demand experienced by this intersection is from City of Newcastle residents to the east accessing I-405 and other elements of the regional transportation network. A substantial contributor to northbound trips on Lake Washington Blvd. is City of Newcastle residents routed from destinations to the east on SE 76th Street. The approximately ten trips from this development(in the base distribution)that might be routed through this intersection will not affect Level of Service. Overall, impacts from trips generated by the 115 proposed residential units in this development are likely to be a minor contributor to AM peak hour congestion compared to the approximately 3,000 existing housing units in Census Tracts 247.02 and 250.01 (between I-405 and Coal Creek Parkway) that produce the primary source of AM peak hour congestion on local roads east of I-405. 3.5-7 The 9%of trips distributed to 112th Ave. south of Lake Washington Blvd. should be distributed to SE 76th/116th Street. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: A different distribution of these 11 projects trips is not likely to result in a difference in impacts to intersections on either 112th Avenue SE/SE 68th Street or SE 76th Street/116th Avenue SE. In addition, SE 76th Street has severe grades not encountered on the alternate route,which may favor choice of 112th Avenue SE/SE 68th Street as the preferred route, despite the shorter distance of the SE 76th Street option. 3.5-8 Project trip distribution east of I-405 should be further described and analyzed. Potential trip assignments suggested by the City of Newcastle include additional trips routed on SE 76th Street to Coal Creek Parkway. The 25% of trips distributed to 44th Street east of I-405 should be routed over Lincoln Ave./Monterey Pl./88th/89th to Coal Creek Parkway,including analysis of the Coal Creek Parkway/89th Pl. intersection. COMMENTERS: Applicant, City of Newcastle RESPONSE: Trips distributed east of I-405 consist of 25 % of project trips distributed to the east and 22%of non-freeway oriented trips distributed to the northeast. This distribution result from the City of Renton EMME/2 travel demand model. These PM peak hour trips are predominantly home-based work trips with a component of home-based-other trips (that may include shopping, school related trips, recreation and a variety of other purposes). Trips routed to the east total 25% of project trips,which total 31 vehicle trips. Routing of home-based-other trips to the immediate east is supported by a substantial concentration of commercial land use in the vicinity. Routing of other trips to the east may be related to school,recreation and other trip purposes. It is likely that these trips are distributed to a variety of destinations. It is unlikely that all of these trips make it to Coal Creek Parkway several miles to the east. It is unlikely that routing a portion of the 31 trips to this route would change the level of service at the intersection of Coal Creek Parkway and SE 89th Place given the planned intersection improvements that are scheduled to be completed prior to buildout of the Barbee Mill site. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-13 May2009 I - 1 3.5-9 Consolidation of private rail crossings could change traffic circulation in the area. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: All properties west of the BNSF rail line access either Ripley Lane or Lake Washington '_ Blvd. Consolidating railroad crossings will result in access to the same roadways with no change in circulation because alternate routes are not available. 3.5-10 Grade separation of crossings of the BNSF railroad presumably would result in elimination of the southerly access point to the Barbee Mill site. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: As discussed in the DEIS on page 3-86, a grade-separated crossing could be implemented initially with this project,or in the future to mitigate cumulative impacts. If implemented in the future, the safety goals of grade crossing would be available to all users west of the railroad tracks and potential impacts to emergency access would be reduced. This does not,however,mean that some grade level crossings would not be retained for general circulation and redundant emergency access. 3.5-11 Ramps at 1-405 Exit 9 should be analyzed. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The project routes 9 trips through the stop controlled intersections at the I-405 ramps and 112th Avenue SE. It is unlikely that this number of trips would affect intersection Level of Service. The City of Bellevue has not requested analysis of theses intersections,which are within their jurisdiction. 3.5-12 A queuing analysis should be performed in the vicinity of 44th Street/I-405 ramps. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: LOS F conditions are predicted. Queuing analysis is redundant in this case. 3.5-13 Impacts on Park Ave.N. and 40th Street should be analyzed. COMMENTERS: Cyrus McNeely RESPONSE: The 4%of project trips distributed to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange total 5 PM peak hour trips and are not likely to be noticeable on local streets. In an area with a grid street system,such as this area,multiple routes are available. Local streets,however generally have longer travel times because of road conditions and stop signs. If some trips should choose Park Avenue rather than North 30th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. as the route to the Barbee Mill site,the small number of total trips is not likely to be noticeable on this local street. 3.5-14 The applicant prefers multi-family trip generation rate for the proposed duplexes. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: As discussed on DEIS page 3-69,the single-family trip generation rate is more appropriate for the specific character of the proposed use based on specific studies of duplex trip generation. 3.5-15 Did LOS results at NE 30th/I-405 change during the DEIS process? COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: No. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-14 May 2004 3.5-16 What is the basis of the intersection accident standard of 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles? COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles standard for a high rate of accident occurrence is noted in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Planning Handbook. As such, it is a standard or guideline generally recognized by the profession. The purpose of the standard/guideline in this case is to distinguish background accident levels from accident rates that indicate a possible roadway deficiency that may contribute to accidents and may be corrected by changes in configuration, signage, traffic control or other roadway improvements. 3.5-17 The applicant asserts that adequate separation can be provided between the alternate access point shown and the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd. intersections. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The adequacy of intersection separation cannot be resolved until the City reviews final engineering plans. The DEIS is accurate in identifying a potential problem in the alternative access points that may or may not be mitigated by design options. 3.5-18 Additional analysis of the road crossings on railroad traffic should be provided. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The number and design of road crossings is not likely to affect the amount of rail traffic, speeds,or other parameters of use of the rail line. This is likely to be largely determined by the needs of the railroad for local and through capacity. 3.5-19 Additional data on rail accidents and train use on this line was requested. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: According the US Department of Transportation,Federal Railroad Administration,13 accidents have occurred since 1977 on the portion of the line between NE Park Drive in Renton and I-90. All accidents were train/vehicle collisions. Five(5) of the collisions occurred at the crossing of Mountain View Avenue North. Train use is as reported on DEIS page 3-68: four trains per day, one local freight train round trip and one round-trip by the Dinner Train. 3.5-20 The applicant describes alternative standards that might be considered as the basis for approval of proposed rail crossings and proposes alternate interpretations of existing topography. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: Analysis of rail crossings in the DEIS is based on survey information provided by the applicant. Additional topographic information developed since release of the DEIS has been reviewed. This additional information confnlib the conclusions in the DEIS of potential impacts analyzed in reference to adopted standards. The AASHTO standards are designed to both protect the public,and protect the railroad. The applicant can propose variance from those standards,however,it is unlikely that variance from these standards would be approved by the City of Renton,the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the BNSF railroad for a new public crossing unless equivalent performance and safety is achieved. The public road crossing will serve a variety of users of this residential area,including school busses. The standard for a level area is designed to ensure that vehicles do not become "high-centered"on the tracks. Such an occurrence would block local traffic and constitute a vehicle train collision hazard. The proposed rail crossings will not meet the City of Renton maximum 15%road grades for the road approach to Lake Washington Blvd. with a 30 foot level area on each side City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-15 May2004 of the railroad track. The availability of alternative roadway locations that meet accepted standards will be considered in reaching a decision on new public railroad crossings. 3.5-21 Additional analysis was requested of the criteria for various control systems for rail crossings and the relationship to trip generation from the site and safety issues for vehicles, pedestrians,and trains. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The criteria for deciding appropriate crossing facilities involves many factors, as discussed on DEIS pages 3-78 to 80 including use by school busses,residential traffic and pedestrians. The character of the users may be as important as traffic volumes. In addition, analysis addresses the likelihood that this roadway will be used for trips originating in the land to the north when they are redeveloped in the future since the roadway will connect to those parcels. 3.5-22 Analysis of construction traffic haul routes, including mitigating measures to restrict hauling route was requested. COMMENTERS: Mark Hancock, City of Newcastle RESPONSE: Construction hauling routes are governed by local jurisdiction designation of truck routes. There is little basis for presuming that construction traffic will access the site from other than the 1-405 interchanges at 44th Street and SR 900. Local jurisdictions such as the City of Newcastle and the City of Renton can avoid truck impacts on sensitive routes by enforcing truck route regulations. 3.5-23 Additional assessment of trip diversion from I-405 was requested. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The analysis on page 3-81 adequately describes the general problem of traffic diverting from I-405 to parallel local streets. As noted,the project would be a small percentage of local residents who might potentially divert to local streets from I-405. There are approximately 3,000 existing housing units in Census Tracts 247.02 and 250.01 between I-405 ands Coal Creek Parkway south of SE 60th Street and north of May Creek. These residents access the regional arterial system via I-405 and Coal Creek Parkway. As the DEIS points out,there are a variety of strategies local jurisdictions can use to either encourage or discourage diversion of trips on roads parallel to 1-405 with a variety of impacts on local mobility. 3.5-24 How were 8-hour volumes obtained for signal warrant analysis? Does Renton's traffic model provide 24 hour data? COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The City of Renton EMME/2 travel demand model is a PM peak hour model. I-405 ramp data includes 24-hour count data. A proportional adjustment was applied to PM peak hour projections modeled to derive 24 hour volumes for warrant analysis. 3.5-25 Various interpretations of appropriate parameters for assessment of cumulative transportation impacts are offered by various commenters. The applicant suggests that assessment of cumulative impacts is speculative. Port Quendall Company(PQC)requests analysis of reasonable development of the remainder of the COR-2 zoned area. COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The DEIS addresses cumulative traffic generation from the perspective of the long-term circulation needs in the area. In this case,the range of potential development that may be expected under current zoning is not remote or speculative. A complete Level of Service analysis of the combined trip City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-16 May2004 generation of the COR-2 parcels in the vicinity,however,was not performed. Previous analysis undertaken by the City as part of the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project assumes redevelopment of the Port Quendall site. This analysis documents substantial transportation impacts as well as the scope of facilities needed to serve the land uses anticipated under near maximum allowed densities. The current analysis focuses on the operational impacts of the Barbee Mill proposal. The purpose of the cumulative impact analysis included in the DEIS is to examine whether the proposed circulation plan will fit into future circulation needs in the area. The potential impact analyzed is whether the proposed circulation system will narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment by precluding future transportation network improvements pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(6)(c)(ii). Section 3.6: Hazardous Materials • 3.6-1 Distinguish between 1) groundwater removal during soil removal, and 2) future ground water remediation that may be required based on monitoring. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The DEIS text accurately describes the groundwater remediation options that may be implemented under the IRAP on DEIS page 3-96. 3.6-2 Change text to indicate completion of sediment disposal. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The completion of sediment disposal can be noted by decision makers without revision of the DEIS. 3.6-3 The site will be cleaned up to residential cleanup levels. No restrictive covenant will be required. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: The requirement for a restrictive covenant will be determined based on the actual cleanup performed. The need for a restrictive covenant cannot be determined at this time. 3.6-4 Information in Dept. of Ecology files on the properties to the north should be incorporated in the analysis. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: This information was reviewed and utilized in DEIS analysis. 3.6-5 Risks to residential use of the site from contaminants on the site and on parcels to the north have not been adequately analyzed. COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC) RESPONSE: The DEIS analyzes the potential impacts of contaminants from the site on pages 3-89 through 3-94 and addresses contaminants from parcels north of the site on pages 3-95 and 96. I i 3.6-6 Remedial action for the roadway north of the site should not be discussed because it is not known if such a plan will be required by the Washington Department of Ecology. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: Since a cleanup plan has not been approved for the property to the north, over which a new roadway is proposed,the DEIS appropriately discusses the range of remediation options that may be warranted. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-17 May2004 3.6-7 Will arsenic and other contaminants become airborne and affect nearby areas, including materials blown off trucks while being transported? COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: Avoidance of air entrainment is a standard requirement of remediation plans that can be readily implemented. In a similar manner, control of blow-off material on trucks is readily addressed by covering loads and is not a likely impact. Section 3.7: Aesthetics/Light and Glare 3.7-1 Why were no viewpoints selected from the City of Newcastle to the east? COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: Viewpoints to the east of I-405 were evaluated,however detailed visual simulations were not provided because the relative prominence of the existing mill and the proposed buildings are a minor element of views because of the distance and the elevated perspective from viewpoints east I-405. The view simulations provided from Park Avenue to the east in Figure 3.7-12 provide a general idea of the character of the development as seen from the east. A similar character of views will be available from the distant east in Newcastle,but the relative prominence will be much lower due to distance. Due to elevation, the buildings will not be skyline features. . The scale of proposed buildings would not obstruct views from Newcastle of Lake Washington,territorial views of Mercer Island, or distant views of the Olympic Mountains. The photos submitted by the City of Newcastle taken from a distance of about 2,500 feet from the site show the existing sawmill at about the same relative size as in DEIS Figure 3.7-12, which was taken from Park Avenue about 600 feet from the site. This indicates that the field of view in the Newcastle submittal is much narrower than the normal static human field of view and the relative prominence of the site is exaggerated. The mitigating measures for views discussed on pages 3-117 and 3-118 are applicable to distant views,but would provide less mitigation, since impacts at a distance are less. 3.7-2 Blank boxes in photo-simulations exaggerates visual impacts. I COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: In the absence of a specific design proposal,the bulk of the proposed building footprints and the building height proposed by the applicant is depicted. This provides a conservative case. Had the applicant provided a detailed proposal,more focused analysis could have been provided. The building locations simulated are based on the building footprint defined by proposed setbacks in the plat application. The building height is based on parameters specified by the applicant of a maximum 50 foot I height within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act and 75 foot height outside SMA jurisdiction as specified on DEIS pages 2-3 and 3-103. 3.7-3 Heights proposed are less than the 125 feet that zoning would allow. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: That is clearly stated in the Description of the Proposal on DIES page 2-3. Section 3.8: Light and Glare 3.8-1 Light and glare impacts to the City of Newcastle should be considered. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: Light and glare impacts on land directly to the east are discussed on DEIS page 3-118. Light and glare impacts of the site on land in Newcastle east of I-405 would be similar in character but of City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-18 May2004 less intensity than the impacts discussed for nearby viewpoints. The residential buildings on the site also can be expected to have lower levels of impacts because of limited height and scale. In addition, as residential buildings,it is likely that pierced windows will predominate rather than substantial areas of glass as on office buildings. Impacts of the intervening freeway and interchange lighting at I-405/44th Street, as well as the lighting for commercial uses east of I-405 are greater in intensity. These light sources are likely to be the major glare source in views to the west for properties to the east of the site in Newcastle. The mitigating measures outlined for light and glare are likely to be equally applicable to light viewed from a distance as for closer viewpoints covered in the analysis. Section 3.9: Noise 3.9-1 Noise from pin-piles suggested by the project geotechnical engineer would be less. COMMENTERS: Applicant RESPONSE: No specific proposal for types or depths of pilings can be supported given existing geotechnical information. The range of noise levels, and mitigation discussed in the DEIS is reasonable given the lack of a specific design parameters. 3.9-2 Noise from construction truck traffic in and around Newcastle should be discussed. COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle RESPONSE: As indicated in the response to comment 3.5-22, construction hauling routes are governed by local jurisdiction designation of truck routes. The City of Newcastle Transportation Element Policy TR-OP-4 designates principal arterials as truck routes. The two principal arterials designated are Coal Creek Parkway and Newcastle Coal Creek Road. Neither of these roads provide access to the Barbee Mill Site. There is little basis for presuming that construction traffic will access the site from other than the I-405 interchanges at 44th Street and SR 900. There is no reason for trucks to use the east-west roadways through the City of Newcastle connecting Coal Creek Parkway and Lake Washington Blvd. All of these roads either are circuitous or have grades that discourage truck use. There is only a remote possibility that residents of the City Newcastle will be affected by noise from construction haul routes. Local jurisdictions such as the City of Newcastle can avoid truck impacts on sensitive routes by enforcing truck route regulations. Section 3-10: Historic and Cultural Resources 3.10-1 The Muckleshoot Tribe requested receipt of the full cultural report. COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe RESPONSE: Background information consisting of previous cultural assessments prepared for the property and vicinity were transmitted to the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program. Additional comments were not received. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-19 May2004 6. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the following section are - organized by date received. The numbers in the margins indicate the number of the response in the previous section. Table 6.1 Barbee Mill Draft EIS Comment Letters Letter No. Commenter Date received 1 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 9/11/03 2 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 9/11/03 3 Jan Hickling 9/12/03 4 Larry Reymann 9/12/03 5 Cyrus McNeely 9/22/03 6 Public Hearing 9/23/03 7 King County Wastewater Treatment Division 9/26/03 8 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 9/29/03 9 Mark Hancock 10/01/03 10 Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 10/03/03 11 Greg Fawcett 10/07/03 12 Sarah Nicoli 10/07/03 13 Port Quendall Company 10/07/03 14 Washington Department of Natural Resources 10/08/03 15 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 10/07/03 16 Applicant 10/08/03 17 City of Newcastle ,10/08/03 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-1 April2004 I • .•• '41IFR STATE Of WASHINGTON WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1300 S.Evergreen Park O.S.W.,P.O.Box 47.if0• Olympia,Withington 98504-7250, (360)664:1160 • ITV(360) ClrYogfirrp ' September 9,2003 Saj °IV fv° 912,1„ Ms.Susan Fiala City of Renton /PO) ; Development Services Division 1055 S.Grady Way Sixth floor Rat*,WA 98055 Subject: Barbee Mill Draft:Environmental impact-Statement Dear Ms.Fiala . Washington Utilities and Transportation CommiSsion(WUTC)Staff have reviewedthe draft environmental impact statement for the city of kenton's Barbie Milt development 'propOSai;and would like to submit the following comments. As ispointed out in:Seedort'l.6 ofthe dectunent;the construction ofpublic.railroad crossings in Washington requires prior approval from WUTC per RCW 81,15;02Q. Jn A general,the Commission seeks tii limit the number of railroad crossings in Washington to' those that are essential to a community and are not redundant With respect to reasonable ' alternative access'across the tracks.Since the transportation options listed in the 1 I document consist of MultiPlerailitiad:proSitt scenarios,it maybe in the project's best interest to discuss the options on site with Commission Staff and representatives ofthe Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company,. Consultation with all Pattiesprier to any one option being plOpOsed:Weitid give the city the opportunity to hear all sides and concerns before*flies any petitions with the Commistion. Prior agreement by all parties would also elintinate:a0 paStibility of a formal heating on the matter. Please contact Alunerllizam at(360)664,1345 to coordinate any such meeting or to discuss Wtrit's role in railroad crossing'safety. Thank you for the opportunity of comment On the proposal. Singer*, Carole-I.Washburn Seeretttry - m.attsa.. 554-1779-017 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat April 2004 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-2 • • DE YELop rtyniT nl1LO hflYCa City of Renton September 10, 2¢p Development Services Div. r 17 2003 Susan Fiala RECEr r�11 Dear Ms. Fiala: • Thank you and the City Of Renton for the opportunity to continue the input from the Kennydale Community regarding the Barbee Mill Development. As we have said in previous meetings; we share the concerns about the increased traffic this development will generate from the 44' St Exit on 405 into Kennydale, and believe that, in addition to other measures, 3.5-4 locating both entrances into the development North.of May Creek will appreciably mitigate this impact. Our main concern however, is for the natural habitat along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline that will be forever changed by this development. • We have hiked along May Creek and monitored the wildlife there, especially the,Sockeye, Coho, and Chinook salmon runs, for decades now, and done what we canto assist them in their struggle to survive and reproduce. We have witnessed deer and the Osprey that live at the mill raise theiroffspring .arid thrive. We-believe strongly that these creatures' survival depends on A .public-involvement and awareness of their well being, and that to realize this it is essential that citizens have access to May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline that could be walled off by this development.The :changes:this development will bring to the unique,natural,environment this . site represents should not just'maintain wild habitat, but:enhance it, If what is left of wildlife habitat here.is managed'prudently, these considerations will not the,Barbee Mill Development,.but tangibly increase its value. • In the six years I was Packmasterfor St:,Anthony's.Cub Scouts,and,.in the years since as anactive.inember.of the Kennydale Neigborhood Association, and' Block Watch'Captain.*our neighborhood, 'have,discussed the- ongoing'development inKennydale with'a great many residents.here. The overwhelming majority.of our neighbors agree-,..as we.-do,that the greatest legacy we could leave our children's children would bea Park on the last undeveloped shoreline in our area.A third jewel in the crown that Newcastle • and Coulon Parks represent would benefit countless citizens for generations to come. As we work toward that goal, it is of paramount importance'not to let the Barbee MITI Development block the public's access to May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline., Thank ou.for your consideration, Larry an Cir eymann 1313 No. 38th St enton; WA 98056 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-3 April 2004 _ 1 r MUCKLESHOOT ._ INDI i CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM i• eta i. . ' a: 4. 39015 172nd Avenue S.E.•Auburn,Washington 98092-9/63 ` i . ` ' 1 Phone: (360).802-2202 FAX: (360)802-2242. Septeiriber 4;2003 - - 1 City ofRenton Vet• ' ' Development Services DivisionN!`p Attn::SusanFiala Ptiv / 1055 5outh'Grady'Way,Sixth Floor • - • Sip.1 f - • Benton,WA98055 < FI{I 4.i 3 ,;s=m :f"R Ti,aitie`e Mrlikompan'y;LUA 02-U4Q•EIS; — _. ----,- n .: _ , ' Dear Ma...Fiala, On'behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee,I have reviewed the following,• • information sent regarding placement of the:Barbee Mill Company and have.the 3.10-1 following comments.We-are unable to consult on this project as required by Section 106 of the National Historic'Preservation Act.The DEIS documents sent to this department • does not-•provide A iidiit R°`PYedse send us ApperidikIti for our review.Without a complete cultural survey report we are unable to review impacts. The.Cultural Resources:Program does not represent.the Wildlife.Program and the - . Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.If . . needed,please contact these departments for their input:on this project. . , We appreciate the effort;to coordinate with theMuckleshoot'Tribe prior to'site preparation;The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site • - and cause`delays and:unriecessary expense for the contractor.Ifydu:have any questions, please contact ine at360-802-2202,extension 103. - . Sin' ely, . l r Donna Hlogerhuis, turd' ,Specialist Specialist ` Cc:IVZelissa'talvert;Wirdlife and Culture Director'.. •; ' ' - "':11ob.Wliitlam,SHPO" .. t - •,, -..:.- I• —, • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement . Page 6-4 April 2004 _I I • R . I . .::: _ . -,,-;,-, , ; „ , alfoloa _._ �: `f7nl. . . cirrourrra--- I". : .k.. :_ Lie '--:,-. - . S .: K) " CY\Lill_thoLA,Ae2csa,,_',,, a_0(stcy)_________. , s Libri-,,, .....k .'....icik-,:-:*0-4,10e0N,..,,„ _ ..: . ,..._.. .. . . B. ____ __. i_....Tee,- ':cxce...,` 0,6. o �!p� Q:n•CA., _ 11 oo.L 'i aff m e.9n-S. .( i _ . �nV S. - ` ce . . - _ ..... .:az s'it_-(0-01 _ o . ------ I a ©..cc u...i ;. -i, ++ t . v 5 . ...__.cl ur . f. ? ,-pie( -,_____-- -.Q. _i_ a c!. o; N_ . Far . __.._ ___. _t_ f-_ �l °r fi .off a e: _,_t ,luc ,rkf i.,.,,.. A..hti.:;9. '. a :_ _ n • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-5 April 2004 • al II L-_.- I , � • vwtS ., #E . ___ =K• � RAii, i f K en. ,Ll1 � t l tl pc v e sc • ' - '"-2r t _'S. ,ice.., 4 '. • i___._. 1 I . 1 1 I • i i f City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-6 April 2004 September 19,2003 , • Cyrus M McNeely 3810 park Ave.Na. Renton,WA 98056 Dear Ms.Fiala: I have read portions of the Draft EIS for the Barbee Mill proposaland have comments regarding traffic and impacts in the area Specifically,note that on page A-7,Tranipertation, of the'Scoping document there is indication that Park Ave No.is to be included in the analysis. It seernslhatthit Wasn't done because both" Park Ave.No.and 40th No.are virtually ignored in the document. " • 3.5-13 North 30th to Park Ave.No.,to No.40th,to Lake WA Blvd to the No.44th interchange is now,and will certainly increasingly become a popular northbound 1.405 by-pass route Park Ave.No is wider, straighter and smoother than Burnett,with no stops between No.30th and No.40th.it is a quicker way than Burnett to get from 1-495 Exit 6 to the project site; Certainly some drivers going to and corning from the site will use this"go-around".routinely,some when they know there it congestion cinI-405 and still others •• , legitimately enroute to the Renton Hilands and points between. Park Ave;Na and NO.40th-should both absolutely be included in the"Prole&Trip Distribution"and analyzed for impacts and needed mitigation. F Minor point on Pg 3-62; Project site is bounded by".:1-405/Lake,Washington Bhjd to the Should be"east"? Thank for opportunity to comment Reach me at(425)255-5937;cmikeathom©aO1.corn. CyrusM.'("Mike")McNeely • gO .aarr ELOP''-‘1Etw- 1:0 offy 2403 tt.0 seCEINED l'hursdag Septantre08,2003 Amides OnlIpm Coligmatiam • Pagel 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-7 April 2004 i I Barbee Mill DEIS September 22,2003:Public Hearing Jennifer: Thanks,well,goodevening and:thankyou for coming to the public hearing for - comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. My name is Jennifer Henning,I'm the Principal Planner with the Development Services Division here at the City of Renton. And I'in pinch hitting tonight for the project manager on our team,SusanFiala-who's out'of the office. I'd,like:to introduce anothermember of my staff,Andree DeBauw,who • is our Recording Secretary:tonight. Andree is-also the sergeant at arms and as you get up to speak tonight,'because there are quite a few signed up,you'll have • about five minutes to speak,And Andree's got great little timer hera that will startblinking. When you have two minutes left it will blink yellow and then it will go red when'your tune is up.:So we'd like to have you try and contain,your comments within about five minute period if at all.possible. We also have Campbell Mathewson here tonight. He is the applicant for the ' Cugini family and he is considered:the•applicant.for this project proposal. Robert • Cugini is also here representing as:the owner property,and David Sherrard,is the • project manager for Parametrix which is our consultant team.that prepared the EIS for the Cityof Renton. Okay so lets go through a'-few logistics. We have exhibits on the boards mounted •over on the side of the mom. It shows-the proposal which is to subdivide the twenty=three:acre piece of property along Lake Washington-into individual lots where there would be built townhomes and also four and five=plex.structures: We'have a vicinity map,arid:that's'mounted on the side.And;then there are two other exhibits which.showsome alternative ormodifiedproposals that are suggested in Environmental Impact_Study: So please feel free to review these. At any tiitleyou'can get up and'wander around,and'look at those. • Next,.we have a sign-up sheet in the back of the.room;near the door as you came in. This is for.anyone who.would wish:to,speak totiight'or testify, Don't wony if • you are not signed up right now. If you chooseto speak later on in the evening. - we can take you after we:have taken everyoneelse:in order. For those who, to speak to night onight could•you please come to the podium when it's your tun,say your name,Spell your last name;and give,your mailing address s4 that our records are complete. Anyone Who testifies will-be made a party of :_ record on the.development application andyou'll receivenotification of • 'decisions that are made along the-way. • ,— For those of you that haven't attended an-EIS.heating before,this is not really _ intended to be interactive. Thisis not where yeu get'your comments responded to unless they are procedural'in nature:-We merely-are here to collect your- comments and to catalogue those and they will be addressed the.FinalEIS. document. So the Draft-EIS document which-is this ttvo•voluthe set,hard copy or a CD-Rom,together'with responses to your comments end to,the comments I • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-8 April 2004 _ Q I ' received via letter from agencies and other interested parties,that together constitutes the entire EIS. So what I'm going to do right now is to recap the proposal and process to date. Then we'll open the hearing for public testimony. • The EIS or the Environmental Impact Statement was required by the City of Renton because the City determined that the proposal was likely to have a significant impact'on the environment:We needed the study in order to assess the-impacts and to propose:ways:in which those impacts could either be • eliminated;or diminished,.below a level of significance. • • So'the•City issued a Determination•of Significance in November of last year. This was•after evaluating the application. And we'.d had the application-for about • six;months at.that point.andwe were doingquite a few studies..The Determination of Signifcance.was issued by the Environmental'Review Committee,that's the environmental,:ah,the responsible official for the City of Renton.'And_then,we startedtaking comnients!onwhatthe scope of.this document should be.Velattaptiblic scoping.meeting inDecember of last year. • After we had the public scoping meeting We'started.looltingfor a consultant to prepare the document And,weultimately,selected Parametrix from Kirkland, Washington to be the City's consultant of the.preparation of the.document And David Shetrarciis here tonight as•the project manager. And he may be filling in a •fevr gaps,asi.need.along the:way,.•tonight,:; -t So Parametrix commenced their work.on'the EIS•in.February. They were all over the site;They were.evaluatingthe habitat They were evaluating the • shoreline.They.:were evaluating.*-land-use and the aesthetics,the utilities systems,thetfldudplain,all the natural and'built environment systems arid many of the transportation issues.:The Draft EIS:Ywas then prepared and:issued.on September 2:2Q03a..We are in themidst of a30'day comment period which • began with,thessuance of that EIS:This COrninent period will end next •Wednesday; ctober 14: That:is:tuiless we'eceive requeats from agencies or 3 others for;an d'dditional,15:day erttension to dlutieOmmettyperiod.s As I •mentioned,•anybody who±on meaiitthtOnigl t will be•made<a party,of record and you'll be ree tvingreceiving,not}ce;lpn!anyideeisions•associated with this • application. • I've.shown you the printed version of the EIS. If you don'thave a copy,they are available for purchase in our.Finance Department for$15:00 each volume or you • ean•get the entire thing on a CD-Rom.for$5.00. If we need to mail it to you,we also charge postage and there istax.applicable to both. Also the EIS is available at the public libraries here in Renton,the main branch and,also the Highlands branch. • Okay,so let's get down to the nuts and bolts. The project site is about.23 acres. It's in the Kenneydaie neighborhood. Roughly;it is bounded by Lake Washington on the west,NE 40`1'Street on.the south,exit 7 or NE 44111 on the north,and the Burlington Northern SanteFe railroad tracks and Lake Washington • Blvd.on the cast. It part of...It's currently the Barbee Mill. It's been used as a Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-9 April 2004 • • • • • sawmill for many many years,probably since the 1930's,Robert,is that about right? Robert Cugini: No,it was moved to that site,in 1945. • • Jennifer: 1945,so it's been used as a sawmill for a very long time. There are vacant j properties M.the north indifferent ownership and those are not part of this • application. May flow through-the site. It's roughly in the center of the site at the eastern boundary then flows to the,if you look at this boundary, ' excuse"nie this map up on the overhead projector,you can see in blue,from the ' • -center of the site on the,eastern-border,down to the southwest,that's May Creek ! -- flowing through the site. The zoning designation for this property,even though it's an industrial use the zoning designation is what we call COR which is ! Commercial,Office,Residential. It's intended for mixed-use residential developmentp combined'with office buildings (' and.commercial. However,it does • • allow for stand-alone residential development at lower densities and that's what this proposal is. This,proposal is'sulidivide the property into 115 lots. These would:be developed with 115'residential structures,:primarily duplexes,but also 1 some town homes that have four and five units. Thelots would range in size, from 1,847 square feet'up to 7,336 square feet. The project also consists of the construction-of public streets and a couple of at-grade railroad crossings to get • • onto the site. In.the.EIS,we made a number of assumptions,and those . • assumptions were to allow us to analyze the project because we had to look at . what we considered to be the worst case scenario and have full disclosure of the - environmental impacts. So for example,we knew the-property was being ,- subdivided and we knew there would be some residential structures on it,,but we couldn't tell you exactly what the height of#hose was; The zoning allows heights . up to 7S feet and the Shoreltine•Program Of theCity allows heights of up to 50 .• feet in.the shoreline area. So we looked.at,the;potential for some very tall structures;even,though it's likely that would never'occur,but we•had to look at that. We also had to'assuine that there would be individual residential docks for, i • , ' each home.along waterfront,along the:Lake Washington waterfront'and that • would be.for`16 harries. Even though,that's not necessarily part of the proposal ,. because it warn t disclosed,Nye had to'make that assumption. In addition,the EIS:analyzed'a 25_foot setback-from take Washington;'thatis a setback to the residential•structure,•and that'.s'what the:Shoreline"Master Program currently • allows However`,there are a'couple alternatives with greater setbacks that the EIS;looked•at:that are•kind of the current thinking initerms of protecting the salmon andhabitat;.andthat would be fora 50 foot.an11000 foot setback,'and .those are some‘rhawings.tliat are shown on white posterboards over.on the side.of the room. The"50 foot setback would resultin fewer units;a.total of 101. A 100 foot setback would result in only 50 building sites'(50)building sites. So the EIS assumed that the level of development of the site of the 115.units,but it also had to look at alternatives. So the.alternative we chose to Jook at was What we call ' the`;`no project"alternative;which is continuation ofexistmg industrial use of the • site."So it assumed:there might<bc some reuse Of the existing buildings and that , • some sera of ridestrial'deyelopinentwould continue. . . i • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-10 April 2004 i ' I • Okay,having said all that,we're just about 6:15 P.M. I'm going-to grab the sign up sheet and we'll open the public comment portion of this public hearing. Andrea is-going to serve as a recorder and we're going to•call the speakers,to the podium in the other you are signed up. And should you wish to.testify and are not-signed Up,then we'll have an opportunity for you to do that. • •And our first speaker is Mr:Greg Fawcett.' ' • • Greg Fawcett: -oh;okay.i which way does this face,this•way over here?'Are you okay here? .Jennifer • 'Um,yeah'yoit can speak to us: " Grog Fawcett: -Oh:. • . . - • • .Jennifer: You don't need to speak to the audience. Okay? Thank you. Greg Fawcett: My name is Greg Fawcett and my mailing address is-PO Box 402,Fall City,WA • 98024..Forgive me for speaking quickly but I wanted to-go through,some of the issues that nail. I'm-51'ycats old. I grew up in Kennydale,went to school in Rei ton,,graduated from Haien in 1971:'I completed my B.A.degree at the University of Washington';mid then went on to getiny doctorate at the University iif Washington in 1981._MY-family currently owns'property in Kennydale,and inybrother and my mother acid my son currently just live a few blocks away front theproposed Barbee sitar:Our tinily has owned property iii Kennydale since 1875,prior to the inegrl,orration of the City of Renton and when Washington was a tern tary.*''°' I'waiited to'use the liiiiited'dine available:to try to help educate people in the room regarding the growth acid population and its impact on land usage and how tltataf ects.everybody°in this room and in this country, In the United States we: l ii�o'a net increase of 2'0the population every year:on average. It's a matter ofreebrd with the miikt re'Cent''tlnited States Census,and also'the Washington Sta"te,'Growth Management Act Mast people.consider.a 2%o growth rate increase to'belnmdest yetin60"yearsi}tattneatns°tlie population will double: wa' :: r: This groWth in popuhifidn'is 2ibthurg new. In fact if-has been stable for nearly 300yeafs lit this cotmtty since 1700. Many in.this.rooin will witness the doubling of the popula'tion`in;their lifetimes: To those that.say how can this hapiien'or what ki d ofworld ill'this.be if that occurs,all you need to.do.is look • bank 50brears:'Andtnlact`tlii area and'in.this region has:Mare than doubled in the)*50:years.• .• . .. Those that-sit orf the Council are very welt aware of The Growth Management ,tt;ct or theterm"msnagenierit-growth",or the new-buzz phrase"Smart Growth". Opp*tonight in fairor of the proposed Barbee Mill development. Not because p.._ it degrades.the environment,`but because it provides housing•for a rising population in arrurban area and whose net effect will be to decrease the damage to the-environnient for future.generations. And let me begin to explain why that is a benefit to the enviiomiment. If we do: not mote fully develop urban areas that already have existing infrastructure • • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-11 April 2004 I { J_1 • • including roads,ut lities,.density of population,then economic pressure for a growing populationto sprawl increases to outlying regions. This ensuing,sprawl will.on balance create-greater environmental damage. Every acre that we set aside in urban areas as open.space,or as.protected,.puts increasing pressure for • sprawl in.areas further•away from the existing urban areas. If we limitthe areas to support housing this acts to drive up the cost of housing for those who live•iri the urban areas. hi-a recent article.in the Seattle Times"the cost per-square footfor housing in Seattle is four times the cost in outlying - areas". My question is whatis that family going to have to do without to pay.for this increase in housing? Are they going.to have to do without health insurance, . prescription,medication. Are theygoing to have to do without the ability topay . .for their children's higher education,or retirement,or-quality of life? What are • people going to.have to-do.without to pay for this increased cost Of housing? As we restrict development in urban areas this acts to drive up the cost'of all real • estate in those areas. The rise in cost for real estate drives up the cost for all goods'and services.that each of us in:this room depend on. I would ask again, what are we going to.have to do.without to pay for this increase in:cost? If you do not want to support growth in the City of Renton and use the environment as your mantra then just embrace the inevitable sprawl that will • result and explain to your children how you protected the.environment by promoting'spia*l. -' I would-be-remiss if I did not.offer at least some possible solutions. I think one 'idea'would.be to evaluate properties for development on a case-by-case_basis. In- other words,just as you would consideran individual for a job.based•not on their class,or race,but rather onhis or her individual characteristics;so must we consider:individual properties.;Where is can be demonstrated that considering all -the factors a specific.parcel can-offeron balance greater good to the area then:the summation of those factois should'precedence and override a single existing restriction,or regulation:This concept would be truly a"Smart,Growth"' concept. • Another:concept;would.be•a,tiaiisfer.of development credits:where by neighboring property owners.like myself that have similar zoning or whatever,. would'Pll-their credits•to'a developer to more intensely develop properties to,a greater density above existing zoning allowances, Many other cities,the Cityof Seattle,thc City of Redmond,and Rung County already have such ordinances in Place. I would be•happy to discuss in-more detail how to transfer development credits-so it would'be'a win for the environment,'a win for the City,arid a win for future development. Thankyou verymuch. Jennifer: Thank you:Mr,Fawcett. Our next speakeris•Torsten Lienau. Leen-ow? You're not,you're;going to:forego spealdng? Okay,thank.you, Our next speaker is Mr. •Ro,bert Cugini. • { City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-12 April 2004 • I t • • • Robert Cugini: Robert Cugini,PO Box 359,Renton,WA 98057. I at Robert Cugini. I'm one of the owners of the Barbee Mill property. My family has been in Renton since 1904 and we are excited about the chance to finally redevelop our industrial site • into something that is much more compatible withthe existing neighborhoods. Our project represents about the least dense;least impact project that could be proposed for the site. As many of you know,there has been proposals in recent years that would have takenfull advantage of the 125 foot heightlimitand increased traffic by thousands of cars per day. We're excited about the fact that our project generates minimal traffic,protects views,andis a significant environmental improvement overthe existing industrial use.:We look forward to A working with the City'and our neighbors to bring-this.projeot to completion. Thankyou foryour time in the recent montlis`with all the-work on this project and for the opportunity to"corimient this evening: Thank you: Jennifer: Thank.you Mr.Cugini. Our next speaker is Mr.Campbell Mathewson. f , Mr.Campbell: No thanks,I thought you were supposed to sign in. ' Jennifer: Okay:•Alright Mt.Emmett Pritchard. •• Mr.Pritchard: Same for me. Jennifer: Okay. Mr.Don West• Mr.,West: It's the same'for me. • Jennifer: Okay. Mr.Jim Johnson. Mr:Johnson:• 'Same here. • Jennifer; Okay. Howabout Matt Hougu..IsMatt interested in speaking?'Okay. Fritz Timm." • Fritz Timm: My name is Fritz Timm. I'm the.Senior Development Engineer with the City of Newcastle. Mailing address is 13020 S.72"'Pl.,Newcastle,WA 98059. I want - . to express the City'of Newcastle's.appreciationfor allowing us a Period of comment..We have in the record a series of comments the project. We went through the EIS and identified a number of locations where we felt that the impactsinaynot have adequately addressed oar comments;;possibly through. misinterpretation of what our comments indicated..With'me is Mir City Traffic Engineer,Mr.Dave Engar and he also will be'expressing some more specific issues related to traffic. With respect to other comments thatwe had put on the- record;,noise,dust,light and glare,these issues were primarily concerned with: 3.5-22 respect to'the height of residences of Newcastle along lake Washington Blvd: and further to the south because they're directly impacted bythe project. 'Our 3.8-1 feeling is that the issues as they're impacting the City of Newcastle.should be .more specifically addressed. Again that relates'specifically to noise,dust,.liglit • 3.9-2 arid glare. And if there's specific questions that the teat has Wittrespect to those,we plan on submitting fonnal-comments a little later.in the month. 3 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-13 April 2004 • • • Jennifer: Thank you Mr.Timm. So as I understand it,a letter is forthcoming from the.City of Newcastle. • Mr.Timm: Yes ma'am Jennifer: Thank you. The next party signed up is Caryatid Yvonne Pipkin. , . Mr.Pipkin: Yeah we had no comment because.we thought that was just a sign-up sheet. Jennifer: Okay. Thankyou. How about Jolm Houtz? John Houtz: No. Jennifer: No?Alright,Mr.Chuck Wolfe Chuck Wolfe: My-name is Chuck Wolfe: I'm with the law firm of Foster,Pepper,and Shefelman in Seattle..We represented.the Port Quendall Company for many years:The°Port Quendall Company;as some ofyoukaow,owns the Baxter, Properties,the fernier-Baxter Properties to the north and the•Pan Abode Properties to the east of the subject property. And we will be submitting substansive•comments atalater time..Quite frankly,.we've got the EIS under. review right now and we'd lie to take this opportunity:if possible,to request I • induction.of the 15.day statutory exception or extension;rather,I'm sorry. ; Because of the precedential nature of this development on the Port Quendall Coinpanyproperty,the complexity of the issues,and the fact that our clients in the past have studied many ofthese issues;we'd like to see some prior studies better integrated in-the current document and have specific identification of those opportunities-underway. And.that's-all fortonight:Thankyou. , Jennifer.__ Okay,thank you Mr.Wolfe. So-as`I understand,you're'requesting an extension of the comment period. If that does oecur,all parties would be notified that the comment period has been;extended:;But we have not made that decision as•of tonight. Mr.Wolfe: I.understim4that ifyou're unable to make that determination-prior to October 1 then•ivewduld prefer:October le'or so. Jennifer: 'Okay;Thankyou. And for the-record,I understand Miss DeBauw says that we don't have;your address but.we do have it on:the sign up sheet, Could you verify. 1111 Third Ave.,#3400,:Seattle,WA 98101. Is thatcorrectMr.Wolfe.(he . verified). Okay,drank you: Our next speaker is Dave Engar. Dave Engar: Good My name.is Dave Enger: I'.m employed,by Transportation • Planning:Inc. Our address is 2223.112th Ave::NE;.Suite.101,,Bellevue,:WA 98004:,As Mr.;Tim n mentioned I'm The Traffic Engineering Consultant for:the City of Newcastle.;AndI.wiIlbe.submittinga.letter With our comments onthe review of the.transportation section that will attached,to`the City ofNewcastle's- letter to be submitted a little later before the.deadline. I have reviewed the Transportation Section of the Draft PAS and-appreciate•thatit does address.some of the comments that were'mentioned in our,in myApril.1,2002letter which was attacheg to the;City.of Newcastle letter that was submitted in December • • - t City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-14 April 2004 i I -' regarding scoping for this project. However,there are a few additional issues and.some additional analysis and discussion that we think should be included in the EIS. The first of those is that a general correction should be made that several of the streets that are mentioned in the Transportation Section toward the north end of the study area are actually in the City of Bellevue and,not the City of Newcastle. hi particular,southeast 64'h Street and all of the.streets to the north are in Bellevue because the city limits between Newcastle and.Bellevue runs along the south edge of.64t Street,west of 112th Ave.SE. There are several references and tables that refer to those streets in Bellevue. Regarding'the project trip distribution..shown on Figure 3.5-5 in the • • Transportation Section I have three concerns regarding that figure. The first is • that the figure shows no site generated traffic on SE 76's Street,which runs up the hill into Newcastle. Secondly,the figure shows about 9%ofthe site generated 3.5-7 trips using'112th SE,sonth of Lake Washington Blvd.,which appears to be to high. Trips that would travel between that area in Newcastle,kind of northeast of the Barbee Mill site up in the vicinity of SE 6S`"Street and 112'"Ave.SE,trips between that area and the Barbee Mill site would probably use SE 76t'Street • rather than the.112"'Ave./Lake Washington Blvd.route just because the SE 76th Street route is probably`about a half-mile shorter and a more direct route. And 'that needs to be taken into consideration in the EIS. So that 9%of the trips that's shown on 1121 probably most of that really shouldbe shown on 76'k Street instead. . • ' . Mythird•concern about the trip generation or trip distribution rather,for the • project;shown on.Figure 3.5-5 is•regarding the 25%of the site generated trips • 3.5-8 that:are shown NE 44's Street,east of Lake Washington Blvd.•We•think that the. trip distribution needs to be extended'to show where that 25%is expected to go. • Now I Would expect that some of those trips would be distributed to the .Mct)onald's•and the other,commercial developments right in that area of NE 44's • Street but I would expect that most of those trips would probably continue on up • the hill into Newcastle;along the Lincoln Ave./112th PI.SE route. And.probably many-of those Would continue on'on SE 88,th Street and 89`h P1:;.all the way to Coal Creek Parkway. So we think the trip distribution needsto be extended at least to Coal Creek Parkway to.tlat intersection,at'that 8,9t Pl. The City of Newcastle is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and as•partof that effort they've done art extensive analysis of the intersections city- wide during the a.m:and p.m.peak hour and looked at levels of service. And one of the levels of service concerns is a Level of Service F that's been identified at that SE S9"'P1/Coal Creek Parkway,intersection: So,we think that this Draft EIS'•for Barbee Mill needs to include a trip distribution to that intersection and • p ossible identification of any impacts and anyotential mitigation: • p The City of Neweastle's Comprehensive Plan process has also identified a Level 3.5-23 of Service F condition at the Lake;Washington:B1vdil12"'Ave:SE.intersection during the a.m,peak hour. We think that's largely because of traffic using Lake Washington Blvd.and 112th Ave:SE as an alternate route to I=405,'particularly northbound during the moaning peakbour.'There's some long back-ups at the • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-15 April 2004 stop sign at Lake Washington Blvd.as you try to turn left on 112ib Ave.SE. We , - had mentioned-in our scoping request letter last year that we wanted,that we would like to see an analysis of the a.m.peakhour at that intersection. That was riot included in this Draft EIS and we think that is still needed,particularly in light of this Level of Service F condition. Finally,we would like to see the EIS include an analysis of construction traffic impacts: Apparently there is no discussion in the Transportation Section currently. EIS should identify and discuss truck haul routes for construction materials and wastes. Measures to mitigate construction traffic impacts such as 3.5-22 potential haul route restrictions,restrictions on haul hours of operations,weight, • limits oversized routing,etc. Other potential Mitigation measures are related to construction truck traffic;include,pavement condition,monitoring,and restoration,plans for transportation of hazardous materials,truck washing,load covering,spill prevention and.clean=tip,and related issues. Again,we will be j submitting written comments in the near future. Thank.you. Jennifer: Thank you Mr.Engar. The last person have on my sign-up list tonight is Ms. MaicieMarxwell. ; Ms.Maxwell: (She was inaudible,but declined). Jennifer: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience.who would care to provide oral comments tonight on the Draft EIS for the Barbee Mill proposal? If so,now is your chance. Okay;well with that I will close the public hearing. I'd like to thank you all for your interest and for your attention tonight. Anyone who signed up as.you'came in;Or if you'd.like to give us your name and address,as-you leave will be'made"a party of record. If the comment,period is.extended,you'll be notified:.The Final-EIS typically takes.about 60 days to prepare once the comment period for the Draft-EIS is complete. So'you can expect to see the RcsP to;Comment document issued in about two months-from the end of the onse, comment period.'So thank you very much. Staff will be here and the.EIS consultant will behere;the applicant and owner for several.minutes if you'd like to catch us and discuss anything. Thank you. • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-16 April 2004 i .27 f) sca ` (t,„,* o' BARBEE MILL DEISPUBLIC.HEARING cl a SEPTEMBER 23,2003 NAME((ease print steady) ADDRESS/PHONE/E-MAIL CHECK HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK$/� a 1.D. Y y� ,i>r r z Eawc ,�` 1 d....gox Lio F�.l! C:.'i. wi} 9 go a q 3 2 Y +IieP%4 4 Irihe..co en v,;1 oes- tit Lz e j 4 . (c� 4 Ai ,i4-e, 2' O BeI/ yuct iv4 1's'n04- c 2s..4sz).a33s (A.,..4 a pk(/ I" s I s°i '%", . Sin z re...: 5:e5 Q-A, 9,p/0 / {r''' ,4144,0 O R 5?:f( 7`t PT (4 0 .9T` c G I,C. 9 (ow 6.b bpin 1J`tc d ' 22.yto,ti i,\E teolm . Ms. 2R.vt, ,.ott.tt� a g 3 m ,. � (.// ;fil Z;Pk ii,s an 3 92/ /l-CA 44v4. SE", (1iAom e J ,V.4 9 ,290 V ✓/ An- 71 411 . "ba7 /l'8�/a i' aly 4*0a 4,444w, cam- 9 33 9.Vv ie--rr .- I //*/,-e.: 13 02o S e` �L- .Pc..;a.c..0 L •r '- 7 ro$ 7 LJ 10. , v4C,Asz.-1 k Nvu or►r- PI PXr sJ A )a o N. .1s&4 ST• t2Tq'fa,j vs 0. , it. . 6 TZ 6809: '4Zc�ice(' t:.'ts_,12 y, 96ossa . 12. fc:tl f el P er 4 s e , �/_�( Qc . -cu 1 .. tit ( T> d.�,,, ,e. €34C0 r.„ f.p erilot ` Po-Fc C 0 TRb,wspo i4A77.,-1 f1-amiN4 s. F-Aa ar:cat04 //4 c, V �-+►�- 9'1-23 1 1:''4.4. NE/ .. .-,44-`,J o( .,-,11i tea— �.' r• b o .cr Li 67(P is. u bay tie Those who sign in wilt automatically be made a Party-of-Record for the project. Page of 00 o --. A V , l Ki ng Treatment Divistan .1 Department of Natural Resources Ku%Street.Cente'r 201 Soetb Jackson Street SeattleAR 98104-3855 September 26,2003 . Susan Fiala City of Renton • PlanningButlding/Public Works Department - . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,WA 98055 . RE .Barbee Mill'Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat j Draft Environmental Impact Statement. King Cotirity's Eastside Interceptor,Section•4,is . located within the Barbee:Mill Preliminary Plat site(please see tlte:attached figures). In order " , to protect this wastewater facility;.King County,is requestingthat the Agency do the following: • Submit construction°drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design,:Construction and AssetManagement Program,Civil/Architectural Section.Brie can be contacted et(206)6.84- i 5-2 p 1707.Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the projects iinpacts. Drawings should be sent to: , . I Eric Davison,DCAM,Civil/Architectural Section . King County Wastewater Treatment Division. • 201 South Jackson""Street,KSC-NR..0508. • 1 Seattle;WA 98104-3855 { • Please.contact Eric Davison at(206)684-1707 a minimum of 72houts.prior to commencing, any constructionin order to allow staff time to arrange fora KingCounty inspector to be on -i the site during construction. 1 Thank you ortumt for the oppyto review and comment,onthis proposal. If you have questions,1, ' . .can be reached at(206)•684-1227. i Sincerely, i Barbara Questad - " Brivironlnental Planner Enclosures ' cc: Eric Davison,DCAM,Civil/Architectural Section Pam Elarde,Supervisor,Right-of-Way Unit,Planning and:System Development . CLEAN WATER—A SOUND INVESTMENT ' I ' City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-18 April 2004 -- 1 , - • - - , _ . • • . . , . ., - . . • ,,•.II.— , _ • • . . . . . .. - - . . — • . • • 1 •• .. . , '...., .,'..,..' . ,... ,,..., ' ' 4 :: - • '•.-. -• -•• *--•'•"- -1,'?-tr'.•17Pr.,::•••''''',.:'-'•;i:‘,.;.../1; •43-77=„ , '•7174:7177VS7.1r1•71, '-'41e41,-; •irrgl7,174t"7,7=,„,,54:7" . - ..-^, .- ..., ....;'"•.•..... ,.. •..,, .•; , -V,,,,..-:'•,,,,';, •,.; ,.. ' , •••' .• ' , '.:".,.......',•;,'".•'.-i-',.... ..'r ::,.V.1:1••••,04,...:.it,•"/..„.;".,,:f.Yt,,,,-..,:,....!•--Y","'1,..,?,::.',".,',.7'.:":,',:f.i•-.:,-;•••,e,:,•<:v•t'F.,,,!•;:.•::•-•;-..,511,•,-;,'•::: ::--,:,•:,,.,:..-;•.....:::•:;„ ...:. ,. . .- •-•• • • ; . ,.. ,,,, !„.: • .• : •• - •.• ...1.' ''.4‘;',i.a,,,,:.:!-; •-•::,:•-"••?--,:-"ffre414:-..t.1•-•.7.-.'-!:,-.,,,,q,....:7,..,:4,‘:.;'S';':-.:•,::•;./,:-%';•,..,•,•-. :.:.1„':;-,:',-"i,,-.F.';'';','•;'r ii.:'i‘•,:.,4z. .?•flit-'.'-"trs;.;',..-3•;-...'....-4-,;,...-/••."•"f. . ; ••• •', • „ . .', • . . •'.2'01 • .• .. , '•. • ''''' ' •"..:;.-''''''''..^:: :•:•;:',...„‘:!•;t4;1;i;•:-T-..-0•,!!•;;;;11),.:.:;c4.1.V.'.•.1:':.'5: .:4....';!..t.-•::',..7:..-:'•t.---,•1:13;:•=r•.';';:i;;..";4.;'... ),..'.'7-4-,•;,,r.'.•3•;::.•;:;.:'':•-•;;!-...?'‘<5,'-••:•.. . ..'-.f.....-,:',' . • .-•.• •-"•'....-:•";;',',.•,...,, -;...:-:xi•,,,;:r5-4-,-2.....‹...,%•,,.;.;,,,,i.._:..,,, .,;;.. ,,,„,;`,,t.,:,.;...,7., •„.,,y.•,..;,4,5.'it.••.-.. ,4,:i;.0.;,,••:':'?; ...:`,•-•'•":•,•;;;;.1.j.,-....•-t,:;,;•, :,,,,',..:•,, , •s. ..,• , .. . • ' 6.8 g ' . • . . " , ' .."•'.,;:,::.,.. • ',,'',:'-'..••;..:...: ..i.,-:"..',-;;;,.:,,,;;;:•t,,;,,,,,.,FS,-,0;.,:4icr.,....,,:,,,,i...-...:'.1,.:4'1,i...-';',.-,77.-V.,;;,,,:,, t.:74.::,-.;r-.'.-....,,..AZ.:,',...'li.:,,'•;'.:•'? .!..z.,,-..:.:::::-,i-::-.%,' •- . . * • ''' 0.12 . . . .... . . — •..,--.,•........,.....- :...,....•:-.:...-; ,,..2..,,--#4,,,,,..il--:-..,-,s:±:;?:„..!„.;.....4-;:._,.,;.::.;•,?..:....;-%..,----. 2,,:i.:;.t.;...-&.!;!-?..;..,.....1'.7-‘,7-....,..1....;•,...rt'..--.;.!:;.1:• .r-• - :-. .• ... , . . . . .•-•. ..•••,?'..-,:,...,'..•••,.--2-x---+-,-----:41•••••=---,,t--,,,:iit;.-••-•-••••-, -;•:• ...,4;:•,!.."::4;4.7-4, ,..,-.-77.1:.:-....,•,.. -•,-,'",!'.,::",:,..7:',', . ''''• '',.'•7-",,•'•T'.- -e'.4.°§44,a,;:l'''.4.':'!-'.1 :> -'•.',?-1.'.;!:'",,ii,K'4-:‘,,','..,',--'2',2.1,,,,.....,..:,;;;;•,.;',1-',-,....»-A-,%:.'..-.,:-.: ,''.'r•z-r,z--•-• , , ••. ...;„.. • ....- tr.!g' • . .. • „... .:,,-,. „;.„ ...'. R4: •.::- :''.„.:'... ''''...,..:...; ,-;;.."=-'‘'.','-:.:z .•--... . - . „ . . ... •" ,. _........______.0.—._, ).x...,• .:-... .... • . . , . _ . ... : .,,-- . .. .• ,.,...,.. --•.:„• „ „.. . . ...?;?. . .:'...2, -.' -':',. : '7. / - .•'.• - - •- :. -.• • -..: "TM ..vociWiff Al iif199POLIT911 ' 8.5"11 .' ' -• - .,. • ''',,,,T;'7,-',?...?„,4,&=..,-...,,,-,,:.7-7.,::.' ,. •. ' f.t.,..., . 'SEITTLE::-011ES-1191:Imo ti ' .• ',T,'''6. • " - :-,.":::°'••:•.;':.'.'•?:.',,,:,.;: . .•• • • • • '',:.3'.:. •. :- '• -. "• . •• ,99911411Tif T4.-16E01,10' ... , . , . . ,, , .• . - • :,.';',7,.:....?:. "'.i'`'.1";:: ..,.•••-•:: . • ' ' tt4PLETitt$ Or ilt PTA Hob' • • . -,, •„.••,-,,,,..:,.,;:::•..7Y,,,,....•,,,,'. /:;=.::.•• ., .. . . T-MAI'CRE.5.,CRCASSING 1.107E: .,),..trrA•SERVICR- 1./-9.9e 5Ais.a.u.,coxsr.42re....1',:." ..;„.., ' • '• • I • '''' . . , snetiCruR,E•Jcz,4,1Y6- • .1ra, %92 • sosr•fiva.cavraim , V . FOR'C0115fRUCTIOPI 4114/7"5 Vigri.IN \.,, , - " • ' " ,..., e..er..z/prit.v4: ., • . ••• ' .,..• ., p.....4e,e44 TELSPAVIVO / CA.114E.sersAwc. ,PeRai.Eatii ')<,(••' •. -' l' . ' . ."•••.•.-- •-• '•:•I c• _eyoZe._,L,„,.oks.w...;\ •1 _, _ , --,.!.\„,. . .. ,. ,...,._,.1 . , [.:. •' -\.'"'‘''?' -\''''' /-,....,_ A.-,......,44,07,1, ,.... • •,...........-, ,_ 7. •,.,I-1 (I , .,1(,.._\ --,r / : ••\;,...";-:.., '... • ._.'‘•10,",,,• .....mr._ , . ,•,,,„ ...-...4.%,_ •. ' .•.,......---7. 1-7119:70W: ••••••-i - .---=--2117,..--=-7-...-----'.±.=r!... ---- - --;--...,---...- --- — _,t----4,0 _... _.....„......_____._ !?',., •. - ---,--,... . ,,-.=----, ---..., ..--.._....:,--.17,_--. ‘-'------- i, , 11,...-...1:1::,=,'„:727.----,__7...."- ----t.‘ ft-' ' • ' • C7":":7+='1,,- 't.: ^7-:7'T-.1,(1)%A. ;. ,• -;-:::-‘4F=7:451111WITA,.. '---- '' '...,-_'-----,-^2,-'-‘-=.•,'''-..Z.---.... .--1- :tit.... -1- • -.,---=,<,:: .... .....; ' , ,,F.h.. - , -.----„, • ---,... .•...,/,,,__-7...:_,_,,,.•,,........--....,,,,‘,..,,,,,,t,:-......_._...2?..ith-,,,,•: : • i.:.• ,.....::.,.., .....,..._,..,.,.....„.szt.ke.„„„, .... , , , _-_-••-•••.: ---,----.7we,r —..._...,•-r-,...-7,--- - Aro- s,--7-7.:7-.-7_,..---..--5.„....-- `..,--......._ ..,.‘,.,---ska..; 3"•'7••--:;,•,;g,---7•11-7--...7--,-..-7-" :,..*"... ....-2:- ...' :'••: •••.• .:'L..-'- - 11.?''' • '- -"'' • ' -- — ,-, ._,-_-_-- .. , ..... ..is •'. .•7.7.-:-.4 talS, ..---- -,--- •'''-"--- • •"7- •'-`"---- . --.. - -7.,a2 .• .7--......a----."' . :.•• .• .,_ 4 4,75.J,4,: ilfr,,"":,..:.:"<:.,111144....r'•41.....,.....,,%,,•Z;;;14 .1..........:''''., 11,‘ . 44'1.11111"1.7111.;„,. :::‘,4/kfrt'-'•^---,.41.0---- .1.-•:\.:),:tge,x(ses '4'''h.Cri'----,,,,),::::).I7.-.:2,'..4." '.•':;.4..' ':,.._...._1. ....1-71:-.::::1.:1S,..:''.1:•::'..!:'7.1-1-. ., :(i•. ., 77:7i. ' •'•. ''• eri V•• • • ••-- • 4iNg 7 __.<,.. . . •,..•••• .• .• .,- ,-- - • z ,v - ,••••Th. .....,,,mx.70,.,.....,,,,,,),- ')`,Z,7fecLu.,.'s+ 414-..,,....'M--:-L''..'. ... • • \ ' - • :} ' '. •All,k-• ) -'k.--,--' ',:g"rdr u.*747N 4,4 , \,, -47' •^.''' ZIPAINetlarE.,C77,1AAV A\ YZIMV. .,"' .• • •';', ..',f '-'4, '' ....‘ ;.-'''/. 3‘ .'' •'.,'' 'SCAL ,NORI 0 TAL •a.00c an,II. L p•10.... ": ,AND 51.0e.W 70 New cut,,I,RP . .. .•- , ij• , 74.2.4f.:-.•:T.:241'4...1..-:-. 7:1-, . .... . ''''':- t ..7....!-- .-....... ...- t-, MAI "r:DMIMUMWELIMME/ WZP-M, ..AN__51. .,_.._. .7.-z- 01.•;lig,-. .. _- ....7:4..-:..... _-12- EMI'. ---.. WE= .. .....- -:••• ..._. ........... „.__..... . . ... . . .,. .,....,:•-a.,„ -...}-....,-.i....2_,..s-IL - ;':•.-•.,:-.--,..7.--__ ,.._,...-_-:-4,,.:7;-:.— XIMEN ...._.. ,---__ :WW1-c:----•tilhiE---filEralan''''1:'7=1•;:TILli ••• --'•-='•-•"-• --- • • ' . 1 4 •— -•-• w- •'•-• Kam tone--t-------L----aa•u- - -,----,-,.-*- -•_.,..T.,--,.... ....:.,:t.L.-;--z:-..-....-L4- 1-,:::71-f•--..I.,:-/..,... • .• . .••••, . . sir • c...."...:-...m„ra • . - __....,.-S 7-.7-: -:.• 47-22 7777 'IEz: -...'f--1• -•---A-- . • -- -- 7:-. ..c..,,,,•-e.;1 - . ..--;7 . •if --. 7;---:--7.,.I .• -::.• : ....9...,:.:'•:,..•••'. :, :=1-.:•-•r..,::, ..._:,„ ..-,,•1 ..:.—amv--,--. .., --.--..,......_,-..7.7. -•--•;4: • •;, •....—;;--, 7-faismits--li--- 9•Iglieier.... . ,0:3,7saVr•...-- •-r•-•- - .--- -::--, - •rn- •• •.' -.---• .-"---:7=:-......t• mei— ii Iv-iv-di:7,i iy Aff....„..,'11,; t''--Mit='----.1„.- 7....,--,- mr,--m-sk,... -4,,-,Qftga-,.,. —........-r--..„--m, .-,...-4Nras'' -..w,elaii 11 6. "*..,,,...1;;;...W.e..,..1.4;;;Yoweitz;i1,05,..r.rarare;;;;;•,:"...;V...79;KJAIToli-lor Zar-7/"."Zeoi I igiMrati.t.:Cce.4I,..bari.rwege..ezraZt.ciisratfAXigWeAll4.411M111-191ffllail:WANEW: ..r.". afar./..001,Ar.r,Fraftr.r.....a....i..at.....;:aa.. .. t......4.7,7T........7.:...,:f : •,, . ..: - ..,:..-Z..-.--L. - •..:::; .7.,-...,,:.,--,-:„..!.,...1; 2..--4.....:: , '.•,. ;" .27-•''77.1':-S42C.-110•011d1=1 :1 7 5--:;:-''' 7.-.T.:T...1:.:7•.qji.",..-;7";ErallathqrtiMM .... ..-E-:._'. ......---.. ‘. )1 • ', . , ":,'.` :.-''.7.•' -:„^7 7' - '" -' - ''''''+ '-'.1----' .7-1:1- V* I\=, Ji' • 1.-hlibi- P.;r+i '4'; ":":":":.::-.L:-4:74-•'•TeVz'r. ''t,.'..541"-44- • ' :- .._,..... .. . .., ....... . . .. . .... .. . . • ' • • ••• 2-&.e..z......t.4•• '' ^l• .."1'.--.:"..._:.__''''••—77 -..... .4-2.::,---.E.1-1..,-.:-:,:•-::: ' :•- - -„f4,..95,f,-,"5,.1,_.1-•-•-.: „I.. .....--=.: .:::::•.:.7---• .,---ri44,e,,,Zei, -•••••••_ -,..=-'•----F,•-••• ,_-__I----•--4-,.7.:,--;;S.';•"•';'...,:4•-• ,-(:k-;:.---• - .• :1-;...., , ; 'L'...;'",.....,_":''''7.7......„."-...:!,r",±L-......'';1"...:::.'.'• ",•I Zfr.. 7:2-"'•7••• ,..-..-._ . ___.1.. ...-••=,-7==----7-7---!:7' -7:1-'" .,....1-1:-.. 125 _ !IA:::...,...„;_•,_.--_,,,,i61, Titut,,/ .. ... .._, , ,..,„. ... . . ----rill- 1--1--- ..--7'.-:-_,__- s-L--•--."--- -:--7-1-'•=1. at...- -.1...I=•=...•_.17.2,•:-.. ...j.. -...,74":••:•-:.._ _.'.::.-...- .. ......i. .. •-• . - , • • ..., 1, zi,,,•••••••ii;P---;:•-,-.,-: -4 .''' .. •1. ;,,"A.^1 • rocc,..,.:....:-. •.-s.N„„'4' ,k*-• - ,-. ',1'• • .-.:.1: ..--1.......T-.:::......=......,=.•:........:::.-....=-77........:.........,....,::......'..t.,-.---.•.-.....:....... ' I r.,--1- •--1- ',. 7•••.: ...t-,....4..:••et- !.....,_-7-7,4"......,,-.: ••. •••-:• - -,..----71-1--7.-FE.: 4:..'•:1'..= A 7: 7',•:-:A7.....1-.•:,9,..7,-...t.:-.:- ..,_...--..-i. .-_::.•::-.`.,f.-',:ii awro .E9A00 , .vat co -ri.,a0 -tr.....4., • 4.744%..1 . . ..ifeca • ..I.S100• . ,S6i0.7 - . 35W....! . .. ....,,,... .. . . . -14EIROPOLITAN;6401NEERS •--.- -• MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE . • 1...,"kRzoa Rinl°14. STSIDE AfitiRt •_1:•• .110/1 , ... -1,EA. • £ :-:06:flot1:2.4::,.iffip.`4.:,- ,. • ":,.:. 'caTT i.....,...C11..0.21./.. C•fln.1);maid, t ,-;a•at-triit...Lk amt;.i.paaal, , a'am.ma.,aasaamirta n."7-4.76Ld'er..17"".'.."'"... &1='°4...."-"2., "...",.,'"' 44:-'141..‘tr,"°"2'; '."ap2iorKi?..„,,,4,40t,,tg,' ...',... sy'r E.14. '''. ' . STATION•2710, ..;STAXIQN.'40 i.:.,•'.ti. • • i - .. . „ . • ' - '''•:':','`.-• : • • • 1 ri .. . . . .• , . • • • . • .'.> . , ... ••,** .*.murr ..,!styl ,44 .•,:,I,,. .1.77,,..."713rt.:i7.., •ci•-.."!,:i.,,:,ffSf•V•f*t!•:;7r,•11A77.7•17.,?1•5 ,r7r2,:w. 4,74'-r•' -•''-'7,...'"•','5''''''''''-'".: '-• • '•''' 'L.'''. '•)''''''. ''*: '-- ' ,''. ':'•• 4 . • . . _ 4,' •• • „ • .:,..,.:;',;q,..4,....,;.,,'.,...,,,, : ,,,,,.$+•_,,,..... ..;.v;,".::.i-i,:4..,..-..,••:.‘r•'•,,,•'!!, ::?::.,:i:.;L;•,,:t.I'...i,..i..::,.:*,'•,;., :igit.':X17.1.,?-:'"..;:;i• .':•••ii-•',..•,•:.?.:: - .• •'''. ''' ,.. .. . **- ,• ..'„',,;;,. %-;•.,.:.,,:. ,zi,'.,:.i'.•,.:%,:ffiil-V."..•.Z:.,'...1:',1°, ..",'!.:5 " ;.''.. '''.1. ''''t':'.-.f,jr,t•t.2."`I 'M.;.-:, ;./2."1,:ji ,t',',' Y.2-4••• / ,.' ••^,•- t''. '',k' . :.' ::. .'.,...'. .' 1 . ., "-,E g • .• .• . . . ' "'• ..: . . ''.'''''' -:'•..':'':''';'''.,•:.A..et,-,1,-;•",•7.:".•z•.;',i.,--.5.;:••••••:...-.••,?: ••••••••••••••:•,••.•••;:.•••••••••,•. 1-,,,,,:,.:.-,...4.,•-,,,,...1.-y.• •:. ,••;-. -; -;•.,.,.: ..,,,,. ,.... • • . .„,,,.....„..,, ;,...,..,,,,,, ,,,,,,,.. .7...,......,..,,,„-•!::::..,,,,,-;„.„,.....?:$..4,-;,4,-...„.:0•4.A .i:.--4.4,--.4-‘::',1-••ri,'",•-/c-:•'••••-':- •' " •;,',••-•'- ~"." • ' • . •• • ..: ••.-&.••,,,....,....;,. . ,---,.,,,...:•,,,-. .......4...4,,,wE„...,,•',..,"•5,2..;,,,,',....•;,..,..- .;1.-;:=::..•....,,V,,wi:',,c,, 2c.,-1-•w•••.•,••••••=-....",C,•:;,..,,,v.:4,,,. -.,...'•'''',.'1..:'..,...'.. .• . . . .• , ::..' :.,..• ' t... . • :. ..; V-1'4.-. • 2. .. ,;,.. :.....2,••••••.-,,....f.,:t.,-41:,<:.,,,;',•-:.....4,-,.;,;.:-..:;-&,,,e•-2°.,gF,a.•,.1,WAr--,X.,,,.....::,..,%:•:-.. .,,,,,,,..,7,t, ,•.:••-„:•-•1 • • , .: ..,•-m..,.....-. .... •. ..•.:.,., og.., . • u. • ‘ ., '.....-- •,,,.;:,...„,.,;;,0,--,;,,KreA.V•:•4.; ; ;i.'•:,4--.,,L-;.•-:'',,.-t7,'.:‘,-,:'°-'Atvii•.Y.7,.....:,...7CF'•‘•''...1;;.;, ...7.;rZ.Z.L'..,•' .'`',"•''''....4'.....'f' ' et,,, . . ...- . , . . [.. . '•.',,•,,..,•, ,,..,..;:,:2.,142,,,,,,••,;,,X:frf!,,,,,,,;;;,,,,,.., •S1,,..... ,,,2'!•:,,,,,i4.7.,,,,,;•, ..•.:4•1k,:••••:•,•1.••••...-.:.,-.-:-.,„.•-.,.7..••,•:: i=',, ,••,,,,,•„",-,F;f7=r; .• . . a .. . ------0...------. ,• , . . . ... • • ex al • -..-I,,.: *t Dif t?•?"'I ''.'''' '';'''',•%'''::'''-''' ''ili:ft.!:•-,' ''.;••.:-:•. ...--,k' ';--:' '.'-'. .-- .1-:•-i-41"•••. ' ginc-tor,lovivillist ti•:-.""'•.'•I':f.•,. ..„. . , . ' ."'.•:`,."•;.-;•;Z•..,-,:•ktst7i,C•'••••:.,7!.`..':•''.. ..." ''•' ': - • ' ' ;'''- ? ' :'''''•". ' - .- - • ' ' ' • -.• ' • ••-'• .•••••::: :••••••;','Z';'-'-,-,'".'•• "•,'•,- •• - - ': • •• •-•,'•,..•;•, • -- .;:- :'•. ',: •,.. -, . ,filitiREE.••14.1.,:.gataf• si •• -:ce..' . . , . ... • . . . ... .. • . ' • -..1.11:: .. .. . -.. . ,• • • • k tat PlOblit;'tr rts tot ma .• • , • . - •- - NOM. ,.;v4rew saws'• . :se A•ra4,.=Mir Aare:,'• ..• '•.'.:i I • v•• ''. I" •r• ,:',,,.: :. . . 71,742=24.45Th's;;;•-•• .141„rco.9.z., '.. 4,7tOrwa crevrer.:m frge CONSTRVCTION LIMI95::".-i-.•,:.,7---,1'.7*''R.,4. '(...- '0 r.P.M•L.5,4<5•.,:1..9_,M5,..5Y_9E_5_0S_:5,._5.a • ;PA- -, OWG ..- Ezor 9 . •. 2-.:•-.,......:.:.:.:..I.,. . • .......••••-,'I.• ..,. ,.ii/.: •, . •\&e•„ ,, 111,4,444.r,. /•••... .,,.-,,,,-.. ".., ,,.,•:... -,..t.rr...... .>•-••-•-_, • .. , _, _„,.......,_ '',Nty • L..,,...7_,., ._ N . . „ • . .. . .. . ....,.....„.....„..„ ,„ k;v.-.' • ...z..:•..:1--:.•': - - • 4*,,,„ ------ -•••.....,:----,..--7--;',.7-'47..-5; --- -,••••,-Ra,,,,a_..-rk.-........-,---,-•' --::F.-•.' - -.. .:•-•64- --,--'-A4=.- — - ---..j'-'' - -7----4'41vii=-..' •••• • ' •• -±-4 rt.-11..7.---, --,--;;: ...,-, --,-,._„:.t.-1,,,,,....,_.:=:,,,, ,,w57.,„:„:,,, ,..,....;„ _,.,..._,... , ,..:- ....,.,.-: =L... .,,..y.:...... ..z--".7 .,,.7..4-7.,t-...,.,=....,EFT....52... --7,,,,,,...,- -1•1.K.-...--4: -----•,.._ A- . .• •••,,,•. -N4stiz.c.,1 •\• ....zt- -------.---;•...ir,,,'''-zs.:-4.-•.••,_-' '''"------• ---r------37 - .I/AW-;' •• . :.----.4... ,4 rt. ,...-,.7.--..,4,-..__ --•--.-,..-.----:..:;---,-.....---- —• • ,'""*".. ..,.' rit,,',•:,-.,'':.:i..,,- ..• '7...-‘7:'/1011112g .... ----..,L-1°•'• ...--,A,, ..2,........• ...4,..080411-1.,_... 0';'. ....... LIW.4:'iitialtrai ''''.:: , , :-.-- '..-',--..'• ""r::-L.,--- '' ..- --•:=: -••••i.i". -'-'' '•• ••;' i,•::.:.-.,.,....', .,.',--411111111eNEROl_ MILIZZEgriCamaximarmilliat. , ,,, ram rrror. ' t;:l.:.,./'.‘-'-.7'-'-'-'''..': ';..,*'ililLtPrk-Z----- - '2.17.tr---7--: '''•..'- •-,-. , .-_- -,--•:. •_.,„_—t'...-7.-,.‘.- 2--:77---'.1,47'. 'r-_..,,..4g71%, Ar,77:.... ..__.- .,.• ... "2"."............. arra mr.--.":'...." 7'ill. ':.:':.'.•:.'.''.$4.,. 4.4 0sia.t VT ) -;. ' . '124:!!*!*-./4.4A.,,,"4 '. •' -17 - :''17's .C\NIMIIIFT-.7' -.. ''' "r:7 -1,‘''kl,X,,,.::-'''''' .,....‘'1 11. -,•:,-,r 1--c. -1-,,,,..:1- , ':'•-±-5.-Ttrt,....t,,s It ii..iv,' •-..f. •,.:....,,,•,..gx,...., ,...• ,,,,,, •••• N.4;-,=''' d'S:N',.:• . ( - :-."--.'"' ---...j.,' - .;;.1.1.41:••,..e-'''S IN--''''--. .•,\ '',,, 117,•.:‘' :17044V----g-7- \\)x M.W;A'c r •-•,,, • 7.," „. - - •• -.,., ,i. • • i•. • •".••‘......•",c ;'. • : 0....0.e---,.., --,---..,...--n.'•. -- ,„.„,,,,,:zii:.4....,. :;,,..,.'— : • \ -•,;-,. ..„..7•1Jr•-•5,-, .. .i 14.... '',"a 34r'• 4',E A., . , ." '• i ' ' '.. r'''.- "'•,- •N' '\N.,—--.---'7:.. ',APP.0970 ‘ :Val4•."‘il:r1.11 ,,:ler:421;::H:,...,. ' 7 I ill ,I.,.,. . ,,... .. ..,... . . .. - , ,., . Vr4k'. '• 'P.m.: ' ' '-' •: 'CALI ;.,.0'li• '1"4.t.0.0. fR AL 0.,i0V 7', firgaVYlikik-Cta* V ' , t ' .• - .'• ..- •. .. ',...• .. •,, ..." , ;`. . .- •ZF.Z•VgMtMPA;ragr,MinEW_EMISMM;MINMgllgnl .. NWZZ==r=N- . • — .,.. ,:05WE 'E=A .'— l----Lift=_=Et•WiW.5•11Mitalti -dVt.*_755. 1•1WS.7-=Mi_MLNI/WMMATffilt_i_ergEMIWILetnpe•mittAlitt.._.,_...•!...m)_==,,,,,,M2..._a•t ktlatlf--.= .,. . ..., .....7-.1.KINERIMMI= 414==itiNINIAX==iVinW,W1 ...===-- 7=11WW11011112WAINft=lifii..-====..afitigeawamiamplimm.-...... ,. -.!: .. . . . _ --.. :. .,-:-,Pnn,-T-C'''.-Zrfa—S_W-EEEG.;MN, MERpm=a5gM NIEMBENIEffilffir_..OMMEEAMEAWINEUMENSE.••.. •' '-- • ,ZititigA faer•111 MMELltIS=5,'ff•NdigigNAg EffilltiAMMENE,x:1;':.*;*.- :• i,...W7/-"----211111MILM M PIE M „WO:.:::i. :•• t.LeIrssaFa..?u....-7_,i;,-,-•-,. .,.;7,..Vali Ma rii.„.F_WW:...::: :',:...MEM MEfir Rts• da PA in: .ENEWArceM, ifiii*,: "witcaVe=-WM.s=mcalllikzot7,44_ 0 Offl);:- ='-'1......:..... ENI • ..' ' .,, . '''''.. .'--L,1 • .... ...........-..•....^.,.114, 1==1' ,=. ;,.-10.13 go. e. •• • •, ,,,„,,Licagn *.I 5 tasu=i csizi= .-•,•••ita-..=, 6.m.r .eft --. Now--E12.. ._. • -, ...,-11 -•--7.,.:= '''•'-,' '7-7'-i•-•-,--''- 1.--''•-Wil .....,Pri, , .....: la' :t3=. Eirl=n2BEVE ""I.W-'7.:' .i:r•i.45i. ::r4VEIRI*IalEi:=M5a. NM= met =2:•-,• --.-- ....... .....,..... ............... ......................00m . ,•••• ". .", .a...::"-=-k.:,,i.L.,!,;;;:11 11-,....„:-/,'„..4.14",,...,,,,,,.„.'7,..:.,..,,r.,,..L,......„..,„„z„Hzti... j..LEF-JE.„_N=II,r,,,,,,,=r),.,,m2rWe-Wamfm'g. .,,,,- ,.....4,11, ..._431 :01#M_ =.r._..!IJ..„.,.13Ijff'r.jr.m•"S.,,..f..r.e..........„..,.......,.r,-..daIMIp........riL4.....R•o-..r..g,-......•:,"qear.r.r.-"zr.o.zr.,cur.tgvm.z.•.:10-,,t....,r.....,........:.......,,•,...,.............rwrsjia•Ee. ,. ..• , _.. WM ;--1. fa,'••''''.1::$42r-Ai ALOTMOIMITAREENZESIME. -EM ) °.:2-'Min Man .1101EREardi'-;.,;WA•:••-,•if'•••,...:+..nro F.1.-... ..' iTatiFia- 111.___AMI-A. vaaNSIMMIUMS ak.MGZ-...11oPOoWmn•konmvwr•r •............. ........ • , . . -- „„ •-•-;•:-/Atourarter.r lii,..,,,, . . • 7i AtrArr--....r.-__ 412141-:;'';'.... .T.-1•:••••422........4-.Z,'::•:-.J7••-•1;L:-..p.:;:---7:'-T-'•I'T'''74=-.•:' '341':••'14.'-'•''' -='-f-'=•••••• 7..• , P''''.1141:11"Ir.- '- 1 -51-..-i:.--r-AI'v's"ViDrt- t7:17--- •• •• ' ' ^ '3::: fitrrelAgitattegiri ........ , •• •Trn:---r"••••••1 '- • ezzuirsrvi.—F: '.7::...•': lt4.:•...-. •••: -.. „ ... -- •••••••la.-F.,,,',LIE:'1,':',:.,4i-:- -: ' • 0- ;Va.'s,/- 1 • 1 • • -' .--- Krr.r ES ' '•• • • =.-z•-....:111: •••1 .-......1'.7-:--7.:-1-.1.---...... .,.... --...:-; " " :.... -I.-.. -4-1-.-„-..,......:-.....--L.• '1-.1....••••-,..-,4._.;•:-•:. •--.•i• .„. --..... . •,z...-...! .„,E-••:.; Ke t.,.,E:grffla•-_,..:t..::....;...25,114110_14t) ....._....,..* ._ 1 _ . .._. _ ,_.......r.:... L______,:1-±-.:1._,.F. =„si.=,.,._,_::.:i....a=ar.;_7-._-::::-F-r-_-_,_,.=.,.. ...L„,_-„z_----- , --,-12 41INKEN ME --4,-,--4,....,:. 7-7774,.,o ...7.2,5--qqp,-.._...„..:2.141_ ,1.42,141:•:,z.,... .) .17450.: . 1.24,..,, . . . . . , . 1,11,16P202 C.,, REN'MN.' EASTSIDE itiTgltetp..r0R-it-Eoparc4..., • ..... , ' •um:4i'rivr •• MATROPOLITAN•ENGiNEERS . , ; MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN. SZATTLE , SYSTEM ION 1,"?'.f..8".garitiki 411 . . .... .. . ... c•,.....:.1'NIL invor,ta..41 CA.I.Owell. [WV 41.0 tolkull. ...„..4.V. .,..... efri.,441...........taitia..... .....+noevra..4W.4,014,..td,,iir.r044...aVe4f1."Mr- 0 Ncyro . ;,Iiitigosicr• ,.. • • •....•..STIST----. .::.-••••.-.,--,••.',...d.,,,...•..!L ' '•-T,'-ii.9 •,• ....,•;.4,rrio .1.1..,...,pe..14.# .,..tex...sso...cs. ..••,..•=,.•••,,.... ;;;,••••,•p,,,,,,,....... . <•_••.......,,p,,,,_••,,, __............, „m•••,....,••.........,,,,•• _,.. ... __ _ __ ____,__ • , -..... -..., 1 ---- , - 1 I • • • . . • . , , - • . , . ' . ' • . ' . •• , . , . . .. . . . .. • • . , - -.• ,•,- „..., - . . ,., . , . • • •••'• ..." -• : • '• • ,- '''.•..• -......-,.r..,,-,.. .1.;•:11,,:r-'1•-s..:;"`4,1e7zilr --siZ,„.r =--1„;""?.."••••44.7e,'S--....•."; ?•':.-•• ' '....,I '.•-I'',.;'.-,--7 ••••-1'..1[;:•...-.',..,4•:,:e.",I,,,'",:...;.-...„;...,'-".3"•::::•••••-•,'':'..- ','::'.••'''' - •.': - . ...•••••••••'.,',:.7-::.7.-:,.,Vw7r,-;.',,--,;,=k,.:--„%tr-.;,-;-61-^:s.,,:.,,;,„--,•3„1,.. ...,1....., T.,:-,..,..-1z-.:•:.„..t.t'zi....3:41,:.,:-.,..,'.7.,,, .........:::.4•,-,....,,,.„..•:.-.•• ,". ".,;.: '...'• . ,: ' • . ,, z:. -'.;'.•, ••',,,,...:-.i 7 f''',"..,:t»,,,S-'=--,,:,,...‘-'-`,.'Z',i,..,..;fr!,....--,?.v.,t--;.t•..„'...-...''..'ili...',-, ,'•••',I,g..,`,•Le••*.4•:•?:?•••••FA5,•••...•,•••I'...I..I-',;•••••••••-r,,...:!..'I.'''.••••'••',7,'''' '.', .•:- , -.•' ' , - '' '8V ,. • . , ' •••.''. . ,r .,..•:•......".2• .•••,••,:....1,.„.•;.:1,,••:•I,-•••• •••.,TViz?.. .;-:II•••,...4p.,•••••••;`,;•.‘I,•.t.-,,I;';•••••••..•.I. ';•Al:.',•••?.,-^.kiL''',4Z,IICI'...;-......•••••• ••:' ,"••••'.'7•••;;I''''''•'''••''''" •'' • "••••'-: . . ';'' FI'°0 ., . • • cA fii . .••. ••••,' .., •••:.''L1••;••••::: 4S•;',":;,,,::'.-;• •• 4•;-'1,:.„-...;•'.,•,e..:...-t.e.E....r..,*.i,'.,...•'.:1•'.,!•: Vt.:;--f:'•.',1•:-;;;;/,' ,;••/•••:=2::,i;•;;;'.•,-.'''',...., •••.: '''•,.‘,‘,„ .- , ' ' ' ''' • • ,rTIL " • , . :.,, ...e.„.,,,,,.-.•;.,:rz.!:‘_--...!,..4t•s;;;..!••-„,'i.:...,•!..,ti,..i;'.,g::,,,,,,,;.-?7,5' 1,'”.7.1,-.7'.'."4:.•';:p•!4•.•?:,•fr,:-;”....cle.s.;:',...••••.7-,:',..-......,•:4:::•,',,a':::-'7'... ''.'''•' '''•,,.-1"...,:-.,-;.,'"• .• . .,. .,.••••,, ir,.,*3,t,',,,, . ., r . ' 'F"I ''''...':'••••• .'•••-•'T,-Ii./"A'''.••,•••••:•,.•f•,4,,IL•I•:',:%;;;.••• •,,,,•••••-•••4"...-Zie•••,•r-I••••,•••11.,1•••••••‘.....••;,.,,,,„.,.• .,.; .....,„,.,.• ,,., ,...,,...,..;.,1 • ' 4'• ' • •• .,5.,:.-....:•,,,-:•-;q:::,2.G..?-124-. ,,,:g.:3;si,;,;:l.,,...:.•:,0,-.„•:-'..'i,.,•-: ;•••--.'':.-....i.','••.:41..,;:,-.',::::,5.;',1;:,'-:'::'!'":,'',,'''•';',.,.c:••s•--..2•;:r:'' .,..-',. •• ... tt-i.- . •'. ••• . ...• .. ., •• • . •.. . -••. ,,;-;i.:•':..-'''-',•.',:-••;i-i,f;','.':','-:,...g-S'' '.-.Z1:4,1;.'.fig,'"•/••:;.'-'.. ..,',,r1.:::::-...:',.::2.:;,......i-,',.,Alif.•-'-c.‘:.-:-.".:,;:,....,,.:J.:.:'. ...,, • •.,- • - . ... .....,- •-• ---. .. . ......• ,, : • , -• . . . . r. . . . ... . . . • . . •77----.-.--y.,-,.- ---...,:,....4A---4-__.:;---,-.4L:,..:..._,"-.,-:-- -• • :...z.L.,:::.4.=-4,41-,i....‘_,..-'.-• -1.71.-7.:7 ,',.,-,'2..•' - 1. ' .:'•:. ' :-:-..,.,,,,...`.. ... • . '... &1 LI' . . 4. - . , ..,, .....t.„, ,,.,....,,.:,..-..i.,,....i':-.4.•••••••,••-e.••••••„•••I•.,'•••;:•G.••••••5'77:7•7'•--7777.. ....-..•••;.••• ,•,.t.p.....:.• •••:•.,. f-',Z•--••*••.-.-.'.•."',- -.•-• .: .:••• •',•'''•••!. ."TR rioioorrAtirr.or MiTOOPOIVIAO . ., o,,,‘.1• .... . & , . Ii', . • ' ••••••7-',":2•."":-':;.,:,••,:::,2.•!pr.•:„;,-!;q",...',7,,,..1:,%:•,.:C:,;"'!;,-;.-4,•;,..-,7,..-...,•••'.-....••••.• .•'...;.•f.,".E..1:.........,•:,:?,.,:••4',-,,,• ..: ,,,••--,4.. ...... <;••••••: ...-'• •.!, ,...;; ;.•,--..•.: •.. .. sutra fidts. lot:riroOP4T 'a. !•,' - • ...i.‘••• • • . : •-.1:...,•,...•••••••.•,•-•..., ..c4,•,:z..;-vvyl•;':!,,,,, ••••,--,--,:i-,--,••• •••-'---:-.•e •z•••:-;:•'i;-v ----r- -1eY:''.:''•i!''1•••';:4.-'-,••••.-" '''. ., -.. •-,. -• -, ,• -OUP11,11ft lg. lecirooir OR. ''.! ``.g.: • '':'• • ';',',, •', ' ' COilifitOESS OF TOE.-DATA .$HOWO : :1,3 • • • "- •:';,,=• •.,....'-,----,;,'i-C. ,-.1.• 'Ai;.•:•::";'',',-,•..- ',• .•f,. .4•-„...•••- ,,i,*...„„.,77.•'':.,...,••-•:,..-,,,''?•;;X ::,,•".„-L-...a,,,,...:-.I.:;..>".L'.';-..7,.,.....:.• '•,'•:7,.;.:,Pr.''vi,.: • 431,E7;:j .',.':. ; ,.::,-:::,....., 1Ef4rrt-g.-&1-E-i•Sr - a4taii,a,!4Z-2.., ,..,::...,.•..-'..411--i..°.11,..:..... : • ,• '• ••,•-.-•••• ,„ph.,.....,,i,-,e...V,.*.-i4o41A,air-Si•••••••:,-•-•-•••••••,,,.....st,•,,,,- , • \ -• EXZSTTASO CONTOUR' I' --VA14;m",,g•A'S•EULATV'WO.. AO.'•'. .-T-'44.4-44--it""C.°35ll' ' ' NOTC, Go • ' ' ` • - • 510Er TO,DRAIM TO MEW,•. . . fOR CONSTRUCTION IMMT1, . : .4 •`...64•Nsetholtraer r asap' ,,,Ar:•!yOW6..„ Sropm WATER',MET • .....,,_ 4--,_ • ••, '•::::•••:--:.'••- , 4.N•a.ice. ••• '''‘ „., ''.-..S--•zt"---..I.--, ---• ' • -• _....,/,-..,,,i,•,./?,•2 r OlVg$Nr,,........,/, ,.,\.. /..„..s, • " ' -- ,}. . .- ---.-------: .., , .'- ...,,, ss , . . • , --.N\„.•\(--,• • - ....,:i9,41,-.,.. - .. . .....,...,.....,_.,_:..._ , , „\...,. ' 3'IQL - k. ,?•'' -AAA' ••••• ••• .. .,, '•"''''' --- ,,,•:'''''''"'••••••'7,•••••;',,•.11.."‘Af' - • .,,,44.\.._v_zr:.14.\,..,......__:•,,,,,g)., • :\,::,,..4rirr cuivelr .. ,-..<. •,..._. .,.,, . ...---,... 'I, - 'c'\,,..,....,„.,,,,____ _.--,.... .. •..,,,,.....,, • --'• • ;=-... ?'-':-..:."--,e. ---‘--,-- --::-''•-.'''-,%•;la 7 v::... ' '.--7---, •• '.- ' =1----:-'''',,, "-:. --......_.‘......-, >„,-;'.....-' " 1>1' . -,. ,.-4.::•---",/^,V. ... •• .. __,_--- -,- •., .....L.,_ ---- - '':-- ''''"'• ' --i`-...''"-cv'r" '-----------2--"i•--7-7:-.4'-''' ± ..,.,,,..„„ •. . ,:., :-....,k;:-.-..-...7.-.72.:-€,-; ,,....,-_-_--A-a...'•-'4S44444---- 4' ' 4t . '.4 ---- .:''• •..., ''''::'--'r."-'4'.--..74 ...=.42. -. .- .,,,..L.----::::-,7:::-.-..,--.;-'-'44.1-4----'-'44 -:::- --.....-:;t .,.E -4:4-a-Ilat,"„:;;',,.T.,-:.,7-4,---.4-7.4,-.CA..-7--......-- .-4=.,44Z---: , -..--4,--A..„,:,a.....7-:1--.•-• ._7,,..--7:..--i-..F.::: ;Z71.: 44::;-:::;4 4.-._.,,,.-Cr•---- ,4''26-4r.. - 144- '..... 191591:44gF.1.11:Ligitif -'..4:,:.4,• : -4.•-•,:if."..7.7T r.1-4,..‘:4"-..=.4.- ;4- ..'''';'..-- "...-.4.7--'72-77CV4:747';..- -.-'4'--___”: --74- fia-elfellifir ;-:•:' "'= --..,--',3•74:-ce'•'.-.":::.z".--_._ ,-::----- . , „'''' -, - -•-.. • .-,,--,-. .. ,....,..\-.Z .'''-z'---..- :-':.541-;•,.--,i--='--•'-'.-''"---_ ::'..;-. .........,,.,..,.- 1;.;• . ,-4-i.,7-----•:•-;••--,.,.-...-,.,_,-- - • \„...a.-.,..,, motAff-t,-.7.7-;:77--','. ,?..,. - ',.-----,-s•:::•-,;77. ---.---- .,- -., 't;.?..K.,',..z.f.:14.',1'4,----;--,--.7.'''--=':7;.:,-,:et------1,- :.,,,''A- ''.-.,--_,__ .,---.-.:“14--,.i.-:. -,7.,:.<.*:-,,••• :••t:T.;'•••'..,:c•-'' '':•,,i7,-•:-"'1 •••t'.•'-.7-•`"•':',7-'•;;I.••• • ' "'•"-!.-2. - _r‘-,=1.-•, :. .;-•^Xe00"PW. ''';11 ,..l•,.... i. ..:"..f:,j:3,..,•, r,.', :.',.'.• ,: ''Lrfrtl.--,741'. e4:1.7.4 ••. -• '''''•' -' --'- ''-'• ":'''''t?' ---:'''''''''''S-.75•77-'. '5.-----''---L.:: ':--;7---:-.. -).._. • - • ''''1...-•'::- '''''''Vr seer---Mi 0-•5.MS15..."4:. .4"4tia70;4.,•::•.'s.-:'•• '- " '..4. • • - •I,••'8•"•.P '• , •-•••••L•=----,arir-,••„••• j .1, • - ---I--• , , .,..-:•-z...„7,.,,,,,.,,,,---': . .,I, . , •!--••••= -••• ••• --.•"."--• -.'-'' -81, • •1, .sm'ILIYX OS • • .,..- __ ..,.. _ . • r 'I•'-' '•, • ...\ . • • ...'.! '•' 41.•1 • ‘, -' ."---• '11".Veicv.-41. Re//- --eir-riVe:44rA *,...,,,:\ • -mtv.__v. .." ".' ' 'ffif-Vi*._..' • >1.7•:-••:---- 1--• ,, ' ':1-.0.F-StrreR EVE INLET:Otif:TO Rr .OrA.ARYAGAISI. \\< . -j•'9.0442S' : . :4'4. w• . .-44 '% .74 •'••EXIST e-..-He cricaar.45-4...N. IPS.ez_d...0,9 t...." iis.,,. '• imwx:.,1;Av.% 5/4.2rfra44.1"2 c: '''''',,.:'--: .....',-.e-e:..';,.,",,,.•i,t,..„.__H---'40:-..-.1,tv,:l',.1,-:::---.--.., i' \• •••= •• : - ..,,,/1-...,:, :'.;-:;,.........-•. -.‘- '',5-,,,-.•" : .. k-.....,, -.\•:::::_::::::::• \ ,i•k\.,\ see Dom-.-I 5(!, 4. . • SCALE.N NIZON AlNI*.1/ NTI7AL.f.T. 0.4 I . ...... _ ...--- .. -....., . .--•'E- -- _ .-•...1,.,, •=1,...,,, , .-77 7-...„..,.... . ...,ei„,,,,_.___....._i_„,:,„_.,_.,,„,;_,./:.:. ,,,.:.,.-_ ...,._L .2. : 1 ,.4....,.., ".........)...-.-....... - iiite.,:.---:.,,,..i.4itawatm,_ :f:7:47-T'..,::--.."...i.. .175,;"771.,.....:.i - '''':: - .:-..4:L'.';•T.:a...L.. 4-77.7--.'....-...:::177.• BE _.... • -,,,, •• .-......1 ------•.=-•••=-••?..77.-2.1-44:1 -,7:,-.7.-a......-.2' -i:... .:-.1..-4:=72,_74.::::- 44'.14.117:1,--•!..*44,.._ ....§14 4:::...„...„,..3?,..._,::,,„: ...., , . "-r'-'^-- - 'LC.--- '---.:- •- -.IC.--...--..-2--4.- - -•%.,. ....._ -74,..-71C-..4.--1.--"-,1-4..4"-a-..C..;.::..'•:.:.r... _:........,,....4,,c,,. .- ...•':-.4•Lie4i-,Fcz,1 wao.•••••••r. ,,,, ••. . PQAL . • 7--4.:':'''• - ..-Lr.". 7.;:-.',..-....÷-.--:- ._..:7---- WIPIPP"."---'7'7' '7:7' •-- 7-....:',-;•2•'-'74:2,-*:":4---'=--iJ7.--.z..fz.1.-L.-.._, .- 7 4 77.77-.....7-.:.7-IN7-1!..''.7ii...-7-.mir,.=';':''''.::...11. 'L2-.Tjf--:i.;;.,..,,;,... _,,, . , ; -......-.-....---. ....- ....z.7 .„,._..:.'ill........:4-..,...fir 4 -•„ trize.;......,..:6 :17 :._.,,.... ___ ,1 re •-.1.... - -.--2, - --t--- - -tilgt ARO: ' • ,. . ...,......_............. -1 ' •-4 .:•-•' . • - • • .6 7.:.•LI-t-•-:,-•:--.::_.•-•:-.-- .••••_-.•Z.z- --•--•.:., '=.••••••..IL'.------'',.•.:.•-.L.:-.r. In.:•-•...-....- .--t•T'.:•-••-••••:7.• ,_. _ .. ,...„, . I..,.., ., ...„..._....:., ...,i....; ,.......,:„......„4 ,,t,, eeas,,,,,.,,,, .„,.., • ,,,., ;„.... .,,'.•.: -- -..-•.-.::_i.:,---'--:4------. :.--..- - -7.-1,...---- •;•7 ---•7...=•-....17 iCixio'§g•-• - ...-,ii!1--- -:- •.FA, _.77,,' ' •' ' -i-.... -,---- --- -T.3 1::-:--- ..7.--I'--.', re> • • :',.' • m '2.---i'L:j-:-.'•'-'1:.±.''--••-•: -----7 74''."------4; : "-.''-. .--. - :4-'-'.-----' ---l'-.:k-3. -- -' 7:-. -4'- : -14.:4-1-'. -:-.:•' --•'-7 4'7-' .7.174-.'7''2:1-.17..lt•F:.4--7-;::.,7 7 Z.•..._4. , ,....j.,,,:/..,,,:j1 .4-.4...,:i.VE14. :'.1:',;1,4',,:.'4„--.7.' . :,':,. -_.., . ... - • • . .:.. .. ':• • ' 4;t.4-.-4-4''11"--:4- '''': 7--... ..:•4 '- 4=7---:''-'" .--- -6- --I' • '•44-.7.=..L---v-- --'.4.•''.--'-- -=-1TH:r ::' . '4 INIFG:'R ...„'7.1.7:-!.....:,==.•.:,.....L._.-74,..._:::-.1...,,..... i•-• ---•-;-'• -•,----. ----'-'••••7•:- .7.-'•-.....• ':'• -.:. =4,,-..7:-.7.-t.:Z.:.:::•-;.•..•..„;: ..:•.. . , .- . .= - 7--<tit.* •ocl.rm- .1 - ..1--- -,- co'•''.0. -• : ,•` ". .. ----- : --.' •• ••--71 -:•-•'• 7•-•r•-;,I,-'• 4,---..a:..-.,-;-::,....?-.:......:7.T...---...--..:...'...•.:-..:-`--'...---...- ...... .::::7.:..z.-:-....-.....-. .. t-... , ..e,‘,, . , ;,.,...,,,,, „..-:..,,,,.. , ,4.:4•74'7'.....,-,--t-......,:j.,..7-- ... -,-„,,,i-E.,,--. , , i,---7::::::::F. .7--",-,-.L;"'I.-.:17 ...4.-.4"...:: ...•.-.*:•:.••=--,-,•,....---.)-- .-.••••-•••----- •• •• /NCO ., 49000. 19000 Rart:C. MOD 22100 21.0a, . .pf+40 rsiC0 AciAz ., , 1 • . . IrVe LIE T ROPOLITAN ENGINEERS ' . '.. MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN •SEATTLE., ., ,.. .' ..:;;,,,,,R•S 02 G.11. • .t...,,. _ .r..1•44 ,6,e+.....141.4.84'11-44....''' '' $R,E'.N.VO•H.• . EAS.T•sID EiNTE:R6.Ep.tpa-.s tc1on.4: ra4...c.,i ' 1 . 641 . , SM 4tiE4. . : sTATIoNI4T0oAtiao ;7 : • r_.-i,,,it,..,r,i, . • ...... , i • . 7 I �1-S'TATgo .,.. fi .i.__� A y Wt3 J'.' Y .y.,rena d° —_ • State of Washington' • DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 4 Office:item MITI Creek Boulevard-Mill Creeks Washington 98012-(425)775-1311 ' September 29,2003 Susan Fiala . ' I Senior Planner • Development Services Division 6`s F.loor;Renton CityHall .1055 South Grady Way Renton,.WA 98055 ' Dear Mrs.Susan Fiala: • SUBJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement. City of Renton,WRIA's 08.0282 and 08.6007. Project location:Barbee Mill,4101 • :Lake Washington Boulevard North East,Renton,Washington 98056. . • As previously mentioned at.the:December 2002 meeting,the.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife requests the City.of Renton to pleaseinclude and evaluate the following 'possibilities for the Barbee Mill project site. . ,_ , Include the pedestrian°walkway.over May Creek to be attached to the Street D bridge. 3.5-2© This,will allow the removal of the current proposed walkway bridge. Bridges have a negative impact on fishlife and habitat by constricting the channel,,shading;exotic species:using these structures'forhabitatanti cover for predation on salmon and trout. • •All vialku ays in the proposed buffer areas along May.Creek.and Lake Washington should be placed as far landward as passible. Dead end paths`can be constructed to May Creek 3.5-25 for viewing. Split.rail fencing shouldbe installed along the walkways and trails to help .promote the survival antigrowth of surrounding vegetation. Moving the,walkways back • will allow the replacement of existing concrete ari_d riprap bulkheads with natural sloped bioengineeredbulkheads(vegetation,large woody debris,and a few large rounded . boulders). The Lake_Wasbington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Near Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conversation Paper,.dated August 2002,cited the loss of .channel complexity,degradation of riparian conditions,and altered hydrology and flow in May,Creek as a significant factor for the decline.of the:salmon populations. `Page_3.42,the current proposal assumes the construction Of one individual dock on the:16 Shoreline lots notfronting.public:land: Under the City of Renton,Shoreline codes,docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could be constructed.,I_believe itisimmportant for the applicant and/or future home owners to realize they Will he required to ieteive.permits for the State and Federal agencies as well: . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-22 April 2004 p S I Susan Fiala Scptember:29,2003 Page 2 As the Area Habitat'Biologist for this area I believe we have the opportunity to enhance fish life and habitat while creating a environment that the public and prospective homeowners will enjoy., If you have any questions,please contact me at(425)649-4423. Sincerely, StewartReinbold A:rea.Habitat Biologist • SB:Susan Fiala 092903 cc: Rich Costello • David Brock Rich Johnson • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-23 April 2004 ?-4 MARK.HANCOCK. pe %" PO BOX 88811 �y�n SEATTLE,WA 98138. '�'� E October 1,2003 livid&liivcred Ms.Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services Division Renton City Hall,eh Floor 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 • RE: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS;LUA 02-040 • Dear Ms.Fiala: I have one area of concern regarding the proposed Barbee M4Sll project DEIS. While the - impacts during construction were discussed.in.a number of.the:stiady areas,I did not find a discussion about construction traffic impacts or mitigation: This is a concern for those of us who live in the adjacent"lower Kennydale"neighborhood because of the extent:and duration of the proposed project,combined.with the extra traflic•we already suffer through from.the 1-405 commuters who cut through our•neighborhood to avoid the freeway.congestion. I would like,to see the FEIS address these issues,and propose :mitigation measures that would be added to the Anal project approval conditionsto • protect our neighborhood. This-can be done without burdenin� the project. ' g . , g p j There is a very real possibility of significant and long-term construction traffic through the'adjacent neighborhood streets:- I) It has already happened. A couple months ago the Barbee.iemediation project used 3.5-22 our streets as'a gravel truck"turnaround." They ran tandem gravel trucks one - morning off Lake Washington Boulevard,;up 40th south on.Park,down 38t4-Street, and back north on Lake Washington Boulevard(apparently an easier approach to the - • site,or away;to line up the trucks going in): Ipersonally witnessed this. 2) The Barbee submittal states that they will'cut throughtthe neighborhood. Ia their "Construction Mitigation Description (stamped in by the City 04/05/02),they state: "All Materialswill be hauled to,or from the site from the south via Lake Washington Boulevard,NE Park Drive and I-405. Flagmen.will be.employed to direct traffic•in the event larger trucks are unable to operate within existing•traffic.lanes." (underlines are mine) Note thatthe north is not even mentioned,and to use Park it will•be necessary to also pass through at least two numbered east/west residential streets. There are 14;public and4private streets that connect to Parkbetween 30th and 40 ' (I doubt the developer would put out that.many"flaggers), Also note that Park-to-40th is.a shatter route to the site from 30th than Burnett or take Washington.Boulevard. i , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-24 April 2004 • 3) The biggest concern is the gravel trucks. The SEPA checklist states that 38,000 cubic yards of fill material will be brought in,and there will be 32,000 cubic yards of excavation. Since truck/trailer rigs will carry from 20 to 30 c.y.per trip,that would represent 1300 to 1900 truck trips for the fill alone(add to that another 1100 to 1600 trips if the excavation material is hauled off site). 4) Add to that the trucks hauling off the demolition material. And then all the new building construction supplies,and their employees. Most of this will come from the . south,where the contractor material warehouses and offices are;and the affordable A housing is for the employees. 5) There is incentive to cut through the neighborhood in the morning coming to the job. The 1-405 northbound lanes are nearly at a standstill most mornings,and it is quicker to get off at 30th(instead of going on to 44th),and cut through the neighborhood to the Barbee site. Why is this important? 1)- This is a residential neighborhood. It already has significant extra traffic from-drivers who cut through to avoid I-405 congestion. Peace and.quiet is difficult enough now. 2) There is no need for any Barbee-related construction traffic to pass through the neighborhood. All of it should use the 44th Street interchange(not 30'h),which is directly adjacent to the Barbee site. 3) Safety is an issue. There are plenty of school kids out in the mornings and afternoons. The neighborhood is a popular area forpedestrians and bicyclists. You also have to'be careful.just backing out of a driveway because.of the I-405 cut-through.drivers speeding up and down our streets(why add to that?). 4) These are residential roads,not designed to take the loads of the,gravel trucks;(both in- terms of weight on the asphalt,and turning radius at corners), This also'raises the economic issue of extra wear-and-tear on the roads(and safety.again). 5) With extra traffic,especially trucks,,there are also the issues of noise,air;quality and vibrations as they rattle by'our homes. What should mitigation measures be? 1) As noted above there is-no need for any construction traffic to pass through,our - neighborhood,and it Will not inconvenience the proposed project:to.direct all traffic: A to'the 44t°Streetinterchange. 2) -The City should require a haul route map from the developer,that requires all trucks (esp.,for demolition:and fill/exeavation material)to use the 441 interchange only: 3) There should be`No Trucks"signs on Park. If the traffic still increases on Park,then additional stop signs and/or-speed bumps should be considered to..discourage.its use. 4) If-30a'Or Burnett have similar problems,then similar measures should be considered. 5) When the project jobsitettiformation/rules handout is done for.workers/contractors,it: should include language'telling workers'not to cut throughthe neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of the above. Sincerely, Mark Hancock • .• . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-25 April 2004 • )e• • • DEVELOPMEIVrpi ,11,7kgo. ern"OFREArr.WNG OCT 0 3 ,093 4 asm STATE or WASHINGTON RECEIVED OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S.Capitol Way,Suite 106•Dlympia,Washington 98501 • (MailhigAddréss)PO to*48343•Olympia,Washington 98504-8343 Phone(360).5116-3065 (360)586.3067 Web Site: wwiy.oahp.wa.gov October 1,2003 Ms.Susan Fiala City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Sixth Floor Renton,WA 98055 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 100103-04-K1 Re:Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Barbee Mill.Site. • Dear Ms.Fiala, Thank you for contacting the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(OMIP).The.aboveIeferenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer My review is based upon documentation contained in your communication. ; - The Draft PIS for the Barbee Mill site Preliminary Plat mikes references-tea Determination of Eligibility for liatinglipowtheNatiotial Register of Historic Places that was apparently made on structures found at the mill site. ThiS'Offieehps been Unable to find where that deteriffiliiatiorijiasbeen made. If the previous determination is more • than,five years old,a new determination of eligibility should be sought We would suggest that both the water tower and black warehouse be surveyed as individual cultural resources,and that Determinations of Eligibility be sought from this office on those two structures We strongly suggest,that in any case,the-Water tower be preserved on-site as an icon to Rentoies saWmilling past. Regarding possible;atibsurfacearehaeological deposits,we concur that ground disturbing . actions should be monitored by aprafessional archaeologist.;A monitoring plan should- fr‘ be prepared prior to the activities to?ouiline the monitoring and discovery protocols If • archaeological deposits are observed Work should cease in the vicinity of the find,and • the 0Altp,City of Renton and the affected Indian Tribes notified immediately. If deposits cannot be avoided,they would need to be assessed for significinee, This would require a permit from OAHP per 120y 27.53 and DEVELOPMENT PLANNING • C"PFRPRON Oct RECEIVED 0 554-1779-017 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-26 April 2004 • • • • Ms.Fiala October 1,2003 Page.2 • Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please contact me if you have any questions. Since ly; Russell Holter Preservation Design Reviewer Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 360-586-3083 cc Donna Hogerhuis Cecile Hansen. Charlie Sigo • • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-27 April 2004 i • 10/07/2003 10:43 4252229574 FAi CETT DENTAL PAGE 01 • • • October 7, sERVICEZ tME RAN Ms.Susan Fiala OF Senior Planner 01 2143 Development Services Renton City Haii-Oth floor • i1 ;��'` C��11 1055 South Grady Way �>:�:V t:.�VGV Renton WA 96055 - Re:Bar-Bee Preliminary Plat • Dear Susan, .and myfamilyhave a concern regardingthe Bar-Beeproposal and apparent failure for .1� . ppa future dredging of the Mouth of May:Creek.Our concern is that without future dredging of the Creek our property directly upstream will be negatively impacted due to increasing hydrological impacts from ever increasing back pressure due to silt and debris aceumulatian.t would like to 3.2-5 propose that the historical dredging continue with the new Bar-Bee development perhaps through a homeowners association pact. White I favor providing housing for the future,t feel that•the Fawcett Family's property should not have to bear the negative consequences end'inhibit our family s ability for future development of single family homes:adjacent to Mey Creek.Continued occasional dredging may have a positive impact on the.Par flee site by allowing smaller stream buffers,end without the need for ' installation oflevies, - f;am.also aware:that property owners upstream lathe May Creek Basin have raised the issue 3.4-16 with King County with,regards to the positive benefits of dredging the Creek from a'Fish,and drainage benefit.Perhaps it would be of benefit-to query Mr.David-Irons(King County • Councilman)and get his opinion on dredging the Creekand how both people,and fishwould benefit 1 do=know that continued Slitetiort Is,an.impedimei t to spawning of Salmon.As.1 am sure you are aware careful and:timelydredgingwculd beta benefit to providing Improving habitat for • the Salmon. • • • In summery.I would appreciafe.some balance,and how our family Wilmot have to bear the brunt of water backing up onto our property as a;result.of the current proposed Bar Bee development.I A would.aiso like you to• address,the Increasing negative hydrological impacts onto our property end what possible redress that is available,to our family. Sincerely, Dr.Greg Fawcett M tp - FeliC.ity,WA 98024 I. 425-222 701 f. 00 e•mail....fawcettenwiink.com ss City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-28 April 2004 C V-Y F O 9 4£j 1.6. D e/zoi A� kit.) AAA:A A2.1.4.- boxcar del --3 D 4/°.4.),1- -v`i 6 C : ,, 5.17 ilu.,fLi ‘ . VIP-4C '": 2'4 , V / 1 61 i•I' "'elt:1 7.7 4 3Q - 16€4-r-'i ' Btsc2cdp i'> = _. ....,• ',// : aa.. , . , i . y,_,K„), -r- • Nr / :L le/Lki'L . `, , , atr y - a ali- r , t,7 , ,, , ...L., . .--4 a../YL.-- , . , ‘OLL.- jj,zLexat:ee 6444.' cL, dtw-ete--a4 _Wf,,,,,,,j a.,,,,......, -1-- ' ---72,6_, aczei 4.4114, . Gei-e-e • :Z, ,,iie_id& City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-29 April 2004 1 , i , ,./\ FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN P.L.LC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 0 ,Dhtc Phone (206)447-2901 . , Direct Facsimile. • October 7,2003 (206)749-2035 If-Mall WolfC(gfoster.com 1 , . VIA FACSIMILE AND 04, •HAND DELIVERY- - 044-tivz. Ms.Stsan Fiala,Senier Planner OCi• -'4411t7r414z4 J , , Renton.City Hall,6th Floor, , 81 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,WA 98055 wit Ret Draft EIS Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Application irsr THINE; AvslivE ' Dear Ms.Fiala: . • suite 400 r _j , " : SIZATTL14. We.are,writing on.behalf of our clients, Vulcan Inc. arid the Port Quendall lw"hing"n Company (collectively, 'PQC"). As you are aware, PQC owns three properties 911Koz..32.99 . within the COR-2 Zone-in Renton,knOwn as the"North I.E.Baxter property,"the Telephone "South J;II.Baxter property,"and the Tan Abode propertit.(therTQCPropertier). . These:properties are located north and east, respectively,. of the Barbee Forest iFia,:s,'Irih oa , PSaitett,The.("Barbee)preperty..PQC representatiVes were:present in:Renton:City Hall atAhodraft environmental impact statement,("DEIS').public?cotnrrient.hearing WW9.POSTER.CONI on Ilia evening of September 23. - •. . . . . . --- . , • PQC has royiUyveitthu,p EIs for the Barbee Mill pteliminarY plat.application . I (the"Application"or Project')and provides the following comments On theDIS. Thomajor thrust of these.comments follows directly from Mir December 16,2002 E• tOOpthg-cothrOgrit lettei. The goals.and potential develnpnient,of.ir// areas Zoned :---) COM:("COR-2 Area")should have been analyzed in the DEIS'.to.account for the 3.5-25 larger environmental and develOpmeiicontext in which the*glee-as situated.. .'! ANviloandx. — Alas it'd .. , . . . . . - . .. . 900714.ND , . . A. • Incorporation-of Previous-Comments : 0.eso. . • ... , SEATTLE 'We provide this letter in addition to our May 39,2002,.$eritember 26;2002 and December -16, 2002 comment,letters, which we attach and request;be incorporated'herein. As noted in these previous letters, the City has the legal authority,if not mandate,to insure that the?reject's direct and cumulative r*pieta do not constrain-Me development.poteritial of the PQC Properties or:have negative . . !supons.oz * . . . ! . ; • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-30 April 2004 1 i •A 4 October 7,2003 Page 2 impacts on the surrounding environment in the COR-2 Zone. B. SEPA Requires A Thorough Consideration of,Project-Impacts and'Mitigation Measures. SEPA requires the City.to provide a detailed statement on major actions:that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The detailed statement must include 1) the- environmental impact of the proposed action;2)any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action; 3) alteniatives to the proposed action; and 4) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would occur•if the proposed action were implemented. RCW 43.21C.031(1)(c). As explained below, the DEIS falls short of SEPA's requirements because it does not adequately identify Project impacts or how'those ithpacts might be mitigated bellow the level of E significance. Additionally, without a cogent discussion of the Project,cumulative impacts, and • proposed mitigation measures,it is impossible to determine the Project.would resnit:in .an irreversible commitment of resources toward mitigation measures that would not integrate with(or even preclude)future development of adjacent properties. • C: Overview.of.1Jnanalyzed Impacts and PQC Property Development In our comment letter dated May 30,2002(attached:hereto),we listed certain potential. impacts within.the scope of the Project s environmental review, In our December 16, 2002 comment letter (also attached),,we specifically requested that the El&:analyze all:of these potential impacts in addition to the transportation issues disco sed in Section D, below. Notwithstanding this request,these'issues remain largely unanalyzelin the DEIS;particularly from a cumulative impact perspective: . 1. Cumulative;and otherProject impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and fisheries from combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quendall Terminals and E Baxter properties: [Our previous letters have described the development-enabling activities undertaken and in process on the POC properties,including cleanup of environmental contamination. In addition,given theProject'sproposed treatment of nearshore areas(i.e. "hardscape"rather than revegetation Or substantial habitat improvement),the DEIS should have examined the likely, future shf'of mitigation responsibilities along the Lake Washington'shoreling to other CO.R-2 area properties:.and the resuliin development constraints). • 2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property; Lake 2.0-12 Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainege:corzyeyances be possible through the Barbee Mill property,or must diseharges'occur on May.Creek s04003$G2 • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-31 April 2004 ' i --j li ,• October 7,2003 • Page 3 ti .. adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard? From a COR-2 areawide perspective. May Creek impacts Will be reduced if Pan Abode development peak flows do not need to drain through May Creek The DEIS fails to explain whether the pipe • 2.0-1 2 redesignlbtpass discussed'at pages'C-9 and C-10 of Appendix C will accommodate:1)future Pan Abode peak_lows as a-mitigation featurefor May Creek,or 2)fi;lure drainage needs of COR-2 area transportation improvements). -- • • 3. Cumulative and Other Project'impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife from E development of the Pan Abode and Barbee Mill properties.'(See-discussion,under . Section C 2 above and Andrew C.Kindig's attached analysis at-Paragraphs 19 • • and 20). . 4. Cumulative and other.Project impacts to Lake Washington water quality front E • Barbee Mill property development in conjunction with.development of adjoining properties.and construction and post-construction activities'associated With any road system-improvements. (The DEIS does not appear to.contain any such ' -iivant f ed analysis).. 5. -Cumulative and other.Project impacts to wetlands andd-stonnwater within the , E - COR-2 Zone from any access and roadway-improvements,which could constrain- . " access options and natural resources,on adjoining properties:')The DEIS fails'to 3.5-25;. acknowvledge offsite road improvements and wetland impact): As noted, our previous ,letters have described the development-enabling activities ` undertakenand in proemon. the PQC' properties,, including: cleanup. of.environmental contamination. The.first portion of the South Baxter cleanup was:completed-iri a:timely fashiori in late October 2002. The remainder of the South Baxter cleanup will be completed in-the spring and summer of 2004. As evidenced by-the Ecology Consent Decree,the-cleanup was initiated 3.6-4 with redevelopment of the properties,*mind. The DEIS ignores the.redevelopment attributes of the South-Baxter cleanup and the requirement to fully consider the associated."of record" • documents. • D. Specific Issues that Require Further Analysis • 1. Transportation • As_described more fully in the attached analysis by David Markley Of Transportation. . Solutions; Inc,,the'transportation section of the DEIS should:include:an analysis of.all of the roads in. the area (particularly the Ripley LanelLake Washington Blvd, :intersection (the E "Intersection")), under reasonable development assumptions for the remainder of the entire • COR-2 Area. -- • . 50400198.02 _- . I ' City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-01'17 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-32 April 2004 1 1 i rr • • • October-7,2003 Page 4 It is'recognized byall patties involved that the Intersection and the I-405 interchange will 3.5-25 inhibit future development in the COR 2 Area. It is crucial that the final EIS analyze the effect of full.build-out of the COR-2 Area,.so that proper mitigation can be identified and implemented:; The DEIS's vague-reference to an undefined future `overall mitigation program" to cure the Project's traffic impacts reflects an:inadequate analysis of environmental impacts.1 1.. Site Access: There•are two proposed site access points..The DEIS fails to explain the 3.5-3 viability of the proposed northerly'access point: If the northerly access is not viable, it will change traffic patterns and project impacts. Moreover, the DEIS traffic. 3.5-5 I analysis (Fig: 3:5-6) shows no vehicular traffic titilizingthe northerly access. The. • DEIS fails to.adequately address Project.traffic (or traffic that would be generated 3.5-25 ( from other properties)that would utilize the northerly access. 2. Scope of Analysis: ,The analysis does not include the ramps'at I-405 Exit9,which. had nearly twice as Much projected traffic.volume than the North 30a'/I-405 ramps, 3.5-11 • which were:analyzed in•the DEIS. Am-peak period traffic conditions should also be included for all 1405 interchanges and the road network between the site and I-405 along Lake Washington Boulevard. 3.5-121 3. Traffic•'Operation Impacts:• The DEIS does not address queuing along Lake Washington Betilevard/NE.40 Street in the vicinity of the 1-405'interchange. • •4. 'Transportation Coneurrency: The DEIS does not address whether the project Will 3.5-1 .meet transpot'tation concurrency compliance as required by the Growth Management Act. 5...Rail Crossing: The=railroad crossing`s that will provide access to the Project are a second.transportation:issue;.and the DEIS clearly suggests that mitigation of railroad • crossing issues may require use,of PQC.property2. The City has indicated:that its 3.5-18 1 :code requires the crossings.to be accessible to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffics The DEIS should more fully examine the impacts to railroad.traffic of the new crossings as well as the safety issues inherent in,mixing,pedestrians, vehicles, and 3.5-21 •trains in.the same location. Furthermore,.as noted in Our December`16,,2002 letter; • there is•soine,question as to whether the southern railroad crossing Will'be acceptable' 3.5-3 I to the City.4 The DEIS should examine;as an alternative,the iMpact'Ofhaving.only one.access point"to the Project • • 1-DEIS;page 3-88-89. 2 DEIS,;page 3-86. 3 Memorandum from 7uliaita Sitthidet to Lesley Nishihara,October 7,2002,page 2. • 4 This is because Barbee's easement over the railroadat that point is revocable upon 30-days notice,See.City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Staff Report!Determination of Significance,November 5,2002,page 10. •saaoaw.ai City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-33 April 2004 • October 7,2003 Page 5 6. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Analysis: The.DEIS traffic discussion fails to ' consider the cumulative.impacts of other potential development in the COR-2 Zone. Given the unique topography, rail crossings, current condition of I-405 and other - 3.5-25 constraints,the lack of a proper cumulative'impacts analysis limits the utility of the DEIS in shaping mitigation that Will adequately address.the Project's impacts and the Project's.relationship to other potential development in the area. For example, Section 3.5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts states that the proximity of the relocated grade crossings, which could both be:blocked by a stopped train, "could be mitigated by connecting.the existing access-point at.the north end of the. Vulcan property with this site through a continuous.frontage roadway on the west. side of the BNSF.right of-way" Thus, although the DEIS acknowledges the PQC Properties when it is convenient to do so to minimize the Project's impacts,the DEIS fails to, address future development of the PQC Properties, which will play a significant role in shaping the major improvements that will be required for area-wide solution to the traffic issues raised in:the DEIS. • 2. Shoreline,Water Quality,Flooding and Other Natural Resource Issues As set forth in the attached.letter from.Andrew C. Kindig, the EIS fails to present a com:lete analysis of the impacts of the develo ment iriehrdin cumulative im acts,.on the Lake P Y ' P P . � g , P I Washington'shoreline and May Creek,and to clearly associate those iinpacts with the mitigation necessary:.to minimize or avoid them. As Mr,,Kmdig_.indicates,reference'to past studies of the 3.4-1 project area is incomplete, We concur with Mr, Kindig that,the DEIS structure.results in difficulty°interpreting the specifics of the current proposal and the various mitigation options. We also concur with his general statement that where;mitigation options are listed:in the DEIS, evaluation•oflevels of impacts and mitigation adequacy".'are by'and large absent. 3. Soil Contamination Soil contamination is another.issue that did not receive adequate'scrutiny in the DEIS. As indicated in the Determination of Significance; the.site :is known to; contain soils contaminated with arsenic and zinc.s The Queridall Terminals property to the immediate north is 3.6-5 also known.to •contain contaminated soils and. groundwater,, and .cleanup negotiations are underway with the Department of Ecology The DEIS fails to adequately account for the Project'a placement of residential dwellings,in close:;proxiinity'.to this contamination and the associated,proposal to site'-a road across the contaminated`•Quendall Terminals property. Moreover,.:there is to acknowledgement regarding,the.partial unity of;ownership between the Quendall Terminals property and the Barbee Mill property Or the fact that no Cleanup Action Plan has been finalized or approved for the,Quendall Terminals property..Given that no cleanup plan has been finalized, let alone approved or implemented, it'is premature.for the DEIS to 51d.at 4: 50490398,02 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-34 April 2004 I � • 1 • • October 7,2003 Page 6 assume'that the Quendall Terminals property will be available for road construction or that it will not.impact the proposed neighboring residential development. • Finally, there is a.substantial amount of COR-2 Aiea information contained in the 3.6-4 I Department of Ecology record,for the ongoing'Baxter property site remediation and in,previous. comprehensive studies of potential development alternatives and transportation improvements of 3.5-25 I the COR 2 zone. This information.is readily available from the Department of Ecology and other sources,including the City. .It does not appear that this information was.fully reviewed and incorporated,as appropriate,within the shoreline,critical area,and Native American sections of the DEIS. "Thank you for the opportunity to commenton the DEIS. Please keep us informed of your further review activities and determinations. • • Sincerely yours, • • • • • "CharlesR.Wolfe • Enclosures • .cc: Ada NI:Healey;Vulcan,Inc. Steve VanTil,Vulcan,Inc. ' • Clint Chase,Vulcan Inc. • • • • p400I98,03 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-35 April 2004 I • • • I ' • • • • • I . 1 LETTER OF MAX 30,2002 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-36 April 2004 • • 1 FOS"T.Eic :;PEPPER & SHEFELM.r>.Z rLLC A T T 0 R H Y T 5 A T L A W • • Direct kb", (206)447-2901 May 30,2002 • . • infect Facsimile ' (206)741-2033 E-bldl • Ms.Lesley NiShihara R'.lrc®a ruler-t.m • ' Project Manager,Development Services Division . City.of Renton Planning/Building/1'ublic Works Department • 1055 South Grady Way,eh Floor . Renton,WA 98055 Re: Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • Dear Ms.Nishihara: - • We•are tivriting on.behalf of our clients,Vulcan Inc.and the Port Quendall iv;s7iDE , • Company("P.QC"). PQC owns,three properties within the COR 2 Zone in Renton, s.rne J;00 known as the"North III.Baxterproperty,"the"South J.11.Baxter ro r "and the- SsATTta P ) t� Y, 1Vathtn:f°s • • ' "Pan Abode property?' These properties are located north and east,respectively,of - 9 a io,-3.99 the above-referenced'development proposal.. 'Teltpsane • . We have provided similar comments to those set out below under rior., t"`}"' 44°° Pr .i? Fa cal.mile Barbee Mill development proposals..We provide this letter in response to Iite:May ix*4 i,i 9a°i, 16,2002-Notice of Application,.given the Wide range of issues subject to.analysis lvebtue' iinderRCW,58.17:110;.associated SEPA review and the ongoing potential for ' .*w•so:::x:p4i, • • significant enviionmental.impacts lathe areas of transportation and natural resources,.including potential impacts to May CrreekandLake Washington,,,When considered on a'cumulative and concurrent basis,these potential-impacts-may constrain the development potential of adjacent COR-2 Zone properties. - • • • Background•- •• •• ' •. As noted in the attached February.12,2002 letter to City Attorney Alas;, Lawrence.J.Warren;PQC acquired the Baxter and Pan Abode properties to develop . medium,and,high-densitycommercial,residential:and,retail uses. The Baxter "70'7/1»D properties-are"cuireritiy'containinated;and cleanup work(pursuant to'Consent °r.`z°' Decrees with:theDepartment of Ecology)is expected to commence later this year. ssATTiI In the fixture,-the Pan Abode property.will likely be Used for hotels,restaurants'or • .m..hi.sioA ,highway-ririented retail 10aibing,O. The.ConsentDecrees are of record in King County Superior Court and reflect , . • a multi-year regulatory review and negotiation process to facilitate development. so729521.02 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-37 April 2004 • I • 1 1 i i • Ms.Lesley Nishhara Environmental Review Committee " May 30,2002 Page.2 The attached letter to Mr.Warren.deseribes'the anticipated redevelopment of the Baxter _ properties as described in the Consent Decrees,as well,as Renton's long history of comprehensive planning for the COR 2 Zone. The letter.alsorequests that development. -, agreement negotiations commence'with regard to the development activities to follow the imminent cleanup work. . . • Cumulative and Concurrent Impact Analysis - Given the,development-enabling activities under the Consent Decreesandthe anticipated- development to follow,it is.clear..that the SESPA and Preliminary Plat review(as Well as any pending site Plan and/or shoreline application review)for the Barbee-Mill PreliruinaryPlat(the "pending Barbee Mill reviews')must also examine the cumulative.and.concurrent impacts of : development on the Baxter and Pan Abode properties. . Any'environmental or land.use,review of area.propertics.should assure that sufficient. transportation capacity will_be available to serve all properties within the Colt 2 Zone on a fair and consistent basis. Accordingly,the pending Barbee Mill reviews should examine bow the- ciwiulative impact of combined build-outon the Barbee,Baxter,Pan Abode-arid Quendall_ • Terminals will affect,ingress and egress from I.405,,and how the circulation.between these• . properties may affect circulation on local streets. Potential trip:generation must be addressed on __ an.areawide basis in orderie,fairly allocate:development capacity_betweeri.properties: In addition,.the following additionalcumulative and copeurr•ent impact issues must be, , examined-and analyzed within:theppending'Barbee'Nlill reviews: , - L Cumulative impacts to LakeWashington shoreline habitat and fisheries from combined _ build-outs on the Barbee Mill;Quendall Terminals anOtaiterproperties: , 2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abodeproperty;Lake Washington • Boulevard and Interstate 405; Will drainage Conveyances be possible.through the Barbee. Mill property,or must discharges occur on May Creek adjacent to:LakeWashington - . Boulevard? - • 3. Cumulative impacts to May Creek habitatand wildlife:frorn development of the Pari,Abode and Barbee Mill properties. • ' ! 4. Cumulative impacts to Lake Wasl ingtou:water,quality front Barbee Mill-property development in conjunction.with.development of adjoining properties:and;construction and . post-construction activities associated Withianyroad systeria,impiovemoots: ,• w3 .� -- City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-38 April 2004 '-) • Ms.LesleyNishihara EnvironmentalReview Committee - May.30,2002 • Page 3 . : 5. Cumulative.impacts to wetlands and stormwaier within,the COR 2 Zone from any access and roadway improvements,which could constrain access options and natural resources on adjoining properties. S• pecific OnsiteJiupiets; • We also•believe that reviewing agencies should consider a range of specific onsite• impacts arising from the development of the Barbee Mill property. We are aware ofthe .following issues and impacts from studies conunissioned for Vulcanlnc.and-PQC regarding • development of theBaxter acid Pan Abode properties: . . I. Offshore wood waste'cleanup,as well as related water quality and fisheries issues for species , • listed as threatened under the Pndangered Species Act. • 2. Lake Washington shoreline issues,including reconstruction of the bulkhead,debris removal, •shoreline enhancement or restoration,and related water quality,habitat,and,fisheries issues. . ' . . , ,3. Impacts of any over-water construction(if proposed),including related fisheries and habitat issues. • • 4. Issues related to•inipacts of light,human disturbance to lakeshore fish habitat. • 5: .Issues related to•wildlife,including salmon,trout,long-fin smelt,bald eagle and osprey nest 6. Issues related to Mucklesboot Indian Tribe.fishing,grounds. .. • 7. Stormwater treatment and discharge issues,including water quality impacts'to 1:alce Washington. • ' • • . • 8. Issues related to impacts.on MayCreek and Lake Washington fronton-site construction;' assurance of adequate buffers.pursuant to federal,state.and local regulatoryrequirements. 9. Issues related to wetlands management,impacts and mitigation if fill takes place. • $om 23.0 - City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-39 April 2004 I I 1 • I • Ms.l:,esleyblishihara - EnviroximentalReview Committee • • > May 30,2002 . • Page 4 .. . . . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please include us on the circulation list for all firther coinmunications'relative to the pending Barbee Mill reviews. . • • Very truly yours, j .Charles R.Wolfe • Enclosures • cc: Rod Stevens,Vulcan Inc. • . . j • . i f • . • • I ^ • • • • • wsns».02 • 'I , , I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-40 April 2004 _1 I • • • • 04. 410 Cl0> Q o 0 LETTER OF SEPTEMBER.26,2002 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-41 April 2004 I f • FQSTE_. PEPPER & SHEFELM•A • A..LC - ATTDA NETS AT LAW Direct Phone (206)447.2901 Direct For,I,.ire (206)149.1035 September 26,2002 E-Matt WoifC®rost,r.com • DEYEt.OPMfN EPt A 41NG VJA FACSIMMILE AND Gt7Y tJF REN ft�A1 HAND DELIVERY ' SEP.3,11Z0D2. Ms.LesieyNishihira Project Manager;Development Services Division RECEIVED• City of Renton Planning/Building/Public WorksDepartrnent - 1055 South Grady Way,6th Floor Renton, tlis WA 98055 vEt Tamp _ AvzNv: • Sattc 3600 Re: Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat,Revised Notice StATTLA Washington Dear Dear MsNishilura: 9 8 20 t-3 s99 Telephone WO.:.are writing on behalf of our clients, Vulcan Inc. and the Port Quendall °b)4 i 44 9 Company(collectively,"PQC")."PQC owns three"properties within the COR-2 Zone: F{so6).{°ert,ntt7a � •g7oo in Renton,'known-.as the "North J.H. Baxter property•,' the "South I H. Baxter 1Vebstte property,"and the'Pan Abode property"(the"PQC Properties"). These properties. Wwe-YomTEA.co i j are located north and east, respectively, of the Barbeee Forest Products, Inc: (`Barbee")property: Background. We,provide this letter in addition to earlier comments on file,and in;specific• response to the September12,2002 Revised Notice of Complete-Application•for the Barbee Mill preliminary plat application (the "Application"or'Project"). When AAlNCckD A1 - considered.onacumulative and concurrent basis,the Project's potential impacts may constrain.the development potential of the PQC Properties and have negative impacts POATLA'TiD on the surrounding environment in the COR 2-Zone, As we Steteit in;our comment c4s8^p l letter dated May 30;,2002 (attached hereto),the potential cumulative impacts subject SEATTLA to environmental review are as follows: ,racbrwgtaa 1. :Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and Sro,AN■ dr:4 fisheries from combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quiendall, Wa,brns,an Terminals and Baxter properties: • :0346525.01 .. I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-42 April 2004 • • September 26,2002 Page 2 • • 2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property,Lake Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainage conveyances be possible through the Barbee Mill property,or must discharges occur on May Creek adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard? 3. Cumulative.impacts to May Creek habitat and.wildlife from development.of the Pan.Abode and Barbee Mill properties. 4. Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington.water quality from Barbee Mill property • • development in conjunction with development of adjoining properties and • construction and post-construction activities associated with any road system improvements. 5. Cumulative impacts to wetlands and stormwater within the COR-2 Zone from any access and roadway improvements,which could,constrain access options and • natural resources'on•adjoining properties. PQC'Property Development-Enabling Activities Since 1996, FQC'has actively pursued development-enabling activities for the Baxter properties with the Department of Ecology, other state and.federal agencies, and the City: In May Of 2000,the.King County Superior Court entered Consent Decrees for the North and South Baxter properties as negotiated by PQC and the Department:of Ecology., In 2002,,PQC completed the associated permitting process for.the South Baxter property with the U.S.Army Corps'Of Engineers. The clean-up required under the South Baxter Consent Decree.has.begun (please see the attached Daily Journal of Commerce article and,photographs of work in progress) and will enable eventual development of the property.by PQC or its successor: Our May 30, 2002 letter and.previous correspondence have consistently described•the.potential for area-wide development in the COR-2 Zone and the Multi-year regulatory review and negotiation process which_stand behind the North and South Baxter Consent Decrees: As-you are aware;the Consent Decrees'describe'with some particularity a potential development of the Baxter properties—two 68-foot tall'office buildings'of approximately 200,000 square,feet each(please see the attached, • South,Baxter Content Decree excerpt).. • ' Permits Required-for the'Project The Revised Notice of Application indicates that several public'approvals are needed for the Batbee•Projedt, including: SEPA review, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Approval, Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, Shoreline Substantial Development Approval;; and Administrative Street Modification Approval. The Project will also require a Level 1 Site Plan] . arid a Level2 Site Plan 2 and will likely require related.approvals from state and federal agencies. • RMC.,§4-9-200B(1). • 2 RIvMC.§4-9-200B(2). SOW-U.0i • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-43 April 2004 • September 26,2002 Page 3 • • Because decisions on all of these permits must be made in light of SEPA's broad requirements,3 the City:should request information now, through SEPA, that will be needed:for all future Project-related decision-making. For instance,the review criteria for a Level 1 Site Plan include conformance with the comprehensive plan;mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;and (for CUR properties only) harmonious-development with adjacent sites.4 In addition,access to the Barbee property must necessarily.cross a Burlington Northern Railroad line,and Barbee proposes to have two such crossings. One of the crossings is a new crossing. The second crossing appears to be the railroad crossing that cuire,itly connects the • Quendall Terminals property (directly north of the Barbee property) to Lake Washington • Boulevard. It is not clear from our review whether the Project's use of these railroad crossings has been formally negotiated,and the railroad crossing issue is not addressed.in Barbee's traffic impact analysis. In addition,it is not clear whether Barbee has considered the implications of road construction over the contaminated Quendall Terminals property, and whether the Department of.Ecology has been consulted in this regard. Finally, a new vehicle bridge is proposed as part of the subdivision's road structure: This bridge will cross.'May Creek, a salmon bearing waterbody,and will require construction activities below May Creek's ordinary high water mark. • Legal Authority to Require Further Environmental Study Under SEPA and the Subdivision Statute,the City.;inay allow Barbee to Drily use an equitable portion of the area's traffic capacity, and to limit. the prospective:development's contribution-to cumulative impacts on natural resources within the COR=2 Zone. In this regard, • SEPA provides the City the ability to require a land".nae permit applicant to:sgpply information that is reasonably sufficient to•allow the City to make an,informed environmental.decision 5 In • addition,.the Washington State subdivision statutes asks-the City to determine if the proposed subdivision,provides appropriately for the.public health,safety,and:general welfare and serves the public interest.1 As we noted in our May:30,`2002 letter,because of these'laws,the City • needs to diligently address a wide range of cumulative, concurrent, and onsite:environmental, impacts raised by the Barbee Application: City attention-is necessary because,the Project will potentially constrain probable future.development elsewhere,;in the CQR-2 Zone :and will • 3 'RCW'§43.21 C.030 requites that the"policies;regulations,.and laws of the state of Washington shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in[the State Environmental Policy Act]." 4 RIM§4-9-200B(1). 5 WAC 197-1.1.-335. • 6 RCW§§5837.010 et seq. 7 RC'W§•58.17.110. • 3034652%Ot 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-44 April 2004 • September 26;2002 Page 4 • potentially result in a 115-lot subdivision that is located on the shore of Lake Washington, alongside May Creek,and that has limited and shared vehicle access. • Allowing the Barbee Project to capture the remaining development capacity in the COR- 2 Zone is not supportive of Renton's general welfare or in the public interest since it'would . severely stunt the development of the PQC Properties, properties for .which the Renton Comprehensive Plan targets specific and high-profile development. • The Subdivision Statute has at least two applicable provisions. First,the Statute requires the City to "assure conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive,plan...."$ The Renton Comprehensive Plan(the"Plan")calls for a coordinated development of an•office/residential. "center" on the'properties west of the railroad tracks (including the.Barbee and PQC Properties). "The intention is to create a compact;urban development with high amenity values that is'agateway to the city.."i Plan Policy LU-I30 states that the proposed development plans of the'properties should be coordinated. The properties are 'all zoned Commercial Office Retail(COR-2)and are.the only in the City zoned COR- • 2. Taken together,the Center Office Residential section of the Plan's Land Use Element and the Gateway,.section of the':Plan's Comm unity•Design Element show that the City desires • coordinated development over and fill development of all of the COR-2:properties. lit other words,the Plan,coupled With the added authority of the Subdivision Statute,gives The City the ability to insdre that each of the'COR-2 properties is developed:in such a way that none of the properties,have environmental impacts that constrain the•development of the other properties. • The second applicable Subdivision Statute provision requires the City to inquire into and formally find that the,proposed subdivision provides appropriately for the public health;safety, and general welfare and;serves the public-•interest.10 In this case,Renton has implicitly decided ,that the public interest and;the general welfare Renton's citizens is best served by coordinated development'of all of the COR ,properties: Without a frill analysis of the indirect,,direct,and cumulative environmental:impacts of the Project,it might be difficult for the City to determine if' the Barbee subdivision will hinder'.this public interest goal: Under SEPA,the:City may require a land.use permit applicant to provide"information reasonably sufficient'to allow the City.to make an informed environmental•decision.tt The ' City's SEPA deeision'must include an analysis of indirect,direct,and cumulative impacts of the Project: ' , • • 8 ROW§.58:11.100. 9 Renton Comprehensive Plan'Objective LU-U. . iv ROW§58.17.110. 11 WAC 197-11-335. "S03463441 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-45 April 2004 • September 26,2002 Page 5 • One of the indirect impacts of the Barbee Project will be the impact on future transportation patterns at the Intersection. As explained in our May'30,2002,letter and above, • - the City has reason to believe that the PQC properties,could be developed in the foreseeable future.12 The City, because it cannot deny PQC or a successor reasonable development of its properties,will have little choice but to permit future developments that will effect the Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (the"Intersection"). If the City allows a :Barbee development that uses a.disproportionate share'of the remaining Intersection traffic capacity,then the City might be forced to either deny PQC or a successor reasonable use ofits property or be forced to spend,significant sums of money improving the Intersection. Either of• - these is a potential,indirect impact of the Barbee";proposal, and the City may currently have insufficient information to evaluate their likelihood. A seminal Washington-Supreme Court case.that provides a basis for this impacts analysis is.SAYE v. B'othelLi3 In SAVE, the Court found that the City of Bothell had undertaken inadequate SEPA review in its.decision to permit a large shopping center. The flaw in Bothell's environmental review was that it had'hot looked.-at the impacts of the development on areas ;outside of Bothell's city limits,that is,:the surrounding communities. The,court found that"the ' • .zoning body must serve the Welfare of the entire.affected community."14 Under this decision, • Renton is compelled to examine the effects of the Barbee proposal on.neighboring properties, including those properties'development potential., In this situation, the potential..cumulative impacts of the Barbee Project are also extensive. "Cumulative impacts" include impacts that arise.because:a development sets a precedent for future actions.15 The Barbee development will:seta precedent for future actions. 'The-Barbee and•PQC properties are:very similar in location and potential use and are zoned tile' satrne. If the City allows Barbee to realize 90%.of die.development potential of its property,the City wilt'have difbculty justifying a decision.to allow PQC.or a successor,because of lack of traffic capacity or other environmental' .capacity,; to only realize 30%. of its properties' development potential. In.other words, the amount of traffic generation and environmental . impact that the City allows Barbee sets a precedent for the amount of traffic generation and environmental.impact that the City should allow the PQC properties. These cumulative impacts include'cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and fisheries;:accommodation of offste drainage from the Pan Abode property,-Lake Washington Boulevard, and Interstate 12_PQC has kept the City well-informed of potential development.See letter from Chuck Wolfe to•Lawrence L Warren,February 12,2002;letter from Chuck,Wolfe to City.of Renton Environmental Review,Comnmittee,April 2,2002 and letter.from Chuck Wolfe to Leslie Nishihara,City of Renton Development Services Division Project Manager,May 30,2002. 13 SAVE v.Bothell,89 Wn.2d 862(Wash.1978). 14 Id._at 869. 15 WAC 197-11-060(4)(d). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-46 April 2009 i September 26,2002 Page 6 ' 405; cumulative impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife; and cumulative impacts.to Lake W ashington'water quality and wetlands within the COR-2 Zone. . This cumulative impacts analysis is supported by Hayes v Yount, in which the Supreme • Court upheld a decision of the Shoreline Hearings Board to overturn a shoreline substantial development permit 16 The Court held that the Hearings Board had'properly ruled that the County had not adequately considered the cumulative impacts of the.development. In particular, , the Hearings Board found that;although-the development in question,which involved;the fill of Wetlands;would not have a significant adverse environmental impact,;it would set the precedent for future similar developments that, taken'together, would have significant environmental ` impacts.17 This cumulative impacts analysis was recently re-affirined by the:Supreme Court in Buechel V. Department of Ecology.18 Under these decisions, Renton has the.clear ability to , require sufficient,information and studies and to consider the precedential value of the Barbee Mill,proposal.; - The cumulative impacts that an applicant may be required to study also:include impacts ' that are more extensive than the impacts thatthe applicant could be required to mitigate. In other• ' words,the applicant may be'.required to study the cumulative impacts of properties That are not owned by theapplicant.19 •" Barbee's Supplemental Preliminary Plat Documentation As discussed.above;one of the major cumulative of the Barbee Project will be on the Ripley Lenel ake Washington Boulevard`intersection. Barbee's Final Traffic Impact Analysis does not contain an analysis of the cumulative impacts on the Intersection under the, assumption:that the:PQC Properties Will be'developed,'as was requested by the City on.June 3, 2002, As indicated above;development of the'PQC:Properties'has been.firmly enabled'and should be;included in Barbee's traffic'analysii.`., " ; ' . Barbee'has`also submitted a'biological,assessment(the."Barbee BA'), prepared by Raedeke Associates,.Inc. The Barbee BA may not,provide the City with the full amount of _ ' information that it will need to assess the direct;indirect,and cumulative impacts of the Project. • For instance, the:Barbee BA.does'not reference the PQC:Biological "Evaluation (`BE') completed for the neighboring Baxter Properties as part of the Baxter Property Consent Decree process. The PQC BE is.a•public document and was readily available for Raedeke Associates to I 'review.• In sparliaular,,the shoreline analysis in the*PQC BE is extensive and references.area s shoreline conditions..'A further area..that is:li tl :analyzed in the Barbee BA'is short-term. gll Y . i 76 Hoye svYU:int,;87'Wil...2d"280'(Wash.19'6).'' 17 Id.. at 287-288. . • 1a Buechel v.Department of Ecology;,125.Wn.2d 196,189{Wash.1994). , • 19 WAC 197-11-060(4)(e). , i • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-47 April 2004 . •-• , . , • September 26,2002 • Page 7 II i •. • .. . .. .„ . :construction impacts,especially in•light•ef the:fact,that Barbee prOpoSes construction of a bridge for Street D that wilt require work below theordinary high water mark of May Creek. Thank you for the opPortuitity to Corrunenton Barbed'a'Application,and please keep•us 1 , informed of your further reView activities and detennitations. : . 1 . • -•. • . Sincerely yours, . .• : . . , , . • . . , . .. . II -• .Charles R.Wolfe Enclosures , , 1 , cc: Ada Kflealey,Vulcan lit. • . I . Robertj,Collier,Vulcan 1.1M. , ; , ,, ' Clint Chase;Vuicarilit . ,e • i . . Lawrence L Warren;Baq. • ' '. i , i , . . , . . . . ' • . ! , • • " ,. . , . . . , , . . • • , 1 . . . . . . . . • • . • - , i , 1 , . • . • , • . 1 I i . , . , . • • .• • 1 , , . 1 104632191 1 1 I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-48 April 2004 —[ ; { • ;141,,14 . ; t 3 ii1iIi i Fv" 4 1. f 3" d' tiw# � p�V k k Cq ��r aI ¢ § , Zia -"rc 4 kti t! 1-,,,:..-- ; ^ irk 4 A.,t'Aile3 ti, VI 4.t.p.t'' P' ''.' 1 1.i,IN \‘,, '%,. ''t,i'ri kediF4‘. ).k..%, .>".,17:1 .. ' ' 44 $ + `�''�P 2x :.}, :'v .t' l` ^� "`'� ''"S 4q d `k' ...,S yam,- �` +,R • e y''?2{ , AA•'r���rn 1 ,i ' .. 6 kw. Y'tt d t, :sta"""e .... l oN.- r- t' x ,th h y! .,7... , it, 1, ,.• L T r .. a": J os., a41t t 3Y i pA 3+ �x�g ,-�`},;(.•y +t.,�', 'Y 7 § may{ ,§. s',� Y Ss 17,E r-^t f +� t r Y$j tV i a �` % cx it �b' «,,, • ...,1„.:..,... a 1i *, � s 1T'' r1.4- -,. ''#....`'4.c{, '� 1: r7�. +,e^� •., ,Fq 1'+ifFJ •- � e Nn, siX '�'A •" �'f; ;:•'�,,.,t fit ¢" },.,y' • 1. .:4***,4WK Til' .."0,0,� ,A �,iti�:.3 � , .`1�""�' ckv �' t ., 4'I i•'- yid'• .a, VV Tt' �.�,}a 'A�..44 4,. ' ;'SY ex,....% t '{jkFS,�'�;`a'Y� y' -...tr.". AA,"^ .* ( „ 4,47 44��iiii''''+r„;5 A. li � d :a 3 ' `4' ^'ar 11, yf .",*;; �. ,.ea ,ram p 4'4r!`jftc$+ ' ,- F t�,-. Vatii: „r. tr`# �y$us�� , �p 11''.'r B r^- ♦ k +- , s,, ._, ,, .. _ '.' A r t213 a t ;y' :1 -1' P4,;6,,YC ,47/i ifir Y ") .`'�'Y l^a 'sj . q� . .. r sg4* ''' s •*. x ; om T Pi f - 7` ' xs - 'i:" f .;iy''- k' 7 5 i 44 A4.1 3 t �¢�q/yG^_���•'{ , j 1 t , r' i}TeA t 4b ! ) ,jli .�q;��k,�x�'''.:.'ns' V3 "*4 ji.�"„`4`t �r'1tt4..4 f 4 . i >417' r ,tee ta. a t li'-,.:4%rl.i1Xa,.',-..,'..,.-.Ih.4',.y-;l1 i--, kgg.*.. f J tti e.,Gi,- "f '71,,:ii tt:k :1 i!..� 4'sp•4 ',y .. ':;,j'�r .yjj' `7vr'@• ti.Ny' ksP ..C'' A� •l x t ri `N(?2- 41:4,1i(4,1:LP-04ii.1. 4 .�1,0,iti i $,+b >, z? ,11, i, Syr =. I 4 a .4.444.1'4 ,#•�� a + i4,',.v`''••^"Pi'.. .W L w'. Fr� '` }a J'^' .. 1 i�ate. t' r t ror Sa jJ ,: '�•a9�F�<a u •rY /�a M q' ''' i v;t. �ti�°. . .a, R�+...• •., x M, t� i >..i; j R' 3 1,r aiF 1 x 1 • ,.. ,.., R a.,'- ��J.i,:*$ x 44 •�§, •, 4J ...tauT,ya k,,t;'�ef•"° 4v. q -`, T. J� ''�t :l�sM. 1 ,..,p',4 a 0"�•r"J+�ri'*.44s � 'p • j °"j!�}� -q ti i '• •>+{ t ki" t'i`+•L Y,' a ""r•C.�`B , J +A , 1; d;x , J " '^ 6`,2''.�f.FVS*4*Witt 'e4 i1nta" ... ,'• J' ! .o *"�-• , r :to...b 4i. :..; � _:� A iri 9rtt,£ F rcrt .":' !G #Y. -i. {:xXp'. �" '�`. _ s' t ae' .lt+�r *. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-49 April2004 -i • • s II f K, 1 ••t , r • • ,;, t I 1 ,•,, ,,41° < ,, 7 c. 4. ? A'' fir. �"'�s +liyy.. 't►"t`T�` 'Y '�. ` :' t w gars A x, z. % �. ti4" � • i ij 1 : .a 5 e ' 1 qk.x a t ! ,�-e; Ti EA r t - y ,- J. k 7i.,„ 'Myi; di it }",,"�,fd% l v 3'f� z. ` wt`5 `"+. ,j, '.e _-- •i.�',*f"i z +- 2..,^4� ^shy # "�`l l' ° e } 'Y rtik l R3 i" ,i �n • li .yr` } a 1, 7` « ka a `�j ' h� r � . t - ; �}, � .. ," zq' a`- ' .),-• `" k-s'+ y,••s, 1`k['��4,,z;• Pt ''*-•:•i r,• ,' y'`• f F '»4 t K w"alp t _ k' �, 3 _�6,Y 4; i �Zk %5, 't' z•t I 1 ,_ '. 'i. f' e' i-.t .. 1 w. �� ,„s .✓5� j. .�,is{ hit` ? a ' 1 �t A - ., �A � t ti' a. - _;' 4 1!C;, eq• fi�4+`}�.. ,fft *'�s.n '1t.`y q a `4.,:y' k @� ty�'t e}MT' `kS � f . �tl + { i' ; s tl..H.. t. 3 -,l.fi ,,,. ' a { )� f t 1'a ` �5 �! `t `` k J' S r • zc r ,,s r,, i zil\i ..)),If.'1-T),!;), •, ) R.a- t.iii,Jk'£ I! ill m 4 ° S .+ `4 4 •)1, ! ``' ,, q1 • i 4.•?s}q >v .'a 'y, t-. ,,1 4•4LR ;{�f y,si (it * , $c.'?,'r1 • a}p' • T' C'.k - �+ _' "'4. ,�'�'} � y �'.'` 3# t �ty �"% 1 � it +a z r ,!,s I y.T �'{°�.,�. , wS's. "tit �. T s t c 4 %y 1 i !,+' f k 4 i .iic,: E h!"^+'# ti3, ' 14,14 ( • /t # , 17� -, p'¢,.1,, T' 4 ta',s - 5. f 7, " fii - `4 ,3.�� `4,k1 4 , T7 i �"F v .. �.."r `E' ,�f. .J+ 4"�t4 t C k '` �, `:a•'` �1{s 9' ! 3`" 4 ' t {ai "f T4 'S. < 1 ,-+d *'" ri • ! 1 iR ' . i=1�e,� ''�t .-" ' b -4a , t T d,'M • "fix --1 . SS� ., Vu,� Ti P i�i Y ��' k ? r ! 3 ( ter+ •k.�f.w.� C ' • }i �,4t `.a t ct1,4 - %qt '. t .^sY f �' 1 -+ �. •'%, 41' Iii, -, �-3z .(a`h q 'Writ�T• 6X.r ,k , - �. ' £`� y "sh•y.. r„,-4.5 ‘.. IA. c tirAl ,,,. kote....it:4:. .,,V,74'i,Nif: ' ,'.1.-',2V,T,t,,ir/-. '.. '-. I, .,.r., T. „0„ ' ,.•.• qr !lig,.ik.,' ,1';',*1., ..,.:*;)5, '•41TI.:4-At,‘• ;444- , • R' +s•• fi Cf" e*;'�f`' 1,, .; aH x � g ( { i1 ,'"44. fY !! 11 }'y' f f f(, S ! ; sit` 'y. . ,v, r �r " Es*Vor «,. q •y,; 're f- S tii;.:d; >', a ! ih .+ 1 % ss'. i;..f y' '" y,4 's * i S iy..,,'' ,r,.: a i t y..0y� i:3 r., T F - L. • .e 8 Y:A cry • s • :i : ° " 113, ,-,, ,yy. — 4 i. 1 1 ,, ,„,. ,,,, „„ . ..,, ,4,,,,.0 •:;, ••,,.., ',. , L:-ri-'..'. • ,-.1'1..'1:-: „*.',1 '',,.7 , ��>i ., f # .`�17 C i 't f t s'! a ' 'w4 fit 'c ''J(§.° '. "q'i . ! '',a -11 ; - A� ! t 7 1 •.fit" ;-,g Itt, s, i, ! �? .. '4y';fl t -,` } s t e Pax .-. ,. ; . d.,�f° ' 4 Y Si f A s ,,E.1, P...ri..4 i �Y� jQ�.S� ;� : 'yy�. ��• `. p r�?w�, � K:.itl� A'd� �,:..9'�4�v- w i •rf ° t�.£�Ly,' �` ,.+`+a ,:{Y _ q}' fie: $ L ty -;5•a �3>y Su ,}1�F0` : *d %' g er • �` �f. ,t � 1,,.. t f .r' ' yy` yy� y,. r :Y%,,i ,'�4 1 I- f k 7NM!��]& '. ".'S t . ` ..F.m, ,,r °�jd 01,1, ;it :- ,tii, �t�...b £...._ . dpt '14 „Ala . a. d i �.- .. •�' 'y �1`'9 l.S YS. FF fi F"•`F1'f,^%.G"S � Ci'4L'M@ "�` I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-50 April2004 I I I t • • I ` I I I t 1 .' a y,(n3w, g r}�y 0 T c<,,,S ^<�i. — 'h . arq -t,ivr.4` x ,U Y,Y 7F-111..,r,x"Ite'''"""er it• ' ''-`-#1) " • � : dg i�`S�:Sd�L.> ti ,.., r.f! ? �Sfy"r;?' 4 ?`i L, Y X , �.. >, 7:``�31t- 4:1, s•ir}e 4;1 r ,'.-.`` "6" 6 ,: ems',_,,+•-;,. �� "`-r�s-. ' _;i • • • • r 554-1779-017 City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-51 April2004 • I • t,�E�, i.t.i`.*,i,""f 3 11Y '�,.'.ti�T 7w sr "`r. ir�vart :TIf.-C'.�tiL p�F ,, a3 aY r j d.. t�' s}� �} ,,�.,w it r� t -..tpJ. 41 �... IJ?��.,-�,j- _ - .Tz tX cy-; v4ha' `T-i.^',S ; ii,' s '... fi'kla -, ,c ` , 41*';; , 4--5 . r4 i c fE;r' x' ,, r i 1 I I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779 017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-52 April2004 ! , !--, • • -! , • '1,e1. •triZ,yr(4... ;, . ..e30-,-1,A,,,Tizkt, AYP . .-••••• ••,'•: , , -•.- .._. . . i,---, 2 c).6-L. • : 1 . . • • ,.. . . , ;:...-,,: --,—..„,..,..,eetr..-:.:0•1•,•••;„.;-'•,• ,--•„ .••••- •. ••••••, • ,„ ,• „ ., , ,.:,,•, .,*.43:,.. .,^i:vw.;'."''is,',., ,;.--i',....---41:,:ii)*9-y,:41,1,.i. Port-'-' v--'"endaII Q,......u„. .:,e:•„:.i.,„..:-a:„.,...11.-:•,•••,,,i,••„.:.„..,.::.60tri•mtii•frailiituOl`'-:-''''''• •!•,••?!..- , ,,,.• „ ., .,.. „ „,..„, '',..•., • : ce..vrt th6Spfitdier4IfIdiA,,pAltill.liol:.-":;!, 1,Ilarb0-Mill s sjte„..which sitOttLit,4,`...-:,,. .• ..-'•-;':'::,:,',‘:„C,,,, •.„.',er,-.•.,4, 'Az'-,:,....„,,•i.P,„ . 'I. ., .::,..•.,.:..,,:••:..„:e•.',,.•;.,•: i„::-n By JX00.8,* 161Tor.t4esa1e- ep.a,.r.t, .ie n....i,.e'.....rpt..... 2.,,,,k,t-I•litue„ann,110:Th6.010.w...,.;.. .... . .,,,,... ,..",,,..;64-teore'c:oltl'it.ge'ilistortlint' r.10011,1 tombiallill dotirtiz:..•.,,,,,-,,, kiiit isiate Editoi',.':...:,'••E!ccilitgY it.iiteti':AllOrs f..vmitAllY,'-.., ",,,. '7,•...I3,oi-t,Qstiini41•Co's.. IO',.111ztiP".; '..).',"1'1,.,-,„ : •..,. -•.%:,!.. , I4 i.41.4ttliktt OotriPtlY tittrirre.m„L'ifi'.." •: . "..',I#iorki'alpil.clawm1466.1ilkOgliat..•,q.,, ..:ii.,..- 17.,6tkin';`:P o rt:44P'6\41 1,'"6.., -,t'-:..tri' gith0..lagtitoilitell Pet(v'n11....14P,,s',,.. .',.., d ,the II,S;Army ot"ps q . „agtneer ,°. . ''1,1)teinikatioti to ..$04.'ilt0.,,'akt4 ,,,tbdugh AllOtiiptAtOman/4k..ha!i..%.,L... , ',Omits t 9 stttit:thirl001:WP--.• ' ,. . • -..‘,' -'',- •‘-•i'.' ' - ' ':"..z,-'4,i.:" ' -1) ..,*1 al.-s.iSitit-iiiiatiete,.. • 11Ottet6iiiititiltive'vtt.t5f..0‘6.9iit :1•1o•s,.§111.1ancr.,i..‘.,,,,,.., ,. - •--,- .,-,...,. .' 17:._.,,...".4.4i,„V.., .- gift'., •- it, ty:Ia.,' ,,...„ ..._. . econDITtm, ;.e(trkilAith.eV-4,6iciPi)Tigt4,14.1Y-P16,..c...,i4-19P? ti t .,iitid, - .:4:4,.....eting...:df, ,.;.p.roi r.... ,,„...,.., ' • ' ' ''"*' ,-'llevart nte.nt admints a oc.:. . •:,tutitprn,LaleiNatPlifg10.4,.A 1-r,. . -. P-• Lilt.co.---ii 6 isbil,-a' :" ••f,--beattl-4. .-'' ' . '-' •'- ",:.;.-":- :iliti711,:th'odOntINUIY,Sbitl,,fteklet*;-t.fort,Suejg„. f ik,,, Mr,: - .- ., , ,A.'Werct•,glictilatO,tat*i.ahrs..;.,.i.is,,, , .,-7.?ityp..tk,:iiiii?.1Atm.11-„,$(1.1.i-,, 'cim ' Oa'- • -' - -It ilisthimethosole:- .. PC:'•ininittet that AllititeliAtte` genti',1.',f.. ,j*titivlite,tiiiiit*OtkolicAtE.,,,:-:',ory;lo.W.).G.a.-.t..:,._. .,,, :,, , he liviTs hid pitt aiitfeitetsfor'Alyny .,.......,, , le' Inv that rattnntitnerat.,:-,; -.„ P3-1i.fit`eitii4aidekt:flir'311C9r42: ',FTWil.."t'''''' itt; 'kti,laiirs--'.,,, •;:fek•41-aink:l'e4tort4otl,i#4tetattif,,......-?,1§,crstbutlig,oN:iiirm4,:074*- ,...::, • ;•..,4,24-,..1.!..tlq,,, ,,r,,,7,.. ,.._, . -,kinil..ttiat Port,t/pentlallte4tkAttik-'„;;.;.:!,k46,1k-c*Z•I'lik`Itgo_14.01,15 -014".".:.1f4,1iititthbrti!ttltictl01;.tt t.1.%,,r_ ,,,,,..!.,.....ei• ,..1.7ing:4.clipll'JO 4,';.NI! •1-4 -14..,4,;.:W ' iiigt.ifficktat4>rtgAfrAii,7-,w-mqf.:At-..,:pot1::Q.0,?:1-41,11:ukik,...:.. ? .... LE:i4koleiitibl!,of tht.},ptOpertit,'.,..-;:.-.7.:...,,,,.... :''''7`.:tOart:.610113i.atti011ifgr)?rtlItietii:.'7:,t.`,. i1144.131.64*ti),,Aff:1,417; .'AI)Fli,g_ao.t.d..!1.TO.de,yllorp,Itirdia,..at2„....,:,,,..f. z,,,,,,.., .4'1' tjVIV4 ir...::6Piat 106'45'011'1*''''.4,'W:13f:PIP4i-- ..,‘, At .6-7r1Ph'°' - R ' 't311°:"I'4:1;NIT!'“.q11;.°11-1-tifite'lle-..,4'':2:'• . ‘t.'i,P,114 4 Z7-t.'idthiliirtia':.: .- 1 .AX4;''' '',XPlig 130 .;' ' :1(''''001C ilbr°:),Ptqfg.te,..1.,.. -,' L,',7.,.;.?.,:',".: -,,Y.-KPYIP P. ,.!1),i''' • .:,' .„..••'.,:.:t;'''' ,fcg!'''. :1•• 1 prOe e*'•.31trien0;1454•01.pel;',P404it'ilt:10f.'.•'' '''.,;'' i I‘-ktitne,,d6eiopatifit:II, olt.E 4, .t..4.„,,.., 1. 1 . ,0- . - - 4,.44,...-,;.-if..-so -11i-flagzt.,.. ,••.,'':'ll'ir,:> .ee: >, `':--(srti,) =,;,:is A - „I t lk•L•l'P.), 0 r;FLA.•,''' 41 ,.. ''"'' 'e-: "'.'.';':: ii::'';•Nitz6-,Stpitii.&di:,'lakibit '' Y1):.J1,i'l 4.4:4.;,1, -,,, ,,,..•.11,...1.41.1.#1, rV,,,....,It 4, >ift,i An ,ffill tiii yo, ,,.,:.,,., ''''.`42;e4:;liilt00;•tit•h*WilltlIKIIMP:g•,'‘ , .:?2,::T72'.. ' . , Of ill .a 4 J:Iliaief,z3Miltip ..„41 ..,4;:-;:.••,:`,. ,•,..."0.."*Jyti(Ptlitgdor141,1.: 14 ':•.•-,:: ,,,,:::% : ii:. ,,•' ' ' 5,i? '1, —••,.. - ) '-0.-fr -,P;t:''''''.'-‘-'"".... -',..-,,,•••,,:W., kp;14.6.*:°_,;1;::''''':'•:::-'""1'4.?,,,e.'':''',';',.,'::;;iz...!: 7,',,tia dr -II ' V.:''z'.'.Li',,,,`::-.-.:.,?,,I,'..411W , , bo..,m,.). ,,,,,,-.. ::7314V49111./' lIffl" 148461#11' ' ilit1413:14T,-‘,1..i....;. .- : .the•ii&*Itii°,1,sti:`,,Wz%1M7.9jBh 1.11!%s4A.P;' ' ',- ',. ,"-*'• , °,10ifirei.'tiikeil.„it::fo,'.41tf;,:,:,Vii::.:-.:' 1 1.*kitit'ie.gttltito4igi.tlitaWgik Iiiilli.on,Oqtyp..k.k.211,f+C,,,9ntitils,' t,,,'-‘0PPItatlii',ii tti,Pilit403(tPln4L-444../:E,- 1?;:ditirs'eoltitiril„-laati4t,k.: ::0,fItlef:•.'''',:',.'.4.'''..e.41,tio.rd.04.1ia.401!•.FiS9Yri.0-=' - ''.4,;;distlissr631.bbilitox'.Wfet4Otit)5,/..-„, .. „. - vf.fr#Willineo dealr. roiQuenditifeci..7S'„:11i.4-(ti.T . ...?•:',,.,. -.1"i'.• tricitientittikateali.4,ip IpTh'er,04;,....„;,;:..... ,..1--.•:•::-.Prifie,TI•te:Weitkilivi4*Iiral.igr'1:": ' il1e60,6-iote:•-•-ahlt.':iitiltt'...-r . • , titaddarciptielfoIflogik.e4:112001.1.0t!....,i7:. -1,idetaie-pfitions,;•Ogblifil said .::!: !•,-, . .,.`0.4.' Ivellabb'efe141 c'47k .... t200("2107:651q't3r 1.)y;it• fl`„•,d, :;,:•-i,:-).e.aids::,tom.:' • , --•• ...,. .. , :•,,,.:,. . , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-53 April 2004 1 . - -• ' .-.-- ..' . '- - - • iireflY11> - • .: .. -r • ,- . • . • ' Ga5'lj ei'Si+dif4.841 ... • ':Supeliar Catin Clf•A 5 PO4 , - • IN THE•SOPERIORCOURT OF TIJE'STATE OF WASI lNGTON, - - 7• . . •• INAND FOR KING COUNTY ; ' 8 -STATE OP WASHINGTON'DEARTIv1ENT 4F • • - • • . . . 1 • ECOLOGY; 9. .NO 0" 2 " .1•1.717 9' '$KN7 Plaintiff; 10 PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER CONSENT -. v:- • . • DECREE ' . POI •QUENDALL COWAN'',a Washington "RE:"SOUT,EI in BAXTER • . 12. .corporation; ' .PROPFRTY/RENTON - • . .13 Defendant. " •14 ' ; • f • 16.` • " , , - 17 •_ - • 1$ g " 2U 21' " . . • 22 • • - • • , • • 1. .. - i-- 24 • 25. • ' • 25' - ' ✓✓✓ PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER AT'LQRNEYGB?EItALOPWAS'NWGTON Ecology Division CONSENT DECREE PO Box 401r7. - . So B uth axter - ()Irv*WA 93504.0117` ' FAX.060)438,7743 . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-54 April 2004 . . ,. ,.:. . . „ " , • • • • . . . . . . -:- . ". „.,....:,‘., .,•.:~Property would act•a§security for certain South•Baxter Property cleanup obligations. Upon`entty Of .; 2 this Consent Decree;Consent Decree No.88 2-21599-5 shall be superseded.and'of no further forte 3 and effect,and the May 6, 1992 Renton-Baxter Security Interest Agreement'will be released and of • 4- .no further force and effect: Comprehensive summaries of project area historical information,records - • 5 :and enviranniental.data have been provided in the Draft Remedial Investigation Report(Woodward' • 6, _Clyde;-1990)conducted pursuant'to the 1988 Consent Decree;and iti multiple documents prepared 1 • • - 7 •by TherinoRetec Consulting Corporation from 1997 to present. . • . 1V. DESCRIPTION.OF PROPOSED PROJECT • . • • 9 p acquireProperty(along 41. Defendant ro ses to the:South Baxter g with the North( 10 Baxter Property)to facilitate eventual commercial;urban residential,and/or retail development, " 11. f _ • either independently or as the northern portion of the potential Quendall Landing Development • 12 • Projecf("Project"),including adjacent properties,ivhich could ultimately result in between • ' 13• . ' approximately 400,000 and 3.0 million square feet of development at the north end of Renton. The 14 - 'South Baxter Property,'along with the North Baxter Property is anticipated to include approximately 15 400,000 sq.ft,of development. " 16 42. In 1989,the•City of Rentonbegan workon.development of a Comprehensive Plan 17 ,- • ,• affecting the Property and surrounding properties. Between 1990 and;1993,extensive public ia, i hearings and,meeiings were held,and notification.was provided to.impacted property owners and the '19. general public concerning•Comprehensive Plan land use alternatives and proposed Renton Zoning 20 . 1 • 21. Code arinendments. 1 - 43: In addition,in 1996 and 1997,'an Environmental Impact Statement("EIS")seeping. - 22 . • . process was conducted in association with proposed development of the Facility. This EIS seeping { •- 23,, process involved significant public participation,including mailings,formal comment,and • 24, 1 meetings. 25.,. " } 26 ' • 'PROSPECTNEPURCHASER 9 AfTARNEYGE4114OFWASHI1IGION Ewlogy,D'+Yision • CONSENT DECREE Po.rso.oiye i 1 - 'South Baxter O Pu;wA 93n(40 t7 FAX(3601438.7743 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-55 April 2004 ,-----, . , I .. .... . . . .. . , .: • :' . • . • . . • . . . , -:, -• ' . , , . , • . " , I . . . . . .. . . . . :,•!'' ^ I . - • `34T,I :,jif . 1 ; 44.i Any property development will be completed in accordance with theRentorr . . . .. , . • .- 2.. .Cemprehensive Plan and'area-wide zoning-Center Office Residential designation: Subject to the - 1 • • 3 : requirements of the Baxter MitigationAnalysis Meinorandura;SuCh development will include ' : '--- . 4' -permanent public access to shoreline at the Baxter PropertY. ' • . , • • :.•51 . 45. AnY residential townhomes or condominiums on'the South:Baxter Property Wilt he • ' ' 1 .. . ' 6: .built:I.:firer structural:concrete parking or other sttuctttres,placing the first occupied floor at least one . I ' -' .. -7 level above the-soil. , :• . ,• — . • '. '8' . 46: Two office.buildings(approximately 200,000,square feet each)and associated •- I '_ , parking mai,'be located on the South Baxter Property. The proposed buildings are anticipated to-be ' 10: five stories,or approximately.68 feet tall..Parking may be leCatedas the first floor ale office • , ; _ .11 building or as separate structures. . , . I . . . , 1 . • - 12 47. The.development would be designed to take advantage of the desirable location of ' .13 the South Baxter Property and Will minimizeadverse environmental impacts. Redevelopment will -..' -. 14. -facilitate.permanent public access to the shoreline(through a gravel walking ft-Zinn:the inland edge 15 of Shoreline enhancements and observation Stations);,create a connection to existing recreational.* . . I .. _. -16:: trails,and'create,transportation and parking improvements„ . • 17 ' 48. Development of the South Baxtei•PropertYis-eXpeeted to crate a signiffcent number- 1,8. of well-paying jobs and spur development in the north eminfRenttin. Substantial,tax revenues 19 would be generated to benefit Renton and the state of*a.liitigton7. . 1 . 1 . 20 • 49., , Defendant has complied with the State Environmental Policy ("SEPA"). „ . • ,21.i environmental review requirernents.for the proposed remedial actionsin be Performed:„ Coloor has 1 1 : . . .. . . . 22,• been established as•the agency lead pursuant to SEFiA.•The SEPA Mitigated Determination of 23 .NOnsignificanee and Envireinmental Checklist are attached as Attachment 4. • 1 1 ' A . . . 1 '25 , " • . ,., .i , i, - • ,. • ) .26 ' . ' - _. . . PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER • - HY _ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHiNGTON ' 'CONSENT DECREE . • ,- Ecology Diyision • , , FO Box 40117 - .South Baxter . Olympia;WA 96,504-oi Ir. . . .: .m4360)438,7:741 , . . .. . . . . . .. L-- 1 ---- r 1 . . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779- 17 ' Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-56 April 2g04 1 - -- . . . . . ... . • . . . . , ••• . • ',' . . . .. '... '.'.. -.. ..: •. . , " • , . . . . , `. , •., . . . , . . • . . . . 1,. •• , -•::•,-.'` . . • • . V. WORT<TO ilt.PEAV. GRMED . . . . . 2 50. Upon the Effeetive Date of this Defendant will perform the Cleanup Action . . . Plan described in Attachment B,including all attachments thereto,according.to the schedule 4 provided therein-. Defendant shall submit as:built doomnentatien to Ecology to verify construction of .,•, ‘ , . - the cleanup and mitigation-nail:Ms.reqUired bY the Cleanup Action Plan: Cleanup activities include" . . . .. 6 sonrce.temediation,site grading to facilitate site redevelopment,soil capping,wetland mitigation, .. . : . . . and-con.firmatiOnal groundwater monitoring:Source remediation includes removal of NAPL from . , welts-(13AX-14),sedithent and soil excavation and Off-site treatment Ur disposal,and in situ soil -- 9 mixing(Stabilization).-SourcereMediatiOn activities will.occur at prescribed locations according to . , in the Clearrup.Action Plan. Coordination between site cleanup and redevelopment would minimize disruption to the surrounding community,. As such,the actual-schedule for site cleanup may vary to , . • 12, facilitate this coordination. . • • . - • :. • . 13'. 51. Defendant agreeinot to perform any remedial actions for the release of Hazardous • . , -•. .14. Substances covered by this bectvg,other than those required by.this Decree,unless the parties agree . • is .to amend fife Decree tof cOveriliese actions. All work conducted Under this'Deereeshall beidone in , 16;S aCcordancemith Chapter-173-346WAC onlessOthenVise provided herein. All work conducted • - ,.. 17 pursuant to this Decree thall be done pursuant to the cleanup level's Specified in the Cleanup Action ,-- Plan(Attachntent13). ' - ' 19. 52: Defendant agrees to.record the Restrictive Covenant(Attachment C)WitlitheOffiCe • ,-- 1 ; .20 of the King County Recorder:14)0i completion of the capital portion of the cleanup Action.Plan,and • 21 :.'shall.proVideEcologYwitlipieof Of such recording within thirty(30).days.of recording. . . . ' . , . 22 • - - VI ECOLOGY COSTS . .. „ ; _i • - .. - , . 23 53. -Defendant agrees to pay all oversight costs incurred by Ecology pursuant-to this . , .. 24 Decree: The oversight payment obligation shall not include costs already pnid,pursuant to the ; . „ . . .25 ',Prepayment Agreement entered:between Ecology and JAG Development Inc,dated October 2,ipg , • • . _,) 26 1 Theoversight costs required to be paid under this Decree shall include work performed by Ecology . .. : •PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER 11 ATTORNEY GiatfiliL Of WASPIDIGION . .' CONSENT.DEtREE • Ecology Division ; , PO Box 40117 SOuth Baxter- • Olympi,WA 985040117 . , • . PAX(360)438.77,43 : . . . ' . . :-! , . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat ( t Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-57 554-1779-017 April 2004 , , I :• ' .., . . . :S,•:" • . - • .i. . • " . . . . s I 1 ^ • . . . • ' . . '' ,,,,• .. .:-, , , • „ . . . , •!--.?..,•;"7.)•;.. . 1 107.' Hike Court withdraws its consent,this Decree shall be nitll and void at the option of .-:...:•::..-: -.. - N-,,,,,,rF .. ., • . -• •g. ay party, 6ccochtiaiiyitig Complaint shall be diimitied without costs and without prejudiee. . . „ 3 in suchan event,no party shall be bound by the requirements of this Decree. ._ . . ' • • 4: XXXL SEVERABILITY 1 1 ... ,. . • -'-5 • 198. If MY section,subiection;sentence;or Clause of this Agriement is found to'be illegal, ••• . 6 invalid,or unenforceable,such illegality,invalidity,or=enforceability will not affect the legality,. • i 1 . • 1, validity,or enforceability of the Agreement as a whole or of any other section,subsectinn,sentence, •• .8 or Oause. : . . , 1 . . . - . 9• . XXXII. EktilECTIVE DATE 10 10. The Effective Date of this Decree is the fmal date When both thisDecree•has been . . I . .- ,11 ; entered.bythe Court and the closing of the property purchase is completed as defined in the Property • • 12 Purchase Agreement between Port Quendall Companyand,I.H.Baxter 4 Co. '11 SO OIMERED thii i&/7'day of • /1w-21_ .2000. ' , . c„.., • 0 . i4. . . . s , . . , ,s. .. . . • . 'Judge,King:County Superior COurt , • 16 . ei• -•-•,-,'to••••,,),•••••••;.4“--y.,...,..-. p P.O.TOO.- ' . —• The undersigned parties•enter into this Prospective Ptitchaser Consent Decree en the date ' 17: ' , . 18 siledied Wow. ,. -.. . , . , • ,,, PORT QUENDALL COMPANY,a ' ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE • , I .. 1 7•' W.4011ngtOli C01170tAiOn J ' BY.:' I • AlCe//ei•049—BY: . 71rericr: e'' z*,1,..ii , 21. 'Herne, Aegy r:. infl,ei-Ar n Pate: /177"12 242co PrintedName: 71 001.f.< 6 /171tit6j/ i Date: /Y/ef• ,,c .7640 23 . - . ./ . • • •• . DEPitiamENT OP ECOLOGY . • .. . 24 - . . , • - Ety: - . Printed Name: 1 • 25• Date: çfiç ..-• . 26: . , . • . ... ) , . ' PROSPECTIVE PURCHAgER 27 ATTORNEY'GEBERAL OF WASHINGTON ' - CONSENT DECREE Ecolory Divisiox . 1 • • PO Box 401 y7 I South Baxter Olympia,WA 9850O-0117 . • . . . FAX(360)433-7143 • . , •• . 1 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 1 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-58 April 2004 1 I 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • m �,,.p • • • . LETTER OF DECEMBER.16,2002 • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-59 April 2004 I l • FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFEL.MhN PLLC ATTORNEYS` . -PAT L A T 4` • • • direct.Phone December 16,2002 (206)447.2901• tnleeb Facsimile (206)749-2035 VIA'FACSIMILE AND r-atan HAND DELIVERY Wotrc@teater.com• --! LesleyNishTira,Project Manager Renton City'Ilall,6`b Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 I I � Re: EIS Scoping Comments, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Application rail TatRn Dear Lesley: AvaNvt Saite3400 --' -We are writing on behalf of our clients,Vulcan Inc. and.the Port..Quendall- SSAY,rst. Comtpany(collectively,"PQC'). PQCowns three properties within the COR-2 Zone Washington in Renton, known as the "North J.H. Baxter property, the "South Jill. Baxter 9F:o:-1:9y property;.!,and the Abode.property"(the"PQC Properties"); These properties Tsrephn:,e I are located north and ,east, respectively, of the Barbee:Forest Products, Inc. (Y00447-4400 (Sal-heel property. A PQC representative was.present'in Renton City.Hall at the F&C,r,Atre (xo,6)5477970o I , EIS.pirblie scoping Meeting Otte evening of December 10. webslo _ } WtaW.a 9 RT**.COM -- PQC supports the City's' decision •to require an environmental impact . statement(PIS")for the'Barbee.Mill preliminary plat application(the"Application" or"Project")and provides.comments belOw on the'scope.:of the EIS. The,major thrust of the;these comments is that the goals and potential:development,of all areas zoned COR-2 ('COR-2 Area') Will have a prominent role in land:use decision- making for the Project;therefore; to enable the City to engage in cogent decision- - Making;the.ElS should be carefully designed to account for the larger environmental and development context in Which=theProject'is situated. AHCt�OIACR Ataaha. Incorporationof Previous Comments, 7o.71.AN a r i I Oregon ! - We-provide this,letter in addition to our earlier comment'letters, which We- request be incorporated-herein. Our letter dated September 26,-2002 (attached SRATTLR Weabintton ! hereto),provides a thorough analysis of the City's.legal authority to consider COR-2 Area'goals and development when undertaking land;use decision-making for the s.oc,�tx I -i .Project. As.noted,the City has the legal authority,if not mandate,to'insure that the Wash'e4t°" Project's'direct and cumulative impactsdo.not constrain the development"potential'of ' 606261202 -- j I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-60 April 2004 I � • • • December 16,2002 • Page 2 the PQC Properties or have negative impacts on the surrounding_environment in the COR-2 Zone. In short, the letter explains the City's legal authority to require the EIS to be scoped broadly to include a thorough analysis of potential cumulative impacts. In our.cotantent letter dated May:30,2002 (attached hereto),we listed certain potential • cumulative impacts within the scope of"the Project's environmental review. We request that the Barbee Mill EIS include analysis of all of the potential cumulative impacts'.raised in that letter,as . summarized below: 1. Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and fisheries from ,combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quendall Terminals and Baxter properties. . • 2.. - Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property,Lake Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainage conveyances be possible • through the Barbee Mill property,or must discharges occur on'May Creek adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard? 3. ' Cumulative impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife from development of the: . • Pan Abode and Barbee Mill properties; , • ' 4. .Cumulative impactsto Lake Washington water quality from Barbee Mill property development in conjunction with development of adjoining properties and . construction and post2construction activities associated with any road system improvements. . 5. Cumulative impacts to Wetlands and stormwater within the COR-2 Zone from any access and roadway improvements,which could constrain access options and• natural resources on:adjoining properties:. - , • To the degree possible-based•on the general nature of the pending•appication,the.Barbee' EIS should also•contain analysis,Of'the potential specific onsite;impacts that were listed in.our May 30;2002,•latter.t l:Specific onsite impacts listed in May 30,2002;•letter: 1. Offshore wood.waste cleanup,as well as related water quality and fisheries issues for species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. ' 2. Lake Washington shoreline issues,including reconstruction of the bulkhead,_debris removal,shoreline enbancementor restoration,and related water quality,habitat,and fisheries issues: 3.•Impacts of any over-water constiuctian(if proposed),including related fisheries and habitat issues. . 4. Issues related to:impacts of light,•human disturbance to lakeshore fish habitat. 5. Issues,nelate,d to wildlife,including salmon,trout,long-fin smelt,bald eagle and osprey nest. • 6. Issues related to Muckleshoot Indien•Tribe•fishing grounds. • `- 7. Stormwater treatment and discharge issues,including water quality impacts to Lake Washington.. • . 8..Issues related to impacts onIylay Creek an Lake Washington from on-site construction;assurance of • adequate buffers pursuant to federal;state and local regulatory requirements: 9. Issues related to wetlands management,impacts and mitigation if fill takes place. • • 10358618.02 • City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-61 April 2004 • � f { • December 16,2002 • ,. Page 3 • Our previous letters also described the development-enabling activities undertaken and in process on the PQC properties,including clean-up of environmental.contamination, The first portion of the South Baxter cleanup was completed in a timely fashion in late October. The. remainder of the South Baxter,cleanup will be completed in:the spring and summer of 2003: PQC isparticularly sensitive to the possibility that the Project will be developedin a manner that •• limits the development potential ofPQC's properties. Scope of the EIS • PQC generally concurs with The Committee's.EIS"areas of discussion"as listed in the Notice of Determination of Significance issued for the Project, as well as recommendations" within the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ("Staff Report")'of November 5, 2002. All EIS Sections should include,a thorough and detailed analysis of the COR:2 Area .environment. This analysis should figure most prominently in the following EIS Sections:. • ' transportation; water'resources; land,use;.shoreline.and critical areas; socioeconomics;. and: public services and utilities... It is within the legal authority of the City to require analysis of these,COR-2 Area issues,and the City will find this analysis to lie of utmost importance for• future decisionmaking.ori the land use permits,required:by the Project. • In particular,the transportation section of the EIS:should contain an analysis of all afire roads in the,area, but.particularly the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd.intersection,(the: "Intersection"), under reasonable development assumptions for the remainder of the entire. COR-2.Area It is recognized by:all parties involved-that the Intersection and the I-405- interchange will inhibit future development in the COR 2 Area.As the Staff Report implies,it is; crucial that the City hilly understand the effect of fultbuild-out of the COR 2 Area,so that can properly and ,equitably.:apportion the Project its;share on tie. 2 Area's• development` • potential. At the December 10 EIS moping meeting, this.point`•was also made by Project neighbors from the Kennydale neighborhood. The railroad crossings that will provide access to.the Project are a.second transportation, issue.. The City has indicated that its code requires the crossings to be accessible to pedestrian as • well as;vehicular traffic 2 The EIS should examine the,impacts to railroad traffic•of the new • crossings as well as the safety issues,inherent in'mixing:pedestrians,.vehicles,and trains in the. same location. Furthermore,there is some question'as•to whether the southern railroad crossing, will be acceptable to the City,3 The'EIS should.examine,.as an alternative,the impact ofliaving only.one access point to the Project . • { .2 Memorandum from Juliana Sitthidet to Lesley Nrsh�7iara,betober:7;2002,;page 2. 3 This is because Barbee's easement.over the railroad at that point is revocable.upon 30-days notice, See.City of .Renton Environmental Review Committee'Staff ReportlDetermination'of Significance,November 5,2002,page 10. 5033$6t&02 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-62 April 2004 • December 16,2002 Page 4 - • As,various Kennydale neighbors carefully noted on December 10, the shoreline and critical areas section of the.EIS will play a particularly important role in further permit decisionmaking. We concur with the conclusions reached by Andrew C. Kindig in his letter detailing his review of die Biological Assessment submitted by Barbee.. The EIS should contain a complete analysis of the impacts of the,development, including cumulative impacts, on the Lake Washington shoreline and':May Creek. This analysis.should be based on the assumption 'that the PQC properties wilt be developed. In particular, the development of the Pan Abode property will potentially impact May Creek Thus, as stated in our May 30.letter,the Project impacts on May Creek should be analyzed in tandem with potential future Pan Abode impacts on May Creek. The same analysis holds true for the shoreline section: the future•build-out of the Baxter properties'should be.included in the'analysis of the Project's impacts on the Lake Washington shoreline. Soil contamination is another issue that should receive particular scrutiny in the EIS. As indicated in the Determination of Significance,the site is known.to contain soils,contaminated with arsenic and zinic:4 The.Quendall Terminals:property to the immediate north is also known to contain contaminated soils and groundwater,and cleanup negotiations are underway with,the Department Of Ecology. As noted.in the Staff Report,further analysis and consideration of the proximity and levels of adjacent contamination should be set forth in the'ETS. • ` Finally,-as Mr:Kindig noted in his letter;there is a substantial,amount of COR:2 Area information contained in the Department of Ecology record for the ongoing Baxter property site remediation. This information is readily available from the Department of Ecology The Barbee EIS drafters should review and incorporate portions of this record, as,appropriate,within the shoreline,critical area,and Native American sections.• Tha ik you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the ProjectEIS. Please keep us.inforrned of your further review.activities.and determinations. Sincerely yours, cee,„ae : Charles R.Wolfe. Enclosures cc: AdaM.Healey,Vulcan Inc. Clint Chase,Vulcan Inc. 4 id.at4.• 5033808 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-63 April 2004 • If • • • • . � irt%tve fDCTj ! ii.. , .x TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, INC. DEIS REVIEW LETTER City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-64 April 2004 �+ • • • • ISId ' Transpo Intions,Inc. • k 8250.165th Avenue NE September 29,2003 Suite i00 Redmond,WA 98052.5628 T 425.883.1134 F 425-887.0898 www.tsinw.com Charles R.Wolfe Foster Pepper and Shefelman,PLLC 1111 Third Avenue,Suite 3400 Seattle,Washington 98101-3299 Subject: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat—Draft Environmental-Impact Statement Dear Mr.Wolfe, Thank you for.asking Transportation Solutions,Inc.(TSI)to review.the transportation element of the Barbee Mill,Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement.This review is intended to examine'impacts and mitigation related to the proposed preliminary • . plat;both alone and in context of the other.COI-2 zoned properties in the area. We understand these properties include the Baxter properties and the Pan Abode property- which are collectively owned and managed by your.client;Port Quendall Company., These.properties are intended-tube redeveloped with some combination,of a-mixed-use development that could the potential for as much as 400,000 square foot of office space on the Baxter properties alone. ,Background and Qualifications' As you TSI is n transportation consulting firm that specializesJ,in;short-range transportation planning and traffic operations.engineering. A majority of our-practice involves analyzing the environmental impacts associated with private and public., development proposals..,Our staff combines over:sixty years,of experience.and 600 such analyses. Traffic impact.analyses have been performed.on projects.that range from small single-family developments to:complex,phased public and institutional projects 'including universities,-planned recreational developments and stadia. This experience: has provided'us with a comprehensive understanding of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA).and the.application of these policies to analysis of transportation conditions associated with new-development. We have not been involved with the analysis or review of traffic issues,for your client's property or other COR 2 zoned property in this area.prior:tothis review. Approach - Our review of.this analysis-included a review of the Draft Eiivironmental:Impact Statement and other EIS;scoping.correspondence. The.transportation element and the project description were our focus in the DEIS.. We assurrie.this document contained.all Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-65 April 2004 f ii 1 s., , Tramps . .,[" moons,inc. : i of the technical analysis since a separate technical report was not included in_the appendices as were technical reports for the floodplain,water resources,terrestrial plants and animals and aquatic species. We first examined the overall approach to"the . transportation analysisand then addressed individual assumptions,analysis, ,__, documentation,and findings in this analysis. Overview We found the.general approach used in evaluating the transportation impacts to follow generally acceptable analysis methodology for evaluation of the impacts Of an individual -, development project ' Despite an adequate general approach,we found.several assumptions,and internally inconsistent comments that leave the ultimate impacts and,more importantly,their _- mitigation•uncertain and unresolved.Many of these issues related to-Me cumulative impacts'of off-site road"improvements and most particularly,effective and equitable. ' resolution of the rail crossing. We believe these items should be addressed with more detail so.that the applicant,the City,other affected public agencies like the Washington State Departmentof Transportation,and Port Quendall Company understand the extent of the impacts of this:project, More importantly,these issues:need to be,understood to . , ensure suicient'certainty that mitigation measures will be implemented in order to be in place to sufficiently off::set.the identified impacts. 1 f Specific Concern's 1 As.noted above,the analysis lefta number of questions that seemedto be uirresolved. j Some issues may be simply explained while others may require additional analysis:. 1 _-- 1 Site Access—.There are several aspects of the site,access that raise,questions that'warrant I clarification or analysis. The site plan'shows two•access.pointsoverthe Burlington i NorthetiRailroad The_southerly access connects'directly with the.project via a bridge J over May Creek.'Thenortherly access appears to extend north across:an adjacent private. property. The only reference•as to how this-might occur was found in Paragraph 3 of j 1 section.3.5:2:6 which indicates"The proposed northerly access to:the site on Ripley Lane would require dedication of a public street-over the property to.the:noiih:" `Sonic' • explanation of how.this-northerly access.is viable should beprovided if the proposal. f actually calls.for two access points: I could not find any-reference to an agreement.for , 3.5-3 the use of the property to thenorth for the purpose of a public:road. If there is such•an i . I agreement it should bee documented. If such access is not available,an analysis describing how a single.access to-the proposed plat-is compliantwith•city emergency' ' vehicle access requirements;for'aplat of this size and configuration,and`should include 1 review by the City Fire:Marshall. • ' ' - , Charles R.Wolfe Page 2 September 29,2003 . I 1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-66 April 2004 , 1 i • J ' • Transpo owl `o utions,Inc. • If the northerly access is to be used by the Barbee Mill plat,then it seems logical that • 3.5-4 some of the traffic generated by the project should use the access. The traffic assignment shown on Figure 3.5-6 shows that no vehicular traffic is using the northerly access. The travel time for.some of the northerly residences will be shorter that use of the southerly access. There does not appear to be any use restriction to this northerly access considering the applicant proposes these streets to be public roads. Since.all the roads are'proposed to be public roads,we assume the northerly access will. be shared with:properties to the north It therefore seems logical that some reciprocal. A ' access between the northerly,properties and the Barbee Mill southerly access will be involved. A cumulative impact of the shared and cumulative use of these access points by the northerly properties should therefore be examined,particularly in relation to the operation of the site'access at"Lake Washington Boulevard. Scope of Analysis;The traffic operations analysis included the intersections shown on Figure 3.5-1. If the intersections at the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps were examined with 4% 3.10-1 of the project traffic(see Figure 3.5-5),then it seems logical that the ramps'at Exit 9. (Lake Washington Boulevard)should also be examined since that location serves altnost twice the volume(7%). The criteria for identifying study area intersections should be described•and uniformly applied: We assume.the,city's traffic impact analysia guidelines focus on the afternoon peak. traffic period since that was the only time period amlyzed. Since congestion in the vicinity:of I 405 interchanges during morning commute periods is well documented,it seems appropriate that.AMpeak period traffic conditions also he analyzed,at bast for the B intersections at 1-405 interchanges and the road network between the site and Ii405 along Lake Washington Boulevard. Although specific plans for the development of the.other COR"2 zoned properties have not been established,some general assessment of the development potential on;the Baxter • 3.5-13 Sites was identified by the Department of Ecology as being up to 400,000 square feet of offiice.space. Because traffic volumes for such development could be substantial and are likely to have patterns that arc different from those of the Barbee Mill development,the cumulative impacts of this potential development should be analyzed even though it is not an•officialpipeline-projecct.'This analysis is significant because the mitigation • necessary to.offset the cumulative impacts could be substantial.,I;f mitigation-is not F• shared equitably,it could reduce or foreclose development of the remaining COR 2 properties. . • Traffic Operations Impacts—As part Of the level-of-service impacts,it seems • appropriate that the project.and cumulative analysis'show a queuing analysis along Lake A Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street in the vicinity of the I-405 interchange. Since • several of the intersections are very closely spaced in this area,a queue from one • Charles R.Wolfe Page 3 September 29,2003 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-67 April 2004 , I TI y 'franspo ;, {st an%Inc. , intersection could preclude ingress or egress in the vicinity of Ripley Lane/Lake ' Washington Boulevard. I 1i We assume the City's level-of-service standard is to have intersections operate at LOS D 3.5-22 orbetter. This should be confirmed and included in the report. - j Transportation Concurrency-We could not find any reference to Transportation �_ 3.8_1 Concurrency compliance. Under the Growth Management Act;sach'compliance is necessary. We suggest such a quantitative analysis be included in thee'transportation • analysis. . Rail-Crossing-The discussion of the rail crossing was very confusing. The project proposes two public rail'crossings;one'poteiitially located atone'of two alternate I southerly access points and the'other to the north across.a private parcel for which the I applicant apparently does not have any access.agreement or public road. The rill - 'crossing.discussion goes on to suggest that the Burlington Northern Railroad.will likely consolidate the private crossings that exist today and that the State Legislature desires, 1 . crossings to be grade-separated. These BNRR'and WSDOT praetices-are.consistent with our experience on other projects: The discussion suggests that grade separation could . result in consolidation of the private access,points,which presumablycouldinvolve eihriination of the southerly Barbee Mill access. Such access consolidation could , 3.9-2 substantially change travel patterns for'the Barbee Mill Property other properties in the immediate area. i Alone,the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat does not apparently warrant,a grade separated j I crossing. Yet the discussion implies that a grade-separated''crossing is likely at some 1 -! future date and the most feasible location is"near Ripley Lane' The discussion indicates that such a grade crossing would require a substantial reconfiguration of the Lake , Washington.Boulevard/RipIy Lane intersection.•We presume some`similarly.substantial ' modification would,'need fo occur on the west side of the Burlington Northern.Railroad , tracks: This would seem.to adversely impact client's property'and severely'reduce s their developinerit pote•ntial due toacquisition•of right of way,for the:grade separated , portion of the crossing.on the'west side of the Burlington Northern,Railroad.tracks. The 1 proposed mitigation:that,rail crossing;issue'.can he resolved with a crossing"at the.north. 3.5-8 endof the Vulcan property' assumes your client agrees with this plan=`Like ttie northerly site access issue addressed above,we believe.some'agreement:with..yo`ur client for such a ! crossingshould be in. lace.before'the a licant. r ses:srich Mitigation.:Suicethe, p. pP p� . . '. .. � i l Barbee.Mill,Plat.is intending to access Ripley Lane as.part of their`proposal;.it:seems appropriate that a:much more definitive plan for•consolidated rail crossings,be e.plored and formal application'with die.WUUTC'be`tnadeLbefoie env rc n ntal review is completed:'More portantly;wehtlieve•a mor'e'iiefiii ti_ve miriitigation plan be developed particularly if a'gtaile-'separated crossing is even '``' l Charles R.Wolfe Page 4 September 29,2003 i 1 I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-68 April 2004 - I Tampa i fi 3`0 utions;Inc. • Accidents and Safety—The discussion indicates that vehicle crashes were reported at only four intersections in the study area over the past three years. This seems like a very limited number of accidents. Was there some arbitrary cut-off point? We would be 3.5-23 interested in the basis for the intersection accident standard of 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. Rail Safety—This discussion refers to types of accidents and to a website but never indicates if there has been an accident in the immediate vicinity of the_site or at other 3.5-22 locations along this rail line that have similar vehicle volumes. Additional quantitative information about crash history and the typical length,of the trains now using this line instead of providing hypothetical examples is recommended. Cumulative Impacts—This qualitative discussion does not provide the level of analysis that seems consistent with the COR-2 zoning and only refers to the minimum potential when suggesting the vehicular.impact. As disclosed,"Additional development would generate a.need for additional access points,or geometric and signal improvements at 3.5-25 existing intersections." Given that cleanup activities are underway on your_client's. property,it seems'reasonably likely that development to the level reported in,the Department of Ecology decree will occur in the foreseeable future. This would seem to justify such cumulative analysis: Without such a cumulative-analysis,it is likely that available capacity is;usurped by the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat which limits.,the amount of additional development that can occur without major improvements: Mitigation—'The.mitigation analysis does a very good job of illustrating how the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat alone is in compliance with design standards and warrants. The 3.5-25 approach states and implies that other major improvements are'necessary ,As indicated above,considering that the effect of this mitigation could be.to..substantially change access:serving this entire area,particularly the property west of the Burlington Northern railroad,a comprehensive.and more definitive cumulative analysis seems warranted. -Possibly'more'significant is the potential for the cost;of the,more major improvements (e.g:traffic signals,•intersection widening,freeway ranip modification,and reconstruction of interchanges)to render redevelopment of your client's property financially A impractical. Such:major improvements can be.contrasted with-the types of mitigation proposed by the applicant(e.g.,stop signs and lane extensions). There are general references to a sharing of costs through some future agreement: Our experience.suggests that post development cost sharing agreements never work as intended.,Ari approach that does work and which could be considered is for the Barbee A Mill Preliminary Plat to prepare a comprehensive analysis Of traffic impacts and mitigation. This could include a phased mitigation and implementation plan with a latecomer's agreement so Barbee developers are reimbursed for any disproportionate mitigation costs. Such a corresponding commitment orpredictable mechanism for • sharing the cost of the necessary mitigation is absent Considering the significance of the Charles R.Wolfe Page 5 September 29,2003 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-69 Apri12004 I � TS' • l TranspoF, talons,toe. poteritiatmitigation,it seems appropriate that these issues be addressed concurrent with the Barbee"Mill Preliminary Plat. I trust this provides you and your client with a better understanding of the implications of thetransportation.analysis presented in the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement If you.have other questions,I welcome your call. Sincerely, Transportation Solutions,Inc. I � • David D.Markley - Principal - Copy:Clint Chase,Vulcan• j1 j I�t t _ I ` I I �I Charles R.Wolfe Page 6 September29,2003 ' Ali City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-70 April 2004 i i • • • • • • • • O' j oC • lol'�' ,,7 A.C. KINDIG& CO DEIS REVIEW LETTER Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-71 April 2004 1 z - � A.C. Kin4ig & Co. P NVlKONtiSEhTALCCiJSL1LT,NG, ; 32501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210 Bellevue;Washington 98005-2509 Tel 425 638 0358 Fax 425 455-8365 September 25,2003 Project No.199 Mr-.Clint Chase Vulcan Northwest 505 5th Avenue S.,Suite•900 - Seattle,WA'98104 RE: Barbee Mill DEIS Review ' � I Dear Clint, This letter is my review of the DEIS for the Barbee Mill. Preliminary Platby Parametrix,dated September,2003. .Previously,I had reviewed the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Biological Assessment prepared by Raedeke Associates,Inc.on August 20,2002,which included review of the Environmental(SEPA)Checklist received by Renton on April 5,2002 and,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Permit Review:Plans prepared:by.Otak;I uorporated,dated August 27,.2002. That.prior review was::prepared for the City of.Renton(dated,October 21,•2002), Some elements of this review draw from or copy text from my prior review,where still relevant to the current proposal as described in-the DFJS: For convenience,this letter contains My complete review of the DEIS,and there is no need to reference back:to the October 21,,2002 revieiv. This is an independent.review of.the IRIS as requested by Vulcan Northwest. My:review perspective assumes the SENA documentation'needs to be.technically - sufficient to support permitting decisions and environmental review obligations of the;.City of Renton for this project This review includes consideration of - biologicnlly-baSecf cumulative impact issues that I perceived to be interrelated with or dependent upon the proposed project. —r • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-72 April 2004 • • • 4 Mr.Clint Chase September 25;2003 Page 2 • Project Summary-Key Features for the Review Based on the DEIS,:the action alternative,named Proposal("current proposal of the applicant") includes the following actions that were important to my consideration(see page 2-1 of the DEIS): 1. Termination .of mill operations and associated activities, including dredging of May Creek. 2. Demolition and'removal of "the existing Barbee Mill facilities, including all buildings,asphalt surfaces,and other associated structures"(DEIS AppendixC page C-9). This exdudes one of two existing bridges over Mill•Creek,to be improved as a pedestrian crossing,and existing docks and a boathouse at the southern-most portion of the property(DEIS,Figure 2:1-1).,Note:the DEIS indicates two existing bridges would be retained for pedestrian use on page 3-39;I assumed the latter to be an error since a second pedestrian bridge.is not • shown in Figure 2.1-1 reflecting the parent proposal,.and demolition of a second bridge is described on page C;10 in Appendix C and on page 3-14 of the DEIS). . 3. Grading of the.site.as needed for plat.improvemenis and the construction of 115 residential homes. 4. Creation of 24,residential lots, bulkheads or armoring.along 16;to 17 residential lots fronting Lake,Washington (DFTS page I-9),and tip to 16 private docks.along:Lake_Washington with 25-foot building setbacks in the following three.categories: • a. 16residential lots extending out into Lake Washington to the inner harbor line;which is Ate Washington State Department of Natural Resources.(DNR)ownership boundary(lots 31 through 44,91,and 92, DEIS: Figure 2.1-1), including one individual. dock .per developed Jot for.up to'16,additional docks (DEIS..;page 1-9 and • page 2.3);all 16 lots are expected to require bulkheads for shoreline protection due to the 25-foot proposed building setback(DEIS page 1-9 and page.,2-3); and no restrictions to lot landseaping to the water's edge are proposed; . b. 8. lots extending toward the Lake Washington shoreline but terminating at.the inner harbor line which traverses.uplands at this location;.leaving DNR-owned uplands between the shoreline and the residential lots(lots 23 through 30);and c. Lot 23,which includes one corner extending into Lake Washington but is excluded from the lots that could support private docks by AC Ktndig 6z Co. • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017 • Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-73 April 2004 • • • .Mr.Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page 3 • the DEIS (which specifies up to 16 docks only); however the Lakeshore portion of this lot is assumed to also require bulkheads ' • _ for shoreline protection per the DEIS'(page 1-9). 5. Creation of a public walkway "directly at the water's edge" of.the Lake • Washington Shoreline for'700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May ; Creek,requiring bulkheading orarmoring(DEIS page X39); 6., Creation of Tract C "open•space", also extending towards the Lake Washington shoreline but terminating at the DNR ownership boundary, leaving DNR,owned,uplands between,the shoreline and Tract C The applicant has not defined a public access program or description of use for Tract C,but-the DEIS presumes public access,is developed through this area to the Lake Washington-shoreline through Tract C 7. Presumed "Use of the public "Lake.Washington) shoreline waterarard of the inner harbor line for general public use"(DEIS page 3-S9). 8. Creation of "public walkways or trails...presurned;..through•the buffer area along:May Creek"(DEIS pages 3=39;same use described on page:2 3); Note: • this is counter to'the last bullet on page 2 1 of the DEIS which.says no trails, walkways or public access are currently proposed.along the May Creek corridor or • .the shoreline-it is assumed the analysis on page 3-39 is':a correct reflection of the proposal: • 9. Creation of a May Creek buffer averaging about 50 feet and ranging from 20 to 100 feet planted with native species to provide forest cover (DEIS Appendix C page C-9); 101 Construction of two new stormwater outfalls from stormwater quality treatment ponds, discharging to:.Lake Washington at.an invert 0.5 feet . below the MLLW'of the lake (DEIS Appendix,C page C-13). ,The water quality Bond serving the area north of May Creek would discharge to Lake Washington through.the Tract C.open space and' '(presumably) through-the public lands to the lakeshore by easement(WQ1 outlet shown in:Figure 3.2-4). The second new outfall would discharge to Lake Washington at the southern end of'the mouth of May Creek(WQ2,outlet • shown in Figure 3.2-4). A.number of.possible mitigation actions are describedthroughout the.DEIS, however it appeared that none of the mitigation actions beyond the averaged 50- ffoot huger'of May Creek and stormwater treatment per the King County Design MManual requirements were partof the current proposal. • A.C.kincJig&CCi. • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-74 April 2004 - ; i • Mr.Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page 4 • • • It is evident that Parametrix found it necessary to make some assumptions about land-uses where they were not otherwise,provided for their analysis. This ,included for example, presumptions about use of 'public lands along Lake Washington,activity in Tract C,activity in the May Creek corridor,and planting of the May'Creek buffer'With native vegetation(see page 3-13 of the DEIS). I assumed the DEIS'presumptions reflect best understanding of the current proposal. . DEIS_Iteview Comments ` • 1:',The structure:of the DEIS made'it very difficult'to understand what comprised the current;proposal. `A full description of the proposal was • scattered through the various chapters and appendices: A sir unary of A affected e•nvironment, impacts, and mitigation (Chapter 1) preceded •summary description of the two:alternatives(Chapter 2):. The proposal,as described in Section2.1,was'elaiiorated in.many separate sections of the DES;.:'.and ''in. some cases the elaboration was contradictory (as for example;-trails rin the May Creek buffer): This'Made it difficult'to know • What'the`appliicant ivas specihra'tly proposing,.and what Parainetrix had • presumed.the applicant Was proposing. With no distinction, it was . necessary for this reader' to assume the. proposal included all presurriptionSthat-h ay Have'been added by Parametric to be parts of the current proposal. • •2. The stkucture;of'the DFLS made it impossible to evaluate`whether_many of the:mttigatioir'Options-were::proposed"by the applicant to minimize or A avoid impact, or'Were suggestions by Parametrix how"to mitigate that Were notpi iposed.bytheapplicant 3. •Where '1W-4k-den options .were:listed,.for example various means to rslirsiitiiiz 'I al e`Washington shore•impacts by limitations to private docks, Homeowner'access to the water,and alternative means to avoid the need for' idldiead4 construction, they 'usually` included e •evaluation Of A mitigation adequacy. •No evaluations of :impacts'and ,the, level of mitigation-to cfiirip+ nsate"for:those impacts were provided•for most of the natural e,elements Exceptions':were.Means to.avoid•on-site (but not off=site)fleoding once dredging ceased,and;propper functioning of the planted May Creek corriddr. • 4. With:regard to affected environment:descriptions,the DEIS would benefit • from reference and use of,several documents pertaining to-assessment of AC notify Co; • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-75 April 2004 Mr.Clint Chase Septenib,er 25,2003 ( Page 5 federally listed species on.or adjacent to the subject property,but within. , 1 the Action Area defined in.the BA. These included documents pertaining to various remediation and redevelopment proposals,for the Quendall Terminals.and Baxter properties.to the north of-the subject site, and to :environmental assessments prepared for reconstruction of the 1-405 and NE 44th Street interchange to thee*of•the subject site. Review of these documents could Strengthen the EIS, particularly with regard to assessment of the Lake Washington shOreline context,habitat,.arid use,by •listed These documents are the following; •. Associated 'Earth Sciences, Inc. May 11, 2001. Environmental Assessment. Discipline.Reports font Water Quality, Fisheries, and Plants:and Animals rfor thel:I-405/igE 44th Street Interchange Project, Renton,WA: • Associated Earth Sciences,Inc. February 17,2000.-Mitigation.Analysts Memorandum tier thel Quendall and Baxter Properties,RentoniWA. 3.2-5 • Associated Earth-Sciences,Inc. January.3,2001. Biological Evaluation fferl Remediationof,the South Baxter Property,Renton,WA. • Beak Consultants-Incorporated. 'June 19,1997. Port Quendall Project Mitigation Analysis-Memorancium. , • . Mucklealioot Indian Tribe. 1997: :Draft Summary of Lake Washington studies completed by the Muadeshoot Indian Tribe in:the vicinity of the Port.Qtrendall:Project(referenced and summarized in Beak 1997): Two. of these documents summarize information on May Creek from. agency contacts.and.field work between 1996 and 2000,.:and all are relevant •to. the subject property vicinity arid the. Lake Washington shoreline For example,habitat in the May Creek channel from the Lake Washington:,confluence is described.:M:detail in the 1-405/NE,44th Street report,including interaction between the,zip-rap along the Charuiel:banks and.scour.. This same report also more thoroughly.describes the Lake Washington:shoreline Than the DEIS. The Barbee Mill shOriline 'is described .from field reconnaissance in the Beak '1997,report, The • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(1997), described lake shoreline.composition in • ! the project vicinity, which Beak (1997,)-used to put the project area.in • perspective in terms of lakeshore habitat Value Both of these reports:give the resultS of juvenile r.hinix,krearing use surveys of the Lake Washington shoreline at the project,site 'Lower.May Creek is considered..a locally Significant.resource area by king County because of the, relative high • !, A.C.&milk&Co. , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-76 April 2004 j • • Mr.Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page 6 habitat value of the reach from RM 0.1 to RM 23.9 to the Lake Washington system to spawning sahnonids. • 5. The DNR-Owned-lands adjacent to Lake Washington currently have mill structures upland and over water,a wooden dock,wood and other debris • at the shoreline, pilings and dolphins extending to the outer harbor line,. 3.4-16 and bulkheads. Some demolition is assumed,because of the presumption • of public access to the water on the DNR-owned'lands,however the extent of-that upland and/or in-water demolition is not described or postulated except to note that a Washington Department of Natural Resources. aquatics lease termination assessment and restoration order would be required(DEIS page ii): It is not clear that a DNR restoration order would ' .be compatible with.a trail iminediately along the lake shore as Parametrix • presumed. If,for example the DNR restoration order seeksa return of the shoreline to natural and useable aquatic.habitat, there is no analysis:of. how the adjacent:residences.or Tract C may affect the objectives of.the restoration order. 6. There is no firm'description of the proposal for Tract C "opera space" function or its future.use•as part of;the project,'exept,that it would contain a stormwater pond(Figure:3.2-4).. The DMS does assume a public access/recreation. area would 'be. provided :at the take'Washington A shoreline,'and Tract Cia the only open area that could"support such a purpose.-Does,for"example,Tract C providefor putilictaccess through the 1:7NR property 'to'include the, present,null dock extending into Lake Washington? If this is the intent of'the:project;r it would`be reasonable:for =the DEIS'_to evaluate•associated impacts and'uses to cumulatively assess related impacts.to.theLake Washingtonsshoreline .Lots'71.'tli`rough 90 are: alt;',orient ed:to"views'of Lake,Washington through,opens space.Tract C,. which suggests;that disposition Of The adjacent.DNR:uplands'at;the Lake Washington shoreline is art important c6nipotient of the project=-;: 7. The BA (Raedeke;2002)::described the need,-for°cons# uchozi'>>of'bridge abutments`+iithin thekordinary..high.water m,ark-"(ollwis1))of Mak Creek. The'DPIS..:indicates'cOnstrdctioii of'the:tOw Traffic bridge is presumed to includeno t'i>ol*rt ithiit.tlie'O.HC%VM'of Ma, Creek" T utust assume the latter Is B true date;tq`an update:in plans: :P t'this ge"of pla g`it is ibt unusual to4lacktdetailed`cOnteltilalt�plarts;far cor°istructiori;of.4Wbridgeland the two ziew stone rater`•.outfatk tol.LAke Washington.; Fld*ever;'more of a conceptual?'plant rfor'.these structures (tyohd disclosure'oft their need) needs to be provided to Parametrix and described in the 'EIS for -ACkindlg&Co. • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-77 April 2004 • ' I Mr.Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page 7 • evaluation. Without it, there was no means for the DEIS to reasonably address the scale of impacts or feasibility of construction to avoid impacts from installation or maintenance Of these structures. 8. The Construction Water Quality Impacts section of Appendix C, Water E Resources (page 0i1), does not address the construction of the new bridge,over May Creek,the demolition of two bridges over May Creek, construction of up to 16 residential docks, or construction Of the 3.5-25 bulkheads presumed necessary along the property's• Lake Washington. shoreline. 9. The southern Storniwater pond is located in a sandy delta area at the mouth of May Creek, where the lake is very shallow and subject to deposition*44 May Creek.sediments., Presumably,this outfall could be subject to obstruction by deposits after dredging of May Creek is . terminated. The DEIS•did not evaluate how far into the lake the outfall from WQ2 outfall:might•need to extend to avoid burial from sediment 1 - delivered by May Creek to the delta area(and how constructed),or other E • maintenance such:as:dredging at this outfall that may be required if the outfall terminates at.tlie lakeshore at.minus 0:5 feetMLLW.It may be that discharge velocity from the•pond is expected to keep the outfall clear and cut a channel through'any deposits that may accumulate at the current shoreline,but that not.evaluated. E 10.The Aquatic'Species Report(Appendix.E)does not evaluate construction impacts beyond control;of upland erosion on fisheries. Assessment of the. 2.0-12 construction activities described in(8)above are not included. 11.A federal permit:may:be necessary for bulkhead construction,and other in-water work, depending on the.nature.and location of the proposed 2.0-12 designs .for .structures, including stormwater utilities if they' extend beyond the OWHM. If so,it is not included.under Approval and Licenses in theFact:slieet'. 12::An HPA would be:required for the Washington State Department of Fish Wand Wildlife's: review and include WDFW conditions as that ;agency deemed;warranted. 'It is:worth noting that WDFW in the past cited an in-work window June.16 through January 314 for south Lake E Washington,to protect juvenile.salmonids. However, the,combined windows for Work in south:Lake Washington recommended,.by. the National Marine Fisheries Service and.;the US Fish and Wildlife Service are more restrictive. Where the Services approval under Section 7 consultation'under,the Endangered Species Act was sought for a.U.S.. A.C.Kindly&Co. r i City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-78 April 2004 • Mr.Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page 8 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Nationwide 38 permit at the nearby South Baxter property,in-water restoration work is restricted to August 1st through December 31g. The Corps's current guidance for the project site E area is a work window from July 16th through December 31n 1 It Would be reasonable for the DEIS to evaluate whether the more restrictive window requested by USFWS' and NMFS for a nearby project is-prudent or reasonable for the proposed action, or if the Corp's recommendation is reasonable for the proposed project's bridge, bulkhead and outfall canStruCtion. . 13.The reductions.in impervious surface contributions to non-point drainage 'reaching May Creek would have some calculable reduction in May Creek -velocities, however the realized reduction relative to total flow in,the creek and total contributing basin is unlikely to be measurable, or 3.5-25 meaningful'in the sense that it offsets other impacts, especially in the. lowest portion of May Creek where water level'and hydraulics are: influenced-by Lake Washington. There are no flowing streams through which site drainage flows between Lake Washington and Puget Sound,so 'the,reduction in impervious surface from the existing Mill to'future • "residential'land uses makes no difference except to the portion of the site presently contributing'flow to May Creek, where it is not likely to be • measurable. It is certainly true that there would be no'adverse effects • 'frain a reduction in impervious surface. ' ' 14.The DEIS (arid'Appendix C) assumes that water quality'would be improved as a.result of•the provision of water quality treatment ponds Where.no water quality treatment was previously offered:- Basic Menu, 3.6-4 water quality';treatment from the,King County' Surface Water Design Manual is inferred without,supporting analysis to avoid adverse'impacts. This=may be fine for seine or all contaniitiants:in stormwater However absent an analysis this conclusion applied to all contaiztiitants is conjecture:"It`'does seeln common sense that,residential land use with treatment.should.have'less of a=water quality'impact than industrial land use wit x o treatment ''However",the DEIS only_examined the issue as a change,fir nape vious 'surface,•land 'use, and treatment;and did not • r U S.Army Corps of Engineers. May 30,200I: Programmatic Biological Evaluation for the State of Washington for Salmonid.Species Listed Apr Proposed by theNational Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.• Fish and Wildlife Sen ico tinder the Endangered Species Act Regulatory Branch;Seattle eistrict Appendix D-2(updated,Ma}?19,2002)"Approved Work Windows for Waters within National Park Boundaries,Columbia River,Snake River,and Likes. A.0 Kindly z Co. City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-79 April 2004 t l 1 • Mr.Clint Chase September 25;2003 Page 9 consider the nature of the change in land use and contaminant sources. The SI;PA Checklist submitted for the project indicated the mill supports approximately 12 employees. This is a very low level of industrial activity. Mill activities include use of vehicles and consequently some contaminant sources. However,the proposal is estimated to create 1,188 average weekday daily trips(DEIS Table 3.5-3),so the traffic volumes.and E motor vehicle access to the site is greatly increased over current mill Operations. Vehicles are a major contaminant source to stormwater runoff. Landscaping and pets will also contribute contaminants to stormwater that are not likely prevalent in current mill runoff. The net result of a changed set of contaminant sources offset by treatment in a pond, versus the existing condition, is difficult to judge in this situation without more work than the EIS provided. I do not disagree with the contention that residential development can be adequately treated to prevent water quality impacts, but found no basis to agree or disagree with the DEIS contention that it would necessarily be an improvement evercurreint conditions or that the treatment proposed would be sufficient to avoid impacts at the two discharge locations: A quantified Water ;quality analysis would benefit the EIS analysis. 15:The state water quality standards used in the DEIS are outdated. The water quality classifications of waters have changed under WAC 173- E '201A adopted July 1,2003 and effective August 1,2003. This should be :corrected in the FEIS 16..the DEIS;concludes That the,approximately 50-foot averagedbuffer width :for May Creek restored to a forested condition would 'full significantly .short of providing full riparian functionality"(DEIS-Appendix E,pageE.-14) and provides analysis that concludes the proposed:buffer "Mould not ;provide the full range of habitat functions and protections.that streams require" 3.5-25 !though it;would be an'improvement-over the existing condition (DEIS Appendix E, page E-16)., However,there is no assessment as to what a: ;proper functioning upland corridor width ought to be for May Creek. Consequently, it cannot be evaluated whether, Options A or B: (modifications to'May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline'proposals Iescribed,on pages 3-48 to 3-52)are sufficient. Under.Option B.a possible. .1.o Moot corridor width for May Creek would occur, which may be. ;sufficient'for riparian function and,fish,habitat purposes. Option A, proposed for the same purpose,makes no consequential improvement to: the May Creek corridor beyond the Proposal, and. thus reziiains AC1074/g LC,Co. t r City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-80 April 2004 . , 4 Mr.Clint Chase • September 25,2003 Page 10 inadequate to provide meaningful riparian fUnctiOn according to the DEIS analysis. Tables E.1.through E-3,on page E-15(DEIS Appendix E)give the 3.5-3 appearance of indicating that even a 100-footwidth is insufficient.(See also cciniment 19 below;a 100-foot alternative is suggested along May Creek us-one possible way to lessen flooding impacts). 17.One part of the DEIS consideration for accepting a 50-foot averaged width is that'it would be reforested and bean improvement over the existing buffer-width and vegetation(page E-20).'However,this does not take.into 3.5-5 account whether the improvement is sufficient to offset flatteries impacts from increased human activity and disturbance;near May Creek, and 'alterations to Lake'Washington,including docks and bulkheads and new Stonnwater,outfolls. If it does', not &fiction well, the long term improvement may not realize any practica.offset,,tb'impacts the project is determined to require. 18.There are 25-foot Minimum residential building setbacks',proposed for the 'LokeyashifigtonShorelinecOnsiatent'withthe currently adopted Renton •Shoreline Master'Program, but no buffers along.Lake Washington are proposed... .Residential lots 'that abut-the lake- and not DNR:owned 3.5-25 uplands extend out into'the lake Waterward-of the OHWIVL'The DEIS concludes the proposal is likely'to continue the trends Talong Lake Washington'that have resulted in degradation to terrestrial and aquatic habitat that is illustrated by the decline Of admen species'.[DEIS Appendix'E,,page E. 19. if this is'true'and unmitigated, it represents'a fatal flaw with the current proposal that,Shobld'*nife reconsideration.•: No.specific set of mitigation.actions,are .0010sed to prevent_or ininiirilze this. adverse inipaeffreni'Occurring,Olthotigh many suggestions are offered."'A clearer linic9e8f impacts to mitigation necessary to'=oddreSs'theiliv,.S•ptild'greatly assist the reader to inidergtan4 the 13kOpoialinid Warrantedniiigation. 19.If diedgthg is discontinued in Mift..reekqie.i.S.':fice4d-0.ier&i*of the Proposal), analysis in Appendix tf:ciYik-4144:sediment dein6dbn and blnidup,bf*da elevations and bars Would.6itextd•ihel&yeakiihiOdplairi 3.5-1 1 onto'about of the residential deglisnentlo--the'north of May cctele0yo.i. .Tigoio$:2-3y:.-,If this is true and urOttigatt4,,it.:4;a fatal flaw'of4hetprOPoSahs thopRrs'reiva*a*:niiit'gadOn nie661-i.es and deriiredlyolaftetnitiiies: a 504666ethaaetovayet4k with leVees-aildfitifarteiditins'•ta'the one e'i'dminglihii dee'ki'a&titildi6nain,but a full spanof the: 3N!.. .thol.,§eteoili41641:90-foot setbatk triil'OlaiCfeelt with.le,m4-ridiot,' V''icnno'EtsiuM411ofrfor the A.C.gimpy,frza City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-81 April 2004 i I f Mr;Clint Chase September 25,2003 Page-11 bridges(Alternative 2) (Appendix B,page B-14 to B-16;and described as Scenarios 1 and 2 on page 3-15 of the DEIS). Alternative 1 would raise the — flood stage up to 1.6 feet; Alternative 2 would raise the flood stage to a slightly lower degree(DEIS pages.345 to.3:16). There was no analysis on 3.5-12 how this may affect upstream properties affected by the existing floodplain, (for example, the Pan Abode property), except to say that impacts Of,levee construction would in turn need to be mitigated by compensatory storage,best placed at the upstream end of the May Creek corridor through the site (page 8-16). Without.levee construction and 3.5-1 compensatory storage provision, significant"and unavoidable flooding :and floodplain impacts would occur. The plan as it exists would need to be modified to prevent these adverse impacts. 20.Given the nature of the adverse impacts to flooding,adverse impacts to the Lake Washington shoreline,and minimal function expected.from a 50= foot,averaged restored corridor around May Creek that the DEIS described; the"Proposal as is would have significant adverse impacts. 3.5-18 Option.B:as described on page 3-50 is the only means suggested by the DEIS to offset the most serious impacts, and would appear.to require• project re-design or development of another alternative. Other mitigation suggestions 'throughout the document should be evaluated and either made part of a proposed package of mitigation, or identified as other possible mitigation. The need for each-mitigation element and its ability to minimize or avoid impacts should be presented•forclarity. Sincerely, Andrew C.Kindig,PhD. Principal -- AC Kndig t:Co. • .a: Klr7d19&Co. I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 • Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-82 April 2004 t® WASHiNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF • DOUG SUTHERLAND Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands • ElfCITY poF AE O Nib OCT 08 2003 October 6,2003 RECEIVED • • • Susan Fiala,Senior Planner Development Services Division Renton City Hall 6s'Floor 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,WA 98055 Subject: Comments for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS • Dear Ms.Fiala: •• Thank you for providing the Washington Department of Nattiral Resources,(DNR)with,a copyl of the Draft Environmental impact Statement for the Barbee.Mill.Prelimina y Plat. Jam pleased • to be able-to offer comments on this document from the perspective of theDNR. As the proprietary manager of state-owned aquatic lands,the DNR charged with four main'tasks; related to those lands—encouraging public use and access;fostering water-dependent uses; ensuring environmental protection;and utilizing renewable resources(Revised Code.of - • Washington RCW 79.90.455). The DNR has the obligation to develop and determine uses of State Owned Aquatic.Land(SOAL)that will providethe best benefit for the citizens of• Washington. With this in mind,I have compiled a few comments regarding the proposal: - • One of DNR's interests-related to this project is the filled SOAL-that is locatedwithin'the • Harbor Area,adjacent,to the Barbee Mill site. DNR retains•its.right to collect fair compensation for the use ofthis land. Any proposed use of SOAL needs to be authorized 3 5-2 1 by the Department of Natural Resources. This includes but is not limited to,.niitigation, restoration,recreational development;.development setliacks/buff,ers;bulkheads,docks, dredging,outfalls,and easements.'For example;if any portion of the 25-foot buffer or setback includes SOAL,the DNR needs to.be notified And compensated for this use. Moreover,-if the developer would like to utilize SOAL-for mitigation purposes,they must first apply and receive approval from the DNR. Mitigation-that takes place on SOAL has a fee associated with it. • • SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN AVE N I ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-9282 TEL:(360)825.1631 I FAX:(360)825-1672$TTY:4360)825.6381 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-83 April 2004 I • Susan Fiala,Senior Planner October 6,2003 Page 2 • Another suggestion to consider is increasing the proposed 25-foot buffer. Two of DNR.goals are to support and encourage public access tb the waterfront and 3.5-3 ensure environmental protection. By creating a larger buffer;both of these objectives can be accomplished. A larger buffer Will provide an area for the 1 public to access and enjoy the shoreline and will also enhance protection of Lake Washington and May Creek from.runoff and erosion. • The DNR property may become landlocked by the development proposal The proposal should clearly delineate the area to be offeredas a roadway easement betweenthe DNR 3.5-25 property and a public roadway. The design of this easement should be consistent with Current zoned uses. The proponent may contact me to wOrk on the specific design of the easement area. Thank yonfor giving the DNR the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions;please don't hesitate to call me at(360)825-1631. Sincerely, Monica:Durkin,Aqua Land Manger Shoreline bistrictAquatics Region c: Region File gi/BarbeeMillComments , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-84 April 2004 r I I 1 •• • MUCKLESJIUQT INDIAN TRIBE Aermok Fisheries Division TRIBE .._.. . 1 • ,� - 39015-172 Avenue SE•Auburn,Washington 98092-9763 TRIBE Phone: (253)939-3311 • Fax: (253)931-0752 . October 7,2003 Ms.Susan Fiala, • Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Division • • 1055 South Grady Way,Sixth Floor • Renton,WA 98055 RE:Barbee Mill Company Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,LUAi 02-040 Dear Ms.Fiala: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(ILA 02-040). This project is within the Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds and Stations of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Therefore,we are forwarding the following comments in the interest of. protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources. The Tribe's Wildlife and Cultural Resources Divisions may also send separate.comments to this project.. • Based on our technical review of the DEIS,our general comments are as follows: 1. The DEIS does not fiiliy analyze all potential alternatives thatcould be developed at the,site. For example,_ the DEIS analyzes the no-action and the 115 lot proposal only;,however,there are three flood controls 3.4-1 scenarios that;were discussed in chapter 3.These flood control proposals would affectthe eventual development at the site;therefore,they should be treated as separate plat development alternatives that are fully analyzed in the DEIS. Similarly,there are two"mitigation alternatives"discussed in Chapter 3(i.e,a 50 foot buffer and a 100 foot buffer)both of which modify the number of lots and configuration of the plat. These alternatives should also be discussed as separate alternatives. We recommend that the Final EIS (FEIS)include all of the options identified above as full alternatives analyzed"completely. 2. The DEIS contains limited discussion and analysis about the potential for individual docks,joint docks or a• • marina to be constructed at the site. The DEIS references potential future development of these structures, 3.6-5 but provides limited analysis. As a result,cumulative impacts associated with shoreline and dock construction and use is not fully analyzed in the DEIS: We recommend that the FELS analyze all of the ' reasonable foreseeable dock alternatives at this site and analyze their site specific and cumulative impacts, 3.6-4 ' which include the potential to interfere with the Tribe's fishing in the area. • 3. There are discrepancies within the DEIS aa;to how many lots actually front Lake Washington. There are sections in the lDEIS that suggest the number of lakefront lots are 16,23 or 24. The beginning section 3.5-25 (1.1.1)that describes the action alternative should clarify the number of lakefront lots and be consistent Within the rest of the FEIS. DEYELt�PtJ►Ei�ptltNG t;f�Y QF HENTON +DCT i 7 Z�3 RECEIVE® City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-85 April 2004 • S, • j• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003 Comments to the Proposed Plat for Barbee Mili DEIS LUA 02-040 Page 2 4. The DEIS has limited,discussion abbot the two areas north of the Barbee Mill(Baxter and Quendall sites), ; - E which were previously proposed for one large development. and.the FEIS should discuss the potential. ' development that may occur at these•sites and any pote'ntial'cumulative impacts to Lake Washington and otherwaterbodies in the vicinity. • We are also'submitting page specific comments for your review.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposaL.If you have,any questions about these comments,please.contact tie at(253)876-3116. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use.Team Leader Cc: Tom Sibley,NOAAF,Washington ITabitat Branch • Eric Pentico,WDFW;Region 4 Alice Kelly,DOE,NW Region • • • • • • • { -I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 j Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-86 April 2004 i • Muckieshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003 Comments to the Proposed Plat for Barbee Mill DEIS LUA 02-040 Page 3 • Page Specific Comments to the DEIS . • A I. .Page 1-8-The new bridge on May Creek Will permanently preclude vegetation growth within its footprint and associated shoulders. This is an adverse impact to the creek that will require mitigation. Page 1-9 The DEIS should discuss how the proposed setback and future vegetation along Lake Washington compares 3.4-9 . with the requirements of the.401(c).permit issued for the Mill site. Also in this section the statements retarding existing bulkhead removal conflict with others made on page 1-1. Page 1-9 The DEIS.fails to acknowledge that chemical runoff.from the properties may also adversely affect fish and 3.4-14 other aquatic life,not just water quality. See Table,3.4-1 for additionalinformation to support this comment; 3.4-11 Page 1-9 The existing docks and boathouse more than likely provide habitat for predators,not refuge habitat.for juvenile saitnonids. See statements on page 3-42 regarding the potential forpredator habitat.. " 2 0-7 I • Page 1-9 It is not clear:Why.the 25'setback buffer is used as the distance to analyze the lots'potential impacts to Lake .• Washington. This value is arbitrary and has no apparent ecological basis. The FEIS analysis should be based on what the ecosystem functions are"possible at this site,what functions,are present Currently;and how.impacts(from trails; 3.4-12 I., - bulkheads,and docks)to these functions will be avoided per mitigation sequencing. Page 1-10 In addition to planting native,plants,the Barbee Mill site should include mitigation/restorationmeasures A such as adding wood or crating refugia/shallow water habitat to provide more immediate benefits than small plants 1 and trees. Page 1,14 .If one is needed;the.Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requests a copy of the iemediation plan A 1 for the proposed roadway across the Quendall site as soon as it is available. Figure 2.1-1 Overall Plat Plan- The.number'of lakefront lots are shown is 23,however,the DEIS identifies 24 on 2.0-6 • page 3-14 and 16"on E-13. • Page 2-3_The FEIS:should include an alternative that evaluates the effect of implementing"Office"zoning with no 2 0-2 setbacks(the existing zoning)alongwith the urban environmental shoreline designation.. This alternative should be compared with the.other alternatives.. Page 24-In section 2.2,the FEIS should diseuss.why the 1994 401(c)permit(9472-Q0196)was never enforced and 3.4-9 ' discuss how this permit affects analysis assumptions. • .Page 3-13 The FEIS should analyze the potentialfor the ditch that flows from,the affected wetland to May Creek to ' 3.4-17 '_, have salmonids in it and potential adverse impacts to these salmonids and their habitat. Page 3-14-The FEIS should discuss how riparian buffers on May Creek will'improve water quality if the stormwater is 3.4-4, routed to Lake Washington only. Page 3-15 As noted previously,the three floodplain options should be presented:and analyzed as full development 2.0-3 '. proposals. .Page 3-16 Section 3.2.2;3 Cumulative'ltnpacts. The DEIS fails to discuss the potential for developments upstream.of E. • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-87 April2004 • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003 Comments to the Proposed Piet for Barbee moi•DEp LUA 02,040 Page 4 the site to adversely affect water quantity midquality. Page 3-40.The proposed levee ahem atives would affect channel processes and effectively eliminate•any channel 3.2-6 migration zone more than the proposed buffer widths. • .• Page.3-4l The citation for Knutsen and Nee may not be appropriate for this discussion because their work did not focus'on Urban streams. Also,it is not elearwhatconstitutes a"Small stream"and if May creek would meet the , 3.4-6 definition. The statement regarding a 35 foot buffer as being adequate'for water qualityparanieters such as temperature is unsubstantiated. Finally the last sentence on this page regarding Weed and bank stabilization is Unclear. 2.0-8 Page.3-42The lot that is identified as"open space'':appears to actually have a stormwater pond on it,which will tediicaits ability to'proVideecosysteiii functions. • 2.0-7 1 Page 3-42 It is not'clear from the section as tothe setback that is proposed for the lots with direct frontage to Lake Washington andlow Many of these exist:See also page 3-44. 2.0-6 • . - Page 3,50 As noted previously,the mitigation options.diteuised,on this page should he full alternatives analyzed in. 2.0-3 the Fag. • • • • • . , • • • .• • • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-88 April 2004 • ERS Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANCELES NEW PORK 'PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.G. 2640 CENTURY SQUARE TEL (206) 622-3150 'THOMAS A. GOELTz 1501 FOURTH AVENUE FAX (206)'628.7699 DIRECT (206) 628-7662 SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 wives:dwt.com toingoc[tsedwt.com I ' 4 erg Q September 26,2003 Ace r Susan Fiala VIA HAND DELIVERY Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Division Renton City Hall,6th floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton;WA 98055 Re: Barbee Mill Draft EIS—Applicant's Comments Dear Ms Fiala: • Thank you for the. opportunity to comment on.the Barbee Mill Preliminary Nat Draft. Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). For your convenience, this letter selves as a compilation of the comments provided by the Applicant's development team_including; • Steve-.Wood CenturyPacific Developer • • Campbell Mathewson •CenturyPacife Developer • Matt Hough,PE Otak,'Inc. Project Engineer • Russ Gaston,PE Otak,Inc. Flood.Analysis • Bob Schottman,PE,.PIID Otak,Inc. Flood Analysis • Torsten Lienau,PE HDR •Traffic Consultant • Toni Goeltz Davis-Wright Tremaine Legal=Land Use • Lynn Manolopolous Davis Wright Tremaine Legal—Environmental • Jim Johnson Golder Associates,Inc. 'Geotechnical Engineer • Robert.Plum,PE Golder Associates,Inc. Geotechnical Engineer • Emmett Pritchard' Raedeke Associates,Inc. Wildlife;'Wetlands;Plants • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-89 April 2004 Page 2 October 7,2003 After some general comments,comments follow the same numbering system as in the DEIST. GENERAL COMMENTS §1 SUMMARY §2 ALTERNATIVES §3.1 EARTH,SOILS,AND GEOLOGY §3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES §3.3 _ GROUNDWATER,_ §3.4 PLANTS AND:ANIMALS §.3.5 TRANSPORTATION §.3.6 HAZARDOUS'MATERIALS §3.7 ; AESTHETICS §3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE. §3.9 NOISE. §3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES GENERAL COMMENTS The Barbee,Mill plat application vested with a complete application.on May 3,2002: Further,any mitigation measures must'have been formally designated by the City Council and in effect on or before the issuance:of the DEIS on°:September,2,2003. With this background, — we make the following general comments the EIS: 1. "Net"Analysis, The EIS analysis should keep in mind that there are existing impacts from the mill use which will be eliminated or reduced as,new impacts are :incurred with the new project. In other words;it should be a"net"impact analysis. For 3.2-4 example,impervious surface is already at 85%,and will drop to.57°%. The current site is 85%,or 19:5;acres,impervious surface, The proposed:project would include 57%,or 13.1 acres,of impetidints surface: The net benefit is 6.4 acres. This significant increase in non=impervious surface should be acknowledged in each section that evaluates the potential impacts to wildlife,plants,wetlands,etc. This will produce substantial net benefits-for wildlife,surface.water runoff,,ground water.and other. F impacts: Likewise,the removal of two bridges,and the replacement.of one,yields a net 3.4-2 benefit of reducing bridges over May Creek`.;Again,this will reduce impervious surface'and runoff,increase wildlife habitat and similar net benefits..The EIS;.currently does not properly account for this"net benefit analysis:_Aporouriate'Level of Detail. There should:be some acknowledgement-that the,application is apreliminary plat and that much of the detail(e.g:.exact building elevations)is:not required by the city's code at this stage in the develops entprocess: There could be some discussion that upon .PreliminaTY plat approval,theAPP cantmust proyuie.final engineering before receiving finai plat approval. SEA 1412494v1262664 2 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 6-90 Page Final-Environmental Impact Statement Pa April 2004 Page 3 October 7,2003 • Ea 2. Appropriate Level of Detail. There should be some acknowledgement that the C application is a preliminary plat and that much of the detail(e.g.exact building elevations)is not required by the city's code at this stage in the development process. There could be some discussion that following preliminary plat approval,the Applicant must provide further engineering before receiving final plat approval. Further,the City requires additional permits before actual development occurs. 3. Comply with Zoning. There should be some acknowledgement_somewhere in • C the document that the project as proposed complies with the underlying zoning. This is a very low-density project relative to that allowed under the COR2.tone thereby creating minimal impacts on infrastructure including roads,utilities;views,etc. • 4. 'Continued Dredging. It is incorrect to assume.cessation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek. It is our expectation that either the property owner/homeowners 3.2-11 association Will continue to dredge the mouth every few years as has happened for the last 50 years and/or King County/City of Renton will dredge the mouth as they currently do for the mouth of the Cedar River. The EIS should at least acknowledge continued dredging as,one alternative. • 2 0-7 I 5. Increased Buffers. In regards to buffers,it should be emphasized that the City of Renton code requires a 25 foot buffer. The project is vested at these 25-foot buffers. We are not aware of any adopted and designated policy for SEPA purposes:that would allow any.mandatory increase to 50-feet or 100-feet,even though those are analyzed in • A • the EIS. Despite vesting however,the Applicant offers an approximate 50 foot buffer with the subjectdevelopment proposal. There is no legal basis for any discussion of any buffer.greater than that offered by the Applicant which is a 100%increase over the city code requirement. • • 6. Bulkheads. The most likely scenario surrounding bulkheads is that the existing 2.0-11 bulkheads remain in glace. This should be acknowledged and analyzed as such. • §1. SUMMARY • The DEIS summary contains a chart with a long listing of various mitigation measures. The list appears to be a vast,range of ideas for opportunities,.but these do not A necessarily comply with the requirements for SEPA mitigation measures, Specifically, mitigation measures must be specifically based upon identified plans,policies and regulations,and all mitigation measures must be reasonable and capable Of being accomplished. Many of the mitigation measures in the summary chart are not lawful or appropriate,mitigation tinder the substantive SEPA standards: • • :(a).Mitigation measures of denials shall be'based upon policies,plans,rules or regulations formulated designated by...a legislative body...:as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or DEIS is issued. SEA 1412494v]26266.4 3 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-91 April 2004 • Page 4 October 7,2003 • (c) Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable, of being accomplished. WAC 197-11-660(1). §2. ALTERNATIVES • • 1,, Bulkheads. The EIS should presume all bulkheads Will be retained and 2.0-11 maintained,and the construction of new bulkheads should not be assumed. [Seepage ! l-1;2-11. • 2. Additional Alternatives The"alternatives" section should be revised to state that the EIS;actually analyzed several additional alternatives,including niorlificatien of the proposal with 50-foot buffers and 100-foot buffers, and a proposal with different 2 0-3 railroad crossing;and circulation. For example, the extensive discussion and figures appearing at DEIS pages 3-.48 through 3-61 deal with different proposed buffers and an analysis of the impacts of those,additional buffers ,This should'be recognized as.a distinct'alternative to the:"Proposal." Likewise, the extensive DEIS discussion of railroad crossings and modified access,and circulation;appearing,at DEIS pages 3-76 through 3-88, °is yet another distinct alternative variant of the "Proposal?' Consequently,-the *doe proposals really consist•of three alternatives: the "Proposal,"the"high.tiuffer'alternative"and'dthe"revised.accessr alternative. 3. No!Action:No Build.. in,addition to there:being Several"action":alternatives, the final EIS`should iecoglir that there are two analyzed"no action"alternatives. The first is a continuation,of activities at the current level: This would be the literal"no action",alternative,,and th ere would net be any new.iniPacti to be studied or analyzed: Second,the EIS:also.analyzes the continuation of industrial uses,.but with a'change.of uses and some new structures. This could be considered_the'"No New.Build" alternative. .. • • . • ... ' 4. Applicant's'Objective. The EIS should contain an express statement of the proposal's objectives as -required under WAC 19741440(4): .Specifically, the applicant's proposal is as follows: Applicant's .objective is to construct a low-density 2.0-1 townhouse project;that complies with applicable city codes. • The'cob.? EIS alternatives to be studied are those which "achieve the proposal's i objective:' WAC 197-11=440(5)(d): Consequently,several"alternatives"referred to in the DEIS are not appropriate DEIS alternatives since they do,not meet.Barbee's objectives.:For exatunle;The DEIS;discusses"construction of.apartment buildings 70 feet high,resultiisg.irifive to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the3 lots outside the SMA jurisdiction,"•Page 3-50(and also on page 3-. 52); This:.DEIS"discussion of apartments or more dense, taller structures is not, warranted since it does not meet the Barbee's objective. SEA 1412494v1262664 4 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-92 April 2004 • • Page 5 . . 1 October 7,2003 §3.1 EARTH,SOILS,AND GEOLOGY[Comments primarily from Golder Associates] 1. General Comment,— The subject application:is for preliminary plat approval 3.1-1 and,therefore,the exact building structures are unknown at this tine.: The EIS should acknowledge, for example, that single-story wood-frame townhomes would require much different(i.e.less)support than a 4-story concrete structure. 2, General Comment - The parcel of land.shown on,the maps, for example,,on 3.1-2 Figure 2,1-1 that shows Public Land on the north side of the May Creek delta, was dredged.approximately 5 years ago and does not exist as upland property:today. This area should be removed from all maps. 3. General Comment -;The EIS includes a comprehensive'discussion of a.wide range of potential impacts and possible mitigation measures. Page 3-3 of Volume I of the EIS states: ".. The character of the facility and the population,exposed to risk are 3.5-7 important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies . ". Golder's conceptual geotechnical recommendations presented'in its 5/31/03 letter reflect this concept. This includes pile foundations and offset distances :from the shoreline to ininimize;potential damage from lateral spreading. These recommendations.represent a level of risk consistent with the standard of practice forthis type.of development. This corresponds'to a low probability that under extreme seismic conditions some local deformation could occur that might impact'some of the strictures. Due in part to the inherent flexibility of wood structures,the impacts.would:not be life threatening, A Wefeel strongly that complete mitigation of all,potential:risks would be.inapPro riate P for this development because it is well beyond the current standard of practice. .4, Foundations Golder concurs with the EIS that most structures_can be supported on.lightly loaded piles bearing in the compact zone:encountered below a depth of about 15,to 25 feet.. The piles should be designed for the downdrag forces induced:.either by post earthquake liquefaction settlements.and/or settlements due to 3.1-3 grade changes in areas of compressible organic layers: 'With.a proper offset from the sh'oreline,'we feel that the risk of lateral spreading.deformations would be minimal and •would notrequire designing the piles for high lateral loads.: In'areas where new fills are required,it may be feasible to use spread footings:provideda minimum of 2 to"4 feet of structural.fill Underlies the footings. If spread footings are used, the risk of,post .liquefaction settlements on the order of several inches must be acceptable. • 5. ;.Liquefaction Mitigation -.Golder feels that suitable.fqundations and.required 3.1-3 , •offsets:Firom the,shoreline will adequately mitigate liquefaction risks: The development would still be susceptible to localized road and utility damage during;major seismic A ( -events. Mitigation of these, problems for all roads .and utilities is considered inappropriate arid not done for these types of'developments: Asan.example,•these • SEA 1412494v!26266-4 5 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-93 April 2004 I , 1 , . ,. . . . . , . • . . • Page-6 • October 7,2003 -- . , types of risks are routinely accepted by WSDOT,Sound Transit and other agencies in the Puget'SOund area. , 6. Lateral Spreading Mitiaation-Golder feels'that a practical offset distance on the order of the'setbacks reqiiired by the city code:from the shoreline to structures will 3.1-3 minimize the,risk Of lateral spreading damage. This is based in part on the fact that the ,May Creek has built up a substantial delta into Lake Washington resulting in gentle off- shore,slopes with steep submarine slopes locatedover 1,000 feet Off shore. Obviously, additional explorations and analysis are required to evaluate the appropriate'Offset for final deSign, However, we.are confident that the lateral spreading issues can be , A I mitigated With an appropriate offsetwithout the expen.se of ground Modification: ; 7. Low Probability Risks-The EIS makes reference to the impacts of movement - on the Seattle fault,.seismic induced landslides, slide induced waves, and others. Although these are teelinicallY valid risks,their,occurrence probabilities are so low that 3.1-3 they are not considered in the design of residential,wood,frame.projects. ThuaGolder feels that it would be inapproPriate and outside the standard of practice to mitigate , - these risks: 8. Liquefaetiori.,The DEIS is not able to identify'what magnitude of seismic event would be required to liquefy the on-site sails to-the extent that utilities,residences,or • other such facilities: would be at:risk of significant damage It makes a general statement that"..,depending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the 3.1-3 extent'of lateral movement, damage could:range:from minor to severe" This is an extremely broad raniging:statement. In fact,this same section of the report goes on to say, " is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads,and utilities due,to the complexity of the factors affecting liquefaetiOP..." As such, the extent to which such potential damage is de:scribed/implied does not seem to be , ,i • . reasonable, -.'• • ' . . . • . _ 9. Iateral,Support. The DEIS recognizt'S,that geeteclinical recommendations have' been•made'indeiigineering alternatives are available for providing cor*inaientand/or , 3.1-3 lateral support ta'pri-At.e.'aoila to protect against lateral soil.movement. Although.the i long-and short-term effectiveness'of these is suggested,it seems to be doubted in the text of this chapter—again without basia, ' ' • ' . ! , 10,, -'Soil'Stabilization: •The report cites,a.single-Sour* The 'Oregon Defit. of TransportatOn,(OPOT 2002)for the statement that'There is uncertainty in evaluating . , .. ,•,. 3.1-3 the reletiVe effectiveness of', ground, treatment t strategies for ;limiting lateral deforiciatioria...7 The'full context of this statement is known,but Golder would not expect IODOT.to be an authority on soil stabiliia*m..for:seismic irapacts. It could likely be argued with other sources(such asloCal,geeteehniCal Speetalists)that current engineeriiii practice'and ConatnictiolimetliCds'are.available to Provide.lateral'support for the existing and proposed conditions for this project, SEA 1412444vI 26266-3 6 • • ! i I . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 • Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-94 • April 2004 . I ' , • Page 7 t . October 7,2003 �! 11. Seattle Fault. Discussions of the Seattle Fault are provided in detail in Section 3.1.1.1. However, that same section also explains that"...topographic expression Of `4 this fault are not indicated at the project site...and there is no known recent displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area..." We recommend deletion of this text since it does not seem to have any relevance to project affects, impacts,or mitigation measures. 12. Mitigation. Redundant,emergency backup facilities as.suggested by the'DEIS A are not warranted given the lack of specific evidence for risk. This determination should be made at the time of engineering design of the facilities under consideration, given additional geotechnieal information. §3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES [Comments primarily ;from OTAK Engineering] I. Dredging. The DEIS suggests that adverse impacts and/or significant changes in the May Creek shoreline condition would result from permanent discontinuation of dredging operations. First,the sediment is'an'impact'from upstream development,and not a result of this proposal. This sediment loading is not a consequence of this project. 3.2-5 Second, this statement assumes that there are no future (long-term or short-term) reductions in sediment loading due to. improved stormwater management and/or streainbank stabilization at upstream.sources. In addition,it'makes"this Claim with only the benefit of historical dredging records and not an.actual sediment tra!nsport analysis• to project future conditions based a,number of variables. Third, this applicant and proposal cannot be required.to undertake affirmative dredging activities{for the benefit of upstream owners. .Fourth,the applicant likely would continue dredging operations subject to obtaining appropriate.permits. 2. Flooding. It seems speculative and there does not appear to be any quantitative analysis .completed to justify the statement ".,.if the stream is prevented from 3.2-6 - migrating,potentially aggradation would continue,with deposits that would reduce the capacity of the stream bed over time." Similarly,there,does,not.appear to be any basis 'to say that "An additional option is'utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the stream,which would provide-additional flood'storage to compensate for the.reduction in conveyance capacity." The Applicant does not think'this is a valid SEPA mitigation. A And in.any event, additional analysis would be,necessary to justify this claim, but it would also need to be verified that the elevations within the stream buffer zone would provide"conveyance"'capacity.''Currently,the model shows,these overbank areas as draining'northwesterly over the project site: SEA t412494v126266-4 7 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-95 April2004 • 1 I • Page 8 �'j'' • October 8,2003 3, BMP. The suggested Gradient Terraces BMP does not seem.applicable to this A project given the site conditions and proximity to the LakeWashiington_shoreline. 4. Flooding. Table 1 (attached at end of letter) shows a comparison of water surface elevations for the four options which were evaluated by Parametrix. For future flowrates of 1,059 cfs,they predict that the water surface elevationwill be 29.1 feet at C Section 11 for all aggraded conditions. That location represents the upstream extent of the Barbee Miliproject and is located downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad • and Lake'Washington Boulevard.(See FigureB-2 from the HEC-RAS.report), The documents show that the existing condition withoutaggradation has a water surface elevation only 0.1 foot lower than the other options."in:'addition, there is no change . between the 50 feet and 100'feet setbacks•at this upstream location. As such, on-site flood storage compensation to protect upstream properties from-the slight increases in floodplain,depth'on the Barbee,Mill;site•due:fill t outside of ariy buffer Width seems A unnecessary and has no obvious•mitigating;benefit. Clarifications in the HEC-RAS model could in-fact:result in less variance between existing and developed site conditions(see discussion of issues below). • 5. Flow"Conditions. "`It'is unlikely.that small;increases- in the water surface ' I 3.2-5 elevation for-locations adjacent,to the;Barbee Iviill:project;will.affect flow conditions under the"railroad or for upstream property owners: ; •.FEMA Flood Profiles (Sheet I09P):show that the-energy grade tine for`rtlie HEC-RAS model'`rises`very,"rapidly for C cross-sections beyond the upstream end of the;Paratnetrix model: The effective slope of the:water surface profile froin Section,C to;Section D,under. the Burlington Northern/Santa"Fe Raijr iad on s li t`109P is approximately 3.7.percent. Section C ;corresponds approximatelyto Section 11,'iri theParaiiietrix model. .. 6. Compensatory Storage. There slioulcl be no`need.for compensatory storage at, this site.. The temporary storage of flood waters;;occurring under existing,conditions generally provides protectiom for downstreani.property,owners. There ia no:potential 3 2-7 :for;flood damages for downstream.property'ow>ers for this p liect.since May Creek discharges,directly to-Lake Washington::after leaviing the Barbee.Mill site and lhere.are. • no downstream property.owners., hi addition,Lake'Washington'is recognized as a major'receiving;water:.body with.,adeiliiate:capacity. to:attenuate additional flood volumes thai may result from'changes in topographic conditions;at the project site, 7: Model: review isbased`on the report's Appendix B and does not C include a review of the'electronic HEC-RAS files. Review.of t ese electronic files would confirm eome:of the assun ptions/paranieters of the:model and the validity of its • SEA 1412494v126266-4 8 � t City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-96 April 2004 1 . Page 9 October 7,2003 • overall conclusions. Access to the electronic model for review could clarify some of the following issues: The report's Figure B-2 seems to indicate that flood waters have the C opportunity to sheet,flow in a westerly direction and discharge to.Lake Washington without flowing along the May Creek alignment. The HEC-RAS model is one-dimensional and assumes that water flows perpendicular to the channel cross-sections. The cross-sections'should' be adjusted-to account for'the Elows'towvards the west and the model should recognize`that the flows split before entering Lake Washington. The report does not discuss the implications of sheet flows towards the west but does show that flood waters are approximately 2 to 3 feet deep in the right floodplain for sections 6:7, 6.75, 6.9, and 7. Note that the 1995 FEMA Flood Insurance Study avoids this issue by placing their first station downstream of the upper bridge. • 8. Flooding. If short circuiting of flood flows-directly to Lake Washington does not occur, then the existing and"proposed aggraded" models should be changed to define ineffective flow areas for the right overbank at Sections 4.4,5, and 6.9. The model,as now configured,seems to show all water,moving parallel to the May-Creek 3.2-8 channel. The flow seems to occur along the entire.Cross-section,an:unjikely situation when much of the water in the floodplain away from the channel is likely to be relatively stagnant. To be effective,.flows need to have measurable flow,velocities. HEC-RAS manuals provide guidelines for estimating effective flow areas for cross- sections upstream and downstream of the bridges: Table 2 below shows;the top widths used in the Parametrix models where the effective flow areas are allowed to expand to • more than 500 feet. . • Table 2—Flow Widths for. Various Models Top Width for Future FIows'[ftl Section Exrcting Existing Proposed' Proposed. Algraded 50'Setback 100"Setback 4.4 560.6 561.1 71.0 121.0. 5 1471.1 1470.9. 98.2 .148.0 6.9 557.9 558.1 126.9 176.9 C Note: The assumption of wider.flow areas causes reduced water surface elevations for the existing and"proposed aggraded"models., • • SEA 14124940 262664 9 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-97 April 2004 . . 1 _ • • . . , 1 . 1 ---- , Page 10 Ifi • ,• October 7,2003 ! [ . i . •. ' , 9. Setbacks, The DEIS does not show cross-sections:for the setback conditions 3.2-9 and OTAK is unable to determine whether the setbacks were modeled as levees. • 10. Bridges., The information'provided;in Appendix B'does not allow OTAK to 3.2-8 evaluate whether bridges are modeled properly. Bridge.cross-see-dons should.be 1 I provided. The report does not indicate whether bridges overtop during flood events. i • , 11. NAVD Datum. 'The DEIS. does not clearly show the':conversion between - NGVD 1929 datum and the project NAVD 1988&turn, This conversion is necessary ! to allow a comparison of 1995"FEMA elevations using the NOVD 1929 datum and the 3.2-10 current projectelevations using the NAVD88 datuth: A tidebatinn sheet provided by ' 1 the COrps of Engineers for Hirain NI.',Cliittendenlocks-states that 0.00 feet NGVD is eqtrivalent to 3.58 feet-NAVD88 iui1'6,80 feet COE, As an example,conversion,the thalweg elevation estimated frorn FIS Sheet!109t) at Section CIS 20.2 NGVD 1929 (23.8'fl.NAVD88)while the thalWegelevation at Section 11 in the HEC-RAS model is i 22,0 ft NAVD$8 The thalweg-8evation.and the shape•of channel may have Changed since the:time'of-the•FEMA'aurvei,1•The C-Prps,of Engineers web site is: 1 ' httP://Www.nWd-wetsace,atiny:MilitiWs/hh/tidesinpinp94ahtm:• 1 _ I ' §.33 GROINDWATERICornmentskimarily from()tali", • • 1. Aquifers. Aquifers at the site are described as being local and downgradient of • regional groundwater reoharge•.areas'•The nearest potential well site(i.e.,valid water , C right certificate) s a for-a properly snore than 2;000 feet east of the project site and on the opposite site of-1405.- City of Renton-NO.3A'is nearly a mile southeast of the I _ ' project. Both of these off-site domestic water sources are upgradient and outside of any 3.3-1 • influence of the project site. As such, no impact to local..or.regional groundwater I sources should be eXpected,as a result of this project.. •. ' ' - I .. . , . , • . .§13.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS [Comnients pritharfly from Raedeke Associates] . „ il 1. Page 1-8 1.52,2nd paragraph. It should be noted that the project is removing, ,1 :I 3.4-2 two bridges which Will provide More improved habitat than may be disturbed by the -one now bridge Crossing. . , I ' 2. Page 1-9, 1.5.2, Pi par:44h. last sentence. The "liznited proposed 25-foot setbacks"are pursuant to the Renton Code(and'again page 1-9;6th paragraph). This , ' 1 q 2.0-7 language suggests thatthe Applicantis soffiehow•deviatiug from something established. q - and allowed. This in not correct The Renton City Code-Calls for,a 25 foot buffer•••••• I exactly as is.being proposed by the Applicant. N SEA 1412494v1 26266-4. 10 !.1 ‘ ! _ 1 . 1 1 ! I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-01 7 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-98 April 2004 . i • • Page II ryS; October 7,2003 m! 3. $14.3.2,Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas. General.Comment: The DEIS discusses various buffer width alternatives that are evaluated on their ability to C provide the full level of buffer function. as described in the cited literature is inappropriate to the scope of a SEPA EIS. The proposed enhanced buffer would provide a substantial improvement over current site.conditions,and while not providing 100 percent of all.buffer functions, would represent a significant improvement'over existing conditions. We recommend that the DEIS evaluate the effectiveness,of the • proposed enhanced buffer for May Creek based on its effectiveness iti mitigating 3.4-3 negative impacts that would result from development of the site'under the current proposal. . 4. Page 1-9, 1.5:2;7a'paragraph. It should be noted that.the proposal conforms to C and,:in' fact, surpasses- in many instances, the city code for setbacks from any waterways. 5. Public Access,Page 1-9, 1.5.2,8a'paragraph,Page 3-39,3-48 56. The DEIS proposes a range of public access facilities over the site,including uses of publicly C owned.shorelines,public walkways over the private lots fronting'on.Lake-Washington and public walkways.or trails along,the privately.owned May Creek buffers. The, project proposal has access and recreation for.residents on site. Public access on public lands is not within the applicant's'control or purview. Public access also is provided through.views and view Corridors. However,the,DEIS discussion-of a public walkway A over private lots is unlawful and not a reasonable mitigation measure for consideration. We believe the access-That is provided as•part of the,proposal meets the Renton Shoreline Master program; Further a public walkway over private property in this context-violates both federal and state laws,regarding takings and mitigation measures. There have been,a number of cases:'declaring;that local government efforts,to compel general public easements,trails• or open'space,are invalid unless the need,for the public access is directly caused by the. 'impacts.of the proposed project itself This project obviouslyhas not created any need. A for general public access. -Nollen v. Calif Coastal Comm'n.,:483 U S. 825.(1987) (pedestrian -beach easement invalid since no nexus or cause from the particular development);Dolan v City of Tigard,512 U.S:374(1994)(bike/pedestrian pathway • held invalid since dedication'is not related'to impacts of the proposal);.and lila Verde • Int'1. Holdings„Inc. v. City of Kamcis, 146 Wn.2d 74Q (2002). •Thirty percent open space•requirement illegal under state statute requiring dedications to be `a direct result 'of the.proposed development". Barbee Mill's project has.not created,an'public access problem or lack of a•trail connection. The City cannot.require Barbee:Mill or any other private property owner to dedicate property for a public trail or other use as a condition of obtaining development permits with a need for that public access is not"occasioned by the coristniction soiight to be permitted". Dolan,512 U.S.'at 390: • SEA1412494Y1 26266-4 11 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-99 April 2004 Page 12 D • October 7,2003 IV 6. &3.4.1,Wildlife..Paragraph 1: Recommend referencing documented source of information regarding usage of project site by deer. 7. &3.4.1,Wildlife.Paragraph Small Mammals such as voles and mice may use the project Site; however,usage is likely limited by small area of mixed vegetation communities present due to majority of project site being used as lumber mill. Recommend including adiseussion of limitato usage of small mammals under existing conditions. S. §14.1, Wildlife. Paragraph '3:—See comment under 'Wildlife, Paragraph D I 1'above. 9. &3.41.1,Wildlife,Paragraph 3: Recommend referencing documented source D information regarding-waterfowl*Sting activities along Lake Washington shoreline within the project site or in the vicinity. 10. §3.4.2.1, Wildlife. Paragraph 3: Ospreys that currently nest on the sawdust tower:experience regular disturbanee from lumber mill noise and sawdust which is D blown onto the nest and appear to be acclimated to substantial human disturbance. Recommend including a discussion of acclimation by osprey using The sawdust tower nest to human:disturbance. • , 11, &14,21,Wetlands.,,Paragraph 2! It is unclear how modification of the drainage 3.4-7 system in the area of the southernmost wetland would result in reduction in the Sone'of water for the'Vlefland arid thus the potential loss'of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. ... • 12. 3.42.2' Impacts of Development arid Use of the Site,Wildlife.Paragraph Planting a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees around the proposed stoimwater A detention pond would be an improVeMent over existing site conditions which is mostly impervious surfaces. 'Recommend:discussing these plantings in the:context of their adequacy as mitigation measures for specific impacts rather than as potential impacts 'themselves. • • • 13. &3,4.2.2 Aquatic Species—General Comment: Proposed enhanced buffers for, May Creek are discussed as though they are a project impaCt. The proposed buffers are 3.4-3 intended as mitigation measures for project impacts such as potential increased levels •of noise and light intrusion and Wendel water quality degradation and would provide higher levels of buffer function than exist under current conditions. Recommend discussing these proposed buffers fox May Creek in the context of their adequacy as mitigation measures for specific impacts rather than as potential impacts themselves. SEA 1412494v1 262664 12 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-100 —I - Apri12004 I I Page 13 • October 7,2003 14. §3.4.2.2;Aquatic Species, Paragraph 6: Proposed enhanced buffer for May F Creek would average approximately 60 feet in width. Recommend changing the. second line to read,"...approximately 60 feet,as proposed..." D I 15.§3.4:3.2,Wildlife,Paragraph 5: See Comment 5. C I 16. Bulkheads. The buffer mitigation"options"presume that existing bulkheads would be removed —which is not the proposal, • 17. Bulkheads The report "assumes" the need for shoreline protection for ".,,residential use on Lake Washington..."based on the"...southeast feting aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south: The purpose and C accuracy of this statement is unclear.The text subsequent to these statements goes on to suggest that the existing bulkhead provide more-than-adequate shoreline protection.for residential use. Then,it goes on to state that the bulkheads should be removed. These are not only conflicting statements,they also seem to have.no relevance:since bulkhead removal is not proposed. 18. Bulkheads The Bulkhead subsection(and related discussion in previous,portions of the report) does not appear to describe mitigation for unavoidable impacts of the proposed project,but rather it suggests"opportunity"for the project to,provide a more 3.4-12 natural shoreline habitat. Unfortunately,that"opportunity"is not.consistent With the .proposed residential.use of the project site as allowed by.the current!zoning of the :property. The shoreline restoration appears to have no relevance onthat basis. .19. Pocket Beaches. The report'suggests/describes'a provision for.pocket'beaches !and "other" shoreline features at the Lake:Washington frontages.. However, these 3.4-12 features do not.appear.to Mitigate,any, specific project impact. Rather, they are suggested as an improvement by way of"opportunity"; This seems like a subjective discussion unrelated to the SEPA evaluation intended by this report., 20. Buffers. The,report perceives the effective stream buffer.to be reduced near the 3.4-8 Lake Washington.shoreline. However,this interpretation is not a reduetion'in stream buffer,but rather a regulatory reduction at the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)Of. Lake Washington. 21. Buffers. The'current project.proposal.provides for a.minimum;50-feet buffer from the ordinary high water line(OHWL)of May Creek. It could be argued that the A "averaged"buffer.proposed at May Creek provides mitigating.benefits equivalent to those described for'Option A in the DEIS subsections..titled Stream Morphology, Pollutant Removal and.Sediment 'Filtration, Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate, Large Woody Debris Recruitment, and Residential Noise. and Lighting. • SEA 14124940 262664 13 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-101 • April 2004 - Page 14 w 1 October 7,2003 - • 22. Buffers The suggestion.provided•with this:section that equivalent density could' be achieved with an.apartment-style product instead of the proposed townhouse plan is 2.0-3 true when considering oy-nl individual dwelling units. However, it is inaccurate in terms of property valuations and meet nti g the goals of the Applicant The results of Mitigation Options A and B are'therefore not appropriate considerations as required. under current SEPA rules. There is significant infrastructure costs necessary to , j facilitate the improvement of this.property, and:adequate real property valuation is necessary to offset those.costs. The proposed;Options;o not allow for that. • 23. Buffers The DEIS suggests mitigation Option B, 100-feet buffer widths, in response primarily to potential channel migration and the premise that increased.buffers provided improvedwater°quality,habitat,and•public access opportunities adjacent to A May Creek'and'the:Lake Washington shoreline: There appears to be no scientific or • technically measured basis`specific to project impacts,to warrant Option B. We would suggest that the recent publication.King,County Draft CAO: A Review of Wetland Categories"and Buffers and:Case`Study (Raedeke, et al, February 2003) provides additional and detailed response appropriate for this type of buffer application. §3.5 TRANSPORTATION iComments primarily by HDRI 1. Access;An alternate and direct roadway connection to Lake Washington Boulevard'lathe proximity of the northeast property corner and existing at-grade railroad-crossingwas previously discussed with the City for,the.project in-lieu of the Ripley.Lane connection. Preliminary review of this alternate access/crossing showed. 3.5-17 adequate intersection separation to Ripley.Lane at Lake Washington Boulevard: The DEIS suggests that this alternate access would have potential conflicts with the existing. channehzation at Lake Washington Boulevard. However;revisions to the'roadway channelization Would be proposed_to mitigate any such conflicts with the new accesshinte section design: Adequate intersection separation is provided between the proposed alteniate acceta ar'trl the existing RipleyL ine: 2. Railroad Crossing:The project proposes tWo roadway access points to the site - at Or in the proximity of existing private;at-grade crossings of the BNSF railroad from Lake Washington-Boulevard. .These crossings have safely and satisfactorily'served the C commercial/industrial uses at the Barbee Mill and Port Quendall.sites tinder historically higher train volumes than what is currently."in occurrence and that should be anticipated in the reasonable future-,'The two at-grade crossings proposed,for the site are to be improved,to:maintain public safety for;single-fainily rite'of the site based on current City of Renton'road standards,including site distance criteria and safe refuge: The ultimate desigd'o f the at-grade:ctrossings to the'site will result from the approval of the City's review cifa specific,detailed design and subsequent petition to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(WIJ.TC)in accordance with RCW 81.53.020 • and WAG 480-62-150. SEA 1412494126266-4 • 14 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-102 April 2004 • • Page 15 Effl October 7,2003 • Barbee Mill currently has two existing rights to cross the railroad tracks.. First,it has permanent,crossing,right reserved in a 1908 deed when property was granted to the railroad. Second,it has a permit from the Northern Pacific Railroad. While both crossings are currentlyprivate,state law provides a procedure to make these crossings permanent public crossings by filing a petition with the WUTC_See RCW 81.53. The applicant anticipates that the City would file such a petition since the Proposal is fully consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the site. Under GMA, the City is required to,provide concurrency to implement its land use designations, which for the lands Ideated west of the railroad tracks,would mean establishing public • crossings as allowed understate law. Under the City's code,no more than 6 houses can be served with a private road. RMC 4-6-060J. Consequently,ilthe City did not petition the WUTC for public crosssings,then the City would have conducted a major de facto downzone and forced numerous multiple crossings,i.e. 1 private crossing for every 6 houses,For the Barbee site,and Quendall and Vulcan,the COR zone would be meaningless if the.City did not petition for a public crossing to allow the development that is granted by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The City has a precedent with other property owners of cooperating and implementing zoning by filing WUTC petitions: The DDEIS is not accurate in its description of existing grade and elevation conditions at. the southerly rail crossing. Recent survey data of the site Confirms that there is only 3.5-20 about 8 feet of elevation difference and actually 65 feet of separation between the • •BNSF tracks and traveled way of Lake Washington Boulevard at this location. This results;in'a:comparable theoretical grade of 12.5%for this approach. Preliminary roadway designs indicate that current City of Renton road standards can be achieved with the at-grade.crossings. The DEIS is correct that the easterly approach grade'between Lake Washington' C Boulevard and theB3NSF at the southern crossing does not allow for the 30'"level" staging area suggested by-AASHTO and WSDOT for at-grade highway crossings. The 30'"level"landing guideline does appear to be achievable on the west side of this crossing and at:both approaches at the northerly access based on:prelimininy design.. This criteria,however,is only a guideline and there appears(based on preliminary design and current site conditions)to be adequate separation from the traveled way of 3.5-20 Lake Washington Boulevard.and the BNSF tracks to provide safe refuge for staged vehicles. The WSDOT standard(Fig.930-3)cited by the DEIS"...to assure a safe area for cars to wait for entry and for sight distance"likely does not apply to the access intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard as they are proposed. Lake Washington. Boulevard has a posted speed of 25 inph in the vicinity of the project,:representing a 35 mph design speed for entering and stopping sight distance.The.current condition of A these access locations does not suggest any sight distance:deficiencies or . Vehicle/pedestrian safety hazards. Final roadway design will maintain'adequate sight distance;refuge area,and signage for safe use by the proposed residential community. SEA 14124940 262664 15 City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-103 • April 2004 , Page 16 go October 7,2003 3. Cumulative Impacts. The-DEIS speculates on cumulative impacts from future . 3.5-25 development of Quendall Terminals and the Vulcan sites to the north. The DEIS goes on to say that "additional development would generate a need for additional access , points or geometric.:and signal.improvements at existing intersections." First,without 'knowing the*specifics of any future development on those sites,it is not possible to. .. state that'additional access points or geometries would need to change. •Second,the DEIS•mistakenly assumes that'cumulative impacts"under SEPA simply- means things that may happen.in.the vicinity or in a similar time frame. However, E analysis Of cumulative impacts;from potential development is not'warranted unless the j City can demonstrate that the future development by other owners is"dependent on subsequent'proposed development" Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 11 Wn.App. 711 (2002), Examination of an future development's potential impacts is speculative when , . "there areno specific.plans to review and.the impacts therefore areunknown." Tugwell v Kittitas County, 90 Wa.App: 1, (1997): There the Court explained that "the cumulative impact argument must fail unless the'Dotal.government] can.demonstrate , that the[proposedj'project is dependent on subsequent proposed development." . Cumulative impacts include those effects"resulting from.growth caused by a proposal, as well as'the likelihood that the.,present.proposal will serve as a precedent for future E actions. WAC 197-11-060(4)(d) (emphasis added). The DEIS•should acknowledge that the Barbee Mill plat will not set a precedent nor cause,development of the Quendall , or Vulcan sites. , 4. Roadway Network; Page 3-62, Section 3.5.1.1: A summary description of ' • F Ripley Lane is missing from the belle#ed list. 5. Level of Service Siimmary.Page 3=67,Table 3.5-2: Did the LOS resultsat the 3.5-15 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street change during the DEIS process? i 6. Trip Generation;Page'3=6 :'Table 3.5-3: How was the 545,000 square feet of 2.0-14 industrial development derived?4. 1 7. " Prolect Trip Generation: 'Page 3-69, Section 3.5.2.2: HDR previously. 3.5-14 commented on•the .use of LUC'1210 single family detached housing.' Without documented data on trip generation from this.actual site,HDR continues to.recommend j ,: that land code 230,Townliome be'used. ] 8. Project-Trip'Distribution;Rig e 3..71,Section 3.5.2.3: Why would'47%o of this 1 development traffic.:(resisidential traffc),in the,p.m.peak hour be coming from primarily ' • 3.5-8 residential neighborhoods east'of I-405? An explanation of cut-through traffic avoiding •1-405 was given later'in the document,but:that`would only be a portion of the 47°%. , • Should not these trips be primarily a irthig from commercial`land uses?"Could this be a limitation of the model used? n5 SBA'1412494v126266-4 16. , ' City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-104 April 2004 , • Page 17 • October 7,2003 �1! • F I 9. Figure 3.5-5: Recommend adding intersection numbers to this figure for easier reference to the subsequent two figures. F 10. Future Level of Service,Page 3-75,.Section 3.5.2.4:- The intersection•of N 30th Street/1,405 NB ramps is also LOS D in the future according to table 3,5-2.. 11. Bundled:list at the top of the page,Page 3-77: Recommend either quantifying F the use,of the word"substantial",or delete it. "Substantial"is too subjective: Also,in the'second bullet item,please state what the bridge and/or fill is higher than. 12, Site Access,second paragraph,Page 3-78,Section 3.5.2.6: The calculation that 3.5-20 uses 1,100'ADT to justify flashing`lights .is- based on a'disputed trip generation estimate. Would this still be justified if.LUC 230 were used? 13.. Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis, third .paragraph Page 3-80, • D Section 3.51.7: How many times in the last 10.years of other reasonable.time period has a train,had to stop in this section of the railroad and blocked.the crossings in this vicinity? ;Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis, last. paragraph. Page '3-80, A Section 3.5.2.7: The frontage road concept is not reasonable or feasible since Barbee Mills cannot„obtain ROW or easements for a frontage road, it-should bestated that a concept like this would require participation of the properties to the'north as they are redeveloped,and mouldnot be the responsibility of the Barbee'Mill development.at this time. 15:.: Impacts'on Adjacent Jurisdictions, Page 3-82,Section 3,5.2.8: HDR believes that the discussion about diverted I-405 trips is a regional problem, not a problem A caused-by.this.one,development. HDR believes that.trips from'this development may divert-from;405'and use local roadways,but that would not happen,if I-405'were not congested.;;11DR suggests that this be acknowledged as a regional freeway issue,and that the State is:-planning improvements'to I-405, whether they are in the.2007 tithe frame or not,and-therefore this is aa'short--teen problem: -16. - Signal'Warrant Analysis. Page 3-85, Section 325.3.2: No discussion of how 3.5-24 2007 8=hour volumes were'obtained was included in this section. Does Renton's model provide 24-hour data? 17. Mitigation for Site Access and.Rail Intpacts,fiist•bullet Page.3-86, Section A 3:5.3.4 How would;Barbee Mill participate at this time? Is the intent of the.second. sentence to'place responsibility on the future developments, without Barbee Mill participation? SEA 1412494v126266-4 17 • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-105 April 2004 , . ' „.....„ .i Page 18 October 7,2003 _! A 18. Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts,second bullet Page 3-86, Section 3.5.3.4: same comment as above. ' 1 19. Mitigation Of Non-MotOrized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts,last bullet . A Page 3-88,Section 3.5.33: Barbee Mill development cannot provide transit service on 1-405 or take Washington Boulevard with connections to total park and ride lots,since 1 that is an agency decision.. • F I 20. RoadwaV'NetWark, Page 3-62, Section 3.51.1: Burnett Avenue should be bulleted and indented. 21. Pedestrian,Bityele, and Transit Network, Page 3-67, Section 3.5,1.3: In the F firat sentence,add an"s"to"vehicle" • 22. Future Baseline Street Network,Page 3-68,Section 3.5.2.1: Make EMME/2 or F EMME2 c,onsistent throughout document. : 23. No Action: No Build: The DEIS throughout should refer to the No Action F alternative and No Build alternative. The No Action is the,industrial development scenario,whereas the No Build alternative is doing nothing at the project site. At times this distinction is unclear. . 1 . 1 24. Site Access, Page 3-76, Section 3.5.2.6: In the second paragraph, second F sentence,delete the"s"in;"requires" F 25. •Bulleterl list at the top of the page; Page 3-77: Recommend replacing "dead end"with"cul-de-sac". F I 26. Pada 4-80.First Paragraph: 'delete the"s"from"projects"in the tirst.sentetice. 1 1 F I 27. Page 3-85,Fifth paragraph,second sentence:-add a"d"to the end of"describe".. . . i §3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS [Comments primarily by Davis Wright..Tremitinej 1. Sections A.4.:1; .11A3, 1.7.1, 1.7,2,- Summary of Impacts and .Mitigating Measures for Groundwater(p. 1-20), 111 (GioimdWater OualitV),'33.3-..-The Draft EIS does net accurately describe the groundwater removal and treatment to be 1 ' Completed as,part of The Independent Remedial Action Plan(IRAP). Groundwater will 3.6-1 be extracted during the Soil removal action to facilitate excavation of contaminated soil, -i This:groundwater will be treated and most likely discharged to the sanitary sewer. Alter the soil removal action is complete, groundwater will be monitored to evaluate i the residual groundwater concentrations Based on the results of the groundwater monitoring program,remedial actions to address'reSidual grontid*ater concentrations SEA 1412494v1 20266-4 18 s. li City of Renlon-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-106 April 2004 fl Page 19 October 7,2003 will be evaluated and implemented,if necessary. If groundwater extraction is required, a variety of groundwater treatment methods will be evaluated. The EIS should clearly distinguish between: 1)the removal and treatment of groundwater during soil removal; • and 2)the evaluation of groundwater remedies that will only occur if required based on post-soil.remediation groundwater monitoring. 2. Sections 1.7.1,3.6:1.6(Sediment)—These sections indicate that the sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon,(TOC)in excess of sediment cleanup 3.6-2 • levels. The sediment removal action is complete and the sediments no longer contain elevated TOC. Ecology has issued a no further action (NFA) determination for the sediment These sections also indicate that a portion of the sediments are currently being transferred to a disposal facility,but disposition of these sediments is complete. These sections of the EIS should be revised to reflect The current status of the sediment cleanup work and the issuance of the NFA. 3.. Sections 1.7.3,3.6.3—The site will be cleaned up to residential cleanup levels. 3.6-3 • As a result, no restrictive covenants are required. Any reference to restrictive covenants should be deleted. 4. Sections 1.7.1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures;for HIazardous Substances(p. 1-22).3.6.2.2,-3.6.3 —To the extent a cleanup plan must be developed before a public right-of-way may be placed on Quendall:Terminals,the cleanup plan 3.6-6 will be developed in conjunction with the Washington Department of Ecology and the owners of Quendall Ternnals, At this time, it is not known if such a plan'will be • . required. One likely scenario is that the roadway will be considered:a cap:for•any contamination. The Draft:EIS should not suggest that:any remedial,action is required, and it should not discuss any specific remedial.action. 5. Sections 1.4.1, 3.3.1 (Groundwater Quality) -- The second sentence in the F • second paragraph in each Section should be revised to read: "There is one localized area of elevated total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH)in'groundwater at the site." • 6. Section 3.6.1.3(Stormwater Outfalls)—The word"separators"should be added F 'after the words"oil/water"in the second sentence. 7. Section 3:6.1.4=- Since petroleum hydrocarbons are not present in site soil.in F excess of cleanup levels, the phrase "soil and groundwater""at the end:of the.first paragraph in this Section should be changed to"soil and/or groundwater" 8: ..Section 3,6.1.6(Soil and Groundwater).--The fourth.bullet should be ainended F to read "Extracted groundwater will be treated."' The last word in the tenth bullet should be changed to"necessary". SEA 1412494v1262664 19 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-107 April 2004 Page 20 El October 7,2003 9. Section 3.6.1.7 (Quendall Terminals), 3.6.3 — The owners of Quendall F Terminals have notc,ompleteri a feasibility study. As a result,geology hastiot selected a remedy for that site. Any reference to"recommended strategy"or specific'remedial measures for the Quendall Terminals site'should be deleted. §3.7 AESTHETICS [Comments primarily by CenturyPacific] 1, General—Since the application before the City is a preliminary plat which, 3.7-2 pursuant to the city's Code, does not require detailed architectural.:drawings, the discussion of the aesthetics as tall square boxes is not aactirate, In fact,the use of blank square boxes exaggerates and misleads the reader nf how thetowithouses will appear. 2. General —The zoning on the site allows 125,foot tall buildings The DEIS should acknowledge that the heights, voluntarily agreed to by the'Applicant, are 3 7-3. between 40%and 60%less than what could be built on the site pursuant to the zoning. This man extremely low density project on 24 acres •• • • • §3.8 LIGHT AND.GLARE C 1. The light and glare impacts seem similaitonónedresidentinldeve1opnient §:3.9 NOISE [Comments primarily by OTAIC Engineering] , 1. Pile Driving. The DEIS'states that "...pile driving is potentially the greatest source of noise and vibration generated froin construction activities." Ili*eYer; the 3:9-1 pm-pile type of supporta,suggested by the project geotechnical engineer for proposed residential construction do not generate significanknoiae or ground Vibration—certainly not the 101 dBA level consideredby the report. • „ 2. Train horns. Provisions for private Mad erosaings,Of the plIpi!would mitigate A the need for mandatory horn sounding suggested by the:DEIS fOrpublic crossings at the.project site. The discussion of train frequency and the associated"annoyance"of increased soundings seems irrelevant since it Only be a result of increased train traffic and not a resultant of project propoSal. §3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES I. Impacts, Page 1-19, 1.11.2. We agree with yoUr statement that "The lack of C national, state or lOC41 listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation,of privately owned'structures." A statement:similar to this aheidd be SEA.1412494v1 262664 20 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-617 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-108 April 2004 1 Page 21 i October 7,2003 included in almost every "Impacts" section of.the DEIS,since much of what is suggested in the Draft EIS is not required or authorized by local,state or national laws. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement. If you or Parametrix have any.questions regarding the Applicant's comments,please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, • DAVIS WRIGHT TREM.A.INE LLP Thomas A.Go Attachment:Comments on Mitigation Measure chart cc: Robert Cugini Steve Wood Campbell Mathewson SEA 1412494v126266.4 21 • • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-109 April 2004 • • -I • Table 1-Water Surface Elevations for Parametrix HEC-RAS Modeling 1990 Flood Conditions: •Flowrate=598 9.01. g.09 9.10 g.06 Existing. Proposed Proposed Proposed . No Aggradatior Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation 1 Middle Br. No Middle far. No Middle Br No Middle Bridge Station Location .. 50'Setback 100'Setback 11 D/s of Washington,Blvd. • 27.6 • 27.6 ' 27.6 ' 27.6 I 10 26.7 28,7 26.7 ' 26.7 6.9 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 ! 6.75 D/s of Upper Bridge 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0. 6 23.3 23.3 23.3 23:3 I 4.35 : 21.7 21.8. '21;8 21.8 I 4.25 ' U/s of Middle Bridge •. '•21.6 21.8 21,8 21.8 I j 2,25 U/s of Lower Bridge , . 19.9 20.7 20.7 20.7 2 18.7 18:9 18,9 18.9 1 Mouth of May Creek • • 16.9 16.9 16;9 16.9 I I . . FEMA Study: FEMA Flowrate 1996=870 cfs g.01 g.09 9.10 g.06 . Existing . Proposed Proposed Proposed ' . No Aggradation , Aggradation Aggradation. Aggradation. 3 Middle Br. No Middle Br No,Middie Br No'Middle Bridge Station .50'Setback 100'Setback . I . 11. ' 28.5• • 28.5 28.6 28.6 i 10 27.7 27.8 28 27.9 6.9 27.3 27.3 27:1 27.1 6.75 .24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 i : 6 24.2_ • 24.4 24.3 24.3 1 4.35 22.5. 23.8 22,9 22.9 , 4.25 23 • 23.7 2219 .22:9 2.25 '22.9 22:9 21,8 21:8 ' 2 19.3 19.4 19.4 19.4 1 16.9. ' 16.9 16.9 •16.9 t Future Condition: 100 Year Future Flow'=1059 cis 901 9..09 . 9.10 g.06 Existing Proposed Proposed .Proposed No Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation • Middle Br. • No.MiddleBr No Middle:Br No Middle Bridge Station . 50'Setback 100'Setback ' . '_ 11 '29.0 29.1.• 29:1 29.1 - 10 28.0 28.2 28.4 28.2 •6.9 26.4 26.4 - 27.4 27.3 9.75 ' .25:3 25.3 25:5 25.4 ' ! 6 24:3' ' 24.4 25,0,.. '24.9 I 4,35. 23:1 23.9 24.1 24.0 4.25 . 23.0 . 23.9 24.1 23.9: 1 2.25 22:4 . .22.4 23.1 22.9 I 2 19.6 19.7 19.7 • • 19.7 I 1 • 16.9 '16.9 . 16.9 16:9 I Eorlie2 Mill kymoiea oaaoao aortstdek_ es+r m oiak . r . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-110 April 2004 `! r I 1, • • , , 2_4:I V\ 1111.ffi ...d. i. .. , :_ # f 1 ` I. .11----J to 1 \ V . , 7 ./L! S OF FLOODP IN / ;/i 1 Ailkt-Pl.: -1:\.\)°* .� • /r' '1 / r • k i• 11 .1,.(*) . ,<//// il. Adill. ,,,- , c.o.Z"/ . ) ii 1) ,I e / 7 /1 / / FLon ? ,�J t / .!1 1... RS 6.750, !t. WASHiKE I Cam) 410, 16. �'1` ,4a } '1 �r�f ; LIMITS OF ' ON / RS k /l'i� ! FLOODPLAIN t' - j r "`►� f i,/ MAY CREEK i- / \\, ' RS4 RS ,2 1 :S. i' J �it>� ( ., � /` PPER BRIDG J /I w� / / j 1Y ^2:15 J LL �iti« l i b ..: �,� R / : .... f N 40TH ST .— .. rl. � 4 .;LOWER BRIDGE.. . ParametrIx MTe;07.'IW/o8 nie'NIY/17POIT1K.-0-o2 Figure B-2 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach NO SCALE --••-^-•-• MAY CREEK CENTERLINE • 100_yr Floodplain RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future FlowrateS City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-111 April 2004 i ! r • ?133110AbiN SV3Htl 03LvuO009N1 RI • n. • YM'1,1NR0a•JNIM o S311100d 00011 A9N30V1113W39tlNYWAON391131`431%41303J • . } ..•�- rti.{..•.r.f, � a m ti ' a a 8. a 1 aas aar■aaa ail a ,... .,,i i 'iT ..• .�.G ' a •pia ■■ aa�_ • .lr' �..H : t 0 0:0 0 ..{-7 r • P ...... 4 � Ap OO . z(� '' aN�a�� u ■ a ■ ! �• 4#}1•- . . 1y^- ±' } '�- e aJ .O .+ O is 1 It4.' L:16 ( . .4� - r13-•1-4. is a.ggm tag a�} a �� Gi- �_ 1-1 } ;, y_ag i r1tl4 r ►a■ l r a a ■ r �e,.{��1,,r �p.= �}�-t I� a»'; b..Qf $:= Q G f.*lli 1alaay=a ar-tr.. L.,...,. _. ,1 -y 1 G\ •\ lual� _I 'r '''•4 } « - S -•".'r 1-1'14 4'4 •■ i . 1: - T..i• ---.. .rt. -- 1 !GV'0NY a.. WI! 4.4' r I , 1 ".•-yy•� a► vl i=v a- ' y 't r S 3 it 1t, 1€ .t.;. €. € � �' ar*, l a ..Y14 r i i,i ! . ! • t p ,yyy$,.fy y_ }•a.',wino ■�v�,y:i: :r{ i.1 rF.€.#;1',r`.�j..,..€_.)'",, L-;4.a,.; `t 1 i � .L}.i: "'!' i.ty ■1;a.i.7•+. isi.741 l,s".s-.i.L:�i.i1....� _ «€y j v..+r3.1..€^r}i.�^ ,��':•jrrw-:- Al }i.i%,.`:., fi..:}•.y}.t,:'hi,.<'[.:s9} ' •r,'r { t L4111-.: ."S:I'1. f= �M� ;. -44-i- �'..I f i-ii'7�;1'ir1'4... .1 :"'iti'MT`�f_ i pt.:..i... 0 i l 1 r •.m. 1--;.' I i I. H.1 e -h 1-}-:_11: r 1. .a .ail "lurp\11ap1`'1l1'al�aal r$ •r •!:-'r.'4-4 -: 1 G-,#',...€,•'! 4 I.��ri ° l't..." -::{: I �,�"�.!.�, a \ttt j a ia�131al .'~ „II-filth-TV-' •7';��'� qV4.; S'.}•1,5.'t'� i s.'i i:;';:' ;A f: I �"�rf N ■Ra-yi�■tVi4��i� } .... I ,r !#�:'•3.4t ar :; t1.-'... is :' :w.: ^ !:,! 1 � \ '� T . •i,-i• 1 -3-}'`M:,i ..;;,1.�a..L..,•I... ;. raj 3_s, r.-j • sj€ 7 -. 1sd.r. .I{ .1• € f i^* t} a t v \ 4 \ i.1 1�, t. i rcj } t .[s.("L' I }•r 1T -a ■va al ■ initic �.,,--ri - 11'.�:1'--I3,4,1 i. i.•4.r{ .'•.i.:L:`; • .t ,�f•---rrI 1 •i■aav ■aIta a�{lr�f��)l aall :��iy- #. ,G...1G=i.:--`1.••Y.j..€ST.=-i3 ^,. e�•.• - IT3 '! ■ ;rlln Yr!•7'r€-4€ i,,-, ; �- ••;-1 , II.•,f.1,'•r Q, {, •r-rr aaaa : a \'4 �1 " € 1 .I .1 1 a: + ;d...`.... ' , ; - 0 t -!'' ',�'T'f'a■lffa al■/a16M L 4. ..• •{ .b$• r- a.■ a\!!Ya aaataa t ri.-i.•�_-HI-•i"i S` ■ Y•r 41. t S # otoMfi}Iaa11IraI�a��t�rri A.t -..fy ! t--r•,• •-Y. ;,.{-�f { a/■■a u r�raa..../ anti }r ala 7:1iiL r F' t visa 7w1T _i.Iy�t}� }l WP•t .'-i�i« tI aX '- . )1�*a a '.Ly P.1REaa. t9:r:1..I.'.T'lM.a' '}. >j-r ■llaritil ! 1*111sa g4Mr; • ''.4 t, 1.�,.i;.I I i€ 4 a j;, --Y3 I Ll 'r W• arretaa 1 ..us.«... m a. Q aaaaararral ■ a • -• i _ ;IL',n i` ' ' a lama 0-- i}.�1a{� f4, i-71- tit "a ;. 1€'.;.. „O.: r 1 r rE 444..•r , '.dj r^' 1 `71€•i " .12 €:1.71" :;-rid, 4z r.1I : i ...-73, H'{"E r s},.:i.. 3 •z.i. N-i7`1 •1 'y-I3 },�j....• -rr • T' �Y.=S.' •rn,r•t.y � .rT�- .y • .��d L.,: . .tag 'ti.;. ''.ii•- }r+ •n ..T'-t�- I r ;. r �'h•1'E:i::'.. :i:� ;Lt.;. �v �; •r;a:.;�'. a{ a • .�i•. 3IL" i f"-'.. ��°Y,~Fi\'`� .•..•�r,...r :.� tt : �(r11,14_, 1 i, • \ iun .l.'-I'�-z;-*- .�.y-•• v aiIll=a_ ..rJ a Ft,M ,{, '�•^.7`-tii-t Li+ N ' _ ; r a i_ yap lU as t ,. SWll'al0 a. -•. iy-.1• S.#•-i-hi;.-,.h,-; rD ai r- a a , lr u a aa\a■ 1 ,{ I. ., ; ,. c ■a • alga alga taalgaa■aa sa al {-i-•-31 i"" ;"'?= : 1' ', '1''-,rs.', !• ar lfgp�1 'a ;t an ( r i-f-t.L s-�.. ,, -e rT, Sla �l'algl as r T i, -..-:t-f•.• ^-b'r .. .,..�-'{'k -<i: "In r ■afirl•t r� "��,".„ r "�-1° ,'may � ��•-. i• -:- •� .• r to' 1' E1a • al 9.fi, , 4 't s ,�+ • ,..; 1 y ''. € ..ttto ffr.ram.! =y' ;rrE€,-" r•£�H � ..v �Ys = is : i lgataa _ F aaar •NI I r 4 ..1.�, ry G.•s4^1�:4.:.:. y 1.},W 1` 'O 1. a \a ,: 1un,,,faanala :air } {. •riii t-r-,;• 1 _r 1,.•1 3 7 EN-'-. a t mitt era- r .;t.a I' a- e L.G...s i-' - yy.l.{ 44" ' arlmalIa ;€_. ar - "f 3 '1 s [_1 1 , alb. a alga.. vialvta +aii\�r�ia ■ rr a■y;qy�j;� a�rjt\y 4 rr• -r r , ••t-,. aa!!]fllliltl ■1frla auaaar.i'muiia a a r'' Tlll*l•lk%tH� 'f _ ,I -L •a.-r v �11{ ■a to■ aaraaaa■ aavv ! a.rr.h.la0v'r"' `'i ,;..__.1 o 1v111�1 331 atiaai taeaa■ta7f11llu aa3[ # `;.� _ • !ILLiL`amttu�lg'm u a !q6-iai- r i,�' . .-.iia #i .1 j�-€'::+• j - iar! ra aa 1tv7Gv�a �f � .!.aryv ntu {. r i. .•1 'r as !w aftr ail iwl iwll .`� r''�wiiaaa a sii�le Y �.R y 1ri'a �tfl�ta ��!�.��`uila�it �il�rrr dai pat Uu #•-- , • _!' �.'s: � ' i� £;'fii.:i.ra�lifaa�..a. r .a r ■ ik. ,i r• I , A p-14Ti .ra..;ar� ilia ! (frlaar va r 'tea I 4 I. r., , I _ 1»414_, .... it {. 1-rt`-c i•firm semi *aim. u ■aa mamma lrlif . , I ',r-.., N : st -rT lta . a�xita■ ■ria\ tare alga■ , �a�a a�iwvsaaalaaauarasaaa�G tale la.-- . € t1i� }.i t . -rYf' tt-- ! ■raaria!! riaaaa•11r11aar r! a yr Lr} ^('•j[t T''":'-'• O a 'f'i u!ta-„!tj>"Ifj�fr ■aa11i1!�mica. !1. T Y 1 1'r' '1" ]t'L...-GG .i- tu'.S;�' E itil! *s'f ti fl! rf! '�.j�'��^� asw ta`._'1a'.�"u {y r 1. (s ' G_4.'41 1 .} "4-�.-i« = :r.'• ,Or it��j a.-di • ,' 1 n 41-.'i ,---;,.'-1-'*!-r,',-4-'i�-.s,? •1.:t.t.•,-•I 11-er=• J 1?.�1i�.' ,. • i� yf, '.!}•Vila i" r.'.:,1-:'' ''} ` ±t1.1 ,.•i•i 4...-174:-4•#-1a »7= _€.:`- .o ' e o S • , m . • r 2 a p g e o 1 IaAON3334 aoti ill I, ... ai `�3 . 1 City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-112 April 2004 __ I -, •. ' ' . Tides:North Puget Sound-94A-?limn N.Chin rn Locks hnp:41,ti.ww.ntv(141,ve.• *ce.oriny..iniftpwAhicidestnp/0044.htin : + 1 ' . . .. , ,.___ .........:• • , , „ . '.; • :i 1',i'li'.'''.:','•:::r - . • riCi41 Mtym,Regions„.1VOrttrPugef.SoniKtRegion- • • . 94A- Hiram IC ChitttbdOn Locks- ', ,.. . . Relation Between'Various Batbin Plana Datum Plane ACM , NGVD .NA'VD138 :' dOi, ; :: 'tali: --' • Highest Estimated Tide - . • . . .. . _. _ Mean Higher High Water :11.35 5.25 8:83 '.. 1Z0S : . ,.. Mean Eligh Water 1049 • 439 7,97 ' . 1.119 T ''.:1-.7.47-1 • Mean(Half)Tick Level • 6.66 f! 0.56 4.14 ii 7:3-6' !. •-5.57 ; ' : , • 'isiaV15 6.10 : -);00 3 513 :I. 0430: ,' ••-6,13, ;Mean Low Water 2.83 ; -327 031' • i. 3,63 ' .4.40 .1• ' • . .• Mean Tower Low Water 0,00 , -6.fii -2,52 • ; 070 • -12.23 ., Lowest Estimated Tide ' Record Levels(15,11,LW) Leerta i1Ipp 1 _. Highest Observed Tide ; . .. Date • 12/15177 ! 1'''''', >Ar.g#1,./Alit& , ,,,.:'.9t4t!g.1%.NO: '• ." ; :• -,, BA1NWW:'": :*."'''''H!"', ., .. Lowest.Obs,ervedl'ide -4.60 ; ' , !-:".';';',i'•'(.2.-!. •:.„;% ;17...,E'.,_tt::,,, '1 - . • Pate 61/20/51 1 ry. ' '.';':''''t''''• It . , Periodfecord L.s-.. '5,,,'Afts,*; ' . • . o :R .,-:. /A • :IOW' qii:, , :,.. , .. .; Epoch 1960-1978 ,-- : .• ; --7. -,,:•-.i".=: ,:......i Index Gage . ' - • YlcIltrIT—4'0 .. i . • All Data 1;I:rovided,IsAbrovi$iott61 • - i - . { , ...., . .,,,•,,-„,,,,....0 ,.,. : . , . . . , ,. ..• ,.. },...„..it it Sam!) . . , Iasi lipdeite Th s ors uralsot January05.IOW 1 , . . . , , . ,-T • :. ' • • . ., . . . .. •1 or.1 .,, • . • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-113 April 2004 • Arc s O z BARBEE.MILL'S COMMENTS TO DEIS MITIGATION CHART APPEARING IN DEIS SUMMARY b Barbee Mill has copied the mitigation chart Mat appears in theDEIS summary at pages 1-20 to 1-23,and added a new right- o = hand column with Barbee's comments orreach mitigation measure. These comments supplement the comments in the letter ,• itself. As a preliminary matter,:many of"the mitigation measures listed'in the DEIS Su miary are not lawful or appropriate mitigation measures under the substantive standards of SEPA•-WAC 197-11-660(1): a (a) Mitigation measures or denial shall be basedupon policies,clans,rules or regulations formally designated by the legislative body::.as a basis°°"for tie exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or DEIS. • is issued. . (b) Mitigation measures'shall'he related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified . . . The decision makers shall cite the agency's SEPA.pelicy that is the basis of any condition... (c) Mitigation measures shall be,reasonable and capable of being accomplished. For example, mitigation measures relating to deep foundation systems or ground densification for liquefaction,,dikes for flooding,aban on docks,public access over private property;and additional buffers exceeding adopted codes do not appear to be based'upon adopted plans or policies or are not reasonable'and capable of being_accomplished: IMPACTS _ MITIGATING.MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT • A Earth,Soils,and Geology Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Praetices'(BMPs)for . Applicant will i ouiply With applicable code erosion control prior to construction requirements. ba SEA 1412444v126266.4 23 N b •q V •• o R A IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system,such as Based on site-specific analysis, Golder o pilings,that would transfer the building loads to the Associates proposes lightly loaded piles � dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial bearing in the compact zone at a depth of 15- s • deposits 25: .Disagree on need or appropriateness of b piles for high lateral loads[See Applicant's a DEIS comment•letter.at 031J. Request City to identify any other comparable residential A project with a deep foundation system. Further,DEIS's discussion of a deep • foundation-system is not based on adopted . code and would not.be.a valid SEPA condition. 0 Installgroundiniprovement measures,such as stone Foundations(as described above)and offsets a Columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the from the shoreline are adequate and ' liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities appropriate mitigation. Disagree on need or appropriateness of ground improvement . ' .measures. [See Applicant's DEIS comment letter at 0.11 Request City to identify any • other comparable residential project with • stone columns or deep dynamic compaction. Further,DEIS's discussion of ground modifications is not based on adopted code and would not be a valid•SEPA condition. • Ln SEA 1412494v126266-4 24. H '..1(-.) ...___. ...................._______.,— ,. . — --.,. .... S. • „ , A tr7 2 . 0 0 Z , L. -4. • IMPACTS MITIGATING:MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT z -4 Provide containment consisting of ground densification 15.40 feet of offset distance of structures is.' D..• treatment to reduced the hazard of lateral spreading, from the shoreline minimizes risk of lateral particularly near the shoreline spreading damage. Disagree on need or ..,5 A apprOpriateness of ground improvement theasyres. (See Applicant's DEIS comment ET , . letter Ot§.3:1]. Request City Widen*any . other comparable residential project with : . . ground densification. Further,DETS'S. diSCUssion of grottnedensification is not . based on adopted code and would not a .. validSEF4conditiort,• '' • :....,,,, a4!•;•.-!;! i,,.., • ,..„. ..1:, 4 Erosion and Implement an appropriate Erosion and .4Ppilcaniwill comply with applicable code m • Sedimentation Sediment Control(TESO Plan ' . - requirements ,... 0, Pollutants in&dace Construct,operate the proposed water- :41,,Pitegfir:vill.OrtiPly',00,4ppliOble code' Water quality treatment facilities requirements. . . • . . _ , . . , . . . .. . . „ - - - • . , ,.., . 4a . 41. . SEA 1412494v1 26266-4 25 *CI '''.. • ..1.1., • , CZ•••••• , '11n A z4• s O 3 o .IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT b . B. b Flooding Contain;the.100-year floodplain.within.either the The project.currently proposes a voluntary a Z. proposed May Creek open space corridor,or in increase in:the May Creek stream bu•Zyer. •to alternative 50.foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained 50 feet. The HEC-RAS model shows no by fill or levies at least one.foot above base flood levels significant benefit of a 100 feet buffer versus b the already increased 50 feet buffer in terms n A of flood plain depth and conveyance: In • fact, there is. no change in flood plain • depth/water .surface elevation at the most ' upstream, .on:site section between.a 50,feet • - and 100 feet buffer.. This.further suggests. • .that increased buffer width (and any. • .associated floodway storage)is unnecessary ' - and provides no.mitigation benefit to off-site, upstream properties. The applicant will acomply with applicable code requirements with respect to the design and construction of infrastructure features, fill placement, and - building construction in designated flood plain areas. Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above. Applicant Will comply with applicable code . base flood elevation requirements. • �`... SEA 1412494v]`26266 4 26 b '' H fib z 1. O 3 � `0 IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT • A Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing Request City to identzfy any other v existing fill withiin,the open space corridor and providing comparable residential project where this additional storage volume mitigation was imposed.Further,DEIS's discussion ofill removal is not based on b ,adopted code and would not be a valid SEPA condition. b ' 00 . a , ti n , SEA 1412494v126266 4 27 z. ti b o O , 4 • a `Z o • o a 3 b o • . o IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT ° Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide Request City to identify any other oadditional.conveyance and flood storage to compensate comparable residential project where this R for,future increases in flood.elevations because of mitigation was imposed Further;DEIS's sediment deposited in the stream channel discussion of 100 foot bu,Jjer system b contradicts adopted code of 25 foot buffers. ' .and would not be a valid SEPA condition. A The project currently proposes a:voluntaiy increase in the May Creek stream buffer to • • 50 feet. The HEC-RAS model shows no significant benefit of a 100 feet buffer versus the already increased SO feet buffer in terms offlood plain depth and conveyance. In 'o fact,there is no change in flood plain a depth/water surface elevation at the most upstream,on-site section between a 50 feet • e and 100 feet buffer. This further suggests that increased buffer width(and any • associated ftoodway storage)is unnecessary and provides no mitigation benefit to off-site, upstream properties. The•DEIS states • (section 2.4.1.4)that "the HEC-R4Smodel . did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood levels."As such,a complete analysis has not been provided to just the claim that •additional lood storage would be necessary ry to "...compensate for future increase in flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel." a SEA 14124940 26266-4. 28 a-1 ti ti b N i O O O'„ •4. V 'ZI C) e•••••,.... ._•.,.,,.,.,,,,,,,,, . .. . . . ..,..............• ..,—.•.-.-- t'll 2. Z , t'J . z El 4..";i; 7:4- Z IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT Iternove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the 'The proposal calls for the removal of restriction to floodwater flow -.2biidies,and installation of I new bridge, •.1: : -. ; . fora net reduction of!.bridge. 6o ' Groundwater . . . . A' Groundwater , Remove contaminated'soil during Model Toxics Control SeeApplicant's DEIS commentletter at§3.3 ; Contamination Act cleanup of the site - - :aiiii 3,6 Cleanups are governed and, reidated bYpOkrind not city: • Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater, See Applidint's DEIS comment letter at§3.3 if monitoring after soil removal indicatesipursuant to and 36 elhanups'are governed and Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site regidated by DOE and not pity. . , ..... Plenty&Animals, 1.; o Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest,to an artificial structure erected APP:iiegritiVilt'cornply with applicable code in the project site vicinity rgqiiireinerill.. '' • ' Removal of existing Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along Applicant will will comply ivith applicable code vegetatiop,,, . May Creek from disturbance during construction by requirements ' - erecting barrier fencing and locating:staging and access - "°' -:''"— ' " • 'areas away from buffer areas . , . : . . Existing invasive plant Clear to'CoinpletelY-rernove invasive species and re-plant Applicant will comply with applicable code species-in buffer areas with native species .. = • . requirements. , . ,... ,... SEA 141204v1 6266-4 29, •t:, -- . .., -.4 o o cz, ..... . 44. -..., 1 1 • ?7 c) A ' O 3 3 '' O O i IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE.COMMENT A b Loss of vegetation at :Design.bridges:withsufficieit height and width:to to o allow Request City .identpy any other o bridges. penetration of sunlight and.precipitation to maintain comparable residential project where this s vegetation mitigation was imposed. Further,-DEIS's discussion Of Modified bridge standards is 'Tonot based on adopted code and would not be FF.. a valid SEPA condition. A Restriction of animal Design bridges with sufficient height and width to • Request City identffr any other movement at bridges provide for animal movement comparable residential project where this mitigation was imposed Further;DEIS's discussion of mod f ed bridge standards is .. not based on adopted code and would not be T:' a valid SEPA condition. a Lack of habitat value of Use native plants in residential landscaping Applicant will comply with applicable code residential landscaping requirements See Applicant's DEIS comment letter at.P.4. Surface water pollution Use of native plants in residential landscaping can Applicant will comply with applicable code from fertilizers,pesticides, minimize the use of fertilizers,pesticides,or herbicides requirements. See Applicant's DEIS or herbicides with. comment letter at 0.4. resulting impacts on Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce . wildlife and fish oveispray,spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into water `^ SEA 1412494126266-4 30 ' a� b N b O O O+. li V 7 O. . . m a oc IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTI FED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT Ei. b Wetland and buffer Avoid wetland displacement by designing changes.in the Based on evaluation ofalternatives and a :displacement 'pioposal to place development:outside the wetland and wetland functions,the Applicant proposes a ;. buffer small displacement of the southern,wetland 1 and will compensate consistent with b applicable code requirements,,and with any ° applicable Corps of Engineers permitting A process. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement 'Applieant.w.ill comply'with applicable code elsewhere on site .. ' ,requirements,and with any applicable Corps " ofErigineerspermittingprocess ' • :Compensate,for loss of buffer through averaging and iffiii.4eipit,ourcomply with applicable code a enhancement of the existing and buffer vegetation .requirements,and with any applicable Corps ti of"Engineers permitting pratess., ,. N Bulkhead impact on Remove bulkheads whore natural shoreline conditions 0.e.eApplocio,pgis comment letter at§3.4 aquatic species can be re-established(where the lake is shallow,on '(17-20):'Bequest•City to identify any other public lands or in conjunction with greater building 'comparable residential project where this setbacks) mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's ;discuission`of bulkhead removal is not based 'on rdopte'd code and would not be a valid SEPA condition. 1 a SEA 1412494v1 26266-4 31 b -- :t V ti b K.) O O O 'er d V • o 3 py a ' El ct i IMPACTS ' 'IW IGATING:MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN.DEIS BARBEE COMMENT A b Remove bulkheads and rely on,vegetation stabilization See Applicant.'s DEIS comment letter at j'3.4 a (where the'lake is shallow,.on public lands or in (17—20). Request City to identify any other g 3 • conjunction with greater building setbacks) comparable'residential project where this mitigation was imposed. Further,DEIS's b discussion of bulkhead removal is not based o on adopted code and would not be a valid A SEPA condition. Providing plantings in,rip-rap Request City to identify any other comparable residential project where this rrmitigation was:imposed.Further,DEIS's .discussion of rip-rap planting is:not based on adopted.crrde and would not be a.valid SEPA condition. a w 'Reduce the.elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and Request City to identify any other .•rip-rap to allow more natural'shoreline plantings comparable residential project where this • ' mitigation was.imposed.Further,DEIS's ' discussion of wall or rip-rap removal is not " •based on.adopted code and would not.he a valid SEPA condition. Loss of waterfowl habitat ; Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a See Applicant's DEIS comment letter at§3.4 through removal of,pilings distance front near-shore habitat.important for juvenile (21-24). Applicant will comply with and Other-in-Water: salinonid§ applicable'code requirements and/or perching sites directive ofDepartment ofNatural ' Resources. • A SEA 1412494v126266-4 32 a . b � V b 1v . O O 3a V o 3 A IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT D. , Lack of large woody Provide.50 to 100 foot buffers on.stream and lake :SeeApplicant:'s DEIS comment letter at-§3.4 is 2. debris(LWD)recruitment -shoreline to allow establishment of more'extensive and ,(21 2V). Request City to identify any other' 3 ,• 'complex communities of indigenous vegetation comparable residential project where this Z, mitigation was Imposed;Further,DEIS's b A discussion of ail or I oo foot buffers ° .contradicts:adopted ode.of25 foot buffers . . , ' ;,aiirl`would not beg valid SEPA condition. Elevated shoreline water Provide 50:to 100 foot buffers on streath and lake `Reguest CIO io identify any.other. temperature shoreline to allow establishment of mature-canopy from comparable residential project where this indigenous vegetation to:provide summer shade mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's .discussion of SO or I00 foot buffers 1 contradicts'adopted code of25 foot bufferso, ... and would not.be a-.valid SEPA condition. .' Light and glare impacts on Provide:50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake "Requ'est City to identify any other wildlife and_aquatic shoreline to,allow.establishment of more extensive `corrparableresidential project where this species communities of indigenous vegetation to intercept light mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's and glare discussion olSO ar IOO foot.buffers contradicts adopted code of25foot buffers , and would not be=a valid SEPA condition. a SEA 1412494v1262664 33. n H A i 3� O , Q1 O ili i IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT O Direct disturbance of Provide 50 to 100 foot.buffers on stream and.lake See Applicant'iDEIS comment letter at§3.4 a • wildlife and aquatic shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive (21-24). Request City to ident any other s species from residents or communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer comparable residential project where this el ' public using public access ;disturbance and allow public"access further from the mitigation was imposed. Further,DEIS's b facilities shoreline , , , discussion of 50 or 100 foot buffers a contradicts adopted code of 25 foot buffers and would not be_a valid SEPA condition. A Impacts of docks on Prohibit docks,require use of mooring buoys or floats at Request City toldent051 any other juvenile salmonids _a distance from near shore habitat comparable residential project where this mitigation:was imposed Further,DEIS's discussion ofprohibiting docks contradicts ' adopted SMP and would not be a valid SEPA a condition. Reduce the number of docks through.shared moorage Request City to identifr any other comparable residential project where this ' • mitigation was imposed.. Further, DEIS's discussion of reduced or shared docks is not based on adopted SMP and would not be a valid SEPA condition. Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials Request City to identify any other thatallow light penetration comparable residential project where this mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's discussion ofnarrow docks or special dock _ materials is not based on adopted SMP and would not be a valid SEPA condition. A. SEA l412494vi 26w6=4 34 baL Z• V tv b O 44. V • a � m 0 3 cl a `° IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN:DEIS BARBEE COMMENT A Difficulty of ensuring 'Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation Applicant will comply with applicable code 3 maintenance of shoreline by an entity other than residents requirements. nci vegetation o Transportation Increase transportation. _.-. .Provide demand management programs including "Applicant will comply.with applicable code demand from trip ' iniprrAd trans—it and`carpool facilities'and service and -requirements Request City to identify any A generation " on site and off-site facilities and programs that would other comparable residential project where provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities. ;this mitigationrwas imposed b :Intersections not meeting ;MitigateLOS impacts'at the 1-405 sorthbound ramp/NE .104uires area widesystein for fair share a City of Renton level of ;44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)intersection contributions. At most;=Barbee Mill would a service(L,OS).standards ;thr:etigl%an alf: y;steri Ofi ial or signal A,signal is Y be gbligated to pay for only its fair share, N IRAwar'fante'd based"on the vehicular volumes Mitigate which based on peak hour:trips is minimal. 0, LOS impacts at'the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake '.Ijequest City to identify any other , Washingtonl3oulevard)/NE44th Street intersection with. :comparable'tesidentialpr.oject where this an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound mitigation was imposed'- right-turn lane or a signal.The,intersection meets volume ` ' criteria for':Signal Warrants , , Geometric limitations of Move the site access to locations where Lake Applicant Will comply with applicable code propose railroad crossings .Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same requirements.,Ifpublic crossing(s), WOTC elevation:"This would have some impacts on grading for 'regulations control requiredpublic crossing on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek features'° . 'na SEA 14t?A94yi,26266.4 35- ?1n a ' •.• o 2 a E IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT o Potential safety .impacts at Provide grade separation,which ierrloves potential Applicant will comply with applicable code a railroad crossings vehicle/train conflicts,but is quite expensive.This may requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC be implemented in thefuture to mitigate cumulative regulations control required public crossing impacts of development of adjacent properties features. This condition is not warranted by b project traffic contributions and anticipated o • train volumes Provide active control designed to provide warning Applicant will comply with applicable,code devices automatically activated'by train approach and requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and regulations control required public crossing A pedestrians" features.Tins condition is not Warranted by project traffic contributions and anticipated 'ro - train volumes.. • o� a Provide passive control involving signs and pavement Applicant will comply with applicable code markers and rely on drivers and pedestrians to reccognize requirements..Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC that a train's and stopping with adequate regulations control required public crossing ' clearance from.the rails features. Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossing to Applicant will comply with•applicable code reduce the number of conflict points: `requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC regulations control required public crossing features. Provide'for a traffic circulation system.to serve Applicant will comply with applicable code properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC regulations control required public crossing features. t-,. SEA 1412494126266-4 '.36 bL V . H a 4 C e o 3 A IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASITRES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT a b Increased , Inabaa mix of on site'aridl Off-site-facilities and " " Applicant:►gill^comply with applicable code i %. ' pedestrianvehicle programs that would provide safe pedestrian-circulation requirements If public crossing(s), WUTC • .57 conflicts regulations control required public crossing features: , . ° Diffuse ithpactiof new Contribute to'the City of Renton Transportation • ' Applicant will comply with applicable code trips on the'circulation Mitigation Fee requirements. . A system Hazardous Materials - , . , b ,,Soil and groundwater ''.'Remove.contaminates,from the Barbee Mill site through 1,57ee Applicant's DEIS comment letter.at,¢3.3 I contamination Model Toxics Control Act cleanup and3;6:_:Cleanups ate governed and 4--„; ,. ,.............,;2 4.,a: regulated by.DOE and not City Co Address contatainants-frointhe.proposed roadway See Applicant's DEIS commeni'letter at§3.3 through Quendaall:Terminals through;appropriate and 3.`6 ,Cleanups are governed and • removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent.with :regulated,by I)OE.and not City. requirements of the Model Toxics,Controi Act • aKmp., ., ,,,,,. . «rk . r Encountering Prtvtde acontaminationandhazardous materials 'See:Appians DEIS comment letter at§3.3.' :contaminated soil during contingency:plan ,, : and 3.6..Cleanups,are governed and .. construction 'regulated'by DOE Applicant will comply with applicable:code requirements. • u, as SEA 1412494y126266.4 37 :1 V N b i r : Y O 3 3 O IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT a g . • b Visual.Impacts - • R ': • • -Reduce.building bulk by reducing building height Request City to identify any other comparable residential project where this b mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's" a discussion.of reduced building height contradicts adopted code and would not be a valid SEPA condition. . A - Reduce building bulk byincreasing setbacks between Request Cityto identify'any other buildings comparable residential project where this mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's o discussion of increased setbacks contradicts adopted code and would not be a valid SEPA a N., condition. b . . . _ - Reduce building bulk by varying.building height,bulk, Applicant mill comply with applicable code .and setbacks requirements . . Reduce.apparent building,bulk by_design features, Applicant-will comply with applicable code --materials and color,including sloping roofs,roof detail requirements 'such as-gables and.eave-overharigs and building offsets Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large Applicant will comply with applicable code vegetation.This mitigation would not take place for a requirements. :number of years until vegetation matures.Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would be required A b SEA 1412444v1262464. 38. `S V k.' N i b O O O.. -A V tll cA o . 0n lit et IMPACTS ` NIITIGATING;MEASURES ID,EN'1JJ IET)IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT o b Light and Glare impacts Incorporate:shielding fiir exterioi lights in fixture - :Applicantwill comply with applicable code a 'selection requirements. 3 1. ' Design buildings,to avoid glass surfaces that might Applicant will comply with applicable code b produce,glare.from.sunrefiection - requirements. ' "-'. o ilde a d'Ii tonal`bt f'fens•wit dbiite.vegetation to block' Applicant will comply with applicable code light:and glare - requirements. . NoiseA • . . •. ..._ . . ' . Constriction noise Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts Applicant will comply with applicable code ;o impacts 'during hours when nearby residences would be most • requirements:v: - • sensitive .. a L.o Noise from:pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving. Applicaiit,will comply with applicable code -requirements,s::.. ;•• - Pre.-dtill=:pile boles to the;maximum feasible depth(depth (pplleant.wiil comply xith applicable code may be limited by the character of deposits) requirements. • • Require less noisy pile installation methods,if feasible Applicant will comply with applicable code given soil conditions,such a§vibrating piles into place, requirements . ,:- cassiontype piles,auger cast piles or other methods - . • Construction noise from Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such Applicant Will,caMply with pplicablecode stationary equipment as compressors,welding machines,pumps,and similar requirements.. .. equipirient_that wot�'Ti d'operate`initiituouslyandcould _.-.'" contribute to steady background noise levels u, bS ` SEA 1412494v'26266-4 39 V N`O , _- - __ —_— ___ _� ___ _—__ -__—_ __ __ I a , o z 3 A co IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT A • Noise from locomotive Provide at-grade rail crossitigs.that meet a"sealed"•to Applicant will complyy with applicable code c4 horns qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration requirements: a � • (FRA)designation-ofa"quiet zone"for locomotive horns llistoric.and Cultural • b A Resources . Loss of existing buildings., Provide an interpretive display with images of the Request City to ident j any other A histaric`i idustrial use of the site,as well as,indicating Comparable'residential project where this how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's heritage,of the area discussion of interpretive dispay is not based on adopted code and would not be a valid '' SEPA condition: 000 a Potential disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and • Request City to identj any other archaeological resources construction work near the northeast corner of the site, comparable residential project where this and if deposits are found,consult with the,Washington mitigation.was imposed. Further,DEIS's State Archaeologist in determining whether the discussion of monitoring system is not based " archaeological deposits contained information important .on adopted code.and would not be a valid to understanding the history of the area and should be SERA condition. conserved • Public Services Cumulative impacts on Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative Applicant will comply with applicable code parks and public services impacts(see Appendix A) - requirements. d SEA 1412494426266 4 40 ba ti • H • • eY2--o%0 October 8,2003 City of Renton Development Services Division ATIN1; Susan Fiala 1055 South Grady Way Sixth Floor Renton,WA 98055 • Re.: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS Dear Ms.Fiala; On behalf of the City of-Newoastle, I ern submitting the following comments including attachments that address our continuing concerns for significant environmental impacts. City of Newcastle staff has reviewed the applicable portions of the DEIS prepared by Parametrix and issued by the City of Renton on or about,September 2,2003. Items of concern include Transportation,Air Water Animal Environmental Health and Light and Glare: The City of Newcastle's traffic engineer; Dave Engel-of TPE,.:had requosted:that both the AM and PM peaks be addressed on specific:routes and at certain 3.5-6 locations., PM peaks were.addressed, however, AM, peaks, were not even mentioned I would request that:the City of Renton: make the appropriate amendments to the DEIS:to adequately address.the:concerns of the City of Newcastle as identified in the copy of the attached letter from Mr. Enger to Mike, Nicholson on September 30,2003. Mr.Fritz Timer),Senior Engineer,for the City of Newcastle has alSoreSponded on the issues and his comments are also attaChed I am alSerequesting,iherewith, that the EIS address those concerns that he has raised, The address to these 3.5-22 items should be more than a cursory review. Examples of concerns that,have not been adequately addressed by the DEIS include haal:routes for materials, being:exported to and from the development site. In the sections on Air and Environmental Health Lwouid note that dust'from the site and along haul:routes - could be contaminated with a variety of materials, Le. the fallout plume from the Asarco Smelter stack covers this area and recent information from;the DOE indicates the presence of arsenid. When the site is disturbed to what extent will 3.6-7 the applicant mitigate for the arsenic and other industrial pollutants that will become airborne? Should the eXpOrt of materials from this site be hauled on routes through the City of Newcastle, what precautions are going to be implemented to protect these routes from 'blow off' that may contribtite to degradation of air quality and environmental health? I did riot find an appropriate CITY 'OF NEWCASTLE 13020 S.F. 72nd Place, Newcastle, Washington 980593030 Telephone:(425)649 4444 Fax (423)649-4363 554-1779-617 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat P Final-Environmental Impact Statement age 6-132 April 20,04 response to our early questions with regard to haul route and dust issues. Dust and contamination are addressed only as development site issues and the offsite impacts are I'm sure inadvertently left out of the analysis. I note with some interest that is ancillary to the above issues that there is arsenic contamination of the ground water on site. When the issue of light and glare or view shed is addressed in the DEIS it is as if there is not a view of the site from residential properties in Newcastle. It is almost incomprehensible that the only impacted views are from Mercer Island. I 3.7-1 have attached copies of photos taken from only two locations in the near vicinity in Newcastle, there could be many more but I think the point is well expressed by these photos. I am requesting on behalf of the impacted residents and the City of Newcastle that the DEIS recognize the impact to views not only of Lake Washington but of the territorial views that in some cases include the Olympic Mountains. The impact of ambient lighting on the evening and night views should be considered. Careful attention to conditions with regard to the type of glazing, non-glare, and placement of structures and reflective materials that may or may not be used for construction of the project must be a part of the approval 3.8-1 of this project. Please, do not disregard the value added component that view has for the impacted properties. The City of Newcastle is not opposed to the development of this site and is on record with this position. We are, however, advocating for careful, thoughtful and adequate consideration of the impacts to the neighbors in Newcastle. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this and the many other comments that you may have received. Respectfully Y r / 4 / /I- Micheal . Nicholson, AICP Community Development Director Enc. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental bnpact Statement Page 6-133 April 2004 t f 1 II k• ,, it.. ft, 77 ; it )1 t 1 Y c A 1 •,, II • I (, t f, , .l. I Ilk _ i r . • ar N s' � ' _ - t. ' f. a . . �!,. t t 2 /! I. ,k,„ 1 r k ■ ,r **„• l'. • f 1 , ,•�. 1 t - ..t 1 M. ii 1 t, i i I lir 1 f 1 I . I. s City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-134 Apri12004 I 1 lidlt. 7, 4 - 494IIt..• `♦♦ �IN + r ft II f --4 t � % ft • r ..rr if.. _ - .. ,.a �V• _ l _ i ' �l . f 1 t 1 . -- i;I •- , *, r I/ c1 s // - AI' + 4 t ' 1 4 • . - 1,1 • ' / ' i!' $ Ill; .1 /. 1 • • 'lilj lit it a .. 11�4 42 •i , . i r 1 M City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-135 Apri12004 { 11111110111 1 11111141Y1': ., .1. - .' • - ,.. '.•,it.F:S. - •tr. '.- - , , t'1 et It. it* #0\ . ... • -.:_.‘.. .. ,.,„ . „, ? " r 714 ilp illtilli ," •% , I . .1 4' • t, i r• p,.•`.7 1 ... 1 '� eib 11 r, 44pit. -4 4 ' 4 All It � • - a ...1., ..:0't.,. NI ♦ L .+ fie^�• � t i !'. ; •*, to „4►)P. I •' r City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-136 Apri11004 1 w( • ! t f i , 1 i t• i *.• i t 1 14. •t t •r i� t t . - j '1 ' "°pia. i ilt , r t :, ♦t •„ . 1 t , } • City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-137 April2004 TRANSPORTATION PANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223-112"AVENUE N.E.,SUITE 101-BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004-2952 NCTDP K NLgR Pi-Pr..IW.. TELEPHONE(425)455-5320 WM0 H.ENDFK Pt.No.....al. FACSIMILE(425)453-5759 September 30, 2003 Mr. Mike Nicholson Director of Community Development City of Newcastle 13020 S.E. 72nd PI. Newcastle, WA 98059-3030 Re: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS City of Renton File No. LUA 02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM Traffic Impacts to the City of Newcastle Dear Mr. Nicholson: As we discussed, I have reviewed the Transportation section of the Draft EIS for the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat in the City of Renton. A general correction that should be made in several places in the Transportation section is that S.E. 64th St. and all the streets to the north(including S.E. 60`h St. and F the northern segments of Lake Washington Blvd.)are in Bellevue, not Newcastle. The Bellevue/Newcastle city limits runs along the south side of the S.E. 64`" St. right-of-way (west of the east right-of-way line of 112t Ave. S.E.). The S.E. 64th St./112th Ave. S.E. intersection is in Bellevue. However, the Lake Washington Blvd./112t°Ave. S.E. intersection is in Newcastle. These two intersections are very close together, and 3.5-6 should be analyzed together, as has been done in the DEIS for the PM peak hour. I have three concerns about the project trip distribution shown on Figure 3.5-5, the first two of which are related. The first concern is that no site-generated trips are 3.5-7 distributed to S.E. 76th Street_ Secondly, the 9%of the trips distributed to 112t Ave. S.E. south of Lake Washington Blvd. appears to be too high. Traffic passing through the S.E. 68t°St./116th Ave. S.E. intersection on the way to or from Barbee Mill is more likely to use the S.E. 76t°St./116th Ave. S.E. route than the Lake Washington Blvd./112th Ave. S,E./S.E. 68th St. route. The S.E. 76th St./116th 3.5-7 Ave. S.E. route is about Y2 mile shorter, and would require less travel time for most users. It appears that most of the 9%should be redistributed to the S.E. 76th St./116th Ave. S.E. route(perhaps 7%or 8%). A much smaller amount may use the 112t°Ave. S.E./S.E. 68th St. route(perhaps 1%or 2%). N300572DE1S1tr City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-138 April 2004 Mr.Mike Nicholson. Director of Community Development City of Newcastle . September 30,2003 Page-2- My third concern about the project trip distribution shown on Figure 3.5-5 is •regarding the 25%-of the trips distributed to N.E.440 St,east of Lake Washington Boulevard. This'is the largest percentage on the edge of the distribution on Figure 3.5- . 5. I expect that some site-generated.trips would distribute to the businesses in this area(i.e.'Mcbonalds,etc.). However,it appears that most:of the25%would distribute . to the.Lincoln Ave. N.E./Monterey PI.N:E./112th FL S.E./114th Ave. S.E:/S.E.•88th St./S.E.88th Pl./124th Ave: S.E./S.E.89th Pl.arterial route to Coal Creek Parkway Southeast. The-trip distribution and assignment shown on Figures 3.5-5 and 3.5-6 • should be extended.to show the site-generated trips expected along.this route. • As you well know,the,City of Newcastle is in the process of updating its 3.5-8 Comprehensive Plan.-The draft Transportation Element has-been approved, and formal adoption by the City Council is expected within the next few months. As part of their work to update the Transportation.Element,Mirai Associates conducted AM and • PM peak hour analyses of street intersections citywide. The results are summarized in the draft Transportation Appendix in Table TR-3: Intersection Level:of Service(LOS),-a copy of which is attached. Table TR-3 lists.LOS E for.the 2002 AM peak-hour and LOS F for the 2002 PM . peak hour for the eastbound approach to the Coal Creek Parkway/S.E.89th Pl. • intersection. Phase II of the City's.Coal Creek Parkway improvement project,which is currently in the preliminary design stage,would widen and signalize the S.E.89th P1. intersection. This project is:described in the draft Transportation Appendix in Table TR-5:Transportation Facility Plan;(2002.—2022);a;copy of which is attached. Besides extending the trip distribution and assignment to this,intersection,the Barbee Mill Preliminary'Plat DEIS should Identify any potential impact.(perhaps in terms of site- generated:.trips;as a percentage of total trips)and.mitigation:, Table TR-3.elso lists LOS F for both the eastbound and westbound approaches to the Lake Washing tori'Blvd:!112th Ave.S.E.IS.E..64th St.:intersection during the 2002 3.5-7 AM peak hour:'We'believe'that this'LOS.F on Lake:Washington Blvd.is largely due to increased traffic volumei;'due to'drivers using the'Lake Washington•Blvd./112th Ave..' S.E..route to_avoid traffid congestion on 1-405.during the AM peak Period. .In order to improve the LOS at,the,intersection,Table TR-5'also includes a project to install a traffic signel-at the intersection: • • My April.1,2002 letter to you on the'Berbee Mill Mixed•Use.Development .. transportation:analysis scoping requested analysis of the AM;and PM peak hours. This letter was transinitted'.to:tile:City.of Rentoryas en attachment.to your December'11, 3.5-6 2002 letter to the City tifiRenton, However;:this Barbee Mill DE1S•includes project:trip• • generation during the AM peak hour,but does not include intersection traffic volumes or analysis for.the AM peak hour. Due to the existing LOS F during the AM peak hour • N3o0s72DElS#r City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-139 April 2004 i • • • Mr.Mike Nicholson Director of Community Development • City of Newcastle September 30,2003 Page-3- at the Lake Washington Blvd./112t Ave.S.E./S.E.64th St.intersection,it is particularly important.that the Barbee Mill EIS address impacts and potential mitigation during.the AM peak hour at this intersection. The analysis should include the project-generated trips see percentage of total trips at the intersection. My April 1,2002 letter on the Barbee Mill Mixed Use'Development transportation analysis acoping,also requested that the EIS address impacts mitigation of construction traffic: This Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS apparently does not • address construction traffic. The EIS should identify:and discuss truck haul routes for 3.5-22 construction materials and wastes.Measures to mitigate construction traffic impacts, such as potential trUck haul route restrictions,restrictions on haul hours of operation, weight limits,and oversize bed routing should be addressed. Other potential mitigation measures relatedto construction truck:traffic include pavement condition ,- monitoring and restoration,plans for the transportation of hazardous materials,truck washing,load covering, and spill,prevention and clean-up. • Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours,. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING &ENGINEERING, lNC: • 013-- • • David H. Enger,P.E.,P.TO:E. Vice President DHE: • • • • N300572DEJSSltr • ✓ I-- I _ II City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-140 April 2004 • I ', • • • • • -1'°"`) • Table TR-3:,Intersection Level of Service(2002) • AM Peak Hour PM Peak • ' Signalized Intersections Hour Note LOS Belay LOS Delay (sec.) (sec.) Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE 72nd: B 13 B 16 Place • Coa(:Creek Parkway SE&.SE 79th Place B 15 .; B 12 , Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE 84th Way A. 9 • C • 25 Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE91st Street B 11 •• A 7 • I11440 tg9•0 0 gli4-14AZAWINtie.LIRETIAWERMFAMAI 116th Avenue SE&SE 76th Street A • •. 9 , A 8 116th Avenue'SE'&SE'ti8th•Street D. :..• : •32 B. 14- 116th Avenue SE&SE 88th Street• - A: 8 . A 8 • 133rd Ave.SE(Newcastle Coal Creek)&"" A 9; B 11 SE•72nd Place _ • 134th Avenue SE:&SE 79th Plae�c�� • 'A ' :;.- : 8 '••.. A. , 8' ___ 112th Avenue SE&Lake Washington. F ' >50.,'• C...•; 23 EB approach - Blvd F >50 .B 12' WB approach 123rd Avenue.SE(North of SE 69th B 15 B 16 NB approach Way)&SE 69th Way B 14 C 25 ' SB approach 129th Avenue SE&'SE'69(h Way- C 16 B 15 NB approach C. 19 F >50 SB approach WB approach Coal Creek ParkwayMay&SE Valley (SE May Valley F >50 C 15 Road is outside Road City or Newcastle) .^---". Coal Creek Parkway&SE 89th Place . E • , 43 F >50 EB approach Bolded cells Indicate the areas where LOS;standard is not being met tihe LOS shown.is'the LOS far minor approach movement(s)only. Transit . . ISing County Metro(KCM)provides public transportation services in the City. Three routes 114,219 and 240,serve the residential areas, Route 240 provides local service. • on Coal Creek Parkway;connecting Bellevue with.Renton. Route 219 is a community circulator connecting the communities of Factoria,'Somerset,Newport • Hills,and Newcastle'. Figure TR-4 shows the transit routes and frequencies. Approximately half of the City is within the Route 925 Dial-A-Ride-Transit(DART) service.area..,To use this service,a passenger must make a reservation at least two • - hours before the trip time. The Newport Hills Park-and-Ride lot is located adjacent to the City along'I-405 at the Lake Washington Boulevard interchange area:.KCM Routes 111,167,219,247, 280,342,925,952,and 560 serves this,lot. • TRANSPORTATION—Appendix-DRAFT TR-5 • 12-0-02 t n City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-141 April 2004 I 1 • I Transportation • • • Facility Plan(2002—.2022) Based on the 2022 traffic forecasts and the level of service analysis and standards,the Transportation Facility Plan for 2002-2022 was developed. The transportation .improvements in the Facility-Plan are described in Table TR-5. , Table TR-5r,•Transportation Facility Plan(2002-2022) 1 Project Description Street Priority Estimated Classification Cost ' Widen Coat Creek Parkway from:SE 72rid Place to • , May Creek Bridge to 4/5-lanes with pedestrian and ' bike facilities,curbs,gutters,and sidewalks. Signals are included at commercial driveway in the vicinity of .Principal Medal High Priority $14,800,000 NE70th•St.,133rd Avenue NE,SE 84th Way,SE -- "›. 89th Place and SE May'Valley Road„Replace May , , Creek Bridge, (Phase II and Phase ill)- Inp stall as signal in the CCP commercial area for Principal Arterial 'High Priority , $250,000 Reconstruct 136th Avenue SE from SE 79th Place •- Neighborhood SE to 135th Avenue SE.with a,curb,gutter,and ConeWor High Priority $3,900,000 sidewalk on one side shared bicycle facilities. , • . ` Maintain the Pavement'Managernent System(PMS) 'and provide street overlays: Oily-wide High Priority at,000uoo • • implement Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan. city-wide High Priority $400,000 .Construct a new Transit Center in the vicinity of Coal , Creek Parkway/SE 72nd.Place. Cilyavtd'e Fligh Priority s' $8,750,000 +4''I4 �C+P X'S°`�•' x..'Si^�w%,t"i�:Yj--M> •^.;i:ey2tr..t w'5' t� ,};,t�"'h�� .)r'-•'F"r••'--e5^*^a,. ii;C:;:;•=r.w...«.._y.. . . reair't t; 'S�.�','�:4115 it .1:.7.1.�ifil#:!3;:+�'�ie rt'.��'S C;p.....` •.�„P4--i�at,02.>13,,f` t; ;11).,1,47,,.,::;J%_"..•:.:... install at the;intctionof Lake i Wrier Arterial Medium Priority r $150,000 -- .a sgna erse Washington Blvd:and 112th Avenue-SE. , : -install a signaland add him taxies at the SE 69th o ii Way/116th Avenue SE intersection MtnorArterial• lJled;um:Pdority 1 . S125,000 install a signal at the SE'69th Way/12 • 9th Avenue SE •Miner merle, .Medium priority�t'' , $125,000 Intersection: Widen:the,eest side shoulder on Lake Washington i Boulevard.from SE 64th Street to City limit for Minor Arterial Medium Priority f $500,000 •pedestrians and bicycles. 1 Upgrade And widen,112 h Avenue SE from SE.04th ° 1 Street to.SE,68th Street to,three lanes.and add I curbstgutters,sidewalks,and bicycle lanes on both MlnorArteriai, Medrcrm.Prionty; $1,600,000 • sides of the•road.• .. . Upgrade and widen SE 68tkStreet/SE;691h Way, . .. i 1 from 112th Avenue SE to 129th Avenue SE to three Minor Arterial Medium Pdon'ty $s,700,ttoo lanes and add curbs,gutters,sidewalks;end bike Janes on both'side's of the roadway. i -Upgrade 110th Avenue SE from SE 84th.Street to SE 88th Street'and 112th"Place SE frarri the west • city limit1 to .16th Avenue SE with bike lanes,curbs; Minor Arterial Medium Priority i $1,000,000. gutters,and sidewalks..Add tefttum lanes at key • • intersections. Signalize the,intersection of 116th. .• . I TRANSPORTATION—Appendix-DRAFT' TR-9 12•402 I , City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779 017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-142 April 2004 I • . � 1 cA 5`V CITY OF NEWCASTLE MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Nicholson,Director.of Community Development FROM: Fritz Timm,Senior Development Engineer • '7 DATE: October 10,2003 RE: Barbee Mill Draft Environmental Impact Statement • ❑Urgent ❑Action Needed /1 For Your Information ❑Comment After reviewing,the Draft EIS document.tor the,proposed Barbee.Mill Preliminary Plat;there are several remaining issues that should be'addressed. Some of these issues were addressed in prior comments from Newcastle,.but I would; appreciate efforts to mare completely.address these impacts. • 3.6-7 Under the Environmental•Eleents;Ai r ir-Section;we.would like to have the_ construction.impacte,analyzed to.include discussion of construction-duet and construction haul routes on the environment and on the citizens-of Newcastle.- 3.5-22 In:general wind directions_in this area are northeasterly. This brings.dust generated on the site in.the:direction of Newcastle.. Standard dust control;best management practices.tend to.be=less than.sufficient to control dust on larger sites such as this project, Will standard dust,control practices.provide sufficient protection for Newcastle residentsiand property? Will existing pollutants ihthe soils on the site be disturbed in•sufficient'quantities.so as to cause.concem for • Newcastle residents?,:Howwill monitoring be,performed to.,quantifythe adequate mitigation of the potential impacts from a.project as largeasthis on Newcastle citizens?` • 3.6-7 Many of the haul rat tes:that may be in use during construction pass through or • are directly adjacentto,Newcastle.:Please.address these haul routes•and the potential hazards that may impact Newcastle citizens: Potential mitigations• could include dust and contaminant stabilization on site, identificatiorrof haul routes that avoid undue impacts to.population centers;and requirements to cover-construction material and debris'hauling:vehicles. Again;Within the Environmental Elements;Environmental Health Section,we are concerned about the potential to remobilize existing onsite soils thatcontain hazardous materials in the form.of dust. In the.same.fashion,we are concerned about spill protection on.materials hauled through or past Newcastle. As we have expressed I the past,we are concerned about the potential for construction noise impacts on Newcastle citizens. The noise analysis.in the Draft EIS-does City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-143 April 2004 Barbee Mill Mixed Use Development Project- EIS Scoping, 'Page 2 • deal with the onsite impacts from noise per the state statutes. However,'we are , 3.9-2 still concerned about the noise of truck traffic in and around'Newcastle' generated by'the.Barbee Mill site. Potential mitigations for this issue could include limits on construction-haul hours. • Under the Environmental Eleements,Transportation Section,a very good analysis. of.The Draft EIS is.included in the letter written by Dave Enger,on,our behalf, dated September 30th,2003. However,there are a few additional concemsthat• 3.5-6 we would be pleased to have addressed. Dave mentioned our.concern regarding AM peak:hour.traffic.. Please.address_this concern. We would like to express.additional concern regarding.the:potential for 1-405 bypass.traffic in several directions:through Newcastle. Given the current AM peak hour congestion on 1-405;wefeel:that inost•of not all construction'and long term site generated traffic will bypass 1-405. This creates significant additional stress on a transportation system that is already in failure. This bypass is not.reflected in the. 3.5-23 • site generated trip distributions included in the Draft EIS. Bypass routes that should be addressed'include traffic proceeding north on-Lake Washington Blvd:/.112th Ave SE,to enter 1-405 at 112t,and also proceeding further north _ through the Newport Hills area of Bellevue,•to the Coal Creek Parkway. interchange. As drivers become familiar with the congestion'and potential bypass routes available;'they will make use of them,adding,to the already significant problems addressed'in Pave Enger's letter. .If you have any"questions,:pleasefeel free to contact us. • • - • • I ' 4 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-144 April 2004 i 7. DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Renton Federal Agencies City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce Fire Renton Historic Society Police King County Audubon Society Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Environmental Services Libraries King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library King County Surface Water Management King County Library, King County Dept. of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library Tulalip Tribes Media City of Newcastle Seattle Times City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal State Agencies Renton Reporter Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Transportation Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Department of Natural Resources City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 7-1 May 2004 This Page Intentionally Left Blank I i 1 I ' APPENDIX F Revised Floodplain Analysis Technical Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F Floodplain Analysis Technical Report Prepared for City of Renton Planning and Building and Public Works Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 Prepared by Parametrix 5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200 Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350 (425) 822-8880 www.parametrix.com April 2004 Project No.554-1779-017(02,02) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. METHODOLOGY 3 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS 3 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY 3 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS 3 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport 3 2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling 4 2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS 5 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model 5 2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping 9 2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION 10 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 13 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA 13 3.1.1 Channel Morphology 13 3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION 13 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 14 3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions 14 4. IMPACTS 15 4.1 SCENARIO 1—NO LEVEES OR FILL 15 4.2 SCENARIO 2— 50-FOOT SETBACK 15 4.3 SCENARIO 3— 100-FOOT SETBACK 17 4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE 17 5. MITIGATION 19 5.1 . MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 19 5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 19 6. REFERENCES 21 City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-i Apri12004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES F-1 Project Vicinity 2 F-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates 11 LIST OF TABLES ' I F-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows 3 F-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results 4 i F-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry 6 '- F-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness 7 F-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness 7 F-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages 9 F-7 Comparison of 1995 FbMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results 9 F-8 Increases in 100-Year 'Floodplain Depth with Setbacks 16 ATTACHMENTS A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results • City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-ii April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad cfs cubic feet per second • EIS environmental impact statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program -FORTRAN mm millimeters NAVD North American Vertical Datum RM river mile USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey WSE water surface elevation yr year City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-iii April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank ! ' iyi I I � ; ! 1 ' 1. INTRODUCTION This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate approximately 115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is adjacent to the site,has been periodically dredged since the mid-1950s to maintain water depth for storage of logs in Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging operations artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth. Periodic dredging is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential development. Ending dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of May Creek. This floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the stream and the floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with proposed development alternatives. Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes in delta levels (aggradation/degradation) due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain under estimated future delta and channel elevations and flow conditions. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-1 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report i . 2 5 • / 1 - 1 I 405 522 I__f IV .&,,-' .4 0\.sic.. DUVALL - :„ :,.;,r,:,. 202 / , • ''�'';':',.:1%.; REDMOND ,,,,,,:,;,,„ws-, -.. ..,T / k ,-- --- _ i l.ci,.r • 'fr;' "" i'l','''r KIRKLAND :" > ,. I iw , : 203 ! �8.;r 20,,4;x; �g; ryr:, F SEATTLE .s.y},',;: utl, :;. ,4,o,!,,, ` i Lake ,.;t:. .4evor`y,M: .. :.. Z :�-� 90 ,. . , i " .=r ISSAQUAH ,.,,F,X.!= c.) sa 5<F i `""4'w."�d riL 6 1 NEWCASTLE S1.Y tII RENTON PROJECT 1 405 SITE ''1 H Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01TI4F-1-1-01 - Figure F-1 • lir • Vicinity Map , I--; iI Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat' 1 • 2. METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative. 2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed (King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic mode 1 was prepared for the May Creek watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model (Table F-1). Table F-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured 1990 Flood Event 598 Measured FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled Source: King County(1995). Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table F-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed, which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed. 2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY The geomorphology of May Creek within the project area was determined based on review of existing and historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April 2003. The proposed alternative is located on the May Creek Delta. 2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates, which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and the supply of sediment available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion • creating a wider channel. 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the train deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-3 April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report I ' I 1 to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate 1 1 flow in a fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank,the flood height could ; only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. , , 1 Aggradation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant upstream sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the delta. Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the mouth of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build(King County 2001). ' 1 1 Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and sediment transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect would be temporarily lessened, and some short-term incision upstream would be expected. 1 Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by aggrading. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth, , - causing flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed , waves would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the ' I, winter lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom. Surveys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002 (Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation has incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge, and about 0.5 foot downstream of the main i bridge relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 1993). These differences indicate the potential for , grade changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade control structure at the stream gage at the BNSF I bridge controls the upstream incision,but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main I source of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area. 2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling i Based on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from sandy gravel to sand 1 within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May j Creek channel,until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However,based on sediment transport modeling and literature information(Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be i expected to be so easily transported to this point(Table F-2). 1 -i 1 Table F-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results Mobile Particle Size(cm) i Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a 25 cfs(mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0 , 2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3 I 589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0 1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0 ' Source:Andrews(1983). a See Figure F-2. — 1 I CO)of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) ' Final Environmental Impact Statement F-4 Apri12004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report 1—! I l The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and small magnitude floods, giving the May Creek Delta layering. Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to the delta (Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion occurring further up May Creek Valley. A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate. When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington. 2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback and mitigation alternatives. The 100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year return period, or the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year. 2.4.1 Hydraulic Model The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model (USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included river system schematic data, cross section geometry and downstream reach lengths,bridge data, and energy loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections. 2.4.1.1 Geometric Data River System Schematic The study reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0),with the stationing increasing in the upstream direction. Cross Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths Channel cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and elevation points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed using a topographic survey conducted by OTAK(OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and HEC- RAS model is NAVD 88/91. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-5 April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report For each cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between main channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using notes made as part of the OTAK survey. The geometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the northern bank(Figure F-2). The survey data indicated that the northwest bank(levee)was the high point and that the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding conditions, the cross sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation. This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents flooding conditions at the site. Cross sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric _ characteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections (Attachment A). Bridges The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in HEC-RAS. Bridge geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was verified using the results from a previous study(Table F-3)(INCA 1993). Table F-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry Bridge Opening Low Chord Height High Cord Bridge Deck Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet) Lower Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14 Middle Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4 Upper Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38 I ' A new bridge is proposed for the site; however,no design information was provided, so it was assumed that the bridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow. Energy Loss Coefficients The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction and expansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses. Manning's Roughness Coefficient Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field j - observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte and Abt 2001). The results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the upper portions of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site, downstream of the lowest bridge. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-6 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report Overall channel*and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the USGS methodology(USGS 1989): n= (ri, +n, +n2+n3 +n4)*m Where: nb=Base value;channel substrate n1 =Degree of irregularity n2=Cross section variation n3=Obstructions n4=Vegetation m=Degree of meandering The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, n,, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and observations (Tables F-4 and F-5). Table F-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 ni Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent 0.000 0.004 of the cross sectional area n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059 Table F-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness Range Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm - 0.028 0.035 ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many locations 0.001 0.005 n2 na n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the floodplain 0.000 0.004 n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with minor 0.001 0.01 shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel m 1.0 1.0 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054 City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-7 April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report pir7 'The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values of 0.06, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0 because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this - location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07, which is higher than the USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative. Attachment C provides a complete summary of Manning's "n" values that could be used to represent potential mitigation scenarios where large woody debris and riparian plantings could increase the channel and floodplain roughness. Expansion and Contraction Coefficients HEC-RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to changes in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach was modeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values +, recommended in the user manual for gradual transitions (USACOE 2001). Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficients Energy loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion and contraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each bridge. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the expansion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the / HEC-RAS recommended values for bridges (USACOE 2001). 2.4.1.2 Steady Flow Data Discharge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the method summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used for this analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the critical depth. The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using USACOE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE)measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE WSE on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This difference, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to convert the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in which a 100-year storm event is likely to occur(November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake - level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling. 2.4.1.3 Calibration The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over. This 1990 event was modeled,with the model predicting similar results(Table F-6). FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however,the FEMA study did not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge (approximately RM 0.14) and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-8 ��April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report i � services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate the results (Table F-7). Table F-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference (feet) (feet) (feet) 8 25.6 ( 26.5 0.9 7 24.9 25.3 0.4 6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9 6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9 6 23.3 24.5 1.2 5 22.6 �-_-_- 23.8 -_- T--�1.2 4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1 Table F-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results Depth(feet) Width(feet) Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference 11 3.5 6.6 3.1 50 36 I 14 5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 - 52 I 18 a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference. As shown in Table F-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FEMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow(using the right bank elevations),the HEC model indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is die to the influence of the bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC- RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FEMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed). 2.4.1.4 Model Limitations Deposition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The HEC-RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood levels. The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this analysis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions. 2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping The floodplain depth during the future 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the proposed alternative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The floodplain width on the north side of May Creek (right bank) was estimated to extend to Lake Washington (Figure F-2). The existing floodplain is described in the affected environment section and was considered the existing condition for this analysis. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-9 Apri12004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report 2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate potential impacts associated with a range of development and mitigation scenarios. • Scenario 1 - Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill would be constructed to protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. I The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. • Scenario 2 —Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. • Scenario 3 —Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. • Scenario 4 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain; dredging operations would be discontinued. • Scenario 5 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. • Scenario 6 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect the floodplain. The existing channel cross section would be modified to create a floodplain bench; _ dredging operations would be discontinued. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) - Final Environmental Impact Statement F-10 April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report 1 {/f /4.1 /�/ I i • 'f f Y//,--- l7f/ /x' ` i l ^' / r i ( r//F /i f!i `i r ,/-r 1 1 / 6, j,/J `Gfie _ _ t t // �rJIII. —.. ."._.— •s.^=`�' -—„, -.,_„_,.,. _ %f~ t /'N ;JJ it/1•) / - .`i t ,\• `, _.•_ , - `i I 4%.�'� {/�'�l+/! / '' ,/ t 1 '/i /i/,/f// I I / 1 i +1. /// y,'' Z.( ' i ;n " /i' "/ // / I !/° i /I 4 €y U/ / -- I // J 6 t /'" / /s/ •• / / / r 1f �,.-.�-- l' i ''' (' f/ f,ar �r•r /�// , '` LI ITS OF FLOODPL'AIN/ / ,1/ ,/./ hQ 24, ,' fir._ I s, 1 �;- >.+._- ,� / ��,r Pc ---•\ ••-.... -- / /' / '5' F,./ 7,1 / , i s /�/ 7 % ,tP j %w > fi ' C i .... .//i '',... ` t s4W ! vQ-.11",///,;''. ,',., iI I � / • / t' r: t i ;ry F f / // /1` i \ /RS 6.75 / / . ,: , . X ,` //, // •,%( I I / // RS/6.74".0!,' 'r. 'r' rYt / // •i/'r LAKE 1 s ,• , .,,, ( �= r"=� // ,, =� ,/ .���, ,, 1``1\ ��� X( y /// /;/ LIMITS OF WASHINGTON 1 /i ,�" �! I RS16:9:I I ` i/. 1 / ' ;/ i /- / /f 'ik, ��x I( , rsu f ,./ FLOODPLAIN t' / / /# i r l /1 if; /,'% ! MAY CREEK • IV' } 'i j RS 4.35 t 1'4 ' t �W r // r/f1 \ 4>ti �sA RS 4.25 /?/I 1}0 i t ` �7 /f/' / V )i • -\ lip iii . ilV ,/•:: iS;(397/ // r -... .,.....,_.....______ / \ ,, �/ i % 49 0 1 // 7jI3S'4.4 ,',.'/' i /! J/ / .p / . 4 --- / 7/ iraAv3 '"ljl�' ; G - - / ///UPPER BRIDGE. ' //r tRCS 2. t, •"; r •; \,_ -••- v ,, • • , ` 1 MI• I6DLE,B IR DGE G / r _ / / R52.1 ' - '/ \7 / / f .,./ .�� . . I I f � i f `�., " I / ' Z/ , /4/1 ., ,,• 7� \rC /// r ` L_ i 1/ £� _��"�} N 40TH ST o • LOWER BRIDGE ,lif," Parametrix DATE: 07/D1/03 FILE: K1779017P0IT14F-B-02 Figure F-2 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach Wi� NO SCALE '—'••'—•••— . MAY CREEK CENTERLINE . 100- r Flood lain y Floodplain# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates I ' This Page Intentionally Left Blank ,; 11 • 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills. This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the Railroad Bridge. 3.1 HISTORIC DELTA The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. Under natural conditions, streams generally form a number of distributary channels in a delta (USACOE 1994). The low gradient of the stream in the project area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. 3.1.1 Channel Morphology Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill north and west across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations (King County 2001). 3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower portion entering Lake Washington. The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs, grass, and alders are located along the tops of the high banks. Trees,understory vegetation, and large woody debris,which are a critical part of the formative process for stream channel substrate, streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed alternative site. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-13 April2004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report 3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the predicted 100-year floodplain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section 9 (Figure F-1;Attachment B). 3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions Hydraulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the floodplain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive power of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made. 3.3.1.1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions Natural hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater than the channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed ,I alternative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the stream,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach. - 3.3.1.2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions Within the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper Barbee Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In addition, as previously discussed,the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up with fill and are armored with riprap,which confines the creek to a single channel. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-14 Apri12004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report 4. I M PACTS Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many factors,including the erosive force of the river,the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the thalweg of May Creek)were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table F-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration, delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. The three proposed development scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued(thus allowing the delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the delta elevations would be equal to the winter lakes level (elevation 16.9), which is approximately 1 foot higher than the existing channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the development scenarios assume the following: • Scenario 1 —No levees or fill; • Scenario 2 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water; and • Scenario 3 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water. 4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL Under Scenario 1, the proposed development within the 100-year floodplain, as mapped in the affected environment section, is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition due to natural channel processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed alternative is difficult to quantify due to the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition (channel aggradation), flooding, and channel migration. 4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK Under Scenario 2, a levee or fill would be constructed at a 50-ft setback to protect the proposed development from flooding. It was assumed that the development would be built on a levee or fill high enough to protect against flooding during a 100-year flood event. This would confine flood flows to a narrow corridor and result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in the model (Table F-8). There is a strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream. Stream and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would encroach on the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees within the floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank storage and increase water surface elevations, which in turn could result in upstream and downstream bed erosion flooding, lateral instability, which results in bank erosion, and channel avulsion, which occurs when the stream leaves the main channel and forms a new channel in another location. In addition, stopping annual dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which would likely increase floodplain elevations. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-15 Apri12004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport,sediment deposition, and scour are addressed in the Fisheries Technical Report. I It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site would remain with no modifications (the potential benefits associated with the removal and/or replacement of these bridges is discussed in the mitigation section). The proposed alternative condition also assumes 1 aggradation of the stream channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in increased channel scour and bank erosion, which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality. - i Table F-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks 100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet) Proposed Alternative Scenario 4 Cross Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with 1 Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill 11 7.0 I 7.1 7.1 7.1 10 6.6 I 6.8 7.0 6.9 9 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8 7 8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0 6 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5 5 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8 , 4 5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3 3 5.9 6.9 _ 7.5 7.3 2 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1 Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995) 2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg. 3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges. 4 Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-yearfloodplain. --, The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue and floodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates. As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter ' slope). In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches"can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994). In addition,the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994). City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-16 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report 4.3 SCENARIO 3—100-FOOT SETBACK Scenario 3 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Scenario 2 (see Table F-8). 4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE The main bridge proposed to access the site was independently evaluated (Attachment D). In general, the proposed bridge does not span the floodplain and would result in some backwater effect during high flows. This bridge was modeled assuming the modified channel mitigation scenario, and still results in some overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr storm event. It is likely that without the modified channel the bridge, as proposed, would result in more flooding. • Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-17 Apri12004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report . This Page Intentionally Left Blank • ji 5. MITIGATION Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding could include constructing levees or constructing the proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100- • year flood level as discussed in the Impacts Section (King County 2001). The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1-foot above the ground surface during the 100-yr flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2-feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1-foot of freeboard as required by RMC 43-050.I.3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to evaluate a design. These mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all existing bridges could be removed or replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain. However, potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with placement of fill in the floodplain and levee construction could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the greatest benefit to the stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain elevation. Unless sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable flooding and floodplain impacts could occur. As part of this analysis two mitigation scenarios were further evaluated: • Scenario 4 -remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain, and • Scenario 6 -modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench. 5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 Scenario 4 would remove the bridge at Station 6.8 and replace the bridges at stations 4.3 and 2.2 with bridges that do not encroach on the floodplain. Under this scenario May Creek would still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, the proposed mitigation scenario of just removing and/or replacing the bridges would not protect the proposed development from flooding and a levee and/or fill would be needed. Potential impacts associated with a levee at a 50-ft setback were evaluated in Appendix E as Scenario 5. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E. 5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 Scenario 6 would include a floodplain bench, in combination with removal and/or replacement of the existing bridges. It was assumed that none of the bridges would encroach on the floodplain. The proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below the existing grade). It would be constructed by removing material, likely historic fill, from the floodplain. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood elevations,which would reduce bed and bank erosion (Attachment E). In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows; therefore, during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the north. This would protect the development from flooding, but could have long term effects to stream morphology. In addition, as City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-19 Apri12004 AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report previously discussed, in a delta levees may not provide long-term flood protection due to channel aggradation. As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel" (USACOE 1994). In addition, the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994). City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-20 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report 6. REFERENCES Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of America Bulletin 94:1225-1231. • Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725. INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County, and City of Renton. Job No. 930120, 3/23/93,by R.G. Hilliard and M.J.DuBray. King County. 1995. Mty Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department-Surface Water Utility. King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington. King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton. April 2001. King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division. Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources Research 6(5):1357-1365. Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002. USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design - Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418. USACOE(U.S.Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System(HEC- RAS)Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center,Davis, California. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union 35:951-956. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement F-21 Apri12004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report 11 I ' This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 I -I ATTACHMENT A Hydraulics Support Documents— Results This Page Intentionally Left Blank • River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 11 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS= 10 34 07—+—.06 07 � 34 07---> ��.06 07 Legend Legend 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood • _ _ • Ground Ground c 28 Bank Sta 28 Bank Sta o g co w 26 w 26 24 24 22 22 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =9 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=8 32 07 — +.06 .07 30 .07x 0 .07 d Legend 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 30 WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 28 Ground Ground a w 26 Bank Sta Levee o 0 ,..., ,_. e 26111 m Bank Sta • w a u w 24 24 22 22 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=7 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.9 <.o7� k .07 ‹.07�.� .07 28 6 Legend 28- 6 Legend V V S V WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 26- WS 100-yr Future Mi 26- WS 100-yr Future Mi • WS 1990 Flood - • WS 1990 Flood • - i J • - k Ground - Ground E. 24- 9 24- L • Levee - Ineff • o - 0 o - to Bank Sta > - Bank Sta w 22_ 1 w 22_ 20- 20- - - 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS =6.75 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=6.7 .07 .07 d 28 7 6 Legend 28 7 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 I WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood 1 WS 1990 Flood Ground r • Ground c 24 Levee 24 Levee o ♦ o e m I Ineff Bank Sta aa) 1 ® N w 22 Bank Sta W 22 20 20 f 18 18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=5 e 07 .07>.< 07 28 7 6 Legend 30 6 Legend WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood 26 WS 1990 Flood Ground Ground w 24 w o Levee 24 Levee 0 T. Bank Sta co > U Bank Sta °' 22 °' 22 w w 20 20 18 i 18 16 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=4.4 River= May Creek Reach = 1 RS =4.35 .07 010 j .07 28 7 6O OF' Legend 28 7 6 Legend 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996 24 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS 1990 Flood Ground IMF • Ground g 22 v v _ _ a Levee c 22 �� Levee o s o Bank Sta m Ineff w 20 w 20 Bank Sta 18 18 16 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS =4.25 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=4.2 .07 1.4 1 .07 28 6 Legend 28 6 Legend • WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 24 • • Ground 24 Ground c i� ' Levee 0Ile Levee A • 22 l�. Ineff 22 Bank Sta m i ® a� w I Bank Sta w 20 ! ' 20 1 , 18 18 16 16 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=3 .07 e .07 28 !6 Legend 34 7 2 Legend • 6 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood 24 • • Ground 28 Ground Levee c 26 Levee Ti 22 Bank Sta Bank Sta 0 24 L. w r 20 < 22 20 1 18 I 18 16 16 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =2.25 .07 24 0 .07 24 0 2 Legend 2 Legend 6 WS 100-yr Future Mi 6. WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996 • WS 1990 Flood • WS 1990 Flood IGrou▪nd 1 Ground 20 Z 20 c Levee Levee o ® 2 Bank Sta .; Ineff a 0 W 18 W 18 Bank Sta 16 y 5 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =2.15 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=2.1 .07 >� .07 24 �2 Legend 24 2 Legend 6 •WS 100-yr Future Mi 6 .- WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996 WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood ■ - - - ■ Ground Ground w 20 1 w 20 up c r Levee c Levee o A o G as Ineff as Bank Sta a) e a) W 18 Bank Sta W 18 16 16 14 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Station(ft) Station(ft) River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 1 26 .07>10k .07 24 07 026— —.07 2 Legend Legend 6 WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS FEMA 1996 WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 1990 Flood 20 WS FEMA 1996 22 Ground 18 Ground Levee Bank Sta 20 * 1111111111 Bano k Sta o> 16 w I w 1 18 4 12 16 10 14 8 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Station(ft) Station(ft) 1 Attachment A Table 1 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.01 Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 I 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.0 7.0 i 7.3 R 151.2 42.2 0.6 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6 10 598 21.4 I 26.7 i 5.4 i 6.3 94.5 28.9 I 0.6 10 1,059 21.4 28.0 j 6.6 ! 8.0 135.4 36.6 0.7 10 870 21.4 27.7 6.4 7.0 127.1 35.1 0.6 9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1 0.4 9 1,059 20.3 27.7 7.4 5.9 199.6 81.3 0.5 9 870 20.3 27.5 7.2 5.0 186.5 72.7 0.4 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.4 77.1 0.4 8 1,059 20.0 26.5 I- 6.4 5.4 257.4 110.7 0.4 8 ( 870 20.0 27.3 7.3 2.7 652.4 489.4 0.2 7 1 598 I 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.2 36.7 0.4 7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 744.5 558.3 0.3 7 1 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 j 1.7 1,262.8 ! 600.0 0.1 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 i 6.5 5.5 132.6 35.3 0.4 6.9 1,059 1111111111111.111111 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 726.1 557.9 0.3 6.9 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 ' 1.7 1,262.8 600.0 0.1 6.8 6 Bridge I 6.75 f 598 18.4 24.0 I 5.6 I 4.7 137.6 42.1 0.4 mm6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 616.6 589.7 0.3 6.75 870 I 18.4 24.9 6.4 5.8 171.6 58.1 0.4 6.7 I 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.6 42.2 0.3 6.7 1,059 18.4 6.9 3.8 647.5 589.7 0.3 6.7 870 18.4 24.9 r6.5 5.2 202.5 58.6 0.4 6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9 0.5 6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9 7.2 173.2 54.7 0.6 6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 54.4 0.5 5 598 I 17.5 1 22.6 ( 5.0 1 4.7 143.7 48.6 0.4 5 1,059 17.5 24.2 6.7 i 3.5 876.4 1,471.1 0.3 5 I 870 17.5 23.5 5.9 I 5.3 188.8 52.0 0.4 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.9 130.4 49.4 0.5 4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8.0 297.5 560.6 0.6 4.4 870 15.3 22.8 7.5 6.5 179.0 53.8 0.5 4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 1 6.4 116.1 48.5 0.5 4.35 1,059 15.3 23.1 7.8 7.5 174.5 560.6 0.5 4.35 870 15.3 22.5 7.2 7.2 150.8 52.5 0.5 4.3 ! Bridge I i 4.25 1 598 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.2 108.2 45.1 0.6 4.25 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.4 165.4 53.4 0.6 4.25 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 7.1 141.6 48.1 0.6 4.2 598 16.7 21.6 ( 4.9 6.0 116.8 45.0 0.5 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.0 I 6.3 7.1 I 185.0 53.3 0.5 4.2 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 6.8 I 155.7 48.1 0.5 4 J 598 17.5 21.1 I 3.6 I 6.0 101.1 38.4 0.6 4 1,059 17.5 22.6 i 5.1 6.9 167.1 52.5 0.6 4 870 17.5 21.9 i 4.5 6.8 135.1 43.7 0.6 3 598 16.3 19.9 I 3.7 7.7 79.3 34.7 0.8 3 1,059 16.3 22.2 5.9 7.1 187.0 55.3 0.6 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-7 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report ' I Attachment A Table 1 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.01 - I Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# _ River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl 3 870 16.3 21.3 5.0 ( 7.4 ( 139.5 51.7 0.7 ' 2.3 598 14.9 19.9 IMII. 6.7 101.7 28.6 0.6 ; i 2.3 1,059 14.9 21.8 6.9 8.2 157.7 WM 0.6 2.3 ; 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 136.2 MEM 0.6 2.25 598 14.9 19.9 5.0 6.8 100.9 28.6 0.6 2.25 ; 1,059 14.9 21.7 6.9 8.2 156.2 32.6 0.6 2.25 870 14.9 MEM 6.2 7.6 135.9 31.2 0.6 2.2 i Mult Open I 1 2.15 " 598 NM= 19.2 3.7 8.3 80.1 30.0 0.8 2.15 i 1,059 15.5 20.5 5.0 9.9 111130111 0.8 2.15 870 15.5 20.0 4.5 9.3 105.3 31.4 0.8 r 2.1 598 15.5 18.8 3.4 9.2 71.1 29.5 1.0 2.1 ? 1,059 15.5 20.1 4.6 11.1 107.9 IMMIII 1.0 1 __ 2.1 870 19.6 4.1 10.4 93.3 30.7 1.0 2 598 16.0 18.7 2.7 77.7 42.2 1.0 2 1,059 16.0 19.6 3.6 9.2 MEM 44.1 1.0 2 1 870 16.0 19.3 3.3 8.6 100.9 C 43.4 1.0 1 E 598 '- 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 0.2 1 _ . 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3 Jt City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-8 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report t Attachment A Table 2 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.09 Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 "WM 43.0 0.6 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 1 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6 10 598 21.4 26.7 I 5.4 I 6.3 94.5 29.0 0.6 10 1,059 21.4 28.2 1 6.8 7.7 142.9 38.8 0.6 10 870 21.4 27.8 i 6.4 7.0 127.2 35.2 0.6 9 I 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.3 31.1 0.4 9 1,059 20.3 28.0 7.7 ? 228.2 114.6 0.4 9 870 20.3 I 27.5 7.3 5.0 188.5 74.1 0.4 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 ! 4.1 176.5 77.1 0.4 8 1059 20.0 26.5 .._. 6.4 6.3 258.6 482.0 0.5 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 1 2.5 685.0 490.5 I 0.2 7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 1 5.4 136.3 36.7 0.4 7 1,059 ������ 18.3 26.4 8.1 3.7 754.4 558.5 0.2 7 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 0.1 6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3 0.4 6.9 1,059 1111111111111111111111111 18.3 26.4 µ, 8.0 MAN 736.5 558.1 0.2 6.9 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 0.1 6.8 Bridge ! I I 6.75 598 18.4 L 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 0.4 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 $ 6.9 4.0 638.5 589.7 0.3 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 1 6.5 5.7 175.7 59.7 0.4 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 589.7 0.3 6.7 6 870 18.4 25.0 a 6.5 5.1 207.3 60.2 0.4 6 598 18.4 i 23.3 _ 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 0.5 6 1,059 18.4 24.4 6.0 7.0 178.1 55.0 0.6 6 870 18.4 1 24.4 6.0 5.8 178.2 55.0 i 0.5 5 598 17.5 22.6 ( 5.0 I 4.7 144.5 48:7 0.4 5 1,059 17.5 24.1 6.6 4.2 I 687.0 1470.9 0.3 5 870 17.5 23.9 6.3 r 4.6 358.6 1470.5 0.4 4.4 598 $ 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5 4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 3.6 754.9 561.1 0.2 4.4 C 870 15.3 23.8 i 8.5 3.4 674.9 561.0 0.2 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 _6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5 4.35 1,059 15.3 23.9 ; 8.6 3.7 742.8 561.1 0.2 4.35 870 15.3 23.8 I 8.5 3.4 664.1 561.0 0.2 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 0.5 4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.1 624.7 555.6 0.3 4.25 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.8 550.9 555.5 0.3 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 0.5 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.2 611.3 555.6 0.3 4.2 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.9 534.2 555.5 0.3 4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 0.5 4 1,059 MEM 23.4 5.9 5.8 220.3 127.1 0.4 4 j 870 17.5 23.5 6.0 4.4 364.2 1286.3 0.3 3 I 598 16.3 P 21.1 ° 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 0.5 3 1,059 [ 16.3 23.2 6.9 5.7 245.4 61.5 0.4 3 870 16.3 23.3 7.0 4.5 254.6 63.7 0.3 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-9 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report , . Attachment A Table 2 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.09 Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# ' River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI 2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 ; 101.3 29.8 0.6 2.3 1,059 15.9 _ 22.4 6.5 8.5 •i 156.5 35.7 0.6 2.3 870 15.9 _ 22.9 7.0 6.4 I 176.1 45.9 0.5 2.25 . 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 j 100.2 29.7 0.6 2.25 I 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 - 154.5 35.7 0.6 i 2.25 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 I 175.7 45.6 0.5 2.2 ` Mult Open 1 1 1 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8 ' 2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 0.8 2.15 870 _ 15.9 20.6 4.7 , 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8 2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 73.0 30.3 1.0 2.1 - 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.2 110.4 32.4 1.0 2.1 870 1 15.9 - 20.2 4.3 10.5 , 95.6 i 31.6 1.0 2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8 1.0 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.3 44.0 1.0 2 870 16.7 19.4 1 2.7 8.7 100.5 1 43.1 Y 1.0 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 . 0.2 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 , 495.5 176.7 0.4 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3 Ir i -1 -f City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-10 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment A Table 3 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge,50-ft Setback Geometry=g.10 Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI 11 I 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 Miall 7.1 155.6 43.9 0.6 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.7 I 6.5 137.2 36.8 0.5 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 I 6.3 94.5 28.9 0.6 10 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3M 42.1 0.6 10 870 21.4 28.0 1 6.6 6.6 136.1 36.7 0.6 9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 MEM 31.1 0.4 1059 20.3 _ 28.3 8.0 5.0 246.9 83.2 0.4 9 870 20.3 27.8 7.6 4.6 212.8 82.8 0.4 8 I 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.1 76.9 0.4 8 1 1,059 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 370.3 103.0 0.3 8 870 20.0 27.5 7.4 ..I 3.2 334.3 93.9 0.2 7 I 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.0 36.6 0.4 7 I 1,059 18.3 27.5 i 9.1 5.0 362.0 126.9 0.3 7 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 I 4.6 318.3 126.9 0.3 6.9 J 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3 0.4 6.9 I 1,059 j 18.3 27.4 9.1 111113111111 354.0 126.9 0.3 ._ 6.9 f 870 I 18.3 27.1 8.7 4.7 312.4 126.9 I 0.3 6.8 ; Bridge I I I I 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 I 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 0.4 6.75 1,059 .111 18.4EM 7.1 6.1 219.5 84.1 0.4 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 L 5.8 177.2 I 78.5 0.4 6.7 598 . 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 5.4 256.8 84.2 0.4 6.7 870 I 18.4 _ 24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8 80.3 0.4 6 I 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 J 5.7 122.8 I 51.0 j 0.5 6 I 1,059 I 18.4 25.0 6.6 5.8 236.9 106.8 I 0.4 6 I 870 18.4 24.3 I 5.9 5.9 174.2 54.8 0.5 5 598 11111111111111111111110 22.6 I 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 0.4 5 1,059 lalliallall 17.5 24.5 I 7.0 I 4.9 276.4 98.2 0.4 5 870 I 17.5 23.6 I 6.1 I 5.1 198.2 53.5 0.4 4.4 I 598 15.3 21.9 I 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5 4.4 1,059 IIII �I 24.2 8.8 5.6 liniall 71.0 0.4 4.4 I 870 I 15.3 I 23.0 7.7 6.6 188.0 70.3 0.5 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5 4.35 1,059 MEM 24.1 I 8.8 5.6 269.3 71.0 0.4 4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.1 58.6 0.5 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 I 5.1 5.6 R 45.8 0.5 4.25 1,059 111111111111.1111111 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.4 269.5 79.7 0.4 4.25 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 4 5.9 181.1 52.4 0.5 4.2 598 I I 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 I 0.5 4.2 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.5 267.2 79.7 0.4 4.2 I 870 16.7 22.9 I 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8 0.5 4 598 17.5 21.4 j 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 I 0.5 4 1,059 17.5 23.9 1 6.5 4.8 273.2 93.5 I 0.4 4 870 17.5 IA 22.6 I 5.2 I 5.6 169.9 , 53.2 I 0.5 3 I 598 I 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 I 0.5 - 3 1,�059 16.3 23.8 I 7.5 5.1 284.4 70.3 0.4 3 870 16.3 22.4 I 6.2 I 5.5 202.7 56.5 J 0.4 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-11 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment A Table 3 _ (, HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge,50-ft Setback Geometry=g.10 Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chi 2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 I.. 6.9 101.3 29.8 0.6 2.3 1,059 15.9 23.1 MEM 7.7 188.7 80.0 0.5 2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 € 32.7 0.6 2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 0.6 1 2.25 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 7.7 185.7 79.6 0.5 1 2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7 0.6 2.2 Mull Open J 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8 ! l 2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 0.8 2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8 2.1 598 1 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.8 1 30.3 _... 1.0 2.1 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.1 110.4 32.4 1.0 2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6 1.0 2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 1.0 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 1.0 2-11- 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 1 1.0 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 0.2 1 1,059 I 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4 1 870 I 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3 -7 I I I I ; City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-12 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment A Table 4 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 22 River: May Creek Reach: 1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge, 100-ft Setback Geometry=g.06 River Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# Sta • (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) Depth(ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chi 11 598 1990-flood 22.0 ; 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 i 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.7 43.2 0.6 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 1 28.6 6.6 6.6 135.8 36.6 0.6 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.4 28.9 0.6 10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.9 7.6 144.5 39.5 0.6 10 870 21.4 27.9 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6 9 598 I 20.3 , 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.1 31.1 0.4 9 1,059 20.3 3 28.0 7.8 5.4 235.1 114.6 '0.4 9 870 20.3 1 27.8 7.5 4.8 205.2 89.6 0.4 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 175.8 76.8 0.4 8 1,059 20.0 27.6 7.6 3.6 412.6 146.0 0.3 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 3.2 382.4 142.6 0.2 7 598 18.3 L 24.9 6.6 5.4 135.7 36.5 0.4 7 1,059 ~ ., 18.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 440.9 176.9 0.3 7 ; 870 I 18.3 27.2 8.8 3.9 414.4 176.9 0.3 6.9 L 598 18.3 j 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.4 35.2 0.4 6.9 I 1,059 18.3 27.3 8.9 4.5 433.6 176.9 0.3 6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 ' 4.0 409.0 176.9 • 0.3 6.8 I Bridge I 6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.5 42.0 0.4 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.8 261.7 134.1 0.4 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 197.3 128.1 0.4 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3 6.7 I 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.2 298.8 134.1 0.4 6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 I 5.0 229.7 129.7 0.4 6 598 18.4 23.3 I 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 l 0.5 6 1,059 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.9 243.4 156.5 0.5 6 870 18.4 24.3 ! 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6 0.5 5 598 I 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 0.4 5 1,059 17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291.6 148.0 0.4 5 870 17.5 23.6 6.0 5.1 194.7 52.4 0.4 4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5 4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.6 315.7 121.0 0.4 4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 187.4 60.5 0.5 4.35 598 15.3 21.8 a 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5 4.35 1,059 15.3 T 24.0 8.7 5.7 310.0 120.9 0.4 4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.5 59.0 0.5 4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 0.5 4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.3 5.5 299.5 129.5 0.4 4.25 I 870 _ 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.2 52.4 0.5 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 0.5 4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 5.5 294.7 129.5 0.4 4.2 I 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 I 51.8 0.5 4 3 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 0.5 4 1,059 1 17.5 23.8 6.3 5.0 277.4 ' 143.0 0.4 4 870 . 17.5 22.6 5.2 I 5.6 169.9 53.2 0.5 3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 0.5 3 1,059 16.3 23.6 7.3 5.3 270.2 67.2 0.4 3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 5.5 202.7 56.5 0.4 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-13 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report 1- • Attachment A Table 4 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 22 River: May Creek Reach:1 Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge, 100-ft Setback Geometry=g.06 I River Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# i -I Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) Depth(ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl 2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8 0.6 2.3 1,059 I 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.8 176.0 45.8 0.6 ! 2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 11116011111111MINIEEEN 0.6 2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 0.6 2.25 1,059 _ 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.9 174.7 45.1 0.6 2.25 870 i 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 IIMMI 0.6 2.2 I Mult Open MIIIIII ME= 2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8 2.15 1,059 11111111111111111111111111 15.9 IIIMINIIIIMIll 9.8 124.6allina 0.8 2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8 2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.9 30.3 1.0 2.1 1,059 15.9 20.6 4.7 11.2 110.4 32.4 , 1.0 2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.5 31.6 1.0 2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 1.0 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 1.0 2 870 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 1.0 1 598 ,t 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 I 176.7 0.2 1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4 1 C 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 1.76.7 0.3 1 ii 1r City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) - Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-14 April 2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report I` 1 ATTACHMENT B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents This Page Intentionally Left Blank May Creek Subpavement MC-3 Sample Date: 5/25/03 Grain Size Volume Cumm.% Percent (mm) Retained(ml) Percent Retained Finer May Creek Subpavement MC-3 75 0 0.0 0.0 100,0 50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5 25 1060 33.9 37.4 62.6 12.5 610 19.5 56.9 43.1 9.5 120 3.8 60.7 39.3 6.3 130 4.2 64.9 35.1 3.35 220 7.0 71.9 28.1 1,7 160 5.1 77.0 23.0 0.85 200 6.4 83.4 16.6 0.425 300 9.6 93.0 7.0 0.075 205 6.5 99.5 0.5 Wash 0.01 15 0.5 100.0 0.0 sum 3130 May Creek Subpavement MC-3 40 35 33.9 30 : ," 253 o 20 :• r 19.5 15 , ..' 10 7.0 96 b 4 � 1 6.5 5 3.5 i" 3,8 4.2 5.1 '• 00 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash Grain Size(mm) May Creek Subpavement MC-3 100 A 90 = 80 `m 70 u- 60 C. 50 cD 12 40 30 : 20 10 0 • 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A Grain Size (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 $ Percent 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %Firmer 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 e II 90 80 -- 70 t 60 m 50 `- I Et 40 - 30 29 30 75 ..r 20 r ��; 11 3 7 , 10 0 0 0 0 2 1`` € • ' 0 0 0 I 1 I t i� l 1 , 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 ' Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A 100 : e n c 0 — 90 ` , 80 ° • - . _ . . 70 ° - __ . _ 6 .0 ' , a "40 ° . . 30 20 `. . 100 0 10000 1000 100 10 1 I Grain Size(mm) I I 1 j t I I i i I l 1 • May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 Grain Size (mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cum m% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40 80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 %Firmer 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 ' 100 t 90 80 _ 70 ` c 60 `. u 50 - 39 d = o. 40 = 27 d . 30 13 0 Pa 0 0 0 0 0 . iu :� 4 7 0 i 0 0 : 1 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 Grain Size(mm) May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4 100 c < c c '1/4***\,\\\\...............s, 90 80 a "40 ' - 30 : _ . 20 : . . 10 : . 10000 1000 100 10 1 Grain Size(mm) • May Creek Sample MC-2 Sample Date: 4/25/03 Volume Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent (mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer May Creek Sample MC- 2 1.7 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.85 21.49 0.9, 0.9 991 0.425 429.36 18.2, 19.1 80.9` 0.3 826.64 35.1 54.2 45.8 0.21 685.49 29.1 83.3 16.7 0.106 345.51 14.7 97.9 2.1, 0.063 29.24 1.2 99.2 0.8 Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 100.0 0.0 sum 2357.32 Pan May Creek Sample MC-2 40 35.1 35 '% 29.1 30 r'v 25 220 18.2t CD R • 14.7 15 0.9 , 1.2 0.8 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.3 0.21 0.106 0.063 Pan Grain Size(mm) May Creek Sample MC-2 100 90 80 I30 20 10 0 A 1 0.1 Pan Grain Size(mm) May Creek Subpavement MC-1B Sample Date: 9/27/01 Volume Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent (mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer May Creek • Subpaveme 75, 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 50 900 40.9 40.9 59.1 25 640 29.1 70.0 30.0 12.5 270 12.3 82.3 17.7 9.5 80 3.6 85.9 14.1 6.3 55 2.5 88.4 11.6 3.35 50 2.3 90.7 9.3 1.7, 55, 2.5 93.2 6.8 0.85 20 0.9 94.1, 5.9 0.425 25 1.1 95.2 4.8 0.075 95 4.3 99.5 0.5 Wash 0.01 10 0.5 100.0 0.0 sum 2200 May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B 45 _ 40.9 40 Ktz 35 ' 29.1 30 " •s cS25 "_ n20 15 •• 12.3 10 5 0.0 :,Y . 3.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 4.3 0 .< eel U.9 1.1 0.5 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.07E Wash Grain Size(mm) May Creek Subpavement MC-1B 100 90 Ii1j �a 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size(mm) This Page Intentionally Left Blank it ATTACHMENT C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation This Page Intentionally Left Blank Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness wl Floodplain Bench • Orginal likely mitigation Range Range Variable Subcategory Description Low High Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 n1 Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005 n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005 n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent of the cross sectional area 0.000 0.004 n3 Minor Obstructions generally occupy less than 15 percent of the cross sectional area 0.005 0.015 a n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.01 m Minor Sinuosity= 1.04 1 1 1 1 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 1 0.032 0.059 0.037 I 0.07 t s Value Used in the Analysis for the Channel 0.06 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02) Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report C-1 April 2004 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness • w/Floodplain Bench Orginal likely mitigation Range Range Variable Subcategory Description Low High Low High nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 • ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many locations 0.001 0.005 ni Moderate Has more rises and dips than minor-some hummocks or sloughs may occur 0.006 0.010 n2 N/A n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the floodplain 0 0.004 n3 Minor Obstructions occupy more than 15 percent of the floodplain 0.005 0.019 n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with minor shrubs and grass 0.001 0.01 adjacent to the channel n4 large 8 to 10 yr old willow or cottonwood with some weeds and brush i 0.025 0.050 m N/A 1 1 1 1 n Manning's Roughness Coefficient I 0.03 1 0.054 I 0.064 I 0.114 Value Used in the Analysis for the Floodplain 0.07 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement — -- --- ------ __ _ -__ - --_ 554-1779-017(02/02) Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report C-2 April2004 ATTACHMENT D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation This Page Intentionally Left Blank i l ATTACHMENT D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation Attachment D is a summary of the modeling results prepared by OTAK on February 13, 2004. Under Plan 29, which is their proposed conditions model for the 100-year flood, the bridge proposed at cross section 4.01 would cause backwater that would result in the stream overtopping the right bank at cross sections 4.325, 4.555, 4.775, and 5. Therefore, additional mitigation such as fill or a levee would be required to protect the proposed development from flooding. In addition, the proposed bridge does not have 3 feet of vertical clearance between the low cord and the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood as required under Renton Code. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement Attachment D-1 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report Memora -ndum oa 14 4Z. To: Jenna Friebel, .Parametrix From: Robert Schottman, PE, PhD 620 Kirkland Way,0100 Russ Gaston, PE Kirkland, WA 980.33 Copies: Campbell Mathewson, Matt Ilough, PE Phone (/25)822-/4 6 Fax (1 J)82/ 9J/7 Date: February 13, 2004 Subject: Barbee Mill —HEC-RAS Modeling Project#: 30209 During our meeting on February 5, 2004, a few questions were raised regarding the HEC- R.AS modeling that Otak performed for May Creek. These included • Increased velocities for proposed conditions, • Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors and • Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models. Increased velocities for proposed conditions • First, it was noted that the velocities for proposed conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 29) are higher than those for the existing conditions (IIEC-RAS Plan 18) and that flow areas were somewhat smaller for the proposed conditions. Modeling results are summarized as Figure 1 —Plan Layout and Table 1—Modeling Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions. Four plans are included: • Plan 17—Parametrix Existing Conditions Model • Plan 18—Otak Existing Conditions Model • Plan 29 —Otak Proposed Conditions Model • Prop_High_n —Proposed Plan 29 with increased roughness factors For existing conditions, the flow areas are generally larger for the cross sections upstream of Cross Section 7, primarily because the existing bridge at that location produces deeper water upstream of the bridge. The proposed removal of that upper bridge will allow the water surface levels to fall and will produce higher average velocities for the proposed condition.'The slope of the energy grade line upstream of the upper bridge steepens when the bridge is removed. In contrast, the slope of the energy grade line flattens for the cross sections immediately upstream of the proposed roadway. There, we find lower velocities and larger cross-- sectional areas after the proposed channel modifications. Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors The final choice of roughness factors will occur during final design based on the ultimate channel/overbank design. We believe that the proposed n values are appropriate based on Il:\pro*t\;30200`.30209'.AdminLCo tesp\D 1S\Friebel02130.1R1.dor• derma Friebel, Parametrix Page 2 Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling February 13, 2004 the USGS methodology for roughness determination. Channel roughness is influenced by several factors with the primary variable being the roughness of the channel bed material itself. We observed the channel stream bed material to be gravelly, an observation ti supported by Parametrix's pebble counts. The gravelly channel creates a base roughness of approximately 0.028. Other variables that increase the channel roughness are surface irregularity, variation in shape and size, obstructions to flow, vegetation relative to flow depth, and degree of meandering_ The U.S. Geological Survey method for estimating stream roughness factors incorporates all of these factors as shown in the attached sample calculations. In previous modeling, we roughened the proposed channel to account for the presence of some woody debris and plantings within the buffer. We have summarized four HEC-RAS plans to determine the effect of a roughened channel on our predicted water surface elevations. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarize the assumed n-values for different plans. The modeling results in Table 1 show that increasing the channel and overbank roughness I ', factors causes water levels to rise. It Figure 2— Stream Profile shows the resulting water surface profile for the four plans. Both of the proposed plans give lower water surface elevations than do the plans for the existing conditions. Figures 3a—3h—HEC-RA.S Cross Sections shows the 100-year water levels for all plans. The plan using the higher roughness factors predicts that water levels will rise above the existing ground along the right overbank. Note that the adjusted roughness factors appear to be conservatively high based on Chow's method for assigning n values. Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models Earlier modeling showed nearly two foot difference between water surface levels for the Parametrix existing condition (Plan 17) and the Otak existing condition model(Plan 18). Rechecking the model shows that a HEC-RAS optimization feature associated with lateral structures was not operating properly. The lateral structure in the Otak model allows water to sheet flow to Lake Washington. Flows in the downstream channel are reduced accordingly. The model was rerun and the difference in water levels was reduced to 0.7 foot at Cross Section 8 as shown in Table 1. At the upstream end of the reach (Section 11), the water surface elevations match within 0.01 foot. Reference: USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness ' ( - Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. • • H:\pn ject\30200\30209\Mmin'-.Con-cp\DEIS\FriebeI021304m.doc . , • . ' . . • • . . • . I • • . . . • • . . . . • . . • 1 1 1. • . • •. , • • ; f l' 1 . , . - • • •. . • . , . . - • . • , I • . .. . . . . . . . , . , • . . . . . • . . . , . . .. . .. , ' ' • . . • , . • . ,. . . • . . . . • . • , . .. ' . . . • , • . . . . , .. . ' • ' . . ' . • '' • . • •• - • .• , . . , • . . . . , . .. • , ' r .- 1 - . . •. . . . . . . , . . . . • . , . ... - • . - ----- 11 . • • ' . • ,,. • . -•- • • . , . • . , • , . ' • • . ' - -- 10 , . , . .. . . . . .. • . . . . . . • • . . . . , . .. _ . • • . . • • •• . . . . . -. .,-. . .. . ., • . - - . ., . . . . • . . ,. . . ' • • , ., . . . • . . •. . _. .. .• . . . .. . . . . . . . .• ,••-;". . ,. • - ..,..rD.:..-.. 7 . . ,. • • . • • . ." '•• . °.:.•,;•. ..75, • ' • ,. • , , . . . . . . . ' . . • . . „. . . . , . . . . . •. . . . . . , . • . ; . . •. . , .. -. •.... , ., .. .:. ..'. ._ . • . , ,- .• - , , . .. „. • . . — ..• .., , ,. ,. • . . . . , . . . . .. . . . • .„ . . . • . , . . . . . . ' ".•••••'' ,• . . • • . , . _ . . . . . . , ... . ... , . . ,• , - . • .• . -. • . .., : .- ,• -.. . . •.- ,• . . . . . • ,. . ; , .... „ , .. ....:. •„., , . , . , . . . .. . . „, . ., .. . .. . .. , •,. , „„ , . . . , . . . - . . . .... . •, .. .. ., .. . . „...• r •;..; . . . ... :. ,...; : . . . •-' . -• , ,• , -- • ' . . . . , .. .. .., , . ... . . , . , , ...• .. .,. , . . , . , . . . . . . . • , • • . • . . . . . . . . . • •3 45*..• ... . , , .. . . : . . . ... -• • • r.- . •.•.,-. •„ ....„- . • . - ,... . . - - ••• . • . - • • •••" --- - ••• .. ... .. ' . . .. . , . • . . . , • . - • ' : :•2:53333* . . . - - '''• •••• • • " • .. „. .. . . „ . .„.,. . . . .. - ...,. ,.... . ..... . .... • . ; . .. - . • ., , . . • •• • •• ' -.' ', • • ' • ''• .• '. '6:0"••?•211'.• - .• - • .... . -..: •-• • . . , . . ; ••... .•• • ,.• • - .• , -- --.-• ‘•.,, . . . • , • • - -'4;;i .218* ' - .,. „ .,.... . . • . - •••'':'• . .:-.. -,- ••.'-, • ,., ,' -.• . •• . . „ . . ,.. . • ... • : .. '. . . ..• .. : , .,•.'.".••,•„•. - •• — . . ,..., . .. .... . ,..... „. . . • . , i. • ..• : , . . . . . . . . , •... •.• . , . . • . . . . , . .. . . . . . . . - . • . . . . . . . . . , . • - • • . . . . , ' - - • • . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. • , . • . . •..••• •._ , . ., . . . .. .. . . . .. ., • - •.:• • . • :„.... . ,. ; . . ; ••: '. . ... ; . . . ., .. . . . .... • . • ., • „ . . , . . . „ . . ..„. • , .. , ; ' • . • • . • •... ••. ., •.... ,.. • , , - • .. . . . . .. . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . • . . ... . .. , „..,. ,............. . .. .., ; . _. .. . . . . . . .. . • ,- '.•••••., , - . . • .:. . .,.. ,.. . . . . .. ..-...... .. • .. . • - - ".,. ••• . . . , • . .. . . . . . , • . , . . .. • .... . , . . . . ----:.. .:.• . ..; ; .,• , • •. . .• -..,„.„ . , . ,.. -- . , ... . . r... r. .. . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . .. . . . , • . . . . • , . -. . ...•. . ' •.,..--• • ,. -..i . . • . . • . • . „ .. • . " . . . . • • . .. . .. . , . • , . ••• :_." „ • . . . . , ... . .... . . . , ' - • - •-•' • , . ... •.•• ., .••••• ...• ...,..... . ... ... . • • ; •; .• , , .- - • -• . •• • . . .. , , • . •., . . . ., . . . . . . .,-- .,•:, ..;. ....,. . ....,.... .., , . . . , ; . . -. . • .. ,•, • ••„•.•,-.• .••••.• • . . . ••_.- . , . ...' . ; . . .. - • ' • '• ''- •'•:: - • • ; ,'. : : ::. '.. ':' r•':'..• .• ,-......';','".'":;:;•.''''•':•-•),'N'',.;''•';',,,'•,;•?;',.'''•';,;"':.: ._;',-;-'• .,.'.,-..„,-i; ,'''',.: .. -• : •-‘. '. .. Barbee Mtll . . ; . . . . • . ..• • „ . , • '' •; ..,,. ,•'.:, ,'..;,, . ,,:`-.1 ;,•".,-;•,:.1, . :,,Piiriii..e.l. •••':.;,••:-'....,•'...,.;,::',...,:.;.„".;,..-.. . . . , i. - • .• . .' . . „ . . . • - - •- .. . .„ . . , . . ., . . •,. ... , :.••., •... • . • . 6 - ,. May Creek-*Barbee Milf Plan: 1)Pian_29 2/13/20.04' 2)Plan 18 2/13/2004 3)'Plan 1.7. 2/13/2004 '4)Prop High n 2113/2004. • � • May Creek 1 _. . �: �. 30• _Legend � • • . WS'.100-yr Future Mi-Prop High n , • , WS 100-yr.Future Mi-Plan_29 • 28. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 " WS-100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 1 • Ground f I 26; �'y' _ • • 24- o :Ia -> .. a) 221 •• i • ` 1 . j 18- I l I in cv In n . iS 3 • Y m R 4 . . si■ es a #_ -N Sf to.t0 N. , V o O cp. tn. h ti,os, • F . O ,,,,i f r 1-i-.=CV• CV M ei; N st e!' � eh t7 ...co; • CC CO. ‘s, C): -n . • 0 200 400 600' 800 1000 1200 • N Main Channel aistance;(ft) . 1 • 0 1 uryCm+08ubr4e PI, ,I,....241 tl312001 2)P11n It 2/1Y-'904 3)Raw 17 2(y208a a)Pryiroo, 2,13,200. U Prrtm8artw4e Paa 1)pyn}9 2/12/204 lfptn IS 3)349C4 TWan)r VI Y,SM a)Pep_Mgnn 2/12)208e ' RS=11 RS=10.Copy XSEC 11(poor survey data) �a a .07 >-c06"4 .07 r 40. Legend 401 6 _._�....__.�Legend ._..__ WS 100-yr Future toll-Prop High n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future toll-Plan 17 j WS 100-yr Future toll•plan 17 .,WS 100-yr Future MI-Plaan l8 I' i—WS 100•yr Future MI•Plan 18 35. WS 100-yr Future Mt--Plan 29 35" WS 100-yr Future eai•Plan 29 • • 'Ground G Ound + Bank Sta Bank Stu t o. i 25 " .' • 25 • 20, -_ _ 0 �'-50 100 150 '200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Station(ft) Station(It) , 4ryCrr4t)BuN041 Rut 1).4%29"JIY.'001 :V.I.,6 7113,."Wa 4,1,17 22112004 ayPmocghj 2r12266a WOGrat al Sub«lW Ran: 11Raw2 2n12001 4lynl8 1111001 3)Ran IT 2/114004 al Pagfigw_^ L1I2001 RS=9 RS-8 . R.'07>er.C5> ....-.07 ---' > .. .07 >IS05+_'--.07 40'I . • Legend. ... _ 40; • .^_ Legend { -. WS•100-yrFutureMt Plan•17,... - ._. �...._.___ .,_...._._.. _! d .. - WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 . WS 100-yr Future MP=Prop_Hlgh_n WS 100-yr Future P.li_Prop_High n f WS'100-yr Future MI'Plan 18' WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 17 • 35} WS.100-yr Future MI-Plan 29.. _ WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 • - Ground' - Ground • { Bann Sta. Bank Sta • 3o t 30 W j • is zs • tD• ...` ." 0" - 50 100- :. 150 -" 200 •250 300 0 50 100 150 200. '250 .300 G j' Station(tq. Station(ft) 1.in Horiz.='120.ft. 1 in Vert.`="S ft 1 o u. aryGwY NUbbta3Fi .iw:,n P.Yl39.yfYSd II PHn 18 9fY7001 S1PWft7 f31o31,QPV^P.r1bW'_'"L13R33f - Wy W..tae.ne•W PWi llF9en,j9'Y1173f1f'71 Win t3'YtYSW lYP4n if .YtY}fi01 gPaP.N9R,^ 'JfY:06T RS=6.8 Copy CX 7 for US Bridge ., 4—.07 .0817 07 0.. Legend . «:. .. .:': Legend f. . ' WS 100•yr Future Mi-Plan 18 ..S t MI Pan 1.. - _ " • WS 00.yrFuiureR"•PI 8 . ) 'WSa00.•FutuieMl-PIan17 J Yr WS 100•yr Future MI-Plan 17 'I 35 • •• WS 100-yr Future Mi'.Prc'High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_Higtt_n ' ,. .WS 100•yr Future Mi-Plet-C29 WS 100,yr Future MI•Ptan_29 - ` " a .Ground'' . ,Ground �_... - Bank Ste. _ Bank Ste 29.` 25 . • • • �.. 20 0 50 100 • " 150 `200- 250' 300 - •• • 0 50 100 150 .- 200 250 'V '300 Station(ft) . Station(f1) . W/Cv<+.ae.M.i.,- Pw, t)Wn-74 2V1Y1OW ZPW fa b13Zdf* 33+'1<,IT v11561'•)P,..EA_n•IJf3200f WyCn.t aane..fw PW,; I)PatiS 7n3^.Pa. OPt,fC 913A01 3)P4n Si 7113RGW. i)Propfry-„ Y13CePf .. . ••RS=6.75' . RS;6,• O91(.06+-.07—4 - }C07 .06+.—,07•— . . .Legend 1 - Legend-___...._ j WS 100-yr Future Mt-Frop_High_n W5100 yr Future Mi.Prop_High_n O J yr Fufure Mi•Plan 17 WS 100-yr future MI-Plan 17 , 35'` � ,' WS•100•yrFutureMI-Plan'29as- • W$100yrfutureMi-Plan 29' • _,WS'100-yr Future Rti-Plan.18,, - WS.f00•yr Future MI-Plan 18 - ` • Ground •� Ground . �.:.. f 30,E z 30 'Bank Ste Bank • • • Sta i $' $ 0:' . 25 — • ' 03 0 50' 100 150 200 250 300 • . 0 ' 50 100 150 200 250 ,300 Station(It)` . Station itt) -1 in Horiz.=1'20 ft. 1 in Vert.=8 ft 2 - - __ ' — - - • --_ -- -- — __ __-_ a .1 ,.74n1 N8.K441 Pon; 1)PL)p Ir O0W 21P4a,6 7n7RW1 7)Pr r17 01weG;4)P.,._Hyn n L17�OG 1 2)PW t1 vru7ouI W.17 2/*Y2001 4)P,oa We"_ 7m,PG • f0' A{ryCeW N8u4a Y8 P4n: 1 o n 19 utOR.UI RS=S R S y (rm.._..._._.07•----':+OB�t—,07—r1 r .07 7Ico4 .07 I B Legend Legend:....._............... H" WS 100-yr Future MI-Pro0_High n 35 WS 100.yr Future Mi-Prop High n WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 29 WS 100.yr Future MI-.Plan 17 1 35• WS:100-yrFuture MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi.Plan 29 , , WS 100.yr Future MI-Plan 18 I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 Ground. • 30- Ground r Bank Sta` .' - _ Bank Sla 30 ' • • w 25 251 • 201 20 0 50 100 150 .200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300—...... Station(ft) • Station(it) W7 C....l 0444.49 RM. n.4n_29 J130701 4..18 2112u2024 nm.17 2/M0g1 dlPrrr•Hyhn L12720G 1.474w4N8m94.6. Pon: 1)P4n.29 2111200/ 2141n11 7r112001 now.17 'J1Y2t01 4)1.4P_C.7n 7/04C.O. RS=d,775 RS=C,55- ir...........07 g .07 1{r06.r_._.— i -.07 • Legend. I Legend..__, _ • 35 i WS 100.yr Future MI..Prop_High_n 351- WS 100.yr Future Mi-Prop_H gh n WSA00.yr Future Mi-Plan 29 1 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Plan 29 Ground Ground } Bank Ste Bank Sta 30- '25 d1 251 )) • • � '` Y 0 ..,..w.. 0,:.�... 100' 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 .200 250 300 - ,� .. ,-.-, ,Station(11)• - - -.. Station'(ft) ' ..:1 in Hariz:=120.ft,';1:in.Veit::="8•ft. 3 • • Qi`. • ti - - e.rcmt«e4M:ad-,'� nPyn.n••v1yz00. 2tr74n la N1=61 0)PI..n VIVION 41)P,.eV.. vlvra4 thraw:le4n..w 'Pkn: it P4.•ti"v10Re61'2U,r1 2.1104e04 91P1ui11 •J1V3004 •IP'._U. .. vnur4 "�. . - .. -RS n4.325• - RS=4,1 --,07" "c-07 . . . .-Legend - ----._Legend..._,......_.,._, WS100-yr Future Ml.Prop_Higli n 35- WS100yr Future MI.Prop High n C WS100•yr,Future MI-Plan_29" WS100•yr Future MI-Plan29 Ground Ground • - • a . . ' Bank Sta .. „ 1ne0 ie 30' 30 Sank Sin c , . w• 25 -" "20 - - ,. .20- • • 0. 50, •'100 150 200 250 " • 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 • • 300 Station(Rl.., Station(0) . u . yq «\u84MitiH Pin: .qP.*a L1Yt8M'ZDtai I. 2/134004 a)U.it 7111,20W'4tPrayJ00,n 2113%5001 047er. e.e.,a9 .U.. 11PW..29-1113s00,4 i)P1.n to VI37061 5PNn17 viv2004 .0.0 Wu n 71,3 04 RS=4.01 :OR Proposed Access Bridge RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge . . ' "< -.04' •,,c0c I<. .04.._i._ , _ _ . - - -,0 . .(- 4—�C09�<—.04—� • . - _ Legend. _Legend_ "" JS"• -: WS-t00-yFuture -Prop_Higti_"n 35" •, Future Mi•ProP_High n WS 100 yr ` WS 100•yr Future'MI•Plan 29. WS 100•ys Future MC-Plan_29 , G;und • Grciund (nett .. !nett j 36. Bank 5ta. , . •907,. Bank Ste 20 !®�� • 1i y, y�s • ., .. f 0. .• 201 � :"0 .'S0,` :100. •"-150. 200•: "250 J00 . • '0'. - 50 100. " 150 200' 250 300..E .GJ " • • . 1 in Horii.,=120 It: 1 in Vert:=8:ft `` 4 • --- - — — , ti , CO • U/CMi peal..K9 Plan' 9,4%29 2/11Z4.1 71 Flo 18•2113M01'3)Pt:n If V13/204 1)Pn®Jrten 2n211941 MOCn.1.1eari..1.1 ROC CCP10,22 2,11aoi 1)Pt4n1e 0ur2003'3)P 17 21117001 i)Pmp-fin 2113200/ A ' . RS=3.9 RS=.3.45a K .07 at.06K .07 } —.07�`t03S'�—.07—d r .__..._..._ . ., • Legend. . " 35' - . .WS 100.yr Future MI-Prop F ighjt 351 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Nigh n . .• ..WS 1007yr Future MI.Plan 29 ' WS 100-yr Future Mi.Plan 29 I 1 Ground .Ground 30- "Bank SW . 30 . .� .. �. :Z5 w 25 • I, • 100 150 " 200 .250 300 0 50 100 - 150 200 250 300 _ Station'(lt) •• - Station(It) • . • t47Ca...'lent„MIRi+:"1)PW-2y 2fn200.- a1aan 18 .111.3.1491. 3)Nan Ii )1ll2W .1P,.IJ1101n 2t1179..- tlyan at.t Cowes 1F9 Nan: 1)1,5;c:9'V.13200.1 2)Plan lb gtS'N 2 . 3 Pa) n 17 2113120M .)Prop M n `Vi32e61 • ' ' RS=3. - - - RS=2.76666* _. .__.'.07.._._._k(035'�r....:.OT....._2� . , • .07-4.03S'f—.07—* • ' WS 100-yi Future MI-Plan 17 35'1 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High n • - . ., WS 100-yr,Future MI'-Prop High n ` WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29 ., WS 100-yr Futurekti-Plan 29. • - Ground ' WS100-yrFutureMI-Plan18- BankSta i Bank Sta 7' a . u; is . E. 25, �, 20 20 . 100 '150 ,..200 ' 250,... ,300, 0 • 50 . 100 150 . 200. 250 300 • �` ' Station(ti) Station 01) ,. ' '.'1-in:Horiz,=;120.ft '1 in Vert:=•8 ft:' 5 • • • ...West at es4.044.Ma; IIPMw-JV'v1uuret nw.ete viY140. 3),."."10" ..)W..-Mi+r v,UfeOi ' ., WY WM eetlon,to PN-.• ttefn_D vF1L94 1)w..ee'ulu7,oe,3)P4.te vevIDO. e)Pro0-109ti,,.V,I7oee <o" RS=2.53333' ! RS=2.3'Aggredagan ,- �:.O7-><'(O357t.....07 -. 0IS035 —.07--� ' t .- .Legend - Legend 7 • e 35 t . •• WS 100-yr Future MI:Prop_Higr n, 35 ' ' .WS 100-yrFuture MI•Plan 17 • WS•1O0•yrFutureMl�Plan_29 • • _• WS100•yrFutureMl•Plan,18 s Ground"'--• • WS 100 yr Future Mi•Prop Highn • l _ Bank,Sla.•.: _ WS 1O0-yr Fuluf8 MI Plan 2s .1 • 30 • 30 Ground. Bank Sta W'. :25 W.. 25 .• �eeeee.e� 20 . . . ... . . • . . . . . . , . . , . 0 „50 �100 150 .. 200 250 300 •, 0 50 100 150 ,-200 250 300 ~ Station(ft) SlaSon(ti) u•rv..t tie.,.iva 'Ptu.: ,)P..-IV vev203e r)P;u.to 2n12OOa 3)wwlr atV2ca a)PrvP-tri'p vis7O3e u,GsatNe.n.•t;O wax nnn-» vevrOet.vwente ✓uooa WI.er V32O •Proo)+'Va,.OU000i RS=2,2 BR Footbridge RS=2.2 BR Footbridge k035.4•--07-,,.q . - !. Fc.07n-.035-M--.07 - - La end WS 1O0-yr Futunn,Ml.Plan 17 . 35- WS 100;yr Future Mt-Plan 17 - ., WS 100-yr-Future MI Prcp High n WS it)Q yr Future MI-Plan 29 I. .. WS100yrFutureMl-Flan 18.. WS100yr Future Mi-Prop High n j: ,WS • -.100 • . •WS100-yr Future Mr Plan 18' 30 i Group f'. 30 • Ground BankSta:. Bank SW• v> io _ _.._. c. - • __ :.9 • .. c W 25;"- • • w• 25- . :fir :Z<:... ' 20 20- MIT 1 • 0 _._..50 100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ' ' _ - - , ,. Station(l8) . •. . . Sutton(n) - 1 in..Horiz.:='120 ft.. 1'in Vert.=8 ft ' " 6. • — — — -r --r �,_ • y o' . ro Mv/Chnt MP,.b'/M:0 Maa. IHPan-iv 2/13120.1 2114an10 etnxO'Si PI'n 1t 1/13,:961 l)P,PjWpnn n9200. M'yL.•MMe'+M'MA Pip: I)PYn.29 2/1212001 n Pt.IS 2)1nt61 31 P4.17 VI312091 Ai Ptap-Xgnn •J134C4+ Pa RS=2.1' RS=2 Aggredalion • k.07*-.035-fr.....07- -1i Ire-.07-ir-.035-4, --117—� t Legend 'Legend i N 1 WS 100 Future Mi•Pla 29 -35: w.INS._-..______._.__lan 2 ,.{ ! N n WS 100-yr future Mi•Plan 29 i WS 100•yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop High n r WS 100•yr Future Mt-Prop Htgh n • WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 { - - -. WS 106-yr Future Mi••Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Plan 18 30 - •Ground 30y Ground Bank Ste • 1 Bank Ste ! • °` . m °' 25) ur• .. _ 1u 25- 2oy 20- '.100 •- 150•.- 200 . 250 300 350 dW - •150 .200 250 300 .350 400 450 ' Station(0). - Station(ft) Wyt0r400u1..M0 Pr'u' II P4n..39 2nYx0/ :Man 10 21140C. 21 Plw Ir 2II2,2004 SIPropJPpnn 2/13s0M M+ychAMe..e"Mi0 Pon; 1)Rq_20 241600 2)P4n10 211LiVpr 0)PNn it 2/131C00 4)Prop)P0_n LI3490,1 .. .RS=1.8' .. _ - - RS=,1.6' - j�-07 —.035 4Y.07 _—__ 35= •`,WS 100-yr Future Mi Flan 29: .35- WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 29 ' - ' ' WS 100,yr Future Mi=PrOp_High n . _WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_Highn. . Ground Ground, .. .: .-, i io an. �._.._.._.....-...._.......... 8 Y Ste Bank Ste 30'I 30- . v . c a . . �" 'w, " 25• w• 25- • t. is '~150, -2004-•��250 300 - -350 400 450 150 200 ' 250. 300 350 400- -450 .ffCl. ,:•. - - - .StaUan(It). Station(It)- '' 1_in'Horiz..=.120.ft`,. .1,in.Vert.=8 ft ' . 7 . a . • . • • r7 MijCmiat guai kw PNn' 13 pa39 nn 3Ja 71PW1a 2113C004 3}kr if U13230a 4)PlpP_N!1� 2/13.04 AY7G.A N garb.W Ran' 1)P29 VS3. n 2)PW to U1110). 3)PNn IT 2I72004 a)P'e,,,,KA? n114604 'a) RS=1,4 R2' —07—> —035----r. Legend. Legend i ,35' - .WS100-yrFutureMi:�Plan_29 35^ • WS100.yr Future Mt-Plan29 .•i WS 100.yr Future Mi,=Qrop Higt n WS 100-yr Future Mi.Prop High n i Ground' • . Ground _ - ........_.w_.__.._._._........_......_....i Back Siai` Bank Sta 381 .30- . . . . 20?, 20 • 1 , 100 150" - " .200 •250� 300 "350• :. .40D _ 100 ,•150 200 250" ':300 - 350 400 • ;- - - -Station(5)' Station(It) ' ,Ma7G.i NauaiW. PW:.UPW^79 tna'.NI"7PIm16,NIYSSL 3)PW 17 'JI1RODt,a)PsPjr911.,L1N.a0i . • 35 I . WS 100-yr Future Mt-Pr9i_High n . • .. " - - .,WS,1005i,,FuttiieMI•Plan 29 ' . WS100.yrFutureMi-PIan18. ' - Ground.:r . �. • Bank Sta • o'. , �.: . 20• • rr l0 100: -, 150, •- zoo':. •'250. Y .300. ".350 4. . GJ: Staton(ft) . -' 1'in Horiz =120 ft.'1 in'Vert.=8:ft. 8 - Table 1 =Results for Existing and:Proposed Conditions , HEC-RAS River: May:Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan . Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left. ,Vel Chni Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right. Top Width Froude#Chl ' (cfs) (ft). (ft/s) 1(ft/s) (ftis) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 11 Plan_29 1059 28.1 2.86: 7.24 3.98 49.86 677.52 331.63 62.38 0.57 11 Plan 18orme ' 1059: 29:03 2.2 7.26 0.72 19,02 1039.51 0.47 42.66 0.58 11 Plan'17 ervs. ;1059 . 29.04 ' 2.2 7.24 0.73 19.26 1039.23 0.51 42.85 0.58 11 Prop_High_n, 1059 29.08 2.24. 6:02 2.67 67.9 674.23 . 316.87 83.43 • 0.44 10. Plan_29 1059 27.34 4.19 7.87 4.43 176.68 468.03 414.29 61.82 0.61 10 Plan 18 1059 28:1 2:19' 7:8* 0:18 1.3:22 1045.78 0 37,69 0.64 ' 1:0 Plan 17 .1059 28.15 .2.19_ .7:.71 0.31 14.06 1044.93 0.01 38.46 0.63 10- Prop_High_n 1059 28.37 3:07 6.46 • 2.94 188,75 459.95 410.3 86.03 0.46 9. `Plan 29 1059 . 26.93 1.72 '5;51 3.1 8.32 .776:3 274.38 61.78 0.42 9 Plan:18 ' 1059 27:87 5:62 1.05 1022.49 36.51 105.05 0.42 .9., Plan 17 1059 27.94 5;53" 1:04 1017.35 41.65 114.02 0.41 9 Prop_Highn: 1659 . 27.93 _ 1.41 . 4:46 " 2.47 12.3 744.88 301.82 65.28 0.31 8.65384* Plan 18 1059 27.42 4.52 1.12 796.6 262.4 349,82 0.35 8 Plan 29 ` 1059 25.82" '2.74 5.95' 3.21 70.32 687.38 301.3 66.09 0.45 8 Plan'_18 1059 27.2 0.36 . 4:12 1.97 0.29 747.38 311.32 117,07 0.32 . 8 Plan 17 1059 26.51 6.08 0.82 959.55 99.45 482.06 0.5' 8_ Prop_High_n 1059 "26,68 2.38 5.45 1.83 85.93 727.27 245.8 111.48 0.38 7:66666* Plan 18 997.12 27.1 1.28 4.1 1,73 20.48 697.71 278.93 123.18 0.3 7:33333* Plan 18 901,23 27.02 1..4 3.98 1.49 50.68 604.93 245,62 129,37 0.27 7 P1an_29" ._ 1059 ` " 25.06 3.27' . 6;59. 3.49 121.24 614.12 323.64 62.66 0.48 , 7• .Plan.18 775.55: 26.79 . _ 1.09 " 4:.95 1.85 62.62 611.71 101.22 99.5 0.32 Plan 17 1059 .26.38' ' 1.58 3.72 0.95 74.15 433:89 550:96 558.24 0.25 • . :7: Prop_High_n 1059. 25.88:, 2;71.:: 5;63 2.72 132.09 59746 329:45 69.75 0.38 :B s�., . ar"bee kill : �" : • . : • .. .kaproject13020013A2d9\waterresVhecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls. otak . tak . • '• . . 'Tabler.1:, -Ikesults;for Existing Oncl,pecipood Conditions " • „ . • Prefile:10Qtr Future Mi • River Sta Plan 0Q Total W S Elev. Vel Left .; Vel Chnl Vel Right Q-Left- ,Q„Channel Q Right Top.Width Froude#Chi : ,(ft/s) .(cfs) (cfs) : (cfs) • (ft) 69 - 'Plari..29 1059 • .2604:: 238 , 55, 2.86 43.54 791,4 224.05, 60.28 0.4 6.9' Plan 18 72984 : 26.73 2.63 516 1.89 95.34 547.47 8703 54.01 0.33 6.9 Plan 17 1059 26,34 2.12 3.75 094 92.42 436.07 53051 557.8 0.25 6.9 Prop_ligh_ri 1059 2583 '1.93 4.71 238 47.5 770.1 241.4 63.3 0.32 6.75 ,Plan_29. 1059 24.93 2.05. 5.51 2.75 24.59 822.25 212.16 56.92 0.39 675 Plan 18 72984 24.42, 6.19 2.22 681.81 48.04 42.96 0.48 Plan,17 1059 263 4.1 0.95 609.92 44908 589.71 0.29 • 6:75 Prop_High_n 1059 25.71 - 1.69: 4.77 2.32 27.19 '800.55 231.26 59.49 0.32 Plan. 29 . 1059' 24,93 2.08 5.15 2'68 27.42 791.07 , 24051 66,93 0.38 67 Plan 18 : 729.84 245 211 468 165 34.5 651.79 43.56 51.28 0.36 6.7 'Plan 17:, 1059 2529 1.73 3.82 0.88 37.58 61113 410.29 589.69 0.27 6.7 FrorkLHigh_n 1059 25:69 1.75 4.55 2,02 -31.55 792.32 235.13 78:62 0.32 ,.646666* ,Plan 18 79.84 24.37 2.54 4.81 1.51 845 ..609.67 35.68 62.9 0.39 623333k: 18 72984'. 2417' -2.76 5.16 1.23 117.83,-, 599.63 12.49 64.06 0.43 6 . 1059 24.46, 2.56 '5:76' 3.15 174.11 566.69 318.2 83.72 043 . 6', • 23.86 172 '5.76, . ;118.19 611,66 " 52.98 0.49 6 Plan 17 1059 '24.27 - 3.7,6' 7.28 . '207.93 851.07 . 54.61 0.6 6 ,P(Ofijligkft 1059 25.13 224 504 2,25 202.74 556.64 299.62 100.56 0.35 5 plarL29 1059: 2469 25 4.7 2.2 19769 59026. 27105 9559 0.33 5 Plan 18 .729.64%, 23.19 .2.33 4.77, ; 1.61 , 80.47 6396 9.77 50.95 0.39 5 Plan 17 1069.11 ". 24.41,, „:1,46 • „ 269 055 8309 45606; 52085' 1471.43 0.19 5 PrOpLylighLn 1659 24:59 -228 4:48 1:24 209.83 '607.09 242:68 190.96 0.3 4775 Plan_29 1059:- . 23.98 '2.67 486 193 19484 , 596.53 267.63 -11634 0.35 4.776*, PrOlpJ:ligrLn : 1059;2. H2446:, " ,4A8 ,'191.89 2 59176 ,i275.36 165.61 0.31 . , -•Bai•Pee ' 1 : : • " T_ , - • 2 ' --otak kAprojectl3p2001.10p9luveterrestheereskroughness sensitivity.* t_ _ • _______ -------7 ., ‘_. • _.: ,. ...;,--•-• ...f'.• ';.- : '' - .- • ....,_ .•-•• - ,, •...- • ,-- . ..,_-_,.• .--,.. • •• •. ., . •. . •" _ • . . , ,, . - • , .• , ••• ,,- .• .,. - , ,- , . -- . .. . „ -•:-.•• • : :. .... . - . • --.- ,-..., •-• ,.:-. , . , .. . . ..•. .., .. . _ , , .. . ... ,. ., . • .. ... . . . ...- . . ., , ...,. , • .,• , .,.•. , • . . , " .. . .,. Width de.#--Chl • _ ._, , ,_•,,,,,,.:!:,,•---..,7..-'.,,,•_-,.••",••).-•,_::•-...,,:,-,:::•::,'::‘:•-•: '‘..*::,-.•';_,,,,,.,,•••':..: ,,,:;,,:,_...,-----„-•::: :-....f!.i.;.---!-.',;.':..-::-`..,,,-1,-:':•; .'•-'2,'`,...2- -'ff:' :, . '. _ . . ; '' - Right .:Top; '",":-.:,•::::2‘,....:.,-.,::,,":-.:„..*;,..";:::.--::'.s:---':....-__.,:,:,-"•=:-:,:',::::.:--2.'.'_-:).-..;:;•. „.::::, ,,-,R-:q"-.[: .: '.66--ii-iiit°9_: -.1.•;-,:(-,,.. ."'„;-,‘:':--:J, her;0='Rig.-- '-:"--:...:.- (to': • .......:. .., ::-..--,-- -,:,.::::-•::::-_-_, :..5"• ;,...:•': .-:..,,"--,---:,. ":,.::::::::-"1,..,2:::- and Proposed (3:Lait',.2,•":;.0,'?" nl' --, ---- (cft): . : 0.35 , : :- '. -:--,-.:-.--••••'•'-'''----.,--,:''-'::,:•;.,''''•-•- '-'";__--.4•"•iting•-•,- '•,-,''.1":„'-!-').-. ---;=•''''.-':• --''''''' - i'FL4t417---':"'•'..::-:-•• -'• • : •••.-fit': '.-.---"' . .-.., ,::-.'(Ofs,-: 14;7 0-32 liliir''''-)c--„•`_,`.----.?:,---',.;,-:.•--:-- -- - fiii:....•10,91-....;..•:,- •.. .:-.-::.. • 1;„ ,vel,R19- ., ..,......(dft)..:',:- •:: _, • .,... ,,-- 2,. -1„.......- -- - :.-- -'-•,---,-'-..- - ;,--:'•,-•- ke:su...- -.--,-;„-.------,:-„,,--.,.- ,-,;•,,•-• - ,;..; 4.,...,-,PrQ...,„ -v:-...:1,Chn. '-- ftieN•;-•:- :'• "-- 0 „. . .30P.,.. .. • .43:42• - , . ,. •-.. ib10.-,:117'...-.rd--.;::•:-..','.:;:'.-'...';':,. .k.i-...koac!!,-'' ": ..x/.4.iieit:‘,":".‘• --'.- ‘,.', •- :•:-''( '.-:,. • • ' . - .::t817- ..1:----62::32 !, . 0:41 , • - . '. --..--.....,::Sc-r::.•.`c-,..",.-";.--F::,--:::-:-', ..:::„..--::., :;::•-‘;',b, , 14.may.:.,c1,:q'1,. ,ms--;El6i--'"•'"- ' .-.--•••;•:-.;::(ft!84-- , 160::99•-•• '.-git--'162--:-- •-•'•' ''' . ,, i • .-.6 17 - ' .."-• •-:-.._-_:. .,.-L:--;.--f.: 6:44AS-- -',T !•777----..'..'...,,::,‘:-,..: ...-..-- yoi6l...,:„.::."'•': vv'- ,,,,-;.-....:.-- ••••:(ftlf..--.-:::...:'-.-• ''i ..' . -:1.1 . .•' 006.' ''''.7.-,:.--: • :.,--1:-:,',I.': ': • ''5'. '-----. ' ' . .- -•---- :,---.-11E-.:J:•': '- . ,. ..- i--: :, f'.---Qi• • -I_„-,- :•':;(ft),•'''--•'' ,'A..88- . - ..- -----. :-.. .-1.6,,; • ,..-- , - - ,•.--, 1,' 16811.... - ::b8-t:36..:- • : ' , . -. - -.: :•:-::: •-: :,:-:„.-.•:„..-:' .. -:-...,:::plan -- -...le.ft),,'.-.:- ' ,. 7'7,•7:-„- • :-1iP4.:--- -'•' --. . "- ."-:,-,:c48:, ----:--•--_,'-: ,-'0-6:- - ••.... 0 44 '. • ‘' . ---•• '. -River -:.1.-- ..•- ,--;•,• -.' ,:', . ' -:••:-23 88 , ,..',2:5... -'-;.•2 18 .-...:.4- 9....-.:=., - •. -. . . .- 1 .. ., : :-.:-...... 8,:.:-, .:-,70 :--• •• • ..,, _- ,, • .6 3 .' ' ' ‘1, '. '.':•.'''•'-,:•'-' ::'''. .•'. .1.- - '-';.'1,65P':.: -:- ,61. ..''''-:---:-':-::-...,-"::::::-'l."---' • ---i, ..:::. .....'.? .,--, --....- ::I0,. ...• -.:-.:-;•-.......-- -.:•.:-.7- '..'it .6 --- ."2.. :,:•.:Ai'...§4.„ ' • - . ' '' - ' ' • .' ‘ lae2-9:::- ''-..-idb'''''': --':: -.:-:;',.:-'-'-'-•:...-' ,,:•1-9-''S - •:.',...--.'• '.. ..-,..:.;'.. .:,...-;-..i.-.1)§ :- , ;;4.:6$:,".'.... 1 '.'64•. . 5P 7 • 22 '''..'' .-....''''' 1.4.-''..tin'''- -':'''' .' -2-;v-----:-;f',--',.-,-=-'t.2.:7;:'-'-,-• '.',.:'-'::::-•-•- • --.. -.- --:A4-•• ';'',5 '-'. :.'• ::.272,,. .-:,' • - " . 9.•, .... . ' - •4:5..,-.:.., ,:•-•---••4--1-,..,ig-;- .-•:•.- :,, , ..,- : ' .- - 68'",-.---;.-. .--,---fy:::.-‘, --•-'-;:•-:...-.:2,--:•:',, - •..:..':•-:•-•;.•,„ .. ,.,,22-,,t ••- •• .1 922. 7 1 '0 34 35 , - 45., 18 ,. - 729. - -- 2434' • • • 82 3714 34118 715 -,''----_-;-:' .::•-•:--'-`2-•':-,-;„':',''-- •- • '.1:).14:.':•-•,--- -' '-; ,:r•'',-;10&..9:-:`:-•-•'• 2:-: ' - - ..:::: -37',:,:;','''••::*•-•-'?-,:-:•-•' :.--• .- • •-3„..---:-.,-- '•• ', - • •,563,17.:-. 16-.:06 . • . -0.4 -'--. ',-:''••-.1•-'....-..,'::•4;i4,...::---.,.": :al6i.aiii:17.-....-'-:. :''.?-.-.,:?. •-•':.:.,--..:-...: ..'...)2.'.5 -:-.'- r•: ." 87•:-,.--.,,••-, '--!-..:--2,..- -.,: • • - --..- : 154,. . 5841 - - 839 2 1 6 :,,-.'..:••••••.-„:„:',",-.,,-:',.:::_:,,',..•..,:4';.4-•••:-.::7:-','',..,--.•';',,,L,...,",',•• .,,. _„.' ,,•••••.„,,,s749i.,':.8n....4.."-9 .:•,,•••••.: ,.#07,. ':::,,,,i,-: ."1.-,•,-.•:,2•,4.....84;.•:_: •••• •:_•-•-•:?i•-::.9„-;.2-•-----,-- : -.15 8, - -- - 3_ ,.::9691. „ , • . 5.5516. - 43 4 , -.: '.-'."-•--''''--'..',,''',''':- :-- •-••• ....',..:Plan'l „--''. - ::-.10,P ;'',::::: . ••154.'-': ' : .----1i .?.-..',-- --- • - . .. -.63Z9 --.---- .14591 2 61 044 '2- -• ,r-'.•:',":::--„-7s::::::::•;c,'4. _..*: ;''-'•'.-'111". 1TI''''.•:','.'-'•';',-..-.'---- ."1•• •'-'''' ...--. 3.. .0 "--- -'1 .iii'. --.. '' ;'''''''s , -863..9.9-':- A837 - 0.37 :-.: "'• ::...--- ::,-,...-: :ti:; .,§:'::',::'.:.,..'.....`.':',;-.-...--.'.. ‘-'"•...'.2:-.1650.. .,':-- -,-,'-.- Ila..:-;.-.'---.-,,,'.,..-'...E' '.:.:',:•::y•.,„.- r:Z.7._. 8,6 , ,7 5. ,i. ..:-;:".,`;:•_,, : ::::.Fiian9±'-----: -- ity6"0.,:-.- , ---• ....: ....,-.!:,, ';.. :,:,--S..."-:' ' 6003.: : '.zhii-68': ' 5' ' .' . 0.61 ' , .: .1`• :',,': :43ZP.....-..,'''-., ,,2•--':Higitj1' • '• . ,i1,7-....:...:-..:. . , ; . 7 .., '':', .- 6j36• • : •••-; 6--- •••••,..* :• ' , 2 056 - , - - .- •:-<--'•4v-----ProP. ,-.,---,-,-.:: ...-,• . ---,,•, -: ...-2?...• --- - - • , , ,,' -.. • • -- 45_,-.-- „-;-,. •:69/ , • ...69-:63 401 ,:f.,32 •:;.;:-,2::', ..:;::,,i':;.;y•I:-.: .';.;••-17, §•.:84-:. ..,,-.--.i ..-4',7:- - -- ..:',..5--••:,-.- -• ,.: •,-? !:.... - . : 62... ,P - ' ,• .140•-f-•• •7f64 '---•'-:-.''.,1.---.':::.-1 .--',...•.- -21';:: : :'.00!'.-'-'::- .::',1 10591''''T•. ' 2---:' .- -----.-• . ,.i,6• 0:::-„,:-.'•: !'' ,,F3,•; -.•.--.;:2,9,99:.- .. ••• , , - 7-14-.-0.3-. 1 .142 " ,i.-..-r'.--.-:-.•,--h:-'.-:'=:-:-'-*.-,25' ..,"•::.'-:.T:.:r.-0j -(-17,.,,':::-r - ,,,,2-i,47-:---, --"-.-. ..)::•-_44-- -.•; ' ,..!... ', .:'. 2•:!"'= - . --14.34 .i81-•:Q7-_ ' -4-.-2 --.-:::--::"'-..-..:;,•.--.'-:-._;,-,-::.±".'.:;;-------,1"---,- ... 84'•••' :•."-',-'ci. :r-'--• - -'•-•-• -:':--•-''' '''•'' ". •-;. ,6 41 • •.,1§."01 ' ' . .„ .. .. •729.,•. ••, ••23i5,-,.,, -, . , ., : , . •:-•• .3---'- - 1,,,.,. 0.45 '---18---': " 1059-- : • -. ...• :": -..-•.- -•• •.,-7,7 -. .'' 483 -. • _ - 0.48' • - •.-'' ___:,.,.--;••,•••:,,[.•••,••_:,,, -:•-'.p! •,11 :- _: ,:. : , : . . .:.,..., • , .,.,.,,...,..:-., ,.. , „.:6;45 ••- .....i.20, , ,• 048 7.:9.9" ,..,: I-..-::-''.--------•:---,'• ••••;4:?.:--.'••,--.,••,...:_-,!-i.,.::,,P,Jdril7•••••_',.2, ••,.•,, :: : 22';%e:---''••• 481 ' '.••,''!"::"'-.-, n7 7 .i . .:.0:02- . . 47461. 1059,, - -:-33',.:::-. ' ' ,.."-. -., ., " - :::---.'-‘ .: -• 13 n 76' • , - . ..,_, ....::;:,,,.." ......•:,..,-:•,,,-f,, ,,-..,„:,,•:,.• .„ .•,,-:... 6::.:: - •-•,;:. , : . 2,1. . .. ... ,,, ,, , . . .., , , ‘• , .12 .. ••7'/'ii,'.A. -2445, • , , .•• ' -.:' - •. , • 0-.;-57 :- • 1 OC.PY-`7!- • 66-..5,9. 3 • ' :.:.•''::::,•- • .'•-2,'-'4'.•I'f•-• •-••-,,.:-,•,'----,..,-,..,-' •Ai6.1.1 .9:-''. ,'• ,-: . ' ' . ' , - :', , ,, -, • • ••--1.‘t.: •- .,, ,i.:7.8 15 23,.'":. "-. '71'C-66:' . , . :7,..:.'-,,•-::.i-:-:-.:„:.' 4-::i:-:,::.,..-:;-, t-st:•:•-•,:..::," _ 8.„..4,- • „ :i:..„. - ,-y ,...,-;:..,,.,..:::::.5.1 a,, :, .. ,.., -,71,..t7. '... - - .s:-...4.,,i4 ,:•• :....':.,..:-4.-6,i..-: ,: •,-. :-. -:.- . • 0.40 . • -.;f:.:-...,-."2,•;;;'.--,..,,::,.-1,:.:,:::,::::::-;'::,:::.. .:::::::::::::-,..-':,-/i1:".-: ,:,..: ....,::-;-.-.:,:Pr! '.':-•. ,2224,... -- l'CT--- [.----‘--.---:.6972,;-.: b,iz '-.:-.'!''' 6 3 '''. 154'.'::''''. :'•''. '„ .. ''. . . 2311 24 Barbee ' ''' ' • . ''‘' 2:'.'.`... ',':' ,Z, ',.I'Plan.1.`'. ,. ..:,:.. 10§a: ...:' ::.' 609' '?':':: :',1.2769';'' ':.' HS'.'519..,'::::,., :'''..:''..':‘ . •.:..11.§P.,• 119 4421 otak •:--:_.,..,-,-12: 4,.:...,-,: .i.i„::: „:0106..17-,._.-.,- - ..,:.. .,,,i2.s.i0:z,.:,...•.;-::.y,-,...4d;;,. r,:,:,, f,,,..:,. . ...,.:...,,.,::,,:-,:i.,::..2,.--.. -:,:., ,-,.,1 .7?.- 4.:::.....1:: :.::::-. -:: :•,:-'. ...'.;:....-::.:-.'"::....-.id$#:-:.. 1-.:::•:::.. iOt;-..';‘,.-;:::: ,:.5":„:g5"‘. ..,":-(..,_=•:.-.:.'9..i.87 ,;- . .4:,F;rii6t1-,: s---- i. ,,:_-1:0 ,-.,-,-•-.......;;-....:.-. ..'...,_:-.•;:,-,,,-..-, :.1:..'768--,,::::,:::-,:.:::,::..,,.;,..-:?„. i§,-:-.::..;:,:H :' :...-Prop_HibtLn..;, ::::•.....:::'.''....:'•::' ':.;;;:: :'21 7 '.::.:::.'":::.<:S i''.:L,t:',..:%.1''.1''':•'::.'. ': ' ''•.'' , ' , , , •, , . , ,, , q;0;. ..:kS''''.:.":','..:::',..:'''.•-.:'' ::8 ',V4i034::"::':,' ''.::. i . ::. ..; ' :..;,'`'.:.:?::,;::1 6 6..:1' --'''' ' ::-','S.'::, •.;'::::?‘::...','' ''',',:,. :', :';:::, .' ''6660P7 'Z'' ''''''H'.f.'. :1':'.Y.t...f.:.J\::,?:.',' •'::..'2 ..'4'.'' '''..''.,'''''..:`'::::. - :..,..; ',.f,., ::.„:'::::C:,' . ''', : .•;',..,f';:;,.:'. ,..'.'. . ' '.'''..' ,' '''::.!.::.'iii3'•SM.'S•,'-',,•••••' •:•• - -‘,'. '',':'•:-•,'.' •'. •,,' ,''''' ' r:•,''•'••‘'' ''' -'''''1•-•''''-''''''1';''''''''' -ill1- 1):-.1;4-`"iresVJEIC,r1------ ,.', •,• • . ;- , ,. ' , , Ll'•''.•.: ::-:''''':'•';'''''•4'' ''14W-;•':,''4i'''),',.',.,:f;7:',"./-!. .'-'..-•,;'''''',''','•',.''''' • , '' ' '.':'-';',,,,5::',--;';'1'f',.."'„---,,,;'&., -" ;,.ii',W,•,:•'V':,''..;•K,.';,'',,,':;.-.'S''' ' • (:':•:''•,‘•';'•'''.••••-',-;••:W". --'::::,Y,•„'i''', •',:'•-'''V‘,";',.n:.•''': ':::::2- '''''' • 11,t'''''.--•'=';''''... 1%••••-.2:'' '''''';':'.',,:•:' '..•,':,;<•';:;-'-•''•`;'''''''''' ";':;,.'••_.•:"...- :„'.:'..,'-',.•17.,• >••'•'' ,,.*.,',:':•••''''-'..•• Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta. , Plan Q Total W.S..Elev Vel Left "Vel Chnl Vet Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chi (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 3.45* Plan_29 1059 22.06 1.97 7.22 2.66 69.82 731.71 257.46 76.71 0.6 3.45* Prop_High_n 1059 22.79 2.31 4.94 2.95 116.53 580.86 361.61 80.86 0.38 3.33333* Plan 18 729.84 21.83 1.3 5.63 22.93 706.91 46.66 0.49 3 Plan_29 1059 21.99 1.7 6.45 2.35 74.9 748.66 235.44 86.94 0.53 3 Plan 18 729.84 21.81 1.04 5.35 41.01 688.84 53.93 0.44 3 Plan 17 1059 22.87 1.39 6.03 95:07 963.93 58.26 0.46 3 Prop_High_n 1059 22.52 2.12 4.67 2.77 123.12 604.61 331.28 90.01 0.36 2.76666* Plan_29 1059 21.73 1.72 7.36 2.55 40.15 797.91 220.93 76.89 0.62 2.76666* Prop_High_n 1059 22.25 2.21 5.44 3.09 72.74 660.47 325.79 80.11 0.43 2.53333* Plan_29 1059 21.48 1.87 8.04 2.76 20.16 818.15 220.7 66.56 0.69 2.53333* Prop_High_n 1059 21.91 2.38 6.19 3.48 34.37 694.56 330.08 69.11 0.51 2.3 Plan_29 1059 21.06 1.76') 9.21 3.1 5.34 842.42 211.25 59.31 0.83 2.3 Plan 18 729.84 21.67 0.95 5.72 1.11 12 694.7 23.14 32.48 0.41 2.3 Plan 17 1059 22.51 1.21 7.25 1.22 20.18 1004.46 34,36 37.25 0.49 2.3 Prop_High_n 1059 21.31 2.33 7.51 4.13 . 8.54 733.9 316.56 60.31 0.66 2.25 Plan 18 729.84 21.69 1.41 5.54 1.84 17.99 674.33 37.53 32.53 0.4 2.25 Plan 17 1059 22.52 1.19 7.19 1.66 20.03 996.47 42.5 37,33 0.48 2.2 Bridge 2.15 Plan 18 729.84 19.86 1.74 7.91 2.98 6.26 691.91 31.68 31.19 0.72 2.15 Plan 17 1059 20.52 1.42 - 9.88 2.57 7.15 1016.59 35.26 32.31 0.83 2.1* Plan_29 1059 20.05 1.7 9.71 1.31 2:55 1054.25 2.2 41.78 0.99 Barbee Mill - 4 k:tproject1302001302091waterreslhecrasIroughness sensitivity.xls otak Table 1 - Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right , Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 2.1* Plan 18 729.84 19.35 2.03 9.26 3.11 5.35 698.78 25.72 30.33 0.91 2.1* Plan 17 1059 20.05 1.59 11.14 2.45 - 6.35 1023.24 29.41 31.51 0.99 2.1* Prop_High_n 1059 20.05 1.19 9.75 0.92 1.77 1055.7 1.52 41.74 0.99 2.05* Plan 18 729.84 19.32 0.08 7.99 0 729.84 39.39 0.92 2 Plan_29 1059 19.68 1.47 9.3 1.25 1.32 1056.99 0.69 44.85 1 2 Plan 18 729.84 19.13 7.64 729.84 43.13 0.9 2 Plan 17 1059 19.58 9.18 1059 44.14 1 2 Prop_High_n 1059 19.68 1.03 9.31 0.88 0.92 1057.6 0.48 44.84 1 1.8* Plan_29 1059 19.46 1.2 8.28 0.83 0.77 1058.02 0.21 53.72 0.93 1.8* Prop_High_n 1059 19.46 0.84 8.28 0.58 0.54 1058.31 0.15 53.72 0.93 1.6* Plan_29 1059 19.38 0.99 7.23 0.58 0.56 1058.36 0.08 62.69 0.82 1.6* Prop_High_n 1059 19.38 0.69 7.23 0.41 0.39 1058.55 0.06 62.69 0.82 1.4* Plan_29 1059 19.26 0.81 6.57 0.45 0.35 1058.61 0.04 71.82 0.76 1.4* Prop_High_n 1059 19.26 0.56 6.57 0.31 0.25 1058.73 0.03 71.82 0.76 1.2* Plan_29 1059 19,12 0.61 6.16 0.34 0.16 1058.82 0.02 80.86 0.74 1.2* Prop_High_n 1059 19.12 0.43 6.17 0.24 0.11 1058.88 0.01 80.85 0.74 1 Plan_29 1059 18.95 0.35 5:97 0.25 0.02 1058.97 0 89.49 0.74 1 Plan 18 729.84 17.01 6.51 729.84 177.08 1 1 Plan 17 1059 16.9 2.06 2.42 810.45 248.55 176.65 0.39 1 Prop_High_n 1059 18.95 0.24 5.97 0.18 0.02 1058.98 0 89.49 0.74 Bargee Mill k;pprojecl1302001302091waterres\hecras\roughness sensitivity.xls 5 otak Table 2 -Plan 17-Parametrix Existing Conditions Manning's n Values River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 1__i 2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 5 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 6 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 7 6.8 Bridge I 8 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 9 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 • 10 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 I 11 5 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 12 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 13 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 14 4.3 Bridge 15 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 16 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 17 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 18 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 19 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 _ 20 2.25 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 21 2.2 Mult Open 22 2.15 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 23 2.1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 24 2 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 25 1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 --P 1 li Barbee Mil! k:lprojeet1302001302091waterresthecrasVouflhness_sensitivity.xls 6 otak Table 3-Plan 18-Otak% Existing Conditions River.Station Frctn(n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 ' 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 2 10. n 0.07 0.06 0.07 3 9 . n 0.07 0.06 0.07 4 8.65384*" n 0.07 0.06 0.07 5 8. n 0.07 0.06 0.07 6 7.95 Lat Struct 7 7:06666* n , 0.07 0.06 0.07 8 7.33333* . . n 0.07 0.06 0:07 9 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 10 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 11 6.8. Bridge 12 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 13 6:7 . n 0.07 0.06 0.07 14 6.65. . Lat Struct_ 15 6.46666* ri 0.07 0.06 . 0.07 16 6.23333* . n 0.07 0:06 0.07 17 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 18 5: a 0.07 0.06 0.07 19 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 . 0:07 20. 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0:07 . 21 4:3 Bridge 22 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 23 4.2 n : 0.07 0.06 0.0.7 24 .4" n 0.07 0.06 0.07- 25 3.66666*. n 0.07 0:049 0:07 . 26 3.33333* . "n , 0.07 0.037 0:07 27 3 ; n 0.07 0.026 0.07 28 2:3 n" 0:07 0:026 0:07 29 2.25 h 0.07 0.04 0.07 . 30 2`2" Mutt Open 31 2:15 : n 0.07 0.04 0.07 32" 2.1 n 0.07 0.04 . 0.07 ' 33 2.05* a 0.07 0.04 0:07 34 2 '" n 0.07 0.04 0:07 . , 35 1 n . 0.07 0.04 . 0.07 Barbee Mill kaproject130200130209hvaterreehecrastroughness_sensitivily,xis 7 .otal(.. Table 4-Plan 29-Proposed Conditions River.Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 • 3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 5 . .7 n 0.07 . 0.06 0:07 6 6.9. n 0.07 0.06 0.07 7 6.75 . n 0.07 0.06 0:07 8 _ 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0:07 9 6 n 0:07 0.06 0:07 10 5 n 0.07 0.06 .0.07 j _ 11 4.775* n' . 0.07 0.06 0:07 ,; 12 4.55* n 0.07 0.06 0:07 13 4.325* n ' 0.07 0.06 0:07 . 14 . 4.1 ' . n 0.07. 0.06: 0.07 15 . 4.0.1 Bridge 16 3.9 n 0.07 0.06 0:07 ' 17 3.45* n ' 0.07 0.035 0.07 18' 3, •n . 0.07 0.035 0.07 19 2.76666* n 0.07' 0.035'. '0.07 20 • 2.53333* ,n 0.07. 0.035 0.0,7 21 2.3 n 0.07 0.035 0.07 ` " i 22 2.2 Bridge 23. 2.1* n 0.07 0.035 0.07 24 2 n 0.07 0.035 0.07 25 1.8* n . 0107 0:035. 0:07 1 26 1:6* n 0.07 0.035 0.07..._ ; . 27 1.4* n 0:07 0.035 -0 07. ,: 28. 1.2* . n '0.07 0.035 0.07. 29 1 n' 0.07 0.035 '0.07 _s l' Barbee Mill loproiecno2o01302amwaterresihecrastroughness__sensitivily.xis 8 otak . , Table 5-Proposed Plan Having Higher Roughness Factors River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3 1 11 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 2 10 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 3 9 • n 0.1 0.08 0.1 4 8 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 5 7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 6 6.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 7 6.75 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 8 6.7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 9 6 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 10 5 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 11 4.775* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 12 4.55* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 13 4.325* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 14 4.1 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 15 4.01 Bridge 16 3.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 17 3.45* n _ 0.1 0.08 0.1 18 3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 19 2.76666* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 20 2.53333* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 21 2.3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1 22 2.2 Bridge 23 2.1* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 24 2 n 0.1 0.035 0.1 25 1.8* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 26 1.6* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 27 1.4* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 28 1.2* n 0.1 0.035 0.1 29 1 n 0.1 0.035 0.1 - Barbee Mill 9 otak ktprojec630200\30209twalerreslnecrnslroughness sensitivity.xls . Sample Calculations For Estimating Manning's n Reference: USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339. The following calculations serve as the primary design basis for determining Manning's n values for the existing and proposed channels. They support n values in the following ranges: Existing channel 0.035 < n < 0.045 Proposed Channel 0.060 < n < 0.075 Overbank 0.065 < n < 0.075 These roughness factors will be adjusted during final design. Existing Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11 1. Channel bed material: Coarse gravel n 0 := 0.028 2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.005 I I 3. Var. in Shape& Size: Minor n 2 := 0.003 (Occasional shift from large to small section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Neglig. (<5%section area), n 3 := 0.002 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Low(Flow> 2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005 6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity< 1.2), m := 1.00 • n := m•(n0+ n1 + n.2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.043 River Station (RS) 1 to RS 3.9 Stations downstream of RS 3.9 should have lower n values based on the sandier channel bed materials and the regularity and smoothness of the channel. These values are not as important because flow in that reach are heavily influenced by tailwater conditions near Lake Washington. Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak By: RWS 02/13/04 Proposed Stream Channel: River Station.(RS) 3.9 to RS 11 . 1. Channel bed material: Medium Gravel n 0 := 0.028 2. Surface Irregularity: Uniform channel in good condition, n 1 := 0.002 3. Var. in Shape& Size: Occasional shift from large to small n 2 := 0.010 section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Appreciable(additional woody debris n 3 := 0.015 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2:x Veg.), n 4.:= 0..005 6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity< 1.2), m := 1:03 n := m•(n0+n1 + n2+ n3+ n4 n = 0.062 Proposed Overbanks: River Station.(RS) 1 to RS 11 • 1. Channel bed material:.;Gravel(d50—2.5"), 9.0 := 0.02 2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly.,eroded banks), n :;:=.0.01 3. Var. in Shape&Size: Minor 'n 2 :17,0.00 (Occasional shift from large to small section), 4. Obstructions to flow: Minor( <10%section area), n 3 :=:0.015 • 5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg:),. n4.:= 0.025: 6:.. Degree of meandering: Applicable (1.2 < Sinuosity.< 1.5), m = 1.00 n := m•(np+ n1 + n2+ n3+ n4). , n= 0.07 Application of Roughness Factors Tables 2, 3 and 4 show:the Manning's n values used"in:the HEC-RAS modeling. Table 2 shows results for the existing channel; Table 3 for the proposed channel and."Table 4"for.a : conservatively rough channel. • Barbee Mill 302091waterres\hecras\MANNINGS:MCD : otak By: RWS 02/13/04 This Page Intentionally Left Blank It • ATTACHMENT E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results This Page Intentionally Left Blank • ATTACHMENT E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results Mitigation scenarios for the 100-year flood were evaluated independently of the proposed development scenarios using HEC-RAS. Each of the mitigation scenarios assumes that the dredging operations have been discontinued and that the existing channel has aggraded as discussed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 in the Impact Section. A brief description of each scenario and a qualitative summary of the modeling results is provided below. • Scenario 4: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, remove existing bridges at stations 2.2 and 6.8, and assume hat the bridge at station 4.3 would be • replaced with a bridge that spans the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario,the stream would still overtop the existing right bank and flow onto the floodplain. • Scenario 5: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 4, then a levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream would be evaluated. A levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream could be used to prevent the site from flooding. This would result in increased flood stages, and potentially increase scour and erosion. • • Scenario 6: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, OTAK modified channel configuration, and the bridge at Station 4.01 is assumed to span the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario the stream would remah in the confined channel during flood flows and the site would not be inundated. This scenario would benefit the stream by reducing flood stages, scour and erosion. However, confming the stream could have long-term impacts as discussed in the Impacts and Mitigation Sections of the report. • Scenario 7: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 6, then a levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream would be evaluated. This mitigation scenario was not evaluated because under Scenario 6 the site would not flood. City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) Final Environmental Impact Statement Attachment E-1 April2004 Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report I HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs r River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • ChI (ft) (ft) 11 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 22.0 29.1 7.1 I 2.2 7.2 0.7 3.3 2.5 MOM 43.0 NO I 11 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 22.0 29.0 7.0E 0.711.1 42.3 NO 11111101111111111 11 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 22.0 29.0 7.0 IIMEEMINIMIN 0.7 IIKOMINEMMI 151.8 IMIMM NO 1111.1111111111111 1 11 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 NM 4.0 111.11 2.0 194.0 62.4 NO 11 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 7.2 4.0 3.2 2.0 194.3 62.4 NO 0.57 28.7 0.010494 10 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 21.4 28.2 6.8 2.2 7.7 0.3 3.8 3.1 142.9 38.8 NO 10 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee MINI 28.0 6.6 2.2 8.0 .111 - 4.1 MEM 136.2 36.7 NO10111111,1111111111111111 10 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 21.4 28.0 6.7Mil 7.9MIMI 4.0 ��� 137.8 36.9 NO1111.111111.11 10 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 21.4 ���iiP I 6.0MICIIM 7.9MEM � � 194.4 61.7 NO 1111111111111111111111111111111 10 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 21.4 27.3 6.0 4.2 7.9 4.4 3.7 2.2 195.1 61.8 NO 0.61 27.9 0.011746 9 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 20.3 28.0 7.7 - 5.5 1.0 1.9 0.7 MEM 114.6 NO 9 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 20.3 27.7 5.8 1.1 l 1.0 202.3 85.2 IMIIMIII 1111 9 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.3 27.8IEMIMMIll 5.7 1.2 2.0 1.0 207.8 82.7 � � i 9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 20.3 26.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 3.1 1.8 61.7 111111111111111111111.1111111111111111 9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 . 20.3 26.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 3.1 1.8 1.3 �� 61.8 NO I 0.42 27.3 0.005771 j 8 Plan 17 lEx Cond w/Aggredation 20.0 26.5 6.5 I - 6.1 I 0.8 2.3 0.3 258.6 482.0 YES I_ 8 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 20.0 26.8 6.8 �� 4.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 437.8 482.9 YES 8 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.0 27.0 6.9 0.2 4.5 2.4M� 0.9 288.7 85.8 YES O 8 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 20.0NEM 5.7 2.8 6.1 3.3 1.4 ►c 65.8 YES 1.111.111111111111 8 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 20.0 25.8 5.8 2.7 6.0 3.2 2.1 1.3 235.1 66.1 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.45 26.2 0.006058 7 122.111111111 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.3 26.4 8.1 1.6 3.7 1.0 0.7 0.2 754.4 558.5 YES May be due to Bridge @ 6.8 11.1111111111111 7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.31 6.8 4.4 9.1 3.0 4.8 2.9Mall 39.5 NO �� ,'.'� �M 7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.3 MEEIN 7.0 MEM 9.0 1.3 4.6 1.5 153.0 MEM NO MN 7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. �M 24.9 6.6MIN 6.9 3.6 ��, ■ % cc 62.1 NO MIM, 7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.3 25.1 6.7 3.3 6.6 3.5IIIMEEMHIIIEIIIMEBMI 62.7 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.48 25.5 0.007071 6.9 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.3 26.4 8.1 2.1 3.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 736.5 558.1 YES May be due to Bridge @ 6.8 6.9 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.3 24.4 6.1 4.8 10.6 4.7 6.8 4.6 118.6 32.6 NO 11111111111111111 ' 6.9 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.3 ® 6.7 4.4 9.2 3.1 4.9 2.9 allIMM 39.0 NO 111111.111111111.11.111111.11.1111.111111.1 6.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.5 24.9 6.4 2.5 MI 2.9 1.9 ® c ® 59.7 111.1111111111.1111.11111.11a..111111111.11111 6.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.5 25.0 6.5 2.4 5.5 2.9 1.7 1.2 240.6 60.3 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.40 25.4 0.004798 6.8 Existing Bridge 6.75 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.0 5.6 - 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.2 137.7 42.1 YES I 6.75 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.8 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 634.9 589.7 YES 6.75 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 251.8 84.1 YES 6.75 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.4 2.1 5.7 2.8 1.9 1.2 228.7 56.4 NO 6.75 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.5 2.8 1.7 1.1 238.4 56.9 NO 0.39 25.3 0.004492 6.7 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.7 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 669.3 589.7 YES I 6.7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.2 6.8 1.8 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 617.3 589.6 YES :6.7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 7 247.7 84.0 YES 6.7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.3 2.2 5.4 2.8 1.7 1.1 244.9 66.3 NO 6.7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 I 2.1 5.2 I 2.7 1.5 1.0 256.6 66.9 NO 0.38 25.3 0.004484 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02) Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-1 April 2004 1 HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope ' Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (lb/sq ft) (Ib/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • Chi (ft) (ft) 6 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.4 6.0 3.8 7.3 - 3.4 2.5 178.1 55.0 NO 6 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 24.7 6.3 3.0 0.6 1.8 0.1 478.8 1,495.2ISM M 6 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 24.8 6.4 3.4 6.2 0.8 2.4 1.0 214.5 106.3 6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.1 ' 6.5 3.5 2.5 1.3 238.2 81.8 NO ,III�II,I11111.1111 6 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.5 6.1 2.6 5.8 3.2 1.9 1.1 267.6 83.7 YES 0.43 24.8 0.005508 5 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 24.1 6.6 1.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 687.0 1,470.9 YES 5 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee MOM 23.8 6.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 2.0 0.1 299.4 1,470.4 YES 11.11111.1111` 5 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 111111= 24.1 6.6 2.9V 1.0 1.8 0.8 236.8 97.5 5 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. ® 23.6 6.0 al 2.7 1.6 1.0 281.7 84.2 NO 11.1111111.11111111111.11.1111111.1.111 5 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 6.6 2.5 4.7 2.2 1.2 0.7 327.8 95.6 YES 0.33 24.3 0.003273 4.775 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 MIMI 5.8 3.0 5.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 273.0 89.9 . NO 4.775* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 24.0 6.4 IIMM 4.9 1.9 1.3 0.6 333.6 116.3M31.1.1.1111111.111111111 0.35 0.003601 � 4.55 Plan 03 `Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.2 5.7 3.1 5.7 2.7 1.9 1.1 267.4 89.5 NO ! 4.55* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.9 6.3 2.5 4.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 331.5 111.7 i YES 0.35 24.1 0.003672 4.4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 24.0 8.7 1.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 754.9 561.1 YES 4.4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 23.7 8.4 1.8 4.7 1.1 1.3 0.2 586.3 560.9 YES 4.4 Plan 02 1Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.5 8.2 1 2.5 6.8 3 2.8 2.6 1.3 223.6 70.6 YES i # 4.35 Plan 17 l Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 23.7 8.4 2.9 6.6 3.8 2.5 ! 1.7 560.9 YES L 1111111111111111111111111 4.35 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 1.111MIIMMI 8.1 2.4 6.4 1.1 2.3 0.3 419.3 560.8 YES i 4.35 Plan 02 !Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft ® 8.0 2.6 7.0 2.8 2.8 1.3 215.3 70.5 YES I 111111111111111 4.325 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.0 MilM 3.0 5.8 3.1 2.0 1.2 254.0 81.6 NO 11111111.111110111 4.325* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 ME ' 6.2 2.5 4.8 2.4 1.3 0.8 318.8 MilaillMEM1 May be due to bridge @ 4.01 0.35 24.0 0.003687 4.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 MMUIRM 6.6 3.6 2.5 1.9 624.7 555.6 YES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 1 MEM 6.4 IIIIIMI 6.9 3.0 2.8 1.8 191.0 54.7 NO 4.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 MEM 6.6 MIMI 6.9 2.1 2.8 1.3 203.2 78.7 YES 4.2 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 7.2 2.4 5.2 1.0 1.6 0.2 611.3 555.6 YES 4.2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.0 6.4 3.3 7.0 3.1 2.9 1.8 188.0 54.0 NO MIMIIIII,,,.,,II 4.2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.5MOE 7.1 2.1 3.0 1.3 196.4 78.6 YES 4.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 22.8EIM 6.1 3.7 2.3 1.6 227.6 68.4 4.1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.0 5.4 5.5 7.7 5.4 3.6 3.2 152.5 69.6 NO 0.61 23.8 0.011527 4.01 Proposed OTAK Bridge 4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 23.4 5.9 2.4 6.1 1.3 2.2 1.2 220.3 127.1 NO 4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 a 2.4 1 7 186.1 57.1 4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.0 57.1 3.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.4 22.5 5.1 3.2 5.9 3.8 2.1 1.5 234.8 68.8 3.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.4 22.1 4.7 6.1 9.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 131.5 66.6 NO 0.76 23.2 0.018855 3.45 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.1 22.0 4.9 1 2.0 7.3 2.7 1.1 0.8 232.0 76.6 3.45* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.1 22.1 4.9 2.0 7.2 2.7 1.1 0.8 233.7 76.7 NO t 0.60 22.7 0.004024 3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.3 22.9 6.6 1.4 6.0 - 0.4 0.3 245.4 61.5 NO g 3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3 3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3 3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.4 2.3 0.9 0.6 261.1 87.0 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02) Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-2 April 2004 - 1 HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop. Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (lb/sq ft) (lb/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • Chl (ft) (ft) 3 Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.0-1 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.5 2.4 0.9 1 0.6 260.5 86.9 NO 0.53 22.5 0.003179 2.76666 !Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.3 2.5 1.2 0.8 219.1 76.9 2.76666* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.4 2.6 1.2 0.8 218.4 76.9 NO 0.62 22.4 0.004393 2.53333 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 193.4 66.6 2.53333* Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 192.5 66.6 NO 0.69 22.3 0.005546 2.3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.3 1.2 0.5 0.3 156.5 35.7 NO 2.3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.8 31.5 2.3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.9 31.5 • 2.3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.8 3.9 1.9 10.1 3.3 2.4 1.7 146.1 58.2 2.3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.1 4.2 l 1.8 9.2 3.1 1.9 1.4 162.5 59.3 NO i 0.83 22.1 0.008266 2.25 Plan 17 i Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 154.5 35.7 NO _ 2.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 1 107.6 30.3 2.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 I 107.5 30.3 i s 2.2 Existing Bridge 2.15 Plan 17 IEx Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 21.2 5.3 1.4 9.9 2.6 1.1 0.9 124.6 33.3 NO I _ 2.15 , Plan 01 iScenario_4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 l 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.6 33.1 r -__. .......,:d 2.15 ;Plan 02 !Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.7 33.1 2.1 Plan 17 'Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.6 11.1 2.5 1.5 1.2 110.4 32.4 NO 2.1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.7 11.1 ,_ 2.8 1.5MEM 110.5 32.4 2.1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.6 4.7 1.7 11.2 2.8 1.5 1.3 I 110.3 32.4 2.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. L 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 I 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8 2.1* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 I 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8 NO I 0.99 21.5 0.012445 2 Plan 17 i Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 19.7 3.0 ' - 9.2 - 1.2 i 1.2 115.3 44.0 NO 2 Plan 01 !Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0 2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 19.7 3.0 MEN 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.2 44.0 2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 I 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9 2 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 I 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9 NO 1.00 21.0 0.013301 1.8 Plan 03 'Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 1111111111 1.2 8.3 0.8 ME= 1.7 127.8 53.7 4 1.8* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge 16.9 19.5 2.6 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 128.7 53.7 NO 0.93 20.5 0.011672 1.6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 145.3 62.6 1.6* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 147.2 62.7 NO 9 0.82 20.2 0.009214 1.4 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.2 2.3 0.8 6.7 0.4 1.2 1.2 158.1 71.7 1.4* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.3 2.4 0.8 6.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 161.7 71.8 NO 0.76 19.9 0.008066 1.2 Plan 03 IScenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 18.7 1.8 - 7.6 0.2 1.7 1.7 139.8 79.3 1.2* Plan 29 OTAK jOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.1 2.2 I 0.6 6.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 172.2 80.9 NO 0.74 19.7 0.007666 1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 14.7 16.9 11111EIEM 2.1 ! 2.4 - 0.1 0.2 495.5 176.7 NO 1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0 1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft. 14.7 18_4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0 I i 1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - _ 0.5 0.5 235.3 182.8 1 Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 � _ 16.9 19.0 2.1 j 0.4 1 6.0 - 0.3 1.0 3 1.0 177.4 89.5 NO 0.74 - 19.5 0.008005 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02) Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-3 April 2004 , MICROFILMED • , , ICROFIL ED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLATo To /OVERALL PLAT PLAN // a,, ,/ s, j ,/ O' S0' 100' 2O0' E is \/ ?% ff a ,:: / LAKE .MASHINGFON O O / '' //2,f1/ '''. 11110 I.jr- .111L/' Dm, l't LIB __ _ - __ --s- _ter __ ,, \ ,, - -11 / /\ `\\-- Jli_� 1j...•If" L Imo, i r' -IC II - 1�.1-i c.. ',/, , ,/ / / I , \B 90'OyT0.,". ''''''' J`,I. I";Ia..l h.....I I_ I I6...1•_�f- I---•II •1 � / ��1 -` F. 11 f . I-,-.1c...j1 I ,1 I / /j CST, j t •C 1• r mmc pYm��•\�� �� �I. 1 JI L11 ( I I 1 JL1JI / // �:i / . " r. -- z LAKE v �/ : 3 lt ' [ �' F. L_ // Mr- r ET'q�,' J 1. _ / %�� / \ ,;fig./ .:4::1" 0 WASHINGTON I---1 I..1 .ji111 i_.J11_.li`;r-g L/ r,L, 11...,':._J%v//. f''/// 1i1` e ' ' 9 0 I/ STREET A / 1 _ �i 1- I ' I 11 i II 1 11 1 ,p / / y 4 v/z! ,''��� 80E 1 IL--1—J I L JI i,c..l I�1 \ I I1=-_6..1 I_ 7'`'�// �// : Yfr":i,. I ��y� m'm r__ I T J lc..l .1,I.:. 1-•-I I ..1 1 W I./i j/// / ! 1 ,r , imai.4niiimE i&6 A'7e°3.'_.�.Lk.ci' .�3� YJII q_ �J y / ,m.m Nws.. ` .-r I , J r-1, '� 3'/ %/ I i O 500• 0• 500• 1000. W sN W -' J / 0 fll��ziO 1 I II_••1:=-J-� ' j /, / SCALE IN FEEL ao� v rT II • 1-.h --.1,•iJ" <_ 7\= ‘‘,1; .,`�j ,�'//,O / i I VICINTY MAP F. 0a_ 11 Y Y j!'/ ; , q LEGAL DESCRIPTION: >" / I 1 c.. 1/ ^/ \\.\ -. .. -_ •/ /I_ •/ / / '� THE LAND CT N. OU TOO TI CA D S ST AS F IN THE STATE OF Z --= l' „ \ )' - -.>AA/ice/, % rr/ 1/A9F@LGTON.COUNTY OP IONS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: I 1 J / 7 \, ..., .s ue, -�j /� ALL THAT PORTION OP GOVORNMENP LOT 1•SECTION 32•TOH N�24 NORTH, I-, . ^/� . - ,.- / RANGE A DS A.ADJOINING IN YING COUNER. OF NORTHERN AND CI ICCOND OAD T a SH WAY. EX ADIOHH LYING 1 I ANY.ERLY OF SAID IELOT PACIFIC YING NO H OF I / - _ / OF RAY.EXCEPT THAT PORTION.IN ANY,OF SE SORE IND9 LYING NORTH OP / \\\ /•- % _ • ,./ ,r�/ a I THE NEEITE[U.Y PRODUCTION OF THIN NORTH TINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT I. w L.,.J 1 \ `\ -:.-,-;:f:::�j ..�• - ;/ SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING,STATE OF WASHINGTON. �y 15 I --`- / c >,\� ',t / FLOOD HAZARD a a ( I, \_- • --- ,\?� / / { ME IGO YEAR FLOOD HAZARD IS CONTAINED WITHIN TIE MAY CREIX HANKS. !-'1 I— i ` =- L�1/jb/� _.�i/i <,_: // ii I p w / ,..,-,,‘,7-‘,2/ //,/i• ,'>-•-,,, / ,-;(•/ a) - l , e /• "" "•/ ./ 1= CLI Incorporated R. MAY cae©c // % / /�/.r 1YrIBe a CA-IL30 w�lkve YnT/1008 DELTA / /L,,// Y V.--A 1 %I . /..i 1(vHm4 Ye BB0T9/ Phmc ((125)) BT1-4M8/ __ _ .... , P ///-. /'a" O FAL (125) AZA-95R 8 \(• ''/ I �2 kk30209.0 001oK • 7.17INlope---�� // !J%1L LAND Project No. R-8 ZONE .mow �'^ �. � /- N 40TH ST. Sheet No Coll.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551L5Lleet 1 of 1 micRoRi mED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. -,,-- il Figure 2 — Vicinity Map , . MATCHLINE - LOWER RIGHT 0 40 50 150 w coo-2 ZONE /i/" 7 ' ----,,r-t—,r--1---ii--T._,, ....,........, / i i ( ,,-,A\ 21 0,201 19jj I81 171I I I1 � ��_-_lr T-i � , /'. i / !. 'f /-♦ 1 1 _J--I I 11 1 r—I- r-1—' 1 I I 1J�e/ < / / / . �\ J1=-t= , 161 15II1q II I II 1 1 I I 311 // ''' 4. / / .-� r / a8 / .^-\ Lam` -; I13 1112 1 111110 j 9 8 7 j 1 6 5 11 4 1 I I // /// i%/ / ' O .r',f w m I ,..5,`23�2 / _ \ �- 11 1 11 1 ,_-_J L_1_J 1 / LAKE O�/ , _ _ L. J ` �/ //%/ / WASHINGTON ., I pq / 1 jj T� �5,7 '°m��-� /tea m "' .// 1. y E" f - /(65 1 66 671 68 I j - „a\J :S REEf A_ _- , �/ \• ,,,/.:„ �, m I 1---25-I(_. I11-- I _ 11 1 11169 I70 II j71 1\Th r---- r� ` if-1 -1 1 ., /'a.''; ! ,I'-� %�:..,C .u,., Q= I 1 721$ 1 1 ' 1 11 11 164)1/ ,/'/// % J, k i. L 26 1 --I-J I 11 73 74j 1 75 \ I I 1 ///////� / / 7 an= 0 ;II 1 _"J -- -� I I_ 1 q 1 59160 11s1 6211 // ,h'/ / -,, { G�� II J L _J --�I I I I I I /�� / / / ri* .. I 1 mom.¢ 1-- 19 L_.L_J L_T_I L- �/' ,I, / ,,/J \ IA' -1 - 180 1 79,178 ,7711 I 6 8 .( 58-1 '//.,• piI//// J / ' ��,�j S' I I J , \57 / I/ 4 .,. L I I a -1 1 1 81 1 I-i ` 5b`// ->/ %/ / 11W • 'MEIN G fi m G11 r- 1 1182 I L' / i_ ,a\K •` i//.,.„,_ t, / La}� ^CL��� I - g 83 1 L /% E-\ `\\ss,\ • /7 is I% 6 �n II;% V ' i zi,1 T i 184 I E 11 s3\s4 i //!// %I ! 1JL!'lFr�NG��Eizi��.� 1 a . S8 �I 11861 as 1 I //%.' S1 11 52 11 i/ i' i / II J/ �*• e il :ltro n It f[RIt 1 1. ; 1 q\ I 28 I I 11,',' / < 49 \ 5011 1 • .,.G/ / II / - .. ".r - '�tl 1211E ♦' 500• 0' 500• • 1000' 0 w I r----4 `i�6a ink•47`� ) _ - v / � % % sIF. IN FEET ���o n I 1 1 ' a 8',•< > /`-'-:_ /" ! VICINITY MAP 1 I 3t 1 ..., .- �\asp � _-' • i/--=_�%' - / %! y / II/ .. .LAKE a I „ // /! I/ o .<.n..„ P, WASHINGTON in I L_32-J ( 44' - _ /' %//// $ I 33-11 r 1� 43\\�\i �� -`f %I// ~ • 'Tt 0 \ r o/ r 2. J w.�\\ -36 ! '/\ to I% // fie> ' pt / /® // n; 1t' /O A..,. I/ d .ram % ./I/ /// • / ,,..-N.i t.,, (,jj, / \ 87/ / /./ %/ :n\9798/ 4, /i/.! / 7� -4 U_ • 9 MAT CREEK // /< g9o/� r\ t ,/ 6 OEL4A /' \. , :• , \ /// // fly i-f E /' / �£.e.., ;91,9/�,/ -y�`Y IT•\ 4r , A�j�� /� /ncorpora Led \ A , , / `� h+i 620 arfuma Tay 0100 • II/ i a.uaoa,r wma g L'6iwm'a \ / 6/ \ • O PEwe ((1z5 ea-Iu6 / / —1,, </ tt �'V Ewe `+u�ezr-esn J`. R-8 ZONE ,.,.,�. 14%, •I/; • ,� Project No.001.001 N 40TH STREET' MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT Figure 2 / sneer 0. `• .0,—, CALL.BEFORE YOU BIG 1-800-42/-5555`sheet I of 1 • • PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. _= BARBEE ,MILL PRELI,VIIXARY PLAT APPROVAL APPLICATION t, WA98NCEON Q' ' LAKE 0 a vat FLOOD HAZARD SITE INFORMATION: L' �'! C�- :a pATG APRIL 6,2002 THE 100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD IS -_ CONTAINED WITHIN THE MAY CREEK INANILS. BESTING ZONING: COR-2 I iI G Id. - grA /,, v, III'' GROSS SITE AREA: 22.81 AC / \ I'� (BOUNDARY AND HARBOR[ANTI) 1. .i.I ." / 4 4-� NET DEVELOPMENT ARIA: 17.01 AC Ilri 11.4 (CROSS-SENSITIVE AREAS.WATER&=TYPHON) z / ,f \ I SV � HINDU®BURRING/STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS: 80X DIPERVIOUS t. (BUILDING AND ROADS COVERAGE) ; ;I' .GP`, i -i .?' PROPOSES DENSTIY: MIN.8.68 DU/AC NET(112 DU) a �' � `�;s;ngD PERILMED DEN5RY: 6 DU/AC NOT MIN.(88 DU) ) r- IN'0'IyW,I .1 BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED: REQUIRED PROPOSED MIN. `{:"� �y, I�VIM I o. (coR-2 ZONE) — _.1—f_.� • or r / (COR-2 Ns _ O. o• r '' ��yyR ��,I I / O (COT,HERO9mE LOT O 6 Arks[ N 1F U� / ,i e,r I'--;� N� .i GiA:w . 1,..=:'.' iI �(I fffa zzz FRONT YARD 0• 10' y 1 RE COR-2 ZONE �� 500' 0' S00• 1000' 1I 27 �\ BACK YARD 1D• _ - Wy \r ml�a ,a /,„/%/. / - __ SCALE IN FEET 0 W az I \ 1°L ,.I+• ,.I I -'-/ ,. // - --I CRITICAL AREA CA1CIRATIONS: pG m 1 "1 I .L i • •/ /// I: AREA OF MA lea WAScror: 020 ACRES VICINTY MAP w.a s /1 IA ro T --/.. //. /,' { AREA OF MAY CREEK: 028 ACRES E. �1 a. I"I—21 •.II" T T T /v/////% 1 - TOTAL: 2.00 ACRES 1 '° I I "i" "`\ (aoi� .1u"170/// ROAD RIGI2T—OF—WAY: 3.88 ACME CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION: PL. I i m I'"i" i j / //i%-/ • s OF AREA IN STREETS AND OPEN SPACE: 41% CI ' I m 1 \�i'/ /// CONSTRUCT/ONANTICIPATED R BE COMPLETED INN�All OFG2000420WORKING HOURS v e l r ../ / m NOTES: MIL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICES BETWEEN THE HOURS of 7:00 AM To 8:00 PM.UNIli9S UNUSUAL CHtcUvsrAxCEs d�i Y T \a. %%'7/ o DICTATE OTHERWISE.IN THE EVENT ADDITIONAL HOURS ARE REQUIRED, Z I. "-{ I I t„ \ /• _ NOTIFICATION WILL BE GIVEN TO ME CITY OF RENTON. 1 f/ .•\n„I /%/ // I. ALL RECITING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED WTIH THE EXEMPTION OF TINE%POSTING '° (®I°' ,� a,/i:/ // /A .. AT BUDDING T. AIL MATERIALS WILL B MINED TO THE SITS PROM TB soma VIA[ARE 77.1 °-I (y ,` • ! / 2. AIL%HISIDIG RAILROAD TRACKS ON SIZE TO B REMOVED. EMPLOYED ro DIBCT ntAFFIC IN THE EVENT LARGER TImCKS AB . F " . WASHI CTON BLVO.,B PARE DR YE AND I-406.PLACIOTT WIt B .a .':�- / !/ F� s. PHASING: UNABLE TO OPERATE WITHIN TRAFFIC LADEN. 2 (`,,•„.a\ /: — ' //6 FOR WORK To B DONE W 0001 T THE LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD.RIGHT OF v �_a` i�,/ 0' / /7 / MAY INCUDEE TTHEHEDCLOOSTRAFFIC SUREE of ONENE LANNEE AND DIU FLAG6200 PIAN MIL BE urruzio. TOPLAN Q " %/ ` �oy / '/ /// LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DIIm nNArr1°•.xD TEMPORARY 6IGN.GE""°LAB MARKINGS IN .a 1 / / s%�410, Y/ //•/ // �.. ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF REN'ION STANDARDS. I-1 g --\ i ill / / TINE LAND MEMO TO THIS comTrExr Is SITUATED IN TB STATE Or IMPACTS FROM DUST SHALL a TIIND®BY WATERING CONSTRUCTION /L l 'lI / / % .' WASHDNGHTN,COUNTY OF KING AND IN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREAS AS NECESSARY.EROSION AND MUD CONTROL SHALL B HANDLED w / USING AN REPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN,INCLUDING TIRERAC WASHES. _ a/ / (it / i ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVISINMENT MT 1,SECTION 32.TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, AND STREET SWEEPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICES. [S] \\ / ///y / ' / RANGE 6 G41,WY,IN KING COUNTY.7ASI@NG'ION AND OP SECOND MASS AIL HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS AND OTHER N01H PRODUCING Cn •� ' //{ / / SHOREGNOS ADIORRONO LYING WESTERLY OP NORTHERN PACmC RAILROAD RIGHT \ Y % % / / OF RAY,EXCEPT THAT PORTION,B ANY,OF SAD SHOEBLINDS LYING NORTH OF ACTIVITIES SNAIL B L➢EM TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS WHEN IMPACTS .II Pq �i' / /// //� / THE ARMS NLY PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LUM OF SAm GOVERNMENT LOT I. •'+U Y/J /// , ? •//, ( SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF EINC,SLATE OF WASBaNCION. FROM THH ACTIVITY AREA AT A ImN➢rtIY.NO SPECIAL NOISE ` 0 / ATTENUATION MEASURES ARE PLANNED AT TIM MIN. / .. 8 \.� �/ \ h .. SHEET INDEX: D cip g / / a /// . PLO COVER SHEET CREEK STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING 4—N /R� ' - / �• - 2' PP001606ARY AT BUFFER INTRUSION PROPOSED: D.00 ACRES EU o:a • /' '/-- 0 ADDIITONAL HUPFsE PRO}92ED: 0.58 ACRES PSI PBITIIINARY GRADING elm DRAINAGE PLUN REP ACEMENT DOFFED RATIO: e:1 P�R I PLAT �, o Incorporated OVERALL PLAT PLAN NOT TO SCALE P9_2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLU !�w;°AS H ta°F°((:�)) 100 4 PS-S PRELD2URY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN v'F� FHC a (N25) A2N-B TI /�" /,. Fte.e.I Eale:nATAW P4-1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 30209.001.001 di Project No. P4-2 PRMININARY UTILITY PLAN /AWct P1_0 P4_9 PIE➢@iARY Un117T PLAN ��A' p` Sheet No BALL BEFORE DIG I-8E0-424-555i Sheet 1 of 10 MC)ROFLMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. , MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P23 ,m ar/ \ s�o' 7 -6a PP,a a, 9 :5 ° 1 4]I 1 3 t w•. TRACT'A• OPEN SPACE a 20 ST 96' 9fi 8' iffx'i 1 "- I l 3_-, r-_--}-_3]-,Ir-te_�_a,al " / / s 01 `m21 11'"' "' I>s s19 1 d,ma.e s 1 >,n�9 s IM ;`66, - .0 6, 39 2r _ 1 $1 ,69am s 1 / 7 r z/ \ms. 11. 1 18 IV. 17 m1m1.,xs 39s 39,3' I M IM 1 ..a. So,r / e / \ 22 \ 1 20 J L-- Im 15 ..sr 1 I sm s 4t.41 Lt.... .s1 /, g .��^� \ -•8y' 3z.3.T B-az o. i 16 I $a,.,,I s So,.,x ''at _ - vfiam s / ar/ s'\TER 73.g P14 ,d A- tau g, s 1 J za F1t5ENENT i \g . 6 0 `J 1m �am..>,s I A.o.w s ,, Mo y 5 s p 4 ..3 _ M 2 // '3 / ...- \\ . p.p,p0 p• -8+00 L=45 43. --'-'-.....I `` u 13 ih 12 I� _ - 7 8 6 f� 23 �— —R-,zs.°o\« 9* 11 10 .6n,o9 6 I '1 I"v i / § `\a' \\'� a° °° to 58' 00 3. `��\� 'a 33` I� t. J L a,as a,as J -,T.y°° )(/ W s / "{ TO'3a oY 3T3' z.61.t9r O Iza.5o' J I J L_,_•—_]49. y3 i a ,,,,.,. / / ° a 10. R=,o0 ,< afio l-� a 000 U 3° az 24 i: a/m o90`>' n 11 -I, r \moo .00 6°ias, a=i 33 �\ 1 sfi.00i e '4 ___ ego°° m ss I 1STREET 63. 00 °°• °p0 o STREET A /% A =�'z ___ w (c;\ __a555' a0]2'1111.wrtm m6v1 1M - 72 1 \\�\ \°P� / i'// I/ I' I -lsin.4a4s� SPACE "0• / 0'4 55' s x .ee I J uNw s la - 1 73 I 74 \`-soo 61 a 62 _ 63 m w • I�'.n/d I N1 26 --4197. 39 I5:"aooux sll A- 75 \�' _ p - :mom e.zs ).T/' x _' J I --- I uo.r4 .oe 1 11 rI 590 �.O� . . --s�� - IT 1 i moiws oo l o V:• 4,- gl� 4x s 1 ^ro` 0 t g I . s tI L_ J " 1 I c°)z ' 09 0 6009 1 L___ .. gJ L36 9 J x el TRACT-A- --- _--, 4555' 4446 s mw OPEN SPACE ° o I 76 /'o / �^• 1rM , �. 1 �18me a / 0 * e 1 .n.s s 58 I o 35, 38 y 3. w 's TRACT•B• _-1 I I sANaA w WATER QUALITY r--- I -- 661 1 78 77 � / / ryo 1 2, m _ '• wm�x« °3 I 79 1i 1 .�sle"isfio S'" j / o° ` i. w:a o- F- a, -1 80 aNre.T.W'1 65.I v \`rm1_3 4 E. _ 1 1 L. 9 �e ,$. o`"� 57 $ T�15 L11 r ao• 1 I Io,-1039 1 I a ,3200113., �J\1�° �Oos\\ en J2� IK a _ I 1 1.mexs I6-,o300J I' a=,0o••av, .,� /ss9id \.\` /aP' rr.m' P. r m 11 81 11-I I,6- 1ti° s 5B\\\.. ,p' s V1 m. -- 9-II 1 82 I..I /oo ' ,/-e?�5° .;O �• > a ›.. 0 1 r p0 I a''-iazoz s I I e ^`a .`.°°°n \ane.a sr' �4 1 4 I e0 11"-u1 S I �� 00�5t • ,Ae% / QI, �...o.w. 1' 1 83 Iq«, I ,..r, 51R�� a:;5° \ \\�55 z�--11 92.23' a043' 4043. I 84 SI I iA,yO°pO /°°+9' . _so Se `'°/ 4m.Bv \\ \\ ,• °O Fi --- lu.mnua I 1/'/ i/- \\ \\NRPoS \�N 54\ \\ v I� r-- 27 I r--- i 1;3.o,sI' x °o C \ 1 \ \s ) •/ .. - W ml mnns I 1 1 I .' PeyOO Xu ° :y/� \ \se6` \ mm�.l 1 53 /^'� - F' - P: I _9,_zs' I NI\I Sa.,86s11"65 i,'211 /"�°°° *�e°yoo°° e5;o p0 n1 y6 1\ \w. s 1\, ' [L �` Inssa.s 52 \ 3°•0 v NI A- 28 I 1 usi zl "� ,P6 \ "' ,xs \ l\��\ 51 \;, \ \ �h„a CI) . a o till a,a.ms --J n - Isa.. L o °„o \.a,e \� 50 \ \ j \'� BUFFER IONE A i 29 ° �m w 2.�9 =C) • .C) 41 tiI ems /�,�>� /°o v'i' \9 48 \ \\ - rii SF JO ,:„... i_0 w 1 / $. \ \�47 TRAcr•o- .�op6Y%' / .. O-.(n s 30 I I i oo O� \ OPEN SPACE .'�,P1 ' I� 8 v! of mg4fi\ / �- a 5 °°� '',../ Dn20' 4D^80' o a r Res°° `sh a I -LU, 1.iuva ss 31 m I- as 1+61 • .°00° n'sF 45 - _. -. MATCHLINE SEE SHEETP2_2 °°� ram APRIL 5, 2002 a O Incorporated y 4.L'4 620 60.4evd Fey p00 1 v ,4n�E4� .I 606400d,Ts 06033 k 01 `� I 0 Cc (4 62-N r /.. ne37, l2 '09.7 I1.00Y Pro1e< Sheet No. 4470E BAIL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555`sheet 2 o1 10 MICROFILMEC PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P2_1 mg :I >m } m 1 e° / �smmsi ' `� \ Aso>- '', : 1 I u.1.,,‘ d q*. /./ `‘‘,.... 47 ,'••,''''' •.. /- .,. • ro ti ---i. r1 .5 d'Y _ • a 1`eum s 31 „1 a v a,45�' I. _ ": I I sm.s 1 - 44 • `• .' •'PROPOSED TRAIL P- 5a8 I _-i -p.W.o f ` .'OVER COST.BRIDGE, be d • r ▪ a' / 0 1tz` • 1 m,m s 33 ,• • P,\ / • s •x .. •ry/ ,A'� emseS'/ e�� ag LAKE WASiIINGTON \\,aay v 34 1, o•W- a "`s /.°'"• • `.zom.m 110 o-'.^'�,�. re9• - \ q°o v s�, T • • 1 �—__ 1 1__ 35 '\� ' ;0 '..�•?`�z'0z oo o-ax; o-dR• .w'�y/ , i.,� • 1 TRACT•A• '+1 °Agn"zPs 1 0 ° h�o �t,�ttyyRR ^Sty —'F�— OPEN SPACE e\ \ n� BUFfERZONE °j gPO/e" Op"y� • �IWUL x' r'�' • G3 aT-- a s // :TRACT•D• ��105��.>. %o /,-, /., w �� n8 / 9�\ s. MSS 'qo • OPEN SPACE ry^'/^. `.u,ums °o/�: Bo gv v�/ as y `\y,. /ry R-2085.00' O a @ T-159.49' - W i k ^�\�\ .ea s / Jo• ".: ,,,,04.. - "*,� iii//////////// L-ales' w�Mz,'o / ...-- ...- ..0, et :./ ;���� '\ \ / ?°/ '� 103�. /� off, ; .. , ,-- _ E. a: ffi \m 39 `� 102 . • /•/ ;44o ° "l • g aim a.�/; •,. �O p '; «runs. $ e°"eo ,101 �',..••: P - „?r / `� /o-'oyo. , M1a ao, soil $' /" �; 4c/ _ -- „,;,,^,\Zoo)or \k s, s,',0,,,,°./-;?. / ./ .4,.,....,0,17:9‘8,9iggf,b./10,0,,,,.2:7:::,,,, , v, - ' Cb. , r ., Z 7/ '' \‘‘,.t. 42 ; w/ 87 ` '6.. ', 4 r< .m s ro, , 49 [s] 4xssm s ;/, ,00 ! ;`,y 97 ~ ACCES yr 'Z' a 4 ,,•4.•,,,,,,.,""//,,-1.,„'/:,:\: :,'1/e'/:;,,:-'.4'0'.,•/1/4'..„%,/44•''A.„7.',N.. /, ajs `� C' o° EASENENTii 8/ G4 F s :3 M 88 °gaC° ° Sj lu �iz . 96` / :' �� , / `< '-� Jd °, _-_ _ PROPOSED TRAB. /�,ma><s9 ,. _.?' ,'.Gry , , % - !v to /, \ -A$4' OVER BOST.BRIDGE •?' e / 7� i (f� % _\— /' / '-'N } DRAINAGE EASELENT // ♦ 93 n • //6 o, ' ,` \\' / / 1d' J Y / �, `E? a°6 ti 4// :I " .i / (� �j W W .14r90S :\/c r /5 6' TRACT'E• >O A• i/92 v •ice'~., / X, `.J/ WATER p1ALRY vS g9'\ \anx®s ,/� '/ / j / -' ,- -, ',-"' y C , 0 0 ,I.I --=I / `� os t mssm Sr; /��'/99� / ./ ; ey L. in F++C� Incorporated KeilM..^N/- o \\/,/ / J / / �\ / �s 620 IOr41md 0oy 41m \ NDT A PART OF' N. o '/ / f! // � 's /�Y 0' 20' 40' 80' O ®m411`425)�BZ1-4416 s�a,s / i/ �' / y '.ar' 17.1=11.- TA[ `4zs� 82T-9sn 3� WATER GVAIITY L_- I V n [[�O eY COY f Er i/ € [-. 30209.001.001_ -_ SBBY9'S5•E 269.&l' Y'� '{ 'I 4 / ,' / \ / _ J __ _ _ __ _ _ Protect N°. v'S N~ 2021' ,r^,'sr,\j;% - APRIL 5, 2002 P2-2 Sheet No. 'CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55554 sheet 3 of 10 ICROALrl PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. /....N*l / /1 D,/ W /• f /� ,,� NOTE:STREET"r TO BE LOCATED AT Fl(ISTMC '" f RAILROAD CROSSING o ,) \, z .2 to //f a S o \W g i / // WINN �� / �`deb 2�� Q• � 1m�e Z /•• s /'C/ rs•BH - 1 `"ob �g C.,g LI e ea. g 5 . WpgRE jF.T 1—a : / �w1 / / / - . z /// a x a 0a a/ a `� o c. dd0_ 3... w ,i s .% 7 I t i f —U CC 2 4, % - 4 oz a ,,o, ]]96N 01 6 3 P ��� - jU: Jd /i.1w 6mxwem fey nao I J _ _ am j y�. '15'WATER , / ,/ /.' 0' 20' 40' 80' O ®m0.�(e(125))03 B12-4H6 I tam s/ EASEMENT ' rA (425) F24214 ILL I a 8 g 4 3 1 m l 2 / /'' i / i �-7 Internet m.0w.c011 7 I' 1 IV I'�I / / i 'ice/ / , i� 30209.001.Z001 .i 6� o —i L —0 �' / Projec�Ny—J MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P2_1 APRIL 5, 2002 sneer No. (CP1J BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-a24-5555Y sneer 4 of 10 n.._ np.,Nr...li tinui-iLMED . • ,, , , .. , .,.........„.„__ ' , ., ,., 25 r----- ----- =‘,.-____________-7/ , ; . % • i \ 1 -- 7 ffh , , , , , , ,,,,,, 20 't 19 H i 1 i' /1'.• ,/ 21 I I ! '- = I i‘6 / . "L',..,\,,‘,..,,‘ -'-//111)• MI ---1 y' 14 1 r• , ‘ • ' ---,olio, ;I 3 . 1. •\‘. .,/ /di''10,"-,•,-.ie ..... 4,1.hs---- _4/ 1 7 6 i , ' /' .' ; 12 1 11 ' 1 0 5 1 8 r I/ "''-Pi' .1.-M1- '.W.RE'r= k"Sak./....- /' , ., • . r ....../ .401 <i 2 .1 pwo.d, _---1 r-,-- -- 7 - 1 i ' . ,.:, • . III', 71 I • lr . i . .:' 1 64 1 ., ' . . . ., STATE OF 72 1 74 1 7\8\'''''1 .V - \ 50-."1'60 . r LIV-kg: , i -, I, 11114016`3.1777!Fr.414,!./7tIlj_:11w4ir.-...i:;:y1;(1' 11 61 - 6,2/ 63 . i t / HAD FA.WEISER L ' ,i i , CERTIFICATE ND.773 \ 1 \ 1 ;/ I . / i : / I/' ,. ' - • Z I -' -- - - • - - -- __i i ' 1 •°A ir"' 0.. —— • i gl 0 0 1 7 // • •IS 0.. .•:.„: :":::•. 0.,,...,::,...00' , __ 76, ,/, r 1,/ii if, .,-,..1,-;.-esto.%- — • " - — - - ---c. '°' °-- ' A• - • - - - - : - ' - • - ' '''' A 1.-,A,,y,,, -. .: ,.., - - - - 10:1";-•-, _ J _,I,__ • i J, 58 ir p ,..-- „II fa ',N -- - •-'''',.-, \:',,1-;i4i.- 0 — -- -- - - ...?"6',' r-- 1 1 78 \ 77. ' // / , ..,../. too .11.1 /.••••,,,, •."-/.'9,•• i ..4 - • ,e1P.,41.0,-.•-•' .`er'••• 1 i i , .. • .- ... ‘! "64C; ,,,V)'.--- ''r..4 -- -- ,-, ', .-,_.A.•/IA r-- -1 i 8° \ , 1 _ p. ,, „ /,/ ',/,‘,/ 57 /:,,/,',",• on i , , , , , L___1............_- ,, / ,/..". , / ,/" '‘ .' 7'29- . / F‘ I • /s, „...ip, \ ./•‘,/ , ....- , (EROSION coma. \ I •• -- *. 1 i I \'' /// ,//,' ' / M2.555E132•11% I I I \ I WI.-.-" A 1..I'll.' __,------ " • ‘ /' N• ,v -) ,,, 41:1 , 83 I, It '- _....- ,,, ..,--- --e-, '„,.:0".•••••"°'--- `‘,> 55 = 'N. / \ \ / •.• / • / 49 l'i • --,C Or"* ..4‘,"...1, '' t, •l•.00 \ f.. I ! ,..--' _._------- .......lin .:111--- , / / ‘•‘‘ / '.... ‘--N// i// // ' ,7-.17-,,,2i ;. 7.10•77 Z 0 I-AI Z ..,,,,-,-,---- - ",:ok - , v v 54 , ,, . .• > • • ',-',4" / -EL- i' /7 // f,/,/ ci \ /\. 53 - . . . 40.5 ...,,-- N \ 1 't 86 , 1 / I . , ,...., .,,' '''I 1 'I / 85 1,11, / „ ,/,', ./„..- , cy • 52 \ ‘ - ..„.. . / ,.,., -2-•/..// / P4 ci MIN& 1 p ,7" ' .',7 \ \\' 49A \\ • ii .---.---' •.••... .'":714r) -". "/! / 6P/;;X' ,' .....A., (2) ,.....LAD.LA AHYD•.. APAGIN2 ,Fil'X'' r •1-.1 0 p_ i --,----,------- 1 1 0 Piaaroaws earrive as. ...- 0_ 1 ••' ''''''\ r• ./"...- ./ / 4/A;" . ERMA./RNA"VAN. ,,,,,..,,,,,, Il.)',AA, Ps.1 Li, \ ...-VI • ' ..-" num.=n ram... ,/,e,„,,,,.., .,.//C.,) w 0 p • . /2,, \ I • _ , .._..4/. / / ,‘,/47 \ j 2 ,,or,as".•'''''''••..-----...••' . ., § I l' ilitil-----:\--\--:::: fill , 7 /' / // ,it6\‘‘s•\‘`‘ /> •'' ••.. ..--'--;.." D" c„,_HHOlOmirp.66 IZI CI) pr:1 ...LH'0.G.•,• .„.....r_,.. ....-T. --......A..' \ I. /31 / / \ `,,,.-". 45 \/ . .t .,-1 I.••• / _._ —L Incorporated 4.40000 BF WHII 4.4 il I--".MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L1.02 .W Erkland.le S8033 1-----1 -i ORZININP-0-'"'"1 ;!..rgr.t Pr (425)g:gg 5, 0,41 -/-.-/=.a==.4alo= r.- : I I nsyMEEKSTREAMOSFER .,4 Z i'''T209.:Titt. I Project No.Ic:/CettrArt.C.PACAVEIE,MoinlIre+10 PROPER, 4 LGAAILANDAP P. L1.01 AAI•NoNSIAIN TOM.AREA sPlAN,,,A,`AA Sheet No. SI tAU carurtE Too-trit,,800-424_,=.115 MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET L1.01 • • \ • • /•`�II 30I iI / +/ 6 i\\ • i �/•ettREAn owam ' ,\ ) , . / a� 31 �. / / a,�� a/N �'- ç4344 '.i / ' - / MAY CREEK BUFFER RESTORATION SCHEMATIC z 1 34 / (/J 11° �® NOT TO SCALE 1 __ -__p,,`1 v / Or, 35 , ,;j, 1 1 ;- / % $ 108 � • STATE OF / 1°�jWEGiSTERED 107 ' ;%7 ,. .i \ — 36 =_•__?7 , :I, 1 ,I / t 06/` i "If / * _OJT CEanrmnz NOCHAD FALL .773 - - I "//e# ,-"bs , • e. __ ,/ ' ,g—;tilt / ,'.' ,/," `,'•;, , i 7. ./ ./,:,. . - ,,/ ea 6 • . ... J [i! �f .214 _-- \\ .,. \\.\\ / , i -__ .,/ ,,,/, ,,,,,...„ . , 1.;_ r ., ,.. /..../. ...... _. _____ , , , ,, . ,,,..1.2. .....\ \ , 39 ‘) // 2-/ /.'%,--/ '", -/ -; ., , E-. : / , -' ,,/\ ,‘,s‘ao \\ /7/ /7' <, —T/i/ ,7:7 / 4:4(e, ---_ ,,•. / I i ../ / 1 ',�\�\ \\' �.�\ / , %% /;' j; � /�.� 1001 //( 0 -, // /- ' '7 _ T� ,yr,' .'�/ a' za' ao' ao' d / / 8\\s 42 '\ N-' '/�\� j/ /%i %/ • / r,//:, 7-3aJ i9� 0' _ %/ = 'ZZ c7 ci •. , / / , . ' /' / / 'eft, , • „ /J9 : L__,. ..dis4.\-/, , . ; , ,..". kii,..,,,14,12... N-4a, - • I : - COMMON NAME/ sue. T // ,, .®��j`.Lib— .. Orik.,1/ /, j 0-1/1 / _ rw•- Ra h 8 ,l/' /89 \ w��l� ( ,'S.'S /' / �>. ,LLEQ$tae abr G'"6' 0U N / r.' <\/ 90 / / T� /5�'v` / =9 O-D�'° �D or a w ,� �' o a �, wsNewsH wx s' \ 91 /i� r • �-,/,�f!� /' E ,Wee, Nee •~ O _ i s U L. R 1 `1 ' ocna7cwieee®7m{ e / ��y '/ // / w Incorporated \ o. \ / �f/ / ✓ I-.•...I a came moo rex F+i 620 KVYIena Vey/MO 8 /' \ �7 , O '�/� ,� /// L.�::1 •-6 OM 41 nide,Ile MGM I.ry s®mix 5 J I //ref �• . Fa 425) �r-esn miaorc mowcrnu N /-- 1 I NMc7�ca [WEIR wA 30209.001.001 i ,7 ,aN y' 40 i i � Project No. ff — — ta9NA„GN �� —gycameo, P a L1.02 / APPICOIMATE7er.E.EAQr.NDe . Sheet No. -. All BEF-ORF'1 -802 424-5��"""r0 MICROFLM'ED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. //i L f �% -�_ L _ • —__ � ; //-- _' -- 8 'W o o- .r——�tT A''' - /N /�� \ma " �� , ' w`�f\/ y,/ 20• „ / `y 22 I 1I - 16 15 ,i/ f 1 8/ / \ 14 li' .r T. 3 ' / I 8+0 12 / 6 .11 1 / ? 9n fo / l _ R ET B N. 1 . STREE— A ,i ('�'% a / __ 67 68 \ �__ -i—~�\a„°o / .00, Flo' // �jy 5 / / 70 71 oo, .j 64 / i / 73 j . 62%/ 63 .i� 26 .�: J• 74 75 i \ - 61 / / I�.'z I � ,--1 / \ �1 0T ,60 1 / //��\ glii ,.., . •--- 1 �: 1I •/ \\ 76I58 ` I n / ��mS ` //I it i 78 77 7I / i/! v w1�;i1 J 57 wJ. /� 07 4 �, (s)TREES To BE CUT ` ! / /1; /6 I ii u°.\ 82 \1 // \ / o• e , fg 4,4/ z _x_� - __ I a4 I �G� /' 1 P. II / /1/00_ir,, o 0 PA , \ ii .,, )zo ao ao o f 6 `I � ` r o0 / o. i , � ' o'qo� � f � o a .► , I /31 BSI 6I 45 \ / 3-,\I / / \ _ Incorporated R MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET T1_2 p 4' 020 Erkta.reT 1,U0 LEGEND: pi 66033 PGam: (425) 922-4418 - 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR O FAX (425) 06kcoM . 23 EXISTING CONTOUR `HJ mm30 701 002 ,1 Project No.001.001 TREES TO BE CUT T1 1 ———— CLEARING LINK Sheet No. FALL BEFORE 1110 DIG 1-BO0-424-5551 sheet I of 3 mical,FILmEll� PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. _ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET T1_1 o / • ' ` N. \ -- / / ( / 47 \ am_ / /�I L/\ l L.,6 g: o w " aa 5 �.•A _I /31 . c IA / BEI 79 oR 32 / j' // ..- _ =yr`_�_:, -as 44 / n / i / I\ ` \ Qi N\\ 1 ,. os I / 43 / / ,\L. I \\ __ 1�� _���% / V'111�i i` '.A <_ cn /\, 1 /� 1 y `9 / �.s/ 35 I r ,,I toa • i .,:%jr � LEGEND: '/ ' /Lip / / 13 PROPOSED CONTOUR 4 •�1 \ ,% ////N 107 - ii/\✓ ,.� ECISTING CONTOUR � y / 36 �-^ ,.' / `/ l/ /;ti' ./-- / /i O TREES TO BE CUT E 1 ti � 10/: Q ____ D1 �/ i CLEARING EMIT UF, / 38 /i /...,_,/,,:::;:,,,, 104- �, 1 . //, ' ,, c4/,.G \ /* / (1)TREE TO BE -1 U '- 1°3 -`�'/ F ji / cui, } /„ 9 0o i�` // i .x-1r�-1O2- a h / 40 \ // e -/ ...,./ �' \ , / / --,_/, ' '/,',--too `� /� I A \ / „..,"-.. /, ; =;,.!--441 i 1 I / ' g8 -/ AP , . 0, 41 \ „7,,, /k<IA--- ,// / 4,7 .f 1 ( I,, , r_, c4 0 97 , , a.. ,, ci %. ,,, . „./Aw„, ,.. . , . ._ /I , _ it, ii g.,s,,, ‘ , , ,, 0,-2,,, ; 88 lif . 5 Y '\� ice\ ` \ l \/• 1 s5' \ i \;,• , o i /' - `� \93:. % / \ 1 / 0U UN s ( / . \ �4 �// / w 6 `� e 1 I. / WI?TREES TO BE \: Sr\P .r.-. o a dre aU sk— v0 s'y.., 2.\\ /0, QtE9, Incorporated corpora �V • MO.2.1 Tay/IGO a . I 4-1 Y¢Ai+o4 Te BB039 fntweL 1.001!tC Y 8 5B5h,,. U%s \ 0' 20' 40' 80' I O .._" (125 ea-u18 (21 TREES TO BE 11\_-\\\!`#,- ` ( 1 T ./� H/ F 30209.001.001 3 4 N a \` Sheet ,f No. -� SBB'49'S5'E 289.8]' i5 Ti_2 i Ah m' ' Sheet No. '" AII.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55554 sheet 2 of 3 MICROFILME1 PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. /—\ . WT OSITOE BE / ./a, \/" — 1 LEGEND: / �_ � /\ Po� • ` 23 PROPOSED co. /� ,/ \\ �— EXISTING CONTOUR / / • / / / / \\ �`i,'a O:, TREES TO BE CUT c� 9 0 ———— CLEARING UNIT j / v ' • / /f/ / q I / 4. / ,mm.vvz /` //'V / w (2)TREES TO BE / 1/�.`V / - OX CUT OFF-SITE x ,// V g / / P� S8 iii / / " v o m.sm.i / fl• '�1�/ I 'zFIE/� :51.- E. _ >4 z / / x / Ee I/ j,' / z /// // // , w Z P"f91T GF TREF-ES SITE TO BE P.,, - / • z E , / ir -4., /// �� �f/"� w z / �' (�(n 1—cn 'S5'W 1085.4Y �o — _�/ ` ',/ J/i ,�,, 1 1oo/YC/ �// _ W :..Incorporated , . ' N l� / �~ 0 - 4--t 620lOrtlmd ie Way 100 FF..26.5 FF�26.5 1 FF�ji26.5 1� FF�27.5 FF 27.5 FF..2B5ry Ms 28.5 .., /aJ / cn Pr. ha /((425 Bf2-W48 1,FF�2].5 bFF�27.5 4 1 3 ', FF,;29.5 / i / �P 7O Ivtemel (425��Olnk roY 9 7 6 5 / / 0' 20' 40' B0' F-I 30209 001.001 11 1 10 f' 9 i 8 j / ��V n ^ Protect No. x I VA CHLIN� — SEE SHET T1+1 I /I I / I i / I T1 3 Sheet No ,- BALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-555515neet 3 of 3 M1C.F • 1-LMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT , ii . ., TOPOGRAPHY MAP .i/.5' , % aw/ / •DSD .100' ZOO /% // I j�u7 K ; // e /� � _ S a jR p /I UNTL3R°VE /..;/„..-...,,', x AL f LAKE , - • _.e i,, ;,/„ I /// \, I g WASHINGTON I — - / /4// / og ea tt j - I 1/.'';// W I L .//y/,// / Eti m ral om I • - " II . / / /-'/ Q� j / •/// / w ///�\ ,/;/ / / VERTICAL DATUM I n x/ '• i/�i/ 1/ �q j ASSUMED,BASED ON BENCHMARKS SHOWN ON PLAN r'/ . y x \ _ -r - ! / / !� • }=BENCHMARK- T cx Qi u —1 H 1� % �_ / !/%/ I j L. �' ! �!/// W aQ NTLz ppOA gx I /�d� ...,." - `L'• r // / a. r W Q % /r` =Ei y r� 0 V '�` t • y°Gx THIS MAP WAS CREATED BY ME OR UNDER ii 4 �, • 1 � ea ;r : Aqy !� MY DIRECTION.PLANIMETRIC FEATURES ANO ` /•is� ;�j,,,• TH Sa1AP•DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY a O Incorporated :! •1 , 1 SURVEY.BOUNDARY LINES AS SHOWN ON THIS 4--1 MAY CREEK %''a 1 YY-• y\ (�\ /J I _ . YAP ARE RECORD FROM SAID ALTA.MAP. 620 SAD.Te,MO DELTA _ r/ -,,,.»�M-M------+ yJ N4tlmE,Te S9033 o , I L O Pacve (125) 622-IMB r EfIr (12T 62Y-95T! F-1 30209.001.001 y, �..m nn I mama C.IAWREN E.PlS PATE Project No. " R-B ZONE a. lal�.wr / / N 40TH ST. i CO_3 (TAIL BEFORE E YOU DIG 1-BOO-424-555i Sheet 1 of I MORORLME PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT - ROADWAY SECTIONS _ LE,,,,. Ga �m 50' co 8/W _ 8'PUE _ 40'R/M W RPItR0A0 R/W A p 30' q 30' 20' E. 2A JIB_ 2' S' 5' 18' 18' 5' S' 2' 45' 14' 14' 4• 2' SIDEWALK TRAFFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE SIDEVIALL( SIDEWALK TR/�FFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE 1,T 0.5' . 0.5' I1— �,y,. z., 1.5_ 0.5' 0.5' '44F, z, .1 4 1 4 2x 2x 2,' 2x 2x� 4 4 �2x 1` '. ,y:. 1/,�.,.•.- ��\��� zx zz `✓,,,<::` ...\. �� ",W. +i�;Pi`.yT>-ai✓ilii`.%`'/`.,,..,�: ,2 i zS . ummEs %,t ;i/rj/,i>v,),&4;e�\? :>,� ;ay/\ij:ij>`j,V>)(.., /../ ,•.y?% T o''.%>;�{a3�',,,,A. ' � ✓,���!,�l.�i {,. <: ��.<..<�<.. �Ll.�. �, :� �i�!:Z�iili 7 i.T,./ii,!i��' ' /;;7i:/izii 9' z O'"t0* 1.—.Vero, I x OFFSITE ACCESS COLLECTOR STREET SUBACCESS STREET 0 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 81 0. AmST gzg 8'PUE m 50'R/2I x 8'PUE 8'PUE 30'8/W '� S S 25. 25' _ 15' Q 15' IAAT CREEK BUFFER 1� W i E 3' 6' 16' 16' 6' 3' E SIDEWALK TRAFFIC LANE I TRAFFIC LANE SIDEWHL It 12' I 12 3 0.5' I+I —{ 0.5. TRAFFIC LANE I TRAFFIC LANE 0.5' 0.5' L oo u —J{I © 4 2x Q. 4 �Tx a 2R IX O © . a ONSITE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS STREET MINOR ACCESS STREET w a NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 114 Z I O • _ U Y LA1 (n 3.2 W } w a ROADWAY SECTION NOTES 0 XI o • cosF. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT.CUSS 8 >Z " 8 O Y ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT,CLASS 8 4el).4.4 O 4 A18(ASPHALT 1REAIED BASE)OR rgr..I i Y CRUSHED SURFACING FOP COURSE i1 OVER 5 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE rl O O a O CEMENT CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER t"T U — • aw Incorporated 628 Er4lmd Vey/100 4.1 Nrtle05..e 08LLT0 S . O PD,,, (425) 4W-4a9 h_-1 PAX (425) 82T-051T Ivtuuel I�IOtek.CO 30209 M.001 M Project No. CO_4 Sheet N, .ALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5554 Sheet I of 1 PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_3 •' • _ __ N88'48'58'W 1085.47' r"0p / 1 I it _ /� \ 21 20 11 19 1 18 I 17 I I --1 a / to / \ , III 22 \\ I 16 I 15 14 1 I I _ , 3 13 , 5 4 2 _^E 23 _ _ 5Ws° \ 12 I 11 10 9 8 7 6 s.0p e w —�~\"�ss STREET B i I STREET A I '$ w�� o 24 + 66 �w\ss _ W 7- W �#p0/ .. W W 67 , 68 w�ti--w ,00 5 ss ss ss g 1 W W Via, 65 I4'\ /�� i <2 / 25 I 69 1 / 70 71 , '\\\\� I 64 i• �', 72 , I i � , 73 I 74 f 1 I 61 62 1 63 g� 26 I II 1 75 I �;ei�y0€' p , , I+ 1m�vv. 1 ____) i-141. /. z m I •; 3 76 �� 58 n a Q 79 78 I 77 +� / de W �Rw 11" 1 8o I 57 1i2 m I 81 1 8 ' I � 56 /1 ‘Ak, "i/o F a . , : // . 2948 ~ . , . z._ -30 i 1 • j�% 47 >>, 3.2 g ,7y�" 46 /` U w w Pe�^ O ; • 4.301 'ER oa MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_2 LEGEND: ^'I —� ;,.., Incorporated -SS PROPCS D SANITARY SLR.LINE 0/C.4rgOW /ii (/", �EHve Te+/100 • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 4..1 OLLOvd EA 1 Rom ',Ey�.� Phove. 1 , BY2-4116 C • PROPOSED SANITARY SLR.PUMP STATION 1., L(01'- O vrx gm az'r-ssn ____ PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORTED YAIN ��/ -- 4 ,vle30 71 001 M � 30209.001.007 W- PROPOSED WATER LINE Project No. 0 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ./ P 4_1 4 4,,L Sheet No. PALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 sheet 8 01 10 mIcRoFIL ,4,ED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_1 r, \U`�/JAI/////,/%, r 31 ez L sL 45\ - 3Q • p 32 • 44` ti l < \ f 43 • 33 112 a 111 <2 34 k • 110 teCV:V\i .... 109 35 ..< 3 / 107 �Q [1"... z __� 106\ 3 - v oz A z/ . ,,, J E' 1o5`, �a 0� LEGEND: m' 37 / (V/ , 55— PROPOSED SANITARY sm..N LINE 2T /,�� • PROPOSEDiE: TARY he O W ni CA. 104 n C'1 • PROPOSEDION�� OEwsnNc__— PROPOSED ` ' / ' • 103 3/ _ � —W— PROPOSED WATER LINE // PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT \ 39 102 /?, / �� _ p G4 40 \� �G / �\O1 xti - v ��� 4 d ` 41 5 / �\ Z 42 4, , 99 • a 87 � ss / awl. ,' ` 88 0.n.00 - - \ A' S' " a\ ` « " \� 95 /"' � ' ;vxam Q W Z N ' \ N %/ i/ q a vl89 ',,/ / / x � ; ,- o oa _ii EU -_,_,- -- �` ✓,�,' •, i �r c.W q ,/ .Y., j ,'�' 'Fr (azs) ea-t4oe \av"-� / //' / o• 20' 40' eD' ' r Em ws my-9sn . i F Inl BI10tetC0Y E �� F ,/� ^ 30209.001.001 o o _ /.4RI WO Project 4 :y 5E8;Li '4,75S"E 1'r o. ,%T''�f // \ -- - --—- --------- ---—-- e _2 TALL WORE YOU DIC 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 9 of 10 IX KENB1-O4/O3i2OO:II 32p,-->x\PROJECTV0200\3O2O9\DWC\PPLA1\Pa l BOB ___ m , > —I ------ 2 r z ___ m I A m m --- U W o z Ie• m II 1 m --- m r - 9 m a `•� ,:,B4 E g eooQ \ o Rp 't 4Po 4 \T y � , � • Rfp�FY \ '�NF \ Z j j 7. ,---- t,,,i * • K c) m 0 I : 1 (11 71 r Permit Review m I Not for Construction V ' ��r Es , BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER.4,=,:. . i �� BARBEE MILL CO. a ` PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN p4101 0 BOX 96B dffi+GSON BLVD.N'8 ,+ ` IC4 o & g a SHEET 3 P IE6-22809000 ��a <3 o:EGO a „ EGO gym ,\`®e'\ NO DATE G ENsIoHs [+ xcNo}0p/0,GGGG,o,porn-->N\DD..,\]020G\10209\DWG\P.M,'DWG a o o a • MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_2 • \ 1 v \ 3\ \ \\.\ y ' 10 Z. �8 .. \ \ ,\ \ 1 6 \1.,, \ \ rn L. o ` � 1 • \ \ pg 6 0_24 7 \ \ b \ 6 O 1 I I ` \ \ \ z � 6 f 2 \ \ 'ice. D • . \\ '\ o , 8 . 8 '' \ \ 11710 t J i 1 .4 11 1 1 I 6n1 \ , , \ . 2 ii 1 i \\ \ Cn 6 0 \\\4 R \ \ \ N • \ z - \ \.'; 6 \ 6 \ \\ \ \ /\:3 \ I\ . \ '''''. \ \m C \ \ ol Xil , p \ Permit Review 1 r Not for Construction-� x = n o -g . BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OS9NER: n 0 ' - T.C^Nr r ° [ BARBEE MILL CO. �sr, _ 9 0In r p (�1 {t01 IABE W SHINGTON BLVD.N 2 ?„ UTILITY PLAN PO BOX 959 • m — .80.y. ' ^ SHEET 1 RENTON.•A 08057 _ yob s//@ EGO +n•m,•*••w EGO 8 4 PH.420-220-9000 NO 0n*[ G .REVISIONS s 1I rowew, is FJL D PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. // M' \\ // • \ r ___ 4`\ 1 LEGEND: I '-I u I ' -SO SS- PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER LINE II F- a //W-" \J� W n 7 3 , • \ •Al / / `` / ``\ • PROPOS D SANITARY SE'MR MANNOIE _ W / g /- I � TO / / � ♦ \\ / ``\ • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION - - / \\i� PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN z W 74 / �\ \ / 8 / \ -w W PROPOSED WATER LINE I W E f Z E ue KM: \ \* /, X PROPOSED LIRE HYDRANTI _J F$l o // 7 ``• \ -SO SD- PROPOSED STORM LINE 0 / I I \<11. / / • 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN I ¢ ^$ 75 / \••>‹, I <_ Li_____ / 6 . X ' // _ w �jsi6e� / X \., IE..E/1/0, __I / 76 \ / 4 , // • ss -----------..., .. / />\\ _____ 4 *X /- 4),,,,,// ,„ 4i , o_t9_o____,_• — ,' Ins STREET B / '/ \ 4 /.. \ m. T ;,Z<Z<• / \ \ I wg :-:_L_'' _--7——----,,_____i________ __.._1,0 , \ ,./ . ( 58 / �\ ,� W 62 �" �? w I / ■ �W , i 3 ■ a I ?xp0 W /'/ X �' I \I \//�' Z., —— �u BEY LPN ��7I55 I56 I 57 \ / 63 ��4JENT2 R1P I �� /� � 13.E w N E I I 1 , 6 4 -- - �' � /' -/- EAST.WATER LINEillt I.°U a J W • 12 H I --�-_- / - -'- TAPE �>/ (n R W </ W -' X 8 I=_ .. - ' • --� _ - 0' IO' 20' 40' I z IdW -- EXIST.10'SANITARY ~(''O O Cr) BYAtBOL SO .L NAME, AGBl6 ��\7- r _ _,e EASEMENT - - - c:�"7 ' I MAL '°"° OBOu v. %_!� _ "� SAKE W ASVOGT O ;��`d B 98033 a rag F.a 30209.001001 ,{ Fc=2Project No. ¢ U1_2 .11 SM1eel No. ICAO.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5554 Sheet z of 8 . ' , ICR ("FILM D PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, RSE, W.M. 1 i \ , I NI 20 \ 19 __ —_� 118 17 i I w w I N 0 I � I I 16 15 REET ''I e 14 I ;' e I-- Will _�°e.} _ \ - 13 12 11 10 9 8 I = o aa$ 1... . . II W w \ \ I - - U ,„,. ss ....„,„ __ ..,___________:_------,,,_ , 3 imprl""' -.4 , • .2 I z,--..--T--- 440,410, '101.11 `,,- W ----------- a in 66 \, s, �� SD So 4,- I W ; 68 I writ W W W \ � \ /' 'p'I lowm.a/Yk 1 =65 \,Po Iw �I '54Lit , , 69 70 I �, ¢ m� Im w y I 71 72 °°� • I �3$zk I J --_— — T7374 \\, I H I ' 75 I I a LII_— I zIo 40 I— ��so— 1 1 i i tot z MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_4 '•1 w a a LEGEND: .4 }' _Os SS— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE Z e • PROPOSED SANITARY StmH MANHOLE O w _0 I',^^`` W } III • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION •... 0 .ay J W ,,,,, » `4 SET) — — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN g. ��Ii/) —W W PROPOSED WATER LINE W c4 — R PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT -0 o a "AM COIRA[wI NAME/ SOE. U SC�NT6'ID NAME SPACND• —50 SD— PROPOSED STORM UNE () rwwu�eeFes cw red_ ," iti ❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN ,"."'"p--s', ZeuouN /1 CO r Incorporated 4 — F++ 020 1011danM Tay/100 O ( ) (� 012 (425) 6211004 q t"7 Wk30 TLITOWtCOY `S ,C-i 30209 001 001 Project N0. U1_3 Sheet No. r,ALL BEFORE You DID 1-B00-424-g5751 sheet 3 of a \\iiIG OFaL ED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_3 J 1� / 85 / 84 / \\I NI / N /� I% / / 83 / / 73 I I— o ELS I / / 82 / Y � / �O / w STREET ' 81 / 80 / / 74 I N I " % —W W W .�m sr f / / \\�� / I W sue— — �- — W f— W�w �� sr.._ i' 78 / I U \3 SS SS SS SS 00+B1 SS \ �- / _ / / 75 I �_ \IP' I' _'61— I e" 45 46 47 48 / I • J /I a I / 49 '/ ,, •k t , ,,,ft / 50 / , .. — w--___,„ E. I IC2 __ I _________L_______j L...,_. , v -‘11,ip,''' ...'':' a 0___ 1 55 1 Iu I �6 _____.... ,/ 51 ' 52 / 53 54 ; 56 57 i a w MATCHLINE — SEE SHEETS U1_7 & U1_8 14 a a a a LEGEND: w IL a- -SS SS— PROPOSED SANITARY StntR LINE .O W 4.+ CQ .-L R • PROPOSED SANITARY NL,.u1 MANHOLE ` F. • PROPOSED SANITARY Sct2R PUMP STATION /0 i P1 Cir — — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER GORGED MAIN ..-t O W W— PROPOSED WATER LINE COMMON NAME/ glg. ,` 8YMBOL BC�NTIFIC NAME SPAM. v 0 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT J.52 SOR03 n�ttexAN s. � �M b`A �N�NOCAIGI F+(1)O m Ied —SD SD— PROPOSED STORM LINE 11 Inca 000 1 62D 4ukl Ye,II00 i.l /G M &1e 98033 8 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASINinTar>F+arcxv�eR,A , O fAL 114 Ora i eeeuoNl Z '01 0 1DM01 Project No09 o0I.00, 3 Project No U 1_4 Sheet No. CALL BEFORE YOU DIC 1-80D-424-55551,sheet 4 of a PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. , Is I 25 ' I \ I I I 26 24 i- I 27 IW I 28 CS I 32 I 31 30 29 \ aillk 1 \��15.SANITARY SEWER` -- -- 0 I w I , 1 EASwwT pr LJ _l , _�-- 4 L —��so � o �Ty ss I ss I I A� __ I d ET\ = _ sw= �a s w w---�µ 'J - - Do _ w w �- U ��- w \ Q : a SS ___,SS -�i o - --w� -- \ g Si.Do --�- W w S Q2 M 6 M M M — �_M '11111111111111111-1- I ] i . , ) 8 65 \ �,` In \ 6 6 z LA \ i \----- wl �;`sue\\ 85 \e\ a — • J �� \ 4 \4iik 1 , Wg..t §0 44 / 45 \\\*. V.�\ sT�F 84 • OS OS—ow- t •• l ------ I/ \�, m • D� ,D• 2D� 4D� 68 � 46 �\ • , fg � a MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_4 a • w x LEGEND: a a z —ss ss— PROPOSED SANITARY NAFFAN LINE Q C • PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE O W CL LO d W } • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION 0•,J 6j J W $ — — PROPOSED SANITARY SENOR FORCED MAIN •J PP =N // R —w W— PROPOSED WATER LINE FZe Cn r. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT O O a SYMBOL. COMMON NAME/ 5�• ^�+r, Butnl:IC NAME• SPACNA •(-V ,.,y—;� —SD SD— PROPOSED STORM LINE �,f, ❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN j y,�p� S meuo+N ��O ' Incorporated o Ly L44 QO KuYlend Tay F100 e 9803,7 $ 9 \N m e:u+N O none. T((425 022-4H6 (� PAC (424 221-BYR D. �-4 Internet: 001.0000M ,(� 30209 001.001 6 Propol No. U1_5 Sheet No. (CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-R0O-424-55554 sheet 5 of S ? s `F�L Wall I' ` ) .� i PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. __ \------ . ..„.......,..„. 1,.. . I= / P. 42 \ ---I \ \ , \ \, / ,-X v-, / 1J o6Y \ 41 J ,so, „0„, \KZ / ,, __---T 7 1 / I LEGEND: IJ I ‘71II SS SS—I 32 1 • PROPOSED SANITARY SLIVER MANHOLE M 24 WW 1s / �� / I I 3 5 34I — • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION ^� 11 \ O im.4 ‘.‹. 3 6 1 \ 1 — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN k7 i ``\ ---• \�\ 38 // I 1 1 A�--_I W W PROPOSED WATER LINE (i((6g� g �I M1�i6 .`ST / 1I 11 E�,. -�_ I PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT Ey TpE 8 SD \�\ \T C / 37 —' '���. . /� �" _ `I —SV ❑ STl— PROPOSED STORY LINE a a . / M' PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN ›.' .41100 , ; r"011111 :__________ . , ,4.4.4 -sc. // ,.----- w o�' 1/ S' t a 7"----, , 43 /I Z W g w I o W aLg O 1 U w 44 �' R Eo I 8TA®OL COMMON NAME/ Ski r)�.+.r(1 o a ® SCffNIF1C NAME. SPAC"' i..v .-.-1 MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_7 2 0 I10.12N01.03 LEEPLESS.d1 _ rurr*uie"eE=r UORO I CO ` Incorporated 8 C F++ 620 x rk/,d Tey MO i-1 Kirkland.■e MOO 125) 24:::11 (� jiver orx+u NW.% O Zr.PAC �/25) BZl-85T1 72 1m WC. 4 mte30 001.00cloM 1 /-� Proj ct No.OD1.GD U1_6 Sheet No. BEFORE YOU DIG 1-WO-424-55A Sheet 6 of I MICRIFILWIED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_6 ------1 15 STORY DRAIN -"-, ENT I w SD SD I I WI- Lai _o _ __ II .1 \ I r I!n - a 89 1 w 1 w ------ �I� \ \ I I ' Ii \sE I 1I I \ 102 10 — — I 99 I y I3 I I, 93 \ 96 r 97 gg 100 , . w� Q 4 91 I I 94 95 I 1 wy��l I Wy, I � /----———— 92 �o/______- ..... --sof illatirEE� 5D, / ¢ I ry _ wSD �______---_____._____. __ , il sD .. • oo w ��-� _ x__-----\-- , S _ I. W Cgms 11 15•SANITARY WI. W i a a.. EXIST.WATER LINE f II EASEMENT I E TAP , -r ti I \.. \ E, , r1 1 *C:' e" 11 a 1 SY C I y.l I w '1. a r--- --- - ~ , -S.t , -- , i 14 I - I W a� LEGEND: 0•'-' w x $ -SS 55- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER USE U ^, � �� R , 8 • PROPOSED SANITARY StRcrt MANHOLE /A/.- R PL `k . PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER POW STATION i. i-.O O a SYMBOL. M BcramnC NAME. N6 U COMMON NAME/ SIZE• T - - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MAI N IN L, rrx ' . -. � -W W- PROPOSED WATER UNE J � LW. /1 t2, Incor'pofa led PROPOSED PORE HYDRANT Ly ' i-.1 IGrN620 m a Billand �ItoO 8 g 111, e O PMove (A7�0) �-<N8 o -SD 80- PROPOSED STORM LINE.', la 0-USIMPONCELDMEEEPA d t �J Stool lI 1m 01eY-COY ,Li 30209.001.001 •; 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASH - - Project No U 1_7 Sheet No. ICALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-R00-424-5555 Sheet 7 or B MiCROFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. __ MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_6 ",I . S ca I- I LI v= I LEGEND: LLI _. ' 1 I Uae 1 '.......). W n I ''� 11 —� PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE O' 8 — II I III I1I I • PROPOSED SANITARY ARY SEWER MANHOLE \ 11 II 1 0 ' I • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION e <2 0 I I I' 1 9 II 110 I 111 II 112 — — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED NAM $�•W II I I I 1 —W W— PROPOSED WATER UNE py I I I 1 SD PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT �3'\Y 1 \ \ \ 1w 50 SD PROPOSEDSTORY LINE STREE PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN moa BMOC I W .SD '\< g 1.1 ' /W� SS�QaS m OZ W U /ss _�-- w o /Wi !/ s.� r4 di m$ SS .so ' 4,14 I I _ a z IN gl_Np I LAKE WASH GTON - a - - -0' 10' 20' 40' P. 14 C I W d CO �0 C.)'� a —1 w S >= =L=pc1OI R 8 • u) A ^ r" O 9TMB04 COMMON NAME/ SOE. o a Sc:tea C NAME SPACNO• •E U -.LJ MaAHaLLDe®YY9 Alu rat, n\id - irsNsr<vweu i I-- 4/^ /ncorporaled 62o end.We rat/100 yJ MO SEA We lOtUS 8 P.'.l O P5,00 (4151 BE2-4449 (l 1 m gA PAR: (425) :NZ q m einw 4-s Int 30 001. 01 GS ,C.� 30209.001.001 'y Project No. U 1_8 Sheet No. SS CALL BEFORE YW DIC 1-BO1-424-SSSSt sneer a of 8 MICROFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. ,-_-_ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET P3_3 .30 . 00 30 10135.47 33 /\' — - . . ---------- '17------ ----- ' a . . • 8 22 21 ‘ 20 19 ; .' 18 17 •, %N I 16 15 ' 14 -; 1/f ' 13 ' ' .., 2 4 1 3 ; , • ,, '0 i•" .2 §8 , 7 i• . 1%11 - , 7:a ,' <2 / 24 /,‘...., • .77........7.-••••••-•„.................DVIINM /•'. //ow...-. 40013 A„z40+ --• -.- ,/,. . ,,,, •o„, .,...... . • r.,, 25 , 69 -- • . ,---- 70 71 : 64.-- .-- / -- . . , / . --- r 73 . 61 / -62 63 • .,.../- . , / Ito=WM I 26 ,-, ''• ,—---- 59, .60 / / / 1 / 1 81 a F A " • .20E 78 77 , 47. 79 • 8 q . . 80 , ' .• E. [ . / , ,„ 0. Z a. .. .r. /I 0 g •.,. ., w\ ., 1 , ..i -t4 < 0 CC, 27 C.1. 85 .-- 51 52 , . ..,•••'...- ..' . ,• •N•i-'-Z','. a,-4 0 iY . , , • ,- ..• 4u 0 2 ' , .• . E. j -, 29 i'c';* , ,•s -. ., .- 48 . .• --.... ,..' 0 1 . / ,.......... '' 47 /. '''''••-'.... . .,' .. 30 4-4 g , .c, ° • / /46 , .., - : ...• S , - -' 0' 20' 40' 80' /31 r, 6 45 \ , __ - ' ,--.o-.----,a . . _ . 0, _(/) 0 g - p...,„;...,, Incorporated MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET P3_2 LEGEND: - ‘.-i--‘ .Xvilland Tay 3100 4..I Erkland,Ile 38033 f8: —43— PROPOSED CONTOUR )''''i.t.'14 ' ''''*`' - 0 ;Ur` 0 l'27_116 % 33-- EXISTING CONTOUR l'i• 0'; 4 th-g,s'209.71°.r" * —CO— PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 1 ..:a. 0 PROPOSED STORM CATOR BASIN A;41.I.' P3 1 • RUSTED ZONE ' :frie4,7- BEFORE YEA DIG 141100-424-5555 sheet 5 of 7 M i O F L Et PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P3_1 •o ii, 47 0 rP 30 w • 43 $32 \ a �' §W\.... _ j a 33 m • ' , 112 b 34 - 1101:s•1' i 3501:14 It'. / toe 0� i�. LEGEND: 4�,ti yip 2O PROPOSED CONTOUR ' 107 ,.•�, %` '- COSTING CONTOUR Imms.c/t/w 360):::: - ! z • `• -SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN g / 1O6 Qiff ❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN d 1y BUTTER ZONE O. • � o s 38 �� - 10,4- RJ9�i" , „ / d �� - P19i i � • // . 103 E. ' 41 Z i h., 42 _ '•' -1oz .:_. LL N ` ��O,O • i 0_ -I c5wZ/ O 0 roe- - zi‘l, 98 h � ,-. s-.---. 88 1 ..''',': ,"....0.-".... --— •'•'• '1 ' l• Sit.''.? I , .36 filbli‘' z Q- a 1r Fri �4,� J� W ly / , •11111%,„N„: , ,.?.:\;.:. ' 4 , ', • # (2) 0 4..) Irl " es ���c�' / �� oa I fZ40 n �l-ram\/ ��, P� � _a ,a`: v \ yii Be „ Incorporated ezo m ma.e /t9D m t•. ° LJ DrM 4 Vs NOM 2 5a5�, ' ' 0' 20' a0' BO' �,. , Fe: (�zs) Iwosue � /`- O vuc 4zs azv-es'n ^ f \ � IvtweL TROt- 71 g \: \ • "At'?''''' H SI209.001.001 'i' S0849'S5'E F;' \ Project No. T89.83' Tint 9� Sheet No. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-B00-424-5555`sheet 6 of 10 °8o"k=$o IK NENB1-0v03/s00s B.xecm-->II\PFOJER\]WW\n0]G9\OY6\GGUi\Pl—s DWG r CD N D z m , I - — w m ' _ li m m \TROT o i u m q I, . Y� AAgAr m ,, 44gg o AI/ ��yl'G•O ' yq�R`i\ oo\ • •;\\S0 \ ro •may z ' SrR F o e r 5 f `fq 0ti a tt fie', z H • 0 e? H Js 4. 34 4'40 47 ) ' -32/,',-----:''' t.1 Fy ci �qN iv % 09 / H • k • o 4. t 23 u ; 4 ,11 f -mrmit Revi• ew m,,........ .,....,,,...„,,, t Not for Construction V ' °a &„rr BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER. pf 0 BARBEE MILL CO. �. ��Egg•M � PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN U01 L186 W 111NGTUN BLYO.NG �� PO B02 96B 8 CABBNTON.�e 98057 Q awn cos ERGO +._�+.� r EGO .00a s a SHEET 1 PH.429-998-9900 ,\ . o. MICRIFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. � �- _� / p/ / MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET G1_3 , /-, 77,. io j- _:\Neeae'5k,. 1°as.Q' / 1� i _�/ :1, '� RO /// ^/ FF.2f.5 24.5TF-za.s \ \ :: 18 17 n'� Ir n \ 1 / ,// T • / 22 I 15 ✓ 14 FF-25.5 FF-26.5 'FF-2].5 FF-27.5 FF-28.s 9 FF-gas ,, w r$ / -rr / \ L 16 I PP-2" FF.26.5:PF'-I2a5 ''''FF FF-27.5 FF.rz4.0\ �:. - i' 33(• ' /� FF 2Ts5 q 1'I, 3 RS,zss / z 23 //,_ B+ono - / 1, 12 • 11 1, I ,�5 9 8 7 6 `� r / u t I �\ j _ ° \'f0T g TREE' / s j FF.24.0 /'/` ' TI �0O i 1 ~ 24 FF-24.5 / ' 66 FF-24.5 �x9('- FF.27.5 24 FF-25.0 \ ' V - '3 FF-24.5 •iF.75.0 E(�(y+ •<'/ j/ 25 / 69 70. FF.25.5 _ -- - / i`. • / J / 72 / FF.zes \ - .� � P' _ 73 \\ l"e \ 2623.5 -'�f • f FF.26.5 74 i �75'S" a \_ // .\,„. / 2 r • FF-26.5 1 S8 / 76 (C.�F7 \ � I /i 1 / FF.26.5 OF-26.5 . , I I / k V ��� 1% / 1 /I r` �/ FF=zas 78 77 I j 0°' w m \ 1 / 79 �8 z ' J / I FF-25.5 < ��a °�' \ \ _1 �/i 1 90 �_ / ? ... ,�-�/' . aka`�� m F`.25.5\ \ _ FF-25.581-91 -/ / i'Ss � / p P. 1.71 \) a , FF.,24.5 .�• • Oo+St \\ / V� g' 83 r�- FF-x6s /�55 /\ ) OJv z a )kl 1FF-24.5 / 84 I iXoox9� - Fr.zfis I1 / s. 54 O� 1-727 FF.:62 .5 /• ,' 1 rO� W Z / 53 rFF-2J.5 FF-24.5 ooxL FF/26.5 /', �t21 /• I / \� a1 __ � / �FF-25.5 �.' \I, / (�� 11 i 28 50 51 f ...........i.\�-- ' Se. ,aa„ Z \ I FF-2J.5 / % xSs Y -1 =/ r< 49 / \t". 1 r �� C 29 /polom �FF-za°L' cE v O w 1 � '! 0U / !•I.I / 12J.5 i-.�/ o a F4 /1 Incorporated MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET G1_2 EARTHWORK TABLE: LEGEND: F+i 620 Kirkland leer noo .1.I IGAden4 Ye 96020 RI" 41S BII-/HB S UNSUITABLEThE EXCAVATION SHALL BE EXCAVATION: 32000 CY(50,000 TONS) _ 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR 0 F,� f{y5;6Zt_BST REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO A LOCAL FILL SITE AND SHALL BE IN nu.: 3a000 CY fi0,DO0 TONS) 2' DUSTING CONTOUR interv<l m01ek COY 8 ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON ( 30209.001.001 Or' STANDARDS.ADDITIONAL FILL MATERIAL ---- CLEARING UNIT Protect No. TO BE PROVIDED FROM A•LOCAL SOURCE • BUFFER ZONE G 1 1AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS Sheet No. 26 CALL BEFORE Y00 DIG 1-800-424-555511 sheet I of 3 .. A. 4 Ir.,/10FIL MED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET G1_1 990 FF.zss,' 47 j //. / 190 1 30 / 1„ I I1` iFF-23.5 / ,3 /46 / //�• i w ---- 11''I \\) —r,23.5 1 / CP FF.245. ,. ` / '� -= i 11 t i/ 1,'l31 ez't+sl /(Y45 ///�, ���� .. o I n( // _/ FF-24.5` / • 3` ///, / 1 / FF.23.5 / /FF-24`5 /- h / / / 1..'. \ I\;'s O / �FTa"27..5 ",N ��,. w FF-24.0 43/ / %I 1 / FF=zaG ' 1• 1 1 33 / m / I 1 / \ .'112 �'� ,i ,/ 4, 0 \ % \ / 71,� '/ /// FF.'29. .1 111� / •,/,:•A,�1 4_ ; /FF.34� �. .,\ ,// FF-29.5`. 110'111 ��! '�/'e ' \ FF-z4.5 /35 I \ !/ /// l' .I/.o / ' \ .,_ 108 / �' ;;a LEGEND:,°,:..� \ / ,, 3F FF-31.G4 / /`.�. E3 PROPOSED CONTOUR 6F'f `1 yn• D \`,' \ i�-� r /.:Y 107 ) / �`� 2? EXISTING CONTOUR �mmn y�/m \ 36 _ If, , ' /. - / —' ———— CLEARING LIMIT g �,,\ / • /r /I„if ,/FF.32G BUFFER ZONE 8 2 / Cam` o / FF.25.G I Mr ,fF-325 1' /' W F yR� • / FF. 0 . ' �/. •/ Ire: FF.32.5 f r// PA Rd0. / FF-2s.o / / i - I:i..,-.-.-;2:, 10— 1 / F / / / ' / a. / 39G ro� / // !� /:Frs 3i.5 ----PM- I _/ L4 4. / FF-2CON., 40 / i / ix / FF= so 41 ��� /( N / .y%;/i/F-Fe 33s v — / FF.24.5 42 \ a�- o° ''\ e // I : %! /: / ti \ 111 ,'e/ . \ / , //f s%� FF"315j FF9911.5 �- --- O 1-� ti \ 87 / ) /// / /_ 1' (9\8-' \ w Z a. N\\�\ 88 \ / —�_ //// , \ i/if /I 1 6 _,/'" \ \\� /,\% �O Z_ 7 / G�`i�/,v�' t ( ,.tom_ s. �` / �I�ti jam/ Jew a0 s / , Q2l,,,,93 \ 1/4//P7iii / °. (22 N V W 2 Cti FFe R25 90'i / N / �, Pc W s''.,/.3N,t.- 7 'rQ, \ 9\. !i 4N P4 V O a /. 24592 / N'u d :4 /,•1 ��\\:_ ' , /ncorporated 5 U ; !y-1 4J 0033j.3q 0.B0e0R33100 8 `3 f. \ / 0' 20' 40' 80' p Peme ((fzs eT2MM6 YAZ (f25� 92i-A5T1 \ 70209 001.001 588'4955•E 269.03' ". \. /^ ProjecG —2 Sheet No. .. ICAEL BEFORE YOU OIC 1-800-424-55551 so,et 2 of 3 . MICROFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. . /t � ) ,/j,/, //// /'nn"-... �,sµ� / /////%`� ,i , /' §tt Nig / ` 2 LEGEND: // / / /i%!/ !/r 7` / T'r <_ /23 PROPOSED CONTOUR ' / ---i3 EXISTING CONTOUR / / / / �// !" /——-- CLEARING WIT \/ y / #/// ei% BUFFER ZONE / „ ' / / `V //' ///.�� / i1 ''/� / /.I 0 / $1�QK �i o / //; ji /!'/ __ Vg �' �i i i Q" o"' / / j / o sm Fazes ,1 // /,/ ,/ / // ////7Y / / Y, '/ / F / ,/ d 1 / '/ / / �/;/ // z "/, .. i / % ,/ ',% a z f j // !. /, r '4 Z / P] oPo plsrPo/ vv ��/ o n ssw / / ! e. / o ai j �,� � ^ ,. iFe 25.5 , / S `—^ Ir I / �CV� •�%/ 0 p Incorporated I %\ I ` n /p&/I: / `r h+l ezo Kirkland reT Iloo FT-26.5 j Me 27.5 FT-z�5 4 FF.za5 \ / PCO O >wuma.r,NOW S FF- 5.5'/FT-25.3 FF-27.5 T F3ove 125 222-M45 FF-27.5 1I ,. PT-27.5 3 6 5 4\ 3 ,` FF-.zS.s , / Internet: m.0tekCou U 30200.001.001 �� 14A CHLINk —BSEE SHET G1+.1 I 71 I / -' (% // �� Project Gl 3 Sheet No. PAIL BEFORE YOU 0I0 1-800-424-555511 Sheet 3 of 3 MICROFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_3 -- u\\ / B 23 z3 --�_ _� N8R'18'S6\ f0&5.{7 i �x0 / -- 21 20 19 - \\ 1 i ` 2. /2\/ _-—--......_..._.._....._...,,,,=—.....,--7 18 •/ 22 1 _/ \ I 16 15 '/� I - 8/ /,' 14 ry� I 1 i 3 :r 'as N i % Ba00 / 13 12 ' ' / / 7 6 5 4�' $ I 23 --+-�-~\ s /ST1� 11 10/ n: 9 8 '� Do ET g \p STREE A ;op/! :„.. 67 sa- \ f ~`1 - eel \-69-- -.;,‘-----.1 / ----,_ _...):'‘•„, . / .,�1 //' / 73 74 61 6 '/ 63 :�''.. ..6/ eu, IDt ..�- 175 / /iuiiìi.iT -- // i 1 u I 59i�60 '� g o �i/ U . \ 0 /I 76 $S / ,, 58 // n" w ,0ys z. i = w. " ni_H /_8/01_„, /7'9 all m ' /8 I _�_ 82, 81 �1 S3 • _�I:5; \ \ S�R6 .5, •/• nnp.. z 84 \ \ 1t \l / ,0 a /\ —8r_i /cA"�27 w, S�2 -� 'IL" a 1n 141 Z--. o w Js \ ' .�U Pd z,_2 / 47 :;,/' i 7 ii r ore` 0 20 ao aoQ 11:1,, , 30 11 \t/ /r = 6 0 a , /31 Rrf EL 45 .'1 \./ Incorporated MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_2 a4 &U Ghlma by FIBB EARTHWORK TABLE: LEGEND: y, MoHand.1,08033 PROPOSED CONTOUR ROOD ((425)9a-g UNSUITABLE U TEE SHALL BE EXCAVATION: 32000 CY(50.000 TONS) PAY (125f BYI_BS'R Fi REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO A LOCAL Ivle30 11100k,AY FILL SITE AND SHALL BE IN FILL: 3B4O00 CY 60,000 TONS) 2= COSTING CONTOUR 7 ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CO RENTON ( F-1 30209.007.001 STANDARDS.ADDITIONAL FILL MATERIAL BUFFER ZONE Project N°. TO BE PROVIDED FROM A LOCAL SOURCE E1 1 AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS Street N°. 22 ICAIE BEFORE Y00 DIG 1-800-424-55554 Sheet I of 3 • MICR; FILM - PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_1 90 \ 30 /47 r E-cw 1 a / I:: r / 45 �ez•t/6t i ----- 33/ ( ' / I •2 , 34 u1 - \ ' \i,,,112 I ` r a d n 110`1 ` 'gf ~ \ I • ` BA ,1 1 ?a/y 108N. 'I1L7 7 �M1_ J� ^5 COSTING CONTOUR Imrs r Z / 36 �-"-I 1, • BUFFER zaNe / :` 4 / rxx 1067' O // ..h 2 UR / 1y • �' d` • :05 ., �F / oc .p7 S / •'/ �� 0) C WR1Fa 38 / : 104 .//r•�/ W6wx4 ,,,,, , 0/' 4 yy?//'-''j /////,' .,/,/),//1///-,----,:_jol, ,,,„ /ez__ i Nv/ //'4i:'/ i ,,'j----100 0 / / i'I(r / (98 d W / fg cl 9 ,' > 14 oL; S9\/�� � 7 � liol I i x • N90 N.Sor A \ / CO o `,-...\( /Air �., Incorporated azo Eir.a,laay/IOU 8 Sf'Sy'' . t �' 0' 20' 40' BO' 0 P�aa°d•UM BTf-8 g mo/�'� 30209 001.001 fProject No ,, g g El_2 23.21' !•AIL �.1I Sheet No. BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 2 of 3 CD:KENONDA/OO/2002 9:1Wm-->IT\000 ECE\30]OO\30009\Ow0\DPU.T\EI]O.O 1 MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_1 7 — NM II I _ r" \ 1 \ \ \ ' \\ 7 '. „ „ Iij±IITT >\ r\ b . O . \\ I 1 . o <Ti \ ,, z \ \v `-\ \ o\ �\� ' tt \ \ c\\\ ll� �\$ o \\\ \\\ .\ \; _ / I.?? \\\\ \ ,A\ \ \-• \ -/ �\\y 1 '\ n \ \ J' \. l \ %/ • 81 z \\t i sa o i' I g \ \\\\ \\ \\ ls,A \ \\ '. <Cn� \ .\�\\\ �\ ,, l'-‘;‘:\ ‘Ws\\ )1 ) \'' ''s. C) \\ /1,/ Y \ o ,\-d,; / ,,,,,-..., K A e \ ,, .0,-,, ,, r Permit Review '0 Not for Construction 9w6a � BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER o,= 0 C.10. 3�a8e ^ SHEET 3 ELEVATIONS pc` 969 m GTON DLvn.x�e � q11,,.. Y g m nmrrox, s 92067 d <p/oz EGO EGO ogml 4 PH.425-P.2H-2900 -y /°\ —��o 1 — •\ NO DATE By _ ADASEONS micRoFiLmEt) PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. _ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_3 I / P 19 1 _ �' \rc, /7- - 22 21 SO / \ 18 17 16 15 ��,V/ �' H \4 0 \'� 1g/ J 4, / / �' 14 I i� 3 1r 2\' / sp--t- •--� / ' 1 ', 12 ' 11 10/•�n`' 9 8 7 6 5 , 4 I•� t -o %'� ` �_ 'Po :iR ET B \.,\\ 1 STREE- A / I 1 1ag % / / 1 - �_j to / 24 66 C r� • ___ _ / -__,„ E' i ----\ / —I—69 — 70 —_ o ... �' i/ ' / 73 74 �; \ 61 ,�y.. I . f'... / ' ' 75.--1) s-z..- \ y_____) , '\\ , s°------ ,\ / 58 y I / 79 - (o -_ zz �o El 1-; _-_ 81 - 56 II r• ,./; .. ., //' •'.:'• .4, 1\-.3---- Is/jo •\\ _ I_ / /' 50 j w z • o • • ..„ . . , I, \.•\ 30 so s / 46 ( /' •... / / O w U 3. 9 1. \ 006 // / / -- .. ' 0' 20' 40' 0 \' 80' i 4A� ` A / �31 •<st jcl • _/ 45 \ ' �� H (� Q L+�i s i / 1 / _-- —,' : a/� ov=i MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_2 p 0 a LEGEND: U ..) YS PROPOSED CONTOUR . In corpora Led E. ---23 E%ISTBIC CONTOUR F�1 Ear:rel lloo -SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN i-1 Yvtlmd,re tv $ 0 p PAX7 r1 BP2-1M8 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN (( PAY 125 BZI-PSTi 1730 mO0000Y ��ZONE 30209.001.001 J. - Project No. D1 1 Sheet No. BALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 1 of 3 MICROFILMED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_1 / �/ 47 / ... / �: 30 / 'sD i i i �90 \ 46 / I / /31 Y r , ajG 45 / o ,%• 32 f N 4r/i F % / �..��� 1 1� ��\,\ 1 W as /\iiiimmfmiNis:-1. / 1/ j I '`\ \I • .! <=� / • ,111 /� Rr� N• • // iO8 ng;,.s ; '/ LEGEND: ti /,__ \ •. \\,,/ / 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR :� 107 ' �v/ / EXISTING CONTOUR Imp VIM /. /�' / ♦ .C� / -SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN / 36 � ,• i / O' f IV o .PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN c pp • L / " 1!' 10/' J 11 / ..\ BUFFER 20NE 6 �� 37��\ i ///�• • /05 �w :'#� - ' a S8 ,� • \mil /// Il" �� a igi f . � / . � w i \ 38 / / /f� # .i 104-- P / // mg ... //N`, 4° / i / /,...., , 1 /// /4:7, 7./.;.,--no 1 i y_17:------ 4 / l/ i t 1 / (sa V., .401141%; a $$ E �� LJ� Imo.f^`, (l :19 \ vs., �� ������ Jew w o Luo 3 • p z x 89 �$ \ i• CC i �G 0.1 Q w g '90\ / VitiPtir/ \ i, i:4 Up CD GO "-X/ / 4)Ari 7 •-0 o a Nr- ii . EU G = \ //f a�0 Incorporated E. �m� W98. .fey 3IW g50'�` 4 \ - 0' 20' 40' 80' O Frfei 41 6Bz�i-85 88 t mteru<t: mrnettou 3O209.001.007 a f mo I �`� I z Project No. • 1 s59'4S'S5'E 2G8.s3' i n '{ D1_2 Lf 23.21' 1 Sheet No. Z. , PAIL BEFORE YW DIG 1-800--424-5555`sheet 2 of 3 [K:Kfxel-oe/m/zooz i.ieom-->x\aBoacr\�ozoo\wzas\owc\cau*\oi JDWC : 1 1 : MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET D1_1 „\ 0, '". 0> ''''----.,, / 1 • �, v \ ::: ..::661 / Eig Ak\ . <\L o48 8 0 g p E —\ „ ___ : ,_,,, . 0 \• . , , \,\ i , I\\,\1 j \\`B N „,,„ ..,, \\• \, \ • , \\ � • \\\ y..,:s \\\ ('• \ z \ iA \\\\\\ '-' � '% G� //s . \\ \\I \ , C \ \\\ \\\\\\ \\ ``. },F� \ \\ \\\ o\\\ F y \' •>\\ H . \ `\\\\\\\:`,---> Ali.-°:\ \ \ \\A\ : trim \, \\\ \� \` can /?:. A ' \\\\\ C '' <c'N ,\ \ )\.\ iv '*�\ \ ,� 4 ,e � ), .0 _ ,,_, .\,‘,'. \ ....„ R CD i r Permit Review Not for Construction I I Ogg BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER: ; a. 0 BARGEE MILL CO. 0 r c Q) DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN eo°Bo�asee esaa cmx xcvn,N E C l i 8 c SHEET 3 s=zu-°scoo _ �`uo,' A<// EGO �,,., .. EGO Ohm I x0 DATE ByDEMONS MICROFII[MEI PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M. L. _- Figure 3 — Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics ii MATCHLINE — LOWER RIGHT o ao— eo 'sO i r x � 1 1 0 1 , I I 1 1�/l r-- 1 rT - / / / 0 <'i h 11, 1 1=4- I , I I 9'I' I r-1-7 r ' I I ,1 1 I I % / /b / /' / s e I fT n « JL heI `1I e 1 AI I .i II 1 II I I II 11 ,I.- ,e // / `a8 / I I 11 1 I j I I'z 1,. n e , I I° ' j j ' 1 I / 'Y/ /,� / V `\ / • •,�a�'+e,� I\.1 1 I ji 1 , ®1 L__,J,L :J-i 1/� ; /;/;/ LEGEND 3 L_,__-,(000 I1 e I e 111I -- - 1�-� , / i,�i i ——> Flow path I/ ze__ / f-1 r _,r�. , I -,1�// I �l ,' i 1 1 /I '�1 I°� I ,.I 1 \` ( I/ci et/I I sa / /' /////j e i��''� I I I 11' 1 I r i i. Basin boundary J .__ "_-i1ore , -I/ I i 11 I , I i\ 1 �I- 1 I / 11 z(:/G� /// / `— C _ I _- I `1n` i;l.I/`ICJ I/•, 11i �` /,,// / T 1 1 1 L- -j ti,'-i L_ /I \ I . , �ZI \, I %/ �i� ' ,177,-11 . 1'''' 1 1 ilit:: J .,„/N: -,-- /,// r 1 i ---\ A oicllllU , I j/ ,✓`, Y'� / * / • .51 !"ilr,_„;-----"1,-,..- , ---/%24\\>-/---- --)//././0,2 // c., .. \i III , z. I f, •`N:\,..- ,\ .,,/ % ,, / �.V N ,g 114 LAKE 1 1,0 i_.°C.' �,®��ya'° �y :; r.� ii-=- /% ,:l/ p•� '� WASHINGTON I / � � �/ ,� / �, 1 � �j I�\ I a W Ff�a �,i/ ~ /iett 1:4 1 I-�-- j v a/ j/ ��Ili TA Ix i j\‘/ ' 114 ''s N/ 77 // ) < \ .f, / ,�/i Q i i d r . \ .'1-_-_-:-----i ; tct/i 4%.' V? / /// 'Ck , r L Lu 4 cn Z U / -<, '' ‘‘‘.` ' y' ,1/ t7 ' ' Elc)cl mi / if, .,, / vw ›. w cn w /7 7 (tf.„ s‘ .,,,•‘'' / 7 //...,,,,,,, :,,, t ,... r4 / -/ \ \ * /7 r.,:,,,,,..„. -„,,,_„:.,, ,.„.., ,..)iee1 PCI T(.r, •,. ,..) . _,,,, 7, „,.... ...,1,:„ / ..„,,,,„,-,,,...., ./.., › . `4 (<1 z ,,,,, N. / •/ (IdAY CREEK ;f7/f °�,•�r• „ifs a�O ,,eorporated wo2ou .�,G �, / .%�// MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT 620 W.A.II,06033 Q re a . ea-�ae . / �' b.. /' lir IoterveL � OIa1cCY 30209.001.001 i N 40TH STREET Project No. Figure 3 Sheet `• eFFORE YOU DIG 1-800-42/-555511 Sheet 1 of I