Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP273124 (3)
From: "Sharon L. Wright- SEA" <Sharon.Wright@1405.wsdot.wa.gov> To: "P.Marczin@co.snohomish.wa.us" <'P.Marczin@co.snohomish.wa.us'>, "Stein Mi@wsdot.wa.gov" <'SteinMi@wsdot.wa.gov'>, "Ian@Snoqualmienation.com" <'Ian@Snoqualmienation.com'>, "Nancy_BrennanDubbs@r1.fws.gov" <'Nancy_BrennanDubbs@r1.fws.gov'>, "pbeaulieu@psrc.org" <'pbeaulieu@psrc.org'>, "buchakdb@dfw.wa.gov" <'buchakdb@dfw.wa.gov'>, "cabreza.joan@epa.gov" <'cabreza.joan@epa.gov'>, "jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us" <'jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us'>, "tswa461@ecy.wa.gov" <'tswa461@ecy.wa.gov'>, "michael.grady@noaa.gov" <'michael.grady@noaa.gov'>, "james.leonard@fhwa.dot.gov" <'james.leonard@fhwa.dot.gov'>, "eddie.low@ci.bothell.wa.us" <'eddie.low@ci.bothell.wa.us'>, "patrickl@ci.woodinville.wa.us" <'patrickl@ci.woodinville.wa.us'>, "ann.martin@metrokc.gov" <'ann.martin@metrokc.gov'>, "bsokol@ci.ken more.wa.us" <'bsokol@ci.ken more.wa.us'>, "kathryn.j.stenberg@nws02.usace.army.mil" <'kathryn.j.stenberg@nws02.usace.army.mil'>, "cthompson@ci.lynnwood.wa.us" <'cthompson@ci.lynnwood.wa.us'>, "fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us" <'fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us'>, "dwickstrom@ci.kent.wa.us" <'dwickstrom@ci.kent.wa.us'>, "john.witmer@fta.dot.gov" <'john.witmer@fta.dot.gov'>, "jean.white@metrokc.gov" <'jean.white@metrokc.gov'>, "kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us" <'kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us'>, "jane.lamensdorf-bucher@metrokc.gov" <'jane.la men sdorf-bucher@metrokc.gov'>, "Idri461@ecy.wa.gov" <'Idri461@ecy.wa.gov'>, "clint.loper@metrokc.gov" <'clint.loper@metrokc.gov'>, "kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us" <'kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us'>, "Karen.walter@muckleshoot.nsn.us" <'Karen.wafter@muckleshoot.nsn.us'>, "Donna.Hogerhuis@muckleshoot.nsn.us" <'Donna.Hogerhuis@muckleshoot.nsn.us'>, "Jennifer.Bowman@fta.dot.gov" <'Jennifer.Bowman @fta.dot.gov'>, "tmarpert@redmond.gov" <'tmarpert@redmond.gov'>, "JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us" <'JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us'>, "Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us" <'Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us'>, "Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us" <'Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us'>, <khar461@ecy.wa.gov>, <maureen.meehan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, <GersibD@wsdot.wa.gov>, <MPaine@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, <gail.m.terzi@nws02.usace.army.mil>, <JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <jpace@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, <ptovar@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <doug.dobkins@metrokc.gov>, <WoodB@wsdot.wa.gov> Date: 11/11/2004 11:07:02 AM Subject: 1-405 Early Environmental Investments (EEI) Status Hello EEI Task Force, The purpose of this email is to brief you on the status of EEI. After we presented the "short list" of potential WRIA 8 EEI sites to you all, we "Moved Forward" on the sites that ranked the highest and that we thought(based on area) could best accommodate most or all of the WRIA 8 wetland and stream mitigation needs. Those three sites are: Sammamish State Park, Thrasher's Corner, and Kelsey Creek Mainstem/West Tributary Projects. We conducted additional field investigations on the three sites to more precisely calculate and compare mitigation treatment area, cost, and ecological lift potential. During these investigations, we also considered other factors, such as schedule and nickel mitigation project development in Kirkland. We concluded that the above three projects still look like great areas for EEI or other mitigation, but that the Kelsey Creek area made the most sense in the current 1-405 Program schedule. We are currently working with the City of Bellevue and other WRIA 8 jurisdictions to develop and design the Kelsey Creek project. In addition, we discussed the Thrasher's Corner and Sammamish State Park sites with representatives from the City of Bothell and Washington State Parks. We continue to keep the"short list"of opportunities as a valuable resource for WSDOT environmental programs. The City of Renton and WSDOT/1-405 have also developed a Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Proposal for WRIA 9 (the EEI Demonstration Project 2002). It has been reviewed by the Bank Oversight Committee (BOC), and the final outcome is pending. Renton and WSDOT continue to work with the BOC while we conduct preliminary design efforts. To the many of you who have been working with us through these project developments, we thank you very much! If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me or Christina Martinez a call. I will be on vacation November 15-29. Thank you. Sharon Wright Christina Martinez, 1-405 Project Environmental Manager Washington State Department of Transportation (425)456-8526 christina.martinez@i405.wsdot.wa.gov Sharon L. Wright, AICP 1-405 Project Team Direct: 425.456.8572 Alternate: 425.450.6264 sharon.wright@1405.wsdot.wa.gov 600-108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 CC: "Terry Drochak" <terry.drochak@i405.wsdot.wa.gov>, "christina martinez" <martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov>, "Stacy Trussler" <trussler@wsdot.wa.gov>, "Denise A. Cieri" <cierid@wsdot.wa.gov>, "John Donatelli" <John.Donatelli@1405.wsdot.wa.gov>, "Ron Ohlsen" <Ron.Ohlsen@1405.wsdot.wa.gov>, "Witter, Michael" <Michael.Witter@hdrinc.com>, "Bockenkamp, Megan Rae" <Megan.Bockenkamp@hdrinc.com>, "Wendy Taylor" <WMTaylor@HNTB.com>, "Colleen Gants" <Colleen.Gants@1405.wsdot.wa.gov>, "Ross Fenton" <Ross.Fenton@i405.wsdot.wa.gov>, "Kawamoto, Karissa M." <Karissa.Kawamoto@hdrinc.com>, "Farley, Kimberly" <FarleyK@wsdot.wa.gov> r i From: "Wright, Sharon" <Sharon.Wright@hdrinc.com> To: <P.Marczin@co.snohomish.wa.us>, <SteinMi@wsdot.wa.gov>, <lan@Snoqualmienation.com>, <Nancy_BrennanDubbs@r1.fws.gov>, <pbeaulieu@psrc.org>, <buchakdb@dfw.wa.gov>, <cabreza.joan@epa.gov>, <jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <tswa461 @ecy.wa.gov>, <michael.grady@noaa.gov>, <james.leonard@fhwa.dot.gov>, <eddie.low@ci.bothell.wa.us>, <patrickl@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, <ann.martin@metrokc.gov>, <bsokol@ci.ken more.wa.us>, <kathryn.j.stenberg@nws02.usace.army.mil>, <cthompson@ci.lynnwood.wa.us>, <fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, <dwickstrom@ci.kent.wa.us>, <john.witmer@fta.dot.gov>, <jean.white@metrokc.gov>, <kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, <jane.lamensdorf-bucher@metrokc.gov>, <Idri461@ecy.wa.gov>, <clint.loper@metrokc.gov>, <kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Barb Wood" <Barb.Wood@noaa.gov>, <Karen.walter@muckleshoot.nsn.us>, <Donna.Hogerhuis@muckleshoot.nsn.us>, <Jennifer.Bowman@fta.dot.gov>, <tmarpert@redmond.gov>, <JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, <Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us>, <khar461@ecy.wa.gov>, <maureen.meehan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, <GersibD@wsdot.wa.gov>, <MPaine@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, <gail.m.terzi@nws02.usace.army.mil>, <JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <jpace@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Kayren Kittrick" <Kkittrick@ci.renton.wa.us>, <ptovar@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <doug.dobkins@metrokc.gov> Date: 05/20/2004 2:20:24 PM Subject: 1-405 EEI May 04 Follow Up Hello EEI Task Force, Thanks to each of you for participating in the May 5, 2004 Task Force Meeting. I am attaching meeting notes including action items. I am also including an attachment with responses to the action items listed in the notes. Please let me know if you have any corrections to the notes or additional comments you would like added. I suggest adding these documents to your EEI binders as addendums. As planned, we have started meeting with permitting and other staff to help us finalize site selection (some included on this email). We will keep you posted as we proceed. We also encourage you to discuss our approach and findings so far with your staff and managers and continue to give us feedback and ask questions as we wrap up the site selection process. Thank you again. Sharon Wright «EEI_Action_Item_Responses_May04.doc>> «EEI 5.5.04 Meeting Notes.doc>> Sharon L. Wright, AICP 1-405 Corridor Environmental Team (sharon.wright@1405.wsdot.wa.gov) 600 - 108th Ave. NE Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Direct: 425.456.8572 Alternate: 425.450.6264 Main: 425.456.8500 Fax: 425.456.8600 Christina Martinez, 1-405 Environmental Lead Cell phone: 206.713.0247 Email: martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov CC: <martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov>, <benitor@wsdot.wa.gov>, <mcgowan@seanet.com>, r ATTACHMENT A: 1-405 EEI RESPONSES TO MAY 5, 2004 ACTION ITEMS ✓ ACTION ITEM 1: EEI GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following sections are provided in response to a request at the May 5, 2004 Early Environmental Investments (EEI) Task Force presentation. During the discussion, the Task Force asked for a better understanding of the EEI purpose and goals to take back to their agencies. Specifically, it was requested that we explain what EEI is and what EEI is not. What is the 1-405 Corridor Program? The 1-405 Corridor Program is a programmatic effort to provide transportation improvements covering the entire length of 1-405. The 1-405 Corridor Program consists of four major road sections, and a series of coordinated projects. The 1-405 Corridor, from 1-5 in Tukwila to 1-5 in Lynnwood, needs improvement to relieve current and future traffic congestion. Planned transportation system improvements were addressed in the 1-405 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published in June 2002. In the EIS, a number of alternatives for corridor-wide improvement were considered. Following review of the EIS, a Record of Decision identified a Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative provides for widening 1-405 by up to two lanes in each direction throughout its 30-mile length. At the current time, project-level Environmental Assessments (EAs) are underway for the North Renton and Kirkland road sections within the corridor, consistent with the programmatic EIS. Additional project-level documentation is anticipated for other road sections. What is EEI? EEI is a program to estimate the effects of project construction on the environment and to construct specific environmental investments in advance of construction impacts. EEI implements a corridor-wide watershed approach to identify, rank, select, design, permit, and construct environmental investment opportunities. The watershed approach, focused at the WRIA level of watersheds, was selected as the primary mitigation strategy during development of the Selected Alternative. This approach, initiated by an inter-agency task force that included representatives from local jurisdictions, is expected to yield larger mitigation sites with more overall benefit to the environment than traditional site-specific mitigation efforts. It is also expected to increase the efficiency of dollars spent on mitigation. This approach could mean offsite, out-of-kind mitigation after avoidance, minimization, and other onsite mitigations are employed. Since the purpose of early action is to provide mitigation in advance of impacts, there is no net- loss to the environment while the mitigation sites are under construction. The EEI program demonstrates the 1-405 Program's commitment to bettering the environment. This approach is expected to shorten the permitting process for transportation projects for a design/build scenario. What EEI is Not! EEI is not "business as usual" environmental mitigation where onsite/in-kind mitigation is performed along with transportation construction. EEI projects are selected with anticipated corridor benefits and impacts to stream and wetlands in mind, and are not considered stormwater mitigation. However, EEI program efforts are closely coordinated with the 1-405 I-405 I: A .,\ction item Responses t`4av04.doc' F;' ction--„art ue.•..,..,ses nn nn ,00 stormwater design team efforts to take advantage of any opportunities to improve aquatic resources, while simultaneously mitigating for stormwater impacts. EEI is not a panacea. The EEI projects cannot accommodate all ecological functions. Wetlands, for instance, are often cited as places that provide habitat functions for fish and wildlife and also provide physical landscape functions such as water quality treatment and flood flow attenuation. These physical functions provided by wetlands are not appropriate for offsite and "out of kind" mitigation, even though the EEI projects could provide these functions. These physical functions will be mitigated onsite through incorporation within active floodplain mitigation measures, stormwater treatment and delivery systems, and other aspects of the roadway design effort. The EEI program deals primarily with habitat functions and seeks to consolidate habitat improvements to provide greater watershed function than would occur with traditional onsite mitigation. How does EEI fit with other 1-405 environmental efforts? Since the EEI program was initiated prior to development of EAs for independent roadway sections or the actual roadway designs, the program's focus has generated new data and has adapted to new information as it has become available. The EEI effort relies heavily on the impact analyses provided in the Discipline Reports being prepared for each road section's EA. The EAs will, in turn, look to the EEI program for mitigation of some impacts identified for that road section. The EEI effort will propose mitigation measures that integrate more than one discipline and build upon existing basin planning and watershed management efforts. The EEI program will address the compensatory mitigation measures for each roadway section. Ideally, a single EEI project could mitigate for impacts in more than one road section if sufficient ecological benefit could be realized within that project. ✓ ACTION ITEM 2: FURTHER ADDRESS FISH POPULATION QUESTION(S) The following notes are provided in response to questions regarding whether the EEI team researched fish population as part of the second-level screening. The EEI team did investigate species and life stage inventories, which were the main focus of the scoring. The EEI team did not specifically consider stock integrity (wild, natural, or hatchery stock) as part of the scoring. The primary unresolved policy issue raised during Task Force discussion was stock integrity. The Issaquah fall chinook are considered a separate population from the North Lake Washington fall chinook. The differences may be natural or they may be due to the long history (75 years or more) of hatchery returns to Issaquah Creek. The populations have significantly different genetics. EEI is habitat-oriented, and does not directly address the stock integrity issue. We focus on creating habitat types to support any ongoing or future salmon recovery efforts. The decision to use hatchery, natural, or wild stocks for recovery is an on-going debate being addressed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the legislature, and the Federal resource agencies. These notes do not finalize this discussion with regard to habitat and EEI projects. Additional clarification on local fish management plans will be addressed as questions arise. I-405 F'TJ Action Item Responses Mav04.docEP, Action-at€a� I��kx� "� 4 04.doe ✓ ACTION ITEM 3: CALL OUT LIMITING FACTORS IN SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS The following notes are provided in response to a question about whether limiting factors were specifically considered during the second-level screening of the EEI project list. It was also requested that limiting factors be called out in future presentations and reports. The EEI Team will make every effort to relate environmental work to limiting factors in future presentations. The team discussed limiting factors throughout the entire process. The projects came from basin plans and the basin plans addressed limiting factors. The EEI team also utilized salmonid limiting factors when evaluating proposed stream sites. The WRIA 8 Limiting Factor Analysis (LFA) —(Kerwin 2001) identified salmonid limiting factors for each WRIA 8 stream or major stream segment. The team reviewed this document for each project site. While there was no specific LFA criteria; limiting factors were discussed and incorporated into the analysis for the Ecological Functions and the Threatened and Endangered categories. If the EEI project scope included restoration of a limiting factor, then the project tended to score higher, primarily because it supported a wider array of life stages and life phases. ✓ ACTION ITEM 4: PRESENT SUMMARY SCORING SHOWING BIOLOGICAL AND FEASIBILITY CRITERIA SEPARATELY The attached table is provided in response to a suggestion to rank the potential EEI projects separately according to ecological/biological criteria or feasibility criteria. In this table, Column 1 shows all the criteria considered in the ranking, Column 2 shows the projects ranked according to biological scores only, and Column 3 shows the projects ranked according to feasibility scores only. The biological criteria include Ecological/Functional Viability, Threatened and Endangered Species Support Level, Environmental Benefits address Estimated Project Effects, and Credits Generated. These criteria relied heavily on fieldwork, ecological factors, connectivity, and other biological concerns. The feasibility criteria include Low Level of Maintenance, Long-Term Protection, Site Constraints/Constructability, Loss of Opportunity, Project Support, Cost Effectiveness, and Partnership Opportunities. These criteria relied heavily on site visits, input from local jurisdictions, and concerns regarding construction, perception, and timeliness of benefits with regard to permitting and land acquisition. It is hoped that seeing the results presented in this way will: (1) support the overall endorsement of the short list of projects by demonstrating that the group of projects that rises to the top generally stays the same; (2) give decision makers greater insight about which projects may be accomplished with the most ecological benefit; and (3) show decision makers where projects are more likely to be constructed during early action. I-405 EFhletion Iteni Responses 04 nn doe Ranking Projects by Biological Criteria and Feasibility Criteria IN Rank' ' ,All-Criteria -,�, �_ , BlologicalGritenar ,. �,Feasitiili Criteria ; 1 1Sammamish State Park Sammamish State Park Guano Acres Thrashers's Regional Park Thrashers's Regional Park 2 Restoration Restoration Sammamish State Park 3 Guano Acres Kelsey Creek West Tributary Thrashers's Regional Park Stream Restoration Restoration 4 Kelsey Creek West Tributary May Creek Delta Restoration Squawk Valley Park Stream Restoration 5 Side Channel Restoration Near Side Channel Restoration Near Kelsey Creek West Tributary 102nd Avenue 102nd Avenue Stream Restoration a ,, .,. _ _ 6 Squawk Valley Park North Creek Stream Enhancement Pickering Farm 7 North Creek Stream Enhancement Kelsey Creek Mainstem Salmon Side Channel Restoration Near Restoration 102nd Avenue 8 Kelsey Creek Mainstem Salmon Guano Acres North Creek Stream Enhancement Restoration 9 Pickering Farm Jeffries/Cook Channel Kelsey Creek Mainstem Salmon Restoration 10 Jeffries/Cook Channel North Fork Realignment Wetland Restoration on Right Bank in Bothell 'M_R11_LLA�M1T1rij7'�VM W 7W 11 May Creek Delta Restoration Squawk Valley Park Mercer Slough Stream&Wetland Enhancement 12 North Fork Realignment Pickering Farm Bush Lane 13 Mercer Slough Stream&Wetland Chism Beach Park Fowler Site Enhancement 14 Wetland Restoration on Right Mercer Slough Stream&Wetland Jeffries/Cook Channel Bank in Bothell Enhancement 15 Bush Lane Wetland Restoration on Right Lower Summerfield Bank in Bothell .w:: .. -M, ._. Kli 16 Lower Summerfield Bush Lane ]Herzmann Levee 17 lUpper Summerfield Lower Summerfield I Jupper Summerfield 18 Chism Beach Park Upper Summerfreld Enhancement&Restoration of Wetland#2 19 IHerzmann Levee North Fork Confluence North Fork Realignment Restoration 20 Fowler Site Herzmann Levee North Fork Confluence Restoration 21 North Fork Confluence Restoration Kelsey Creek Daylighting Bernsten Site 22 Bernsten Site Fowler Site May Creek Delta Restoration 23 Enhancement&Restoration of Bernsten Site Chism Beach Park Wetland#2 North Fork of May Creek Corridor North Fork of May Creek Corridor 24 Habitat Conservation and Habitat Conservation and W 258 Enhancement Enhancement North Fork of May Creek Corridor 25 W 258 W 258 Habitat Conservation and Enhancement 26 lW 207,W 213,W 217 Enhancement&Restoration of W 207,W 213,W 217 Wetland#2 27 Kelsey Creek Daylighting W 207,W 213,W 217 Swamp Creek Regional Park Wetland and Stream Restoration 28 Swamp Creek Regional Park Upper Riverbend Kelsey Creek Daylighting Wetland and Stream Restoration 729UPper Riverbend Swamp Creek Regional Park Upper Riverbend Wetland and Stream Restoration Note: NI=No Information The scores for each criteria range from 1(low)to 5(high)according to the definitions provided in Appendix A. Biological Criteria: Ecological/Functional Viability,Threatened and Endangered Species Support Level,Environmental Benefits Address Estimated Project Effects,and Credits Generated. (Feasibility Criteria: Maintenance,Long-term protection,Site Constraints/Constructability,Loss of Opportunity,Project Support,Cost effectiveness,Partnership opportunities I-405 F:F[ :Action item l�es�onse� A4av04.docr'r.r �,.;,.,, r, r,,spo na 04.do, Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects Subject: EEI Task Force Meeting Project: 1-405 Early Environmental Investments Meeting Date: 5-5-04 Meeting Location: Bellevue Red Lion—Yarrow Room Notes by: Andrea C. Charrier Attendees: Keith Woolley, City of Renton; Leslie Betlach, City of Renton; Peter Renner, City of Renton; Michelle Steinmetz, WSDOT; Tracey McKenzie, I-405 Team; Kim Harper, Department of Ecology; Eddie Low, City of Bothell; Maureen Meehan, City of Bothell; Michael Paine, City of Bellevue; Barb Wood,NOAA Fisheries; Richard Gersib, WSDOT; Peter Beaulieu, PSRC; Kit Paulsen, City of Bellevue; Nick Afzali, City of Renton; Kerry Ritland, City of Issaquah; Jenny Gaus, City of Kirkland; Chris Munter, City of Renton; Kurt Buchanan, WDFW; Megan Bockenkamp, l-405 Team; Sharon Wright, 1-405 Team; Paul LaRiviere, l-405 Team; Matt Gray, I-405 Team; Mike Witter, l-405 Team; Karissa Kawamoto, l-405 Team; Christina Martinez, l-405 Team; Stacy Trussler, 1-405 Team Topics Discussed: EEI site selection results, permitting approach, site list endorsement Action Items (See Attachment A for Responses): 1. Provide the Task Force with a description of EEI goals and purpose (complete 5/19/04) 2. Address Kit Paulsen's comments relating to fish populations (ongoing, started 5/19/04) 3. Call out limiting factors in subsequent written presentations (complete 5/19/04) 4. Separate the selection criteria in the presentation and make sure the criteria are transparent to decision makers, possibly using separate biological and feasibility tables (complete 5/19/04) 5. Follow-up with Leslie Betlach regarding Trail and May Creek (ongoing) 6. The EEI Team will talk to local councils as needed and requested (ongoing) Page 1 of 7 P:\00522\005108\04.0_Correspondence\4.05_Publiclnput\Task Force Workshop2 GWashington State ,Department of Transportation I , Project 14, Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects Meeting Notes: Welcome and meeting objectives (Sharon Wright): ■ Introduction of participants ■ Sharon welcomed the EEI Task Force and discussed the meeting objectives. The objectives were to: (a) present the site selection results; (b) ask for Task Force endorsement of the top two tiers of projects sites; and (c) review permitting and policy approach. ■ The Task Force was informed about the new project office and contact information for the I- 405 Team. History of the Task Force and EEI Site Selection Process (Sharon Wright): ■ Sharon covered the history of how we got where we are today. Through the programmatic FEIS and ROD all the impacted jurisdictions and agencies came to a consensus on mitigation and agreed that a watershed approach was best for the 1-405 corridor. From there moved forward to the WRIA 9 demonstration project. The Task Force developed site selection criteria. The EEI Team did tests on site selection and presented the results in late 2002 and this resulted in the South Renton demonstration project. Using the lessons learned from the demonstration project, we refined the EEI site selection criteria for the corridor. ■ For the corridor, a long list of EEI sites was developed by researching projects that had already been developed by basin and other planning efforts as well as projects identified by local jurisdictions and agencies. There were approximately 425 projects. The sites were researched and a first layer of fatal flaw screening criteria was applied. The fatal flaw criteria included project cost that were outside of the EEI budget or a time frame did not meet the criteria for early action. After this first layer of screening approximately 50 projects remained on the list. ■ A second level of screening criteria was applied to the remaining projects. The sites were ranked and the results were sent to the Task Force for review. ■ Today the EEI Team will describe how each of the selection criteria outlined by the Task Force was applied to the remaining sites. Each criterion was assigned a score from 1 to 5. Description of each criterion: 1. Maintenance (Matt Gray): Projects with simple maintenance requirements received high scores. This is desirable so budget can be invested in the site and not in specialized maintenance requirements. Page 2 of 7 P:1005221005108104.0_Correspondence14.05_Publiclnput\Task Force Workshop2 TO-Washington State Department of Transportation I , Project Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects 2. Site Constraints (Matt Gray): Projects with relatively easy access to the site received high scores. This refers to the ease or difficulty in accessing the site during construction of the site improvements. 3. Loss of Opportunity (Matt Gray): Property that appeared to be a good target for other development scored high. 4. Task Force Question/Discussion: Kurt Buchanan asked if the team was planning to buy property or use conservation easements. The team prefers easements but is willing to purchase property if needed. 5. Ownership (Karissa Kawamoto): Property that was publicly owned or had a single private owner with a willingness to sell scored high because the property could be more easily acquired. 6. Long-term protection (Karissa Kawamoto): If other agencies,jurisdictions or organizations expressed a desire to help maintain the site, the site received a higher score. 7. Partnership (Paul LaRiviere): The more partners interested in contributing to the site the higher the score. 8. Threatened and Endangered Species (Paul LaRiviere): The T&E score was based on the number of difference species, the life stages and life phases of the species, and the stock status at the site. Sites with multiple species in several stages and phases scored high. 9. Task Force Question/Discussion: Kit Paulsen wanted to know if the EEI team looked at the stock by ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit) level or other level. Paul explained that the team looked at density but did not study each of the populations. The team focused more on the complexity of the site and less on the specific species population. The presence of Endangered species increased the score. 10. Environmental Benefits (Megan Bockenkamp): Megan described the formula the team used to determine the benefit to the project. The goal is to mitigate for the I-405 projects, earn credits for mitigation, and to have early action. 11. Task Force Question/Discussion: Kurt Buchanan wanted to know how the programmatic EIS was used in the site selection and why the EIS wasn't referenced in the results document. Christina explained that EEI went a step beyond the EIS because we have a more detailed footprint now than when the programmatic EIS was written. 12. Jenny Gaus wanted to know if the watershed near the project scored higher than the watershed areas that are farther away. Sharon explained that this was not considered specifically, but it was addressed indirectly when the team looked at habitat elements and connectivity. Also, Sharon reiterated that the team was asked to look for a watershed approach. Page 3 of 7 P:1005221005108\04.0_Correspondence14.05_PubliclnpuATask Force Workshop2 W7Washington State ,0 Department of Transportation I , Prolect Team Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects 13. Pete Beaulieu wanted to know if the methodology would possibly eliminate a good project, or how would the team work around a change in circumstances for a specific project? Sharon explained that the team is open to any of the projects and that the process was debated at length before settling on the system that was used. The team doesn't think that a different weighting of the criteria would significantly change the site rankings. Still, the team needs the Task Force to endorse the two top tier projects. The team has kept ample notes and they are available to the Task Force. Some of the notes were available at the meeting for review. 14. Jenny Gaus asked if fish passage under the freeway was covered by EEI or by stormwater mitigation. The team didn't look at it as an EEI project because it doesn't fit the criteria to be early action. It would be covered under a separate mitigation effort. 15. Kerry Ritland wanted to know if the team was expecting to do one EEI project for each section of the corridor. Sharon said that the goal is to provide the greatest benefit to the environment and that doesn't necessarily mean there would be mitigation efforts for each section of the road. It may mean one or two larger sites that benefit the entire corridor. 16. Ecological and functional viability(Mike Witter): Seven habitat elements were considered. The more elements the site covered, the higher the score. Size, location, and ecological context were also considered. The more the site offered, the higher the score. 17. Task Force Question/Discussion: Kit Paulsen wanted to know if riparian creation and enhancement were only covered in streams. Mike explained that the team looked at the site and the more complexity the environment could provide the higher the score. 18. Credits Generated (Mike Witter): Mike explained the formula the team used to estimate the number of credits that would be generated at each site. The more credits, the higher the score. 19. Task Force Question/Discussion: Barb Wood wanted to know if there are any limiting factors within the selection criteria. The team discussed limiting factors throughout the entire process. The projects came from basin plans and the basin plans had limiting factors. Pete Beaulieu would like the limiting factors called out in the next written presentation of the results. Action Item: Call out limiting factors in subsequent written presentations. 20. Cost Effectiveness (Mike Witter): Mike explained how costs per credit were developed. Sites without construction issues scored well on this criterion. 21. Trends for the top projects (Mike Witter): After the sites were selected the team reviewed the common traits among the top tier sites. In general, the top projects scored well on long-term protection, T&E support, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, credits, and eco- function. These are all desirable traits for any potential EEI project. Page 4 of 7 P:1005221005108104.0_Correspondence14.05_PubliclnputlTask Force Workshop2 Adw Washington State �, Department of Transportation HIMProject Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects Task Force discussion about the endorsement: 22. Following a break, Sharon summarized the first half of the meeting. Then she asked for discussion and subsequent endorsement of the two top tier sites. She emphasized that the projects might change as we get into permitting issues or if outside groups start working on similar projects. The team is looking for endorsement of all of the short list of projects (two top tiers). 23.Action Item: Sharon will follow-up with Leslie Betlach regarding Trail and May Creek. 24.Action Item: Pete Beaulieu recommends that the team separate the criteria on the presentation and make the criteria more transparent to decision makers. He recommended using tables. 25. Task Force Question/Discussion: Kurt Buchanan asked if we can assume that project site nominations are closed. The team concurred that the time to nominate sites has passed. In order to meet the early action schedule, we cannot start over with the site selection process. 26. Kurt Buchanan observed that several of the top sites are being looked at by private environmental banking companies. The EEI Team is prepared to work with other partners to develop sites that provide the greatest benefit to the environment and meet the goals of EEI. 27. Kim Harper is concerned that none of the two top tier sites are near the Kirkland segment. Tracey explained that the Kirkland Nickel Project does not have an EEI component but there might be EEI in the Implementation Plan. She would like projects distributed throughout the corridor. Kim also recommended that the projects be put into one tier and not split into two. Action Item: The EEI Team is going to remove the tier system for the site rankings. There won't be two tiers of recommended sites,just one. 28. The Task Force discussed the pros and cons of picking one or two large sites versus mitigating by road project areas. Michael Paine pointed out that the permitting code for the City of Bellevue does not allow for mitigation outside of the jurisdiction. Christina Martinez emphasized that the original vision of the steering committee was for 1 or 2 sites that provide the most benefit for the environment and mitigation for the transportation projects. Kurt Buchanan expressed interest in a small number of large sites. The permitting challenges will be discussed under the permitting approach later in the meeting. 29. Kit Paulsen would like to see more a more detailed analysis of the individual populations of fish species. Sharon and Paul explained that the Task Force's endorsement would give the EEI Team direction to look at sites in more detail. 30. Since the Task Force still had questions,the endorsement was tabled until after the permitting approach was discussed. Page 5 of 7 P:1005221005108104.0_Correspondence14.05_PubliclnputlTask Force Workshop2 V7Washington State 0 Department of Transportation roject Team \�W Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects Permitting Approach: 31. Tracey McKenzie discussed the current permitting approach for the EEI projects. Tracey reiterated the preferred approach described in the FEIS and ROD; it says that we look at 1 or 2 large sites. We know that some codes are not written this way, but we are keeping in mind the larger goals of EEI. The team wants to obtain permits in advance of the transportation projects. The Task Force endorsement is needed to pursue permitting. 32. There are challenges to permitting EEI. The team wants to work with jurisdictions to permit projects off-site, potentially out of the jurisdiction and basin where impacts occur in order to meet suggestions and guidance to develop mitigation on larger sites . 33. Schedule was discussed. — In May, the EEI Team will meet with jurisdictions to discuss process,timelines, and to develop mutual expectations. That information will be used to review the top sites and see if that changes the list. — In June/July the team will develop concepts to a more detailed level and get ready for permitting. — In August/September permitting will begin for North Renton. ■ Tracey needs permitting points of contact for the jurisdictions and will talk with the Task Force after the meeting to gain some of that information. ■ Christina wants the EEI approach included in project descriptions. However, there was Task Force concern that something in the transportation part of the permitting could hold up the EEI permitting. Christina recognized that we would need to address the issue and avoid hold ups with MOUs, MOAs, or by another method. ■ Next steps are working with permitting officials and seeing if that eliminates any of the EEI projects. Task Force endorsement of the two top tier sites: ■ Sharon asked for the Task Force endorsement. ■ Task Force Question/Discussion: Kit Paulsen would like to see the point spread on the T&E criteria. She's concerned about individual fish populations and genetic impacts. The team said that if any one of the criterion is removed from the process, the rankings stay the same or change very little. It does not change the list of projects that the team wants endorsed. After considering that information Kit said she was more comfortable providing her endorsement. Page 6 of 7 P:1005221005108104.0_Correspondence14.05_PubliclnpuATask Force Workshop2 Adw lf,Washington State Department of Transportation Project Team 11W Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit Projects ■ Action Item: Jenny Gaus would like to take the list back to her jurisdiction along with a description of exactly what EEI is meant to do. The team agreed to provide a description of EEI. ■ Jenny Gaus is concerned that her jurisdiction is overlooked and the list does not address mitigation in the City of Kirkland. Dick Gersib said that all impacts will be mitigated. Sharon discussed the additional water resources efforts and coordination including stormwater mitigation and other efforts on Forbes Creek. Because Forbes Creek is being researched, there was no specific project to evaluate for EEI. EEI will continue to coordinate with those efforts.Action Item: The EEI Team agreed to talk to local councils as needed. ■ Endorsement: The EEI Task Force gave their endorsement to the two top tier sites. The EEI Team agreed to include a description of the purpose of EEI and to meet with local jurisdictions as needed. ■ The endorsement marks the completion of the Task Force work. The EEI Team will work with individual members of the Task Force as needed, but the there are no current plans for the Task Force to reconvene as a group. Page 7 of 7 P:1005221005108104.0_Correspondence14.05_PubliclnpuATask Force Workshop2 Washington State �, Department of Transportation � W ..rr� Short-List Project Scores and Rank ah, o".0, °� mID Potential EEI Opportunity 4` '►SA ° 3s��� ' "fa 4w }s tir Total 1 Sammamish State Park Isseq. Issaquah 5 4 5 5 r 5 5 4 1 3 5 5 5 Creek 52 !'] Thrashers's Regional Park North Bothell 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 3 So �f Restoration Creek \ 3 Guano Acres C:�k Issaquah 5 4 3 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 so Kelsey Creek West Kelsey 4 Tributary Stream Creek Bellevue 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 3 I 49 Restoration kDSide Channel Restoration Samm. Bothe Near 102nd Avenue River ll 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 1 2 5 5 3 47 \ 6 Squawk Valley Perk Issaq.Creek Issaquah 5 4 5 5 t 5 2 5 1 3 5 3 3 ONorth Creek Stream North Enhancement Creek Bothell 5 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 1 48 _W a Kelsey Creek Meinstem Kelsey Bellevue Sa l mon Restoration Creek 4 4 4 3 i 5 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 44 J� (, \ 9 Pickering Farm Creek Issaquah 4 3 4 3 - 5 4 4 3 4 1 3 2 5 44 .../ ___.. 10 Jeffries/Cook Channel Lwr. Uninc.Cedar King 4 2 4 5 4 5 3 2 2 4 3 1 39 County 1/ May Creek Delta May Renton 4 2 2 2 5 5 3 3 1 5 5 1 38 Restoration Creek 12 North Fork Realignment Cay reek Renton 4 4 1 4 4 2 2 3 5 3 0 37 13 Mercer Slough Stream& Mercer Bellevue / 4 5 3 4 5 5 1 3 1 3 2 37 Wetland Enhancement Slough 14 Wetland Restoration on Samm. Bothell 3 2 4 2 4 2 5 2 2 5 3 3 37 Right Bank in Bothell River \ 15 Bush Lena C;eek Issaquah 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 1 36 Lwr. Uninc. 16 Lower Summerfield Cedar King 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 1 2 5 2 1 35 County L., Uninc. 17 Upper Summerlield Cedar King 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 1 2 4 2 1 34 County 18 Chism Beach Perk WLk' Bellevue 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 3 1 1 1 33 Lwr Uninc. 19 Herzmann Levee Cedar King 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 1 1 33 County 20 Fowler Site C�k Issaquah 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 32 21 North Fork Confluence May Renton 3 4 1 4 2 3 1 3 2 5 4 0 32 Restoration Creek ` 22 Bernsten Site Issaq. Issa Creek quah 2 2 4 2 3 2 3T 5_ 2 1 1 1 28 23 Enhancement& May Renton 1 4 5 3 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 Restoration of Wetland 42 Creek 27 North Fork of May Creek 24 Corridor Habitat May Renton 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 2 NI NI 1 24 Conservation end Creek Enhancement I_— Uninc. 25 W 258 Cedar King 2 2 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 l 24 Caun tKel"y Uninc. 28 W 207,W 213,W 217 King 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 0 - 19 County 27 Kelsey Creek UaylightinBellevue 1 2 1 1 2 5 2 3 0 1 1 0 19 Swamp Crack Regional28 Perk Wetland end StreamBothell NI 2 2 2 NI NI 2 4 NI NI NI NI 12 RestorationUninc. 29 Upper Riverbend King 3 NI NI NI NI NI NI 1 1 2 1 1 9 Goun Note NI=No information The—as for each crimes range from 1(Iow)to 5(high)according to the definitons provided in Appendu A T � WELCOME EEI TASK FORCE Meeting Objectives 1-405 Project o Present Results Office o Receive Task Force Endorsement on "Short Brief EEI Process List" of projects Review o Address Permitting and Policy Results , Schedule Meetings to Proceed Permit Approach Next Steps 1-405 Corridor Project Office Contact Information 1-405 Project Office Main: 425.456.8500 o 405 Project Christina Martinez,1-405 Environmental Lead Office icy o Project Office: 425.456.8526 o Email: martinezc wsdot.wa.gov(same) Co located team y3 Sharon Wright.EEI Lead <�Project Office:425.456.8572 Work areas for o Email: sharon.wright(RI405.wsdot.wa.gov visiting agencies Tracey McKenzie,1-405 Permit Lead New contact info ?�f,. s c•Cell Phone: 206.550.2211 ,� iMBf c Email: hmckerizi- anchorenv.cam_ Fr' o David Masters,Water Resources Lead Project Office: 425.450.8560 Email:dmasters@hntb.com How Did We Get Here? How Did We Get Here? o Programmatic FEIS Z WRIA 8 EEI Evaluation Selected alternative Criteria Update Selected mitigation approach il EEI "Long List"Distributed Consensus Cw� vnl dualrw� Comments and New Projects o WRIA 9 Demonstration e Fatal Flaw and Second-Level Screening Criteria developed by Task Force o Scored and Ranked Projects o Distribute and Present Results 1 Presenting!Results Second Leuet Cnterta Scored 1 5: Second Level Screening Crtteria - o Low Level of �T 8 E Species:. o;Explanation Maintenance Benefits/Effects Scoring f` �;.Srte Constraints;: Ec6tFunUionai . xamples: y" :Loss:of;0 ortunit Viability PP. - Y.Ob "` ��:Ownership o Credits Generated Task Force approval'of short:list Long Term Protection ..Cost Effectiveness Project Recommendations Partnership '.° Opportunities C Jtena Low;Level;of Matntenance� ' Low Level of Maintenance f y Score 2 Opportumt�es that require little to no s ;mid maintenance are preferable o Heavy traffic: A higher score induates lower /f `yaf¢aF > ?�... commeraat f maintenance needs ,�• � rea � ''� Safef issues o Low score reserved for protects requiring special equipment or expensive measures , y O Speciatized s... equipment air ,- Low Level of Matr tenance? 1. Low Level of Maintenance! �X Score 2 Score 4 " �• ©Sediment o No special re unn q g equipment equipment �,�� x Mainte ante .; �,� ,, � � accomplished by a Hand tools ' ATay Greek AeltaT�estoration ..::. :: :d .. ..... 2 Mm�mat Site Constraints MinimalS�te Constraints and Favorable Constructaband Fay orabte Constructab>Ility ' ... : .-. WetlandlV4flgtat tr4tt.fL .. Are there site conditions that interfere with ; n Score: 2 b. completion of a successful opp6rtumty7 ,: " � %1 ' f•" Potential x F•'e a A higherscore indicates fewer orno site yf ' a ks ` utih6ies constraints and favorable constructabilit %'/ F�� Ott' ap`s y '/ ©Access conditions v Traffic control: Topography • Minimal Site Constraints Site Constraints and Favorable Constructab� sty and Favorable 6structabrlity F` Score 5 �' Score 4 G.No steep slopes U Available No utyy access constraints ° Limited utility n h „ ' constraints yy 4 y, Easy Access / , ' •,'�,,.�/� 'y�/ •,r W�py�, �� ,��/` ``•,�,,� '� ���� � �•,; �,: .�;,;.r •�,.,�:>,, slopes ��::n..'�%`%%'::,,;�:1.•c.;?nik4:sF,,g•�>�!l�.pcl�/'/. 'v'z�` ��; "%i"'", � � �f'' Loss of Opportunity Loss of Opportu A .......... M: >� r,:Is the EEI at risk of otherwise bein i High Score developed? : High nsk of A higher score indicates the site has;a losing higher risk of.being lost and,;therefore, opport nrty to u M . may benefit from early action development l/ '!I','jp ��� ' ......:: :..: .... .. --.::: o.. .... .... .... ..:... ..... ..... .. :,.. :. y. 3 Potential for Loss of Opportunity Ownership (Ease of Acqu�stjon)'' ,o score:i pWhat made a project score high? Low risk of Public agency ownership !' losing EEl to Sin.Ae:_ nvate owner.: ' yR � � development' ,. �y1tTTF't{t1��aFS�RS-t:L�R� ; r'Willing.aeller'; , , �__; 1».a§omlNr lw,tkki sroa'. ri�".'L`Y,xi9.hYrk6K:Yrl4 r/ f ly . Chism Desch Score 5 Long Term Protection Le�rel of Project Support hagh c Are there orgarozations interested m How is the,pro�ec.t viewed by the public . taking over the sites a gentles and local residents/businesses. .tiyf '�Yes or no? �Local agency support How many potential Business community candida.... s involvement x/ ry ,i -F, ti Private interest groups, bl, i support;: zs" irk r : Squawk Valley Park Seore 5 8Farm Score Pickerin 4 "mot' Leve[ of Project Support lOw Level pf Partr►ershrp �` , /,f PP Antuipafed Controversy Funding Early AetlOn Deal Breakers Long termAdm,mstrat,on P.roponentInterest: 9 j ,+s fr�LS,c f z• •,`a33 H /,o ➢n 1 " 1 .. . ➢n 2to3 � 3 Kelse'Creek Da-i`htin Score 0.... w.. - - 4 Scoring Projects - Partnership % , Threatened and Endangered Species F Examples Scoring Criteria Guano Acres High Score=5M Adult YWt A Issaquah 4 Species DFw Eggs ➢COE hr. E Y Land Owner o Life Stage o K_else v Ck Main stem Med.Score=3 D City of Bellevue o Life Phase Fry ,,, >Private Goff Course ._, o Wetland 213 Low Score=D Stock Status Y No Partner Identified Smolt Threatened and Endangered Species Criteria Environmental Benefits Address Project Examples Estimated Project Effects Lake Sammaeniile e salmon State Park Score= 5 Adult and juvenile o p How well does the EEI project address the Y i Multiple species All phases anticipated effects of the transportation Y �- ( F improvements? J Mercer Slough Score=4 v "r Adult and juvenile salmon v No spawning Kelsey Ck Daylighting or rr N. Fork May Ck Confluence Score=2 r Juveniles only Passage problems Environmental Benefits Address How did we quantify benefits and Estimated Project Effects effects? 5� f What data did we use? i STEP 1 l STEP 2 1405 Footprint Calculate Project Be efits Public GIS data "" ''£ Wetland Pry ed x--foo =%wetly EEI Project description Wetland <,EEI Project plans - ( Needs/Section ..� Aerial imagery L Estimate Road P ject Effects-- Stream Provided (LF) x 1040 stream Stream Needs/ 5 Effinedfiffi nt IlSenefits:Address-XXXXXXX Enu�rvnmental Benefits Address Esbrnated Protect Effects Estimated Project Effects What projects scored what projects scored low? hi h i Fowler Site:; �� North Fork of Ma Creek n�°"'%°f the Kvkland stream Y needs mete j Realignment° °;Less than$5%of wetland needs Score 1 i 0 1100%of'stream needs for ;antlapafed N.Renton Impacts 0,A 50%of'the wetland needs ! Y G':Score :5 Ecological >t'Functional`Vaabit�ty Ecoloical l* Functional Viab>il�ty o Measured a site lmprovemmer t pro7ect's 7 Habitat Elements C.onslde.red. ;capacity to Wetland enhancement r Develop habitats = Wetland creation and resto�atlon L Provide functions xs Riparian enhancement ... o Riparian creation and restoration In-stream habitat creation antl enhancement- ;,. MO reconnectvlty Lakeshore habitat enhancement and '. restoration '; xi Ecological J*;FunctlonalViab�[ity EC©local 8t Functional Vtab�l�ty o Functional Parameters Corisldered_ Score=5 $tom Relative to other resources �''(� �x ➢Large D Connected with a 48 s' stream andfi h n ldhfe use o Landscape position Rrveereach v. Ecologicalconiex Functionaldit. Sammamish State Park 6 Ecological Et Functional Viability Ecological Et Functional Viability Enhancement Et { Score=3 Restoration of Wetland H v N1excto a stream ate size #2 Score=2 >Wderate size Topography and land use >Wetland Enhancement only limit restoration potential t lit species use ,�� y No nearby stream _../, I f Wetland Restoration on Right Bank in Bothell ora Erlhancetnent i Rest 42 tion of Wadand Credits Generated Credits Generated This criteria refers to the number of Basis for Quantification: environmental credits the site would generate. (Ecological/Functional Viability Score) X Size, location, and existing condition (T Et E Species Support Score) X Habitat elements Species support (Total Project Area) = Credits Generated Credits Generated Credits Generated Score=5 > Large fi Degraded ! f 4 t i 0 Score=5 3 Significant opportunity to > Large and somewhat g e increase natural resource iii degraded �"''' �" area >Limited increase in natural resource area >Significant increase in function s2� Side Channel Restoration Near 102nd Avenue Kelsey Creek West Tributary Stream Restoration 7 Credits Generated Cost Effectiveness scope='i ©Ratio.: Cost /„Credit degraded somewhat ""' �� %<.• o P.rehminary estimates ➢No increase in:natural resource area .0 :� ©,Acquisition costs not:considered; .Some increase m(unction F d Higher scores= larger sites �' wnthouCib struction issues ....Chism Beach Park.! - -- Cost Effectweness Range; Trends for Top Pro'ects J Project Count ;.Cost'per Credit Score, . . Range Lorig Term Protection 4 $40'000.. 1 1 $30;000 $39 999 2 'T&E Supporter Emrironmental Benefits:: 3 $20000 $29,999 3 Cost Effectiveness 4 $10000 $19,999 4 Eco-Function J 12 $0 i$9,999 ': : 5 u ,yii i hn EEI Task Force Endorsement Permitting EEI Projects a FEIS In:'advance of transportation ptojects a Watershed Approach Develop concepts for permitting Develo ermlt schedule ©Water Resources Coordination P P ©Coordinate ermitting with regulators Q Iriiptementatloo of Criteria P U Address EEI m ESA documents::: oAddress Comments ©Consensus 8 Permitting EEI Projects Permitting EEI Projects oChallenges Schedule 2004 cSolutions May - Meet with regulatory agencies Understand regulations Understand process / timing Permitting EEI Projects Summary Schedule 2004 o Site Selection Process June Develop concept(s)for corridor o Results and Scores o Endorsement August/September o Permitting Approach, Challenges, Submit permit application for North Renton (transportation project a EEI) Solutions Next Steps o Work with Partners on Design Concepts c, Design and Permitting c) Include EEI in Environmental Documentation Construct and Monitor EEI Projects 9 Source WSDOT,2003,King County,2003 \\NW_GISVrojects\washy 405_2003\nwp_docs\EEl)project_locationrnq_04-14-04.rro(d I Last Updated:04-28-04 ..� �• r I Legend © EEI PROJECT i 1 1 • J'I ''►` >0.3 1 -Sammamish State Park °o, I - 2-Thrashers's Regional Park ■ 's '—"� Restoration iitk 0 3-Guano Acres � � r�7 er 4-Kelsey Creek West Tributary .., .;' • . Stream Restoration •! t- 5-Side Channel Restoration •M. ! ��--_; j SR574 �� ���� �� Near 102nd Avenue d ti •�� 6-Squawk Valley Park 7-North Creek Stream Enhancement 8-Kelsey Creek Mainstem a � � c►1 s • .� 0 �� : Salmon Restoration -------� --_�------ ^ �I_ m Snohomish County • I -------;i--- ----------�- --------------------------- --------=---------__---- 9 Pickering Farm .h. o 522 King!County 10-Jeffries/Cook Channel Sir A 11 -May Creek Delta Restoration 12-North Fork Realignment �' _ -•t; l L., wL:►� - 13-Mercer Slough Stream& Wetland Enhancement N,•,-,:,,r,•.r ___ _ �'� -,_ ��,d 14-Wetland Restoration on N' qj `i-r L--� Right Bank in Bothell 15-Bush Lane 1 C.7 - �� X ; 16-Lower Summerfield �►� , I a �;r~� ; _ f 17-Upper Summerfield -A -� j � � 18-Chism Beach Park _ Nfeun.v Forbes Creek - j I c—"' 19-Herzmann Levee 5 •� ►, L1 `" 20-Fowler Site �' ry5,h '•� --j Galudl L, 21 -North Fork Confluence ■ t, ; Restoration Ni xbm si NC 65th 57 � •� � � � 22-Bernsten Site Lake _ r Nf prh.,t ' r t' •�/ Washington ` A,♦•` 23-Enhancement&Restoration w 4511,St I . of Wetland#2 24-North Fortk of May Creek Corridor Habitat Conservation ' Y a ' &Enhancement • 25-W258 26-W207,W213,W217 27-Kelsey Creek Daylighting 28-Swamp Creek Regional Park j j �•• Wetland&Stream Restoration 0 Lase r• 29-Upper Riverbend 0 © Sammamish � — Highway 40.....t �. lbQ�DD � � ■ Arterial I �t Lake Stream �, ■� `• . ` �:;� �' .,�/ -- Study Area Boundary Wetland P h �- _ .. ` ;-; � i. U I � ■ Park 1 ` ° 0 i �• j_- Municipality t- I Coal a I--L.., 'rv. 2_� 1 a •• I ►��' --� 0 1 2 3 4 M Y Miles ' ''+ = SAN JUAN SKAGIT •may-•.• +.., � ' Map _ sv7emsr •C� �`� ��� L-- C ISLAND Location r� JEFFERSON SNOHOMISH Ce dar Rive,- CW KITSAR KING e.�'..1 y J Y r•- MASON ■ _ � i p s,xmnsr �• r � © PIERCE ' '�tr ` ♦?♦�� � 19 THURSTON ts> ---I Lakes. l .-U aruns, it Youngs t /� v f`�r f�s�♦ LEWIS ti The blest to change included on this map has been compiled from n variety of sources and I Location 0 ��'O is subtect to change without nonce WSDOTrnakes no representations or warranties, Project L express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,bmehness,or rights to the use of such information WSDOT shall rot be liable for any general,special,indirect incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost FIGURE 1 profits resuamg from the use or misuse of the information mriained on this map Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of WSDOT 1-405 Congestion Relief&Bus Rapid Transit I Washington State Department of Transportation I EEI X&X From: Ronald Straka To: Christian Munter Date: 02/16/2004 4:00:14 PM Subject: Fwd: EEI Project Comments for N. Renton Please reveiw and discuss with me. >>> "Wright, Sharon" <Sharon.Wright@hdrinc.com> 02/16/2004 2:58:06 PM >>> Ron, I am attaching the projects we are evaluating in N. Renton because they have made it through the fatal flaw process so far. Chris took a look, previously, at the projects that fell out in the preliminary workbook and did not have additional comments. We are contacting county/basin stewards about the May Creek sites, but please add any comments you have. The other projects are based on one of our telephone conversations. Could you please add any project description and cost information that you have so that we can evaluate/score the sites. Please return by end of day Tuesday if you can. Let me know what clarification you need. After this, I owe you information to prepare for this Friday's site visit. I plan to have that for you by Wednesday afternoon. I also owe you an agenda for next Tuesday's site visits. Your comments on this attachment will have some bearing on that agenda. Thank you. Sharon <<EEI_Project list for ron straka.xls>> Sharon L. Wright, AICP 1-405 Corridor Environmental Team Main: 425.453.1523 Direct: 425.450.6264 Fax: 425.453.7107 ZuC� Project Name Project Description Environmental Element Addressed Source of Project Idea Missing information' Is it available? How much will it Yes or No cost?2 Forest Conversion of Wetland#28 � Thinning of woody vegetation and understory planting with wetland May Creek Basin Plan Is the project available? z 00 OOJ - �;�,�{^� native conifers. Replanting buffers with native conifers. N�A,_Ur-, Consider purchase for preservation. North Fork Confluence Restoration Remove shallow layers of fill and replant disturbed areas wetland, stream May Creek Basin Plan Is the project available? Zoo,ooz with native forest vegetation. Added opportunity to relocate North Fork, provide gravel substrate, and restore RTh� large woody debris to channel. May Creek Delta Restoration Preserve and restore main body of original May Creek stream, delta habitat May Creek Basin Plan Is the project available? Delta. Relocate channel to improve sediment transport. O-Al,.- Lower delta by removing deposited fill, and replant delta and buffer to restore tree-and shrub-dominated habitats. Improvements to Honey Creek, River Miles 1.35 to 1.72 Return portions of creek to natural channel with abundant stream, wetland, riparian May Creek Basin Plan Is the project.available? woody debris and gravel beds, restore wetland habitats 4^lvw_ and buffers associated with the channel and plant native vegetation. Direct parking lot stormwater away from stream. Enhancement and Restoration of Wetland#2 Cleanup of existing trash piles, replanting of native wetland May Creek Basin Plan Is the project available? �O"P 0 UJo vegetation, and restoration of filled wetland areas. l� North Fork Realignment Relocate portions of the creek to near original locations, or stream May Creek Basin Plan Is the project available? 1L• , CovY. realign to restore meanders and channel diversity. Large 7 00a 0oo woody debris would be added to relocated stream reaches, and banks would be graded to reduce slopes. Daylight Unnamed Tributary at NE 44th St. Ron Straka What is the cast of the project? John's Creek to Coulon Park--habitat/swpotential?) Ron Straka What is the cost of the project? Jones Ave. & NE 43rd St. Ron Straka What is the cost of theproject? 2 Privately Owned Property South of Pan Abode Site Ron Straka What is the coast of the project? 'Ron--we are tracking down this information at the county as well, but if you have anything to add about availability or project description or any other comments, please feel free. 2 Please include design, acquisition, construction, and monitoring costs. (Best estimate or range) VC From: Ronald Straka To: Christian Munter Date: 02/12/2004 9:10:54 AM Subject: Fwd: 1-405/ North Renton Watershed Characterization Case Study- Final Status Report Please reveiw and record information into the project file. >>> "Hilliard, Tim" <HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov> 02/11/2004 10:34:48 AM >>> WSDOT Technical Team for Watershed Characterization Methods"Beta Test'on North Renton Stretch of 1-405, final status report: Hi everyone! We have finally published our 1-405/ North Renton watershed characterization results. These may not be the absolute final drafts but they are close. The Case Study includes a set of appendices. The main report goes into great detail about how we got our results (like showing your work in fifth grade math, right?). Appendices A and B are spreadsheets that give details about the sites we identified. We are working hard to update our Watershed Characterization Methods document to reflect the lessons learned in our second case study and it should also be on the web within a month. The methods and both case studies are available on the web at the following address: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/watershed/technical report.htm <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/watershed/technical report.htm> Case Study 2 (the 1-405/North Renton Watershed Characterization Case Study) can also be accessed directly from this page: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/watershed/watershed charcter.htm <hftp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/watershed/watershed charcter.htm> As always, thanks for all the help! Feel free to pass on this information as you see fit. Call or e-mail if you want to know more, or if you want anyone to be added to this list. Tim Hilliard, WSDOT Contacts: Richard A. Gersib, Watershed Program Manager("big picture") Environmental Services, WSDOT PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7477 Email: gersibd(ccilwsdot.wa.gov<mailto:gersibd(cD-wsdot.wa.gov> Tim Hilliard, Watershed Specialist(local coordination, local priorities) Environmental Services, WSDOT PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7488 Email: hilliat(ab-wsdot.wa.gov <mailto:hilliat(a)-wsdot.wa.gov> PGL PGL rL INLET I405 SB q- INLET I405 SB I I I I R.O.W. , , rL MH 20' 2' 12' 2' fE HOUSER ECOLOGY EMBANKMENT (RT.07) rL ON-RAMP ECOLOGY DITCH (RT.07) WAY N 4" OIAM. HWY RUNOFF HWY RUNOFF PIPE DRAIN PIPE �� OUTFALL � OUTFACE PIPE ).12" DIAM 50' O.C. � ( � (12" DIAM.) WITH 45° BEND WITH 45° AT BOTTOM � BEND AT BOTTOM CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK 6:1 6:] ECOLOGY MIX UNDER DRAIN HIGHWAY RETAINING TBLOCK (8" DIAM. PERF.) WALL THRUST ENERGY DISSIPATOR/ ECOLOGY MIX 4" DIAM. ' INLET FLOW SPREADER, DRAIN PIPE . HIGHWAY RETAINING 2' DEPTH (MIN.) 50 O C. OUTFACE PIPE (TO LK WASHINGTON MALL VIA JOHNS CREEK). FOR OUTFALL PIPE ALIGNMENT, SEE DRAINAGE PLANS ENERGY SPREADER, UNDER DRAIN FLOW SPREADER, 2' DEPTH (MIN.) (8" DIAM. PERF.) INLET DRAINAGE PIPE TO THE OUTFALL PIPE ECOLOGY EMBANKMENT ECOLOGY DITCH (WEST SIDE) (BETWEEN RAMP AND SB) NTS NTS CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FILE NAME I:\008\draw(n s\sheets\8 043aO55z_dd01_02.d n TIME 07:52:55 AM 5% DESIGN SUBMITTAL 01/23/03 REGION STATE FED.AID PROJA0. _ DATE 01/15/2004 O. 10 WASH DDOI DESIGNED BY E.LIOU JOB NUMBER TrAf NORTH 8TH STREET HOV DIRECT ACCESS ENTERED BY A.DEGUZMAN Washington State SHEET CHECKED BY M.SALEEM CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department Of Transportation of PROJ. ENGR. R.BENITO DRAINAGE DETAIL REGIONAL ADM. D.DYE REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX OaTE P.E. STRIP BOX DATE SHEETS . . _ .:: ;.-...... 1 I:.- . . .I I .: :: i -I:,... . :: 1',: :: I:....... ... is ; I ..-.. i i .. I I .... I ..... is i ...-. i I :�: :::: : i:: ::I. :: ::::i.:::::: I :: i .. i. 1 ...... I 1 .::::.. i" .::::: ... i .:. . . ::I .; ; ; .... I .. 1 . I .. I .... i .. i:. I I.. .. . -- -� -- �- - -- ------- --------- ------ -- - -- ---------- ---- ----- ----- ---- - ---- ...........i --- ---- 1 :::: ::: : .... ........... ..:.... ....I.......-.;........ - .. -...'.... ... - - - - ---- - - -- - - i- -- ------- ---- ------------ ...... -- - ---- - - I I i I i i i i 1 :: : :I:':::: i:: :I:::.:::: :::::I.::: i:: ., 1i i „j -' :... I i i ::: - T .:... ........-I....... ::i: :: :i::: i 1_ 1: i 1 ... :I:. ..-.. i 1 ::::::. I I :. Y.. ... 1 I i i::: i I ::. I :::::: i::::. ::'i,:.. : I :: : i 1 :::: ..:.: 1 .. . I I I : 1 1: I' ...... I. 1. i i i - ------i--------- ---- - ----------- i - ! -- ------------+--- }--.......:..... - +, — - ! --- - + ---- +, - j -+ - - a-- ------- + - + a -+ + —--- --+----- -----+---- - - �-- + 1+ - --- - -. ..- .. -1 ! .... +. a ---- + -t --------- � . .. ..:: :::::'1 ::. 1 :. i i I i :.. 1 1.:: ::. ::- .... + . :i: .. - I' :: I j .: I ::::. 1 i 1 1 i:.. . 1 .... :: i ,n . I .:: : 1 ::: is .::::: x o, i i ... ....:. -- i 1 ... 'I . .. Q PROFI E GRADE:OF: is .-.... i .... .. ... -- - - --------- -- , �- ---- --- - — 100 I N t______ �____ 1 ______ ______ a ____ ____________STRJCtURE- __ _______ __i______ _____ _______7. ________-_ _______ ________ __ _____ __________ _ _____ __ I i _ .. .... t .. I -. - : 1 , 100 ' ... : .. 1 I ...... m 1 - It ... .. i:::::::: I:: ...... ....... ......11. > :!:.. .- :I�. .....:1: .... -.....:1:......- ... ... . :::::: :.. . z c,J I I ...... '1........ I'.....-. ....... ::::! .. .. '.'I':: ::. ::: 1. . ..... ....... .. .I:....... ....... .,.,. ....... ...... .... ... .. ... .:::: :::. .::1. v ... :1 .. ::.:: ...-. .... I ———4 I ......- .--... .... .:.:... ::: 90 -- -- ------i---------- -- -------------------- i. I: - - _ -- -- .. .. .... .. — - - -- � - — - - - - mia- - — - - - --- i .. ...:I I...:::: I :::z ..:I: ..I....:-..I:: ... i:" 1-" - .- ---------- ------- -- --------_ --- - 0 : I 1 T .. .. 9 w ow .. ....... ..... ..:_ .:1.... I .......:7:.......:1:....... ....... ... .....'���: :.:: :::::I::2.;.:F:; :... 1:d M M.I .: ... 1 .. ... .......;...-.... .......-I...... ::-::. 1::.::::. z o N:: I:.a z_: o I ice..... .. ......-:1 .. .. I'.... . ....... ..... ...0 :. 1 .... .. "I ... ....... ..... ..._ ...-.... M.- ... - Y i" N> ..:. .. .. -. .. .......:1 ....... ....... .... ..:1:....... ...... B0 -- ----- --i---------------+-- ---- -} ---- ---i ------------�- -------+------ --+-- ----- - - - - - -- - -w - -1 -LU ...I ....... ...... .....w ; ......;_- ...- ........ .... ......- ... .._-_ ...___ __....__ __W ..... - J Q J ___________.�__________.-_�_� / __ _____ _�_____ t______ _________ __ _________}_ ________y__ _______�______ ____}----- ___+__--------___ .::: .:::::: .::::: :.:N : 1 :: ::::::::1:.. ...--:1�J cr- + ..- z N' .. Z ..... + -� .. ..:I. O H W.+'..... .. .. + :: ..::::. i .:.: : f-::. .t._.... .i.::::::: ::7 77 I........ ....... .......;........ 8O . ..... ....... ..... ...... i ....... : :: ...:::.-� :::.:dp M: ... Or ::.:: x V1 .. .. : l --.- ....... ... ---.... ...:.: ::- : : ::::: ....... ...... ..:� ..... ......:I: ... :1........ ........IQ ...:i .... :.O : Z :.- 1 ... _ ...... .. - �. ...... ....... .-.. .... .. .....-. .... ....... ...... ... ....I... :....... ....... ... .......-�Os ......c ... ..—!� M ... Q : «. .. .it ... ... x ... ....... ... :3 C ..- ...... ..... 1 ..... ..-.....f:....... -. ....... ....... ..:W ....... ... - .. .— ....... ..-....-.tr:tn ... .... .. .x Z¢- :/; -...I: Q x. .... .... :< .... ....... ....... ...... .......:I:.. - a I:-... z �. 2 01 .. I .-.::: I' i -----r 1 I N o 70 -- - -- - -» r -- - r-- i -- _----- r ----- - -- -------- --- - -- - - - -- -- J----- - -1 o i.......::i:::--- ..I:...a . .1.... .:::I:::::::J ..... ..... ...... ... ..-.. �,.� ... ...... .. I - .... .-- �4 _- -- .--- ---_-- 1--- --- ----- --------- ----------- ------- ------ ------ ... ....... ....... :::.--. ..... ~ ::::. :::::: :::::: - ..... d ..-... i ......:1:.. v .... �.. .. z ... ..Ci. ....... ... ....:.: I .::::: ::. 1...... ....... ....... 70 I'...... :�:I ... Qo �o+o::. I :�.... Off. i c Q.z :.— .. w m ... --. BNSF:RR'^ tii : m` I: - -....i. .... I:_..... ¢*....- rm Iz w w I .. is ;.; a mN- v ;... ...W ...--Z tD. ...... ........}-O: .....J Q:J ---.. .. i'....... I - O v i I ......- ....... ..... .... .. ...... ....... : : .. .. .... G J '1-.-...Z ......-W ., ;... ....:1 .. N.. .. .O M-.W - ... -— ....... I'l" :m ... :Q. ....... ... f-:N ......- .... ..... .... ....... ....... ----------I•____________ _____—_ _1_______ _._____ ____--.____---__—___ — i i 60 ;.. ; ; 60 x ,.; q .--�N . ; * - -.-- x - -- - -- - -- ------ -- ----- -1. — -- 4-n;- ..--- ---- -- - - - —I - -- - -- -- 00:« ..:oriel Q- .:.::: b ; i I W '� I. .. CLNM .. ... ...... 9 .. o ...."w " ... xz.o :- . i:: i::Y 1.. ... aoM. ...-. ..... ... .. ....... ...... Q:N tW-.... .. ... .... ... 6 I -.. .. H N. ....... ... Q ... .. ....... .....M-a+. ..... ....... ......:lx'O .. -- , ... - .. !-. i.. .. RIDGE .. .. .'I-.. N> .-... .-..... ....... ..... .. - ...... -- N. ..- 40 ..... � .... I R w w W .w:I --..... ... .- .... 50 - ---+- -- ---+--------- ----ac {_—____— ____--ti _______} ____- ______-_ _ _____-y_____ _ _______-- __—_—__ - __ __—__—_ _—____ ______ __—____ ___ }___ J Q.-1. I - + p E (TYfP.I Q1 I +. a-:" c4"::: Z ::::"o + :::: z:: i i:.. =wW.. !'xw 50 ... ...-. r.o + ... zn ...- .. . .. .. BRIDGE: :I Z :Z: I' . ... rM-c I FINASH...... i ... QGO- Qao:. .... .. ... . � ... .. - ABUTMENT - - f r x ..... /-. wr i ... . a . .... � ... _... GRA'E:..._. Wiz¢ _..J - . .. . Jxaq _ _" . ...q. __ ... _ _ i I _ i _ .. .. — —r - - y— �' I .. i ; . 40 --------: o- + — �— -- I-- -- ------- ---- ----- --— ---- ------ —- -- --- _ ... 1 :i _ _ i .. x w to w to .. :.. -- _— - _-�l! ---- -- - --- --- -- 40 I' _;�_ ' Q:r 00",... m? + .. — — 0.:507 EXISTING.GROUND - w . ---- .. 1.i00% .... 1 i00% .. ...1 FMH ...... ..- ..... . - —. ...- - .. .. i:: is i:::: 3 30 -- -. ----------------- - --i-- I----- --i --- -- --------- - - -- - --- -------- ----- ---. -- - .. .... I. i i- .. . - - - -- - -- -- -MH- -- --- - -- --------- ------- - -- ---- -- -- L. 1 5 . 1..00/ . .. .. .. H: T2p.tE 30 ... . :: ::: 34: is .... MH 3 i JACKED... UNDER:: .. . ... I. .- .. ... ... BNSF: RR:: I' i:....... .. 32 .. ... 1 . 1 ...... I. I' I:.. .. - .... ... ... ..-: . :: I I. ' i 20 —- + — —+--- -- -+--AAN +--— - -— +--- —} - - ''L- +-- -- - --I.. —- --------- ------ — -- -- - - + + -+- + 3- + +- a 1 i +. } 2 31 fiUNOfF TREATMENT. i -..... 1 .: ...... i .:: :::: :: :.:i ::::::: .. : .. .... AULT ... ..- .. .. ....... ... .. ::: . --- --- I ..... : .: 10 7 - --- ---i--------� Lft- ---� m ;-... �-r`. -t - - - - — - 0 .... o to .....:u"^ ... oo. .i r-ti i........ .. .. .. ::::::: ::::: :I IT :: : ::.10 : .::: :: :: :::: 0) ...... O O .. ... ...-.-. ...... N N -. ... ... :::.:- :::.--: .-..... ..-- . ..... ....... ..-.... ..... .::N: ... .....:N :..:: ::: N::: ::::..to r): :. :: .....-. ... - M M ... .....I: ...-... 'v P' .. .. .. V V ...... :::: : -.. ...... .....- ... ... ....... .-. ...- ......- ....... .. .. :.- ..... -:M n: ...... ..... - M n -..1:. ..... ....... ....... .... ....... .:: :: :."J. ' :: ::.J : : .::: .: J : ::: :.'J J .. : :.::. .... �J J .. - ... ... ... J J -...... .. .. 7 1::: : :::::-7 :::: : .: :: ::: - _ i is i O ' ' .. ____ _ __ ____ _____ __-___ _--_____ ____ _ ______ __ _ _ _______ _—______ .... - ....... ....... .... ..- ....... ______________. _________ ' 1_ .______ ___ ' f I- _ I J J ___�______-____.______ ____ ______ _ __ — __ ___ - _ ___-_ ___ _ - .. .. -__ __ ______ ____——_ __ I: i:....:.. +/-i.119:..:::: 160' .:: ::: I : ::: ..a::. 90 220 250 !:::1:50' i:....... i18:IN:.::OIAM. 18i:IN::DIAM.: -... 18::IN.! DIAM. :18::INI DIAM.:: .. 18: INl:OIAM.:: _. j .. .. ....... ... .. 1.;:IN. OLdM'.. ... ...... ....- .... . .- .... -. ... .. .. .. .. i 1 : i .... .. -10 - ---+----------- + --- --------+---------- + -- —+--------------a ------+------- ----I- .. +---------- --I--- ' - ..... .. - --- - — -- ------- ----- -- - — --- - - -- — --- -- -- --------- - -- ------ — — - - N0 TH 8fH CT, + ` . '� :::: + - + ... .. + ... + . to _.. , f EE T: RAINAGE L NE : :::: 1 ......:I ... .. ... _ ... ... ._. 1. ..:: . : .. ._ _ .. .. . . ._. I .... i.. _ ::: .: i _ .. .... ... 1..... . ... _ _— .... _ i _. -zo - --------- ------------- ----- ;- i --- -- -- ------------ -- - --- ----- --- - -— -- - ; -- — - i — - — — :::I I I. . . ---- — : - -- —.. - --- -- - - -- - - . _ _ _ 1 20 . ... . ..._. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _ .. ... . .. I I :: . 1 _ _. .. ... ....... i ... .. _ . .. ... ... i 1 ... _ __ . I .... . -30 ?- ------- ! --- --- -- ---- ----=-- w ------------- -- ---- --- --- ----- ---- --- -- ----- ----- ------ --- ------- -- .. . - - ---------- --- - -- -- -- --- --- 1 I I I .. —.- -- --- --- - -- -------- -30 ! ... ....... ...... .:: SCA4Es:.:1" 100, HOt�IZONTAL _... I . ...... ...- .. _. .. .. . -- .. _. I _ ' 20' VERtICAL:.. .... :: .:: 1 ...... ... :.:: :: 1'' ._ .....:I:... ... 1 : i I , .. ... .. ... -40 . —+ . L' I .. ; .. .--}—'— +-- — -+ - . - {-- --- --- -- --- +---------- i - — ----+- -----+ - ---a-------{------i------- -------- +-------+- ------ - ... - - --I:...:: I...:.....: :.:. :: ....... ....... .. -- - - — ,- --- — - - - -..... -40 ; i ::-: :::: :: : ...... ....... ....... .. ...... .... ...... ...... - : .:: :. : I':::: . + :: .::: + .:::: -+ ::: :::::. .::: -i::: - -- .. .:: ::::: : :. _ .:: ::::: :::::.. :::: .: ..-. .. .. ..:::: _ PRELIMINARY::.. i 1 . ... _... __. ;: .. ... _... _. _.. 1: ..... is_.. ...... .... _...'I'.-.. i:.. NOT F.ORiCO.N$TRUCTI0.N: FILE NAME 1:\008\drawtn s\sheets\8 042aO45d_dpOl-O2.d n . TIME 07:52:47 AM 5% DESIGN SUBMITTAL O1/23/03 REGION STATE FED.AID PROJ.NO. � DATE O1/15/2004 10 WASH DPOI DESIGNED BY E.LIOU JOB NUMBER VAPNORTH 8TH STREET HOV DIRECT ACCESS ENTERED BY A.DEGUZMAN Washington State SHEET CHECKED BY M.SALEEM CONTRACT No. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation I of PROJ. ENGR. R.BENITO REGIONAL ADM. D.DYE I BY P.E. STAMP BOX OarE P.E. STAMP BOX on re DRAINAGE PROFILE I SHEETS X-V 0mo o �m m m m z m D -- 00m -4 V1 1 = r- c- 0m . m m m N w a cn m z - mmz z O o O O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 rczimmo m i j I D � « m .. O j ... j :: .:I t� ;...MATCH41NE.SEE jSHEET.TF{IS SHEE ,, i .: I I ....... j 'F.L. 212.00 ! 0 0 - --- ---- -- - --- -------- L -- - ;. poo ire � i i I 1 ! .. OWVIC — v rvm I ! m i m CCV o o �- ------+ --- ------ G i - F + z D f i Z 3 7 I I ! D N O N j ;.. I i i .. = o : .... 'WATER: t z I. i to f -- - } A - 1 - � L y t o. a o t j t 1 .. I i - I I : o: I i ::. 1 i !.. IWA.TER, } m I I ' I I i I F.L. 22 36 MANHOLE TYPE 72IN IAM } r }: } - f ------ I ----- - --- E,_l:_z2 35 -r �44 A-16*I9-LSt-1z529�QT_J�T_I m i ! I I ! i ! i I RIM E�EV.: z o j I i Ln 1. A jANITARYSEWERi ---+ } -{ - - 4,7777 : i F :26. 0 MNHOLE T 72 N. DRAM NATER F L 27.30 i I :. I m I j S 405 STA!2386+82t82 (72 1 LT.) ,I j m -1 ' } :. R M ELEV t .. i ; ... ----- - } i f ------- ------ - a -t - t -- - ----- LIARYJSEWER-- a ; ! ! STORM DRAIN( °D o ! z i j m = :: i :: I :: i (INVERT UNKNOWN)j z `+� .1 i ... j B(�SF RR-.: a + ----� -- . i - n -- --- i } - - - - 1 SANITARY SEWER SANITARY(SEWER. + z - + } o --- ------I ---- ----- ---- + --- m ..' - -- - j I C f .... — — ± .I .. o 0 o t:. ! j .... i. j j 1'._ ANITARY SEWER- o D= o. i I �. I.. I .. BNSF: RR :: DN ____ ______ ______ ___ ___ h ______ ________-_ __ __ __L__ _______ ______} ______-__ _______ 1_______ _ ____ I ..___� F A m i ! I T j ---- ----- ----- -- - 41#Ff�2- - f: + w ' I I I i ! F L 123 26 : 1 MANH LE TYPE13 72IN DIAM I„ ; r j 1 --t- ---- ------ - ---- ----- -----F_l_.__ 2-5 2Q9__�LA-1 i � { p ! I i ..::: ' :::: } RIM OLEV:.:: 1 ... m j ... .. is i i is ! �. .. ! I - o --- .. .. .. .. x j F . 28.20 ... :MANHOLE tYPE 3 60IN. DIA� j 1. t I : o „ -n t F L. 28>20t is I.. 564:05:2343+89:631(48 77, ;LT) :: ! I :: z.-Ni :: mo i I�IM ELEV1 ..t o= t D ---- - ----� .. -'- h -------- --- -�---- h--- ---t ----, i --' �- --- A------ --- i- ---- �`� t--- ---- j 1 `I i ; i _ ! II I i fI PERT UNKNONNSTORMIDRAIN c --- ----- --- --.. ----- -- ----�-- ---j ----- ------ �-------- o-w-- --- —I --- ----- ---- --- -- --- 0 � I': I t O I i i. m i SIIANI,TARY ISENER -----a--- ------} _ - - -- -}- -- { --t-- --- - + ---- ---- +------ ------- - - - --- + { q 0:' j I : i n i o j j j v ---- -----i _____ ------ ------- ---'.-- -}--- ----1- '--j .... -- I I ! S Z t I I j I F L 4.16 MANHOLE TYPE! 3 72IN DIAM. - - ----- - ---- -- F,L�2t4_:_15- - -900 STA.15+61i.72 is fTl y I i I - (:RIM ELEV.. ! i m j ! i . r . t - ---- -- + ----- - { --�ANHOLE - -- -t ----- ----- ' ---- ----- - — — ---- - w = I j Z ..:.i F.1.I. 29.1Oj ffYPE 3 6 IN. DIA j.. ' L. iq . I frl i F L 29. 10 j B405 ST;4 2380+9 23 i13 53 LT i j RIM-ELEV i ; mt --- t E - ------- ------ ------ L - -- ------ ------ --- oo I, z ,,, x i 1 i I --T. I m i ;o ! ! I I + - + n -t -- --- -------{ ------ + ------ -- i - + - -- t - + + — — � \ j ----- -- l A y - t E ` + - - ---- •--- - ---- --- - �_5AN IIAR�L SEWER + 1 3 s r { i .. j ... .. SAN:I:TARY iSEWER:. O . F 29.73. MAN OLE TYP 3 60lN DIAM. I: O�� j I F 29.73 SB:4 5 STA 2 TS+90.5 (102 6 LT) F.L. 5.06 (MANHOLE TYPE 3 72IN iDIAM 3 - - - --- -- —}---- &.IM 11 --I --------L------ --F.L 5_._Ofii' 2Q4_ TA-L +9 y C i I i :: :RIM: FtLEV.'.:33 p }- STA�R7CTRt - F---02�N- -- - -- - - } F + { : 7 is is j (INVERT UNKNOWN) ! I I m Z ---- --j ----- -- ---- ---_- -------- .. . O ! I ---1 ----------- ---------t---------- Z --- ... ------------- - ---- .---tt11-------- - ----_ '----- --- 1ii j I : 0 t OD 0 j w \ i 5T01tM DRAIN r s o- -----------� -- - 0 ----- ------------- (INVERT_i-UNKNOWN) _-! ------ ; --- _I--.. - — .- - -- ----- 1t j Z m -- --- ---a ----- G--------- f -- ---- --- --a- ----{ ----- ------ --— ---- -- —�- ---- :--= i cDi I I I ' j m = !, D I i i i i < Z' I. ---- ---- _----- h ..-- ----- ----- --- - -'- �: i. i F L 25.90 I: OLE TYbE 3 ?2I�1 DIAM: �...I F. 30.b31.. .. I: I MANHOLE TY E 3 60I DIAM.i ;,, SMBA05 m �p �: m, t: i F.E. 31.13 j m n ° - .47 L ... j SB,OS STA: 375+94. 1 (98 7 . CT) �(1 STA �3 89+g i 98 0No ;1 W rRfl4f :. i I .m.*:I .i::.:: i.::..o\.:: .,. .I:.. 4^ x!. :::. .t .. ::: ... ....... / m -�N ! j MATCH INE SEE SHEET D 03 "I F D.o I I-.... I.. p. ---- I I i MATCH�INE' SEE THIS SHrET:: CA ! r-zi .j. .. .::rl r O O o 0 o O o O p .N LAa cn ^ N O 0 0 0 0 . I I. I ::: ;. ;: I I 1 .: I': I :: .:::: i:::..:- _ ' I ' 1.::: ! I ::::.I :- — I I - ::::: .'I ::: i . —. i :::: I is 1....., .I: ... :; .... .. ' : :1:, _.: :I I . I I :: r .i. 1 I: I:::::: : ' :::: : I:.. ! :�:::: i::: i:.. . ' .:::: i I' _ .' I'. 1 I ::::: i ::: 1 ::::::: i....... i :::: I::.:' - -- - --- - -- : -- - --- -- - - . 90 --— --— -- ---_ — —-. ---- -- --- —---- _ - - -- ----- ------ --- 0 ,- --------- ------ ----- ---:- : :- :: — ' I :: ' r �:.. : : FINISH 11 . i. I i I I 9 .... I.. ... J I: a :1::: GRADE::. ! I' ; i :::: -: I: ::::�I ::.:: :::: :::.. :.:: ::.::. :::::::'I :::::.: i :: -!: ....... �I.. . _i .I . .. ....... ... .. ..::::: I ...::I::::: .i. :: -.:::: -:.--:: I: .......I: _ i:..._ o; ..,. .1...... .:1: _.:I:... � :. . I . J I 1 I : : :I :: i I ....: 80 ---------} ----------4-------------�------------+------------+------.n--4 ---------{--------- +-- a -- — + 1 ---+ — � —- — � — — -- . . ; . 1 .. .,. .. ;. x� I .. . . .. . .. . I o f - . .. -a + - ----t I + a - 17- -------- ------------ Bo I t. t t i N :z� 1 1 1 .; ! 1 a t _ I �� �w1 � . ... .. ' - ILo i .. i I:.. is c . is a o a w I I. a I :': . I 1'::: ! I:.. I:....... zON i --� i- 70 — t — ' + -- — — — �--- -- ----------- -a--- ----- ----I '-- — — —------ --a'=---- -- — .. . :I:....... .. ..... vu,: i.. i. zQ} — - - - -- - -- -- — -- 70 1 } i t y o I ., I' 1 . — . Ln0) 1 1 0< I _M t1 ... ' ::::: :::: .i:. +- .:::: I .. :z m _..... r-M- 1 . tn m 1 - I:. ' z- 1:. .1:..... . ... I ....... ...... ::.:::: ... : :: :::.:I: ::: .......:I........ ....... ....... ....I:: M N- .-- , -...... 1 .... - .... :: : c - ::: - to., 1 .I +-I - - d iD __ .... ....... I.....-. ...-. ... ..:1:.......:1:....-.. ....... ....... ..... - w In !:....... -.... - .... II a 1 -. I - .. m; .- +.: ... ... -... ....... I ......- ..... ... -::.. 1 1 I 1 cli .. + .. 60 — — --- — — r — — -- — — — — — — m�— — — — — --bPO — — —— — --- -- — — 1. r >1 . .... . . wM I 1. 1 -> a—I I w� . . .1 .... . 1 i ....... ..... o: I. wviwl: . . EXISTING. i as ... I I I ry: .I aN I . ::: ...'I ....... o ..—... . . J ..J;. ' : - ' ::.. i. w 0 w. r I ....- ... ...., .... .-..'I .. i:.. .. . i...0mw1 Gf�OUND -. i. �-a I : I. .. -j L.J., M-. a: i:....... .. 1 . . xo: >' .:::: I' . M->1 ... i ... .. - ...- ...... �I z1wX1 __ .... i w�nw; =ow wu+wl I . . 50 - --~ — --- + - 4-_- --+— --+ m — --- + -- -+---- —i -- —+ —-- } --' --++------------+- -- 1. —' — — — -- I . ...- .w . .... 1 x n a 1.. .... ;.. o Mn w; ...... r _ _-t1 iA a{- ... + f- + -a------------}--------------+----------- 0 : :: w .. xo. : L : I <m xo . .....-.� ... �.� I ..::: 5 T .. -- :i: . . . zQXi s"'�: =Q.I 1 ... ...... .. !..- ... :(n ...... ... I -+—: _! is .. . i:..a m., I �. —a, -I . .... i' ..... ... _1..:1.. 1:. . .... _ .. --.—;.- .. . I I .. . x V) i /. .. � . I x 0 It: ——_ ..... w .. .. �/: :. _ — .. ... I:... ... ....... ... I _ ... i _ _:i:. .. .. .. ..w ...— I:— ,r: 1/:.... .. i-- - I ....... i ... ...N ------y- I.....- :1: ...:1: .. - 1 .. ... .I.• ..... . I�..... .... . I:... I ... .. .. .... ------------- -'---- -- --- ; ---- -------- ------- - - .... - .. .. 40 - I I- -la -- - ---t - - -- - - - --- - --- -- — ---�----'-- --- ------- -- — -- - — - -— - D ..::.:W ....... -. ......- .....:I... ..... . ....... .....-..I- .I.... ..-.j'. %. - :. ! ...--- .:.: :: :--- - -.-I.. --- .-----__ ----- - - .... 1 .----- 4 z 0.30I:..-- i 0 :30%., 0y30 _..:1:.. _:i .... .::::. !::::. i Q:30% i ... i I. .:::::J: ...... ....... ....... ..... ...... ::.:: :::: :. :: :::: :. .: ...... ...... -. - ....-.. ...... ..... .... — I' ::::... :.. -.::: :::::.x. .. .... .... .... ., ...- ... I. .:::: ::::: :I:::: .::: :::::: ::::: : ... - .. ..:1:..-.... .... -c.7 ....... ....... .... ..... ..... .::::: ::::. ... ....... ...... .... .. .- ... ...... .. I'..... ..... -...... ..... ....... ...... ..... .:: ::: -:... 30 a — — — ------ -- ---- ----- -- -- -------- - -- — --— —-- — -- s ;-—_.:, -.:::: 1.:::: : :1::::. .: :.::: -- -- -- — ------ --------- -- --' 30 I' ..... MH:: MH I:::: .... .. .... Mk: 12 1 3 . 14- 1. .. .. - _. -: ' _ ..:::: ...... .... ::1.1: : 0 0 ...... ::..... ..... ....:1:.. : O1 0) ...... .... ... - N i .. .. :Q P. -... ... - .... -. .. .....- ....:- ..: .-: :: :: ... 20 ----- -------------t------; ---------+--- —I - �--+— ---+-- — }— --—+— --—}---+ ti + --- + +— - + - + --- ..---- -- -- --:----- — ----- - .. ..... .—_ i _.... 1..... ;.... ..1..:M M: ::::: :::: ::::.:. ::.:::: :'M M ....... ....... ..... ...... ....... . M M --� ..-+�....--—_'I__ V_-......-�' ..__—-----__ _+__—_--- +_----__ ——__ _—_ } ---___+ ---_—__ 0 .... .... .... I.... ... .. .. ....... "M M 1 :1: . .. ..- ... 2 ....... ...... ... .. ...... — ..... -.-. .. ....... ::::.: :: ::: .......:I : :::::. :::— :::: : :: : : ::::: .:::: ::::::: .. ::: .. .... ....... ...:::: ::::: :::::: I - ::: - ::: ... ... .. ..... -...... ... ... ..-.. .... ..... ..... .... - .. ...... ....... ....-.. ...... ... : : :...... ....... ....... ...... -:.- ..li lam. . .:::::: - .:: ::- .:Mi -. .. ::.:LL U-: .. Mi LL:. . . .. :1-1-.. ....... .... - -. ....... ......- ..——. -.. :. .:: ::::::: . .. :300':.. . ...... :300'. 210'. ..- :::140'.. _ -- 1. .. .... .: ... 10 1 36 I N: 1D I AM. R0P... .. -..- --------- ---------- -, — -- -- ---— —-- —— --- —- 10 :::: 36:I .:D I:AM.I RCP . : 36: N.:D.LAM.::RCP. 136 I N:: I AM.:RC l ? ::::::: I :::: . -. ...-.I.1..... .. ._. ....... ... .. .... .: .: i ::: - .. : ::1 i ... ... 1 ... .... Ir. ::: .... .. i:... ::- - :: 1 ,. 1 I 1 . ..-.- ... . 1: 1 1 ... - -- ' 1 1 ' ::::1: ::: .. :: ..- .:.: i:: _ ....... . ... : : :: ::I:: I: _.:i .. ;..... .. ... :::: :::i::::::: i I i 1 1 i 1 .. --1.�---------+ ------T - — -+—- +— --! -----I - -- — ... ----- ---- ---. ------ --- --- - - -- - a —+ +— —+— a - ! —+ +---+ — I - —. 1 — ... .: I:: .... .: . .. .i ..— .. ... . u. .:: :: ..: i .-. ... ' ..:.... .. ....... .. .... .- .. ... . 1 - . .. .. ...... .--. .... ....... --- ---------, ----- . --- ---- ------ -is------ ;----- ------ -- ------ -------- ------ ------ —:------ ------- ------ ---- ---- -------- - --- --. - -- ...- . I ......- .. . ..... I.._. . -- - — --- - -- ------ --- --- -- -- --- -------- -- i 1 1 -. :.:::: - I:. :: : 1::::: ' ... 1 ::::.: t :: i ...... ...::: _: :: :: .: .: i :: ..... .. : : .:- :: : 1':. ::::: ! .. .. I:. - ....... ... i:. ::. 1 - - ' ----- ---- ' ------I-- — --t--- '- ------ — ---------- .. .. --------- - ---- --- -------- .::... ;. .. ---- - — -r-. .--... --- - ---- - - ---. --. ------ ---- -- ---- ---_ - -- --- --- 1 I I. — T .. ..::: .:: ..:: ! ::: ... .. .. .. ... ... ... I :I: — I I I: I: i.... :: ;:.::::: ---------+-------- + ------ - ---+------— --------a-------- - ------ -------- ---------- ---- ------— ------ --- ---- ---- ------ - + + +— F— a t +-- -- — -+ —— —} -- T — -+-- - — —+ ----+-------+--- -- +—— — -+- - - -t---- _ . ... ... 1. ..-- .... ..... .. . i :::: :::. . .:: i. :::: 1 --- — —�---- ----- ---------t----- i---- --,----— --- - - - -- -- - ' ... i y' ----- --- --- - -.. - .. ... I : ...: .. ... .. .. .....- ... ... ::: ' .. ..... . . . . i .. .... .:: .::::: . _. .... .. . ... . .. I:. ....... I:.. _. .. i ..... ... ... i ----. 1 — ---•------- - - ----- -— -— -- _. ... �. is i is i is 1 ; I. SCAliEn 1 -I100 HORIZONTAL . . :: .: 1 2 .... ..... ' __...:i. 0 ERTICAL:.. ... . . . I .... . ... . .... I__ ... ..-. _.... _.. 1 ..... :::: ------------- -- ---' — -- - - --— — .:: t T t. + + --- ----7-----a -------- -+----- ---+---- - -------t----------1---------+-- -- 1 --- -----{------- -+----------+- -- a -- —+ +-- -+-- --+ ------- ------ --------- ---- -- -- .. ..... ...... .. ... + -t . ::: ::: .: .: .... _ :1:-. . .::::I . . -- _ .... PREEIMINARY: _ SB40t5 N8 bRAI:NGE: L :NE ' . F ... ... !NOT FOR ICON R . ST UCTI0N FILE NAME . i:\O08\drawlng 042a045d_(J O3_O2.d n TIME 07:52:52 AM 5% DESIGN SUBMITTAL 01/23/03 REN1014 STATE FED.AID PROJ.NO. DATE 01/15/2004 10 WASH Adolk DP03 DESIGNED BY E.LIOU JOB NUMBER NORTH 8TH STREET HOV DIRECT ACCESS ENTERED BY A.DEGUZMAN r Washington State SHEET CHECKED BY M.SALEEM CONTRACT NO. LOCATION N0. Department of Transportation OF PROJ. ENGR. R.BENIToI I DRAINAGE PROFILE SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. D.DYE REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX ogre P.E. STAMP BOX DATE From: "Wright, Sharon" <Sharon.Wright@hdrinc.com> To: <P.Marczin@co.snohomish.wa.us>, <SteinMi@wsdot.wa.gov>, <lan@Snoqualmienation.com>, <Nancy_BrennanDubbs@r1.fws.gov>, <nafzali@ci.renton.wa.us>, <pbeaulieu@psrc.org>, <kbecklund@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, <buchakdb@dfw.wa.gov>, <cabreza.joan@epa.gov>, <jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <tswa461@ecy.wa.gov>, <michael.grady@noaa.gov>, <james.leonard@fhwa.dot.gov>, <eddie.low@ci.bothell.wa.us>, <patrickl@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, <ann.martin@metrokc.gov>, <bsokol@ci.kenmore.wa.us>, <kathryn.j.stenberg@nws02.usace.army.mil>, <cthompson@ci.lynnwood.wa.us>, <fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, <dwickstrom@ci.kent.wa.us>, <john.witmer@fta.dot.gov>, <jean.white@metrokc.gov>, <kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, <jane.lamensdorf-bucher@metrokc.gov>, <mmactutis@ci.kent.wa.us>, <Idri461@ecy.wa.gov>, <clint.lope r@metrokc.gov>, <kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Barb Wood" <Barb.Wood@noaa.gov>, <Karen.waiter@muckleshoot.nsn.us>, <Donna.Hogerhuis@muckleshoot.nsn.us>, <HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov>, <J en n ifer.Bowman @fta.dot.gov>, <tmarpert@redmond.gov>, <JGaus@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, <Rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, <Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 2/4/04 5:44PM Subject: 1-405 EEI (Early Environmental Investments) Update Hello EEI Task Force, Just a quick note to let you know the status of EEI and what is coming up. We received comments and/or project ideas from Renton, Kirkland, Bellevue, Issaquah, Bothell, as well as WSDOT's preliminary watershed characterization data for Renton. If I have left anyone out that sent something in, please let me know because I do not show it in our current information. Thank you to everyone for all of the hard work and effort on those submittals. We are currently compiling the updates and you should expect to hear from an EEI team member for follow up information and site visit coordination. After we gather as much information as possible in the time we have(until about the end of February), we will evaluate and score the projects based on what we've learned. According to our schedule, we will send the results and recommendations to you mid-March. We plan to follow up with another EEI Task Force meeting the last week of March to present those results. While this is an aggressive schedule, we plan to stick to it so that our design work may include some Spring monitoring and research. Your involvement and availability for field visits, meetings, and/or telephone calls is an important part the successful outcome of our EEI program. Thank you. Sharon Wright For additional information, you may also contact Christina Martinez. 206.713.0247 or 425.456.8526 Sharon L. Wright, AICP 1-405 Corridor Environmental Team Main: 425.453.1523 Direct: 425.450.6264 Fax: 425.453.7107 CC: <martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov>, <ben itor@wsdot.wa.gov>, <mcgowan@seanet.com>, "Murray, Edward" <Ed.Murray@hdrinc.com>, <trussler@wsdot.wa.gov>, <dmasters@hntb.com>, <cierid@wsdot.wa.gov> Ikeith VR olley - 1-405 Projects Design-Build Workshop Page 1 From: "Martinez, Christina" <MartinezC@wsdot.wa.gov> To: "Ann Martin (E-mail)" <ann.martin@metrokc.gov>, "Nick Afzali (E-mail)" <nafzali@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Fritz Timm (E-mail)" <fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, "Eddie Lowe (E-mail)" <eddie.lowe@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Bernard Van de Kamp (E-mail)" <bvandekamp@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Jim Arndt (E-mail)" <jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "Jim Morrow (E-mail)" <jmorrow@ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 11/20/03 11:OOAM Subject: 1-405 Projects Design-Build Workshop What: 1-405 Projects Design-Build Workshop When: January 8th Where: WSDOT's Kent Maintenance Facility Who: (please tell us) Hi, folks. We are trying to put together an invite list for an 1-405 Projects Design-Build workshop targetted at resource agency and local jurrisdiction staff who will be responsible for permitting the 1-405 projects. Can you provide Phoebe Ingraham with the permitting point of contact for your agency? Also, please let Phoebe know whether or not you need to be on the invite list. THANKS!!! Phoebe's email address is pingraham@anchorenv.com. King County permitting staff(TBD) and Ann Martin Tukwila permitting staff(TBD) and Jim Morrow Renton permitting staff(TBD) and Nick Afzali Bellevue permitting staff(TBD) and Bernard Van de Kamp Newcastle permitting staff(TBD) and Fritz Timm Kirkland permitting staff(TBD) and Jim Arndt Bothell permitting staff(TBD) and Eddie Low Christina Martinez 1-405 Environmental Lead Washington State Dept. of Transportation office: (206)464-1225 cell: (206) 713-0247 CC: "Phoebe Ingraham (E-mail)" <pingraham@anchorenv.com>, "Healy, Linda" <HealyL@wsdot.wa.gov>, "Smith, Rick (Director IPD)" <SmithRick@wsdot.wa.gov> Design Build and the Environmental Process _ _ ___-- __ - .._ _._---- _-----_-__ January 8, 2004 WSDOT Kent Maintenance 26620 68th Ave South 8:00 am to Noon Kent, WA 98032 (253)372-5681 �r Meeting Agenda Christina Martinez, Facilitator Objectives 1. Develop a shared understanding of what Design-Build is and how it works. 2. Gather information, concerns and questions related to design-build. 3. Outline next steps for learning about how Design-Build will be used on I- 405 and how it may affect the environmental approach. This is the first of two proposed Design-Build workshops between the WSDOT and Environmental agencies. This workshop is to introduce the attendees to a way of highway construction that is fairly new to Washington State At the next workshop, the attendees will come back together to work on developing new and better ways that we can do business together utilizing Design-Build. Time Topic Lead _.. ........._ ......... ..... _. _...__._ ......... 8:00 am Welcome and Introductions Christina Martinez 8:15 Innovative Project Delivery at WSDOT— What, Why, Rick Smith How? ........ ........ _ _ .. 8:25 I-405 Program Craig Stone 9:00 What is Design Build? Jeff Carpenter 10:00 Break 10:15 Developing a Design-Build Project Jeff Carpenter 11:00 Questions and Comments Group 11:45 What's Next Christina Martinez ............_...... __ _...... . .- _. .. .............. _ ........................ ........................... .._ _ ........ .......... 12 Noon Adjourn f R From: "Wright, Sharon" <Sharon.Wright@hdrinc.com> To: "Christian Munter" <Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 1/8/04 9:47AM Subject: RE: FW: 1-405 EEI Deadline Fast Approaching Chris, I am attaching a zip file with electronic updates: 5 items: (1 and 2) Updated project lists by basin in an Excel Workbook accompanied by a written Word document update, (3)Resource/Reference list, (4) Project Information Worksheet, (5) Updated Study Area Map. That area did have a relatively large number of project ideas published. We will appreciate any comments or preferences you have on those. Also, if you want to send me the"coinciding" projects, even if they are just in name right now, I can make sure they get passed along to the right folks for a heads up in design, etc. Call me if you think of anything else. Thanks. Sharon -----Original Message----- From: Christian Munter[mailto:Cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:39 AM To: Wright, Sharon Subject: Re: FW: 1-405 EEI Deadline Fast Approaching Sharon, Hi, hoped you weathered Arctic Blast 2004. Nick hasn't been forwarding me any emails so anything you could send would be appreciated. Renton's Surface Water Dept. has discussed possible EEI projects and we can't really come up with anything else besides what you had from the action plans for May Creek and the Lower Cedar River. We have some ideas for projects but they would have to be done in coordination with the actual widening project and don't really fall into the EEI category. Thanks. Chris Christian D. Munter, P.E. Surface Water Utility City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way-5th Floor. Renton WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7205 Fax: 425-430-7241 cmunter@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Wright, Sharon" <Sharon.Wright@hdrinc.com> 01/07/04 06:33PM >>> Hi Chris, I am not sure if Nick Afzali has been forwarding the messages I've sent since the task force meeting. If not, please let me know, and I will send the electronic updates for you to use. The updates include an Excel Workbook with the projects by basin that we reorganized based on comments at the meeting, and a reference list--also requested at the meeting. Thank you. Sharon Wright > -----Original Message----- * From: Wright, Sharon > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:28 PM > To: 'P.Marczin@co.snohomish.wa.us'; 'Stein Mi@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'Ian@Snoqualmienation.com'; 'Nancy_BrennanDubbs@r1.fws.gov'; 'bshelton@ci.tukwila.wa.us'; 'nafzali@ci.renton.wa.us'; 'pbeaulieu@psrc.org'; 'kbecklund@ci.bellevue.wa.us'; 'buchakdb@dfw.wa.gov'; 'cabreza.joan@epa.gov'; 'dcairns@ci.redmond.wa.us'; 'jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us'; 'tswa461 @ecy.wa.gov'; 'michael.grady@noaa.gov'; 'james.leonard @fhwa.dot.gov'; 'eddie.low@ci.bothell.wa.us'; 'patrickl@ci.woodinville.wa.us'; 'ann.martin@metrokc.gov'; 'bsokol@ci.kenmore.wa.us'; 'kathryn.j.stenberg@nws02.usace.army.mil'; 'cthompson@ci.lynnwood.wa.us'; 'fritzt@ci.newcastle.wa.us'; 'dwickstrom@ci.kent.wa.us'; 'john.witmer@fta.dot.gov'; 'jean.white@metrokc.gov'; 'kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us'; 'jane.lamensdorf-bucher@metrokc.gov'; 'mmactutis@ci.kent.wa.us'; 'Idri461 @ecy.wa.gov'; 'clint.loper@metrokc.gov'; 'ehagen@ci.auburn.wa.us'; 'kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us'; 'Barb Wood'; 'jarndt@ci.kirkland.wa.us'; 'Karen.walter@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; 'Donna.Hogerhuis@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; 'HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'Jennifer.Bowman@fta.dot.gov'; 'TMARPERT@REDMOND.GOV' > Cc: 'martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov' > Subject: 1-405 EEI Deadline Fast Approaching > Happy New Year EEI Task Force, > Just a short note to remind you that comments, edits/updates, and additions to the EEI preliminary projects information are due this coming Tuesday, January 13th, by close of business. > The 1-405 Environmental Team is here to assist you. Please let us know what clarifications or additional assistance you need that will help us reach our January 13th goal. We look forward to working with you in the coming months. Thank you. Sharon Wright > Sharon L. Wright, AICP > 1-405 Corridor Environmental Team > Main: 425.453.1523 > Direct: 425.450.6264 > Fax: 425.453.7107 > Contact Info for Christina Martinez, 1-405 Environmental Lead > 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 > Bellevue WA 98004 > office phone: (425)456-8526 >fax": (425) 453-9179 > cell phone: (206) 713-0247 > e-mail: martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway. jz if h ' I s North Creek 9 I < Little'Bear Creek 1�\ ✓ \ ax H.W. y 1 Swamp Creeell ks , 1: / c�sr%Laid 'V t ;t52 "Kirkland y f� €Northem Llmlt(SR 522) �l��€ East Lake;Washington 1 i a t Sammamish River t Juanita R 89 1 reek".0 1 �� a i I ti, �Blg Bear Creek S. Forbes Creeks, S, t IfY Evans ! SO Witeav , c Creek,,,.� Bellevue � �WestLake �> � ast Lake,Washin toh r 1 + t ( .. s Northem Limit(SR 520) 9,Kelsey Sammamish kr n a hrnl ur t Creek Lake Sammali A:ha akE ` �� Mercer Slough � t East,LatkSammm „r\C\oaI Creek\ �. North Renton 4 '� 1�3ti Northern Llmlt(l 90)� May Creek \ t .. �%} it Updated EEI Study Area r� '\`vt _ 12 042003 a EEI Study Area Lexr 518 �� i \ .t,\ 16v; n i �`1 1__1 Basin Boundary `. South Renton 1� '; Draft ESA Action Area Northern Llmlt(SR169) ��� L(CedariRlVer a Lake e � yit P.;• �_'-__.-` )'\!f` `, ��"` '���- ; lax�.l .I;r� River'oc Stream - -- ck Rrver ` f �` x - Freeway Y Bla 'h 1}L xE(M IdC"kl ,,t ,, `,,.) 1{ I67 'v n$r`�1 ke•• \ Basin Name 106 a y ry f t Ink t , N s- dur Lakr 31 SoosCreek 0. 1 2' 3 .pMdes oo< ,1 LaRr.11wdean, ! The information included on this map has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.WSDOTmakes no representations or warranties, Early Environmental Investments express or implied,as to accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such information.WSDOT shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect, 1-405 GEC I Early Environmental Investments incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of WSDOT. Updates to 1-405 EEI Preliminary Information Workbooks 12/12/03 EEI Task Force Members: The list below is the reorganization of the basins that were included in the Preliminary EEI Information document/workbook. This list can be used with the updated electronic workbook of basins discussed below. The 12/9/03 CD distributed at the EEI Task Force Meeting included 3 MS Excel workbooks broken out by road reach name (Kirkland, Bellevue, N. Renton). Each of the three MS Excel workbooks on the CD has tabs with basin names. Basins where no project information was available to date were accidentally excluded. The EEI team has combined those 3 MS Excel workbooks into one MS Excel electronic workbook with tabs for every basin in the study area (including the ones that do not yet have projects). The purpose of the list below is to clarify where the basins are in relation to the road improvement areas. Some basins may be listed twice because there is potential to affect them in more than one road project area or the basin simply crosses through two project areas. Please contact Sharon Wright for additional details, comments, and questions. 425.450.6264/sharon.wright@hdrinc.com Basins potentially affected by the N. Renton transportation improvements: ■ Coal Creek ■ May Creek ■ Lower Cedar River ■ Mercer Slough ■ E. Lake Washington Basins potentially affected by the Bellevue transportation improvements: ■ Kelsey Creek ■ Mercer Slough ■ E. Lake Washington Basins potentially affected by the Kirkland transportation improvements: ■ Kelsey Creek ■ Bear Creek ■ E. Lake Washington ■ Issaquah Creek ■ Sammamish River ■ W. Lake Sammamish ■ Little Bear Creek ■ E. Lake Sammamish ■ Evans Creek ■ Forbes Creek ■ Juanita Creek Basins potentially affected by the future Bothell transportation improvements: ■ North Creek ■ Swamp Creek For questions about this document, please contact Sharon Wright at 425.450.6264 12/16/03 The table of references below was developed for the Early Environmental Investments(EEI)Task Force participants to use in their review and update of the Preliminary EEI Information workbook distributed in November 2003. The table lists the sources used to compile potential environmental projects for the I- 405 EEI program. For additional information, contact Sharon Wright at 425.450.6264. Source List from Preliminary I-405 EEI Literature Review Basin Source Link or Availability Bear Creek Bear Creek Basin Hard copy on file, acquired from King County. Plan (July 1990) Coal Creek Basin Plan and Final Coal Creek Environmental Hard copy on file, acquired from King County. Impact Statement (1987) East Lake East Lake Sammamish Sammamish Basin and Hard copy on file, acquired from King County. Nonpoint Action Plan (1994) Summary: WRIA#8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.,izov/programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.p East Lake Term Action df Washington Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-term-action:qgenda.htm Issaquah Creek Basin and Hard copy on file, acquired from King County. Nonpoint Action Issaquah Plan (Dec 1996) Creek Summary: WRIA#8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.p Term Action df Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-term-action-agenda.htM P:\00522\005108\05.0_ProjectData\I-405 Corridor\EEI_References.doc - I - 12/16/03 Basin Source Link or Availability Summary: WRIA#8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.p Kelsey Creek Term Action df Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-term-action- qgenda.htm Little Bear Creek Index to full report: Little Bear Drainage Needs http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/swm/publications/2 Creek Report (Dec 002-12LittleBearDNR/+Index.htm 2002) Summary: Lower Cedar http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/BASINS/cedgMIn.htm River Basin Plan Lower Cedar River Summary: WRIA#8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.gov/.programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.p Term Action df Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-term-action-agenda.htM Final Document: May Creek Basin ftp://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnr/library/1998/kcr726/FINAL-May- Plan Creek-Basin-Plan-4-16-01.pdf May Creek Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/watersheds/cedrLKWA/MayPlan.ht m North Creek Index to full report: North Creek Drainage Needs http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/publicwk/sy m/publications/2 Report (Dec 002-12NorthCrDNR/+Index.htm 2002) Sammamish Full document: River Corridor http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ERS/reposit/Sammamish Riv Action Plan(Sept er Corridor Action Plan.pdf Sammamish 2002) — — River Summary: WRIA#8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wria summaries/wria8.p Term Action df Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-term-action:qgLrLda.htm P:\00522\005108\05.0_ProjectData\I-405 Corridor\EEI_References.doc -2- 12/16/03 Basin Source Link or Availability Swamp Creek Urban Growth Index to full report: Area Drainage http://w-ww.co.snohomish.wa.us/l)ublicwk/swm/publications/2 Needs Report 002-12SwampDNR/+Index.htm (Dec 2002) Swamp Creek Swamp Creek Action Plan (Feb Hard copy on file, acquired from King County. 1997) Summary: WRIA #8 Near http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wria summaries/w-ri48.p Term Action df Agenda Downloads: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wrias/8/near-tenn-action-agenda.htM P:\00522\005108\05.0_ProjectData\I-405 Corridor\EEI_References.doc -3- PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET Purpose: The EEI team has developed this worksheet for your use in submitting project ideas as well as for updating any project information on the preliminary lists. Please fill in as much information as possible for a better evaluation. Any maps or schematics would also be exceptionally helpful. Name of Proposed Project: General Project Description: Distance from 1-405 (miles): Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Location: Basin/Sub-basin: Environmental Investment Type (restoration, creation, enhancement, preservation, etc): Potential Project Size (acres, sq.ft.): Surrounding Land Uses: Existing Site Condition (Ecological Quality): Name of Property Owner(s): Ease of Acquisition (what, if any, challenges may be anticipated): Zoning: Is the Site Threatened by Development (yes/no)? PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET (CONTINUED) Rough Costs (including: design, acquisition, construction, and monitoring): Threatened and Endangered Species Link (yes/no): Anticipated Permits: Level of Support : Additional Comments and Information: Contact for Project Information: — — -----/`C Gw�_�-L.�..--- - -�v►-u.rr�►-,.wi...Q?.�_�Gr-�(�c�� Ct,rx��h� rhw�h e�_ �_ - ---------- i --------- ----- - Ott a�.-�., ---- ----- — - ---- N -- �, ,_ �_ _.. _ ____ __ _ __ �_________________ _ ______ _ ___ _ ___ _I - -- -- ------�-.- ---- -- - - --- -- - - -- ---- - 1- ---- - � -- -- -------- wp--;l- �I--- - --yYj-aJ�-c�J U I i .� - -!!� - -- I --�,- ---- ---T- - - ------ - - -l�-- ----- --- -- ----- s--- - -- ---�-1 From: Ronald Straka To: Christian Munter Date: 9/15/03 7:51 AM Subject: Fwd: WSDOT Watershed Characterization Status Report 9/12/03 FYI >>> "Hilliard, Tim" <HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov> 09/12/03 03:46PM >>> WSDOT Technical Team for Watershed Characterization Methods"Beta Test" on North Renton Stretch of 1-405 Status report for September 12, 2003: Here are some more brief updates for this week-call if you want to know more or have data to share! As always, if there is anyone you think should be added to this list, have them contact me to be added. Also, feel free to pass this message on as you see fit. GIS development focused on data clean up and adjustments. We are on target to move the focus of GIS work into the watershed characterization next week. The stormwater team has been running impact modeling including MGS flood modeling and pollutant loading. Preliminary MGS flood modeling should be available on request next week. The fish habitat conditions report has been edited is available in draft form on request. The site-specific wetlands field work report was completed and is available in draft form on request. The riparian area analysis has continued. Photo interpretation is complete and some"ground truthing"was done this week as well. A new layer for stream crossing was nearly complete at week's end. We are still not as well-supplied with levee coverages in the Lower Cedar River area as we would like. We still are on target to begin the watershed characterization - synthesis from all the parts now being developed - in mid-September. Contacts: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm> Richard A. Gersib, Watershed Program Manager("big picture") Environmental Services Office, Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7477 Email: gersibd(cD_wsdot.wa.gov Tim Hilliard, Watershed Specialist(local coordination, local priorities) Environmental Services Office, Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7488 U.S.Department of Transportation "'" Washington State Federal Highway Administration �j DepartmentotTransportation Federal Transit Administration AGENCY COORDINATION MEETING I-405 North Renton Project Environmental Assessment Location: Silver Cloud Inn, 1850 Maple Valley Highway,Renton 98055 Date: Wednesday, September 17,2003, 10:30 to 2:00(Lunch will be provided.) RSVP: As lunch will be provided, please RSVP by September 121h. If you plan on attending, please contact Ray Misomali by email at rmisomali(csprrbiz.com or by phone at(206)623-0232 x262. You are invited to attend an agency scooping meeting for the 1-405 North Renton Project Environmental Assessment. We request that you coordinate with the transportation,public works, natural resources, historic or cultural resources, fire,police, aviation and other relevant departments within your agency as applicable,to determine the appropriate participation from your agency at this meting. Purpose of Meeting: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),the Federal Transit Administration, and the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)are proposing improvements to the Interstate 405 in the vicinity between SR 169 and I-90. These agencies plan to prepare an Environmental Assessment(EA)for the project, and are holding an agency coordination meeting to solicit agency input on concerns and issues to be addressed in the EA. WSDOT is seeking information from various Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Tribes and affected jurisdictions concerning potential effects of the project. The FHWA and FTA will review this information as part of its independent environmental review and analysis of the project and will prepare an appropriate environmental response(Findings of No Significant Impact F( ONSI�or Notice of Intent(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement)based upon information received from WSDOT,the resource agencies, and other sources. Background The I-405 Corridor Program Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)provided a corridor-wide environmental review and Record of Decision(ROD)for improvements to I-405 between I-5 in Tukwila and I-5 in Lynnwood. The ROD was issued in October 2002. The Selected Alternative identified in the ROD provides for widening 1-405 by up to two lanes in each direction throughout its 30-mile length. The freeway design includes a buffer separating the general- purpose lanes and the HOV lane, and it provides for implementation of a bus rapid transit system operating in the improved HOV lanes. The proposed action would provide an efficient, integrated, and multi-modal system of transportation solutions to improve the movement of people and goods, reduce foreseeable traffic congestion, and enhance mobility in the project area, which extends from the I-405/SR169 interchange on the south to the I-405/I-90 interchange on the north. The I-405 Corridor Program EIS and ROD provided that project improvements contained within the Selected Alternative would be re-examined individually or in combination for phased implementation. The North Renton project is one of several projects being advanced as part of a phased implementation of the Selected Alternative. In keeping with the direction established in the EIS and ROD,the North Renton Project is proposed for evaluation within a NEPA EA that Page 1 of 7 focuses on the project-level effects of the proposed improvements. The description and analysis of the project will be based on a"footprint-complete" level of design. The North Renton Environmental Assessment will address the potential effects to the Natural and Built Environments within the study area, which generally encompasses the lands extending approximately one to three miles on either side of I-405 within the project limits. The following is a list of permits or approvals that may be required: • Section 404, Clean Water Act, Permit—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Section 7, Endangered Species Act, consultation(northern bald eagle, Chinook salmon, bull trout)—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;NOAA Fisheries • Wildlife Attraction notification and coordination(wetland/detention pond within 5,000 feet of runway)—Renton Airport and Federal Aviation Administration • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit(construction disturbing more than 5 acres)—Washington State Department of Ecology • Section 401, Clean Water Act, Water Quality Certification (runoff)—Washington State Department of Ecology • Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination—Washington State Department of Ecology • Hydraulic Project Approval (construction in waters of the State)—Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife • Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit(air quality) —Washington State Department of Ecology • Critical Area Ordinances(wetlands, hazard areas, critical habitat, floodplains, aquifers)— City of Bellevue,City of Newcastle, City of Renton • Shoreline Subsiantial Development Permit(development within the shoreline zone)— City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle, City of Renton Project Purpose and Need and Supporting Information: The need identified for the I-405 North Renton project is to improve personal and freight mobility and reduce foreseeable traffic congestion in the corridor in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost-effective. The purpose of the proposed action is to provide an efficient, integrated, and multi-modal system of transportation solutions within the I-405 corridor that meet the project need in a manner that: • Provides for maintenance or enhancement of livability for communities within the corridor; • Provides for maintenance or improvement of air quality, protection or enhancement of fish-bearing streams, and regional environmental values such as continued integrity of the natural environment; • Supports a vigorous state and regional economy by responding to existing and future travel needs; and • Accommodates planned regional growth. Page 2 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice r Project Description: The North Renton Project includes the following: • Addition of two general-purpose lanes in each direction. • Addition of auxiliary/truck climbing lanes as needed between SR-169 and I-90. • Reconstruction of the SR-169 Interchange to a split diamond configuration. • SR-169 direct connection ramps. • Reconfiguration of the Sunset Boulevard(SR-900)over-crossing. • Provisions for a direct access transit/HOV ramp at N. 8`h Street. • Reconstruction of the NE Park Drive Interchange. • Reconstruction of the NE 30`h Street Interchange. • Reconstruction of the NE 441h Street Interchange. • Provisions for a direct access transit/HOV ramp at SE 761h Street. • Relocation of the 112`h Avenue SE Interchange. • Construction of an in-line transit flyer stop at 1121h Avenue SE serving the park-and-ride. • Expansion of the 1121h Avenue SE park-and-ride lot. • Reconstruction of the Coal Creek Parkway Interchange and ramp improvements to and from I-90. Identified Important Elements of the Environment: As identified in the I-405 Corridor Program Environmental Impact Statement, important elements of the environment concerning the I-405 North Renton Project include: • Surface water runoff quantity, quality, and treatment options; • Ground water, especially the sole source aquifer serving the City of Renton water supply wells, Cedar Valley sole source aquifer; • Fish resources, especially in the Cedar River,May Creek, and Coal Creek; C • Stream crossings and encroachments at Cedar River, May Creek, and Coal Creek; • Fish passage barriers at Coal Creek, upstream of I-405, and May Creek, downstream of �s I-405; • Riparian wetlands along Cedar River and May Creek, lower priority wetlands on the west side of I-405 in the Hazelwood and SE 681h vicinity, and other wetlands in the Lower Green River sub-basin; • Bald eagle habitat and potential use near May Creek and Coal Creek; • Lower Cedar River, May Creek, and Coal Creek 100-year floodplains in the project vicinity; • Erosion hazard areas on the east side of I-405 from Gene Coulon Park to Park Drive and in the May Creek vicinity, as well as on the west side from Park Drive to the 28`h Avenue vicinity; • Cedar River Interpretive Trail and Park,Liberty Park, May Creek Park, Coal Creek Park, and Lake Washington Bike/Pedestrian Trail; • Section 4(f)park impacts at Cedar River Park,the Cedar River Interpretive Trail, Liberty Park,May Creek Park(anticipated to be avoided), and the Coal Creek vicinity; Page 3 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice r • Residential and business acquisitions and relocations,as well as right-of-way acquisition at Kennydale School; • Noise impacts and mitigation, especially in the Kennydale neighborhood and at Kennydale School; • Proximity impacts such as noise are expected to affect nearby residential properties; • Utility impacts at the City of Renton water supply wells in Cedar River Park, as well as the chlorination and other facilities in Liberty Park, • Realignment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line in the vicinity of Cedar River and Liberty Park; • Traffic impacts during construction and potential hazardous materials impacts at the Sunset Avenue touch down; • Access modifications at Sunset Street, Grandey Way NE, and the SE 68`h vicinity (Hazelwood); • Transportation facility modifications at Houser Tunnel,Houser Street,the rail line adjacent to I-405 near Cedar River Park and the Hazelwood area, Sunset realignment, and city streets along Cedar R.to Park Dr.; • Replacement of parking stalls at Kennydale School, in the NE 30`h vicinity; • Electric Power Transmission Line adjacent to and crossing I-405 in the Hazelwood vicinity and from the Park interchange to SR 169; • Metro Sewer Line adjacent to and crossing I-405 in the Hazelwood vicinity; • Puget Sound Energy Gas Pipeline adjacent to and crossing I-405 in the Hazelwood vicinity,the NE 3rd/NE 41h vicinity, and the area where I-405 crosses the rail line just south of SR 169; • Renton Substation and the Snoqualmie Falls Power Company(corner of Houser and Bronson); • Potential hazardous materials at Port Quendall, PACCAR, Inc. (N 4th Street),JH Baxter &Co.,Inc. (Lake Washington Blvd.), Boeing Renton(N 6`h Street), and gas station(s)at NE 30`h If you have any questions about the project or the agency coordination meeting,please contact: Christina Martinez 1-405 Environmental Coordinator Washington State Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Avenue Seattle WA 98104 Phone: (206)464-1225 E-mail: martinezc@wsdot.wa.gov Page 4 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice DISTRIBUTION LIST TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Muckleshoot Tribe ATTN: Kathryn Stenberg ATTN: Donna Hogerhuis, USACE/WSDOT Liaison Cultural Resources P.O. Box C-3755 39015 172"d Avenue SE P.O. Box 3755, CENWS-OD-RG Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Muckleshoot Tribe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ATTN: Karen Walters, Fisheries ATTN: Nancy Brennan-Dubbs 39015 172"d Avenue SE 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Ste. 102 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 National Marine Fisheries Service FEDERAL AGENCIES ATTN: Michael Grady 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg#1 Federal Highway Administration Seattle, WA 98115 ATTN: James Leonard Urban Area Engineer US Environmental Protection Agency 711 S. Capitol Way, #501 ATTN: Judith Lee Olympia, WA 98501 MS RA-140, Park Place Building (ECO-088) Federal Highway Administration 201 S. Jackson, 8th Floor, KSC-TR-0815 ATTN: Sharon Love Seattle, WA 98101 Environmental Program Manager 711 S. Capitol Way, #501 US Environmental Protection Agency Olympia, WA 98501 ATTN: Jonathan Freedman USEPA, Region 10 Federal Transit Administration Geographic Implementation Unit ATTN: John Witmer 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECO - 088 FTA Region 10 Seattle WA 98101 Jackson Federal Bldg 915 2nd Avenue, Suite 3142 US Environmental Protection Agency Seattle, WA 98174-1002 ATTN: Joan Cabreza EPA Region 10 (ECO-083) Federal Transit Administration 1200 Sixth Ave ATTN: Jennifer Bowman Seattle, WA 98101 FTA Region 10 Jackson Federal Bldg 915 2nd Avenue, Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Page 5 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice STATE AGENCIES Puget Sound Regional Council Washington State Department of Natrual ATTN: King Cushman Resources Regional Strategy Advisor Northwest Region Puget Sound Regional Council 919 North Township Street 1011 Western Ave, Suite 500 Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 WA State Department of Community, Puget Sound Regional Council Trade, and Economic Development ATTN: Peter Beaulieu ATTN: Allyson Brooks Staff Delegate P.O. Box 48343 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104 Washington Fish& Wildlife Sound Transit ATTN: Kurt Buchanan ATTN: Brian O'Sullivan PO Box 1100 401 S. Jackson Street Seattle, LaConnor, WA 98257 WA 98104-2826 Washington State Department of Ecology City of Bellevue ATTN: Terry Swanson ATTN: Goran Sparrman P.O. Box 47600 Transportation Director Olympia, WA 98504-7600 PO Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 LOCAL AND REGIONAL City of Bellevue, Dept. of Transportation GOVERNMENT ATTN: Bernard Van DeKamp Regional Project Manager King County Department of PO Box 90012 Transportation Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 ATTN: Ann Martin 201 S. Jackson Street City of Bellevue-Transportation Dept KSC-TR-0814 ATTN: Kim Becklund Seattle, WA 98104 PO Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ATTN: Paul D. Carr City of Newcastle Air Resource Specialist ATTN: Fritz Timm 110 Union Street - Suite 500 13020 NE 72nd Place Seattle WA USA 98101-2038 Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency City of Renton ATTN: John Anderson ATTN: Nick Afzali 110 Union Street, Suite 500 Planning& Programming Manager Seattle, WA 98101 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Page 6 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice City of Renton ATTN: Sandra Meyer Transportation Director 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 City of Renton ATTN: Gregg Zimmerman Administrator 1055 Grady Way Renton WA 98055 City of Renton ATTN: Shawna Mulhall Planning Office 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Page 7 of 7 I-405 North Renton Project Agency Coordination Meeting Notice From: Ronald Straka To: Christian Munter Date: 8/26/03 7:45AM Subject: Fwd: 11/15/03 Status report on WSDOT watershed characterization, NorthRenton stretch, 1-405 WSDOT information on Watershed Characterization for the North Renton 1-405 Project for you reveiw and project file. >>> "Hilliard, Tim" <HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov> 08/15/03 12:43PM >>> Greetings - This message is intended for the various representatives of regional, tribal, and local governments with whom we have been coordinating regarding our watershed characterization project for the North Renton stretch of 1-405. Most of you have sat through our basic introduction. As always, our earlier work (the draft Methods document and the results of our first test of the methods) are available on the web. And we are happy to discuss the project and concept with you at any time. Several folks have asked for updates, and we began to think that a regular status report would be a good idea. We aren't sure how often, maybe every week or two. This message will function as a catch-up on what we've been up to and as the first status report. There are three file attachments in Adobe .pdf format. They are: An overview of the concept and project An outline of the methodology as it is currently organized ' A discussion of the watershed characterization guiding principles Also, below, you will find short status reports and some contact information. If there is anyone you think should be added to this list, have them contact me to be added. Also, feel free to pass this message on as you see fit. Thanks, Tim Hilliard Status reports, August 14, 2003: Here are some brief updates- call if you want to know more or have data to share! GIS work going well. The most important step to be completed before watershed characterization can occur, the delineation of the catchment areas that we call "Drainage Analysis Units" or DAUs, should be completed by the end of this week. Data collection continues but we have most of what we need already, either from WSDOT's own data collection or from various state, local, and regional partners. Creating a future land-use coverage is looming, and may mean a lot of work if we aren't able to obtain an appropriate coverage from one of our local partners; if you have existing future build-out coverage or ideas about how to simplify its creation, we'd love to hear from you. Our current thinking is that we should base it on the comprehensive plan designations, with presumed constraints on development for wetlands, riparian areas, and steep slopes regardless of comprehensive plan designations. Wetlands photo interpretation (to identify restorable wetlands in the study area)was completed this week. Now we have to do some clean-up and field verification of a sample of the potential wetland restoration sites. Our data is different from a wetland inventory in that we try to identify wetland potential not just existing wetlands. Riparian area analysis is beginning. We are working on a formula for analysis of riparian forest cover based on number of breaks per mile. We are looking at site potential tree height. We will be contacting some of you for a meeting on how we plan to address these issues and to pick your brains about what you already have, and ideas about proceeding. Our fish biologist has begun to meet with his local contacts and has been in the field. The stormwater team is meeting with local stormwater engineers, etc. Productive meetings have been held with Bellevue, Newcastle, and Renton so far, where they have been establishing local regulatory sideboards, looking into acquiring local data, and getting inside knowledge about the issues in the watershed. The local coordination/local priorities team has been meeting with a variety of groups, including many of you. We've met with regional, tribal, and local government staff, the 1-405 technical team, the 1-405 steering committee, and several internal WSDOT 1-405 staff groups. A document review of basin plans, limiting factors analysis, and other types of document is underway to compile a list of identified local restoration and recovery priorities. Contacts: "Big Picture" and overall coordination: Richard A. Gersib, Watershed Program Manager Environmental Services Office, Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7477 Email: gersibd(aDwsdot.wa.gov <mailto:gersibd(a_wsdot.wa.gov> Local coordination, local priorities: Tim Hilliard, Watershed Specialist Environmental Services Office, Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Phone: 360.705.7488 Email: hilliat(cDwsdot.wa.gov <mailto:hilliat(@wsdot.wa.gov> Documents: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm> Identification of Mitigation Sites Through Watershed Characterization Introduction: WSDOT has participated in a variety of watershed-based programs during the last decade. These have included working in cooperation with other state and local agencies and planning groups to provide watershed-scale technical support, partnering with local agencies in environmental restora- tion, reach analysis of environmental impacts of highways, etc. More recently, WSDOT began im- plementing a more formal, scientific approach to watershed assessment. This effort is based in WSDOT's desire to provide more environmentally responsible mitigation that is at the same time more cost-effective. Additional impetus and direction was given by the Transportation Efficiency and Accountability Committee or"TPEAC," a committee created by the Environmental Permit Streamlining Act. TPEAC's Watershed-Based Mitigation Subcommittee was charged with formalizing and testing a methodology that focuses on increasing environmental bene- fits, reducing mitigation costs, and enhancing the public participation process through the use of comprehensive watershed characterization to help identify potential mitigation opportunities. The Methodology: The watershed characterization methodologies that are being developed seek a more complete un- derstanding of project effects, assess the condition of surrounding natural resources, and identify potential mitigation options that have the greatest opportunity for maximizing environmental benefit while reducing mitigation cost. A set of guiding principles directs methodology development. To maximize environmental benefit, the efforts focus on the recovery of ecosystem processes. In West- ern Washington, key ecological processes are assumed to be the delivery and routing of water, sediment, pollutants, large wood, heat, and habitat integrity/connectivity. Understanding the effects of transportation and surrounding land use impacts on ecological proc- esses requires the formation of an interdisciplinary technical team containing (at a minimum) a hy- drologist, a hydrogeologist, an ecologist, a biologist, and a water quality specialist. This team must have access to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) staff, tools, and spatial data. Communicating with local governments and local watershed planning efforts early in the assess- ment process creates additional opportunities for the collection of locally developed data. Addition- ally, locally determined recovery priorities will be used for mitigation when they satisfy mitigation needs and fall within targeted recovery areas. While the timing of this process has some built-in flexibility, it is intended to occur during early stages of project planning. WSDOT envisions that it would be applied where major mitigation chal- lenges were projected for large (and/or multiple)planned transportation projects in a watershed. Early testing of the methodology on State Route 522 demonstrated potential to provide significant benefits to the environment while reducing mitigation costs and strengthening environmental docu- mentation and the public participation process. Ongoing tests in the North Renton section of Inter- state 405 will allow further refinement of the methodology and will be evaluated for effectiveness. The new methodology is generating interest from local governments, other state agencies, other states, and the federal government. For details on the steps used in the draft methodology, see the outline in a separate attachment. Identification of Mitigation Sites Through Watershed Characterization --Page 2 Testing the Methodology: The new evaluation process and underlying assumptions were tested on a pilot project at SR 522 in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 7. The draft methodology and the results of this test are available for review on the Internet at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm The SR 522 test gave valuable insight into the application of the methodology, the availability of data, and the time needed to complete steps. In addition, the value of early local coordination was emphasized despite a tight time frame. However, the test was done using a project with identified mitigation options, which meant that to some degree the final product of the test would be hypo- thetical. A real test of the effectiveness of the watershed characterization methodology was needed. This would be one in which the final product was a list of appropriate potential mitigation sites for a transportation project that was underway. The"Beta Test:" Recognizing that Washington is a national leader in the development of watershed-based mitigation, the Federal Highway Administration provided funding for just such a real test of the system. Con- sequently, a"beta test" of the methodology is now addressing potential impacts of the project to widen Interstate 405 between the Cedar River and the junction with Interstate 90 in the Lake Wash- ington watershed. Unlike the pilot, this test is expected to produce a useable final project—a list of potential mitigation sites in the watersheds of the rivers and creeks that are impacted by the project. The recommended potential mitigation is expected to include a combination of sites identified using the watershed methodology, conventional sites, and the introduction of Low Impact Development (LID) methods. Local coordination for the beta test has included early consultation with King County, the Muckle- shoot Tribe, and the three cities that the project crosses, Bellevue, Newcastle, and Renton. Addi- tionally, presentations have been made to the 1405 Steering Committee (mostly elected officials of governments on or near 1-405) and the 1405 Technical Committee (local and state agency staff). The test is well underway as this is written. A preliminary product, the list of potential mitigation sites, is expected by the end of September, 2003. A cost-benefit analysis of the proposed mitigation (compared to conventional mitigation) will follow by the end of 2003. The methodology document will also be updated based on the beta-test experience. The Future: The current Watershed-Based Mitigation Subcommittee workplan calls for the technical team to use the methodology for at least three more transportation projects. The Subcommittee is concerning themselves with integrating watershed methodology into interagency policy. Developing Watershed Best Management Practices for stormwater that could be used "off the shelf'by transportation en- gineers and planners is also being considered. For more information please contact Dick Gersib at(360) 705-7477 (gersibd@wsdot.wa.gov). Watershed Methodology Guiding Principles The following guiding principles serve as the fundamental building blocks on which landscape- scale assessment methods are developed. All of the guiding principles listed below have an es- tablished policy and/or technical rationale. However, it should be noted that they are assump- tions. Because watershed characterization methods are new or in-development, safeguards need to be in place to minimize the risk of adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation, in advance of project impacts, reduces the uncertainty and risk regulatory agencies take in permitting a mitigation site that is constructed concurrently with project impacts. Con- versely, the transportation agency takes an additional risk when mitigating anticipated transporta- tion impacts that may occur sometime in the future. Development of mitigation sites five or more years in advance of project impacts provides substantial opportunity for achieving a fully functioning mitigation site prior to project impacts. Mitigation must first maximize opportunities to avoid and minimize transportation impacts. Opportunities to maximize avoidance and minimization of natural resource impacts exist when environmental assessment occurs well in advance of transportation planning and design. How- ever, the existing transportation project planning and design process does not maximize this po- tential. The long-term vision for watershed characterization is to begin impact assessment five to seven years before the transportation project is constructed to ensure that key environmental in- formation is available prior to extensive planning and design work. Do no further harm to aquatic resources and, when possible, build in incremental improve- ments necessary to protect, restore, and enhance the functions of the state's water bodies. Completing watershed characterization very early in the transportation planning process is in- tended to maximize potential to avoid and minimize impacts of transportation projects by provid- ing key environmental information to planners before the design process begins. Currently, mitigation planning is focused on getting necessary environmental permits. Watershed charac- terization seeks to identify many potential mitigation opportunities at larger landscape scales, facilitate cost-benefit analysis, and select mitigation options having the greatest potential to maximize environmental benefit. Watersheds are a fundamental planning/management unit for developing natural resource and stormwater mitigation/compensation strategies. Major initiatives intended to aid in the recovery of salmon stocks listed as "threatened" or"en- dangered" under the ESA and to restore polluted water bodies in the Pacific Northwest have em- braced watershed-scale planning and implementation. Further, stormwater management efforts are now beginning to explore the applicability of watershed assessment tools. Watershed charac- terization efforts seek to use landscape-scale planning and analysis to maximize environmental, social, and economic benefits of dollars spent to mitigate transportation impacts. Identification of Mitigation Sites Through Watershed Characterization --Page 2 Resource characterization work within tribal Usual and Accustomed Areas will dictate that the affected tribe(s) will be consulted and involved, to the extent of their interest, to ensure that their right to fish habitat protection is guaranteed. Indian Tribes of the State of Washington are guaranteed the right to protection of the fish habitat within their Usual and Accustomed Areas (Orrick Decision). Transportation impacts to fish habitat and all associated mitigation actions will result in consultation with the appropriate Tribe or Tribes to ensure that no net loss of the Tribal Usual and Accustomed Area will occur. Water- shed characterization five to seven years before project construction will help ensure that Tribal concerns regarding project impacts to fish habitats are identified prior to an extensive investment in project planning and design. Good planning dictates that potential mitigation sites be assessed to determine their ability to maintain functions restored under both current and anticipated future land uses. Natural resource impacts from transportation projects are assumed to be permanent. Yet mitiga- tion sites are too often selected solely on their capability to restore necessary functions under current surrounding land use conditions. If impacts are assumed to be permanent, it is impera- tive that mitigation sites have the greatest potential to maintain restored functions over the long- term. Mitigation must occur in areas where surrounding land use will not preclude the long-term maintenance of restored functions. Understanding the relationship between past, present, and future conditions of a watershed is an important part of watershed characterization and is essen- tial to successful, effective mitigation planning. Financial investments in environmental mitigation must be maximized. The cost of environmental mitigation is rapidly rising. Land availability, the cost of land that is available, and the sophisticated designs needed to mitigate project impacts in urban areas are all key factors in the mitigation cost equation. Watershed characterization seeks to reduce the cost of mitigation by: 1) mitigating within the project right-of-way only to the natural capacity of the site; 2)targeting out of right-of-way mitigation to "at risk" drainages with moderate intensity land uses, high potential for measurable environmental gains, and reduced land values; 3)com- pleting watershed characterization five to seven years prior to project completion provides opportunities for advanced mitigation or mitigation banking; 4) reducing mitigation site mainte- nance costs by restoring self-maintaining ecological processes rather than replacing structure elements (such as large wood in streams, engineered detention ponds or vaults)that require con- sistent maintenance and have a limited operational life. Focus on individual mitigation sites is only appropriate after there is some understanding of how those sites fit into a landscape context. Methods are needed that place site-specific restoration actions within a watershed context(Roni et al. 2002). Informed land management decisions require high-quality information focused on key processes and linkages that create and shape ecosystems (Montgomery et al. 1995). By fo- cusing solely at the site scale, managers are limited in their ability to understand how each miti- gation site relates to the long-term maintenance of ecosystems. Without this understanding, mitigation efforts can target symptoms of ecosystem degradation rather than core problems that Identification of Mitigation Sites Through Watershed Characterization -- Page 3 must be addressed to ensure that functions are maintained over the long-term (Gersib et al. 1999, Beechie and Bolton 1999). Watershed characterization seeks to better understand project im- pacts within a broader landscape context, target the restoration of ecological processes in drain- ages having the greatest potential for measurable environmental benefit, and identify many miti- gation options that have potential to maximize environmental benefit while reducing cost. Mitigation actions should focus on the restoration of ecological processes that create and maintain functions. The restoration of ecological processes has become widely accepted as the key to restoring wa- tershed health and improving fish habitats (Beechie and Bolton 1999, Roni et al. 2002). Charac- teristics of streams and rivers reflect variations in local geomorphology, climatic gradients, spa- tial and temporal scales of natural disturbances, and the dynamic features of the riparian forest (Naiman et al. 1992). These physical attributes influence how water, sediment, large wood, nu- trients, and heat are delivered and routed through a catchment area. Substantial agreement is emerging that the delivery and routing of water, sediment, large wood, nutrients/toxicants, and heat are the key ecological processes regulating the vitality of watersheds and their drainage networks in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion (Naiman et al. 1992, Reid 1993, Gersib et al. 1999, Beamer et al. 1999, Roni et al. 2002). Effective restoration targets the underlying eco- logical processes that create and maintain the structural elements of a site rather than merely add- ing structures or otherwise attempt to save the worst-degraded or most visibly damaged areas (Frissell 1993, Gersib et al. 1999). Neglecting ecological processes that cause natural resource degradation can lead to physical failure of projects or increased maintenance costs (Frissell and Nawa 1992, Beechie and Bolton 1999, Roni et al. 2002). The assessment and understanding of ecological processes are essential components of watershed characterization. A landscape-scale biological context is needed to develop the understanding necessary to focus on the recovery of systems that support native plant and animal communities rather than on the recovery of a single species. Understanding wildlife species in a community or ecosystem context will minimize potential for mitigation projects that help one target species but harm others (Reeves et al. 1995, Beechie and Bolton 1999). Watershed characterization seeks to understand human effects on ecological processes that create and maintain the unique structure elements (habitat) that support all aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. When recovery efforts focus on ecological processes, the focus is on the denominators common to all species,rather than on one or more specific structural ele- ments of the habitat of a single species. To maximize environmental benefit, the focus of recovery efforts is recovery of ecosystem ele- ments and processes. This condition is likely to be met only in low-development areas with relatively low to moderate levels of ecological health, because the agents of degradation are probably easier to identify and more amenable to correction. (Booth et al. 2001) Identification of Mitigation Sites Through Watershed Characterization --Page 4 Resource characterization must incorporate multiple spatial and temporal scales to better un- derstand the magnitude and extent of human effects on natural resources and how best to mitigate those impacts. Any analysis of watershed condition needs to assess the variability of watershed functions and characteristics over time and space (Euphrat and Warkentin 1994). Communities and landscapes form the ecological and evolutionary context for populations and species; preserving integrity at a landscape-scale is critical to species persistence (Angermeier and Schlosser 1995). Mitigation projects should focus on restoring the temporal regimes and spatial diversity of the natural habi- tat system by affecting the processes that determine these patterns (Frissell 1993). Watershed characterization seeks to better understand the effect of human land use on ecological processes at different spatial and temporal scales and then use this understanding to select potential mitiga- tion sites that maximize environmental benefit. Locally defined watershed recovery priorities will be used as an important tool in the final se- lection of mitigation options. Recovery priorities can and should be based on a narrower range of locally generated biological objectives, but only to the extent that local prioritization remains subordinate to restoring eco- logical processes and meeting specific project mitigation needs (Beechie and Bolton 1999). Wa- tershed characterization methods must, first and foremost, identify sites that mitigate transporta- tion impacts within areas that have potential to maximize environmental benefit. However, within this context, recovery priorities of the local watershed planning process will serve as the recovery theme for the project, when possible, and local priority recovery projects will be ad- vanced when they can satisfy mitigation needs and fall within targeted recovery areas. Watershed Methodology Outline Note: Changes—mostly related to order—have been made to this outline since the February, 2003 publication of the review draft of"Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization." Methods Part I: Watershed Characterization Step 1. Establish Spatial Scales of Analysis Step 2. Establish Temporal Scales of Analysis Step 3. Characterize Resource Condition and Process Drivers Within the Assessment Area Step 4. Characterize Condition of Ecological Processes Step 5. Interdisciplinary Integration Step 6. Estimate Pre-project Cumulative Impacts of Land Use Step 7. Step 3E. Establish Baseline Conditions for ESA Listed Species Methods Part II. Project Site Assessment Step 1. Establish In Right-of-Way Boundaries Step 2. Engage Local Watershed Groups and Establish Recovery Themes Step 3. Identify Potential Effects On Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources Step 4. Identify Potential Effects On Special Species Step 5. Estimate Direct Impacts to Regulated Resources Step 6. Assess Functions Provided by Impacted Resources Step 7. Estimate Stormwater Impacts of Project Step 8. Identify Natural Resource Impacts to Avoid and/or Minimize Step 9. Identify Direct and Indirect Impacts to ESA-listed Species Step 10. Determine In Right-of-Way Potential to Mitigate Impacts Step 11. Determine Need and Importance of In Right-of-Way Mitigation Step 12. Determine if Potential In Right-of-Way Mitigation is Sustainable Step 13. Estimate Out of Right-of-Way Mitigation Needs Step 14. Convert Functions to Processes Methods Part III: Identify And Assess Potential Sites Step 1. Identify Target Landscape Areas Step 2. Identify Local Priority Sites Step 3. Identify Candidate Mitigation Sites Step 4. Evaluate Site Potential Using Viability Screen Step 5. Conduct Site-specific Function Assessment Step 6. Least-cost Analysis of Candidate Sites Step 7. Identify Viable Mitigation Options T ec,v , (J Cavz i Arc.,. —r-�o c c� FIGURE 4-3-050Q1 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES LA s wuvmmw+ . E \ O un SE 12 St 9 at wu S 2nd St Sr 7M St 8 ' SW G.01 W6 Re^tar.A.. 1 d 7Bt �+ t6 Y S tx LA 1 S.ml1 st r SE Pe—tfky Rd SW elft St S t79t SW!]rd St. S 4 Qe �A .4 8 KENT xLAKE - -- `eke :- . =+ :_ -: �E 203,,S Renton Municipal Code For Reference Only Zone 1 1 Inch=1 Mile ® Zone 1 Modified Zone 2 — City Limits Summary of Current Aquifer Protection Regulations April 2003 Aquifer protection regulations are in effect in the Aquifer Protection Area (APA). A map is attached. The APA includes the following Zones: • Zone 1: The portion of the capture zone for downtown wells that lies within City limits; • Zone 2: o The portion of the capture zone for downtown wells that lies between the 1-year capture zone boundary and the City limits; o The portion of the capture zone for Well 5A that lies within City limits o The portion of the capture zone for Springbrook Springs that lies between the 1- year capture zone boundary and the 10-year boundary; and • Zone 1 Modified: The 1-year capture zones for the Maplewood Wellfield and Springbrook Springs Hazardous Material Restrictions Limited in Zone 1: • Hazardous materials limited to: o 500 gallons (5000 pounds)at new and existing facilities; o Containers no larger than 5 gallons(at new facilities); and o No more than 150 gallons to be opened and handled on the premises(new facilities). Banned in Zone 1: • Tetrachloroethylene (dry-cleaning fluid) Zone 1 Modified: Hazardous materials limits and ban the same as Zone 1 except that the limits are in effect only for new facilities. (Note: The term"hazardous material" is defined per the Uniform Fire Code and Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules. A classification system is used to determine whether chemicals are in a hazard category. Included are physical hazards(e.g. explosives, compressed gases, flammable and combustible liquids, oxidizers,and organic peroxides)and health hazards (e.g. toxic substances, corrosives,carcinogens, and irritants)). 1 1 Land Use Restrictions Prohibited in Zone land Zone 1 Modified: • Underground storage tanks containing hazardous materials Prohibited in Zone 1,Zone 1 Modified, and Zone 2: • New on-site sewage disposal systems (Existing in Zone 1 required to connect; New allowed in Zone 1 Modified and Zone 2 if sanitary sewer unavailable) • New solid waste landfills and transfer stations • Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities or recycling facilities • New petroleum product pipelines (Note: The Water Utility has authority to review any proposed use in the APA and assess whether aquifer water quality is likely to be impacted. With justification, a proposed use that is likely to degrade groundwater quality may be denied.) Exemptions: The following uses,categories of hazardous materials, and types of facilities are exempt from most regulations: • Government emergency preparedness and response • Hazardous materials of no risk to the aquifer • Retail sale of small containers(5 gallons or less) • Residential use •. Fuel and equipment tanks • City water treatment processes • Multi-family dwellings,hotels,nursing homes • Facilities with 20 gallons or less on premises Regulation of Facilities Handling and Storing Hazardous Materials Regulations are the same in Zones 1 and 2 with minor exceptions. Purpose: To ensure that hazardous materials are handled in a manner that prevents their release to the environment and subsequent contamination of the aquifer. Annual Operating Permit: Required of facilities located in the APA if more than 20 gallons of liquid hazardous materials(200 pounds solid) are on premises. No fee. Annual inspection to confirm compliance. Permit can be suspended or revoked for non-compliance. 2 r Program Status: The approximately 100 facilities that are subject to Operating Permit requirements have complied and obtained their permits. No permits have been suspended or revoked to date. Operating Permit Requirements: • Annual Operating Permit application • Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement upon request • Secondary containment of hazardous materials • Monitoring of hazardous material storage areas • Spill response capability • Spill reporting • Legal hazardous waste disposal and record keeping • Employee training • Compliance with pesticide reporting requirements and fertilizer application limits/reporting requirements • Obtaining and compliance with requirements of a Closure Permit when closing the facility • Zone 1 only: Facilities that were in existence when the regulations were adopted may be required by the City, according to specific criteria,to monitor groundwater,pave sites subject to contamination, and improve stormwater management. Construction Activity Standards Standards apply if construction vehicles will be refueled on a construction site and/or the quantity of hazardous materials that will be used or stored on the site,exclusive of the quantity of hazardous materials contained in fuel or fluid reservoirs of construction vehicles,will exceed 20 gallons. Persons obtaining construction permits must first provide information to the Department regarding the types and quantities of hazardous materials that will be on site and then use best management practices to prevent and respond to spills. Fill Quality Standards and Imported Fill Source Statement Fill quality standards prohibit contaminants that exceed Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup levels throughout the City. An Imported Fill Source Statement is required for any project in Zone 1 where more than fifty yards of imported fill will be brought to the site. It is required in Zone 2 if more than 100 yards will be imported. A summary of information that must be provided in the fill source statement is provided below: • Source location of imported fill • Previous land uses of the source location • Whether or not fill to be imported is native,undisturbed soil 3 • Whether or not the source location appears on government lists of contaminated sites • Results of sampling and analysis of fill to be imported • Whether or not fill meets quality standards A source statement is not required for fill material obtained from a Washington Department of Transportation approved source. Sampling and analysis of fill material is not required if a professional engineer or geologist certifies that the fill source site has never been developed, filled, or used such that contaminants could have entered the soil. Stormwater Management Requirements Infiltration of stormwater is not allowed in Zone 1 to reduce the risk of infiltration of hazardous materials spills carried by Stormwater. Stormwater conveyance, detention, and water quality facilities constructed in Zone 1 are subject to specifications that have been adopted to ensure that stormwater is contained within the system prior to discharge to the Cedar River. In Zone 1 Modified and Zone 2, stormwater conveyance and water quality facilities are required to be lined to allow treatment to occur prior to infiltration. There are no other restrictions on infiltration in Zone 1 Modified or Zone 2. Wastewater Requirements Wastewater collection pipes are subject to pipeline specifications if located in Zone 1. The specifications were adopted to prevent leakage of sewage into the aquifer. Older wastewater conveyance that was subject to leakage in the vicinity of the downtown wells has been replaced in recent years with pipe that meets the specifications. Secondary Containment of Underground Storage Tanks City underground storage tank(UST)regulations are more stringent than state regulations in that new USTs containing hazardous materials must be double walled. The City's regulations,which include spill/overfill protection and monitoring for leaks similar to existing state regulations, also cover a broader range of USTs than state regulations. The City includes smaller tanks(down to 60 gallons) and does not exempt some of the tanks exempted by the state. Pesticide and Fertilizer Risk Management Educational programs directed toward minimizing the use of pesticide and fertilizer are implemented by Water Utility and Solid Waste Utility staff throughout the City. Regulations effective in the APA require persons who keep records of pesticide applications per Washington Department of Agriculture rules,usually commercial and institutional applicators,to provide the records to the Water Utility. 4 From: "Schanz, Rob" <SchanzR@wsdot.wa.gov> To: " 'rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us` <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 7/23/03 12:24PM Subject: Meeting to discuss stormwater issues in the I405 corridor Ron, I am with the watershed program in WSDOT's environmental affairs office, and am working on watershed characterization to identify alternatives for stormwater management for the North Renton section of the I 405 widening project. I believe Tim Hilliard has already talked to you about this effort. This is part of a pilot program to look at nontraditional methods for mitigation stormwater quantity impacts by doing restoration work upstream of the project. Our project focuses on characterizing existing conditions and stormwater mitigation opportunities in the drainages that intersect the project (Coal Creek, May Creek, and the Cedar River) . We wanted to coordinate this effort with the cities in the region, to help identify mitigation opportunities and to identify significant constraints to stormwater mitigation in the region. We would like to meet with you to describe what we are doing, and learn more about Renton's stormwater program. The kinds of questions we might ask include: - What is the status of existing basin plans for Coal Creek, May Creek, and the Cedar River; to what extent have recommendations been implemented or become outdated? - What kind of data do you have on existing stormwater treatment facilities in the watersheds - Have there been additional stormwater planning efforts that we need to consider in looking for mitigation opportunities? - How do aquifer protection zones in Renton affect stormwater infiltration designs? Ed Molash, myself, and Foroozan Labib are planning to come up to the project site next Wed (July 30) to meet with people and do some field reconnaissance. Are you available either in the late morning (11:30) or early afternoon (1:00 to 2:00) to spend an hour with us discussing these issues? We would be coming up from Olympia, and would meet at your office. If the 30th doesn't work, what days are best the following week? I will be out the rest of today and working at home tomorrow. You can reach me by e-mail, or call me at home tomorrow at (360) 291-3725. Thank you, Rob Schanz, Hydrologist WSDOT Environmental Affairs Office (360) 291-3725 home office (Mondays and Thursdays) (360) 705-7496 watershed program office Sew. �Mt'V% 7- ►' � . ro u0/ h) Ira, co" (,Zvwr— ,fie a, - /0'r laL P -e-•-L_ l To C��c�. "� Z�rs r►��E ? o% Gv,,. - f 6.rn e, .` Cl; nmys -, A6i,8 srg ? D t z— Scyv IU , r--) 015 S/& -6z- f �Y,-f-L©om CITY OF RENTON ..� Planninouilding/PublicWorks Department T Greggimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor gg August 11, 2003 John Kirby WSDOT Utilities PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 SUBJECT: PROPOSED N 8TH ST/I-405 HOV DIRECT ACCESS PROJECT CITY OF RENTON UTILITIES INFORMATION John: Enclosed,per you request,you will find copies of the city's utility plans and as-builts for those portions of the system in the project area where we have such information. Be advised that these plans may utilize different vertical datums. I have also enclosed schematic maps of the city's utilities for the area. They may show utilities that have been located in the field but are not shown on any of the enclosed plans. You are strongly encouraged to have a full survey performed prior to beginning final design to assure that all facilities are identified in their correct horizontal and vertical locations. If you have any further questions or need additional information,I can be reached at 425-430-7279. Sip e , Jo I n Hobson astewater Utility ✓ ✓ZF �� cc: Dave Christensen h,, Ron Straka v fi `t.R Q-% C !� Abdoul Gafour H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-2 1-0000 Sewer AvailabilityMth-util-info.doc\]DHltb 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RE N T O N ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE August 11, 2003 Page 2 Proposed N8th St/I-405 Direct Access Project City Utility Plan List sent to WSDOT Utilities File Number Sheets City Inventory Maps Sewer, Storm and Water Schematics S-0168 1, 3, 4 S-0240 2 S-2041 2 W-0110 1 W-0203 1 W-0221 I D-2013 2, 3 D-1899 1 D-2265 1 R-2265 1 H:\File Sys\WWP-WasteWater\WWP-21-0000 Sewer Avail abil43�N8th-util-info.doc\JDH\tb Toa� �" -1 o $- 01 From: Ronald Straka To: Christian Munter Date: 7/31/03 7:37AM Subject: Fwd.- Follow-up to watershed characterization meeting yesterday Also, please start work on providing the information requested below or get WSDOT connected up to the right people here (Bob MacOnie) for the GIS information. We may need to discuss some of the other information requested. I have set-up a directory in the SWP/Transporation Folder under 1-405 Corridor Project called the North Renton Project that correspondence and other electronic information can be- stored in accordance with our standard CIP file system. Also, set-up a paper file system for this project. Thanks >>> "Hilliard, Tim" <HilliaT@wsdot.wa.gov> 07/30/03 10:28AM >>> Hello - I didn't get everyone's e-mail addresses yesterday so please pass this on to other folks who were there if you can. Thanks for meeting with us -we made some great contacts, met some of you face-to-face for the first time, and I hope we gave a good overview of what we are up to' For those that didn't get this link before, our documents (Methods, SR 522 Appendix) are available at the following address: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed.htm> I promised to send out our"wish list" of data - preferably"GIS ready" but in any form you have. Here's a start, the things we need as soon as possible -we may find other needs as we go along, of course. Some of these things we have asked for directly, through other channels, but we don't currently have so are asking here as well. Locations of stormwater outfalls (treated or untreated) Existing unstable slopes coverage Riparian inventory/assessment data ' Existing B-IBI data Local wetlands coverages (in paper form if that's all you have') Please feel free to talk to me (see below) or Dick Gersib about this, or contact our GIS coordinator Albert Perez. Dick Gersib: 360.705.7477, gersibd wsdot.wa.gov <mailto:gersibd(c�)wsdot.wa.gov> Albert Perez: 360.705.7582, pereza(a)wsdot.wa.gov <mailto:pereza(D_wsdot.wa.gov> Thanks! ----------------- ----------------- Tim Hilliard WSDOT Environmental Affairs Office -Watershed Mgmt. Prog. P.O. Box 47331, Olympia, WA 98504-7331 (360.705.7488; fax 360.705-6833) e-mail <mailto:hilliat(aDwsdot.wa.gov> hilliat(@wsdot.wa.gov ----------------- -----------------