Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-01-173_Misc·, , .. .t wt, ,.01 .. ; 17~<'i) ..{.-' ..... ,.' . --' . ~ :' ", ,'. '., , , .... . ~. ~. -. '" I I PORT QUENDALL MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM Prepared/or: Remediation Technologies, Inc. 1011 Klickitat Way, Suite 207 Seattle, Washington 98134 Prepared by: Beak Consullants Incorporated 12931 N.E. 126th Place Kirkland, Washington 98034 19 June 1997 Project No. 22253 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ .................................................... I-I ..................................................... I-I 1.2 Disclaimer .................................................... , I-I 1.3 Remediation Alternative Summary Descriptions ....................... 1-2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED RESOURCES ........................... 2-1 2.1 Water Quality ................................................... 2-1 2.2 Plants and Animals .............. , ............................... 2-13 2.3 Fisheries ..... , ................................................ 2-19 2.3.1 Introduction .......................................... ··· 2-19 2.3.2 Lake Washington Biology .................................. 2-19 2.3.3 Lake Washington Shoreline ................................. 2-24 2.3.4 Lake Washington Open Water ............................... 2-35 2.3.5 Habitat Valuation ......................................... 2-38 2.4 Recreational ................................................... 2-39 2.5 Cultural ...................................................... 2-39 2.6 Economic ..................................................... 2-39 3.0 IMPACTS ........................................................... 3-1 3.1 Remediation Alternative I -Low Impact ............................. 3-1 3.1.1 Plahts and Animals ........................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Fisheries ................................ · ...... ·········· 3-3 3.2 Remediation Alternative 2 -Medium Impact .......................... 3-9 3.2.1 Plants and Animals ........................................ 3-9 3.2.2 Fisheries ................................ · .. ·············· 3-9 19June 1997 Page i c:U'12SJlmiti,tJU.rpl Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ~ 3.3 Remediation Alternative 3 -High Impact ............................ 3-10 3.3.1 Plants and Animals ....................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Fisheries ................................................ 3-12 4.0 MITIGATION ....................................................... 4-1 4.1 Remediation Alternative 1 -Low Impact ..................... , ....... 4-1 4.1.1 Plants and Animals ......................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Fisheries ......................... ~ ." ................... 4-10 4.2 Alternative 2 -Medium Impact .................................... 4-15 4.2.1 Mitigation ............................................... 4-15 4.2.2 Plants and Animals ....................................... 4-16 4.2.3 Fisheries ............................................... · 4-16 4.3 Remediation Alternative 3 -High Impact ............................ 4-17 4.3.1 Mitigation ............................................... 4-17 4.3.2 Plants ami Animals ......... , ............................. 4-20 4.3.3 Fisheries ............................................... · 4-20 5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................... 5-1 APPENDIX A: 19 June 1997 dl21SJlmifigafop2 Agency Correspondence Regarding Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive and Plant Species· Page ii Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 2-7. Figure 2-8. Figure 3-1. Figure 4-\. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. 19 June 1997 dl115Jlmili,att.rpl Port Quendall Draft Mitiga/ion Analysis Memorandum LIST OF FIGURES ~ Remediation Alternative I (low impact) ............................... 1-4 Remediation Alternati ve 2 (medium impact) ........................... 1-5 Remediation Alternati ve 3 (high impact). ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 METRO water quality sampling stations in Lake Washington ............. 2-2 Wetlands and shoreline vegetation ................................. 2-14 Aerial overview of Port Quendall Remediation Site. . .................. 2-15 Lake Washington substrate off project site ........................... 2-22 1994 beach seining results at Kennydale Park. . ....................... 2-25 Bank characteristics and protection features ................... ' ....... , 2-28 Shoreline depth and substrate ...................................... 2-29 Lake Washington shoreline composition along a 14-mile reach oflakeshore on both sides of Port Quendall in September 1995 ...................... 2-34 Conceptual Gypsy subbasin drainage stream and buffer design ............ 3-8 Cross section through slurry containment wall .......................... 4-7 Typical cross section of conceptual wetland mitigation design. . ........... 4-8 Cross section through containment wall for lake fil1, Alternatives 2 and 3 ... 4-19 Page iii Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum LIST OF TABLES ~ Table 1-1. Summary of Remediation Alternatives ............................... 1-3 Table 2-1. Nearshore Lake Washington total metals concentrations ................. 2-4 Table 2-2. Lake Washington Surface Water Quality near the Port Quendall Property .... 2-5 Table 2-3. Lake Washington water quality data collected near the May Creek mouth .,. 2-6 Table 2-4. Port Quendall water quality results ................................. 2-11 Table 2-5. Results of metals screen for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage at the culvert outlet to Lake Washington ...................................... , . 2-12 Table 2-6. Wetlands dredged or filled by the Port Quendall remediation actions ....... 2-16 Table 2-7. Fish species in Lake Washington ........•.......................... 2-21 Table 2-8. Benthic biota present in Lake Washington within or near the project site .. , 2-26 Table 2-9. Lake Washington shoreline characteristics ........................... 2-30 Table 2-10. Comparison of shoreline conditions within the remediation area and the surrounding shoreline ............................................ 2-33 Table 2-11. Comparison of overwater pier coverage within the remediation area (1997) Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 4-1. Table 4-2. 19June 1997 t:U115Jlmitigalupl and the surrounding shoreline (1989) ................................ 2-35 Shoreline vegetation disturbance resulting from upland excavation and/or capping .......... _ .......... .-.................................. 3-1 Shoreline ftsh habitat characteristics after Remediation Alternative I ....... 3-4 Shoreline ftsh habitat characteristics after Remediation Alternative 2 ...... 3-11 Shoreline fish habitat characteristics after Remediation Alternative 3 ...... 3-13 Summary of mitigation for impacts from each remediation alternative ...... 4-2 Fish habitat-valuation of physical shoreline characteristics in remediation area ........... _ .............................................. 4-12 Pageiv Port Quenda/l Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 4-3. Lake Washington shoreline fish habitat characteristics after remediation and mitigation ...........................•..................... 4-13 Table 4-4. Lake Washington shoreline fish habitat characteristics after remediation and mitigation. . .............................................. " 4-18 Table 4-5. Lake Washington shoreline fish habitat characteristics after remediation and mitigation .................................................. 4-22 19 June 1997 c:1111JJlmitigafLrpl Page v Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum PORT QUENDALL MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1· Objectives Mitigation analysis. has been prepared for each of the remediation alternatives described in the Feasibility Study (FS) in detail and summarized below. The remediation areas include the Quendall Terminals (Quendall) and Baxter properties, as well as areas offshore of the Quendall and Barbee Mill properties. Since upland and shoreline remediation activities under all alternatives would be restricted to the Quendall and Baxter properties, this report does not include upland valuation of Barbee Mill, which is largely paved and an active mill site. The shoreline of Barbee Mill is included to give the context of the complete Port Quendall development site shoreline; however, no alterations to the Barbee Mill shoreline are proposed through remediation or mitigation activities. Resources with potential to be impacted by the site remediation plans are described in Section 2.0, and impacts to those resources for each remediation alternative are described in Section 3.0. A description of how the alternatives differ with regard to avoidance or minimization of impact, identification and selection of mitigation opportunities, and evaluation of mitigated function and values for each alternative are described in Section 4.0. Conceptual mitigation plans are provided for each remediation alternative action at the conclusion of Section 4.0. 1.2 Disclaimer Any work or work product addressed in this Mitigation Analysis Memorandum or cross-referenced herein and performed or to be perfonned by the Port Quendall Company (PQC) in the identified Port 19 June 1997 t=:1112jl1mlt;gatt.'p2 Page 1-1 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Quendall project area has been or will be undertaken only for purposes of determining the feasibility of the Port Quendall redevelopment project. This analysis may not be applicable for other developments with different plans. PQC, ReTec and Beak are submi tting this document with the understanding that no independent liabilities shall be assumed by PQC under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) or any comparable federal or state environmental laws should PQC elect not to complete.'purchase of the subject properties; nor shall the current owners of the Port Quendall project area be in any way obligated to undertake any mitigation approach or recommendation contained herein. 1.3 Remediation Altcl'I1ativc SUlllmary Descriptions Brief descriptions or the three remediation alternatives to the level of detail necessary for mitigation analysis are provided in Table \-1 and shown in Figures \-1 to \-3. 111esedescriptionsincludethe "footprint" of each remediation alternative, as well as general characterizations of the impacts discussed in more detail in Section 3.0. 19 June 1997 c;\111jJlmitjgQI~.rp2 Page 1-2 Port Quendall Drajl Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Lake Fill 0.0 acres of fill Clean fill behind Confined disposal unit (inc/udes sheet pile wall. fill groundwater behind containment of IIpland side. and clean containment wall. wall. materialfill at 3: J slope Loss: 0.5 acre of fill; Loss: 2,9 acres of fill; extending up to waler surface 0.4 acre < 4-ft depth; 0.8 acre < 4-ft depth; on lake side) 0.1 acre of 4 to 6-ft 2,1 acres of 4 to 16-ft deplh. deplh. Ql!in: Creale 0.1 acre Gain: Create 0.3 acre along Ihe fill perimeler. along the fill perimeler. Net loss-Nelloss: 0,3 acre < 4-ft; 0.5 acre < 4-ft; 0,2 acre> 4-ft, 2.4 acres> 4-ft, Shoreline Disturbance 0% of Barbee, 0% of Barbee, 0% of Barbee, (includes loss·o/vegetation. 100% of Quendall, & 100% ofQuendall. & 100% ofQuendall, & if any; removal andlor fill of 50% of Baxter, which 50% of Baxter, which 50% of Baxter, which IIpland soils; and sheet pile includes 100% includes 100% includes 100% or slurry wall apprOXimately elimination of Wetlands elimination of Wetlands elimination of Wellands 20-50 feet IIpland of OHW A and B, A and B. A and 13. Qllendall-Barbee property line north to utility ROW) Dredge offshore PAH Two liT-Dock" areas Two "T-Dock" areas Two liT-Dock" areas (refill to original elevations and Weiland E (a,k.a. and Wetland E (a .. k.a. and Wetland E (a.k,a. with clean material) "Baxter Cove") "Baxter Cove") "Baxter Cove") Dredge offshore areas with> Areas offshore of Areas offshore of Areas offshore of 50% wood chips (with no re-Barbee and south Barbee and soulh Barbee and soulh original elevations Quendall Quendall Quendall assumed restored by chip removal). Upland soil excavation and 100% fill of Wellands 100% fill orWeliands C 100% fill of Wetlands C capping C and D and D and D Gypsy subbasin culvert Gypsy subbasin open Gypsy subbasin open Gypsy subbasin open replacement (replace with channel portion channel portion. channel portion diameter under clean relocated to shoreline on relocated to shoreline on relocated to shoreline on Baxter Baxter Baxter 19 June 1997 c:I1115JlmitigiJI~.rpl Page 1-3 I ~hlS ~l~\ b~ Ovco[v- 1\!(l"T PORT OUENOALL REMEDIATION PROlfCT flGUkE 1·1 REMEDIATION AlTfRNAfM I (/oW IMPAW SOOR{[IUU1IlE,I(1(( PAR dredge oreas [10 be relumed 10 ulsling grade wilh deollgfovek ohcr dredging} v,: :,:'.-' I Upland loll extClvaltd and capped. Areos 01 utenslva soil u(ovalion, Irnlmenl ond ;i;i!:;; f [lipping. (Creolion ot rniligollon elemon/sln l!lese oreos wnl [!qul~ rorell1llnltgmlion with upland~ remedy, however, millgollon wolerward 01 wall is feasible) • Uphrnd loll grading and (opplng. Areas ofVlodilYl, (oppingof remediolion slaglng, {(ftollon 01 miligollon elemerm In thelD ORos!5 leollhlc} • Wetlands ,hIS wll\ b-e.. color 1\ i-11- qQ ~ BAAB" ~ ~ Mill o PORI QUENOALl !IIl-La"'. ftl1: Seep tonlolnmenf areo {O.5 ouel}. This orea filld with (edor River ~dlrnenls behind a mnlolnmenl woll, wilh II 3;1 slop!! ellendrng ~p 10 the mrfo~ on Iho 'Woler side. • Dredge ofhhort IlreGS with > 500/, wc.od mlps (no relill; origlool elerolionl assumed rH10rtd by(hlp remavol) ., fAH dredge areas {IO be lelumed 10 ed11lng grade wilh deon 9(lI'I'cll aher dredging} L------------.:::...--"--'Z __ -l (\!!.ii.:::.::i, I Uplond 501\ enQ'lQted add [opped. Areos of ellcmwe soil clCOYotion,lreolmcnl ond ])~;~ :';.!. (tipping. [(reollon 01 mll$golion ,Iemenls In Illes, orool will requil1l (orelullfllegrolion I'ORI OUlNOAll RlMlDlATlON PROJIO JlGtllE '-1 RfMWIAUON AlTfRNAflVf 2 (MEDIUM IMPAW SOJR{l R{fUEI{f: rill( 3JUHE 197/ (tl(lIO:NJ wilh upland1 remedr; howeYtr, miligollon wolervo,d 01 wollts letnible) . III Upland soil grading and copping. AreGs of grodlng. tapping 01 remediallon Sloglng. (u~a'ionaf mUigaiion elements in lnele oreos is leosiblel Wellonds ThiS wH\ ~ 0--oO\Or -- gQ -~ BAABEE c:TQ b Mill = PORl aUENDAU REMEDIATION PROJECT fltnE\-3 RfMfDMnON AtTfRNAr/VE 3 (HIGH IMPAm rorUQUEND.AJ..l / / / / • Lake hll: ConliMd di!pGSol un~ for PAR Impacted ~d;ments (2.9 ocrcs) with II 3: I dop!! 1I1ending up 10 lhs mfotc on lhe waler !ide ~ Dredge ofbho~ areas with > 50% wood ,hIps (no refill; ofigiool elevotions IR Illumed mlorcd brch1p removal) III PiH dredge areal (IO ba r~lulOed to exl5ling grade with dc<m grovels ok.r dredging) Vl Upland soil exto¥atH Gnd capped. AreD! of ulclI$iw son uClIvolion, tlealmont W ond copping. (Crcolion 01 mitigation elemtnrs in these oreo! wHl n:quire (oreful !nlegrollon with uplondlltmedy. however, mlligoHon wolerword 01 WIlli nle.osible) Upland sollgfodlng and copping. Arcos nl grading, (opplng 01 remediolion uoglog, ((ft(Ition 01 mil~ollon elements In Ihe~1I orcos Is leolihlel Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 2.0 DESClUPTION OF AFFECTED RESOURCES 2.1 Water Quality Lake Washington is the largest lake in King County with a drainage area of 472 square miles and an area of21,500 acres. The lake has a volume of2.35 million acre-feet, a mean depth of 108 feet, and a maximum depth of214 feet. The Lake Washington watershed is urban, with approximately 63 percent of its area developed (Metro 1989). The main inflows to the lake are the Cedar River in the south end (57%) and the Sammamish River in the north end (27%). The Cedar River contributes 25 percent and the Sammamish River contributes 41 percent of the phosphorus load to the lake, respectively. The lake outlet is the ship canal, which flows through Portage Bay and Lake Union to Puget Sound near Shilshole. Metro has established numerous water quality monitoring stations throughout Lake Washington (Figure 2-1). Most of the historic water quality data available for Lake Washington are from 5 nearshore stations established in Juanita Bay, Yarrow Bay, Newport, Meydenbauer Bay and Kenmore, which are all north of the remediation site. However, additional nearshore and offshore stations were added to the monitoring effort beginning in 1992, which included three near the Port Quendall remediation site. These three lake stations are located at the mouth of May Creek (stations 0839 [shallow] and 0840 [deep]), and near Renton (station 0831). Lake Washington is listed as water quality limited for sediment under the 1972 Clean Water Act (Section 303(d) Segment No. 08-9350). Six sediment bioassay studies are cited as the basis for the listing. Three of the six bioassays were conducted on sediment collected near the Port Quendall site (Norton 1991; Norton 1992; Bennett and Cubbage 1992). Lake Washington (Waterbody Segment Number W A-08-9350) is listed as impaired for wildlife habitat as a result of industrial point source pollution. 19 June 1997 c:U215J1ndtigal~rp2 Page 2-1 PORT QUfNDAll REMEDIATION PROJECT fiGURE 2-1 METRO WATER QUAUTY SAMPliNG STATIONS IN lAKE WASHINGTON SAMMAMISH liVER ~-,IOB39'1 PORT QUENDALL PROJECT SITE MAY CREEK CEDAR RIVER LEGEND ! OB14!IIISTORIC WATER QUALITY STATIONS • SHALLOW STATION ili;s w, t\ •• DEEP STATION 0--b/w I &'~X 1\ . -+-<v-+7 (\ "'- Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum South Lake Washington Beak Consultants Incorporated collected one on-site shoreline water sample on 21 March 1997 from Lake Washington approximately 200 feet south of the lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall. This sample was analyzed for metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) and hardness (Table 2-1). Cadmium and zinc exceeded the State standards for acute toxicity, and lead exceeded the chronic toxicity standard. The exceedences were based on State standards (WAC 173-201 A) for metals at the ambient hardness of32 mg CaCOJ/1. Metro has monitored two Lake Washington stations near the mouth of May Creek and an offshore station near Kennydale Park in Renton (Table 2-2). The sampling frequency varied, but was from approximately 1992 to the present, with samples collected bimonthly. Parameters monitored were temperature, D.O., pH, conductivity, transparency, turbidity, alkalinity, nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll-a, phaeophytin, fecal coliform, and enterococcus. The lake water quality near the Port Quendall Development Site can be described as moderately good for a mesotrophic urban lake. Water quality for the whole lake is rated by Metro as good, except for algal blooms in periods of warm weather. Average transparency for the south lake stations was 3.8 m. Fecal coli forms were high at the May Creek nearshore station (average of 128 MPN), as was chlorophyll-a (9.6 mg/m3 in 1996). Nutrients were low at the Kennydale Park and May Creek lake stations, with the average nitrate + nitrate nitrogen value less than 0.25 mg/I and the average orthophosphate less than 0.010 mgll. Transparency, total phosphorus, and chlorophytl-a trends for METRO station 0839 during water years 1992 through 1994 indicate decreased transparency, slightly increased phosphorus, and slightly decreased chlorophyll a (Table 2-3). 19 June 1997 c:1112SJlmiljga'~rpl Page 2-3 Table 2-1. Cadmium: acute Copper: acute chronic Lead: acute chronic Zinc: acute chronic Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Nearshore Lake Washington total metals concentrations for a water sample collected south of the Gypsysubbasin culvert outfall on the Baxter parcel. 0.0010 0.0009 ·NO 0.0004 NO 0.002 0.0052 YES 0.0038 YES 0.001 0.0132 YES 0.0005 NO 0.054 0.0397 NO 0.0360 NO Water sample collected from Baxter parcel shoreline by Beak Consultants on 21 March 1997. Metals standards shown for hardness of 32 mg/I as CaC03 in the sample. 19lun.1997 dJ21JJ1mi1il aJe.fp1 Page 2-4 Table 2·2 Lake Wasbington Surface Warer Quality near tile Port Quendall Property Water Year W~terTemp ·0.0." pH *. Cond.·· Transparency ... • Turbidity ,/Station ··(0 .. (mgll) uniboslcm2 Secchi (mr (NTl]) • 992-1996 l 0831 13.68 10.43 7.86 96 4.2 1.2 992-1996 I 0831 15.55 lLlI 7.83 97 4.4 1.3 1995 I 0840 14.24 11.34 8.29 97 3.5 0.9 1996 I 0840 13.72 10.23 7.79 97 3.2 1.4 1997' lO840 12.44 9.40 7.54 94 3.7 0.6 Water, Year : ,. NOX ..... I' ArnmoDia -ITOtal Nitrate -NI Orrho p 1 TotalP I Chlorophyll-a I IStation (mgll) 'Ni';'ogen (mgl!) • (mgll) (mgll) . (mgll) mglm3 I I 992· 1996 I 0831 0.157 0.022 0.296 0.009 0.022 4.4 992-1996 I 0839 0.117 0.029 0.31 0.008 I 0.017 4.2 1995 10840 0.190 run 0.32 0.006 0.020 9.6 1996 10840 0.181 0.031 0.324 0,007 0.020 run 1997' I 0840 0.226 0.021 0.289 0.008 0.017 nm Notes: Lake Washington warer quality data collecred near Renton from 1992 to 1996 (Metro station 0831) Lake Washington water quality data collected from 1992 to 1995 offshore of May Creek mouth (Source Metro station 0839). Lake Washington water quality data collected near May Creek mouth (Metro station 0840 . Deep Lake Station). Monthly average of water quality data collected at a depth of 1 meter, nm = not monitored • 1997 data includes only October. November and December. ,. Field measurement 06119197 Alk(nigll) .. ' Emera. ... ,asCaC03. ;MPN 36.4 10 36.0 54 38.0 1 36.0 10 38.1 19 Phaeophyrin Fecal Coliform mglm3 MPN I l00mi 1.5 25 3.4 128 1.0 2 nrn 25 nm 52 solkwawq. wk4 Pori Quendal/ Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington water quality data collected near the May Creek mouth. II May 92 5.0 nm 21.0 18 May 92 3.4 0.011 1.5 26 May 92 4.6 nm nm 01 June 92 6.0 0.006 1.6 IS June 92 5.7 0.001 nm 22 June 92 5.8 0.023 nm 06 July 92 5.5 0.0009 2.1 20 July 92 4.4 0.010 nm 03 Aug 92 4.7 0.010 0.9 10 Aug 92 4.4 0.008 nm 17 Aug 92 4.1 0.017 nm 24 Aug 92 4.5 0.028 nm 31 Aug 92 4.3 0.020 nm 08 Sep 92 3.6 0.029 2.9 nm = not monitored Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) 19lune 1997 c:l1115Jlmitigale.rp 1 Page 2-6 Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington water quality data collected near the May Creek mouth. (Continued). 05 Oct 92 5.0 0.014 2.5 20 Oct 92 4.2 0.015 nm 02 Nov 92 6.5 0.017 1.8 17 Nov 92 4.6 0.022 2.3 01 Dec 92 4.5 0.027 2.8 04 Jan 93 6.0 0.035 3.2 01 Feb 93 3.3 0.012 2.7 01 Mar 93 3.3 0.025 7.6 16 Mar 93 2.4 0.021 0.7 05 Apr 93 2.1 0.024 21.0 19 Apr93 2.1 0.019 11.0 03 May 93 3.0 0.009 4.0 25 May 93 3.3 0.036 4.5 07 Jun 93 5.0 0.014 2.0 06 Jul93 4.0 0.019 0.5 02 Aug 93 3.0 0.059 0.1 07 Sep 93 4.2 0.009 0.4 Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) 19 June 1997 dl11iJlmi'lglJ'~fpl Page 2-7 I . I Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington water quality data collected near the May Creek mouth. (Continued). 04 Oct 93 7.0 0.009 0.4 01 Nov 93 5.0 0.011 2.4 08 Dec 93 5.5 0.018 0.5 051.n 94 5.0 0.081 0.4 15 Feb 94 3.8 0.011 4.1 07 Mar 94 3.2 0.023 4.5 21 Mar 94 2.5 0.020 6.1 04 Apr 94 2.8 0.045 18.0 18 Apr 94 3.0 0.012 7.7 02 May 94 3.8 0,020 6.3 23 May 94 2.7 0.017 6,9 06 Jun 94 3,5 0.013 7.2 as Jul94 4,0 0.018 3.6 04 Aug 94 5.0 0.031 2.0 06 Sep 94 4.5 0.017 2,0 Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) t91une 1997 c:12115Jlmil;gaILrp1 Page 2-8 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington watcr quality data collected near the May Creek mouth. (Continued). 03 Oct 94 6.0 0.011 2.5 02 Nov 94 5.0 0.027 2.4 05 Dec 95 4.0 0.028 2.3 23 Jan 95 5.5 0.027 5.0 Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) 19 June 1997 c:11115J1mitigafap2 Page 2-9 Port Qrtendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Gypsy Subbasin Drainage No historic water quality data were available for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. The Lower Gypsy subbasin flows from the east side ofI-405 through an approximately 125-fool open channel before entering a culvert in the northern area of the project site that discharges directly to Lake Washington. Lower Gypsy subbasin water discharges via tightline directly to Lake Washington and is thus classified as Class A (extraordinary) by WAC 173-201A. This drainage is distinct from Gypsy Creek, which joins May Creek at RM 1.15. Baseline water quality monitoring of the Lower Gypsy subbasin began on 28 March 1997 (Table 2-4). Monitoring will include two more wet periods in Spring of 1997 mid a baseflow period during September 1997. Preliminary results were consistent with an urban stream and show some influence of upstream wetlands. Waters were neutral, cool, with low dissolved oxygen, high conductivity, and high total dissolved solids. Oil and grease were below detection, fecal coliform were moderate (41 CFUIlOO ml) and hardness was moderate. Nutrients were moderately elevated: nitrate and nitrite oxygen was 1.0 mgll and total phosphorus was .038 mgll. All metals met the chronic toxicity standard (WAC 173-20 I A) adjusted for the ambient hardness (Table 2-5); however, while cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver were all ?elow detection, the detection levels for these metals were above their respective standard. Based on the limited water quality data (one sampling event), dissolved oxygen was below the Class AA standard (>9.5 mg/I). Turbidity may not meet the standard, but compliance was not determined because oflack of baseline data. It is likely that temperature would not meet the standard «16°C) during the summer months due to the low elevation and the wetland component of the stream system. During some site visits, a strong sewer odor has been noticed where Gypsy subbasin enters the site from the east; however, this odor was not apparent during the single monitoring event reported here. Origin of this odor is not obvious. 19 June t997 c:1122jJlmiti8CJt~.rp2 Page 2-10 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-4. Port Quendall water quality results. Three wet season and one baseflow -Spring and Suinmer 1997. Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall to Lake Washington. Monitoring Date: 28 March 1997 24~hour rainfall recorded at Sea~ Tae was 0.10" on 27 March 1997 . • See Table 2-5 for a complete listing of the metals screening analysis. 19 June 1997 c:'1225J\mWgQ'~rpl Page 2-11 Table 2-5. Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis MemorandwlI Results of metals screen for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage at the culvert outlet to Lake Washington. ~~~~.~!~~~~~'-~"\'~'ff~~;1;~!'t ~::,J;~;~l8 ~ial"ch }~.~ull :~W.~M~~ If.~\.Q~,e~(!o,n.,:~~m~tm~i~f(;' . Aluminum 0.26 0.01 Antimony <0.02 0.02 Arsenic <0.03 O.oJ Boron <0.1 0.1 Barium 0.015 0.003 Beryllium <0005 0.005 Calcium 18.0 0.1 Cadmium <0.002 0.002 Cobalt <0.003 0.003 Chromium <0.006 0.006 Copper <0.002 0.002 Iron 1.6 0.01 Mercury <00/ 0.01 Potassium 22 1.0 Lithium <0.02 0.02 Magnesium 7.2 0.1 Manganese 0)20 0.002 Molybdenum <0.01 0.01 Sodium 8.9 0.1 Nickel <0.0) 0.01 Phosphorus 0.08 0.05 Lead <0.02 0.02 Sulfur. 3.3 0.1 Selenium <0.Q3 0,03 Silicon 1.0 0.10 - Silver <0.0/ 0.01 Tin <0.02 0.02 Strontium 0.120 0.003 Titanium <0.01 0.01 Thallium <0.03 0.03 Vanadium <0.002 0.002 Yttrium <0.001 0.001 Zinc 0.060 0.002 Samples collected on 28 March 1997, Lower Gypsy Creek subbasm outfall at Lake Washington. Note: Total metals. All values are in mgtl. EPA Method 200.7. Italics indicate results which exceed or may exceed the WAC 173- 20lA surface water standard (chronic); the ambiguity occurs when the standard is lower than the detection limit and the result is below detection. Bold italics indicate a result which may ex:ceed the acute standard (silver). 19 June 1997 c:ll1ljjlmiliga(opl Page 2-12 PorI Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 2.2 Plants and Animals The Port Quendall and Baxter parcels are sparsely vegetated. Five wetland areas were delineated within the QuendalllBaxter remediation area (David Evans and Associates 1997 Figure 2-2). The Port Quendall parcel is currently an active log yard; vegetation on the site is primarily limited to the shoreline (Figure 2-3, Table 2-6). Two of the wetlands (Wetlands A and B) are found along the Quendall shoreline. Wetland A is a palustrine forested wetland dominated by immature red alder (Alnus rubra) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), with a sparse herbaceous layer of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaclw), buttercup (Rammeulus repens) and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudaeorus). Wetland B is a palustrine forested wetland comprised of red alder with a hardhack (Spiraea douglasi/) and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) shrub layer. Hydrology in Wetlands A and B is controlled by the lake level. Only minor surface discharge enters these areas. Vegetation and embedded logs help stabilize the shoreline. These wetlands provide little flood control, base flow support or water quality improvement, because they lie along the shoreline and receive little surface discharge. A third wetland (Wetland C) located on the Quendall parcel is a remnant of an old industrial lagoon which currently supports a penn anent open water component, emergent vegetation dominated by cattails (Typha latifolia) and a black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) sapling shrub layer. Wetland C detains some drainage from the adjacent log yards and therefore provides some water quality function by diverting this runoff from the lake. However, no outlet was observed and the area appears to be isolated from ground water, therefore, no base flow support is provided by this wetland. The remaining vegetated shoreline along the Quendall parcel is dominated by red alder, willow and Himalayan blackberry. Industrial activities on the Baxter parcel ended in the early 1980s; a portion of the site is currently used to store bark mulch. The compacted fill soils on the Baxter parcel support sparse stands of non- native grasses and patches of sapling-and seedling-size black cottonwood and soft rush 19 June 1997 c:1l21Hlmitigau .. rpJ Page 2-13 't ~~;l J:\ >, i> ~ I -;:s -~ ~ ~ \".s.. PORT QUENDALL REMEDIATION PROJECT FIGURE 2·3 AERIAl OVERVIEW OF PORT QUENDAU REMEDIATION SITE (BEUEVED TO BE IN SUMMER 1995) .BWlBERRY • SHRUBS lll1REES III WEIlAND liJYILFOll / , ~ §i 5: ;;;~ ~'" ,,~ ~'" 1iIi'11 m~ ~;:; ." i3 ~ NOTE: All habhal. ftllond, and proiect Ica1un: lorollons and quonlilles art opprollmole . <3 "l = ~ = = ~ ~ ~ = ~ = = ~ ~ e 6 £1 ~ BAAIIEE CTQ b Mill o PORT QUENOAH ! IAiS WI II b~ "-[0 \Oy- l\ X 11- f.,v-h )\.",-' Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Table 2-6. Wetlands dredged or filled by the Port Quendall remediation actions. A 0.20 Wetland along Lake Washington PFO -immature red alder with a I-limalayan shoreline, minor surface discharge from blackberry understory and a sparse project site; some shoreline protection herbaceous cover of caUail, reed canary grass, provided by vegetation and logs butlercup and nag iris; habilat value is embedded nearshore; little flood control, moderate due to adjacency to lhe lake; base flow support or waler quality provides polential habitat for amphibians. improvement is provided. passerine birds and limited waterfowl nesting -observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, beaver, several species of passerine birds. B 0.37 Weiland along Lake Washington PFO -red alder wilh a hardhack and Pacific shoreline. minor surface discharge from willow shrub layer; habitat value is moderate project site; some shoreline protection due to adjacency to the lake; provides provided by vegetation and logs pOlential habitat for amphibians, passerine embedded nearshore; lillIe flood birds and limited waterfowl nesting; control, base flow support or water observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, quality improvement is provided. beaver, several species of passerine birds. C 0.17 Excavation in fill material; detains PSSIPEJvllPOW -black calion wood saplings, drainage from log yards; no outlet was cattails and soft rush; perennial open water; observed and the area appears 10 be low habitat value due to low vegetative isolated from ground water, therefore diversity and isolated nature of area; DO base flow support is provided by observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, this wetland; water quality mallards, and green heron. improvement provided by detention of log yard runoff. D 0.08 Old industrial settling pond isolated PSS -small wetland within former industrial from Lake Washington; liltle flood area dominated by cattail, Pacific willow and conlrol or base flow support is red·osier dogwood; overall habitat value is provided; no waler quality low; observed wildlife use includes red- improvements provided. winged blackbird, snipe. E 0.23 Cove created by fill along the lake PEMIPOWfPSS -cattail, Himalayan (Baxter Cove) shoreline; some shoreline protection blackbeny, red-osier dogwood and red alder provided by vegetation and logs sapling; emergent vegetation established after embedded nearshore; flood control, 1990; habitat value is moderate due to base flow support and water quality a.djacency to the lake; provides potential improvement are limited due to the habitat for amphibians, passerine birds and small area that drains into Ihe cove. wafer fowl; observed wildlife use includes turtles (painted and sliders); beaver, red-wing mallards. 30 April 1997 19 June 1997 c:111l5Jlmmgllfe. ,.p2 Page 2-16 Port Quendoll Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (Juncus efJusus). Baxter Cove (Wetland E) is found along the southern Baxter shoreline and appears to have been created by shoreline fill or fill and dredge activities. Baxter Cove supports an open water component, cattails and a shrub layer comprised of Himalayan blackberry, red alder saplings and red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera). The second wetland area (Wetland D) on Baxter is an old industrial pond isolated from Lake Washington that is dominated by cattail, Pacific willow and red-osier dogwood. Historically, flows from WetlaiJd D discharged into Baxter Cove. However, the outfall section of the pipe was collapsed several years ago to stop the contaminated discharge in Baxter Cove. Currently, the flood water control, base flow support and water quality functions provided by Baxter Cove and Wetland D are limited due to the small area that drains each wetland area. A narroW band of vegetation, approximately 25 feet wide, along the remaining Baxter shoreline is comprised of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry. A short open channel section of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is also located on the Baxter parcel. Sapling red alder and willow are preseni on the steep banks of the channel. This drainage is regulated as a water of the US by the US Army Corps of Engineers. However, no habitat value is provided by this vegetation. In general, the habitat value of the remediation arca is low due to the disturbed nature of the former and active industrial areas which support limited vegetation. Oily sheens were observed on the surface of the open water wetland areas and areas along the lake shoreline. The shoreline areas provide the highest habitat value in the remediation project area, but the habitat value of these areas are limited due to the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and stmcture, and lack of special habitat features such as snags and woody debris landward of the shoreline. 19 June 1997 c;1112SJlmitigate.rp2 Page 2-17 PorI Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Most of the wildlife use observed on the site occurs along the Quendall and southern Baxter shoreline. Canada geese (Branla canadensis) were observed in both the vegetated and hardscape shoreline areas. The geese were observed nesting along the vegetated shoreline and in the osprey nest located on the Quendall Cable Station nesting platfonn. Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Sound Power & Light) moved an osprey nest from a retired distribution pole on the Baxter site to a new nest pole platform erected on the south side of the cable station in 1993. Puget Sound Energy also placed a perch on top of the first transmission pole leading away from the station to provide a safe place for the birds to perch. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have successfully nested on the platform since the transfer of the nest in 1993 until this year, when the osprey built a new nest at the top of the wood chip elevatorIocated on the Barbee Mill site. The osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August. Osprey have been observed hunting small mammals (likely mice) on the north Baxter site as well as fishing the lake. Canada geese and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucophalus) have occasionally been observed perching on the nest platform during the winter months. It is assumed the bald eagles used the perch site to forage for fish and waterfowl along the lake shoreline. The closest known bald cagle nest site is located approximately 0.75 mile west of the remediation area (WDFW May 1997 PHS database). Beaver (Castor canadensis) have been observed in the wetland habitat along the lake shoreline. Waterfowl, such as ducks and connorants, frequent the shoreline waters and perch on the exposed pilings. Pond sliders (Pselldemys scripta) are present in Baxter Cove and have been observed on floating logs off of the southern Baxter arid northern Quendall shoreline. Ducks also use the open water habitat of Baxter Cove. Red-winged blackbirds (Age/aius phoenicells) were observed using cattail habitat along the shoreline, including Baxter Cove, and isolated patches of cattails away from the shoreline (Wetland D). Snipe (Capella gallinago) were observed in the Wetland 0 area and in the cottonwood sapling-dominated areas on the Baxter parcel. Other species of passerine birds and amphibians could be supported by the shoreline wetlands and the narrow red alder-dominated upland shoreline area. 19 June 1997 d121H\mitigllte.rpl Page 2-18 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 2.3 Fisheries 2.3.1 Introduction This section describes existing fish habitat conditions within the area impacted by remediation activities, and provides an assessment of the various components that make up this habitat. A description of known fish use of the habitat is also provided. The remediation activities are being implemented with the primary intent of enhancing sediment and water quality in Lake Washington. This will benefit all species rearing and migrating along the project shoreline. Remediation alternative actions with the potential of permanently impacting fish include various amounts of filling of nearshore habitat. Temporary impacts may include replacing the Gypsy subbasin culvert, reconfigllration of the shoreline, dredging of contaminated sediments, filling of the dredged areas with clean soils, and removing wood chips from the lake (fable 1-1). These actions will impact primarily the shoreline and may affect nearshore habitat to abollt 900 feet from shore. Existing conditions for each of these areas is described in the following text. 2.3.2 Lake Washington Biology Pelagic Species Lake Washington supports a variety of anadromolls salmonids, including chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch), and sockeye salmon (0. nerka), and steel head (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. clarki). Runs ofnon-anadromous kokanee (0. nerka) salmon are also present (King County 1993). Lake Washington contains a wide variety of non-salmonid species, some of which are considered "warm water" species. These include both native and non-native species such as speckled dace (Rhinichthys osclIlus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterostells aCllleatlls), northern 19 June 1997 c:11115Jlmititat~rpl Page 2-19 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), yellow perch (Percaflavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculalus), largemouth bass (Microplerus salmoides), small mouth bass (Microplerus dolomieui), mountain whitefish (Prosopillm williamson i), largescale sucker (Catoslomlls macrocheillls), longfin smelt (Spirinchlls thaleichthys), and prickly sculpin (COl/liS asper) among other species (Pfeifer and Weinheimer 1992, King County 1 993,Wydoski and Whitney 1979). A more complete list offish species potentially found near the project is provided in Table 2-7. Of particular importance to the project is the population of sockeye salmon juveniles which rear in Lake Washington. These fish may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. The majority of sockeye outmigrate from the Cedar River, although a smaller number may be the result of beach spawners. The Cedar River sockeye is a non-native species originating predominately from Baker River stock and introduced in 1935 (WDFW et al. 1994). The stock is currently believed to be depressed based on a long-term negative escapement trend (WDFW et al. 1994). Sockeye are. not known to have spawned historically along the Port Quendall Project site (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1997). Areas of suitable substrate were looked for during diver and video surveys for this project. It was assumed that any area with small to medium sized gravels and evidence of upwelling may be used; however, no suitable habitat was found nor was there any evidence of redds. Early speculation regarding the existence of a small upwetling site in about 30 feet of water off the mouth of May Creek was not supportable. During a follow up interview with the diver responsible for the survey, he indicated that the disturbance noted on the video (Figure 2-4) was probably caused by a fleeing fish rather than upwelling water (Maxwell, pers. comm.,1997). Substrates in the vicinity consist primarily of fine silts and are too small to be usable for spawning. Upwellings may exist in the property vicinity that were not observed by divers; however, geohydrology studies and modeling do not suggest concentrated points of upwelling are expected to occur. 19 June 1997 C;\112JJ'mitjlat~.rpl Page 2-20 petromyzontidae Lampreys Acipenserldae Sturgeons Clupeidae Herrings Salmonldae Trouts Osmeridae Smelts Cyprinidae Minnows Catostomidae Suckers Ictaluridae Catfishes Gasterosteidae Stickleback Cenlrarchidae Sunfishes Percidae: Perches Cottidae Sculpins Weslem brook lamprey Pacific lamprey River Lamprey White sturgeon American shad Mountain whitefish Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout (steelhead) Brook trout Lake troul Coho salmon Chinoo~ salmon Chum salmon Pink salmon Sockeye salmon (kokanee) Longfin smelt Carp ,Peamouth Northern squaw fish Speckled dace Redside shiner Tench Largescale sucker Brown bullhead Channel catfish Threespine stickleback Small mouth bass Largemouth bass Black crappie Coastrange sculpin Shorthead sculpin Torrent sculpin Prickly scu 1 pin Rime sculpin Source: Shepard and Hoeman 1979. 19 June 1997 c~\111jJlmmgal~rpl Pori Qltendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Lampetra richardson; Entosphenlls tridentalus Lampelro ayresi Acipenser Iransmontanus Aloso sapidissima Prosopium williamsoni OncorhyncJlIls clarki Oncorhynchus mykiss Sa/velinus /mltinalis Salvelinus namaycush Oncorhynchus kisJltch Oncorhynchus tshowylsclia Oncorhynchus kela OncorhyncJws gorbllscha Oncorhynchus lll!rka Spirinchlls thaleic",hys Cyprinlls carpio Myiocireiflls callrinllS Ptychoceilils oregonens;s Rhinichthys ose/tills Rjchardsollills baltealrls Tinea tinea Calos/omlts macrocheiius /ctalJlrtls nebulosus Icta/urus plUJctalus Gasterostells aCIl/eatus Micropterus dolomieui Micropterus snlmoides Poxomis nigromaculatus PercafTavescells CollrtS alellticrls Cot/itS con/usus COllUS rhotheus COttliS asper COitus guiosils amallts Page 2-21 I Figure 2-4. Lake Washington Substrate off Project Site (7-8 November 1996) i Area of fine substrate disturbed by fish movement in approximately 30 feet of : water off Barbee Mill. Note clouds of fine sediment rising from bed . .--------. --------.----.-.---~---------..... Area of heavy woody debris coverage in approximately 10 feet of water near the Port Quendall property. (Cable in foreground is approximately 1 inch diameter.) 11115 w~ 1\ b<e tL.-0/ u.) &' ~ X II fov-Pt Y\G\. \ Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Naturally spawned fry begin leaving the Cedar River each year starting in late December. Millions more hatchery fry are released into the river starting in March. The fry migrate downstream to Lake Washington where they may spend from one to two years before emigrating to the sea. Recent studies in southern Lake Washington found the majority of sockeye fry migrate into deep water soon after reaching the lake and head north (Burgner 1991, UW 1996). A few fry were found in the nearshore environment for up to one month after emerging. By late summer, sockeye densities are highest at the north end of the lake (B urgner 1991). Predation of sockeye fry in Lake Washington is believed to be a major cause of low recruitment (University of Washington 1996). A considerable amount of research is currently being undertaken by the Muckleshoot Tribe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), University of Washington (UW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and King County to better understand the early life history of sockeye in Lake Washington and the various factors influencing predation. Currently northern squawfish and cutthroat trout are believed to be the major predators of fry (UW 1996). Estimates of sockeye consumption by squawfish in Lake Washington range between 3,000,000 and 11,000,000 fry per year (UW 1996). Smallmouth and largemouth bass, prickly sculpin, yellow perch, rainbow trout and coho salmon also consume sockeye juveniles but in much fewer numbers. Although bass are commonly believed to be major sockeye predators, recent evidence indicates this is not entirely true (UW 1996). Life history studies of the two bass species and sockeye in Lake Washington show few opportunities for the three species to interact. Gut analysis confirmed the studies (UW 1996). Less than approximately 10 percent of the diet of small mouth bass is salmon, and only for a few months each spring. Most sockeye consumed by largemouth bass are taken in the ship canal where they are concentrated during the outmigration period. Total bass consumption of sockeye fry is estimated at less than 100,000 fish per year (UW 1996). 19 June 1997 d212SJlmitigate.rp2 Page 2-23 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Ten beach seining surveys at Kennydale Park, approximately 0.7 miles south of the remediation site, were conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe between February and June, 1994 (Martz et af. 1996; Muckleshoot 1997). One survey was completed during the day and one survey at night each month. Relatively high numbers of sockeye fry, chinook fry, coho fry, and yellow perch were captured (Figure 2-5). Lesser numbers of sockeye presmoits, smallmouth bass, and squawfish were caught. Most sockeye were observed in May during the daytime surveys. A high number of yellow perch were also captured during the same survey. Fewer sockeye fry were captured in June but a higher number of chinook were netted. Again, an abundant yellow perch population was also netted. The coho population peaked in April. Benthic Species Crayfish (Pacifasticus sp.) and freshwater shrimp (Ostracods and Mysids) are relatively abundant benthic biota in the vicinity of the project. Numerous individuals were observed in diver and video surveys within the outer harbor line. Most crayfish were associated with larger pieces of wood where many were noted protecting the entrance to dens under logs. Freshwater clams (Pelecypods) were also noted in several places on the lake bed. Other benthic species found in Lake Washington, within and around the remediation bounds are listed in Table 2-8. 2.3.3 Lake Washington Shoreline Survey Methodology Physical surveys of the Lake Washington shoreline along the project boundary were undertaken to characterize existing conditions affecting fish habitat. A total of 4,890 feet of shoreline was walked from the northern edge of the Baxter property to the southern edge of the Barbee Mill parcel. The 19 June 1997 c,11115JlmiligdtLrp2 Page 2-24 Figure 2-5 1994 beach seining results at Kennyda\e Park. 60 50 :I:i V.l 40 Ii: ~ ~ 30 I 20 - 10 0 Feb 60 50 :I:i V.l Ii: 40 ~ 0 ~ 30 1"1 ! 20 10 0 Feb -+-SOCKEYE FRY ____ YEllOW PERCH Source: Muckleshoot 1997 Mar M,ar DAY SURVEYS Apr 1994 NIGHT SURVEYS Apr 1994 _SOCKEYE PRESMOL 1S -*-COHO -+-LM BASS ---+--SQUAWFISH May Jun May Jun liftS w'il\ he 0.. (olD", --g/~ x II -Pv Rnitl Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-8. Benthic biota present in Lake Washington within or near the project site. Chironomidae Ceratopogonidae Oligochaeta Nematoda Ostracoda Pelecypoda Tricoptera Copepoda Hydracarina Gastropoda Amphipoda Ephemeroplera Plecoptera CoJlembola Mysidacea Hirudinea Tardigrada Porifera Brachiopoda Isopoda Macropelopia, EukieJJeriella, Helerolrissoc/adius, parakieJJereriella. Chironomus, Cladopelma, Tallylarsus Cryptochironomous. Dicrolendipes. Einfeldia, Phaenopsecfra, Polypedilum Tubijicidae, Naididae Pisidium Piona Planorbella Hyalella azteca Perlodidae T aphromys is Caecidolea Sources: Shepard and Hoeman 1979, Bennet and Cubbage 1992. 19June 1997 d2215Jlmifigate.rpl midges biting midges aquatic earthwonns roundworms seed shrimp freshwater clams caddis flies mainly harpacticoids water mites snails scuds and sideswimmers mayflies stoneflies springtails seed shrimp leeches water bears sponges daphnia aquatic sowbugs beetles Page 2-26 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis MemorandulII remediation area stretches 3,130 fcct along the shoreline ofthe Baxter and Quendall properties. A hip-chain was pulled to measure distances. Five variables (riparian vegetation, bank type, bank protection, substrate, and water depth) were assessed at roughly five-foot intervals. The dominant characteristic in each fi ve foot interval was noted on a spreadsheet. Substrate and water depth were measured approximately five feet from shore. Overwater structures were also noted and measured. Existing literature was reviewed to describe shoreline characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the project. This information is provided for comparison with project site conditions. On-Site Habitat and Valuation Project shoreline characteristics are shown in Figures 2-2, 2:6 and 2-7. Features within the remediation area are summarized in Table 2-9. For this discussion, the remediation bounds are assumed to the shoreline of the PorI Quendall and Baxter properties. Riparian vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (46%) which grows up to, and in places, over the lake. The remaining area is split about evenly between shrubs (primarily Scotch broom) and an unvegetated condition (Table 2-9). Approximately 25 percent of the shoreline is also overhung with a sparse tree canopy layer. Most trees are young alder (to about 8 inches DBH). TIle trees are typically set back from the shoreline five to ten feet and associated with the four lakeshore wetlands (Figure 2-2). No trees large enough to provide large woody debris (L WD) were noted. Wetland habitat influences approximately 17 percent of the shoreline (535 feet). The existing shoreline vegetation provides little visual refuge for fish, b~ stability, insect habitat, or shading, because the lack of diversity and non-native characteristics of the existing vegetation are not well suited for tlJese purposes. The young, sparse hardwood stand currently growing along the b~s do not provide any of the above functions or serve as a source of large woody debris or bank refuge beneath undercut rootballs. 19 June 1997 c:Ul1jJlmiligdj~.'pl Page 2-27 II BEACH [BJ YUnCAl DIRT \m]' . !;!it .. ,j!~ RIP·RA,P o BUlKNEAD ~ .. ~ ~ c> ~ "l c> -8l :;; z ~~-c> ~ Clo; <= g ~ §i ~ !iib~ ~~~ c> l;; 5 §~ = ~ ~ "', E' ~ a ~ o lOG BOLLARD I >H UNDERCUT ~ .. ~., , ~ lOGSIH LAKE NOTE: All hobikrt, wtllond,ond pfOjtcl reolure io«Ilbfls and quonlil1es are opprodmole.. A <1 BARBEE 0" r.::.=t Mill J PORT QUENDAll jhrS will D.<2. fA. CC lOr - \\ Xli- \>" 4=1\\<\\ SUBSTRATE DEPTH !:iLl MUD Sill .O-WET o SAND OI-1FEET lliGRAVll IflLuHl I HI > 50% WOOO (HIPS / / NOTE: All lubilol, wetlond, / . and PfOIed feature tomllom and qoontili orl approIimole. rofH QUENDAll jhis kJill b-e. "'-(~ lit/+- I' I I Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 2-9. Lake Washington shoreline characteristics for the Quendall and Baxter Properties. Vegetation none 800 26% blackberry 1425 46% shrubs 905 29% trees 770 25% wetland 535 17% Bank type/Protection beach 805 26% vertical dirt 930 30% rip ~rap 415 13% bulkhead 0 0% log bollard 515 16% pier 55 2% building 35 t% skid 1% undercut 110 4% inlet 820 26% 2550 8 Substrate' mud/silt 755 24% sand 1685 54% gravel 690 22% woodwaste 1 500 16% Depth' 0-1 ft. 1775 57% 1-2 n. 870 28% 3, J 30 feet, surveyed 11 April 1997 , Measured or sampled approximately f.ve feet out from shoreline . . 2 Woodwasle = areas where chips and bark exceed 50% surface covera~e. I I 19 June 1997 c:I1115Jlmltigdfapl Page 2-30 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum The majority of the bank (56%) is unsupported and consists of steep dirt banks from one to four feet high (30%), or relatively low gradient "beach" like shoreline (26%) (Figure 2-6). Manmade structures and protection features (rip-rap, log bollards, piers, buildings, log sldds) cover 33 percent of the shoreline (Table 2-9). Eleven percent of the bank could not be survey~d due to heavy blackberry coverage. Four percent of the bank (110 feet) is undercut by wave action. Large logs floating or sitting on tile bottom near the shore protect 81 percent of the shoreline. These logs not only shelter the banks from wave action, they provide excellent rearing and shelter habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. Historically the lake shoreline was primarily low-gradient beach habitat fonned as the delta of May Creek. Over time, erosion caused by industriallandfilling, riparian vegetation removal, and wave action has created oversteepened banks. Other banks are artificially protected with rip-rap and log bollards. Neither condition is conducive to habitat formation. Cull logs and stringers from the mill effectively provide many of the habitat functions and diversity nonnally associated with large woody debris (L WD). Various mamnade structures provide some diversity and overhead cover, and may be used by juvenile salmonids (Ratte and Salo 1985; Heiser and Finn 1970). Inlets, or coves make up approximately 26 percent of the shoreline. Most have a few pieces of L WD floating or sitting on the bottom. These areas of meandering shoreline add diversity to the relatively straight shore dsewhcre. Shallow coves filled with L WD could provide nursery areas [or many species of fish and benthic organisms. Surficial substrate along the shoreline is dominated by sands (54%) with relatively equal proportions ofmud/silt and gravel in other areas (Figure 2-7). None of the substrates are free of silts; a muddy layer underlies most areas. A large amount of woody debris induding wood chips covered the substrate in several areas (Figures 2-4 and 2-7). 19 June 1997 d1115JlmitigIJlupl Page 2-31 Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Clean gravels can provide spawning habitat for sockeye as well as macroinvertebrate habitat. Finer materials anchor vegetation and are preferentially inhabited by other aquatic species. Dense wood chip coverage leads to anaerobic conditions and a relatively sterile environment. No benefit is derived from the wood chip coverage. Water depths five feet from shore are typically less than one foot (57%). Only IS percent of the shoreline has a slope greater than about 3: I. These areas are usually heavily disturbed by nearshore activities and may have resulted from past filling of the lake. Anthropogenic structures are found in several areas along the shoreline. Two boat sheds (one sunken), half a dozen docks, a barge, three boats, two log skids and several other smaller structures impact approximately 5 percent of the shoreline. All of these structures overhang shallow water habitat in Lake Washington. No floating log rafts were present offshore of Baxter or Quendall the day of the survey, although aerial photographs indicate this practice is common. The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage enters the Baxter property via a 24-inch concrete culvert beneath the Burlington Northern railroad tracks (Entranco 1995). The culvert is 55 feet long, has a gradient of approximately 2 percent, and is likely an effective barrier to upstream fish passage. Upon entering the property, the drainage is discharged to a small (approximately 10 foot diameter),. quarry-spall lined pond. From the pond, the drainage enters a 24-inch, 46-foot long concrete culvert beneath a dirt haul road before daylighting again to an open channel. The open channel is a highly confined, steep-walled trough, approximately 10 to 15 feet below the surrounding ground elevation and 3 to 10 feet wide at the bottom. The substrate consists primarily of a deep anaerobic mud except where bank sloughing and rocks spilled into the channel have replaced the mud with a firmer bed material. The banks are heavily vegetated with a narrow strip of young hardwoods, scot's broom, and Himalayan blackberry. Total length of the opeli channel is approximately 125 feel. The drainage next enters a 490-foot, 24-inch CMP which discharges directly to Lake Washington. The 490-foot CMP drops approximately 0.5 foot (0.1 % gradient) and at low lake elevation is perched about a foot 19 JUlie 1997 dl215Jlmi/igau."pl Page 2-32 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum above the lake water surface. During high lake elevations, the culvert is partially backwatered and upstream passage is possible, though not known to occur. Off-Site Habitat A considerable amount of fisheries habitat information in South Lake Washington has been collected by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Some orihe data are summarized here to provide a comparison of on-site conditions with those found along the adjacent shoreline off-site. Shoreline composition was surveyed in September 1995 (Muckleshoot 1997). Percent bulkhead, sloped bank (beach), and vegetated distance was assessed between river mile (RM) 32 and RM 46. The Port Quendall remediation site (RM 37.9 -38.5) was not surveyed due to access problems associated with the log booms. The data are plotted in Figure 2-8 with the 1997 remediation site information inserted in its appropriate location for comparison. Overall, the remediation site shoreline is in a much more natural condition than the surrounding shoreline (Table 2-10). Eighty-three percent of the shoreline surveyed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has been bulkheaded while significantly less (33% total) of the remediation site has received similar treatment. Only 15 percent of the surrounding shoreline has low gradient banks and only two percent is vegetated (not including vegetated bulkheads). This compares with 26 percent low gradient bank and 60 percent vegetated bank for the remediation area. Table 2-10. Comparison of shoreline conditions within the remediation area and the surrounding shoreline. 19 June 1997 c:1l11jJ\Jnltigafupl Page 2-33 Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation AllGlysis Memorandum 100% • • 90% • • • w J 80% ~ • z 70% .--:J w 60% .I. • '" 0 :J: ., 50% Remediation area--~ u. 40% 0 I-z 30% w U '" 20% w .. 10% 0% 30 31 32 ---rhiS w;d b-L a.. Io/W '(;'b.x \ \ 0 . 33 0 0 0 • .I. 34 35 36 37 38 L • % BULKHEAD • 0 0 L-- 0 ... I I 'i1 I • I I 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 LAKE MILE 0% SLOPED ... % VEGETATED 1 Figure 2-8. Lake Washington shoreline composition along a 14-mile reach of lakeshore on both sides of Port Quendall in September 1995. 'Source: Muckleshoot 1997. c;Ul1J1lmitigolup1 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Pier coverage of the water surface within 100 feet of the shoreline was estimated from 1989 aerial photographs and a review of environmental documents published between September 1991 and July 1995 (Muckleshoot 1997). The values are believed to underestimate the real coverage due to an incomplete database and unauthorized development. For the eleven mile reach surveyed (which includes the remediation reach) a total of 517 piers were counted (47 piers/mile). This compares with 4 piers, or 7 piersfmile within the remediation reach (Table 2-11). Overall surface coverage averages 4.2 percent of the first 100 reet of lake for the eleven mile reach. Within the remediation area, only 0.6 percent of the lake slIrface is covered with piers. Table 2-11. Comparison of overwater pier coverage within the remediation area (1997) and the surrounding shoreline (1989). Number of Piers/mile 7 47 Estimated Coverage (fI'/mile) 3008 22368 Estimated 0.6 4.2 1989 data supplied by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Muckleshoot 1997). 2.3.4 Lake Washington Opcn Water Benthic In general, the shoreline drops off gently at slopes between approximately 20: 1 and 9: 1. Small localized areas with slopes in excess of3:1 are present. After dropping relatively quickly to 15 to 20 feet within 250 feet from shore, the gradient flattens into a broad plateau sloping gently for 19June 1997 c:ll11HlmitfgDk. rpl Page 2-35 Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Al1alysis Memorandum another 400 to 600 feet offshore. Approximately 5 to 10 additional feet in depth are gained over this plateau. Additional topographylbathymetry information and a map is provided in the Sediment Quality Memorandum, Seetion4.1 (REfEC 1997). The vast majority of remediation activities will take place at 10 feet or less in depth, although dredging near the old T-dock would occur in about 30 feet of water. The surface of the lake bottom substrate was characterized in terms of particle size and organic material (e.g., wood chips). The sub-surface composition was examined via sediment-profile imaging (SPI). The surficial layer was surveyed with video by both towed and diver operated cameras, and during the SPI surveys. In general the lake bottom consists of very fine particles. Occasional sandy areas were also noted. No graveled areas were noted. A more complete description is provided in RETEC Section 4.2 (1997). SPI images provide a measurement of the substrate depth in which aerobic activity is occurring (RETEC 1997). These data are useful in assessing the quality of habitat for epifauna and infauna. A thin redox potential discontinuity (IU'D) is indicative of a stressed environment. Stress can occur physically (e.g., prop wash) or chemically (e.g., high biological oxygen demand or chemical contamination). RPD depths of less than 0.4 cm are indicative of an anaerobic condition. The shallowest RPD depths in the remediation area «0.2 em) were measured offthe southern end of the Port Quendall parcel and were associated with areas with high wood waste (RETEC 1997, Figure 6-2). Intennediate RPD levels (0.2 to 0.8 cm) were observed over much of the rest ofthe lake bottom off Port Quendall. These levels are indicative of a disturbed environment where benthic stress is present but likely varies. Both scattered wood debris and chemical contamination are likely present. The rest of the remediation area has RPD depths over 0.8 cm, which is considered to be a relatively undisturbed benthic condition in tenns of overall animal-sediment interactions for nearshore environs in this portion of Lake Washington (RETEC 1997). A complete t9June 1997 d12JJJlmililale.rp2 Page 2-36 PorI Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum description of the SPI process, wood and chemical contamination extents, and associated maps are provided in the Sediment Quality Memorandum, Section 6 (RETEC 1997). Sunken logs are present throughout the remediation area with the highest densities (3 to 5 logs/acre) mapped along the Quendall shoreline. Much of the aquatic organisms observed during video surveys (e.g., crayfish, sculpin, perch) were associated with the logs. Milfoil was noted during the side-scan sonar and video surveys (RETEC 1997). Areas of dense milfoil are mapped in Figure 2-2. Milfoil is conunon throughout moSt of the remediation area at water depths from about 4 to approximately 15 feet. Only in the dense woodwaste area at the south end oftheremediation area was mil foil relatively absent. Water Column Pilings and dolphins (tied piling cluster) are scattered throughout the remediation area with 64 percent located off the Port Quendall parcel. A total of73 vertical structures, mainly dolphins, have been mapped to date. These structures provide vertical habitat which many species utilize, including some salmonid predators, (e.g., bass). Several hundred individual upright pilings, many not rising above the water surface, also likely exist but have not been mapped. The pilings also provide attachment and focal points for aquatic organisms such as freshwater mussels. Several sunken structures along the Quendall shoreline are also present in the water column including the old boat house and several partially sunken pier sections. Surface A number of anthropogenic structures and objects exist on the surface of Lake Washington which have·an influence on aquatic habitat quality. A varying quantity of logs have been stored as log 19 June 1997 c:11125Jlmitjla(~rp2 Page 2-37 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum rafts off the shoreline of Barbee Mill, Baxter and Quendall. Vessels including tugs, barges and recreational· boats have been anchored in the area. Numerous docks are present in either a permanent (i.e., mounted on pilings) or temporary (i.e., floating) basis. Structures on the lake surface provide overhead refuge cover for numerous aquatic species as well as their predators. Salmonids in particular prefer overhead cover, especially when near shore. A number of small oily slicks have been observed nearshore and are believed to be coming from old creosote deposits (Figure 4-6 in RETEC 1997). These slicks impact aquatic habitat via both chemical and physical processes. Chemically, various components of the creosote are toxic to aquatic life. Physically, the slicks present a barrier at the aquatic/atmospheric interface. Fish feeding at the surface can become contaminated. Prey items stuck in the sheen are not consumable. 2.3.5 Habitat Valuation NtUllcrous protected alcoves, abundant woody debris, overhanging trees, and relatively low human disturbance along the shoreline offer good potential rearing and migrating structure for fish, especially when compared to the adjacent Lake Washington shoreline. Although a number of beneficial habitat features exist, they are compromised by the constant seepage of chemicals and oily residues. Under existing conditions, therefore, habitat value of the remediation site for fish is low. Offshore habitat in the remediation area ranges from good to poor. 1110se areas contaminated with chemicals and wood chips offer poor to negligible .benthic habitat while pelagic species would be less affected. The majority of the lake bottom is relatively e1ean, however, and the numerous sunken logs provide good structural diversity for a number of aquatic species. The vertical and floating structures benefit some species (e.g., smallmouth bass) to the possible detriment of others (e.g., sockeye salmon). 19 June 1997 c:11115Jlmitigo/up2 Page 2-38 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Fish habitat value of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage within the project boundary is minimal. The two short open stretches offer some potential rearing habitat, however, shallow depths, a muddy substrate, no instream structure, and little instream cover limits the overall habitat value. With little protection from high velocities, winter storm events likely flush many fish from the system. SUl1ll1ler conditions produce extremely low flows which may also limit the habitat quality. 2.4 Recreational There is one private dock and boathouse located over Lake Washington at the extreme northern boundary of the Baxter parcel. Another private dock and boathouse exists at the extreme southern boundary of Barbee Mill. No other recreational opportunities and no public access are currently provided on the site. Recreational resources are not discussed further. 2.5 Cultural Reference Larson 1997 reporllo be completed and included with FS 2.6 Economic A portion of the Baxter parcel is used for storage of "beauty bark." The southern portion of the Quendall parcel is used for log sorting. Both of these uses would be curtailed by remediation. A utility right-of-way separates the Baxter and Quendall parcels, however use of this right-of-way is not affected by remediation. The Barbee Mill is active; however, this operation would not be impacted by remediation except for removal of wood chips offshore of Barbee, which likely would not occur until after mill operation ceased. Economic resources are not discussed further. 19 JUlie 1997 d1115Jlmidgatt.rpl Page 2-39 Pori QlIendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm 3.0 IMI' ACTS 3.1 Remediation Alternative 1 -Low Impact Lake FjII No fill in Lake Washington is proposed under Alternative I. 3.1.1 Plants and Animals Disturbance to Shoreline Land-based remediation would result in the excavation and/or capping of the entire Quendall shoreline and approximately 970 feet of the Baxter shoreline (Figure 1-1). Approximately 1,630 linear feet of vegetated shoreline, including Wetlands A and B, would be removed (Table 3-1). This action would eliminate all wildlife use of the shoreline areas during active remediation, which is scheduled to begin in March 1998. Nesting waterfowl and passerine bird use would be the greatest wildlife use impacted during shoreline remediation activities. Table 3-1. Shoreline vegetation disturbance resulting from upland excavation and/or capping. 140 19 June t997 c:L211SJlmilifa/~rpl Page 3-1 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Dredge Offshore PAH Wetland E (Baxter Cove) would be dredged to remove PAH sediments eliminating all vegetation (including 140 feet along the lake shoreline) and woody debris in the wetland and most of the adjacent vegetated buffer. Turtles would be displaced from this shoreline area during the dredging activities. Red-wing blackbird nesting habitat would be eliminated. P AH dredging off of the Quenda\l parcel would impact 1.55 acres of milfoil which is not considered to be a negative impact. Dredge offshore Areas with >50% Wood Chips No impact to plants or animals would result from the removal of wood chips. Although approximately 0.44 acre of mil foil would be removed, this is not considered to be a negative impact. Upland Soil and Excavation and Cap-W.n& In addition to the removal of shoreline vegetation, all vegetated areas on the Quendall and Baxter parcels, including Wetlands C and D, would be eliminated with this action except for a 50-foot wide band along the north Baxter shoreline (Figure I-I). This would eliminate all wildlife use of the Baxter and Quendall parcels upland of the shoreline areas. Snipes, Canada geese and some passerine birds have been observed using these sparsely vegetated areas. Osprey nesting in the area could be impacted by the remediation activities. However, the osprey successfully nested on the adjacent active mill site in 1997, indicating that high levels of activities and construction-level noise would not necessarily impact osprey nesting in this area. The occasional use of the osprey nest platform on the Puget Sound Energy cable station pole by bald eagles during the winter would likely be t9 June t997 c:11215Jl.mitlgsll!. rp 1 Page 3-2 Port QI/endall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandl/III eliminated during remediation activities. This very limited use should not affect bald eagle foraging. The closest known bald eagle nest site is approximately 3/4 miles west of the site, therefore, the project would not impact nesting bald eagles. Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement The narrow band of willow and red alder along the I 25-foot long open channel section of Gypsy Subbasin would be eliminated with this action. This action would not impact wildlife because of the disturbed and isolated condition of this small area. 3.1.2 Fisheries Shoreline Disturbance Shoreline disturbances affecting fish habitat include complete removal of all vegetation along the shoreline in the remediation area and 100 percent filling of Wetlands A and B, the two wetlands adjacent to the lake. Existing shoreline vegetation provides little habitat value for fish. Removal of all vegetation however, would further reduce nutrient input to the nearshore, decrease primary productivity for the area, and decrease the already minimal overhanging vegetation serving as refuge habitat. Removal of the two wetlands would result in lost lakeshore habitat complexity including small patches of emergent vegetation, shallow nursery areas, and overhanging trees. A total of approximately 395 linear feet of shoreline wetland would be lost. Another approximately 140 feet of wetland shoreline at Baxter Cove would be severely impacted. Resulting shoreline vegetation condition for the three properties is shown in Table 3-2. 19 June 1997 ~:\1115JI",i/iga/~_,pl Page 3-3 Table 3-2, Lake 'Washington Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics aner Remediation' Alternative I -Low Impact ~ CEXis'tir'lLfonditions Remediated Conditions Linear Coverage Linear Coverage Catcgory Characteristic Distance (fl) (%) Distance (ft) (%) Vegetation unvegetated 2460 50% 4230' 87% blackberry 1525 31 % 265 5% shrubs 905 19% 395 8% trees 770 16% 90 2% wetland 535 II % 140 3% Bank type/ beach 955 20% 955 20% Protection vertical dirt 1540 31 % 1540 31 % np -rap 825 17% 825 17% bulkhead 340 7% 340 7% log ballard 1015 21% 1015 21 % pier 135 3% 135 3% building 60 1% 60 1% 101( skid 65 1% 65 1% undercut 110 2% 110 2% inlet 820 17% 820 17% logs 3400 70% 3400 70% Substrate l mud/silt 1015 21% 825 17% sand. 2505 51% 2465 50% gravel 730 15% 960 20% woodwaste 2 1470 30% 0 0% Depth' 0-1' 1785 37% 1785 37% 1-2' 1070 22% 1070 22% >2' 2035 42% 2035 42% Coverage includes Barbee Mill. Quendall, and Baxter shorelines in their entirety (4,890 feet of shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features along Barbee Mill as remediation mitigation. I Measured or sampled approximately five fect out from shoreline. ! WoodwaSle = areas where chips and bark exceed 50 percent surface coverage. Change (%)- 72% -83% -56% -88% -74% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -19% -2% 32% -100% 0% 0% 0% Fish' Habitat Goal - , - + + =/+ + - - - - -, - - = + + =/- =/- =/+ - =/+ =/+ =/- Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Shoreline disturbances are expected to discourage fish use of the area and possibly impact sockeye salmon migration habits. Both macro-and microinvertebrate populations will be impacted by loss of productivity from nearshore vegetation. Dredge Offshore (P AHl Offshore dredging of contaminated materials would result in immediate and severe direct impacts to benthic fauna during dredging activities. Fish use of the area would also be curtailed during dredging, and for a short time thereafter as the disturbed sediments settle after dredging equipment withdraws from the site. Timing of dredging activities could affect expected impacts as the area receives higher use during certain times of the year (e.g., sockeye migration periods). However, dredging would avoid critical periods as advised by WDFW, which has suggested closure of activity between I February and 15 July as a preliminary recommendation to protect migrating sockeye juveniles (Fisher, pers. comm.) Little beneficial habitat exists in the dredging areas, thus no long term negative impact is expected from the activity. Overall, dredging of these most highly contaminated sediments are expected to have a net long term benefit on fish habitat in the area. Once the dredged areas are refilled to their original contours with clean sedimcnts, the areas are expected to be rapidly recolonized with benthic invertebrates and flora, and shortly thereafter the larger species which prey on these organisms. Contaminant exposure risk to the fishery should cease as a result of dredging, increasing the habitat value to aquatic species. Although dredged silts and sands would be replaced with sand and gravel removed from the Cedar. River, this is not considered a negative impact. The material was selected to maximize sediment variability in the region and with the hope that upwelling for sockeye spawning purposes may be facilitated. 19 June 1997 c:1211jJlmWgalupl Page 3-5 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Allalysis Memorandum Dredge Offshore (Wood Chips) Dredging of woodwastes would result in immediate and direct impacts to the minor benthic popUlation present within locations exceeding 50 percent wood coverage (Figure 1-1). Fish use of the area would also be curtailed during dredging; and for a short time thereafter as the disturbed sediments settle and dredging equipment withdraws from the site. Timing of dredging activities would affect expected impacts as the area receives higher use during certain times of the year (e.g., sockeye migration periods), however dredging would avoid critical periods as advised by WDFW. Areas to be dredged of wood chips are commonly associated with highly anaerobic conditions (RETEC 1997), thus little beneficial habitat currently exists in the dredging areas. No long term negative impact is expected from the activity. Dredging of the wood chips is expected to have a net long term benefit on fish habitat in the area. The areas are expected to be rapidly recolonized with benthic invertebrates and flora, and shortly thereafter with the larger species which prey on these organisms. Sublethal impacts to thc fishcry from the wood leachates and anaerobic chemical processes should decrease after dredging. Upland Soil Excavation and Capping Upland soil excavation and capping activities have the potential to introduce sediment to Lake Washington. Excessive sediment introduction can result in reduction of nearshore habitat availability. Excessive fine sediments can elevate turbidity which can have a detrimental effect on fish communities. High turbidity can impact fish directly through changes in behavior and physiology, or indirectly by decreasing food supply and habitat availability. Behavioral modifications include cessation of feeding and outmigration. Physical reactions include excessive mucus secretion, excretory interference and respiratory complications resulting in possible suffocation (Redding et al. 1987). 19 June 1997 c:l122111,rdli,rJU.rp2 Page 3-6 I Port QuelJdall Drafi Mitigation Analysis AlemorandJlIII An erosion and sediment control plan would be developed and implemented to contain all significant sediment sources, thus no significant impacts to fish resources should be expected from the upland activities. Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement Construction activities related to the replacement of the Gypsy Subbasin culvert have the potential to impact fish in Lake Washington due to excessive sediment production. Sediment related construction impacts are discussed in the preceding section. Under existing conditions, fish arc not able migrate from Lake Washington to fish habitat upstream of the culvert, therefore, it is unlikely fish are currently using the culvert in significant numbers. Replacement of the culvert with a larger pipe may increase the likelihood of migration upstream to the eastern project property boundary. An isolated, approximately I 25-fool portion of the drainage which currently exists at the upstream end of the culvert would be replaced with an open 125-foot channel adjacent to Lake Washington (Figure 3-1). This section could, in the future, offer some rearing and possibly spawning benefits. Overall, upgrading the Gypsy culvert and relocation of the open channel to a more accessible location for fish is not expected to have a negative impact on fish. A long-term benefit to fish as a result of increased habitat availability due to the improved lake access, and enhanced passage to upstream habitat is expected. 19 June 1997 c:11115JlnriJigalop2 Page 3-7 GYPSY SUBBASIN DRAINAGE DAY LIGHTING CONCEPT Vegllaled riparian buflu (Upland Mixed Forest Habilfll) ~ Wetland Habitat Wllllnu,,,, J I~ .llownowtIlOHWM!-'" I ~ Chonnel 10 contoin up 10 rhe \ ConlinuM 1o lOa-yeer flood event \ .1'1_ ... 1 ",.tI"nrl l Daylight Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. aeale retiring habital for [iSh -r ><.. "] .+1 ~ PORT OUENDAll REMEDIATION PROJECT AGlJRil-l CONCEPTUAL GYPSY SUBBASIN D/lAI/lAG£ STREAM g BUFFEK DESIGN R" \ (' is:" _ -. C - Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 3.2 Remediation Alternative 2 -Medium Impact 3.2.1 Plants and Animals All plants and animal impacts are the same as Alternative I except for the loss of nearshore partially submerged and floating logs that provide resting platforms for waterfowl and turtles along approximately 380 feet of the Quendall nearshore area within the O.5-acre fill. 3.2.2 Fisheries Lake Fill New lake fill would directly remove 0.5 acres of lake habitat from Lake Washington behind a wall constructed to contain below ground contaminant seeps. This loss would consist of 0.4 acres of shallow water habitat (less than 4 feet) and 0.1 acre of deeper water habitat (4 to 6 feet). Four feet and shallower was selected to describe shallow water habitat because milfoil does not generally occur in this zone, thus the area provides maximum open water fish rearing and migrating conditions. The lake fill perimeter would have a 3: I slope from the waterline into the lake, which is the angle of repose for the clean Cedar River sand and gravel to be used. At this angle, approximately 0.1 acres of new shallow water habitat would be created along the fill margin. Therefore, the total loss of lake habitat under this alternative would be 0.3 acres of shallow habitat and 0.2 acres of deep water habitat. Use of shallow water habitat is dictated by species, and by lifestage within a species. For example sockeye fry are known to spend at least part of their time in the nearshore shallows after entering Lake Washington (Martz et al. 1996). Juveniles, smolts and adults generally prefer deeper waters. 19 JUlie 1997 c:Ul1JJlmitigalupJ Page 3-9 . , i Pori Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Younger fish often utilize shallower waters to escape predators feeding offshore. The loss of 0.3 acres of nearshore shallow habitat along the Port Quendallshoreline, however, is not likely to significantly impact any species, but does represent a loss of potentially valuable aquatic habitat. Other impacts as a result of lake fill are noted in Table 3-3. These include increases in low gradient shoreline and nearshore graveled substrates, and decreases in mud/silt/sand substrates and wood waste. All these changes are expected to be beneficial to fish habitat by increasing areas of preferred habitat and reducing results of past industrial land use activities. Negative impacts include a significant decrease in the number of logs along the shoreline and the unvegetated state of the shore. Other Impacts All other disturbances and impacts would be identical to those described under Alternative (Section 3. I). 3.3 Remediation Alternative 3 -High Impact 3.3.1 Plants and Animals All plants and animal impacts are the same as Alternative 1 except for the loss of nearshore partially submerged and floating logs that provide 'resting platforms for waterfowl and turtles along approximately 760 feet of the Quendall nearshore area within the 2.9-acre lake fill and the removal or fill of 2.19 acres of milfoil within the lake fill and wood chip removal areas. 19 June 1997 c:11125JlmitigdU.'pl Page 3-10 Table 3-3. Lake Washington Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics after Remediation Alternative 2 -Medium Impact (0.5 acre fill) Existing Conditions Remediated Conditions Linear Coverage Linear Coverage CaleJ(ory Characteristic Distance (ft) (%) Distance (ft) (%) Vegetation unvegetated 2460 50% 4230 87% blackberry 1525 31% 265 5% shrubs 905 19% 395 8% trees 770 16% 90 2% wetland 535 11% .... ,< 140 3% Bank type! beach 955 20% 1300 27% Protection vertical dirt 1540 31 % .1540 31 % rip -rap 825 17% .825 17% bulkhead 340 7% 340 7% . -,. log ballard 1015 21 % 1015 21% pier 135 3% -135 3% building 60 1% 60 1% log skid 65 1% 65 1% undercut 110 2% 110 2% inlet 820 17% 820 17% logs 3400 70% 2830 58% Substrate' mud!silt 1015 21% 825 17% sand 2505 51 % 2410 49% gravel 730 15% 1015 21% woodwaste 2 1470 30% 0 0% I Depth' 0-1' 1785 37% 1505 31 % 1-2' I 1070 22% 1350 28% >2' 2035 42% 2035 42% Coverage includes Barbee Mill. Quendall, and Baxter shorelines in their entirety (4,890 feet of Shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features along Barbee Mill as remediation mitigation. 1 Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline. 2 Woodwaste = areas where chips and bark exceed 50 percent surface coverage. Change,' . (%) 72% -83% -56% -88% _-74% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -17% -19% -4% 39% -100% -16% 26% 0% 'Fish,·,. Habitat . Goal _ •..... - + + =1+" + .. _., .. ' - -. ,: - - - - -- + +, =/- =/c =/+ - =/+ =/+ =/-. Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 3.3.2 Fisberies Lake Fill New lake fill would directly remove 2.9 acres of lake habitat from Lake Washington. Unlike Alternative 2, this fill would consist of a confined disposal unit upland of the contairuuent wall; however, the fill perimeter on the lake side of the wall would consist of the same 3:1 slope clean sand and gravel from the lake bottom to the water's surface. The total fill would consist of 0.8 acres of shallow water habitat (less than 4 feet) and 2.1 acre of deeper water habitat (4 to 18 feet). At the proposed fill angle, approximately 0.3 acres of new shallow habitat would be created along the fill margin. Therefore, the total loss of lake habitat WIder this alternative would be 0.5 acres of shallow habitat and 2.4 acres of deep water habitat. The 2.9 acres of fill under Alternative 3 would be a containment facility, precluding vegetation planting landward of the containment wall. The loss of 0.5 acres of nearshore shallow habitat along the Port Quendall shoreline represents a loss of potentially valuable aquatic habitat. Other impacts are noted in Table 3-4. These include increases in low gradient shoreline and nearshore graveled substrates and decreases in mud/silt/sand substrates and woodwaste. All these changes are expected to be beneficial to fish habitat. Negative impacts include a significant decrease in the number of logs along the shoreline and the unvegetated state of the shore. Other Impacts All other disturbances and impacts would be identical to those described WIder Alternative I (Section 3.1). 19June 1997 c:1112SJlmllif(Jtap2 Page 3-12 Table 3-4. Lake Washingioll Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics after Remediation Alternative 3 -High Impact (2.9 acre fill) Existing Conditions Remediated Conditions Linear Coverage Linear Coverage Category Characteristic Distance (ft) (%) Distance (ft) (%t Vegetation ullvegetated 2460 50% ····.········~~~O ".'" 87% blackberry 1525 31% 265 5% shrubs 905 19% . -395 8% trees 770 16% .... ... -',90 2% wetland 535 ll% . "./40 3% Bank type/ beach 955 20% l<i05 33% Protection vertical dirt 1540 31 % .. 1540 31 % , rip ·rap 825 17% 825 17% bulkhead 340 7% 340 7% log bollard 1015 21 % 1015 21% pier 135 3% 115 2% building 60 1% 60 1% log skid 65 1% 65 1% undercut Ito 2% 110 2% inlet 820 17% 820 17% logs 3400 70% 2640 54% Substrate' mud/silt 1015 21% 685 14% sand 2505 51 % 2455 50% gravel 730 15% 1110 23% woodwasle1 1470 30% 0 0% - Depth' 0-1' 1785 37% 1265 26% 1-2' 1070 22% 1590 33% >2' . 2035 42% 2035 42% Coverage includes Barbee Mill, Quendall, and B<lxler shorelines in their entirety (4,890 feel of shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features atong Barbee Mill as remediation mitigation. I Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline. 2 Woodwaste = areas where chips and bark exceed 50 percent surface coverage. Change· (rQ) __ ·72% -83% -56% '88% -74% 68% 0% 0% 0% 0% -15% 0% 0% 0% 0% -22% -33% -2% 52% -100% -29% 49% 0% Fish .• Habitat Goal· ...... -. - + + =/+ :+: - _. - - - - - = + + =/- =f~ =/+ - =/+ =/+ =/- Port Quendal/ Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 4.0 MITIGATION Conceptual mitigation actions, are summarized in Table 4-1 and discussed below for each remediation action proposed under the three remediation alternatives. Constraints to mitigation are imposed by I) the slurry or sheetpile wall under all alternatives, 2) creation of a 2.9-acre confined disposal unit as lake fill under Alternative 3, and 3) the Quendall and south Baxter upland excavation and capping areas (shown in blue over Quendall and south Baxter in Figures I-I through 1-3) under all alternatives. Creation of wetlands cannot occur upland ofthe wall and within the capped zone of Quendall and south Baxter under all alternatives. Vegetation cannot be planted on the 2.9-acre confined disposal unit under Alternative 3. 4.1 Remediation Alternative 1 -Low Impact 4.1.1 Plants and Animals The wildlife habitat within the remediation area is primarily found along the shoreline. The goal of the wildlife mitigation is to expand and enhance the plant communities and other habitat features (e.g. down woody debris) along the Quendall and Baxter shorelines. Wetland communities would be replaced on a 1: I basis (impact:created or restored) within Baxter Cove and another large complex along the northern Baxter shoreline which would be connected to Baxter Cove via 0.25 acre of upland habitat along the shoreline. Wetland hydrology would be controlled by the lake. Vegetation and logs would provide shoreline protection as found under current conditions. Water quality functions would be limited in these wetland systems due to the. limited area that would drain into these wetlands, similar to existing wetland conditions. The biological support provided by the wetland mitigation areas is expected to be greater than currently provided by the five wetland areas that would be impacted by the remediation because a large wetland -upland complex would be established that supports greater vegetative diversity and structure, including an overstory conifer component. 19 June 1997 C:U121JlmJf/gat~,pl Page 4-1 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-1. Summary of mitigation for impacts from each remediation alternative. Lake Fill (includes elimination of original shoreline through fill area, reconstruction of new shoreline aroundfill perimeter at 3: 1 slope; elimination of shallow and deep water lake habitat in area filled) Mitigation constraint is sheetpile wall around fill perimeter, For Alternative 3, mitigation is constrained by inability to plant landward of containment wall around the confined disposal unit. c:!211SJlmitigatt.rp2 None (1) Replace and improve lost fish habitat value along the shoreline as feasible around the fill perimeter by strategically anchoring logs at the upper end of the 3: I slopes to establish vegetation (Figure 4-3); (2) Replace 0.3 acre oflost shallow habitat by adding 0.3 acre of wetland along 200 feet of Baxter shoreline adjacent to the wetland complex mitigating wetlands A-D; and (3) Replace lost deep water habitat by increasing shoreline complexity and vegetating 400 feet of non- vegetated shoreline. (1) Same as All 2, ~ (2) Create an additional 0.5 acre of wetland habitat along 360 feet of Ba.xter shoreline; and (3) Create an additional 0.35 acre of wildlife habitat adjacent to the wetland complex created on Baxter (may include the open channel section of Gypsy Creek). Pori Quendall Draft Mitjgation Analysjs Memorandum Table 4-1. Summary of Mitigation Relationship to Impacts of each Alternative (Continued). Disturbance to Shoreline (loss a/vegetation, if any; removal and/or fill 0/ upland soils) Mitigation constraint is sheetpile or sluny wall 20- 50-feet inland ofOWM from Quendall-Barbee property line northward to utility ROW. c:111]SJ\mjtigat~rp2 (I) Replace and improve fish habitat value along the shoreline by planting native vegetation, increasing plant diversity and adding large woody debris for nearshore complexity. (2) Replace Wetlands A and B with enhanced function and values on a 1: 1 area basis in one wetland complex area associated with the lake (complex to include mitigation for wetlands C and D described below); (3) Enhance wetland buffers; (4) Connect Baxter Cove to wetland complex in north Ba."(ter by 0.25-acre of native upland vegetation buffer along the lakeshore; and (5) Plant 80% of the combined Baxter and Quendall shorelines in native vegetation, with 30% of the combined shorelines including trees. Same as Alternative 1, plus an additional 625 feet of shoreline planted in trees. Same as Alternative 1, plus an additional 1,095 feet of shoreline planted in trees. Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-1. Summary of Mitigation Relationship to Impacts of each Alternative (Continued). , ,:",Action',,"'" "I" "', , ' Alternative 1 ;i~;;;:::>.~·_;:~3Z~;~1~~~;;;1:~;; ~~r;~~~~~':; : :,2S~::'L'o~'I~ii'~i~t ',. ~lt~~}1~t~~.i';:;~'';'"I'i.:I.:..;;£~'k?~I~~~natiV~J~'!&i,''',f.il., '.~ediu'IIi:_Impact~:~:W; .'¥~~;~tt~~fi:ipiict;~;~~)~;{i~ Dredge offshore P AH (re-fillto original elevations with clean material) Dredge offshore areas with> 50% wood chips (with no re-fill; original elevations assumed prior to chip deposition). Upland soil excavation and capping Mitigation largely constrained to northern Baxter due to the degree of contaminant removal and capping to Quendall and southern Ba.xter. c:I.121SJlmilita1erpl (1) Replace Wetland E (Baxter I Same as Alternative 1 Cove) in originaiiocation with enhanced buffer; (2) No further action for other offshore dredge areas. No Further Action I No Further Action (I) Replace Wetlands C & D with I Same as Alternative I enhanced function and values on a I: I area basis in one wetland complex area associated with the lake (located in northern Baxter); (2) enhance buffers; match prior shoreline length of wetlands at minimum; (3) Ifneeded, a second osprey nest platform would be added at the north end of the mouth of May Creek. Same as Alternative 1 No Further Action Same as Alternative I Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-1. Summary of Mitigation Relationship to Impacts of each Alternative (Continued). , Action .. "}~ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 , . ,.;;);. ·EiL~:;;:jC:i·).,. .i i>~',"J'>' Low Impact ':', . ,,', Medium ImpaCt ,""(\:i ?~~;i;:if;'·i::;,.'High lfupaCt·:,··;;:f{J Gypsy subbasin culvert R~place culvert with largcr Same as Alternative I Same as Alternative I, however the replacement (replace with diameter pipe during open channel component may be larger diameter under clean excavation and capping; increased as part of the O.35-acre upland cap after excavation) possible realignment of culvert wildlife habitat addition to the but no longer than original; wetland complex. relocate existing open channel segment to lake-end of culvert. 25-ft buffer provided for open channel and culvert. c:I2115JlmiJigatt.rpl Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-1. Summary of Mitigation Relationship to Impacts of each Alternative (Continued). Action . Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 .. . .... ~' . /~ <·i·:.~t~:· .;..: -.> . Low Impact Medium ImpaCt -'2 l.i:::i2.::High ImpaCt .i.c ..... ,. Gypsy subbasin culvert Replace culvert with larger Same as Alternative I Same as Alternative 1, however the replacement (replace with diameter pipe during open channel component may be larger diameter under clean excavation and capping; increased as part of the 0.35-acre upland cap after excavation) possible realignment of culvert wildlife habitat addition to the but no longer than original; wetland complex. relocate existing open channel segment to lake-end of culvert. 25-ft buffer provided for open channel and culvert. c:\11253Imitigate.rpl Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Disturbance to Shoreline The following actions would be conducted to mitigate for shoreline wildlife habitat impacts: • establish native plant cOllUnunities along impacted shoreline that is currently vegetated; sluub species would be established along most of the revegetated shoreline, trees would be established along at least 30 percent of the shoreline; • at a minimum, vegetation would be established waterward of the slurry or sheetpile wall (Figure 4-1); • increase plant diversity from current conditions; • replace Wetlands A and B with enhanced functions on a 1: I ratio (impact area:restoration area) in one. wetland cOlllplex associated with the lake (Figure 4-2); • length of the wetland complex along shoreline would at least equal ctrrrent shoreline wetland area (-395 feet); enhance wetland by creating one larger system comprised of more diverse communities (e.g., conifers) integrated with other mitigation features (e.g., Gypsy Creek open channel); wetland hydrology would be controlled by lake level; • enhance vegetation component (species composition and diversity) of wetland buffer from current condition; • place woody debris in all re-created shoreline habitats; and • create 0.25 acre of native upland vegetated buffer along the lakeshore between Baxter Cove and north Baxter. 19 June 1997 t::112JSJlnritigtJIupl Page 4-6 -rhi 5 wfl{ b-e. ~ b!w 8 ~ x 1/ ~ t"iV\/A \ I ~ eSloblish uplond or weiland woody vegelalion ~ I Shoreline slurry conloinmenl woll N A ~ _~~~_ tE!~~ 33L _______ _ LAKE WASHINGTON Upland exwvoled and copped wilh dean fill PORT QUENDALl REMEDIATION PROJEa flGURH-l CROSS SEaION THROUGH SlURRY CONTAINMENT WALL (SHORELINE SECTIONS EXClUDING lAKE FILL! PROJECT NO_: 211153 I 7 JUNE 1797 Jbcak 11)3-4-1.(01I/'I6P I (HE(KED: J8t I Topogrophy ::s l' --\ t :::s- X -I F tr V\ ]-;I -+I 1:~ ~ f-~ Uplooo buffer ~~ I~I OBS[RVATIONIAREA ~[wPOINT ---,j, -I shallow or det!p emergent ccmmunitles fomted and/or shrub'SO'1Jb 'Jt!tiands Seledrr-~!y plo(.e woody debris in wetland and buffer habitats to provide oddilioMI '1I'ildlile oobitof 1frudure usi~ both decldl,lOus end coniferous logs ran9ing from 4-to 36-dbh. Snags could also be installed. [ Provide overhang at shoreline edge 'Kith native 'If~Io~t red osier dogwood, and ather native species. r Oeve[o~ area of emergent vegetotian as aUawed by Ioke level / HuC!uallon. r-OJl.W. {H". 2T) Rema¥e !ereeled shoreline slnxtures (unused piers and debris); aod SlrDlegicolly plate logs 10 proleCJ Ihe shoreline and odd neon:hore dlvenity. LAKE I WASHINGTON PORT QUENDAll REMEDIATION PROJEa ~IGlJRE 4·' rlPlCAl CROSS SEaION OF CONCEPTUAL WflWID MtnGAffON DESIGN Port QlIendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Dredge Offshore PAH Restore wetland habitat in Baxter Cove: • fill dredged areas with clean material to elevations similar to current conditions to recreate a hydrologic regime that supports open water and emergent vegetation components; the area would be. capped prior to placement of suitable clean fill material; • logs would be partially buried and/or anchored along the lake shoreline at the mouth of Baxter Cove to stabilize the shoreline and provide resting platforms for turtles and waterfowl; • float logs in open water area and p lace large down logs in wetland perimeter; • plant shallow and deep emergent wetland species to establish an emergent plant community with greater diversity than currently found in Baxter Cove; • plant obligate and facultative wetland species at the wetland perimeter and plant a 25-foot forested and shrub upland buffer; and • erect an osprey nest platform in the buffer if the cable station nest platform is removed during remediation; a nest platform would be placed at the northern mouth of May Creek prior to removal of the cable station nest platform if the existing platform were to be removed. Replace partially buried logs in the Quendalt offshore PAH removal area. t9 June 1997 c:Ul1JJ\mitiglJf~rpl Page 4-9 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Dredge Offshore Areas with >50% Wood Chips No mitigation action required. Upland Soil and Excavation and Capping Wildlife habitat impacts would be compensated for in habitat created along the shoreline: • replace Wetlands C and D on a I: I area basis in one wetland complex associated with the Wetland A and B mitigation area along the lake in northern Baxter; • enhance the vegetation component (species composition and diversity) of the wetland and wetland buffer from current condition; and • place woody debris in wetland and associated buffer. Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement The open channel section of Gypsy Subbasin would be relocated to the lake end of the drainage. Riparian vegetation (upland andlor wetland communities) would be established along the channel and would be contiguous with other wetland and shoreline mitigation features. This would greatly increase the wildlife habitat value of the open channel beyond its current low value and isolated conditions. 4.1.2 Fisheries Fish habitat mitigation for remediation impacts would take place along the Port Quendall and Baxter shorelines and is closely integrated with wetland mitigation activities. Mitigation planning is 19June 1997 cU21SJlmitigalerp2 Page 4-10 Port Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorondllm directed towards creating a high quality nearshore rearing environment as the first priority. General goals include increasing the length of shoreline vegetated with native shrubs and trees, increasing the diversity of habitat fealures along the shoreline, and minimizing anthropogenic impacts on the habitat (Table 4-2). Goals for each of the five major habitat attributes studied (riparian vegetation, bank type, bank protection, substrate, depth) and the 23 measmed variables are provided in Table 4-3 in the Fish Habitat Goal colulJUl. One of the primary SOllrces of mitigation is the creation of new shoreline wetlands. These were chosen for their intrinsically high habitat value to both fish and wildlife. Wetland size, bulTer width, vegetation quantity, and inwater complexity would increase with increasing remediation impacts. Increasing vegetation along the shoreline, increasing inwater habitat features (bank characteristics, substrate type, cover [eatmes) and rcmoving anthropogenic impacts (structmes, bank protection fealmes) were also selected as habitat improvement opportunities. Justification and expected benefits for habitat characteristics choscn for mitigation is provided in Table 4-2. The quantity of mitigation would increase with increasing remediation distmbance. Since relatively little impact is expected as a result of Alternative 1, mitigation goals are simply to replace any valuable features lost dming remediation (e.g., wetlands) and enhance those areas where complementary with project goals (e.g., vegetation and tree plantings along the shoreline). Ancillary benefits are expected as a direct consequence of remediation (e.g., reduction of fine sediments in nearshore substrate, removal of abandoned inwater structures). As impacts increase, mitigation efforts are expanded using the goals delineated in Table 4-3. Lake Fill No fill in Lake Washington is proposed under Alternative 1. 19 June 1997 c;\2215Jlnritirat~.rpl Page 4-11 Pori Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-2. Fish habitat-valuation of physical shoreline characteristics in remediation area. Characteristic Fish Habitat Value Current Condition Mitigation Opportunities Vegetation Low growing vegetation including grasses and shrubs Shrubs dominated by non-native [ncrease vegetated shoreline length; provide overhanging visual refuge for fish, bank Scotch broom and Himalayan include groundcovers, shrubs, and stability, insect habitat (prey item), and shading; trees blackberry to the exclusion of native trees; reduce dominance of non- provide similar functions plus source of large woody species; small hardwoods; relatively native species. debris, and overhanging banks when rootball is homogeneous structure. undercut. . Bank Type Historically the lake shoreline was primarily low-Be<lch type shoreline dominates. Shoreline dominated by beach gradient beach habitat formed as the delta of May Anthropogenic fearures (e.g. piers, habitat/wetland; other shoreline Creek; L WD near beach may provide juvenile salmon bollards, etc.) are also common. features (e.g. rocks, logs) included refuge. Alternative shoreline types (e.g. bollards, rip-Eroding dirt along shoreline at in minor proportions for diversity. rap) provide diversity and rearing habitat for juvenile southeast. salmonids. Bank Protection Fallen trees along the shoreline provide bank Approximately 15% anthropogenic Remove/minimize anthropogenic stabilization as well as quiet backwater rearing habitat structures; logs along 86% of shoreline protection; for juveniles. Logs enhance primary productivity in shoreline and in shallow nearshore maintain/increase downed log nursery areas. Rocks and rootwads provide refuge and lake environment. numbers within nearshore area. habitat diversity. Substrate Clean gravels provide potential spawning habitat for Dominated by fme materials Increase proportion of clean salmonids as well as macroinvertebrate habitat; fmer including sand and silts; graveled gravels; remove wood chips as materials anchor vegetation lind are preferentially substrate around 12% of shoreline; practicable. inhabited by other aquatic species; dense wood chips abundant wood chips in areas. provide no benefit. Depth luvenile salmonids prefer nearshore shallow habitat at Mostly (69%) very shallow Maintain high shallow area night; deeper areas provide adult holding and refuge nearshore environment «1 foot component consistent with historic especially when combined with overhanging banks or within 5 feet offshore). Occasional delta habitat; provide deeper areas other complex structures. Intennediate depths for deeper areas. for di versity. vegetation. ---- d21153lmiligilu.rpl ~~3 Table~ Lake Washington Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics after Remediation and Mitigation Alternative I -Low lmpact ------------ Existing Conditions Remediated Conditions Linear Coverage Linear Coverage Catecory Characteristic Distance (ft) (%) Dis tance (ft) (%) Vegetation unvegetated 2460 50% 4230 87% blackberry 1525 31 % 265 5% shrubs 905 19% 395 8% trees 770 16% 90 2% wetland 535 11 % 140 3% 'Bank type! beach 955 20% 955 20% I Protection vertical din 1540 31 % 1540 31 % rip -rap 825 17% 825 17% bulkhead 340 7%: 340 7% log baUard 1015 21 % 1015 21% pier 135 3% 135 3% building 60 1% 60 1% log skid 65 1% 65 1% undercut 110 2% 110 2% inlet 820 17% 820 17% logs 3400 70% 3400 70% Substrate l mud/silt 1015 21% 825 17% sand 2505 51 % 2465 50% gravel 730 15% 960 20% woodwaste~ 1470 30% 0 0% Depthl 0-1 ' 1785 37% 1785 37% 1-2' 1070 22% 1070 22% >2' 2035 42% 2035 42% - Coverage inCludes Barbee Mill. Quendall. and Baxter shorelines in their entirety (4,890 feet of Shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features along Barbee Mill as remediation mitigation. I Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline. 1 Woodwaste = areas where chips and bark exceed SO percent surface coverage. Change (% ) 72% -83% -56% -88% -74% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% O~ . 0% -19% -2% 32% -100% 0% 0% 0% Fish Habitat Goal -- + + =1+ + - - -- -- -.-. = + -+-.•.. -1- .=1- =1+ -.' -1+ =/+. =1- ---------- Mitigated Conditions Linear Coverage Change from I Change from Distance (ft) (%) Remediated Existinl! 2286 47% -46% -7% 100 2% -62% -93% 2504 51% 534% 177% 939 19% 943% 22% 535 11 % 282% 0% 1355 28% 42% 42% 1380 28% -10% -10% 745 15% -10% -10% 340 7% 0% 0% 770 16% -24% -24% 100 2% -26% i '26% 60 1% 0% 0% 30 1% -54% .• '"c54% 110 2% . 0% "0% 1150 24% 40% .. 40% 3400 70% 0% . .•..... 0% 825 17% 0% -19% 2320 47% -6% -7% 1105 23% 15% 51% 0 0% 0% -100% 1785 37% 0% 0% 1070 22% .0% 0% 2035 42% 0% -0%; Port QlIendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandllm Shoreline Disturbance Vegetation removal would be mitigated by replanting the nearshore environment. The riparian width would vary based on the location of project features (e.g. walkways), but where credited for mitigation would be a minimum of 20 feet. A minimum of 80 percent of the Port Quendall and Baxter shoreline (2,500 feet) would be planted with low growing native ground-covers and shrubs. Plants along the shore would be selected to maximize overhanging vegetation and provide bank stability. A minimum of 30 percent of the Port Quendall and Baxter shoreline (939 feet) would be planted with trees (tree planting would be concurrent with other shrub and ground-cover vegetation). Trees close to the waterline would be selected to provide similar functions to those described for the shrubs. Mitigation for loss of nearshore wetlands is described in Section 4.1.1. New wetland locations were selected along the Baxter shoreline to replace areas with relatively poor fish habitat conditions (e.g., vertical dirt banks, abandoned structures, rip-rap). Wetland replacement would result in increased low-gradient shoreline and a more diverse shoreline structure (Table 4-3). Reductions in the extent of vertical dirt bank, rip-rap, log bollards, and industrial structures (concrete pier mid-Baxter; log skid north-Quendall) would be accomplished (Table 4-3). Dredge Offshore (PAH and Wood Chips) No direct mitigation is proposed for offshore dredging undertaken to remove P AH and wood chip contamination except for re-establishing the Baxter Cove shoreline to its original value (inclpded in Table 4-3). 19 lUlle 1997 c:\1115J\m;tigCl~e.rpl Page 4-14 Pori Qllendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Upland Soil Excavation and Capping Potential upland soil excavation and capping impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable with implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. No other mitigation is proposed. Gypsy Subbasin Culyert Replacement Activities surrounding replacement of the Gypsy subbasin culvert with a larger diameter culvert would provide direct benefits to the fish resource by enhancing upstream and downstream fish passage and directly connecting 125 feet of fluvial habitat to the lake. No additional mitigation is proposed. 4.2 Alternative 2 -Medium Impact 4.2.1 Mitigation Mitigation features described herein are in addition to those already proposed under Alternative I. The following actions would be implemented to compensate for the approximate O.S-acre lake fill: Lake Fill • the wetland complex in north Baxter would be enlarged by 0.3 acre along a 200-foot length of Baxter shoreline; • an additional 250 linear feet of large woody debris would be incorporated into the shoreline for fisheries; 19 JUlie 1997 c:1111JJllflltlgaft'."pl Page 4-15 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum • shrub communities would be created along 400 feet of nonvegetated shoreline (minimum width 20 feet); and • an additional 625 linear feet of tree plantings (concurrent with shrubs) would be added along the shoreline (50 percent of shoreline would support tree plantings). 4.2.2 Plants and Animals All wildlife mitigation actions proposed for Alternative I would be implemented as described in Section 4.1.1 for each remediation action, as well as the out-of-kind actions described above that would be implemented to compensate for lake fill impacts. An increase in wildlife habitat value would be realized with these actions. No other mitigation is proposed under Alternative 2. 4.2.3 Fisheries Lake Fill The goal of mitigation for the lake fill is to replace lost shallow water habitat (less than 4 feet in depth) with shallow habitat of higher value to juvenile salmonids and their prey, and to replace lost deepwater habitat with other not-in-kind shoreline improvements beneficial to fish and aquatic dependent wildlife. The loss of 0.3 acre of shallow lake habitat would be mitigated in part by creating an additional 0.3 acre of wetland along 200 feet of the Baxter property shoreline (Section 4.2.1). The wetland would t9June 1997 c:U115J\miligatapl Page 4-16 PorI Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis MemorandulII be designated to maximize potential use by juvenile fish. Open water areas with abundant vegetation, overhead cover, and large woody debris would be created in an area of straight shoreline with little habitat value. The additional shoreline wetland would more than double the quantity found under existing conditions; increases in shoreline diversity, woody debris, graveled substrate, and vegetative cover would also occur (Table 4-4). All features are expected to benefit juvenile fish, particularly those species such as sockeye which spend a considerable amount of time rearing in Lake Washington and utilize refuge habitat currently in short supply along the southeast perimeter of the lake. The 0.2 acre oflost deep water habitat is difficult to replace in kind and would provide only minimal habitat benefits when compared to other improvements available along the nearshore enviromnent. Therefore, to mitigate lost deep water habitat, increased shoreline and wetland habitat complexity would be provided. Additional large woody debris would be strategically placed along the shoreline to increase rearing and refuge habitat, stabilize banks, and establish vegetation (Figure 4-3). Additional riparian vegetation would bc planted along the shoreline. Other Impacts All other impacts would be mitigated as described under Alternative 1 (Section 4.1.2). 4.3 Remediation Alternative 3 -High Impact 4.3.1 Mitigation Mitigation features described herein are in addition to those already proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. 19 June 1997 . Page 4-17 I..{-<./ Table"+-3. Lake Washington Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics after Remediation and Mitigation Alternative 2 -Medium Impact (0.5 acre fill) Categorv 'Vegetation Bank type/ Protection Substrate' Depth' Characteristic unvegetated blackberry shrubs trees wetland beach vertical dirt rip ·rap bulkhead log bollard pier building log skid undercut inlet logs mudisilt sand gravel woodwaste' 0-1' 1-2' >2' ExistirIg Conditions Linear Coverage Distance (ft) (%) 2460 50% 1525 31% 905 770 535 955 1540 825 340 1015 135 60 65 llO 820 3400 1015 2505 730 1470 1785 1070 2035 19% 16% II % 20% 31 % 17% : 7% 21 % 3% 1% 1% 2% 17% 70% 21% 51 % 15% 30% 37% 22% 42% Remedtated Conditions Linear Coverage Change Distance (ft) (%) (%) 4230 87% 1 72% 265 5% -83% 395 90 140 1300 1540 825 340 1015 135 60 65 IIO 820 2830 825 2410 1015 o 8% 2% 3% 27% 31 %! 17% 7% 21 % 3% 1% 1% 2% 17% 58% 17% 49% 21 % 0% -56% -88% -74% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -17% -19% '4% 39% -100% I Fish Habitat Goal + + =/+ + - + + =/. =/- =/+ 1505 1350 2035 31 % 28% 42% '16% =/+ 26% =/+. 0% =/- Coverage includes Barbee Mill. QuendaU. and Baxter shoreli~es in their entirety (4,890 feet of shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features along Barbee Mit!' as remediation mitigation. I Measured or sampled approximately five feel out from shoreline. 1 Woodwa5re = areas where chips and bark exceed 50 percent surface c?vernge. Linear Distance (fr) 1886 100 2904 1565 1155 2575 1030 525 340 650 100 60 15 llO 1770 3650 755 1945 1550 o 1505 1350 2035 Mitigated Conditions Coverage I Ch<lnge from (% ) Remedialed 39%1 -55% 2% -62% 59% 32% 24% 53% 21 % II % 7% 13% 2% 1% 0% 2% 36% 75% 15% 40% 32% 635% 1639% 725% 98% . -33% -36% 0% -36% -26% ·0% -77% 0% 116% 29% -8% -19% 53%. Change from Existinl! -23% -93% 221 % 103% ll6% 170% -33% -36% 0% -36% -26% 0% -77% 0% 116% 'i% ·26% -22% 112% 0% 0% I . -100% 31% 28% 42% 0% . -16% 0% 26% 0% 0% ... :. " " " Upland trees & shrubs (Quid be planted landward of wall for Alternative 2 ONLY N willow & red osier dogwood waterward of wall OHW (Elev. 22') -----------------------------.------------------ strategically anchor logs 10 conlain liner maleriollo allow vegetation esloblishment .~ 3:1 slope of Cedar River sand and grovel mole rial PORT QUENDALL REMEDIATION PROJEQ fiGURE 4·3 CROSS SEatON THROUGH CONTAINMENT WALl FOR lAKE FILl, ALTERNATIVES Z 8, 3 Pori Quendalf Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Lake Fill • the wetland complex in north Baxter would be enlarged by an additional 0.5 acre along a . 360-foot length of Baxter shoreline; • 0.35 acre of wildlife habitat would be created adjacent to the wetland complex created on Baxter; • an additional 250 linear feet of large woody debris would be incorporated into the fisheries habitat enhancement features; and • an additional 470 linear feet of tree plantings (concurrent with shrubs) would be added along the shoreline (65% of shoreline would support tree plantings). 4.3.2 Plants and Animals All wildfife mitigation actions proposed for Alternatives I and 2 would be implemented as described in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1. The additional out-of-kind actions implemented to compensate for the larger lake fill would also provide additional wildlife benefits. 4.3.3 Fisheries Lake Fill Mitigation for the lake fill proposed under Alternative 3 includes all. those features described under Alternative 2 (Section 4.2.1), with fUliher increases in the quantity of each mitigation feature t9 June 1997 c:I22251\mlligtJle..rpl Page 4-20 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum including wetland creation (0.3 acre) to help offset the loss of deepwater habitat (Table 4-5). An additional 0.5 acre of shoreline wetland habitat would be created to replace the 0.5 acre of shallow water habitat being filled. Shoreline diversity, woody debris, graveled substrate, and vegetative cover would also increase substantially. A small loss of undercut bank (80 feet) would result as the vertical dirt walls in which the undercuts currently occur are replaced with wetlands. The habitat value provided by overhanging banks would be replaced with overhanging woody debris placed along the shoreline to create usable overhead cover for fish. Where practicable, competent logs found on the bottom of Lake Washington in the . areas to be dredged would be saved and restored to the lake bottom after capping. Other Impacts All other impacts would be mitigated as described under Alternative 1 (Section 4.1.2). 19 June 1997 c11125Jlmltj,atr.rpJ Page 4-21 , I tf-s Table ~ Lake Washington Shoreline Fish Habitat Characteristics after Remediation and iVlitigation Alternative 3 -High Impact (2.9 acre fill) Existing Conditions Remediated Conditions Fish Linear Coverage Linear Coverage Category Characteristic Distance (ft) (%) Distance (ft) (%) Vegetation unvegetated 2460 50% 4230 87% blackberry 1525 31% 265 5% shrubs 905 19% 395 8% trees 770 16% 90 2% wetland 535 \1% 140 3% Bank typel beach 955 20% 1605 33% Protection vertical dirt 1540 31% 1540 31 % rip -rap 825 17% 825 17% bulkhead 340 7% 340 7% log ballard 1015 21% 1015 21% pier 135 3%1 115 2% building 60 1% 60 1% log skid 65 1% 65 1% undercut \10 2% 110 2% inlet 820 17% 820 17% logs 3400 70% . 2640 54% Substrate' mud/silt 1015 21 % .' 685 14% sand 2505 51 % 2455 50% gravel 730 15% 1110 23% woodwaste ' 1470 30% 0 0% Depth' 0-1' 1785 37% 1265 26% 1-2' 1070 22% 1590 33% >2' 2035 42% 2035 42% Coverage includes Barbee Mill. QuendaJl, and Baxter shorelines in their entirety (4,890 feet of shoreline). Assumes no changes to shoreline features along Barbee Mill as remediation mitigation. I Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline. 1 Woodwaste = areas where chips and bark exceed 50 percent surface coverage, Change Habitat (%)-Goal 72% - -83% - -56% + . -88% + -74% =/+ 68% + 0% -. 0% - 0% - 0% - -15 ~ - 0% . -; 0% '- 0% - 0% +; . . -22% + -33% =/-, -2% =/- 52% =/+ '" -100% - -29% . =/+ 49% . =/+ . 0% =/- Miti~ated Conditions Change from II Linear Coverage Change from Distance (ft) ( % ) Remediated Existing: ! 1886 39% -55% -23% 100 2% -62% -93% 2904 59% 635% 221% 2035 42% 2161 % 164% 1515 31 % 982% 183% 3230 66% 101 % 238% 700 14% -55% -55% 435 9% -47% -47% 340 7% 0% 0% 650 13% -36% -36% 80 2% -30% -41 % 60 1% 0.% I.····;; 0% 15 0% '.. '.' . ",. -71% -77% 30 1% .. ",:73%, .... _73% 2130 44% i60% 160% 3900 80% 48% . .;'.' ·· .• 15% 615 13% '10% "~39% 1930 39% ..... '21 % -23% 1705 35% 54% 134% 0. 0% 0% -100% 1265 26% 0% -29% 1590 33% 0%1 49% 2035 42% ." 0% .' 0% PorI Quendall Drafl Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 5.0 REFERENCES Bennett and Cubbage 1992. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from Lake Washington on freshwater bioassay organisms and benthic macro invertebrates. Ecology Report, 28 p .. plus appendices. Bennet, J. and J. Cubbage. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments from Lake Washington on freshwater bioassay organisms and benthic macro invertebrates. Report produced for the Sediment Management Unit, Washington Department of Ecology . Envirorunental Investigations and Laboriltory Services Program, Toxics, Compliance, and Groundwater Investigations Section, Olympia, Washington. Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Pages 3-117 in: Groot, C. and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Entranco. 1995. Gypsy subbasin analysis, tecJmica1 memorandum No.2. Prepared for the City of Renton, Washington. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland determination report on the JAG Development Property, Renton, Washington. Prepared for CNA Architecture Group, Bellevue, WA. Fisher, L., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal corrununication to Andy Kindig (Beak), 6 June 1997. Heiser, D. W. and E. L. Finn, Jr. 1970. Observations of juvenile chum and pink salmon in marina and bulkheaded areas. Supplemental progress report, Washington State Department of Fisheries. September 1970. 28 p. King County. 1993. Sammamish River corridor conditions and enhancement opportunities. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA. 54 p. plus appendices. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. 1997. Draft sllmmary of Lake Washington studies completed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in the vicinity of the Port Quendall project. Provided by Rod Malcom, habitat biologist. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Envirorunental Division, Auburn, WA. 19 June 1997 d.l12SJlmitiglJtupl Page 5-1 Port Quendall Draft Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1989. Quality oflocallakes and streams 1987-1988 status report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Resources Section, Water Pollution Control Department, Seattle, W A. Norton, 1991. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals! J.H. Baxter site. Ecology Report, 73 p. Norton, 1992. Results of Sediment Sampling in the J.H. Baxter Cove, Lake Washington -June 1991. Ecology Technical Document, 18 p. Pfeifer, B. and J. Weinheimer. 1992. Fisheries investigations of Lakes Washington and Sammamish, 1980-1990. VI Warmwater fish in Lakes Washington and Sammamish (draft report). Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Ratte, L. D. and E. O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. Final report prepared by the University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute for the Port of Tacoma. FRI-UW-8508. December 1985. RETEC. 1997. Sediment quality memorandum. Consultant report prepared for Port Quendall Company. 29 April 1997. Remediation Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Shepard, M.F. and J.C. Hoeman. 1979. Some comparisons of ben this biota in control areas and areas affected by sewage effluent in Lake Washington, 1977 -1978. U.W. College of Fisheries, Wa. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, Seattle, WA. citation from EVS Consultants, 1990. Aquatic Resources of Lake Washington. Report prepared for Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Seattle, W A. 19 November 1990. University of Washington. 1996. U.W. Lake Washington Sockeye Workshop. Notes from presentations by Roger Tabor (USFWS), Roland Viera (U.W.) and Tom Sibley (U.W.) at U.W. conference held 19 November 1996. Washington Department of Ecology. 1995. 1994 Washington state water quality assessment, [305(b)] report companion document. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology. 1996. 303(d) Department of Ecology draft decision matrix for surface waters listed under section 303(d) included in 305b Report of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 19 June 1997 dl11jJlmitigatt.rpl Page 5-2 PorI Quendall Dra/l Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory, Appendix 1, Puget Sound stocks, South Puget Sound volume. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, R.S. and RR Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, W A. 220 p. 19 June 1997 d21251lmitigalf:.rpl Page 5-3 '" " , ~ " .' .. ' , ' .... "' .. '" '" ," .: . May 19, 1997 Frederick Huston Beak Consultants Inc 12391 -126th Place NE Kirkland WA 98034 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources JENNIFER M. BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COITINGHAM Supervisor RECEI\lj::n MAY 28 1997 BEAK SUBJECT: Port Quendall, Renton, W A -(T24N ROSE S29 & 32) Beak Project #22223 We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your study area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The Washington Natural Herita~e Program is responsible for information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality ecosystems. The Depa11ment ofFish and Wildlife manages and interprets data on wildlife species of concern in the state. For information on animals of concern in the state, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. . The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. I hope you'll find this information helpful. Sincerely, Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Division of Forest Resources PO Box 47016 Olympia WA 98504-7016 (360) 902-1667 FOREST RESOURCES DIVISION PO BOX 47016 • OLYMPIA WA 98504-7016 PHONE 360-902-1340 FAA 360-902-1783 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I po BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA, WA 9B504·7000 Equal OpportunityfAffirmative A<tion Employer n RECYClEO PAPER '-JJ June 3,1997 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Western Washington Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98501 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9008 Frederick L. Huston, Jr. Beak Consultants Incorporated 12931 Northeast 126'h Place Kirkland, Washington 98034-7715 FWS Ref: 1-3-97-SP-395 Dear Mr. Huston: 'UN r'·5 '1991 .J ., \J .. Tllis is in response to your fax dated May 9, 1997, and received in tllis office on that date. You have requested a list of Federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species, candidate species and species of concern (Attachment A) that may be present within the area of the proposed Port Quendall Development Project on Lake Washington in King County, Washington. This list reflects changes to the candidate species list published February 28, 1996, in the Federal Register (Vol. 61 No. 40, 7596) and the addition of "species of concern" prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Western Washington Office. The list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We have also enclosed a copy of the requirements for Anny Corps of Engineers (COE) compliance under the Act (Attachment B). Should the COE determine that a listed species is likely to be affected (adversely or beneficially) by the project, you should request section 7 consultation through this office. If the COE determines that a proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" a listed species, you should request Service concurrence with that determination through the informal consultation process. Even if there is a "no effect" situation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our information. Candidate species are those species for which the Service has sufficient information to support a proposal for listing as threatened or endangered under the Act. Species of concern are those species whose conservation standing is of concern to the SerVice, but for which further status information is still needed. Conservation measures for species of concern and candidate speciesare voluntary, but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. , . Please be advised that State regulations may also require permits in areas where wetlands are identified. You should contact the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit requirements. There may be other Federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project which are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Please contact NMFS at (503) 230-5400 to request a species list. Your interest in endangered species is appreciated. If you have additional questions regarding your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Chandra Madrona at (360) 753-7762 or John Grettenberger at (360) 763-6044 of this office. Sincerely, L cr7J U avid C. Frederick ,I/. Supervisor cm/jkp Enclosures SEiCOE/ 1-3-97 -SP-395IKing c: COE, Seattle WDFW, Region 4 WNHP, Olympia 2 ATTACHMENT A LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN WHICH MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PORT QUENDALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON LAKE W ASHINGTON, SEATTLE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (T24N R05E S29-32) FWS REF: 1-3-97-SP-395 LISTED Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) -wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project from about October 31 through March 31. There is one bald eagle nesting territory located in the vicinity of the project at T24N R05E S30. Nesting activities occur from about January I through August 15. Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to bald eagles are: I. Level of use of the project area by bald eagles. 2. Effect of the project on eagles' primary food stocks and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project constmction and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) which may result in disturbance to eagles and/or their avoidance of the project area. PROPOSED None DESIGNATED None 3 ATIACHMENT A (CONTINUED) CANDIDATES The following candidate species may occur in the vicinity of the project: Oregon spotted frog (Rana pre/iosa) SPECIES OF CONCERN The following species of concern may occur in the vicinity of the project: Long-eared my otis (Myolis evolis) Long-legged myotis (MYrtis volans) Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmora/a marmora/a) Olive-sided flycatcher (Con/opus borealis) Pacific western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus (=Pleco/us) /ownsendii townsendii) 4 ATIACHMENT B FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECflONS 7(a) AND 7(C) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACI OF 1973, AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) -Consultation/Conference Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with FWS when a federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect (adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with FWS when a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) -Biological Assessment for Construction Projects • Requires federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) for construction projects on/yo The purpose of the BA is to identifY any proposedandlor listed species which is/are likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species (list attached): The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). lfthe BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, please verifY the accuracy of the list with our Service. No irreversiblecornrnitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Plarming, design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should: (1) conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey of the area to detennine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in tenus of individuals and populations, including consideration of Cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat; (5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used, any problems encountered, and other relevant information Upon completion, the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102, Olympia, WA 98501-2192. * "Construction project" means any major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment (requiring an EIS), designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other. fonus of federal authorization or approval which may result in construction State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MalHng Mdre": 600 Caphcl W.Y N, QI)'I1'4lIa. WA 985OM091 • (360) 902·2200; TOD (360) 902·2201 Main Omce locdon: Numll ReSOlJrc:e& BuRdlng. 1111 Wa6hlnglon Street SE, Olympia, WA Date: '--nu-~ /;:),1117 Dear Data Requester: Enclosed is the information you requested from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) concerning the agency's priority habitats and species. This package may also contain documentation to help you understand and use these data. This information only includes data that WDFW maintains in a centralized data system. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. Nor is it designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. This data only documents the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is important to note that priority habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule outlhe presence of priority habitats or species. Your project may require further field inspection or you may need 10 contact our field biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying Ihese data. Refer 10 the enclosed directory and regional map for those contacts. Generally, for assistance on a specific project, you should contact the appropriate WDFW regional office and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area. Please note that sections potentially impacled by spotteQ owl management concerns are displayed on the 1 :24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site centers are required they must be specially requested. WDFW periodically updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife species are mobile and because priority habitats and species data is dynamic, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also consider new data gathered from current field investigations. Remember, priority habitats and species data can only show that a species or habitat type is presenl, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These data should not be used for future projects. Please obtain regular (6 months) updates rather than use outdated information. Because of the high volume of requests for information that WDFW receives, we need to charge for these data to recover some of our costs. Enclosed is an invoice itemizing the costs for your data and instructions for submitting payment. WDFW ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS AND LIST OF REGIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM MANAGERS Wh.It. ...... :rn REGION 1 John Andrews 8702 North Division Streel Spokane. Washington 99218-1199 Phone: (509) 456-4082 REGION 2 Tracy Uoyd 1550 AIder Street N. W. Ephrata. Washington 98823-9652 Phone: (509) 754-4624 REGION 3 Ted Clausing 1701 South 24th Avenue Yakima. Washington 98902-5720 Phone: (509) 575-2740 JlBI'l.Iary 1997 Bk_.lt. Llnaoln • Spokano IIpo~:n • RE!GWN 2 Adallll'l. Y-.klft'l.& REGION 3 o .. .: 0 0 ., REGION 4 Ted Muller 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek. Washington 98012-1296 Phone: (206)775-1311 REGION 5 Bryan Cowan 5405 N.E. Hazel Dell Avenue Vancouver. Washington 98663-1299 Phone: (360) 696-6211 REGIONS Dave Gufler 48 Devonshire Road Montesano. Washington 98563-9618 Phone: (360) 249-6523 • • • City of Renton, Washington Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Prepared By: Barnaby D. Hoit Reviewed By: Clay A. Loomis, P .E. z.,tMl 0/ -n~ (1 ) /IIW:J} pi 11814115thAvenueNE Kirkland, WA 98034-6923 425.821.8448 425821.3481 fax 800.4880756 toll free WNW tnadassoccorn July 10,2000 Triad Job No. 00-153 Land Development COflsultilllts Barbee· PrOp---- • City of Renton, Washington Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Prepared By: Barnaby D. Hoit Reviewed By: Clay A. Loomis, P .E. IEXPIREStO-tZ-02 I TRIAD ASSOCIATES Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW .......•.............................•...•.•...•.•......•.......•.........•.•....•.................... 1-1 SECTION II CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ....................................................... 11-1 SECTION III OFFSITE ANALySIS •...•............................................................•.........•.•....•.....•.•....•.... III-I SECTION IV FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS & DESIGN .•. IV-I FLOW CONTROL .................................................................................................................................... IV-I W A lER QUALITy ................................................................................................................................... IV-I SECTION V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN ...................................................... V-I SECTION VI SPECIAL REPORTS & STUDiES ............................................................................... VI-I SECTION VII OTHER PERMITS ..................................................................................................... VII-I SECTION VIII ESC ANALYSIS & DESIGN ................................................................................... VIII-J SECTION IX BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, & DECLARATION OF COVENANT ............................................................................................................................................ IX-J SECTION X OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL ............................................................. X-I 7flll00 Triad Associates Job #00-1 53 Page i Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Supplemental information noted as included is found at the end of each respective section as listed here. SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW King County Soil Map, Sheet No.5 SECTION II CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY SECTION III OFFSITE ANALYSIS FIRM Panel 664 (May Creek Floodplain) King County Sensitive Areas Portfolio-Streams ard I OO-yr Floodplains (Sheet 4) King County Sensitive Areas Portfolio-Wetlands (Sheet 4) SECTION IV FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS & DESIGN Stormwater Maragement Stormfilter System informalion. King County 2-, 10-,25-and 100-year 24-hour Isopluviab. SECTION V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN SECTION VI SPECIAL REPORTS & STUDIES Wetland Determination Report on the Jag Development Property. David Evans and Associates, Inc. Revised May 1997 SIlCTION VII OTHER PERMITS SECTION VIII ESC ANALYSIS & DESIGN SECTION IX BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, & DECLARATION OF COVENANT SECTION X OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL EXHIBIT POCKETS 7111100 Triad Associales Job #00-153 Page ii Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section I PROJECT OVERVIEW The project proposes to construct a high-density, mixed-use development at the site of the existing Barbee Mill on the East Shore of Lake Washington in North Renton. The site's street address is 4300 Lake Washington Boulevard and it is located in the Northwest V. Section 32 and Southwest V. Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. The roughly triangular shaped site is bound by Lake Washington on the west and by the Burlington Northern Railroad Tracks to the Southeast. See the Vicinity Map below for the site location. ,.--it--t-S i t e Newcastle \ ------- Lake \~ z '" 'f ~ c;. '" •• " ~ D • 0 f '" u w NE 12th S VICINITY MAP (Nollo Scale) The site is approximately 22.91 acres, including some submerged land and land leased from the Department ofNalural Resources. The proposed development area is approximately 20.57 acres, which excludes the sensitive areas (May Creek), exemplions from the project (an existing private boat house and launch at the southern end of the site) and submergcd land. Historically, lhe site has been used for large-scale commercial milling, curing and storing of lumber. Mill production is currently limited to small custom cuts, and much of the site is idle and uumaintained. The existing site is industrial with approximately 15 milling, storage and kiln buildings and an extensive asphalt 7111/00 Triad Associales Job #00-153 Page I-I Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report yard. Please see the Existing Conditions Exhibit in the exhibit pockets. The existing site has approximately 17 acres of impervious coverage (",74%). The proposed mixed-use development will provide extensive landscaping and open space (including a waterfront park) and will reduce the total impervious coverage to approximately 10.5 acres (~6%). The site soils are mapped as Norma Sandy Loam (see King County Soil Map, Sheet No.5, included). The proposed development includes restaurants, retail space, offices, condominiums and a hoteL The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings except for the mill (Building I), which will be remodeled as a restaurant (and some retail space). Please see the Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit in the Appendix for the proposed project layout. The proposed site plan would achieve approximately 200,000 sf of commercial space, 1,976 parking stalls and 617 dwelling units among seven buildings. The existing site runoff appears to sheet flow directly to Lake Washington. The proposed site runoff will be collected in catch basins, yard drains and roof drains, and then routed in tightline drainage systems to modular cartridge filter systems which provide water quality treatment. The treated filter effiuent will be discharged to Lake Washington. Because the site has linle relief(typical slopes of 0-2%), the developed site will have several drainage sy~tems, dividing the site in to several smaller sub-basins. This will allow drainage to be collected with minimum fall across the site. 7/11/00 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page 1-2 Coleman Poi SHEET NO. 5 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (MERCER ISLAND QUADRANGLE AND PART OF SEATTLE SOUTH QUADRANGLE) Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section II CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY No conditions or requirements have been established the City at this preliminary application stage. 7fl ]/00 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page TI-J Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section III OFFSITE ANALYSIS The site has no significant offsite drainage issues. The project is on the shores of Lake Washington. May Creek flows through the site near its southeast boundary and the creek mouth is the southern end of the site. The existing railroad tracks intercept any significant upstream drainage. Please see the Existing Conditions Exhibit in the Exhibit Pockets. May Creek appears to be in good condition adjacent to the project and flows in a well-defmed channel. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the site area (Panel 664, included) shows that the detailed study area ends just within the eastern boundary of the site. The floodplain depicted on the FIRM appears well contained within the banks. The creek floodplain was not modeled for most of the site because of the proximity to Lake Washington. The fmal flood elevation listed (for Section A) is 21 feet (NVGD 1929). The Ordinary High WaterMark (OHWM) elevation for Lake Washington is 15.13 feet (NGVD 1929) (this is a conservative elevation, corresponding to overflow at the locks). The fmished grades of the site will be set sufficiently above the OHWM to prevent flooding and to allow for conveyance of site flows. The proposed creek crossings' designs will not obstruct the creek. The project proposes to improve the stream corridor by creating 50-foot vegetated buffers along the stream corridor. The buffer will be planted with native species to enhance the creek habitat and to improve the bank stability. 7111100 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page III-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I To determine it flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent Of call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET o 500 NATIONAL flOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 664 OF 1725 (SEE MAP INDEX FOA PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAJNS; COMMUNITY lONG COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS RENTON. CITY Of NUMBER PANEL ------ 530071 530088 SUFFIX f F MAP NUMBER 53033C0664 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16,1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency .. -~&.II Identified 1983 LEGEND SPECIAL flOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY l00--YEAR FLOOD ZONE A ZONE AE ZONE AH No base Rood elevaliom determined. 8.lse flood elevations determined. flood depths m of pondingl; determined. 1 to J feet rusually areas bao;e flood elevations ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 11) J feel (usually :sheet flow on sloping lerrainl; average depth~ determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding. velocities also det!c'rmined. ZONE A99 To be protected from l00-year flood by Fedet"al flood protection sygem under con~ruction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard !wave action]; no base flood elevations determined. Coastal 1100d with velocity hazard (wave action); base nood elevations detefmined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of SOO-yeolr Rood; areas of 100-year flood with avera~ depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage area\ less th.an 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from l~ar flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X ZONE D AreOis determined to be outside SOO-year floodplain. Areas in .....-hic:h flood hazard~ are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS ldentifoed 1990 Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or Flood Hazard Areas Otherwise Protected Areas adjacent to Special Flood Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones. and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line: ~513-~ Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for ElevatiOfl Datum. ®-----® IEL 9871 RM7 X • M2 970()7'30", 32°22'30" Cross Section line Base Flood Elevation in. Feet VJhere Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Etevation Datum. Elevation Reference Mark. River Mite Horizontal Coordinates Based on NDrth American Datum 01 1927 INAD 27) Projection. NOTES This ·map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program: it does not necessarily idenlify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources of small size. or all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Coastal base flood elevations apply onty landward 010.0 NGVD, and include the effects of wave action: these elevations may also differ significantly from those developed bV the Nationaf Weather Service for hurricane evacuation planning • • I / I NORTH 34TH STREET I 33RD STREET ORTH 32ND STREET I.JOHTH STREET STREET 30TH ZONE r ,ZOINE AE x 32 w Z w ::> z ~ z ~ o u z ::; KING COUN UNINCORPORA TEl 530071 ---ZQ,NEX CITY OF 531 ,ZQINE X ZONE :,,- • ~ '" :,O'Q'''' S •• ,. '" ~ co Co "- '" • 1/2 0 1... MILE N ",.,;". The boundaries 01 the sen~j,ive areil'; ;jis- played on these maps are ,approximate. Additiona! sensitive areas t~at have net been map pen may be pr~ser.t 0:1 a de·;e~. opment prOPoial sHe. Wnere differences. occur between what ls il!uslrated on !r.ese maps and the site conditions. tl'".e actual pn:- sence or absence on til", s'r'le of ';.'l1S s€r"lsitjve area -as deiine,j in the Ser;sit!l'e Area Ordinance. is the lega! control. One-hundred-year floodplains extend be- yond those shown on maPs. Flood In- surance Rate MaPs do net always show the floodPlajn to the headwaters of streams. ~ l00.Year Floodplains Streams and 100- Year Floodplains o • • • • Class 2 (with salmonids) Class 2 (perenniaJ; salmonld use undetermined) Class 3 Unclassifiro Duwamish ';~ 7"7T:iT ~f~b.~. ,---": 9 '14: ~=!;:L / ( 4 "," I ,'J,j '.c .c ~ lil '" ~, ~:, " " 0> 'J , " ~, n, L "I 1··[1 Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section IV FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS & DESIGN The proposed stolIDwater systems will be designed to meet the City of Renton standards. Renton has adopted the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) with some modifications. The preliminary design shown on the Preliminary Stormwater Plan (included in the Site Plan Approval Application plan set submitted concurrently with this report) is intended to meet these requirements (at the conceptual level of detail). Flow Control The current KCSWDM, September 1998, lists Lake Washington as a Major Receiving Water (page 1-29, Table 1.2.3.B). The KCSWDM includes exemptions from the Flow Control requirement (Core Requirement 3). Exemption 6, Direct Discharge Etemption, applies to sites draining to Major Receiving Waters. If these sites meet the exemption requirements (a-b on pages 1-28 and 1-29), flow control (detention/retention) is not required. The project site will meet these requirements by providing tightlined conveyances to the lake and engineered outfalls. The development will not impact any stonnwater conveyances. Water Quality Core Requirement 8, Water Quality, requires water quality treatment for runoff from pollution generating surfaces (traffic areas, etc). As shown on the Preliminary Stormwater Plan, a modular cartridge filter system is proposed for site stolIDwater quality treatment. Specifically, the proposed water quality facilities are the Leaf Compost Filters (LCF) by Stormwater Management. Use of these systems is covered under KCSWDM Section 6.5.5, Lea/Compost Filters (LeF). Design information from Stormwater Management is included at the end of this section. A leaf compost filter removes pollutants through filtration, ion exchange, adsorption, and microbial degradation. Storm water Management's modu1ar cartridge system can contain other media besides the leaf compost pellets, which can be specified dependirig on site characteristics and treatment goals. 7111100 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page IV-! SECTION 3.2 RUNOfFCOMPUfATION AND ANALYSIS METIlODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24·HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 911198 o 2 4 Miles ! ; I 3·14 -----3.5 1998 Surface Water Design Manual I FIGURE 3.2.1.B 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVlALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 10-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 1998 Surface Water Design Manual o 2 4M~es , t r---I 3-15 3.2.1 RATIONAL MErnOD ~!! IIIS!1..=2!'!.!! ':INO C;:OUMTT '--4.0 I 9/1/98 SECTION 3_2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS I FIGURE 3.2.1.C 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 25-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 91\/98 o 2 4 Miles 1 ! 3-16 I 1998 Surface Water Design Manual I FIGURE 3.2.l.D 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation In Inches 1998 Surface Water Design Manual o 2 4 Miles "" ;e..l'b=~' 3-17 3.2.1 RATIONALMETIIOD I 911198 I. StormFiltei" Technology A. Introduction 1. Filter Media 2. Pollutant Removal 3. System Hydraulics Figure 1. Precast Concrete Vault Figure 2. Filter Cartridge B. Design Constants STORMWA"~' MANAGEMENT t ©STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 INTRODUCTION Stormwater Management develops innovative stormwater treatment solutions for engineers, developers. and jurisdictional authorities to help keep our waterways clean. Since 1991, Stormwater Management's patented signature product -called StormFilter™ -has been treating stormwater runoff from small single retail sites to large urban parking lots, residential streets, urban roadways and freeways. The Storm Filter uses filter cartridges housed in standard size pre-cast concrete vaults or cast in place vaults to produce a self-contained stormwater filtering system. The filter systems are installed in-fine with storm drains. . The system works by percolating stormwater through the filter cartridges containing filter media. The filter media traps particulates and adsorbs materials such as dissolved metals and hydrocarbons. Surface scums, floating oil and grease are also removed. After passing through the filter media, the stormwater flows into a collection pipe or discharges to an open channel drainage way_ The Storm Filter is designed to be ver; effective for the treatment of first flush flows, particularly those storms early in the rainy season. In general, the StormFilter's efficiency is highest when pollutant concentrations are highest. FILTER MEDIA The StormFilter utilizes a variety of media to target and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. It is the first and only stormwater treatment system to offer such a versatile approach to removing site-specific pollutants. We can 'customize' the Storm Filter by using different filter media to remove desired levels of sediments, soluble phosphorus, nitrates, soluble metals, and oil and grease. In many cases, we recommend using a combination of media to effectively remove stormwater pollutants. Technical memoranda detailing removal efficiencies for the media are available from our Research and Development department. CSF® Leaf Media Using a feed stock of pure deciduous leaves (i.e. no mixed yard debris such as prunings and grass) Stormwater Management composts leaves collected by the City of Portland, Oregon, over a period of eight months into a mature stable compos!. Storm water Management then processes the finished compost into an organic granular media, which resembles granular soil and has no odors. Once complete, the media has physical and chemical characteristics desirable for the filtration of stormwater. There are three primary pollutant removal mechanisms performed by the csF'" media. These mechanisms are: mechanical filtration to remove sediments and associated total Phosphorus, chemical processes to remove soluble metals, and adsorption properties to remove oils and greases. © STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 • • • , t Suspended Solids: The Storm Filter is comprised of a series of filter cartridges, each with a seven inch thick layer of the media through which stormwater passes. Sediments are filtered out on both the surface 6f the cartridge and the surfaces of granules throughout the media matrix. As sediments are removed from stormwater runoff and accumulate on the surface of the filter, the permeability will decline thus requiring facility maintenance. Sediment removal will vary with particle size distribution and influent concentration, but removal has been as high as 95%. Heavy Metals: The CSF® media also acts as a chemical filter to remove , dissolved ionic pollutants such as heavy metals, including lead, copper, and zinc. The mechanism of cation exchange is provided by humic substances, which are a product of the aerobic biological activity during the composting process. Heavy metal removal rates vary from 65% to 95%. Oil & Grease: Removal of oil and grease (O&G) as well as some other organic compounds is facilitated by the high organic carbon content of the CSF® media. The system performs best when O&G loadings are less than 25 mgll. Measured removal rates are as high as 85%. Detailed performance data are available upon request. Removal of other pollutants such as chlorinated hydrocarbons has been demonstrated. However, in the case of specific target pollutants we recommend having a characterization study performed in our laboratory. Perlite Perlite is a naturally·occurring 'puffed' volcanic ash. This lightweight material is commonly used as a water filtration media. Although perlite is not chemically active, its highly porous nature, multicellular structure, and rough edges make it very effective for removal of fine particles. Perlite can be used as a standalone media or in conjunction with the pleated' fabric insert and/or other available media. The primary pollutants targeted by Perlite are: Suspended solids: Perlite, with its many pores and rough edges, is an ideal media for trapping suspended solids. Laboratory and field testing have demonstrated that perlite is able to capture even fine silt and clay particles while maintaining a robust resistance to clogging by heavy sediment loads. Oil and grease: The perlite's extreme porosity and high surface area allow it to act like a sponge and physically capture free oils and greases as these pollutants flow across its surface. Independent studies have shown 80% removal of oil and grease at low concentrations typically associated with parking lot and roadway runoff. Zeolite Zeolites are naturally-occurring minerals that have been used in a variety of applications to filter water. Stormwater Management uses a zeolite that has been demonstrated to be useful for removal of anions, as well as cations, from stormwater runoff. The zeolite can be used as a standalone media or combined with other media to target and remove site-specific pollutants. © STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 T3 Suspended Solids: The granular nature of the zeolite allows for removal of suspended solids as the stormwater percolates through the macro pores of the media. • Microscopic channels within the individual zeolite granules also aid in the removal of silt and clay particles. Heavy Metals: Removal of soluble heavy metals, such as lead, copper and zinc ions, is facilitated by the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the zeolite. With a CEC of about 60 meq/100 grams, the zeolite will release light cations, such as calcium and magnesium, and attach heavy metal ions such as lead, copper and zinc. The heavy metals are then bound to these sites and are not re-released into the stormwater at a later time. Nutrients: Stormwater Management now offers a modified zeolite that has the ability to remove anionic pollutants such as nitrates and ortho (soluble) phosphorus. The individual zeolite granules have been modified to reverse the surface charge (from negative charge to a positive charge), which electrostatically attracts negatively-charged ions. For ortho phosphorus, the maximum adsorption capacity is about 140 mg/kg. Pleated Fabric Inserts Stormwater Management's pleated fabric inserts are designed to be used as a standalone media or in conjunction with other types of media for more effective pollutant removal. The pleated fabric insert is used primarily for sediment (TSS) control. The insert fits inside the standard cartridge, leaving an annular space between the inside of the insert and the drainage tube. This space can be used for the addition of granular • media to remove selected soluble pollutants. For example, if TSS and soluble phosphorus are pollutants of concern, we may recommend combining the pleated fabric insert with the zeolite media. The pleated fabric inserts are constnucted of durable polyester fabrics. They can be removed, washed with a hose and placed back into the filter cartridge. The inserts are designed to be reused many times. Other Media The StormFifter provides a high level of versatility and has been used with other media, such as granulated activated charcoal (GAC). Systems may also be placed in series. For example, the cartridges in the first system use Perlite to address the bulk solids loading, and the second system would use GAG io address soluble organics. Stormwater Management is continuously evaluating different types of media to remove very specific pollutants. If you have an "unusual" pollutant that needs to be removed, ask our applications engineers. SYSTEM HYDRAULICS The Storm Filter is sized to treat the peak flow of a water quality design storm as it passes through the system. The peak flow is determined by calculations based on the contributing watershed hydrology and using a design storm magnitude. The design storm is usually based on the requirements set by the local regulatory agency. The particular size of a Storm Filter is determined by the number of filter cartridges required to treat the peak water quality flow. © STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 • I Precast StonnFilter Flow Spreader Sipflon-driven Fitter Cartridge Underdraln Mani'fold Energy DIILAIpat:ar Ace .... Doors Mounted Into Trat"f'lc-boarlng Ud Figure 1 The typical unit configuration in Figure 1 consists of an inlet bay, baffle, cartridge bay, an overflow baffle, and outlet bay. The inlet bay serves as a grit chamber and provides for flow transition into the cartridge bay. The flow spreader provides for the trapping of floatables, oils, and surface scum. Water enters the cartridge bay through the flow spreader and begins to pond. As shown in Figure 2, the water ponds, infiltrates through the media into the inner drainage tube and begins to raise the float Once the ponding submerges the cartridges, the float will pull loose and generate a siphon effect which greatly increases the flow potential across the filter media. © STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 AIR VUlT AIR RElJEF VAl'VE HOOO OUTER SCREEN CENTER: DPAINAGE nJEE O~CNJ..L P~TED FASRIC II'lSEF.T FLOOR ........... ~. UNDE?DRp!/'J W.t~IF·:ILD Figure 2. The siphon effect will continue until the water is drawn down to the lower lip of the hood at which time air is entrained and the siphon is lost. Water will continue to drain gravitationally until the ball reseats itself and resets the system. Each cartridge is designed to treat a peak flow of 15 gpm (30 cartridges/cfs). For example: a peak design stormwater flow rate of 150 gpm would require that 10 cartridges be used in the treatment vault. The cartridges connect into a pipe manifold that is cast into the floor of the vault. The Storm Filter typically requires 2.3 feet of head differential between the invert of the inlet and the invert of the outlet. Because of the highly porous nature of the various media, the flow through a newly installed cartridge is restricted to 15 gpm using a flow control orifice located at the outlet of each manifold pipe. The orifice controls the flow from three to eight cartridges (i.e. 45 to 120 gpm). It is calibrated and adjusted such that, at design head, the maximum flow is throttled to the number of cartridges on line times 15 gpm per cartridge. The Storm Filter is also designed with an inline overflow. The overflow operates when the inflow rate is greater than the infiltration capacity of the filter media. Depending on site characteristics, some systems are equipped with high and/or low flow bypasses. High flow bypasses are installed when the calculated peak storm event generates a flow that overcomes the overflow capacity or design capacity of the system. This is important for the pre-cast systems. Base flow bypasses are sometimes installed to prevent continuous inflows caused by groundwater seepage, which usually does not require treatment. For more information, refer to the System Design section. ©STORMWATER MANAGEMENT updated 4/99 • • • Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN A conceptual drainage plan design is shown the Preliminary Stormwater Plan. The drainage system will be analyzed with a backwater model and the pipes sized during the detailed engineering design. Note that all the pollution generating surfaces will be routed through filtration systems prior to being discharged to Lake Washington. Multiple drainage systems are proposed to minimize the required fall across the site. 7/11100 Triad Associates Job #00-\53 Page V-I Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section VI SPECIAL REPORTS & STUDIES David Evans and Associates have previously prepared a wetland report, Wetland Determination Report on the Jag Development Property (revised May 1997), which is included in the Level II Site Plan Application. The report addresses five adjacent parcels ofland, including the Barbee Mill site. One 6,151 sf category 3 wetland is identified adjacent to the Barbee Mill property (identified as Wetland H in the report). The wetland is located between the site and the adjacent Burlington Railroad Tracks. The approximate wetland location and required 25-foot buffer is shown on Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit (in the Exhibit Pockets). 7/11100 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page VI-l Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section VII OTHER PERMITS It is anticipated that multiply permits will be required for this site and will be applied as the design process continues. Permits that are expected to be required are: • Level I Site Plan Approval from the City of Renton • Level II Site Plan Approval from the City of Renton • SEPA TIrreshold Determination from the City of Renton • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from the City of Renton • Clearing and Grading Permits from the City of Renton • Building Permits from the City of Renton • Nationwide Permits (for marina) from the Army Corps of Engineer • HPA from the Dept. ofFish & Wildlife 7/11/00 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page VII-I Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section VIII ESC ANALYSIS & DESIGN All sites are required to provide Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) measures to prevent erosion and transport of onsite soils to downstream drainage courses, facilities and property due to development (KCSWDM Core Requirement 5). This includes temporary measures implemented during construction and pennanent measures to prevent erosion from the finished, developed site. A variety of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented on the detailed engineering plans. These BMPs will include surface stabilization (e.g. temporary and pennanent planting, mulching and other cover methods as needed), perimeter protection (e.g. silt fences), traffic area stabilization (e.g. construction entrance), sediment retention (e.g. sediment ponds/traps), and surface water control (e.g. interceptor dikes and swales). ESC measures will be particularly important on this site due to the proximity to Lake Washington. The fmished site should have a much lower sediment loading to Lake Washington due to the increased quality landscaping (with native species) and the addition of filtration systems (as described in the Section IV). 7/11100 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page VIII-J Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical lriformation Report Section IX BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, & DECLARATION OF COVENANT !frequired, bond quantities, facility summaries and declaration of covenant will be provided witb the detailed engineering design or final plans, as required. 7Ill/oO Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page IX-l Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Section X OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL The operations and maintenance manual will be provided with the detailed engineering plans. 7/11/00 Triad Associates Job #00-153 Page X-I Barbee Mill Property Preliminary Technical Information Report Exhibit Pockets Golder AssocIates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hili Rood, Sune 200 Redmond. WA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 REPORT TO BARBEE MILL COMPANY ON GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY BARBEE MILL SITE DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Barbee Mill Company P.O. Box 359 Renton,VVA 98057 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. Seattle, VVashington Associate Engineering Geologist Charles W, Lockhart Principal August 9, 2000 Reissued without changes; December 18, 2001 DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF REN~%NlNG DEC 2 I 2aGI RECEIVED 003-1228 0804cJl,doc OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA. EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA. SOUTH AMERICA August9,2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 Site Description Project Description PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS SITE GEOLOGY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Soils 4.2 Groundwater i 5. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 5.2 5.3 Prelirninary Foundation Design 5.1.1 Building Support 5.1.2 Floor Slabs Support Seismic Design 5.21 Liquefaction 5.2.2 Prelirninary Seismic Design Criteria Site Preparation 6. USE OF THIS REPORT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 APPENDICES Vicinity Map Site Plan Appendix 1 Logs of Boreholes Golder Associates 003-1228 Page No. 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 August 9, 2000 1 003-1228 1. INTRODUCfION Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to present this report presenting feasibility- level geotechnical engineering recommendations for the Barbee Mill property located at 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Our scope of work included a review of the previous geotechnical investigations, feasibility-level engineering analysis, and the preparation of a geotechnical report. The report addresses the general guidelines required by the City of Renton for a geotechnical report. 1.1 Site Description The project site is located along the east shore of Lake Washington where May Creek empties into the lake, as indicated on Figure 1. The property is just under 23 acres in size and is wedge shaped. A set of railroad tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard run along the east property line, and vacant land borders the site to the north. The site topography slopes generally westward, from a high of about elevation 35 feet in the southeast to about elevation 20 to 21 feet along the lake front. May Creek flows through the southeast portion of the site. The property is currently occupied by the Barbee Mill, a sawmill providing specialty cut wood. The mill property contains a bridge across May Creek along the main entrance road. There are about fifteen buildings on site and most of the area around the buildings is covered with asphalt paving. Log containment booms are located off-shore. The mill is currently operational. 1.2 Project Description The proposed development concepts for the Barbee site include a combination of office, hoteVrestaurant and residential structures, with associated parking structures as well as at-grade parking. The building structures will be as high as seven (7) stories above grade. We understand that no below-grade construction is currently planned. Roadways will be constructed to access the buildings and parking areas, and landscaping will be introduced to complement the site development. A marina facility will be developed along the lakefront. Relatively minor site grading will be required to accommodate the site development. Generally, cuts and fills are less than five (5) fee t in thickness. Golder Associates August 9, 2000 2 003-1228 2. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS In preparing this report, we were provided with portions of a previous geotechnical report for the site vicinity prepared by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., dated February 1997, and boring logs from an environmental investigation carried out by Hart-Crowser, Inc. dated 9/98. A set of preliminary civil drawings of the proposed project development, prepared by Triad Associates, was also provided to assist in our understanding of the project development concepts. The rnos t pertinent geotechnical data were the geotechnical borehole logs of two borings drilled on the Barbee site to a depth of 111 feet below ground surface and included in the Shannon and Wilson report. In addition, the text of their report referenced conditions on the adjacent properties to the north. The five (5) Hart-Crowser borings were shallow, ranging from a depth of about 9 to 21 feet. The locations of the borings drilled by the Shannon and Wilson and Hart Crowser are indicated on Figure 2 of this report. Copies of the logs of the borings are included in Appendix 1 of this report. Golder Associates August 9, 2000 3 003-1228 3. SITE GEOLOGY The Barbee site is located geologically in what is referred to as the Puget Sound lowland, which is a north-trending structural and topographic trough that extends from British Columbia to central western Washington. In general, the soil materials in this geologic feature are predominantly glacial materials deposited during several intercontinental glaciations in the region. Other significant geologic features in the near vicinity of the Barbee site, as reported in the Shannon and Wilson report, include the Mercer Island sunken forest and a splay of the Seattle Fault. The sunken forest is a large intact block of soil that reportedly slid from the upland of Mercer Island about 1,100 years ago during a strong earthquake. The mapped outline of this submerged soil mass extends about y. to ~ of the distance across Lake Washington between Mercer Island and the May Creek delta. The report also indicates that a southern splay of the Seattle Fault crosses in an east- northeast orientation less than a mile to the north of the center of the Barbee site. However, the report indicates that the closest formation that is cut by this fault is a tertiary rock outcrop of the Tukwila Formation, about three miles to the northeast, and that no Pleistocene or Holocene beds are known to be interrupted by this fault. Specific to the vicinity of the Barbee Mill site, the May Creek delta is the source of significant post-glacial sediment deposition. The creek is currently located on the south side of the delta, but has likely meandered across the breadth of the delta in the geolOgic past, depositing much of the near-surface soil materials which currently underlie the site. Golder Associates August 9, 2000 4 003-1228 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions underlying the Barbee site have been inferred from two (2) borings put down on the site by Shannon and Wilson, and five (5) borings put down by Hart-Crowser. The locations of these borings are presented on Figure 2. The actual logs of the borings are presented in Appendix 1 of this report. 4.1 Soils Subsurface conditions underlying the site are generally uniform, and consist of surficial fill materials of up to about 15 feet in thickness, overlying a natural depositional sequence of delta and/or lacustrine sediments, which are in tum underlain by glacially deposited materials. In general, the natural delta and/or lacustrine sediments underlying the fill include soft organic silts and silty clays, which are interbedded with very loose, silty fine to medium sands. These sediments overlie more granular alluvial deposits which consist of layers and/or lenses of loose to medium dense gravelly, fine to coarse sands, and occasional silts, which are likely discontinuous and characteristic of this type of depositional environment. Localized areas of soft sediments may be present within the alluvium. These alluvial sediments extend to depths of up to at least about 60 feet based on the boring logs. The alluvial soils in tum overlie glacial sediments consisting of outwash deposits or glacial till. At the Barbee site, there is an apparent layer of ablation till, which has similar grain size characteristics to lodgment till but has not been overridden by glacial ice, and therefore is not as dense. This ablation tilllayerranges from 3 to 12 feet thick and is medium dense to very dense. Very dense lodgment till underlies the ablation till. Rock was not encountered in the two deep borings put down at the Barbee site. 4.2 Groundwater The surficial groundwater level at the site is most likely controlled by the water surface elevations in Lake Washington and May Creek, which runs along the southern portion of the project site. As such, we would assume that the groundwater surface throughout much of the site area would be at approximately elevation 20 feet or so (depths on the order of 3 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface). The two deep borings advanced on the Barbee property encountered artesian groundwater conditions at a depth of approximately 110 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater recharge for this deep aquifer system is expected to originate largely upon the recessional outwash capped Kennydale hill and within the May Creek Valley sediments . Golder Associates August 9, 2000 5 003-1228 5. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDA nONS 5.1 Preliminary Foundation Design 5.1.1 Building Support For planning purposes, we recorrunend that the buildings contemplated for the Barbee development should be supported on deep foundations bearing in the medium dense to very dense glacial soils that underlie the project site. Foundation types could consist of drilled caissons, open-i!nd or dosed-i!nd driven or vibrated steel pipe piles, concrete or timber displacement piles, or auger-cast piles. The actual type of pile, including material, length and installation methods will be based on the structural requirements for the buildings, and an economic analysis of the most cost-i!ffective foundation support systems. Downdrag forces will need to be included in the design of piles. Placement of fill adjacent to the structures could consolidate the underlying compressible sediments, which, in tum, will result in downdrag forces on the piles. In addition, potential liquefaction of these soils, as discussed in section 5.2 of this report, could result in settlements and downdrag forces as well. Additional geotechnical engineering studies will be required in order to provide a better evaluation of the amount of downdrag force which will act on the piles. If the presence of contaminated sediments and groundwater is encountered on the site, special installation techniques may be required for the deep foundation system in order to minimize contaminant migration across the geologic strata during or after installation. As an example, techniques could include the use double casing through zones of contaminated soils or groundwater, or vibration installation techniques. This factor will also playa role in the selection of the appropriate foundation system for final design of the project 5.1.2 Floor Slabs Support We recommend that the floor slabs for all buildings be structurally supported by the deep foundation system. This recommendation is proVided because the underlying sediments at the site are susceptible to differential settlements due to loading and liquefaction potential. Garage floor slabs may not need to be structurally supported, dependent on the slab design and the tolerance for differential settlements. 5.2 Seismic Design 5.2.1 Liquefaction The fills and alluvial soils that underlie the site to depths of up to about 60 fuet are very loose to medium dense, and potentially susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake. Golder Associates August 9, 2000 6 003-1228 Liquefaction of these soils would result in a loss of shear strength of the soil or the capacity of these soils to adequately support structures supported on shallow foundations. Additionally, the potential development of liquefaction within these soils could result in vertical settlements, and/or lateral spreading of these soils near the shoreline area. The effects of liquefaction on the performance of the building structures can be mitiga ted by the use of a deep foundation system, which would transfer the building loads to the dense glacial soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. The foundation system would be designed to withstand the design earthquake and the effects of liquefaction. Site improvements, such as containment walls, may be needed along the shoreline area to mitigate the hazard for lateral spreading. Without such mitigation measures, structures located along the shoreline may experience potentially damaging lateral deformations as a result of liquefaction due to earthquake loading. Detailed analysis of the potential for lateral spreading will depend on the subsurface topography along the lakeshore, and the structural details of the shoreline development. These analyses can be carried out in subsequent phases of the project. 5.2.2 Preliminary Seismic Design Criteria The site would fall within Zone 3 (seismic zone factor z =O.30g) based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997). Furthermore, based on the soils data on the borehole logs, we would classify the soil profile as 5,0, requiring a specific investigation and analysis in order to ascertain the ground response to earthquake events. This can be analyzed in subsequent phases of the work. 5.3 Site Preparation It is our understanding that site fills on the order of 5 feet or less will be constructed to accommodate the site grading requirements. It is unlikely that this level of filling will cause significant settlements. However, as previously discussed, settlements could be induced as a result of soil liquefaction due to earthquake shaking. Therefore, we would recommend that precautions be taken to minimize the potential impacts of these ground settlements, such as an increased pavement section for roadways and parking areas, and the use of flexible utility connections. Golder Associates August 9, :woo 7 003-1228 6. USE OF THIS REPORT This geotechnical study has been prepared exclusively for the use of the Barbee Mill Company and their consultants for specific application to the Barbee Mill site development. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our work did not include any subsurface investigations. Our work was based solely on data describing the site conditions that was carried out by others. We have relied on that information in the preparation of this report. Once the site development concepts are finalized, additional geotechnical investigations will need to be undertaken to determine the specific geotechnical conditions and provide final geotechnical design recommendations for the site development. In addition, our scope of work did not include any environmental screening or assessments. This work will be carried out by others. Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates , s· i--Ite , I \ ~ \$- Creek Or> 0 Lake ::y Washington Renton Newcastle ~ \\ \, \ NE12thSt ------ N f ~ FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP BARBEE MILL PROPERTY Golder Associates · ;.~ .. /Ij ~ N ~ LEGEND ~. ~. \ , , .~HCMtY.~ \~!- L7 o Number and approximate location of borings performed by Hart-Crowser, 9/98 Number and approximate location of bOrings performed by Shannon & Wilson, 3/97 Proposed building 100 200 FEEl'" Reference: Original AutoCAD drawing provided by Triad Associates Job Number 00-153 ~ 7114/00 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN BARBEE ~ILL PROPERTY APPENDIX 1 LOGS OF BOREHOLES Golder Associates JUL-31-2000 15:07 CENTURYPRCIFIC 206 689 7210 P.09/30 yUT£RLO 'ZI7t17 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ri. "0 ; ~as ri. Standard Penetretlon Resistance .: ~ Q. :>-S (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) i >-'ci ~~ a. A Blows per foot III .. 10 20 40 S( Surface E11t113t1on: Approx. 25 Feet c 0 ~Aspha1t end basa. l" O.S : : : : : : : : : :. ~: : ~ : .... 1'\ Gray SAND; moist; SP. /' 2.5 -. . . . ~: · . 'I ...... . . .. 'y 4.0 ... · . Loose, "ray, flnll to medIum sandy ¥ 15 I ... · · . GRAVEL; mo15t; trace of wood fragments; 2I '¥G'" I":":::: :: :: · . , ..... · .. -.... ..... " .. IFlIlI CNJ. 'r 7.0 ' .. .. ...... ......... .' oI ,. """ " . , ..... ~ · ....... ......... Loose, gray, sIlty, rme SAND; wet et 5 '1 · -...... ......... · . I :::::::: : " ....... 10 " ....... felltl IFilI7I SM. t 4I c · . ... .' .. : : : : : : : · . · . '" · ... Strlltlflad, loose, IIray. tine to medium 1 '" :.::: : · . :.1 "I " : . ~rAND and Y\Il'f soft brown. slightly sandyr 13.& c 1"; : : : : : : : : .... , o ••••• : .;.: SILT and sUty fma SANO; wet; (Flne 'I 15 NW:: : · . : : : : · , . AllUVIum! SPIML. · ....... ... · . . . · ...... -:e:. : : : · . 'I .. . .... -Very loose to loosa. gray, slIghtly clayey, - -...... · . .. . .... , . .. · . organic sllty, fina SAND and fine sandy · ....... · . . . · . · . 20 · , ..... · . r 20.0 "I :')1 ;-:.' · . SILT; wet: lenses of coarse sand and : : : : : : : : : .. : clayey slit; trace of organics; (Flne ·I :. : : : ' . 12: ' . ; \AUuvlumJDepression FUllng) SM/ML. : 25 ..... Medium donse to dense, llray, trace silt to loI : : : 101T' : : : .. .. '" sUty, sondy GRAVEl., locally gravally sand; ......... · ....... " ...... waf; (Coarse Alluvium) GM-GW. : " .... ,. · ....... :;.; '" ...... 30 .. , . '" . 1zI . ~.': .. · . . . . . . . . .. .. , ... , rN-lJ" .. : . ...... · , ...... ... . . - -....... uI : · - -_ .. ........ " .... · .... -.. 34.0 · - -... · .. . . · . . . . . . . Very dense to medium dense, llray. claan I 35 · . 1 I·I · ... , . ' .. Z to sIlty. flna to coarse SAND grading to · ........ I · . . , . . . . . · . . , . , . t " ..... , . .. . .. ... slightly silty to SIlty, sandy GRAVEL; wet; 1·I " .. '" .-.. . .... ~ ::::::y ~::: ::::: (Medium to Coarse Alluvium) I · , " , .... SP-SM}GP-GM. I 1·I «l . ....... t W1f" · .... , --. · . -'" . '.' · _ .. -. _ .. " ...... 42.0 · -....... · ....... Mlldium danle, gray, snllhtly silty, sandy ~ "I · _ ....... ..... ' , . ""'2 ......... , · . -" ... · . . . . . . . . GRAVEL, grading to IIray, silty, sandy - - -..... . ........ 45 · ....... .. , . '" . GRAVEL; wet; layers of gray, fine to • . "I ";:fN.i, , :": : : : : : : ; · . I -. . . .. .. . . .. .. ... .. .. .. medium sand; (Medium to Coarse ° · ....... tt\l .... "I · .... , . ' . · . . . . . . . · ........ · ..... , · , AlluvIum) GP-GM. I . .. " .. , . " ..... ... " .... · .. "',. 50 ...... · ....... · . ° :zoI k0!" · . .::::::; : · . . . . .. · .. "'" 52.0 ..... , ... " ...... LoO$II, brown, fine to medium SAND. .-~ · . . . . . . . . · ....... '1 :"::U.< · . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . trace of graval, grading to Sl1ty SAND; wet I · . . . . , . . . 55 ......... ~f moistllenses of gray. slightly clayey Silt r .' t 2'I · . · . ' .:' &0.0 . ' :.: .... and gray. slightly clayey, sandy silt; 22= (Medl.um Alluvium! SP-SMIML. : LEGEND 0 20 «l 6C • '" Water Content • $amplo Not Aooovored I3:EI Surface Seal PIIIItic Limit I • I Liquid Limit I 2-0.0. SpOt Spoon Sample ID!I . Annular SlIlIlant NoW'" Wat .. Conlon( .:n: 3" OJ). Shelbv Tube S.."ple £EJ Piezomew Screen £:D:lI Grout ~ w.te<u.. ... JAG Development Renton. WashIngton NOTES ,. 'Tho m.tiftcMian 1in0i NpreMnt the ..-prmcirNte bouodari .. betwoen 0011_. one! 1110 __ .... y be uroduol. LOG OF BORING SWB-7 2. 'The d".cunIon In 'ttl. hXt af thai ,.., II neo-1IfV for. prapel' 1InIhrwt~ of Che n.ure of ,ublurfaca 1IIIItlll'ialli. Oecembfilt' 1996 W-7443.()3 3. WIfIM leveL " 1ndIc.t"lIIxIv.~ .. far tM d.r.a .plu:ifiDd and may VIlIfY. •• ReI .. ", KEY far oxp/....man of 0Syrilola_ end d,r",ltiono. SHANNON ... WLSON, INC_ J FIG_ A-7 5. USc: IelJ:IIIII' -vmbaI b_ed an ..n.u.I cl8nitiClltiDl1. eli 0 hllIOeItII'ICII EiI.d'lllIl_ClII ~ Sh.t 1 of 2 JUL-31-2000 15:07 CENTURYPRCIFIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SurfaclI Bevatlon: 25Faet: graval; moist: increasIng gravel at 85 fellt; {TjIJl SP-SM. gray, laminated (Glaciolacustrine bepo!;1t1J Cl-cH. sUg'htly silty. sandy GRAVELl wet; fra,ctulred rock at 110.5 feet; wood at 111 feet; artesian conditions lit 1 10 teet: Oep~t) GP·GM. COMPLETEO 11120196 • 83.0 80.0 "I • Sample Not lleooverod :x: 2" O.D. Spilt 5",,01\ S ... ple JJ: 3" 0.0. Shellv Tube Somple 101" ·:·1·" 1II:r; ~.~ Surf."" Seal Annuler Sealant P"lQom<olerSoreen Grout , W.ler Level NOTES 1 .. lb. dNti,.~un lin. rllf!M.-t!: th ..... WWlwte boundarlM ta.tw.,.. ... -. end""' ............ ....., "'aroduaI. , 2.. "... chCUHian in the tnt M thilr ... art. neceutwy fot" • proper unctnt.wil", of the ~ of ~ 1NlleriaI&. 3.-W .... 1ov.t. if indi_od _ .. II for .... d ... opecifoed end....., ''''Y. 4. Il0l ..... ~ for ~ .r 'SymboIo" WId d4foniti ..... 6. Usc Iott ... oynDaI b.od on _ d-"""" 2066897210 P.10/30 Standard PBIlBtration Resistance 1140 lb. wlight, 30" drop) A Blows per toot .................... ,., .. ... .... ........ . · ........ , ....... . .. . .... . , . _. " ............... , " . , ............. . .... . , .. . .... . .. ......... . .. .. .. , ....... -. _. , , -......... , , .. , .... · ....... . · . -..... . -. -.. , '" ....... ,. " ............. . 85~:~:~::7:~::T:~:~::~:~::7::~~i~~ · ............. ,' · . . . . . . . , ........ · .... , ., " 90 r':"';";'-'-'-'-'-HI+_:"";_":"_ ;,.;_ ,-'-_ +','-'-, --=-, _'-I--=-~I · . . . . . . . , · . . . . . . " .... , . , · . . . . . . · ....... . · ' · ....... . " .. , .' .. 9S~~_.~,~ __ ~.~.~:~:::....;:..:..:::....;:..:..:~: ..:..:::....;:..:..:::....;:~::~:I , . " . , , · . , . . , . · '" .. , .' ""'" · . . . . . . . . , ....... . 100~~;;~;~;;~;:i, ~;;~.~ .. ~_~ __ 7_f.·7·~··~··~-~-·i -.. _ ... · ............... """'" · ..................... . · .. .... . ............ -.. . 105 · ............... """" , , ....................... . · .... " .............. , .. . • •••••• "" I •••••••• , •••• · . , ..... . '" .. '" . · ... , .. · ... , .. · .... ' , . . . . · . . . . . , ,. ...... . ............. , ...... , .. 11S!7i-:'-: -:-: :~:-:-:.;.,: :+.:.;.;: :~:-:.-:.;.;: :~'';'"l-:'-:-''':''' :":' . ..:.. . .;.;. :..:-l o , . . .... ......... . ' .. · . . . . . , . . , . . .. ....,.. · . " ................. ,. · ........ ' ............ , • % Water Content Pleetio Limit I • I Uquid Limit Netural W.ter Conlent JAG Development Renton, Washington LOG OF BORING SWB-7 December 1996 . W·7443'()3 SHANNON a. WIlSON. INC. G · .. a ..... L.It .. _ ... ~· . JUL-31-2000 15:07 CENTURYPACIFIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SlIffaee Elevation: Approx. 22 Feet Asphalt end base. Dark brown SAND; moist; SP. Gray SAND end GRAVEL; moist; SPIGP. Very loose to loose, gray, slightly silty, i ~ .c -Q, OJ C 0.2 1.0 2.0 I 1 1 'I 2I grevelly SAND; moist; wet at 8 feet; scattered wood ploces; orgenlcs soils and .. 1 I , I ~I i silt chunks; locally trace of clay; (FlIII l\i r 11.0 sp·SM/GP. " L 1 'I: '. Interbedded, loose to medium deniO, gray, ,'.,' fino to medium SAND and brown. slightly ~ aI -:. sandy. peaty, organic SILT; wet; lensas of ." . '. wood fiber. end peat: gravels noted et 17.5 feet; (Medium AlluviumIDepresslon : .. -. Fillingl SPiOH. :'. I-~-----:-:':':"'"--=-..,.-__ -==-==,..---l 23.0 '.:-loose. gray. silty. fino to medium SAND; Wet; organll: lanses and pBltings; (Medium Alluvium) SP·SM/ML. /' 27.0 Dense. gray. sandy. ·flne GRAVEl: wet; angular to subrounded; (Coarse Alluvium! fN'I. Medium dense. gray. slightly gravelly. Slightly clayey, silty SAND; wet; organics; (FIne Alluviuml SM. Medium dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, trace of gravel; wet; (Medium \Alluvluml SP. Medium danslI to den5e. gray. sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL. local trace of; slit: wet; mud bubbling at 37 feet; (Coatse \Anuvium! GW. Stiff. brown. slightly clayey SILT; wet; (lacustrine Deposit) ML. Ve.ry dense to medium dense, grey, s6ghtly clayey, trace to gravelly, silty SAND; moist; {Ice-COntact DeliositsfAblation Tnll SM. Dense to very denslI, llray. slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; gravelly . • CONTIIUEr. NEXT .ACI£ LEGEND 29.0 31.0 34.0 43.0 44.0 58.0 • 0 ~ '.' ~ I .1 .1 eI ~ 7I "I 'I I'I lzI 13I 14I 15I leI I1I "I "I zoI _-r- • Sample Not Reeov-ed I 2" 0.0. Split Spoon So.r,ple J[ 3" 0.0. Shel.~.v Tub. 50rnple 1m Surf..,.,SeaJ I![]!I Annular S •• I<mt [;BJ Pio.ori\etot _ I:i!JliI GraUl --~ Wal.r level NOTES ,. The .tr8tl&o.t.lon"'" ~ont1lw ......... wdll ... baund ...... ~ .oiI tvP-. and the tr_itian II'IIIY be gr.dwll. 2. n.a a.cunlar11n "" text of 1hla report II neceawy for II prapC' undllnt.nd&n;l cd the nchUa of .uMurtacellUllotWti. 3. W .... IoY ... if indi .... od _ •• io f..-the dotall'oclfiod ond may '''Y. 4. Ro' ... t. KEY for ~ .r ·Syrn..Io· and dOllnldono. 5. USC ,,,,, ... ........, booed on _ ..... if_. 206 689 7210 P 11/30 .i Standard Penetration Resistance ~ 1140 lb. weight, 30' drop) 0. .Ito. Blows per foot c"l ;0 20 _40 60 611>::::··~iL . :~ ••• ....... • r . -. . . . . 10 :::::::: :::: K:::::::: ~~:YT :.:: 15 .... -.. " tslT :.: ::::: 20::/::: :::.; .~: . ; . . " .. ' ; o 20 40 • % Water Content Plaotic limit I • I liquid Unit Naturel Wet., Contont JAG Development Renton. WDshlngten LOG OF BORING SWa..1O 60 December 1996 W·7443-G3 SHANNON Ir. WIlSON. INC. lAG. A-9 G .... j ...... ~CorwbMI Sheet.' of2 JUL-31-2000 15:07 CENTURYPACIFIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Surface 8evation: Approx. 22 Feet at 64 to 66 feet. 75 to 77 feet, and 79 feet: !Glacial Outwll$hl SP-SM. Very dense. gray, fine sandy SILT: moist; scattered Iayars of gravel; arta$ian conditions at 85 feet; mol ML. ~ ~ i 0 70.0 :8 ~ ~ , t .' I I , I / '. L ,I I ,: " 'I .I . -/ ::1 I t ~ 1-==~=~==-:!i:;::--.r.:;;;-;;:-;::::ii.7.;;-::i 92.0 Dense, g rav, slig htiV 'ilty, fina to medium . , SAND: moist: laver of snt with traca of :: .1 gravel; gravel at 97 feet; strong artesian ': " conditions at 111' feet: (Glacial Outwash) '. ., S ~ .... : .1 ~ .'/ ': " ' .. , : 1 .' I ': , '. 1 : 1 .' / ': " '. , : .I . / :: I I------;;=;::;:;: .... n;:,...;u;;;;:;;;-----j 111.6 -BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 11/11/96 LEGENp -Sample Not Recovered !:IE So""". Saal IlI:U : Annul ... _t Z3I :c 2' O.D. Split Spoon Sampla ][ 3' O.D. Shelby Tube Sample em: Pie2:cmeter Sereen IZ:E Grout ¥ Water love! NOlE§ I. ThI .... rteaRion In':' ,....fInt the ~ blNRdari_ ktwMh .aiI typM • ..-,d tho tr..mon may !be gNdu ... 2~ 1htt diacuaian in 1he text of IhiI tePort • nec:_1ICy far a pto$Jo .... und~ gf"the nature of eub$Utfeoo ~. 3. WI!Jtor lovel. if indicatad 1Ibov .... for tho de. .podfitKf .nd m.y VW'/. 4. Roo' ... to KEY for o>q>Ionotion of ""SvmboII' ond dollnltiono. 5. USC lOll., _ booed on vitulli douific.tion. 2066897210 P.12/30 ~ Standard Penetration Resistance ~ (140 lb. weight. 30' dropl i .A. Blows per foot c ~ .... ' -,2~ ........ 40 ... TIm · . - - -...... ,., .... , .... " ....... . , : ""'" ......... ""'" , ..... -, ........ '" · . ..... ......... .. . · ...................... . · ....................... . 65' ::::::: ::::::::: :0:::'::: ~~~~~~~ i~~~~~~~~ ~~~::~~:: ....... ::::::::: :: :::::: · .... " :::: :.::;: ;.;;::::: 70 ::::::: :::::::::I~':::::::: :: ::::: ::::::::: ::::: .. ': : : ::::: ::::::::: :::::: :-: . · ........ -., ........... . · ............. . 76~7:~::~:~::~:~::~:~::~:~::~:~::~:~::~:~:~1 80 · ..... . · .... , . · ..... . .. .. .. . : : : : : ;..: .. . . =--.-· ... '" · ..... . · ..... . · ..... . · ... , .. -- -... . · ... , .. ........ -........ . · ....... . · ,." -.. . ........ . · . . . . . . . -· . - -..... · ....... . ......... ..... "'-..... "'-· .... '" . · ... , '" . · ....... . · . '" ,., . .. " ..... ...... , .. · . . . . . . . , · "" , .. , . ..... , .. , .... " ............. ,', .. . . ............ , ... . 85~~:~:~:7:7:7.7 ·.r.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.7.7.7.7.7.7.~ .. cl .... '" ..... ' ... .. , . " ....... , .. ... ,. " .. · . ' ... , " · .... , .. . · ....... , · .. " . ::: .... :: ::::::::: 90~~~~r.:~:7:~::~:7:~::~~~·~Bl~·1 ::::::; :: :::: ::: .. ,' · .............. . , . , ... -........ . · ..... . · . . . . . . . . · ..... . · . . . . -. . . -. _ .. " ...... -.. 95~~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.i7.7.7.7.7.~.~. ~ · ..... . · ....... , · ,-, .. " · ..... . · . , ... . ....... i::::~:i: ;)j0 100~~'~' ~"~'~'~'~~~~~~~~~~I :: :.::: ::.:::: ::11:: :::::: : : : : : :: ::::::::: l:::::::: · _ .. , ....... _ ... -. · ....... . · -. . . -. , . '05~~:~:~::~:~:~:r.:~:7:~::~:~:7:~·. ~~~~I -.... " ........ . _ ..... . , ., , '" ..... -.. -· .............. . · .. , , " ., ...... . · .. , . " , ....... . :,J,: :.). 110~~:~:~:~::~:~:~·~·~::~:7:7:~::~:T7iL~~~1 :::: ::: I::::: :::: : :.A.:::::: _ ....... , ., , " . , 1'5~~;~:~::~:7:~;r.:~:7:~::~:~:7:~: ~.7,~,.~.7.~ .• ~.1 o · , ......... ,. -.. .. ... -. -. ... _ .. '" .... , .. · , -... . •• • • I •••• · ..... . · . . . . . . . . .. , ..... . · . . . . . . .. ""'" 20 40 • "Water Content Plastic Limit I • I Uquid Umi! Natural Weter Content JAG Development Renton. Washington LOG OF BORING SWB-l0 December 1996 W-7443.Q3 SHANNON & wasON. INC. 1 FlG_ A-9 c "WMdl~~ Sh •• ! 2 of 2 60 JUL-31-2000 15'06 CENTURYPACIFIC Shannon & Wilson. Inc. (s&W). uses a soil classification system modified from the UnWIed Soil C\a$$ific:ation (USC) System. Elemems of the USC and other definitions are provided on this and the following page. Soil descriptions are based on vlsua~ manual procedures (ASTM D 2488-93) Ilnless otheIwise noted. S&WCLASSlFlCA110N OF SOIL CONsmuENTS • MAJOR cons1iUnmIs ~ rno<e than 50 pen:enI. by weight, or Ihe sorr. Major constiIusnIs ""' capllalized' (SAND). " SoIInor~luenls ~ 1210 50 percent oI1he soli and IJ«!C»de 11>& majOr CCI1IIII1l8II1B (silly SAND). Minor consli\lJenlS prec:eded by 'sIIghllY' """"""" 5 to 12 percent 0I1he soli (sIiglltly silty SAND). • Traee constituOOtS con'lpOSO 0 to 5 petCOni of !he soli (slightly silly SAND. !raCe of gmveI). MOIS1URE CONTENT DEAN mONS DIy ADser.::e 01 moIStUre. 1fUst)I. dry to thetouoh Moist DarIl> but no vtslble water wet Visible free walei'. from below water fable ABBREVlA110NS ATn No TIme 01 Drilling Bey. EleVaUon II feel HSA Hollow SIIIm AutJet 10 Inside Olameter in Irdles Ibs pounds Mon. Monument C(N8f N BloWs for last Iwo 6-Inch fncrernems NA Not Applicable or Nol Available 00 OlllSlde Di8mB\er OVA Organic Vapor Analyzer PID PhOIoIonIZaUon DetacIDt ppm palls pet mblon PVC Potjvinyl Chloride SS Spilt Spoon """1IIar SFT Slendard PenatJaUon Test usc Untried Soil ClassificatiOn WU Wat.r level Indicator 206 689 7210 P.07/30 GRAIN .SIZE DEFINmONS FINES SAND" • F"1I1It • MedIum • Coarse GRAVEl." , • FIne 'Cc>aIse COBBLES BOUWeAS < t200 (!f.oa 11m) •• 200· '40 (OA nvn) -140· '10 (2 11m) "'fO' f4 (5 mm) " 84 • 314 Inch ,314 ·3 Inches 3· f21nchec > 121nc11es • Uliess oIherwfse noted, $IIld and gravel. when rnsert, rangelrom nne 10,coarse In gralnslZa. ReLAnvEDENsnY/CON~STENCY N.SPT. RELATIVE N.SPT. RElATIVE BLOWSIFT. DENSIlY BLOW$IFT. CONSISTENCY 0·4 4· fO 10 ·30 30·50 OvtIr 50 [;ill . . ~ 0 /tll'§ Ell] .. ~. rn:J Very loose <2 .Verysolt 2·4 SolI Loose 4·8 MedlumsUW Medium dense 8 ·15 sun Oense 15·30 Very stiff Very_ OVer 30 HaRI WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS CemenllConcrete Bentonite Grout Benlonite Seat SiougII Silica Sane! 2" 1.0. PVC Screen (O.OIQ.1nch SIoI) • Aspha~ or PVC Cap ~ CobbIeG ~ FIll Ift;Q] AI;tt ~ 8edrocl< JAG Development Renton, Washington SOIL CLASSIFiCATION AND lOG KEY February 1997 W· 7443'()4 SHANNON" WILSON,INC. J FIG. A-1 __ RlfIWtIOMIOIIIIICDIIIdIln'O Sheet 1 012 JUL-31-2000 15:06 CENTURYPACIFIC " CIoan .....-,,"""/han i_ 111M 50% B-1 "'-_IonIlltaIMd ~l8Inod ""No.4_J SO .. i"""" ""'" A ... i"""" 50%_"" ""'" 12'1' /fIlesJ No.200_J C10an -".. than ,_or ..... ~-) "'-fl/:s~~ --"'" Sand>wI!h<D (1.0. GP-GM}}ID No..sI8wIJ FInos(I7I«W than 12'1' 11M.) Slas_allY" (lfqu/tl1Im/r _/han 50, lnocg""" Flne-G_ SolIo (50S IJftfJINS Organic -"'" No.flOOsl8wlJ _.",,011'" lnotgank;: (liquid limit SOotm_, org- Wig~ OrganIc PrImorIry organic mallo<, dark In Soil. cob, and orll""lc odor !m6 1. Dual syrrboIs (syrtlboIs sep&ra1lKl by a hyphen. I.e .. SP·SM. sI1ghIIy silty fine SAND) are used 1« soils willi between 5% and 12% fines or When the liquid IirJit and Plasticity index values plot in !he CL-MI. ..va 01 !he plasllcily chari. 2. BOfde~ine syrrbaIs (symbols separBtecI by 8 slash. i.8~ ClJM~, silty CLA Y/cloyey SILT; GW/SW. sandy GRAVEIJ~ SAND)1ndIca1ed ihallhe s",1 may fall into one 01 two possible basi<: groups. GP aM ac sw SP SM So ML Cl 01. CH MH OH PT 206 689 7210 P.08/30 Sando, SIlty sandS, Sand-Sit IIbluros Clayey sanda, Sancj.Qoy MbcI .... Sandy Clays, Hl9~ GravollyFOI 10 HIgh JAG Development Renton, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY Februal)' 1997 SHANNON &WJLSON,INC. -.... -~. W-7443-Q4 FIG. A·1 Sneet2012 RUG-Bl-2000 09:38 HRRT CROWSER, INC. BorinQ Log and Construction DBts for NOn/torInQ tie' HCNII-tD 5 - . . 10 .~ ," ,- 20 25 i- I_ 30 Geologic Log Sample h 3 inches of ASP~: T over rnediulII O.,.se, damp, brown. san GRAVEL. ....- Very loose to mediufft (lense. moist to wet. g<ay. noedlum fine SAND with ooCa$iol"l8l $lIt lenses and occasional wooCl fr"gm.nts. Ve<y soft to soft, wet. b'own. sandV • -9rganie SU, T 1'Iifh sand lense5 to .3 inChes end wood. Loose to IlII'dLUm dl!nse. wet. gray. lIIe<Jiutl line SAND with thin Sill laye'" Bottem of Bori", al 20.0 Feel. Compleled ~125/Ila. L Re1et to Figure A-I for ell,OlanattQri of desCliptions .nd symbol'_ 2. Soil oe,criDtionl and Itr.tum lines afe interpretive and actual c!\ang~s mey be gr8cwal. :J. Gtound weter &eye!. if lndic:ated. is at titre 01 drWllng ~A10) ar tOr dete IPe-cified. level1'll8y '1ery .. ith bme. s-' 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-a 5-7 5-' 5-9 5-11 5-12 N 13 7 14 • 3 2 3 9 '6 206 329 8964 Monitoring Well Design II P.04/09 HlJliJOWWZSt J-G48-" II/tIB F1tIrn A-fIO ~UG-01-2000 09'38 H~RT CROWSER. H4C. Boring Log snd Construction Dsts for Nonitorlng lief HCNII-2 Geologic Log Sample J IneMs 01 ASPHAl. T o.er Me<llum dense. J h .01S!. O,o~n. sandy GRAVEL. l '--Medium ~suoiSt, geY.~d; ~ - SAND with traee g8\1'eiS and wood. 5-1 5 No recovery. -.s-~ · Leo.se tQ ,,"eCl~m dense. wet. Qray, grav@lIy SANO ~it!'l CObbl!!!. 5-) · 5-4 5-; .1e -k 6,own, oroanll::; SIt T. - 15 - · 20 I- i-25 1-30 Soitorn of Boring al 10.0 Feet. < CornOI.tee 9125/518. 1. R.I.r 10 Frgure A-I for explanation of de.cription. arlCl 5Yll1bOl,. 2. Soil oelcriotians. end stratum lineS .re inter'ptttive ,,00 ocluel cnang ••.... v Ce gradual. 3. GrQuna ..,.ler level. if ihdieated. is al timB of drilling (ATo) or tgr oate specifiea.. 1..e".ll1ay vary with time, N 2. J' 25 <2 , 206 329 8964 Monitoring Well Design P.0S/09 CasInO Stickup in Feel: -0.3 , : ::'.:' : ... II H4R7CR0WSBi .1-1#'6-1() ~ FIfIWtt A-tII t i 1 " I ~ . RUG-01--2000 09: 39 Boring Log BIId Construction DBls for NonitorinQ lief HCNtt-3 Geologic Log ..,i: -'" IU"-'" ,~ o~----------~~~--~---­ASphalt 0,"" 100 •• , moist to wet. gra.elly, meG" .. 10 oollue SAt-(] ~ith $ijly layers, 5 Sample 5-1 Graaes 10 non-gravelly with wood chillS, I 5-Z SaHam of Boring at 9 Feet. ,10 C.mOleled 8/e/9G, 15 20 25 30 -I ,', .. I. Refer to Figure A"" for expianaliof'l Q1 de5crjotion~ and hmbOl5.. 2. Soil desr;riptign.$ 8nO .$lrillum lines are inttrt>re1i~e ""0 aclu,,1 c~ange. ~ey c. gr8~.1. 3. Ground ,",ater level. it indicated. is at 1lme of drillins II TOI Or fo, elate specified:. Levf'llilBY VctI'V with time. N f • 205 329 8954 Monitoring Well Design Casing Slic::kuO in =-eet: -0.3 lTD ... " ... :- ',' .::. " :: :',: i :' ; .. ... ~:' " " ;:: .-, i " '.' ':'. i.' , : : .,;. II IfMJOiOdSai ~-tO 6/tI9 ~A __ AUG-01-2080 09:39 HART CRa.JSER. INC. Boring Log and Construction OBts fOf Non/toring Nell HCNIi-4 . Geologic Log c;; -01 i!u. 0.11 Sample Ol-.--~~--~~~~~~~--, Aspnall over me~iutl't dt'MI!. moist to wet. non-gravelly 10 slightly grave1Jy, fine to meClium SAND. 5 10-+--~~----~~--~~~~--------------~ 8ol~CJm of BOring i3t 10 Feet. 15 20 25 30 .. £omC1eied SIS/QQ. J L Reter to FiOw, A-t for ~XDlalUlition of Cle.sr;riPtir:;II''\i and S Yllbals. 2. SOil descriptions end $lr.luM lin!!s ate k'llttptttive anCl ActUal ct'll!linges may be gr6OUei. J. GrQ\lnc:l w.ter I .. vel, ir indicated., l, at til'll. 01 Cltilltn<J cum or for dIIte specified. level mey Very with time. S-I 5-2 N .. .. 205 329 8954 Monitoring Well De5ign II -::. , , P.07/09 ATO ~ .: ~. : .. : : 1 I HlJRiOWWSSt ".. •• IQ 1/. FiQfreA-B3 RUG-01-2000 09:40 HRRT CROWSER. INC. Boring Log snd Construction DBls for NonitorinQ lIeII HCNII-6D Geologic Log .<:;; -.. Iii"" Sample o .\; O'~--~----~~----~--------Loose, daMe to wet. gray and brown, 5- 10- non-silty tQ 'I"Y silty. m&dium to fine SANO. +-......,'""~I,..'nte-rDe-dd-ed~if-l.-we-l.-br-o"-n -PE-A -r.-gr-.y-- Sll T. end medium dense. gay, meCfium 15- 20- . 25- SAND. Oen,e to very dens@. wet. gray. tine tQ meClium SAND. . f-~rad.' 10 m~m to coarse SAND "i,h ""vll. BOllom of Boring et 2Q Feel. 30-Completed 8/5/09. I. A@t@r 1() Figure A"I for eXPlanation of dellcrlj)tions .;f\d .symbOlS:. 2. So~ deic;:ril)tion$ Inc stratum line$ ere inttt'Dtetive ana actual cttanges "'.Y be gradual. 3. GrClLlM loIater Ie-vel. if Indicated. Is a1 time 01 <3rilling tArm or for <late speCifiect Level may vary witn time. 5-1 S-2 5-3 s-. 5-5 S-iS N 9 It '1 74 206 329 8964 Monitoring Well Design -.. :.' , .. .. :. P.09/09 l .~: .~.:: .. ~: ":;: '~.::. ;:': HaRr'OlotLDt J-.ftue-ID lVH F1t1UTe A-tS TOTRL P.09 ... , THE TRANSPO GROUP INITIAL TRANSPORTA TION ANAL YSIS for Barbee Mill Property r -.,_" . ~ '" "<.z "'_ Prepared for: Triad Associates August 8, 2000 . _ .. , ~ -.... INITIAL TRA NSPOR TA TlON ANALYSIS for Barbee Mill Property Prepared for: Triad Associates August B, 2000 Prepared by: The Transpo Group, Inc. 11730 11Bth Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 9B034-7120 (425) B21-3665 FAX: (425) B25-B434 I EXPIRES 12 115 /0/ INITIAL TRANSPORTA TlON ANAL YSIS for Barbee Mill Property Prepared for: Triad Associates August 8, 2000 Prepared by: The Transpo Group, Inc. 11730 1181h Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 (425) 821-3665 FAX: (425) 825-8434 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ..................................................................................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 4 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................ 6 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 8 SITE ACCESS ........................................................................................................ 9 SUMMARy ........................................................................................................... 10 FIGURES 1. Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 2 2. Site Plan .......................................................................................................... 3 TABLES 1. Barbee Mill Redevelopment New Site Trip Generation ........................................ 7 2. Net New Trip Generation ................................................................................... 7 Inffial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes the traffic characteristics associated with the proposed mixed-use development on the Barbee Mill property in Renton, Washington. An overview of the project, existing conditions, planned improvements and development, project trip generation, and traffic operational characteristics are provided in the following sections. This overview is intended to provide the City of Renton with an understanding of the project and associated transportation characteristics. Project Description The project site is located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard just south of the NE 44th Street interchange at 1-405 within the City of Renton. The project site location is shown in Figure I. The site currently contains several buildings that are part of a sawmill that processes specialty cut lumber. The proposed project would remove all existing buildings, with the exception of one, and convert the site into a mixed-use development. The development proposal includes approximately 619 condominium units and 200,000 gsf of commercial space in a total of nine (9) buildings. The preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. Vehicle access would be provided via an extension of Hazelwood Lane from Lake Washington Boulevard. The extension would create a two-lane roadway into the site, with several cross-streets to provide access to the various buildings and public areas. Pedestrian and other non-motorized access would be provided through a combination of sidewalks along the internal roadway network and dedicated pathways. Non-motorized and emergency access is proposed at the existing Barbee Mill driveway on Lake Washington Boulevard; this access point would be used for emergency purposes only. All parking would be provided within the site in mostly parking garages, with a minor amount of surface parking lot space. A total of 1,948 on-site parking stalls are proposed. IOOl0020IlwpVndi.f sfudy r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 1 AKE SHINGTON Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. Thi.\" map is mpyrighled by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. /1 is unlawfolto copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without pamlssion AI! rights reserved. Figure 1 Site Vidnity Barbee Mill Property -·~:l ~t_- ='i ,'-='1--' =I~ .. -==. -=:11 --~;.-=== I~ Figure 2 Site Plan Barbee Mill PropeI1y Inflial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Properly August 8, 2000 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is served by Lake Washington Boulevard via Hazelwood Lane. Lake Washington Boulevard (LWB) has two travel lanes (one in each direction), with bicycle lanes on both sides and intermittent sidewalks as development has occurred. The roadway is classified as a collector arterial and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. It provides access between 1-405, the Kennydale neighborhood, Gene Coulon Park, and Boeing Renton Plant to the south. Hazelwood Lane is a two-lane local roadway with gravel shoulders and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway serves as local access for residents to the north. Approximately y. mile north of Lake Washington Boulevard the Lake Washington public bike trail connects to Hazelwood Lane. Regional and local vehicle access for the Barbee Mill property is primarily served by the NE 44th Street interchange at 1-405. The interchange is in a partial diamond configuration with stop control on the southbound off-ramp and a traffic signal at the northbound ramps. The northbound on-ramp is a loop ramp, thus deviating from the diamond configuration. The on- ramps both have HOV lanes with ramp metering to provide priority to carpools and transit. The southbound ramp intersection is located approximately 130 feet east of the Hazelwood Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. NE 44th Street is classified as a collector arterial, with 3-lanes across 1-405 and widens to 5-lanes east of the interchange. l00100201lwpVnitiai study r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 4 Inffial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT The site is located in an area that is currently under significant review and consideration by the City of Renton and WSDOT, and by other private developers as part of several potential development proposals. To address growing transportation needs, the City is currently reviewing alternatives for interchange improvements. The concepts being evaluated are intended to "provide for and facilitate the inclusion of full multi-modal and intermodal improvements in capacity, access and connections.» City staff indicated that an improved diamond interchange is currently the alternative most favored. Private development efforts within the area could potentially increase traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44'h Street interchange significantly. In addition to the Barbee Mill property, two parcels to the north have also been discussed as future mixed-use developments. Port Quendall and the J.H. Baxter Company properties, when combined with Barbee Mill total 67 acres. Barbee Mill would potentially account for 10 percent of the commercial development and up to half of the residential development. It appears that the majority of vehicle access for these parcels would be located Lake Washington Boulevard via Hazelwood Lane. The configuration of the interchange as well as potential development density in the area will effect the overall traffic operations within the area and the degree of Barbee Mill transportation impacts. IOOl002011wpunitiai study r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 PageS Initial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project trip generation was estimated using methodologies consistent with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6 th Edition. The type of traffic associated with a large mixed-use development such as the Barbee proposal consists of new trips and captured trips. The combined effects of new and captured trips represent total project trip generation. A credit can also be applied to the project trip generation to account the existing land uses that will be removed or renovated to estimate net new traffic to the surrounding roadway system. The proposed development is expected to consist of 619 condominium units with a total of about 200,000 gsf of commercial space. The commercial space would consist of 112,000 gsf of office space, 50,000 gsf of retail space, 8,000 gsf of restaurant space, and a 30,000 gsf hotel. This specific breakdown of commercial uses was used to estimate project trip generation. Due to the mix of land uses and connectivity within the site, there is expected to be a share of trips that would be generated within the site and would not impact off-site roadways or site access points. These trips are characterized as "captured trips." The following three types of captured trips are expected to occur; (1) accounts for those residents that are expected to live and work on-site, which is expected to account for about 5 percent of total residents. (2) accounts for those residents that frequent the retail or restaurant uses on-site, which is expected to account for about 10 percent of residential trips. (3) those generated by office employees or patrons to and from the restaurant, retail, or hotel land uses. This component is expected to account for about 5 percent of the office trip generation. The share of captured trips is generally based on studies conducted and documented in ITE Trip Generation, and has been used as the basis of similar approved developments within the regIon. Table I summarizes the estimated site related trip generation. It summarizes the total and captured trip components, which arc used to arrive at new project trip generation. \.Oo\OO201\wpVnitial study r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 6 Initial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Properly August 8, 2000 Table 1. Barbee Mill Redeveloement New Site Trip Generation ITE Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Type Size Land Use Rate TriEs Rate Tries Rate Tries Condominium 619DU 230 5.86 3,600 0.44 275 0.54 335 Res/Office Captures 5% -180 5% -14 5% -17 Res/Retail Caetures 10% -360 10% -27 10'10 -33 Office 112,000 sf 710 11.01 1,250 1.56 175 1.49 165 Res/Office Captures -180 -14 -17 O/flCelRetaii Capfures 5% -60 5% -9 5% -10 ---------~-.,.,- Retail 50,000 sf 814 40.67 2,050 6.41 320 4.93 245 Restaurant 8,000 sf 831 89.95 710 7.49 60 Hotel 30,000 sf 310 8.23 250 0.56 15 0.61 20 ReslRefaiJ Captures -360 -27 -33 Office/Retail Captures -60 -9 -10 Total Trip Generation 7,860 785 825 Ca~tured Tri~s 15% -1200 13% -100 14% -120 New Site Generated Trips 6,660 685 705 To estimate project impacts, it is necessary to credit those trips currently being generated by the project site. The site cun'ently contains approximately 117,000 gsf of warehouse and office space. The type of facility and daily operations at the Barbee Mill most closely relates the Light Industrial land use category defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 2 summarizes the net new traffic generation, based on the difference between site generated traffic and estimated trip generation currently on-site. Table 2. Net New Trip Generation DescriEtion New Site Generated Trips 1 Existing Barbee Mill 2 Daily 6,660 -820 AM Peak Hour 685 -110 Net New Trip Generation 5,840 575 1 See Table 1 for descripffon of trip generation for new sile proposal. 2 Based on ITE Land Use 110, Light Industrial and 117,000 sf PM Peak Hour 705 -115 590 As shown in Table 2, the net increase in weekday traffic on the surrounding roadway system is expected to total 5,840 daily trips, with 575 occurring during the AM peak hour, and 590 during the PM peak hour. Of the weekday PM peak hour trips, approximately 62 percent, or 365 trips, would be entering trips (approaching the site) while approximately 38 percent, or 225 trips, would be exiting the site, \OOIOO201Iwp\inilial study ( © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 7 Inftial T ransporlation Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT A review of the estimated net new trip generation, likely travel patterns, the existing roadway system, and existing. traffic volumes were conducted to generally assess conditions with the proposed development. Weekday PM peak hour traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard west ofI-405 ranges between ISO vehicles per hour (vph) in the north-eastbound direction and 450 vph in south- westbound direction. Project traffic is expected to primarily use the NE 44th Street interchange for access, with a smaller percentage of traffic utilizing Lake Washington Boulevard to the south. If a total of 80 percent of project traffic were assumed to travel via the NE 44th Street and 1-405, this would equate to approximately 180 PM peak hour trips in the north-eastbound direction (exiting the site) and 290 PM peak hour trips in the south- eastbound direction (exiting the site). The addition of project traffic would increase PM Peak hour volumes to 330 vph in the north-eastbound direction and 740 vph in the south- westbound direction. Based on the roadway cross-section, Lake Washington Boulevard has a theoretical volume capacity of 1,030 vph in each direction. Thus, the addition of project traffic alone could be accommodated by the existing roadway facility. Intersection operations at the 1-405 ramps would likely degrade with the addition of project traffic. The study underway by the City of Renton is expected to account for the development potential along Lake Washington Boulevard, including the Barbee Mill property, when identifying future improvement needs. Financial contribution by Barbee Mill and other private development may be required in the form of proportionate share fees or a LID as a result of the study, since the interchange project is largely unfunded at this time. IOO\OO2011wplinitiaf study r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 8 Inftial Transportation Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 SITE ACCESS Vehicular access to/from the proposed Barbee Mill site is currently proposed via the Hazelwood Lane extension connecting into Lake Washington Boulevard just west of the 1- 405/NE 44th Street interchange. The Barbee Mill property represents less than a third of potential new development to utilize the Hazelwood Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. If it were not in such close proximity to the interchange it would likely operate sufficiently as a widened, signalized intersection. The NE 44th Street interchange study will likely address the Hazelwood Lane/LWB intersection due to its proximity. Assuming a recommended and funded solution is identified by the City of Renton, project impacts are expected to able to be mitigated. Vehicular access to the site could benefit from a secondary or even shift in primary access to Lake Washington Boulevard in alignment with N 40th Street. While the City's comprehensive planning for this subarea recommends consolidated access for new development, a secondary access point would relieve congestion at the Hazelwood Lane/LWB intersection. Depending on potential shared access with parcels to the north, this location could serve as a logical location for a second signalized aCcess point. It would also improve access to the residents located on N 40th Street and developments east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians and bicyclists are well served by the proposed site layout. Non-motorized access is provided at the proposed southerly emergency access. Connectivity to the north is also provided via the Hazelwood Lane extension. No transit service is currently provided on Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the site. IOOlOO2011wplinitial study r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 9 Inmal Transporiailon Analysis -Barbee Mill Property August 8, 2000 SUMMARY The proposed Barbee Mill development is expected to generate about 5,840 new daily trips to the surrounding roadway system and up to 590 new peak hour trips. The adjacent roadway appears to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased traffic volumes. Intersection points along Lake Washington Boulevard at Hazelwood Lane, the 1-405 ramps, and potentially N 40th Street will likely require intersection improvements (such as widening and/ or signalization) to accommodate the increased demand. Intersection upgrades could improve site access operations while mitigating project impacts. Non-motorized travel is well served by the proposed site plan, the existing facilities, and planned facilities within the area. Transit service improvements could help reduce vehicle impacts. While not assumed in the project trip generation, it is expected that a development of this nature would generate some demand for transit service and ride sharing opportunities. IOOlOO2011wpVniliai sludy r © The Transpo Group, Inc. 2000 Page 10 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT ONTIffi JAG DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Renton, Washington Prepared for: Mr. Jim Spitze CNA ARCHITECTURE GROUP 777· 108 th Avenue S.E., Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington 98004·5118 CAAX0015 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·6477 .' Revised May 1997 D A V IDE V A N SAN D A S 5 0 C I ATE 5, IiDiili WEnAND DETERMINATION REPORT ON THE JAG DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Renton, Washington Prepared for: Mr. Jim Spitze CNA ARCHITECTURE GROUP 777 . 108 th Avenue S.E., Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington 98004·5118 CAAX0015 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004·6477 Revised May 1997 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a wetland reconnaissance of the JAG Devel- opment Property in the City of Renton, King County, Washington on October 25, 1996 (DEA, 1996). Because evidence of jurisdictional wetland conditions was found, a wetland delineation was performed in February 1997 and is documented in this report. The subject property is located at 44th Street on Lake Washington in the City of Renton, King County, Washington (Section 29, Township 24N, Range 5E W.M.). The property is approximately 65 acres consisting of live parcels: the Barbee Mill parcel (about 20 acres) on the south; the Port Quendall parcel (about 20 acres) in the middle; the Baxter Mill parcel (about 17 acres) on the north; the "Pan-abode" parcel (about 6.3 acres) located east of the main site and east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and a two-acre eastern parcel between 1-405 and the southbound off-ramp. At the time of this investigation, the Barbee Mill site was fully occupied by active sawmill operations and most of Port Quendall parcel was used as a log storage yard. The Pan-abode property was occupied by industrial uses. The Baxter Mill parcel was unused except for storage of several large piles of bark mulch. Eight jurisdictional wetlands were identified on the subject property using 1987 Corps of Engineers methodology as required by the City of Renton. Each wetland has been mapped and are summarized in the table below. All on-site wetlands are in previously disturbed areas and have formed in old 1111 materials or in excavated areas. All would be c1assilled as Category 3 wetlands by the City of Renton because they meet the criteria of hydrologic alteration and soils alteration (Renton, 1992). Wetland Summary Table Wetland On-site Area in City of Renton Required Buffer (Parcel location) Acres (square feet) USFWS' Classification Category (width in feet) A (Quendall) 0.195 palustrine forested 3 25 (8,527) B (Quendall) 0.374 palustrine forested 3 25 (16,284) C (Quendall) 0.171 palustrine scrub-shrub/ 3 25 (7,444) emergent/open water D (Baxter) 0.080 palustrine 3 25 (3.483) scrub-shrub E (Baxter) 0.230 palustrine scrub-shrubl 3 25 (10,027) emergentlopen water F (East) 0.150 palustrine forested 3 25 (6.528) G (East) 0.015 palustrine emergent J 25 (661) H (Barbee) 0.141 palustrine emergent J 25 (6.151 ) Total area: 1.36 (59,105) 1 United Stales Fish and Wildlife Service (Coward in el al., 1979). h: Idoc-arealnalres IIIfpdoc5\caaxlcaaxOO /5\locOOO 5. doc Wetland Determination Report JAG Development Property Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 2. METHODS .....................................................................................................................•......... 2 2.1 Purpose ...........................................................•................................................................. 2 2.2 Preliminary Research .......................... ; .......................................................................... 2 2.3 Site Investigation .......................................•.................................................................... .5 2.4 Wetland Function Assessment ....................................................................................... 5 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Site History ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.4.1 Overall Site Hydrology ......................................................................................... 8 3.4.2 Stream ................................................................................................................... 8 3.5 Wetland Determination .................................................................................................. 9 3.6 Wetland Functions ........................................................................................................ 10 4. REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................... 11 4.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.2 Streams ........................................................................................................................... 12 5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 13 Wetland Detenninalion Report JAG Development Property " h: \doc -area WIres! wpdocs \coax 1caaxOO J 5 I/ocOOO j. doc APPENDICES Appendix A. Corps Certification Documents Appendix B. Plant Indicator Status Categories Appendix C. Sample Plot Data Sheets Appendix D. List of Plant Species Appendix E. Wetland FWlction Assessment Rating Forms LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Existing Wetlands ........................................................................................................... .4 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Wetland Summary ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Functional Assessment Summary ................................................................................... 9 WelJand Detennination Report JAG Development Property lit h: Idoc..area \notre slltpdoc.llcaax lcaaxOO I j l/ocOOO 5_ doc PREFACE This report has been prepared for the use of CNA Architecture Group and the project consultants and proponents. In preparing this report David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has used the site infonnation and proposed development plans as referenced herein. Findings reported herein are based on infonnation gathered in the field at the time of investigation, DEA's understanding of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and DENs understanding of federal, state and local regulations governing wetland and stream areas. Prior to preliminary and final design or any construction, all appropriate regulatory agencies should be contacted to verify the findings of this report, and to obtain appropriate approvals and pennits. The wetland boundaries, wetland and stream classifications and recommended buffers are DEA's best professional opinion based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of our study. The final wetland boundary detennination, classification of wetlands and streams, and the required buffers and setbacks are made by the appropriate federal, state and local jurisdiction. Two of the three wetland delineators for this project are certified by the Corps of Engineers for wetland delineation. Certification documentation is included in Appendix A. Wetland Determination Report JAG Development Property h: \doc -arealnatresl wpdOC.J \caax\caaxOO / 5\rpiOOO 1 doc 1. INTRODUCTION David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) conducted a wetland reconnaissance of the JAG Development Property in the City of Renton, King County, Washington on October 25, 1996 (DEA, 1996). Because evidence of jurisdictional wetland conditions was found, a wetland delineation was performed in February 1997 and is documented in this report. The subject property is located at 44th Street on Lake Washington in the City of Renton, King County, Washington (Section 29, Township 24N, Range 5E W.M.) (Figure I). The property is approximately 65 acres consisting of five parcels: the Barbee Mill parcel (about 20 acres) on the south; the Port Quendall parcel (about 20 acres) in the middle; the Baxter Mill parcel (about 17 acres) on the north; the Pan-abode parcel (about 6.3 acres) located east of the main site and Lake Washington Boulevard, and a two-acre eastern parcel between 1-405 and the southbound off- ramp (Figure 2). At the time of this investigation, the Barbee Mill site was fully occupied by active sawmill operations and most of Port Quendall parcel was used as a log storage yard. The Baxter Mill parcel was unused except for storage of several large piles of bark mulch. 2. METHODS 2.1 PURPOSE The purposes of this study were: I) to identify, delineate, and describe any wetlands on the subject property and 2) to evaluate the wetland functions of any wetland present. Performance of these tasks involved three interrelated steps: preliminary research, site investigation, and wetlands determination. 2.2 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH Published information about local environmental conditions was reviewed for evidence of wetlands on the subject land parcel. The main information sources reviewed included: • Soil Survey of King County Area, USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1973; • National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Renton Quadrangle, 1 :24,000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988; • Renton Quadrangle (I :24,000), United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1950; • Hitchcock, c.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, Washington; • Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Northwest (Region 9). Biological Report 88 (26.9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section. St. Petersburg, Florida. [Pp.86); • Aerial photographs, Walker and Associates, Inc. 1936, 1946, 1956, 1974, 1985, 1990, 1995; Wetland Delcnnination Report JAG Development Property 2 h: \doc.arealnmreJlwpdocskaaxlcaaxOO } 51rpt0005. doc SITE NGTON I I I SOURCE: THOMAS BROTl£RS: '995 JAG. DEVELOPMENT SITE Figure 1: Vicinity Map " " " " " / " / / /; -/ '" / / " " / " / I / ~~ / / / / ~~I / / / " " / / " / / " / / I I I I t u *"'" a.t.fj ~~ v., ~~ /" / ~"" / ~~ / / / / / C Qi 0- I- 2 u Z C' " z r ~ 0- C '" ~-u:. / [;: / C (; ~ I , w I '" "" ~ ~ , I 8 ::c tit D ~g~ ~-:; ;ci ~ • g ~ I ~ i;! 0 • EIS Framework Plan, JAG Development Planned Action, City of Renton, Huckell/ Weinman Associates, Inc. 1996; • David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1994. Wetland and Habitat Reconnaissance on the Baxter Mill Property, Renton, Washington; • Terra Associates, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report for The Baxter Mill Property, 1993; and • King County 1990. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 2.3 SITE INVESTIGATION On February 19,20,21, and 27, 1997, DEA biologists conducted a field investigation for the presence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site were examined according to the 1987 Corps oj Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and subsequent Corps guidance. Twelve 0.01 acre sampling plots were established in areas of homogenous vegetation. Plant species on the site were identified (Hitchcock and Cronquist, 1973) and vegetation was considered hydrophytic (adapted to wet conditions) when over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland (Appendix B). In accordance with the methodology, soil samples were taken at all sampling plots as well as other points on the site, and were examined for the following indicators of hydric conditions: thick organic layers, gleying, low soil chroma (matrix chroma I) or mottling (matrix chroma 1 or 2). Hydrology of the site was evaluated through observation of surface water, soil saturation, groundwater level, and evidence of drainage patterns. Areas in active industrial use such as the Quendall parcel log storage yards and the Barbee Mill operation were not examined because hydrophytic vegetation would not have had an opportunity to develop under this level of disturbance. Wetlands were defined as areas where vegetation, soils, and hydrology reflected hydric conditions. The boundaries of the wetlands on the site were marked with orange flagging, and were surveyed and mapped by Bush, Roed, and Hitchings, Inc. The area of each wetland was calculated during survey plotting. All wetland boundaries are subject to verification by agencies having jurisdiction. 2.4 WETLAND FUNCTION ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant functions in the ecosystem, some of which are of im- mediate value to human society. Although these functions are complex, interrelated, and difficult to quantifY, several alternative methods have been developed to assess wetland functions for spe- cific wetlands. A semi-quantitative method was used for this project (Cooke, 1996). Eight cate- gories of wetland functions are defined in this method: flood/storm water control, base flow and ground water support, erosion/shoreline protection, water quality improvement, natural biological support, overall habitat functions, specific habitat functions, and cultural/socioeconomic functions. The methodology includes a form that is used for rating wetland functions. For each wetland, a given number of points for each function based on physical characteristics such as size, nearby land Wetland Detennination Report JAG Development Property 5 h: \doc -m-ea mIre s\ wpdocslcaaxlcaaxOO I 51rplOOO 5. doc uses, vegetation types and densities, and drainage patterns can be assigned and recorded on the form. The methodology states that it is not intended to be used to assign an absolute value (i.e., high, medium, low) to a fi.mction present in a wetland or to an individual wetland. Rather, it is designed to "determine the presence and relative importance of fi.mctions within the wetland" or to "rank individual wetlands by fi.mction against other wetlands in the same drainage system" (Cooke, 1996). 3. RESULTS The NWI Renton Quadrangle indicates palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine emergent wetlands along the Lake Washington shoreline in the central part of the property. In addition, May Creek is shown as a riverine unconsolidated bottom habitat type (USDJ, 1988). The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio indicates no wetlands on the property, but shows the on-site reach of May Creek as a Class I stream (King County, 1990). A 1993 investigation of the Baxter parcel found one wetland located along the eastern on-site railroad grade (Terra Associates, 1993). The 1994 DEA site reconnaissance identified several areas of potential wetland, each of which was examined and documented during the current study. Wetland data plots documented for the current investigation are included in Appendix C and located in Figure 2. A list of plant species observed on the site is presented in Appendix D. 3.1 SITE HISTORY The southern parcel of the property has been occupied by the Barbee Mill since before 1946. According to aerial photographs, it has been relatively unchanged since 1956. May Creek was relocated between 1936 and 1946, and it presently extends along the southeastern side of the property (Figure 2). Its general channel morphology has been \lnchanged since at least 1974. The central Port Quendall parcel is an active log yard immediately north of the Barbee Mill opera- tion (Figure 2). Almost the entire parcel presently experiences continued disturbance from these activities. The site was used as a creosote refinery from 1917 through 1969. Thereafter the site was used primarily as a storage area for operations occurring on the Baxter parcel. A lagoon area, pres- ently divided into adjoining north and south lagoons, appears to have been created between 1968 and 1974 (Figure 2). The shoreline in this area has been relatively undisturbed since 1985. The northernmost Baxter Mill parcel was developed in 1955 as wood treating plant and storage yard, which was in operation until 1981. Aerial photographs confinn that by 1985 the site had been aban- doned. At the tinae of the investigation, the site was used only for storage of large piles of bark mulch. The Pan-abode property was developed for industrial use between 1956 and 1968 according to available aerial photographs. At the time of this investigation, the entire parcel was occupied by the Pan-abode prefabricated house-building operation. The eastern two-acre parcel was modified during the construction of 1-405. Ditches and/or stream channels are clearly evident in the 1956 and in 1968 aerial photographs. The channels Wetland Detennination Report JAG Development Property 6 h: \doc-ar€a lnalTeslwpdocs \caa.T\caatOO J 5\rptOOO5. doc were rerouted to accommodate the southbound off-ramp. These channels now border the parcel on the east and the north. 3.2 VEGETATION The Barbee Mill parcel and much of the Port Quendall parcel are continually disturbed by active mill operations and storage and transport oflogs, and include few areas of natural vegetation. Most of the vegetated on-site area of the Barbee Mill consisted of mown lawns along May Creek and along the railroad right-of-way at the eastern parcel boundary (Data Plots 10 and 11). The inactive portions of the Port Quendall parcel, as well as the entire Baxter parcel, contained significant areas of sparse vegetation. The Baxter parcel was almost devoid of vegetation in 1985 according to aerial photographs from that year. By 1996, vegetated areas were concentrated in the vicinity of the former tank farm, the Lake Washington shoreline, and eastern margin along the railroad grade. These areas were dominated by sapling-and seedling-size black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), red alder (Alnus rubra), and willow (Salix spp.), as well as soft rush and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Data Plots 3, 12 and 13). The shoreline areas included more hydrophytic plant species including hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), common cattail (Typha lati/olia), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) (Data Plots 1 and 2). Limited areas on the eastern and western margins of the property included more mature trees (Data Plots I, 7, and 8). Himalayan blackberry formed patches throughout less recently disturbed portions of the site. Small depressions supported emergent species, including soft rush (Juncus ejfusus), reed canary grass, sickle-leaved rush (Juncusfalcatus), and bent grass (Agrostis sp.). The small eastern parcel was occupied by forest and scrub-shrub vegetation, dominated by black cottonwood and willow trees and thick shrub-layer growth of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Japanese knotweed (Polygollum cuspidatum) (Data Plots 4 and 5). The eastern parcel also included a small patch of herb-layer reed canarygrass (Data Plot 6). Most of the Pan-abode parcel was paved. Vegetation had begun to re-colonize the southern end of the property, and was dominated by Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood seedlings, and reed canary grass. 3.3 SOILS Most of the Port Quendall and Baxter parcels are mapped by the King County Area Soil Survey (1973) as Bellingham silt loam, a poorly drained soil that is listed as hydric. The northern portion of the Baxter parcel is listed as Seattle muck, a very poorly drained organic soil that is listed as hydric. Most of the Barbee Mill parcel is mapped as Nooksack silt loam, a well-drained soil that is not listed as hydric. Much of the property had been inundated by Lake Washington prior to the artificial lowering of the Lake by about 8 feet in 1916. All of these native soils, however, have been severely disturbed by past industrial operations and largely buried under three to 13 feet of old fill material (CH2M Hill, 1978). Aerial photos show that the entire subject property was gradually cleared, graded, and filled between about 1936 and 1974. Wetland Detennination Report JAG Development Property 7 h: \doc-area \nalres\ wpdocs\caax\caaxOO J j IrplOOO5. doc During the present investigation, soils approximating the SCS descriptions were found in only a few shoreline areas on the Port Quendall parcel (Data Plots I and 2). These areas may have been beyond the edge of the most recent fill deposits. The remainder of the subject property was underlain to a depth of at least 18 inches by old fill materials including: compacted gravel (Data Plots 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 15), decayed concrete and asphalt (Data Plot 13), and loamy sand that is probably from May Creek dredge spoils (Data Plots 4, 7, 8,10, and 11). Silt loam and silty clay loam were found only in the east parcel (Data Plots 5 and 6). 3.4 HYDROLOGY 3.4.1 Overall Site Hydrology Surface and shallow subsurface hydrology on the subject property involves several different processes, including 1) ponding over impervious surfaces and compacted fill, 2) interaction with the Lake Washington water level, 3) groundwater flowing onto the property from the east, and 4) past excavation of ponds and ditches. Water was observed inundating much of the Port Quendall and Baxter Mill parcels after storm events in 199611997. In extensive areas of compacted fill, water appeared to pond above these materials rather than saturating them (Data Plots 3 and 13) or to saturate them from above to a depth of only a few inches (Data Plot 12). These conditions also prevailed in the unpaved portions of the Pan-abode parcel. Several shoreline areas were saturated to the surface because of their relation to the Lake Washing- ton water level (Data Plots 1 and 2). Significant groundwater flows onto the subject property from the east in several locations, typically in the vicinity of the adjoining eastern railroad grades (Data Plots 7, 8, and 11). Hydrology in the eastern parcel also appears to be related to this groundwater seepage (Data Plots 4 and 6). Lastly, several on-site areas that had been artificially excavated in the past were ponded several feet deep. Several of these had been excavated as ponds or lagoons during previous industrial operations, and others appeared to have been excavated more recently in order to drain the active log storage yards. The Gypsy Creek Sub-basin Drainage is a short stretch of open channel conveying stormwater flows westward. It is fed by a culvert that enters the subject property under a railroad grade, and discharges into a pipe that extends under the Baxter site to discharge into Lake Washington. The Barbee Ditch is an excavated drainage ditch that discharges to May Creek on the Barbee Mill Parcel. 3.4.2 Stream May Creek flows through the Barbee Mill parcel to its mouth at Lake Washington. The on-site portion was realigned into its present channel between 1936 and 1946, and is now designated as a Class I stream by King County. The Washington State Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilization lists this stream as South Lake Washington Drainage #0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area #08. May Creek is known to support stocks of coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species (Williams et aI., 1975). Wetland Determination Report JAG Development Property 8 h.-\doc-area\nalres\wpdocs\caaI kaaxOO I j IrpIOQ05. doc 3.5 WETLAND DETERMINATION Eight jurisdictional wetlands were identified on the subject property. They were delineated between February 19 and February 27, 1997, and were verified by the Corps during an April 8, 1997 on-site inspection. Wetland locations are shown in Figure 2 and characterized in Tables 1 and 2. All on-site wetlands are in previously disturbed areas and have formed over old fill materials or in excavated areas. All would be classified as Category 3 wetlands by the City of Renton because they meet the criteria of hydrologic alteration and soils alteration (Renton, 1992). Table 1: Wetland Summary A (QueDdall) 0.195 palustrine foresled 3 25 ............................................... ~~,5?!L ......................................................................................................... _ B (Quendall) 0.374 palustrine foresled 3 25 (16,284) ··C(Q~~;;d·;i·ii ........ ··· .. ······oj;ij' .... ·· .. · .. ···· .. ·p;j~~i~i~~s~;:;;b:~h;;;bT .. · .................... '3....... ..... ·· .. · .... · .. 25-.. · .... · ...... .. ................... _. ___ .... __ .. __ .................. , ......... ~??_~~.~~_ .. _._ ... _ ..... _. e~~!'.~:.~~~p.~~ .. ~.~.~~~._._ .. _. ___ ........... __ ..... _ .... ' ............................. _ ... , ....... ___ ... _ .. __ ........... . o (Baxler) 0.080 palustrine 3 25 (3,483) scrub·shrub ........... __ ......................................... -...................................... . ........................................................................................................................................ . E (Baxler) 0.230 palustrine scrub~shrubl 3 25 ........................................................... ~.~.?.'.~~.?.!. ................... ~~~~~.:.~~~p.~~ .. ~.~.!~~ .............................................................................................. . F (Easl) 0.150 (6,528) palustrine forested 3 25 ............................................................................... , ........... . . ............................................................................................................................. . G (Easl) 0.015 (661) ................................................ , .......................................... . H (Barbee) 0.141 (6,151) Total area: 1.36 (59, I 05) palustrine emergent palustrine emergent I United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Coward in et aI., 1979). Table 2: 3 25 3 25 Functioual Assessment Summary Flood/stonn waler control 15 7 7 9 9 5 II 9 6 Base !low and ground water support 15 6 6 9 9 7 7 7 8 Erosion/shoreline prolection 9 5 5 NA NA 6 NA NA NA ................................................................. _................... ... . .................................... _ ......................................... _ .................. , ..................... . .... ~~~~~.'!.~~~.IY._~.~~".v_e'.I1."I1.I ............................. J-l!J'.. . .. J-l!.~ ....... ~'.~_ ..... ~!.~_ .... :':.''::.._ ... I}.'.~ ....... ~,.~ ..... ~'.~ ...... :':.'.'::. .. .. Natural biological support 36 19 23 18 15 22 15 13 16 ............................... -..... -.......................................................................................................................................................................................... - Overall habilal function 9 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 .......................... _ .... _ ........... _ .......... _ ................................... -. . .................................. -........ ............... .. ........................................................... - ... ~p..,,~i~~.~~.~i.~t.~.n.~~~".I1.s .... _ ......... _...... .... 15...~ ........ ? .............. s._ ........... ~.... .. .... ~..... .. ... ~...... .... ~ ............ 5 ..... .. Cultural/socioeconomic function 21 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Overall Function Poinls 121 I Maximum possible score for this function. Wetland Detcnninalion Report JAG Development Property 52 58 9 54 49 57 49 44 45 h: \doc-area\rwtre slwpdocs IcaaxlcaaxOO 1 .5 lrptOOO.5. doc Wetlands A and B are located along the lakeshore. Although they have been altered in the past, as evidenced by the immature forested vegetation, they appear to occupy gaps between the Lake Washington shore and the main on-site fill deposits that cover the rest of the property. Wetland A (Data Plot I) is entirely forested by immature red alder with an understory of Himalayan blackberry. Hydrophytic species including yellow-flag iris, reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup occupy the herb layer. Wetland B (Data Plot 2) includes areas of red alder forest as well as scrub-shrub areas dominated by hardhack and Pacific willow. Wetland C is a remnant of an old industrial lagoon on the Quendall Parcel. It is primarily open water, but it also supports emergent vegetation dominated by common cattail and young black cottonwood saplings overhanging the water. Wetland D is centered on an old industrial settling pond and Wetland E encompasses "Baxter Cove" (Figure 2). Both include artificial excavations, but were determined to be wetlands because vigorous communities of hydrophytic vegetation have developed. Both wetlands contain dense growth of common cattail. Wetland D also includes a shrub layer of Pacific Willow and red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera). Wetland E contains an open-water component and a shrub layer of Himalayan blackberry, red-osier dogwood, and red alder saplings. Wetlands F and G are located in the small eastern parcel of the property. Wetland F (Data Plot 4) is forested by red alder, black cottonwood, and Pacific willow, with a dense understory of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidulum) and Himalayan blackberry. Wetland G (Data Plot 6) is largely a monotypic patch of reed canarygrass, with shrub coverage of red-osier dogwood and Himalayan blackberry around the margins. Wetland H is located near the Barbee Mill entrance and is represented by Plot II. Although a small group of red alder trees overhangs part of the wetland, it is essentially an emergent wetland that is maintained as a mown lawn. Dominant species include bent grass (Agroslis sioionifera), red fescue (Fesluca rubra), and reed canarygrass. 3.6 WETLAND FUNCTIONS The on-site wetlands were evaluated for eight fimctions: flood/storm water control, base flow and ground water support, erosion/shoreline protection, water quality improvement, natural biological support, overall habitat fimctions, specific habitat fimctions, and cultural/socioeconomic functions. Functional assessment for each wetland is summarized in Table 2. The scores indicated are relative to a maximum potential number of "points" under this method. They can be compared with the numbers in "max." column to determinc fimctions that have very low point scores and may thus be potentially lacking. For fimctions that are present, point scores can be compared to rank on-site wetland functions. Evaluation forms for each wetland identify the characteristics that influence the assessment, and are included in Appendix E. For most functions, on-site wetlands varied only slightly. lllis is expected, because all on-site wetlands have been altered and disturbed by industrial activities, and have developed over artificial fill deposits. Wetland F is of relatively high value for flood/storm water control because it lies in a closed depression with a constrained outlet. However, this function is lacking in Wetland E Weiland Determination Report JAG DeveJopmenl Property 10 h: Idoc-area\na,re oJ 1 wpdoc.:s\caa.x \caaxOO I 5lrplOOO5.doc I .1 because it is open to the Lake Washington shoreline. Wetlands C and E are the highest value on- site wetlands for "base flow and ground water support", because they are pennanentiy flooded depressions. However, there is relatively low potential for this function on the property because of its location at the lower end of its drainage basin. Wetlands A, B, and E are the only on-site wetlands with potential value for "erosion/shoreline protection" due to their locations on the shoreline of Lake Washington. Based on available infonnation, there is little potential for "water quality improvement" functions in anyon-site wetland due to soil contamination from past uses of the site. Wetlands B and E are the highest value on-site wetlands for "natural biological support." Both of these wetlands have low proportions of invasive plant species. In addition, Wetland B has relatively high levels of "vegetation structure" and potential "organic accumulation," and Wetland E includes three classes of wetland including open water. All on-site wetlands are lacking in "overall habitat function" because they are small, with low habitat diversity and narrow to non- existent buffers that leave them open to disturbance. Wetland C is the highest value on-site wet- land for "specific habitat functions." It includes moderate levels of potential invertebrate and amphibian habitat due to its shallow inundated emergent area, and observation of nesting Canada geese was evidence of bird habitat value. All on-site wetlands have low potential value for cul- tural and socioeconomic uses according to this assessment method, because they are privately owned with access limited by pollutant hazards and ongoing industrial activity, lack commercial resources such as fish popUlations, are not notable for aesthetic appearance, and lack recreational and educational opportunities. Overall, all wetlands are of relatively low quality. None attain even half of the maximum points available. 4. REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS 4.1 WETLANDS Several federal, state and local regulations apply to development proposals in and near wetlands. Agencies having jurisdiction over development activities that affect wetlands may include, but may not be limited to, the City of Renton, the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers (Corps). The City of Renton has guidelines for development in and near wetlands and for mitigation for permitted wetland impacts resulting from development. The WDOE has review and approval authority for many Federal, State, and local permits. In addition, the WDFW administers the State Hydraulic Code, which is intended to protect fish life and its supporting habitat. The Corps regulates the discharge of fill material into jurisdictional wetlands. This determination report conducted by DEA is subject to verification and approval by these agencies. Detailed site design prior to verification by agencies is not advised. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and through the Section 404 permitting process, the Corps has been given the responsibility and authority to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States including wetlands. Currently, Nationwide Pennit 26 under Sec- tion 404 allows filling less than 0.33 acres of wetlands that are not within 100 feet of a stream having a channel over two feet wide. When filling such wetlands, the Corps must be notified within Wetland Detennination Report JAG Development Property II h: \doc -area \noIre s\wpdocs \caa%\caaxOO 15\rp,OOOJ. doc I I 30 days after construction. Under Washington State regional conditions, fills between 0.33 acres and 2.0 acres, located over 100 feet from any stream channel over two feet wide, may be filled subject to a "pre-construction notification" involving submission of a site plan and wetland mitiga- tion plan. Any wetland fills totaling more than two acres, or any filling of wetlands within 100 feet of a stream channel over two feet wide, requires an individual permit. The individual permit proc- ess requires a full project alternatives analysis, and the project is typically modified to reduce im- pact. For all wetland filling totaling one acre or more, a separate water quality certification is required by the WDOE. The State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) is implemented by local agencies and provides a process to analyze the environmental impacts of development. During SEPA environmental re- view, various agencies have the opportunity to review and comment on proposal. The City of Ren- ton will act as the lead SEP A agency for this project. City of Renton regulations define development parameters in and around wetlands, streams, steep slopes, shorelines, and other sensitive areas. The City reviews all development proposals and im- plements the appropriate restrictions outlined in the regulations. The on-site wetlands fall within the City classifications and require buffers as shown in Table 2. Renton regulations allow for fill- ing of some wetlands, but requires mitigation in the form of wetland creation or enhancement. 4.2 STREAMS May Creek is a Class I stream requiring a 100-foot buffer (50 feet along each bank) in the City of Renton. May Creek is also considered a "shoreline of the state" and falls within the Washington Shorelines Management Act. Wetland Determination Report JAG Development Property 12 h: ldoc-area\nalreJ'\wpdocs\caax\caarOO I 51,-p,0005.doc I I 5. REFERENCES Adamus, Paul R., E.J. Clarian Jr., D.R. Smith, R.E. Young, and ARA Inc., 1987. Washington, D.C., U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. CH2M Hill, 1978. Preliminary Geotechnical investigation, Port Quendall Development, Renton, Washington. Project SI2212.BO. Memorandum to Mr. Jeff Layton dated December 20, 1978. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golel, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS/OBS· 79131. David Evans and Associates (DEA), 1996. Wetland Reconnaissance on the JAG Development Property. Project CAAXOOI5. Memorandum to Mr. Jim Spitze dated November 4, 1996. Bellevue, Washington. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y·87·1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, c.L., and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. King County, 1990. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio Reed, P.B. Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Northwest (Region 9). Biological report 88 (26.9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. pp. 86. Reppert, Richard T., Wayne Sigleo, Eugene Stakhiv, Larry Messman, and Caldwell Myers, 1979. Wetland Values -Concepts and Me/hods for Wetlands Evaluation. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Water Resources Institute. Terra Associates, 1993. Wetland Delineation Report for The Baxter Mill Property. Seattle, Washington. Thomas Brothers, 1995. The Thomas Guide -King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties Street Guide and Directory. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey King County Area, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetlands Inventory Renton Quadrangle. U.S.G.S. 1950. Renton Quadrangle Map. Wetland Detennination Report JAG Development Property h: \doc-areolnatreslwpdocs lcaaxlcaaxOO /5\rpI0005.doc 13 Williams, RW, R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames 1975. A Catalog a/Washington Streams and Salmon . Utilization -Volume I, Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fisheries. Wetland Determination Report JAG Development Property 14 h: \doc-area \natreJ'\wpdocs\caax\caaxOO 15lrp1OOO5. doc -, I . ! ! .1 APPENDICES , i ! . I I I APPENDIX A CORPS CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS p.O. BOX 37!55 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124·2..255 u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CERTIFIES· THAT MR. JEFFREY MEYER has successfully demonstrated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Seattle District, sufficient understanding of, and the capability to perform satisfactory wetland delineations consistent with, the Corps 19B7 Wetland Delineation Manual and supplemental guidance. This verifies that wetland delineations performed by the certified wetland • . ' delineator named above will r~ceive expedited consideration and acceptance by the certifying district, for purposes of the Corps' final determination of wetland jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. £-/.~ 'THOMAS F. MUELLER Chief, Regulatory Branch Seattle District Expires March 1994 "This is a provisional certification for the purposes of the demonstration phase of the Corps Wetland Delineator Certification Program and will not be honored aftar Karch 199 •• :1 I I J I IItIlJlO\.YTO ... ",,,TIONO," Regulatory Branch JEFFREY MEYER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 37!5!5 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981Z4·1Z55 MAR 1 8 1994 DAVID EVANS ~ ASSOCIATES, INC 415 118TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98005-3553 Dear Participant: MAR 2 1 1994 S=:'t(3rnl ~.h ... =.>LL:"". The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your provisional certification by the Seattle District. as part of the Corps' Wetland Delineator Certification.Program (WDCP). has been extended. The Corps initially anticipated implementing the WDCP nationwide in March 1994 at which time this provisional certification would have expired. Since that timeframe will not be met. your provisional certification will remain valid until a final WDCP is adopted. This provisional certification may then be renewed. revised. or replaced. depending on the final WDCP. You will be notified of what action you must take. if any. to remain a certified wetland delineator in Seattle District once the final WDCP is authorized. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in the demonstration phase of the Corp's WDCP in the Seattle District. Your willingness to be involved in the development of the program is appreciated. Sincerely. Debo,,' J. "t 1-J,-- Environmental Analyst i I , I i I U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CERTIFIES' THAT MR. JOHN MACLIN has successfully demonstrated to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Seattle District, sufficient understanding of, and the capability to perform satisfactory wetland delineations consistent with, the Corps 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and supplemental guidance. This verifies that wetland delineations performed by the certified wetland delineator named above will' receive expedited consideration and acceptance by the certifying district, for purposes of the Corps' final determination of wetland jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean water Act. Chie , Regulatory Seattle District -This is a provisional certification for the purposes of the demonstration phase of the Corps Wetland De~ineator Certifioation Program (WDCP) and will be honored until the final WDCP is implemented nationally. , , -, i I APPENDIXB PLANT INDICATOR STATUS CATEGORIES .{ . I VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Indicator Status of Plant Obligate Wetland (OSL) Facultative Wetland (FACW) Facultative (FAC) Facultative Upland (FACU) Obligate Upland (UPL) Data source: Reed. 1988. Definition Occurs almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions, but may also occur rarely (estimated probability <1%) in non- wetlands Usually occur (estimated probability 67% to 99%) in wetlands, but may also occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in non-wetlands. Plants with similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in wetlands or non- wetlands. Usually occur (estimated probability 67% to 99%) in non-wetlands, but also occur (estimated probability 1 % to 33%) in wetlands. Occurs almost always (estimated probability >99%) in non-wetlands under natural conditions. APPENDIXC SAMPLE PLOT DATA SHEETS Plot 1 David Evans and Associales. Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Job Number. CAAXOO15 Sample Plot ----""'-'-',=-=------Project Name: Field Investigator(s): JAG Development Site BCFIJDM AppIicanVOwner: CNA Group Oal.: ____ .:212::.:::<>'9:.:::.7 ____ _ County: King Siale _____ --=-"""a::sh::'::"!:gt:::on::.. __ _ SOILS SeriesIPhase: ____ -=-N"ook=."a:;:cJ<c..::S,,,",,L,,o,,a,,m=--_____ ls lhe soH on the hydric soils list? No Soil Profile: ____ --'0-:.::'-:-___ -"-=0.:~'::R:-:212::::-71oa=m"w.::V...;I::07y:;R.:.::4I:'.:'mo::::."".::.=--:::-______ _ 1-5" 10 YR Jl2loamy sand wi 10 YR 414 mottles 5-18" 5 GY 411 foamy ssnd Other hydric soil indica''''': ____________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree Layer Scientific Name 1 A'"11.1 Mro Indicator Slatus FAC Cove, Mid- Class Point 7 980 2 ____________________________ _ 3 ________________________________ _ 4 ____________________ ~ __________ _ 5 ________________________________ _ Sum: 98.0 G __________________ ~----~--- Shrub layer 1 RWU3 disr%,. FACU 5 63.0 . 2 __________________________ __ Herbaceous layer Scientific Name 1 Iris pseooacoT1J.J 2 Ranum;ulus "INns 3 Phalari:r anmdjnoceo 4 5 6 7 8 Indicator Status OBL FACW FACW 3 ____________________________ __ Percentage of Dominant Spedes ,------------------------------Thai are OBL.FACW. and/orFAC: Sum: 63.0 5 __________________________ ~~--- HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? No Surface water depth: Soil saturated? Yes Depth of free standing water in lest pit? Other field evidence of surface inundation or SOil saturation: Is the hydrophytic vegetatiOn aiterion met? Is the hydric soil ailerion mel? Is tho specific hydrology criterion mel? Is this plot located to a wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes Ye. Ye. Ye. '0· Cover Class • 2 3 Sun ... 75.0% Mid· Point 38.0 10.5 20.5 69.0 Rolioool.: ___ ("""'-~:.:::el:::Ia:::nd:..:A)!...... ____________________________ __ _ .• --OAITASHT.Ja..S -., .. I I Plot 2 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: field Investigator{s.): JAG Development Site Job Number: CAAXOO15 Sample Plot: ----=:.::2=:.::..----BCFIJDM ApptIcantlOwner: CNA Group Dale: ____ ---=212=""=7 ____ _ County: King Stale _____ ---'-~::.::sh::m:::· g"'I0::""---__ _ SOILS SerlesJPhase: ____ -'-N"ook=."a"'c:;.k"S--'in..:L"o-'-a_m'--_____ ,s the soil on the hydric soils list? No Soil Profile: _____ O-o..:..I8:.+_" ___ ----":.0-'Y"R"21:.:.;I,,m::uci<= ______________ _ Other hydric soii indicators: ------------------------------------ VEGETATION Tree layer IndicatDf Cover Mid-Herbaceous Layer Indicator Cove, Sdentific Name Status Class Point Scientific Name Status Class 1 Typho /Olijo/;o CBl 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 Sum: 7 Shrub layer 8 1 SpirMo doug/cur; FACW 3 20,5 Sum: 2 Salix lasiandra FACW 5 63.0 3 Percentage or Dominant Species 4 That are OBL.FACW. andlorFAC: 100.0% 5 Sum: 83.5 HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: ____ -='::-" ____ _ SoiI.salur&led? Ys.s Depth of free standing water in lest pit? 0" Surlac:e inundated? Ye. Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saluraloo" I. !he hydrophytic wgetallon criterion .... I? Is the hydric soil criterion mel? I'!he speciIie hydrology criterion mot? Is this plot Icx:ated in a wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Ye. Yes Yes Ye. Mid- Point 63_0 63.0 Rationale: {In Wetlend 8J --~~~~--------------------------------- ~.-. MTASHT.Ja.S -, ... Plot 3 4111"7 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: FH!Id Investlgalor{s): AppOcantIOwner. Countyc SerieslPhase: Soil Profile: JAG Development Site BCFIJDM CNAGroup Kmg Bellingham Silt Loam Compacted gravelly fill Job Number: CAAXOO15 Sample Plot 3 Date: 212007 State Washington SOILS Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Other hydric soil indk:alors: __________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer Indicator Cover Mid-Herbaceous Layer Indicator Cover Scientific Name Slatus Class Point Scientific: Name Status Class 1 Populu.r balsamif~rtJ FAC 6 85.5 1 Juncw ~jfimu FACW 6 2 ______________________________ _ 2 3 ____________________________ _ 3 4 __________________ ~ ________ _ 4 5 ____________________________ _ 5 6 Sum; 85.5 7 6 __________________ ~----~--- Shrub Layer 8 ,-----------------------------Sum: 2 ____________________________ _ 3 ____________________________ _ Percentage of Dominant Species 4 _____________________________ ___ That are OBl.FACW. and/orFAC; 100.0% 5 ______________________________ ___ Sum: HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? Yes Surface water depth: 6-------'------Soit saturated? No Depth of free standing water In 1es1 pit? other fiefd EMdence of surtace inundation or soil saturation: is Ihe hydrophytic vegetation a1terion mel? Is the hydric soil allerton met? I. Ihe specific hydrology _ mel? Is thi. plotlocaled In ._? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes Assumed Ves no ----.. ' Mid- Point 85.5 85.5 OATASHTJcl.S """, .. Plot 4 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET project Name: JAG Development Site Job Number: CAAXOOl5 -Field Investigator(s): BCFIJDM Sample Plot 4 ApplicantlOwner: CNAGroup Dale: zaCWI C<>unly: King State Washington SOILS SeriesIPhase: Bemngham Silt Loam Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Soil Profile: 0-6" 10 YR 312 silt foam 6-18 ... • 2.5 Y 4/2 loamy sand wl10 VR 414 mottles Other hydric soil indicalors: __________________ -' ___________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer Scientific Name 1 AJ,rw rubro 2 Populus ba/Mmijt!f'O 3 Salix /asiandrrJ Indicator Cover Mid- Status Class Point FAe 4 38.0 FAC FACW 4 380 • 4 ________________________________ _ 5 __________________________ __ 6 __________________ ~----~---- Sum: 76.0 Shrub Layer 1 POIygonIl'" curpidarum FACU 6 85.5 2 Rllbra J;scolor FACU 4 38.0 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 Herbaceous Layer ScientifIC Name Indicator Cover Status Class Sum: 3 ____________________________ __ 4 ____________________ ~ ______ __ Percentage or Dominant Species That are OBl.FACW. andiorFAC: 50.0% 5 ____________________________ ~--- Sum: 123.5 HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? So;I saturated? No Surface water depth: _________ _ YeS Depth of free slanding water in test pit? other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Is !he hydOc soil aiterion met? Is the specific hydrology aiterion met? Is this plot located in a wetland? sed;ment deposits WETLAND DETERMINATION No Ye. Yes Yes 10" Mid- Point R.~: ____ ~n~n~~~~~M~FL) __________________________________________________ __ Non-hydrophyt;c vegetation is eslsblished.among indklJtors of bng-dunWon hydrology. yr"" -.. _.-OATASHTXlS PIII;:ItI ,-. ...... , Plot 5 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET ProjecI Name: JAG Development Site Job Number. CAAXOO15 Fteld Investigator(s): BCFIJDM Sample Plot 5 AppticanVOwner: CNA G/'Oup Date: =7 County: King Slate Washington SOILS Series/Phase: SeHmgham Silt Loam Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Ves Soil Profile: ().1 B'" 10 YR.J12 silt loam Other hydric soil indk:alors: ------------------------------------ VEGETATION Tree layer Indicator Cove< Mid- Scientific Name Status Class' Point 1 Populus habonl;f~ro FAC 5 63.0 2 ______________________________ __ 3 ________________________________ _ 4 ____________________________ _ 5 ____________________________ _ Sum: 63.0 6 __________________ ~----~--- Shrub layer 1 Ruhld disc%r FACU 7 98.0 . 2 ______________________________ _ 3 ____________________________ _ 4 ____________________________ _ 5 ________________________________ _ Sum: 98.0 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Herbaceous layer Indicator Scientific Name Status percentage of Dominant Species That are OBL.FACW. andIorFAC: HYDROLOGY Cover Class Sum: 500% Surface inundated? Soil saturated? No Surface water depth: _________ _ No Depth of free standing water in test pit? Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saluration: Is the hydrophytic vegeta_ criterion met? Is the hydric soil crilerion met? Is the specific hydrology aiterion met? Is this plot located in a wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION No No No No Mid- Point Rationale: (North 01 Wetlend F) --~~~~~~-------------------------------------- -,-(JATASHT.Ja.$ -,-' , I $0,'" Plot 6 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Protect Name: JAG Development Site Job Number. ____ .::CAAX:.:::::::OO::.'~5:.... __ _ Fie4d Investigalor(s): _ UOvmer. BCFIJDM Sample Plot _____ .:::5 ____ _ CNAGroup Date: ____ ..=:212~M>~7 ____ _ County: K;ng State _____ ....:~::.:::sh:.:':.:n!!.gl~o:.:n __ _ SOILS Series/Phase: ____ ....::;Be:;I::Iingh""'=.mc:..:Si=~:.::.Lo:.:a:::m'__ _____ IS the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Soil Profile: ____ ...:().:::.8· ____ .:.1O::..:.Y.::Rc:J12~:::S;::n.::/o::a:.:m:.... _____________ _ 8-18~ 5 Y 512 silt clay loam wi mottles Other hydric soil indicatOJ'S: ______________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer Indicator Cover Mid- ScientifIC Name Status Class POint 2 ______________ _ 3 ____________________ _ 4 _______________ ___ 5 _________________ ___ "------------------- Shrub layer 1 CornKS J'olonif~"' 2 Rubus discolor FACW FACU Sum: 3 20.5 4 38.0 Herbaceous layer Scientific Name 1 phoJarif llrundinaua 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IndicalOf Sialus FACW 3 _____________________ _ Pen::enlage of Dominant Species 4 ___________________________ _ That are OBl.FACW. and/orFAC: Sum: 58.5 5 __________________ ~----~--- Surface inundated? Soil saturated? No Yes HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: Depth of free standing water in lest pit? Other field evidence of surfac:e inundation or soil saturation: Is the hydrophytic vegetation crnerion met? Is the hydric soil criterion met? Is the specific hydrotogy criterion met? Is this pIollocated In 8 weUand? WETLAND DETERMINATION Ye, Yes Yes Yes 14" Cover Class 6 Sum: 66.7% Mid· Point 85.5 85.5 ~t~~ ____ ~(~~~~~~~~~G~) __________________________________________________ __ _ .. -- !. Plot 7 David Evans and Associales, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ON SITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: JAG Development Site Job Number: CAAXOO15 Field Invesligatorts): 8CFIJDM Sample Plot 7 ApplicantlOwner: CNAGroup Date: =7 County; King State -Washington SOILS SeriesIPhase: SeaWeMuck Is the soil on lhe hydric soils list? Yes Soil Profile: o.8+~ 5 GY 411 gravelly sand wi 10 YR 114 mottles Other hydric soil indicators: ------------------------------------ VEGETATION Tree layer Scientific Name 1 Alnwru/)ro 2 Populus balstJlftifera Indicator Status FAC FAC Cover Mid4 Class Point 3 20.5 4 38.0 3 ____________________________ __ 4 ____________________________ __ 5 ______________________________ __ Sum: 58.5 6 __________________ ~=_--~--- Shrub Layer 1 Salix Ias;andra FACW • 38.0 2 Rubus Q&oo/or FACU • 38.0 Herbaceous layer Scientific Name 1 JU1IC1IJ effu.rus 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Indicator Status FACW 3 ____________________________ _ Pen:::entage of Dominant Species 4 ____________________________ _ That,,,, OBL,FACW, andiorFAC: Sum: 76.0 5 ________________ =-~--~~-- HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? Yes S..-face ....... depth: SolI saturated? YB$' Depth of free standing water In test pit? Other field evidence of surface inundation or SOIl saturation: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion mel? Is the hydric. sol criterion met? Is lhe specific hydrology crit.-mel? Is this plot located In • wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes Yes Yes no Cover Class 3 Sum: 80.0% MOl- Point 20.5 20.5 Rationale: Not jurisdldJonal wetland 8S per Corps on-.site inspection 418197 --~~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------- 4I'Jt1t7 _ .. --OA TASHT.JCLS ".." .. ~f1P1 Plot David Evans and Associates. Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: JAG Development Site Job Number: CAAXOOl5 Fjeld Invesligator(s): BCFIJDM Sample Plot 8 AppIicantlOwner: CNAGroup Date; 2/20i117 County: King Slate Washington SOILS Series/Phase: Seattle Muck Is the soil on the hydric soils tisl? Yes Soil Profile: 0-16· 2. S Y 410 loamy sand Other hydriesoil indicators: ______________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree Layer Indicator Cover Mid-Herbaceous Layer Indicator Cover Scientific Name Status Class Point Scientific Name Status Class 1 Populus 6a1sumifud FAC 2 10_5 1 JtmCVS e1funa FACW 6 2 AinwndmJ FAC 2 10.5 2 Phoioris anmdinDctlJ FACW 2 3 ____________________________ _ 3 4 ______________________________ _ 4 5 ____________________________ __ 5 6 Sum: 21.0 7 6 __________________ ~----~---- Shrub layer 8 1 Rubusoi.JcDlor FACV 3.0 Sum: 2 ____________________________ __ 3 ____________________________ _ Percentage of Dominant Species 4 ____________________________ __ ThaleJe OBL.FACW. end/orFAC: 75.0% 5 __________________ ~----77---- Sum: 3,0 HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? Soil saturated? Yes Surface waler depth: ____________ _ YB. Depth of free standing water in test pit? Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soit saturation: Is the Ily<frophytic vegetation ailerion met? Is lhe hydric soil criterion met? Is the spedfic hydrology ailerion met? ,.thls pfollocated in e wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION YB' Yes Yes no o· _.- 8 Mid· Point 85.5 10.5 96.0 a..TASHT)(1S -, .. Plot 10 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE·LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: JAG Development Site Job Number: CAAXOO15 ----~~~~----- Field Invest;gstOf(S): ApplicanVOwner: JDMlJCM CNA Group Sample Plot: ____ -=-=:'o'=: ____ _ Oat.: ____ ..:212='..:"'''-' ____ _ County: King State _____ --'-"':.:a=sh:.:',,·ng"'to::""-__ _ SOILS SeriesIPhase: _____ Noo.:..;..'-".;.B.;.cI<-=&"Hc:L"o"am-'-______ IS the soil on the hydric soils list? No Soil Profile: ____ ..:0-:..:.;'6:.+_" ___ --'-Y"R..:312:..:.g"'ra.:.:.;ve"IIy:<.,;;Io=a"m"'y..:s=a""d:..::wI,,I=8:.:i"::.'.:.IO:..:.YR:.:.::m:.:o:::":.:18::s"b::e::lo:.:w..:',,2:.."_ Other hydric soil indicalors: ______________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer Scientific Name 1 A/nut r1lbra Indicator Status FAC Cove, Mid- Class Point 30 2 ________________________________ _ 3 _______________________________ _ 4 ____________________________ __ 5 ____________________________ _ Sum: 3.0 6 __________________ ~----~--- Shrub layer 2 ________________________________ _ 3 ________________________________ _ 4------------------------------5 __________________ ~~--------- Sum: Herbaceous Layer Indicator Scientific Name Status 1 F~sIIlCQ rvbra FAC 2 Agrostis stofonif~ro FAC J Hypocho~ris ,OOkola FACU 4 PholariJ Qrundi"aC~Q FACW 5 6 7 • Percentage of Dominant Species That are OBl,FACW, and/Clf"fAC: HYDROLOGY Cover Class 3 4 2 4 Sum: 100.0% Surface inundated? Soil saturated? No Surface water depth: _________ _ No Depth of free standing water in test pit? Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the hydrophylic vegelation criterion mel? Is the hydric soil criterion met? Is the specific hydrotogy criterion met? Is this plant community a weUand? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes Yes No No Mid- Point 20.5 38.0 10.5 38.0 107.0 Ra~~: ____ -7(Ne~M~Ba~~~~.~m~rn=~~~}--~~~~~~----------------------------____ ------_ No $llturation during \!'Sf)' wet recent weather. -,- 1 .1 Plot 11 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: JAG Development Site Job Number: ____ C:::AAX:::::::OO:::::1~S~ __ _ FIefd Invesligator{S): JDMlJCM Sample PIQI: _____ .:."'-____ _ Applicant/Owner: CNA Group Dale: 2121/97 ------~~------ County: King Slate _____ ~IM~.~s~h'~·n!!:gl~o!:n __ _ SOILS SeriesJPhase: ____ .....:.N"oo.:.k.;.S"."c"k"S"' .. "L"o..:".;.m ______ IS lhe soit on the hydric SOIls list? No SOOProfi~: ____ ~~~·~ ___ ~1.:.0..:Y=R~~~~g~~~~~~IQ=a~m~y~s~a~nd~~~~~~ ____ _ 6-18· 10 YR 311 gravelly loamy sand wlfainl10 YR 4/2 moNJes Other hydric soil indicators: ______________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer ScientifIC Name 1 A/nut rv/t,o Indicator Status FAG Cove< Mid- Class Point 4 38.0 2 ________________ _ 3 ________________ _ 4 ______ -----------5 __________________________ _ . ----------------~---~---Sum: 38.0 Shrub layer ,-------------------------2 ________________ _ 3 ____________________________ _ 4 ____________________________ _ 5 _______________ _ Sum: Herbaceous layer Indicator Scientific Name Status 1 Agro,stis .fto/uni/ua FAG 2 F~.fIIJCa rubro FAG 3 Pita/oris onmdinDcta FACW 4 5 • 7 • Percentage of Dominant Species That are OBl,FACW. andiorFAC: HYDROLOGY G~r Class 4 4 4 Sum: 100.0% Surface inundated? Soil saturated? No Surface waler depth: ________ __ Yes Depth of free standing water in test pit? O· Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the hydrophyUc vegetation criterion met? Is the hydric !iOi1 criterion mel? I. the .ped1ic hydrology ctilerion mel? Is this plant community a wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes Yes Yes Yes Rationale: (Near Plot 10) __ --'''''-''c:c:.:.'-'-'' __ ; __ ~_ Mid- Point 38.0 38.0 38.0 114.0 DATASHTJ(l.S ~,o-" """I'DT -" Plot 12 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: Field Investigalorj.): JAG Development Site JDMlJCM ~Num~ _______ ~~~OO~I~5~ ____ __ Sample Plot 12 Applicant/Owner: GNA Group Dale: ----------=-22=719'-7--------- County: King State Washington --------~~~---- SOILS Series/Phase: __________ ......:Se=."m::..:c"M:;;"::c"k _____________ IS the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Soil Profile: _______ ......:().:-=I·:_------~fO::Y':R==2I2=.::.:;;n"'d.::loa=m':_:_::_:_:_:_::__::::_---------------- 2~8.. 515 BG sand loam wlt.S Y 515 mottles 8-12-Hardpan fill Other hydric soil Hldiealors: _____________________________ _ VEGETATION Tree layer Indicator eover Mid-Herbaceous Layer Indk:ator Cover Scientific Name Stalus Class Point Scientific Name Status Class 1 Populus balsamifero FAC 7 98.0 1 JrIIIC1lJ ~jJWUJ FACW 2 2 ____________________________ __ 2 Ho/em lanarus FAG 3 ____________________________ __ 3 4------------------------------4 5 ____________________________ _ 5 6 Sum: 98.0 7 6 ____________________________ ~--- Shrub Layer • ,-----------------------------Sum: 2 ________________________________ _ 3 ________________________________ _ Pert:entage of Dominant Species 4 ____________________________ _ That are OBl.FACW, and/orFAC: 100.0% 5 __________________ ~--------- Sum: HYDROLOGY SlM'face inundated? Soil saturated? No Ye. s..race walerdep1/l: ____ ~---- Depth of free standing water in lest pit? 5" Other field evidence of surface inundaUon or soil saturation: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Is the hydric soil criterion met? Is lho spedfic hyd_ criterion ..,I? Is this plant community 8 wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Ye. Yes Yes no Mid- Point 10,5 3.0 13.5 RatiooeIe: not jurisdictionsl wetl8nd 8S per Corp$ inspection 4IfY97 --~~~~~~~~==~~------------------- --~TASHT.)(1S Pffb 11·1J Plot 13 David Evans and Associates, Inc. INTERMEDIATE"LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION DATA SHEET Project Name: Field InvesUgatOf1s): AppranliOwner. County: SerieslPhase: Soil Profile: JAG Development Site JDWJCM CNAGroup King Seattle Mud< Old decayed concrete Job Number: CAAXool5 Sample Plot: 13 Date: 2127197 State Washington SOILS Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Olherhydri<:soIIlndlcaton: _________________ ~ ________ _ VEGETATION Tree Layer Indicator Cover Mid-Herbaceous layer Indicator Cover Scientific Name Status Class Point Scientific Name Status Class 1 Populus bcJIsamifom FAC 30 1 Juncus ~f.fusau FACW 2 ______________________________ _ 2 HoicllS lana/us FAC 3 ____________________________ _ 3 Agro.sti.s stolonifera FAC 4 ____________________________ _ 4 5 ____________________________ _ 5 6 Sum; 30 7 6 __________________ ~----~--- Shrub Layer 8 Sum: 2 ____________________________ _ 3 ____________________________ _ Percentage of Dominant Species 4 __________________________ ~-That are OBl,FACW, andforFAC: 100.0% 5 ___________________ ~---------- Sum; HYDROLOGY Surface inundated? Soil saturated? Appro •. 20% of plot Surface water depth: _____ 1_" ____ _ Depth or free standing water in lest pit? Other field evklenc:e of surface inundation or so~ satura.tion: Is the hydrophytiC vegetation a1lerion met? Is the hydric soil crilerion met? Is the specific hydrology criterion mel? Is this plant community a wetland? WETLAND DETERMINATION Yes No No No Mid- Point 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 Ra_: ----~~~.~~~,~pe~~:-ed~on~~-~~~u~.-s~u~n~.co~.--------------------------------------------- Plants growing in cracks. typic8' of site. OATASHTX,s PIo4. ,t-U I APPENDIXD LIST OF PLANT SPECIES Species Acer macrophyllum Agropyron repens Agrostis tenuis Alnusrubra Carex obnupta Cirsium arvense Comus stolonifera Dactylis glomerata Epilobium cilia tum Iris pseudacorus Juncus effusus Phalaris arundinacea Polygonum cuspidatum Polystichum munftum Populus balsamifera pteridfum aquilinum Ranunculus repens Rubus discolor Rubus lacinatus Rubus spectabilis Rubus vitifolius Rumex crispus Salix lasiandra Sambucus racemosa Spiraea douglasii Tolmeia menziesii Typha latifolia List of Plant Species Common Name big leaf maple quackgrass colonial bentgrass red alder Slough sedge Canada thistle red-osier dogwood orchardgrass hairy willow-herb yellow flag iris soft rush reed canarygrass Japanese knotweed sword fern black cottonwood bracken fern creeping buttercup Himalayan blackberry evergreen blackberry salmonberry Pacific blackberry curly dock Pacific willow red elderberry hardhack pig-a-back plant common cattail Indicator Status FACU FACU UPL FAC OBL FACU FACW FACU FACW- OBL FACW FACW FACU UPL FAC FACU FACW FACU FACU FAC FACW FACW FACW+ FACU FACW FAC OBL I , ! APPENDIXE WETLAND FUNCTION ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS -, I I -,' , ! ! j Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantttative Performance Assessment !t1and Ic_--,-A~ _______ Staff -::rPM Function Group! ! pi Floodl x-stze < 5 acres Storm Water X. IIveme or la_ore -..nd < 10 9It1:Jrested cover Control Z UIlCtI1S8'3i1ed ouOeI 1. IocaIed i1_,f.l 0I11le drainage poi1Is7 (max 15) Base Flowl X stze<5acres .round Water x... IIveme or lalo!shore -..nd X IocaIed n_,f.l 01 the drainage Support _ ~ Iooded or saIUraIed X poi11s.6 no Iow-_ "" 1JOIlU1aIiOnS on-sle or·do'Mlstream (max 15) ,rosionl -sparse gasstIert)S or no veg abnq jhoreline OHWM )( weiland ex1ends < 30 m tom Protection :K OHWM hI;j1Iy dewloped shorefin8 or poi11s~ S\JIJC3ttI11eIt (max 9) Nater Quality -rapd now IIlrougI site <60%vegrover Improvement --upstream In _ tom _and is tJ d3 c' JPOC' pohIsJQ :£. holds < 25 % O'o'ertand runen (max 12) . VA -Not Applicable, NIl = No IIlformatlOn available 'ominant Vegetation: AI.-Rv nz f'S "/-l I'R. Criteria Group 2 2pts -sIZe 5-10 acres -mkl-SIOped ~ 10 -30 % forested Olver --semi<:oJlSlJ'ai:led OUUel -kx:a!ed In _,f.l of the dr.Iinage -sIZe 5-10 acres -mkl-sloped wetland lOC3!ed In _ 1/3 of the dr.Iinage X seasonalyor seml-pennat1<!<1Uy I100ded or SMr.1Ied -low lIow-sensi1lve Ish pojlU1aIiOnS. ~e or do'Mlstream -sparse I'.oo<l or veg abnq OHWM weiland extends 30 -60 m tom - OHWM -moderatetydeVeloped shoroIine or suocal!:trne<t -moderate IIow Ihroug/I site 5O-80%oover - -~ 50% of basin upsu-eam tom wet1<r1<l is de .... 1Opl<I hotJs 25 -50% 0YB<1and ruoon - Wildlife: Group3 3pts -sIZe > 10 acres _ depo assIoi IS, headwa!els.lxlgs,1IaIs X > 30 % bested CO'IIJ< -CUf'IeIIAlermed 0UIIet _ kx:a!ed In uwer If.l of fie O'1!inage _ sIZe> 10 acms -depressions, headl\\llers, lxlgs,1IaIs _ kx:a!ed n uwer 1/3 of Ile O'1!inage _ pennanendy IIooded or saIUrated, or i1tem'11118ndy ""IlOsed -high now __ flOI]UIaIIons contiguous...., sie i1 ~ penneable =a 1S dense I'.oo<l or vag abnq OHWM -weiland extends > 200 m tom OHWM -undeveloped sflorelioe or • sutx:a1d1ment " , ~ stow IIow 1I1nJu!jI site oX >80% veg rover .x > 50% of _ upstmam tom wetland is deYIlIoped -holds> 50 9It 0YBrtand ruoon Natural Biological Support poiUSJi (max 36) Overall H.abltat Functlop,s poinl$2 (max 9) Specific Habitat Functions poinl$~ (max 15) Cultural{ Socioeco- nomic Notes: WeIland and Buffer Functions and Serni-quantitatlve Performance Assessment ){ size < 5 OCIIIS , ag land, low veg SU1JCI\JI'8 X. seasonal sooace wa!ei :6.. one h<1bta1 type PASPOWPEMPSS@Esr ~. IowJUnldWll;ty« 6 species) _ > 50 % InvasMI species _ low prtmary proO\JCIIViIy _ low 0f\l8/1IC aoc:umutaIIOn low 0IQ8nIC 8JC!)OIt . Z few haIlIaI ila1U18S )! boilers 'lei)' dslUrbed ~ lsoIaIed from ...,tand habla1S siZe 5 -10 acres ~ 21eVefveg _ pennanent SUI1ace waler _ 1WO habI1aI typ8S PAS POW PEM PSS PFO Esr _ modera18 plan! t1versiIy (7-15 specIeS) 2t 10 ~ 50 % InvasMI S\l9d8S X II10deraIIIIJIImaIY poWc1Ivty 7 fl'IOden1lI1 0I\l3I1iC acx:urruta1Ion ~ IowcrganIC 8JC!)OIt _ some haIlIaI lealunlS _ buIrers ~ dslUrbed _ I*1IaI\t OOIAIeCIIId 1O..pand haIlIaIs _ slze5-10aaes _ mOderale habllal t1versiIy _ model ate sanauary or refuge model ate iTYeI1eb ate haIJItaI ){. fl'IOden1lI1 anphIlian haNa! _ mOderaIe Ish haIlIaI v modera18 mammal hablla! ...a. fl'IOden1lI1 bird habllal . _ mooerae edJca!bnaJ oppot1UOil!eS _ moderate JaeSlhetk: valUe _ moderale commercial fisheries. agriCulture. renewatAe resources _ hls10rical or archeoi0gicai Sle· _ some passjYe and aaIve reaeadOnaIoppor1U1l1es _ pc1vaIely 0IWled, sOme pubic _ some COld IeC1IOi 110 or:en space _ size> 10 acms _ high haIlIIat <lversty _ high sanctuaryorrelllge high Invertebrate haIlIaI _ high IU11It1Ibian hallitII _ high Ish haNat _ highmammalhabial _ high bin:! habllal _ high educational <JppO<lJnities _ high a_lie value _ high commercial1isherles, agriculture, renewaIlIe resou.tes _ important hIsIotfcal or 8ItI1eobgi::al sle _ many passjYe and adMI rea1!aIfonaI oppor1U1ities _ unres1l1cled publiC aa:ess _ dIrec11yconneaed 10 open space Wetland and Buffer Functions and Seml-quantitative Performance Assessment dand# B ?-1 'Z-fl'l O$t Staff :J(;f'1 Date ---,;,~;j..:../3::,t.!.....:?....:..7_." "_ --:ation S T R Function Group 1 1 pI - Flood! i SIze < 5 lICI1IS itorm Water • nveme or IaI<eshof1l wetland < 10 '110 Iores1ed cover Control K unoons1I'3I1ed ouGet X IOcaled kl ~ 113 0I1he aanage pokltSZ (max 15) Base Flow! X SIze < 5 lICI1IS lround Water x.. _ or lalolsnom wetland X IOcaled kl ~ 113 of1he aanage Support _ 1emporaIy IIooded or saIUraIed poiItS£ J( no __ Ish populalbns on-site ordownstream (max 15) roslon! -spaJSe gassI1e<bs or no veg ;Wng ... horellne OHWM )( ~ extends < 30 m Irom Protection OHWM )( highly developed shoreline or POi1ls 5 suIlCaICfYnef"f (max 9) Vater Quality -rapid low II\rot.91 site -< SO '"' '<Il\l oover Improvement -upsu-eam kl baSillrom _and is uo:IIM!I::4led pokltSK) ..,)( hofds < 25 '"' oYef1and runoft (max 12) 41A = Not Applicable. Nil = No IOfOlTTlatlOn aYallabie Jominant Vegetation: 4£-Rv Sf 170 7/>< LA -Y LA Criteria Group 2 2pts Group 3 3pts -SIze 5-10 acres SIze > 10 acres mld-sloped -.., K depesob IS, headwaters, OOgs,ftaIs -1 0 -30 '"' lor9sted 00V!l< > 30 '"' fomsted 00_ -S6fI1k:onsrained ouUe( -cuIvettibanned 0UIleI -located kl_ 113 of 1he <tailage -located kl uwer 113 01 fie drai1age -SIze 5-1 0 lICI1IS _ SIze> 10 acres -mk!-sloped welIand _ de\lI1!ssIoos. headwaters, OOgs,ftaIs _ located kl _113 Of !he <tailage _ located kl ower 113 oIfledrai1age X seasonaly or seml-pennanemfy _ pennanenay IIooded or safII'ad, or IIooded or S<IUrafI!d kllllnnllendy ""IlOSed -lOw 110 __ IIsh populations. -hlghlIow-sensIMI popuIadons oo-site or downsIream condguous wfd1 site In hfghfy penneabla suata -sparse -..ood or veg aJong OHWM . .£ dense -..ood or veg along OHWM -W9lIand extends 30 " 60 m Irom OHWM -W9lIand extends > 200 m tom -moderately developed SIlOnlIOle or OHWM sutcalctlmert -undevebped sfloreline or , subcall:hmenl \ -rn<XleraIe IIow Ihrough site l' slOw IIow Ihrough site -SO -80 '"' 00 ...... _ >80'110"'900_ -5 5O'Ho of basin upstream ~ :;C > 5O'Ho of basin. upsU'eam Irom weiland is developed weiland is devefoped -holds 2S -SO '"' 0Wf1and runoft " -holds > SO '"' oYerIand rune" Wildlife: . , Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessmem Natural .K sIZe < 5 acres _ sIZe 5 -10 acres 7 sIZe > 10 acres 11 ag land, low veo S1ItJCIUm 2-veo -high veo S1IIIaI.I9 Biological _ seascnaI __ ~ pemwIIII1I_ waler -open -POOls 1IlnluJh S\IJ1mer Support _ one _ ""'" -lYoO_~ _ ~3habtat~ PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST £PAllPOWPEM~®eST PAIl POW PEM PSS PFO EST . --Iow!:ianl dWrsly « 6 species) moderal8 IlIant cJversiIy (T -15 ~ high!:iare <IversIy (> 15 S!lecies) species) -< 10'16 Invasive SIJeCIes -> 50 'MI1nvasIve species 10 10 50 'MI klYasMI species _ high IlIImI!IY ~ -low llMlaty prodUCllvi!y X -moderal8 pr1maty pOOJcIIvty .J£ hlghClQanlc~ -low organic 1ICQ.IIIItJ\aII. moderaI8 cxganiC aco.m.JIatIOn -high orgn: 8lCp:Xt _ Iowcrganlc 8lCIJOIt £ Iowcxgank: 8lCIJOIt -many habtat laaures 2 rawhadallaalUreS -some haIllaIlaalUleS -boilers not dstt.rbec:t buIIeIS verydslullled -bu1Iers sIgIUIy dslurtoed --COIlneae<IIO UI:iar<I habtalS poillS 23 ~ ISIJIated tIXn ~ hablals -panIaIy_1O upIard (max3&) haI:'laIs .-, Overall .is size < 5 acres )(' sIZe 5-10 aaes - sIZe > 10 acres --X low hallIIaI clvetSIIy _ moderaI8 halJlal clversly high habIIat <Ive<sty Habitat -low sanauaryOf relJge -modecate sanauaty Of relJge -high sanc\UalyOf refuge Functl°l poillS (max 9) ~ low k1YeI1etlIate halllaI modeo ate I1Ye11ebrate haIlIlat high k1Yertebrate hatlIat Specific ~ - Habitat f low ampI1IlIan habila! moderaIe ampnillan habla! -high amJ:ililJlan hablaI low Ish haIlIIaI -moderaI8 fish hallIIat -high fish hablat Functions low mammal hallIIa! moderaI8 mammal halJilal -high mammal hatlIat poilISZ -low IliItI hallIIat :x moderaI8 tird halJilal -high IliItI halJital (max 15) Culturall flow eWcaIIonal opporrunlties -modernIe edJcalilnal opportUnities -high eoocationaJ CJIlPOIWi!eS low aeS1IIetiC_;We -modera1s /aeSU'leIlC _we -high aeSll1etiC_;We Socloeco-1! Iad<s oommerdallishenes, moderate oommetdalllsher1es, high oommerdalllsher1es, -- nomic ~, a{11QJllUl9. _ AlSOUrtes agr1CUltUre, renewatJIe resoun::es agricultUre, renewallIe resoun::es -Iad<s hISlOc1CaJ Of ateneoIOgiCaI -hlstor1cal Of arcneotogIcaI sae -important hlsttll1cal Of archeologlcal 0;( resoun::es -some passive and aaIve sae Iad<s passiVe and aaiVe -0IlIl0f10011ieS -many passive and aaIve :;{ nIa8atIOnaI opponunllies -prtvaIety owned. sOme pubic recreatIOnal 0flIl0I1I,I111eS jlIIvaIIIIy ov.ned access -uMISU1cIed publIC access poilISb ..l!; not ne. open space -some oonneaIon 10 open space -dlrecUyoonneaed 10 open space {max 21) . Notes: Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantttative Performance Assessment ,tIand #, ____ ---.::~:::::.... _____ Staff JZ> tv1 ; Date 1;/1 (It 7' .. -.. _------ ~ Criteria Function Groupl 1 pi Group 2 2pts Group 3 3pts Flood! -1t" siZe < 5 acres -siZe 5-10 acres siZe > 10 acres Storm Water ~ ot lakeshore weiland -mk1-sIoped weiland ~. heacl\Wlern, bogs.1Iats < 10 % fomsIed ""--1 0 -30 % be!;Ied rover _ > 30 % lOmsled oover Control -\IIlCIlIlSTai'l ouGeI -seml-consttal'led outlet ¥ CUIveM>e!med ouGeI -V IX:ated In 10_ 113 of !he drai1ag.; -locaIed In middle 113 Of !he <taInage -locaIed In upper 113 Of !he drninage roots '1- (max 15) Base Flow! ' --'" SiZe < 5 acres -size 5-10 acres _ siZe > 10 acres iround Water :v= otlalolshore weiland -mk1-sIoped weiland ~ headwalern, Ixlgs,AaIs IX:ated In "'-113 of !he <T.Iinage -locaIed In middle 113 of !he d1Ii'Iage =Z In upper 113 or .... aanaga Support _ IefIIPOr3IY IIooded ot sarurated -seasonalyot semliJermanently anently IIoodecl ot saIUralIId. ot /00 ftow-sensti.e Ish populations IIOoded or saturaIed IntemliUenUy exposed ~f -low lIow-sensi1lve II5h populatiOns -high ftow-sensilive IJOIljfaIiOns on-9le or do'M'IsIIeam on-sle or do"M'\Stmam contiguOus willi siCe In highly (max 15) permootJIe strata ,roslon! -spar.;e grass.\1erbS ot no veg along -sparse I'.<)()d or veg along OHWM -<Iense I'.<)()d ot veg along OHWM ;horeline OHWM -weiland _30 -50 m from -weiland exlends < 30 m Imm OHWM -wetland exlends > 2()() m from .rotectl~ OHWM -moderately deVeloped sho<eIne or OHWM M'J., -higlly de'IeIoped shorefine or sutx:a1CMlert -undeveloped s!1ore/if1e ot polnts_ sutJcaljmert sutx:atcl1mert (max 9) - Nater Quality _ rape! now 1hrough siCe -moderate IIow Ihrough site YsIoW now Ihrough siCs JZ < 50 % veg cover -50 -80 % rover > 80 % veg rover Improvement upsfleam In basin Imm weaand is ~ 50% Of basin upsIream Imm . y> 50% 01 basin upstream from -- points 10 ~ wetland is de.eIoped ~ isde.eloped -holds < 25 % overland runon -holds 25 -50 % 0V8I1and runon holds > 50 % 0V8I1and runo" (max 12) 'A = Not Applicable, NIl = No informatIOn avarlable ominam Vegetation: 1""7 t-A- Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Per10rmance Assessment Natural Jf'SIZe < 5 aaes _ size 5 -10 acres _ size > 10 acres • Biological .l/ _ ag land, low vag SIIUCIUre ~a::~_ _ ~ vag SIIUC\Uf8 _ seasonal SUIIaC8_ _ OIJSII-poolS 1IlrouI1l wmmer Support _ one h8btI \WlII _ ~ 3 habIaIl',IleS /..AS PC1N PEM PSS PFO EST ~;SSPFOEST PAS PC1N PEM PSS PFO EST _ low planl diverst( « 6 species) _ m III diverst( (7-15 ~i!jI plaIII civersly (> 15 species) specieS) < 10'11> invasive specieS _ > 50 '"' klvasive specieS ~O., 50 'Nt klvasive species _ hi!jl prtmary~ _ low PfI/Ilaty produCIiviIy moderate prtmary fXOOOCIiVt( _ ~ organI: aa:urnt.iaIIon _ low organIC ICOJIllUIaIkln mooeram organI: aa:urruIalIon -~ organic 8XpOII ~organt:8lqXl<I .::... low organIC 8lqXl<I _ many hablalloaIunIs y:hatitalbalureS _ some habllalleaIUrBS _ butIeIs nol distubed boilers very CIS1uIbed _ bufters sI\1lIIY ClStUIbed _ wei oonneaed 10 upland haIlIaIs poillSJ!{ JZ lsoIaIed!rom I4JIand h_ _ panIaIy ocnnecIed., uplaro (max 35) hallUlIs Overall ~SlZe < 5 aaes _ size 5-10 acres _ SIZe > 10 acres Habitat t;/Iow hallla! diversi1y _ modenIIe habilal dIIerst( _ h~ haIlIIaI diverst( _ low sanauary or refUge _ moderate sanauatyor ~ _ ~ lalCIuaryorrefUga Functloy pOOlS (max 9) / Specific _ low nvertebrate hallila! :p=: kIvenebraIe haIlita! _ ~_habIaI Habitat ~ amphlJian hallil3! moderate amph/:Jian habl3! _ ~ amPIIJian habIaI low Ish hall1a1 _ moderate fish habilal _ ~ Ish hablal FunctloE low mammal habit3! ~moderate mammal habital _ h~ mamma! habital poIllS ~ low bird habl;at moderate IJin:l habital _ ~ IJin:l habilal (max 15) / Cultural! ~Iow e<1ucational opponunilies _ moderate erucatiDnal opportunilies _ ~ eWcationaI CIIJIlC)llJIWes Socloeco-V'tow aestheCic yalue _ moderate _tic value _ ~ aesthetic vakle _ laCkS commercia/fisheries. _ mOderale commercial Isnelies. _ high commerciaillshel1es, nomic L' aglculture, renewable n>roun;es aglculture. renewable n>roun;es agriculture. _ /8SOUrteS lackS hiStoriCal or archeological _ hlslorlc:al or archeological Site _ impO/IaIII hIsIOR:aI or an:neoIoglcal .f. ;ssive and active _ some passive and active Site recreational oppoIU1ties _ many passive and active I'recre3!klnal opportunilies _ privaIeIy ov.oocl, some public . reaeallonal opponunties pdvaIeIy ov.ood access _ unrestricted publiC access poi'Its7 :iZ na near open space _ some connediOn 10 open space _ direQlycoonected 10 open space (max 21) Notes: OL.{) :J7V{)/Sf12~ ~t/ ,-/ .... J.: - L.o .. •• Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment !tland #' __ -.J.<D~ ________ Staff ::JC/I"1 Date ')..q ').Iff' (JSE :ation S T R Function Group 1 1 pt Flood! ;z5.. sIZe < 5 acres Storm Water rMNtle (I( IaJeeshOl9 weUand X <10""b"esled00_ Control unc:cns8'aI1ed 0U1IeI Y t:ICaIe<In _113 oIene <tailage Pl*dSl (max 15) Base Flow! ~ sfze < 5 acres lround Water _ rMNtle (I( IaIc8shOl9 _nd .x t:ICaIe<I n _113 oIene dra*1age Support _ 1IJn1pOraJy IIooded (I( saturaled Pl*dSi. X. no 1IoW-sens1iv8 IIsh populalionS on-sle or,do¥.nstrearn (max 15) ,roslon! -sparse~or no veg a.bng OHWM ;horellne WOCIand 8lCIends < 30 m hJm -'rotectlon OHWM -highly devOOped sIloreine or ~~~ Sl.ClCattmert (max 9) Nater Quality -rapfd low IIV'ou\11 Site < 60 'MI veg 00_ Improvement --up:sI/WIIln basin hJm wetland is Pl*dS1J oodeYebped -hotIs < 25 "" 0Y9I1and runon (max 12) A ~ Not Applicable, NIl ~ No II1toonation avrulable XTllnant Vegetation: Criteria Group 2 2pts -stze 5-10 acres -mkHtOped weuand -1 0 -30 "" Io<eSIed 00_ -semi<:ol1Sll'a01ed OUIIeI -locaIed n micIOO 113 Of ene cr.maga -stze 5-10 acres -mkHtOped waUand -_ n micIOO 113 Of ene <tailage -seasonalyor semIilOrmanendy IIooded 0( saIIJraIed -low lIow-sensi1lve Ish popuIaIionS, OCHite or downstream -sparse wood or veg along OHWM -weuand e>tends 30 -60 m from OHWM -moder.!Iety develOped stKHeIine or sutx:atc:lT1le!l )Z moder.!Ie IIow IIlmugll Site 50-80""00_ -~ 50% of _ upslTeam from weuand is <leyelOped -hoIds2S -60%0_ runon Wildlife: Group 3 3pts ;g: stze > 10 acres dep'essIoc IS, headwalers, bogs,lIats :6' > 30 "" Iorasted oo'lll< . cuM!ft.tlermed 0U1IeI -lOca!ed n ower 113 a hi dra*1aga stze > 10 acres .)( depiessblS, ~ bogs,lIats -' IOca!ed n uwer 113 a hi dra*laga .it: parmanend'( IIooded (I( saIIJIaIIld. or I11ennlasndy e>qlOSed -high 1Iow-sensIiv8 ~ns confIguous..wh Sile In highly peanea!Jfe SIraIa -dense WOOd or veg along OHWM -weUand e>tends > 200 m from OHWM -undevelOped shornGne or " sutx:al!::tTT1e " , ..J:<' slow IIow Ihrough Site >OO""vegoo_ X > 50% 01 basin upsueam from K weuand II <leY9bped holds> 60 "" 0Y9f1and MlOn Wetland and Buffer Functions and Seml-quantitative Performance Assessment Natural X SIZe < 5 acres -SIle 5 -10 acres -SIZe ,. 10 acrus 11 L.. ag land. Iow.eo struCIU'8 21e ..... .eo -hlghY8g~ Biological -seasonal su1ace wale< .x permanenI su1ace waler -open -pooIs~SUnmer Support X one habbI type -l'Ml haIJItaI types -:!: 3 hablalt)p8S .' PAS POW PEN PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFQ EST J( low plant chersty « 6 spedes) -_Ie pIanI dveIsly (1. IS K high plant dverUy (0) IS species) species) < 10'lI0 Invasive SIledes Z > so ~ InvasM! species -1010 so ~ Invasive ~s -high prfmary~ low I)Ifmary IlfO(IUCIlvily -moderate pr1maJy poOuctiVly -high ClIQar1C acaJmUaIjon t low organIC accumuIaIIOn. -"IOdeIa18 0iVMIC acx:umutaIlon -high 0Iganfc 8lCpoot low organic 8lCIlCII -low organic 8lCIlCII -many habtaI reau-es lew hatlaIleaIU9S -some I\abla re_ -bufIaIs IlOl cisaJtle<I poi1lSJ2 buIIeIs verydsluibed -buffets sIgIlIJy dsluibed --00Meaed to UJlIarlj hablars ::x IsoIaIecIImm ~ habIaIs -panIaIy all lleaecl 10 upland (max3&) habIIalS -. Overall I t SIZe < 5 acres -SIZe 5-10 acres -SIZe> 10 acrus , ylow hatllaI chersly . model ate hablal cIversty high habiIaI cher.;ly --H.abltst low sanclualy or relUge -model ate sanclUay or reIuge -high S3IlCIUalyor reIIIge Functl0Jl,s poi1lS_ (max 9) • Specific lif Iow_hablat _ modenIIe me.teIlIate habilat -high Irwenetxate habi!at Habitat bw IIIIpI1iJIan hatllaI .x modenIIe anphllian hablal -high ampIJllian habIat J low ISh habItaI -modenIIe ISh habIat -high ISh habla! Functions ~ bw mammaf habtat -moderate mammal hablaI -high mammal habit<ll poi1lS~ low IlIIII hablaI -modenIIe tird habitlt -high tird habi!aI (max 15) Cultural! f bw educalIonaJ opponunlies. model ale edIcaIi:lnaJ oppoI\IJIIities high eduCational OJlPOiUllies low aeslI1eIIc value -moae. ;1Uf/aesIhetIC vaJue: -high aesll1eliC value Socloeco-laCkS commen:iallishenes. -moderate commercial fisheries. -high commemaf lishelles, nomic a{J1culOJre. renewati';,resourc:es agriculture, _ resoon:es ag1cullUre. renewal*I resoun:es L tacks NstOIICaI or ~ -hlstcricaf or IIdleoIogIcaf sle -inlpoftant historICal or_togt:aJ t.: I1ISCUIQ!S -some pas$VII and acave Sle laCkS pas$VII and acIi'Ie reaeadonaJ OfJI)OrU1lies -many pas$VII and acave }. recreadonaJ opponunlies -P<1YaIeIy owned, sOme 1lUb6:., reaeallOnal opponunlies piIvaIeIy 0'M1ed access -unresb'lCled pubic aa:ess :K na nea-open space -some CXlIoleCllon 10 open space -<frecIIy conneaed to open space poi1lS7 (max 21) Notes: '. Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Perfonnance Assessment etIand #. __ ----'E=-_______ Staff :rPM Date 3/hAz- I 21 J-tN oSG 'Cation 5 T R Function Group 1 1 pt Flood! .2{ sIZe < 5 acres Storm Water Z rIVIIme Of lamst10re weiland :2l < 10 ~ 1oresled<XlV8f Control flJl>Clll\WahedouGel bcaled .. _1/3 of1he drailage pOOts2 (max 15) Base Flow! ' -'~ sIZe < 5 aaus 3round Water ~ rIVIIme Of Iamst10re weaancr L bcaledn_1/3of1heaainage Support _ ~ IIOOded Of saIIra!ed pOO1S2 .x no fIoW.$9!9IVe fISh pop:laIiOns on-sle a-downstream (max 15) Erosion! -sparse ~ or no \<>9 abng .ihorellne OHWM _ e>lendS < 30 m !rom -i>rotectlon OHWM of" ht,j1Iy drM>Iaped shoreline or pOO1S§ sut:caLI. i tart (max 9) Water Quality -rapid loW IIvou\11 Site Improvement -< 50 ~ WtlQ coYer -upsIr8<!pI n baSin tom Wetland is (:,£;1 liidsy 'c'lJt)d X hot1s < 25 % ciYer1and IUOO" fA = Not Applicable, Nil a No "formatIOn avarlable orninant Vegetation: 1Y LA cO S,- «II Dr A L--(?tJ Criteria Group 2 2pts Group3 3pts -sIZe 5-10 acres -sIZe > 10 aaes -mld-sIoped'Mllland -dep!essia1S, headwa!e<s, 00gs,1Iats -10 -30 ~ rore.tad cover -> 30 % rore.ted cover - -SIlf11i<onsIrUlad OUCIeI -culver1ibem1ed ouGeI -lOcate<l n mIdcIe 1/3 01 II1e O'ai1ags -lOcate<l n ower 1/3 01 !he drai1ags -sIZe 5-10 acres -sIZe > 10 aaes -mid-5lOped'MlUand -depressions, headwa!e<s, 00gs,1Iats -lOcate<l n mIdcIe 1/3 01 !he 0'ai1ag9 _ Iocaled n uwer 1/3 01 !he !T.inags -seasonalyor semi-permanenUy X pennanendy IIOOded Of saIIJtaIed, Of IIooded or S<IIr.IIIId Inte<mllendy 9>CIJO$ed -low !Iow-oensitive fISh popuIati:Jns . -hlgllflow-sens1dv9 JlC)IJIJIaIIons . OIHiite or downstream contiguous willi Site n ~ penneal:le suata • __ sparse v.ood or veg along OHWM X m1Iand extendS 30 -60 m Imm -)! dense v.ood or veg abng OHWM OHWM -m1Iand extendS > 200 m tom -moderately de'.'e1Oped SIlOreIine or OHWM subcatdment -undevelOped shollJline or • sutx:aI!:trnent " , _ moderate !low througn Site .J{ _1Iow through Site ¥ 5O-80%00Yer Z > 8O%veg cover _ S 50% 01 basin upstream tom > 50% 01 baslnupslream tom weIIancl is de\'Qbped weIIancllS de\'Qbped -hOI:ls 25 -50 % 0_ IImott -hOI:ls > 60 "" 0YeI1and IIJnOn Wildlife: ~ Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitatlve Per10nnance Assessment " Natural ;? sIZe < 5 aavs , ' -sIZe 5 -10 aaas _ sIZe> 10 acres 1\ Biological Xaglan(t,Iowveg9l\JC!Ul1l -2 .".". veg -high veg SIItlCaq _ seasonaiSUfaCe wa!er -~SUfaCewa!er K open -1lOOIs~SU!rcner Support _ one haIlIa Iype -tI'oO hatlilailypeS X?3:a PAD POW PSI PSSPFOEST PAD POW PSI PSS PFO EST PAS I@>FQ EST -' low pant <2ve1Sly « 6 spades) AI moderal8 pant clVetsiIy (7-15 K high ant (> 15 S\leCI9s) species) < 10% invasive SIleCIes -> 50 ~ InvasIYe species 1010 50 ~ nvasIve 'I)Ildes -hlgh pjmaJy IIRldUaMy -low pnnary prodUCUVlly .)( . moderal8 prtnwy proQJCUvIy -hlghO\V8llk:~ -low 0I\}a1i:: accumuIaIIon, .x. ' modeI:al8 cxvantc aCICUIRJIaUan -high 0IgaI1Ic 8lCport _ low organIC expon ..x low organJc expon -.many .... -..es I lew haIlIa IeaIIns -some IlablalIeaun!s , -butlers 1101 cIsIuIle<1 ' . . btd/efs >elY dsturt:>ed -llutIefs sIghay tlslurt:>ed -wei COf1neaed 10 UIlIarld hablaIs rx>n1S 1:.1-X IsoIaIeG tom t.Pand h~ -panIaIy CXJMeCll!<lIO IJI)IaI1d (max3&) haI:itIs Overall z{ sIZe < 5 acres X sIZe 5-10 acres -sIZe> 10 acres , low hablla dveroily moderal8 halJlal div«sIy high habit!! <2ve1Sly Habitat -X low sanauary or reklge -moderaI8 sanc:ruary or refuge -high lmCIuaryor refUge Functions ~.!t (max 9) Specific .J!{ low iMInebnIIe habital moderaI8 nvertebraIe haIlIlaI -high lnvenellra1e haIlIaI Habitat _ low 8/IIIlhIlIan hatlilal .x moderaI8 amphibian hablla -high am~1bian haIlIaI .li low Ish haIJIaI -moderaI8l1sh habl!aI -high IIsh hablla FUnCtl0J: L low mammal habl!aI -moderaI8 mammal habl!al -high mammal habIa1 pOOlS .;{' low bird IIabIaI .. -modeta1e tIrd halli!a1 -high tIrd habl!al (max 15) Cultural! i low ecb:alIonai opponunitie~ -'moderale OOJcaIbnai oppof\IJnilies -high educational OIlIJ<)RJnilies Socloeco- low_vakJe -moderaI8laeStt1ellc value -high aeSU1e1lc value X lacks commerclailisheries. -moderaJe commercial ISheries. -high commercial IIs/1erles, nomic X ag:bJl1ure. renewaJlIe resources ag:bJl1ure. renewable resoun:es agliCuilun!. renev<abIe resources lacks hls(orICaI or an:heoIogicaJ -h/slOllcal or arcile<lIOgiCa/ ste -Important historICal or art:heobgt:aJ c: f'IISIJUIt8S -some passive and actiVe $Ie lacks passive and actiVe reaeaJlona/ QIlIlOI\UIIiIie -many passive and actiVe 1< recreaIIOrIaI opportUnities -priva1eIy 0Y«Ied, some pubic; , reaeaJlona/ oppom.nilles PfIYaIeIY owned ao:ess -uMlSlllaed publiC acosss , .A-na nea-open space -some connecac:n 10 open space -c:b::Uyconnec:ted 10 open space pOOlS 7 (max 21) .- Notes: Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Perfonnance Assessment et1and I ( Staff 'J PM ----~--------------- ~ 'j.-1'" OS€ "Cation S T R : I Function . Group 1 Ipt I Floodl .K sIZe < 5 acres Storm Water -rt'IIIItle Of' IaIceSl10rU weUand < 10 '"' IoresIed cowr I Control ~001IeI J{ bcaIed il ~ lfJ of "'" drai'lag8 poi'ItSll (max 15) I Base Flowl If. sIZe < 5 acres lround _ rt'IIIItle Of' IaIceSl10rU we!Iand Water E' bcaIed il ~ 1,G 01 "'" c)"aInage I Support ~ II!mpO!aIy IIooded Of' saIInIed poi'ItS7 &:: no lIow-senslMllistl popuIaIions on-sIe ordo'M\Sream I (max 15) I :roslonl -sparse !J'assoortls or no veg aI:lng OHWM .ihorellne weiland exlends < 30 m InJm I Protection -OHWM pons "'fA -hI!11Iy deVelOped shoreline Of sub:ar;hnert I (max9)- Water Quality ~ loW II1ItIucJ1 sle --<60,",veg~ Ilmprovement -UpsII9am il baSi'I from _and is If'deYetlped poi'ItSjJ--holds < 25 '"' 0YeIIan<I rune« . ~, (max 12) • NlA = Not Applicable, NIl = No I1foonation available uominam Vegetation: Po {3p. A-t--Rou roCAJ RII OI Criteria Group 2 2pts -sIZe 5-10 acres -mld-5loped'Mllland -10·3O,",~edalver -semi<onsU"ailed ouUeI -1ocaIec:1 il_ lfJ 01 "'" ctailaga -sIZe 5-10 acres -mid-sloped weaand -locaIed il _lfJ 01 "'" Qai1age -seasonaly Of' seml-pennanently IIOoded Of' S3IlJfaIec:1 -low lIo~nSllve Iistl populatfoos. O<H;ite Of' do'M\Sream -sparse v.ood or veg along OHWM -mtIand extendS 30 • 60 m InJm OHWM -mO<leraIeIy de\oeloped SI1oreI&1e or sutcalCln1ent -mO<leraIe IIow through site -5O·80,",~ -S 50% 01 baSi'I upsII9am from 'MlIIand is de~ -hOlCIS 2S • 50 '"' overland runo« Wildlife: Group 3 3pts sIZe > 10 acres .x. depcessb IS, headwalecs, txlgs,1IaIs "*' > 30 '"' IoresIed cowr _ CUI'I'9Mlermed 001IeI -locaIed il uwer 1,G oIlhe O'aJ1age ~>10acres -dapressi(xls, headwarers, ~ IIaIs _ lOca!ed il u~ 1,G oIlheO'ai1age _ permanenay IIooded Of'saIIr.IfOO, or iltermillen1ly ""IlOSed -high 11m',' sao IStive pop.JIaIIons contiguous v.iIh slo il hIg1Iy penneabkl strata -denSe v.ood or 'leg aJong 0HW!d -mtIand exlends > 200 m from OHWM -undeveloped shoreline Of • SUIJcaIdYner( " \ t< Slow IIow If1rough sle ~ > 80 '"' veg oover > 50% 01 baSi'I upsIream from , wetland is devetoped X hOlCIS > 50 '"' <Mlf1and runo« ... Wetland and Buffer Functions and Seml-quantitative Performance Assessment , . Natural X SIZe < 5 aClVS _ SlZ95-10aaes -SIZe > 10 acres • Biological _agland.lowveoSU1lCl\Jl9 ..!f 2_veo -high veo :r.1IUaun! ~ seasonal SLIfaCe_ -pennanenI SUIface water -open waterPQols~ SUmmer Support J?S:.. one haIU 1WI two habIlaIlypes -? 3 habIallypes PAS PQWPEM P~ EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM pss PFO EST -lOw plant <lIw~ « 6 species) Lf moderate plan! <Ive<sity \7·15 -high plant civersty (> 15 SIledes) species) -< 10% invasive SIledes * > 50 'Ii hYaSIYe SI)eCIeS ){ 1010 50 'Ii ~vasMI species -high JXImary~ lOw prfmary producIIviIy -moderate prfmary IXOWCMY -high 0I\I3rIt: 8CXUI1Ua\IOc1 Ioworganlc acamutaIIOn. -modeo ate organic aa:urrufaIIon -high 0I\I3rIt: 8>C!lOrt low organic export -lOWorganJc export -many habIalleaures few habIa IeaIures -some habIalleatutes -bu1Iers noc CIsIubed " rJ.)bIsJ2 i butIeIs WIY <lslurbed -butIeIs sI(toIIy <lslurbed -wei <Xlnneaecl to Upland habtaIs IscIaIed him ~ habitatS -par1faIy 001". oeaed to upland (max 36) habIas . , . Overall iE<SaClVS . -SIZ9 5-10 aaes -SIZ9 > 10 acres Habitat low hattat <lI~ -moderaIe habtat <Ive<sity -high haIliCat dvelSly low S8I1CIUary or rellJge . -modeoate S8I1CIUaryor reIuge -high sanauaryorrelJge Functions POiIIS1. (max 9) )("IOW kMlttelnte habIlaI modeo ate mertetnle habiIaI highl1Yeneblate habIat Specific -- Habitat K low 8/I1IlIli:Wl hatilat -modeo ate lITIphIlian hatilat -high l\It1It1ibian habIat "2-low Ish habIIaI -moderaIe Ish hatilat -high Ish hablat Functions low mammal hattat moderaIe mammal hablat -high mammal hablat POiIlSiJ -low bini habIat ::c moder.IIe txd habilal -high bini habitat (max 15) Culturall X low e<lJcaIIonai opponunties -mooe .... e e<lJcaIIonaJ QPpOf\\Jr1iIIes -high eduCational CIJI)OI1Unilles Socloeco- >( low aesI1etiC vakJe -moderate /aeSIhetIc value -high aeslheliC valUe 1! lacks commen:tal fisheries. moderate commen:tallshelies. hi;Jh commerclallishelies, . -- nomic agr\culllJnl, renewalJCe resoun::es agr1cu/lln. renewable resoun::es agrb.Jllure, renewable reoources X lacks NsIoI1caI or an:heOIOgicaI -hlStOl1cal or archeoIogIcaJ Site -ImJ)Olt8l1l hlSlo<1caJ or artheolOgk:aJ /8SOUIt:8S -some passiYs and aaIve sle 1 lacks passiYs and adive recreallOnal OIlIJCIU1ties -many passiYs and aaMI recreallOllal OIJI)OI1UfIiIIes -jlf1vateIy ov.ned. some public; recreallOnal opponunilles :i.pdv8IIlIyowned . access -un.9S1!ICIed putAic aa:ess noc 00. open space -some connecIIOn 10 open space -direcl!yOlOl1eaed 10 open space rJ.)bIs.7 (max 21) . Notes: . C/r?'I prlc.tL- Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitatlve Pertonnance Assessment !t1and I ___ ~G>.L _______ Staff :T pM Date 2-'f 1-~" (75 e- li S T R :a on Function Groupl 1 pi Flood! K size < 5 acres Storm W!lter _ IIveme or Ial<eShore WOUand ..y < 10 ~ fcnI5Ied cover Control _ 00000SI'ai1ed ouIIeI rx>Ws'l X k)CaIBd 1'1 ~ 1/3 of 1fle Q'ailage (max 15) Base Flow! j{ stze<5acres ;round Water _ IIveme or Ial<eShore weiland t-k)CaIBd 1'1 ~ 1/3 of 1fle (taInage I Support IempClfaIy Iooded or sannred poi1Is2 .)( no Ie_YIIIsh populallonS on-site or·dOWnstmam I (max 15) :roslon! -SIl3r.;8IJ'1SS1f1ertl5 or no.eg abng OHWM I ~horellne -wetland extends < 30 m !rom Protection OHWM pam!!). -highly deYIIIoped sI10reIine or sub:aa:tIT1eIt I (max 9) , Water Quality -rapid loW tvougl Site , Improvement -< 50 % YIIg cover -upsIreafI1l'1 baSil tom WOUand Is ~ rx>WslJ---holdS < 25 % 0Yef\aIld runott • (max 12) \J/A _ Not ApprlCable, NIl = No II1fonnaiion available Dominant Vegetation: Pif /If-. ~O SI «V Of Criteria Group 2 2pts -stze 5-10 acres -mld-slope<l weiland -10 -30 % lJresled cover -semi-<:Onstrakled ouUeI -Ioca!ed 1'1 nicICIe 1/3 at 1fle <tallage -size 5-10 acres -mld-Sloped weiland -Ioca!ed 1'1 nicICIe 1/3 Of 1fle d'"at1age -seasonalyor semlilermanenUy 1Ioodedor __ -low Iiow-sensitive Ish poputatIons on-sile or doYo1sInlam -sparse woodor.eg along OHWM -'MJtIand extends 30 -50 m !rom OHWM -mo<leratety developed sI10reline or sutx:att:trnent -mo<lerate lOw II1rough Site -50-50%00_ -~ 50% of baSil upsWam ron wetland is deYlliOP'd -holds 25 -50 % overland runoU Wildlife: Group 3 3pts _ stze > 10 acres .x depc 9SSiOo IS, I1eadwaIer.;. OOgs,ftaIs )( > 30 % bested cover _ cuIvetIitJenned outlet _ Ioca!ed 1'1 uwer 1/3 oflle <t1li1age _ size > 10 acres r depmssions, I1eadwaIer.;. OOgs,ftaIs _ Ioca!ed 1'1 uwer 1.0 01 Ile tt'aInage -pennanenuy IIooded or 5aIInIed. or lnIBrmil1endy 0>ql0Sed -high Ilaw-senSiIIY!I populations COOIIgJous WiIh Site 1'I111;11ty penneable &rata -dense wood orYIIg abng OHWM -wetland extends > 200 m rom OHWM -undeVebped shoreline or ; sutx:aId1men , K SlOW loW Ihrough Site X > 80 % YIIg cover Z. > 50% at baSil upstream rom .z= IsdeveiOP'd holdS> 50 ~ ovel1and runott Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantttative Perfonnance Assessment ". Natural ){ SIZe < 5 acres -SIZe 5 • 10 acres -SIZe> 10 acres " Biological X agland, bwvegStruClUnl -2_veg -high veg SIruCIure f seasonal SU1aC8 wale< -pennanent SUIface walor -open -1lOOIs~ Support .L. two haI:llat lypes -~ 3 habta!!)pes summer , ==~PSSPFOEST PAS POW Pe.! PSS PFO EST PAS POW PBd PSS PFO EST ')( lOw !:Ianl dWlSly (< 6 species) -moderall! plant cIversly (7.15 -high !:Ian! IIve!sly ~ 15 S!ledes) ;{ > 50 '" hYasIYe species species) -< 10% Inwslve species _ 1010 50 '" hvasiw ,;pecies -high prtmary llro<Iuttlvty lOw pMllfYproduCdvity ~ modeIaII! po1mary proQJcMy -hlghOlllar*:~ f bwO<gMic accumutarIOn -moderaII! 0IganiC acanrutadon -high 0IV8nIc 8>CpOrt bwOlganic mcport , -lOw 0IganIc e>cpoIt -ntal'f habta! IeaLwes I Iew_lealUres -some haI:llat Iealures -butJeIs not cisUIlea ' poi!lSJJ butlers -r dSMbed -buIIe<s Sf9I1dv dslurCed --connected 10 tJIlIard habta!s -IsoIaIed rrom upland habitat! -panIaIy oonnecte(IlO upland {max 36) haa Overall .f SIZe < 5 acres -SIZe 5-10 acres -SIZe > 10 acres -bw lIaIllai (J\I!lrSily moderaII! hablla! <lversily high haIJItaI dvefSIy --Habitat :x bwsanctJlfYo<relJgll -moderaII! sanauary 0< refuge -high sanQualyo<l!lIUga FunctlO~ poi!lS_ {max 9) Specific L lOw_hablal -moderaII! _ haIlIaI -high iWenellrale habta! Habitat ~ bw amphIJIan habital -mode<ale amphlJian lIaIllai -high 8/lII1libian habta! lOw Ish habIIal -moderaII! IiSII habIla! -high IiSII hablat Functl0jS I lOw mammal habital -mode<aII! mammal habilal -high mammal halJiat poi!lS lOw blnllIaIllat -moderaIe ~ hablla! -high ~ habitat (max 15) Cultural! ~ bwe<lJcallOnal QPPO<IUnIlkis -moderate e<1JcaIIOnal oppoltUnilies -high e<:Iucalional ~nilles "J? bw a_ vakJe -modera1B /aesIt1etic vwe -high aesthetic vakJe Socloeco-X laCkS commercialflshe"e .. -moderate commerdal Isnelies. -high oommerciailisheOes, nomic X agrlCullUre, rooewaIlIe resources agr1cullUre, renewaIlIe resources agr1culture, nenewa/je resources lacks hIsloo1cat or ate/1eoIOgIcaJ -hlStorbll 0< archeoi0gicai sIe -Important historical 01' an:neobglcal yJ8SOUltlllS , -some passive and aaIve ske _ laCkS passive .,,,factive reaeaIIonal opponunlles -many passive and adIve * recreallonal opponunilies -prfvaIefy ov.ned, sOme pubic recreatIOnal opponunlles pdvaI:eIyowned ao:ess -unreso1cted public access _ not nea' open space' , -some oonnecaon to open space -dIreaIy oonneaed 10 open space points 7 {max 21) Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Perfonnance Assessment 'etland *, ___ --.!./-I...!..-_______ Staff ::J 0 M Date '1--1 t1f.I d .s ~ ocation S T R Criteria Function Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2pts Group 3 3pts Floodl .t< Sile < 5 aaes K siZe 5-10 aaes -siZe > 10 aaes Storm Water _ _ orlakBst1ore weiland mid-sIoped'Ml1land -depc essiOIlS, headwal9IS, Ilogs,IIats K < 10 '"' I:lroSed ~ -10 -30 '"' _00 00 .... -> 30 '"' _00 00 .... Control f \IIlCOOS8'3I'le 0U1IeI -semK:onstrai'IOO 0U1IeI -cuIveMlermed 0U1IeI bcaIed n _113 ot IIle cr.mage -located n mIdcIe 113 Oftne aanaqo -lOcaIoo n uwer 113 of Ihe aanage roots..b. (max 15) Base Flowl £ Sile < 5 """,s -stze 5-1 0 acres -siZe > 10 acres Ground Water __ orlal<eshore wetland A mid-sloped wetland -depressions, f1eadwalers, Ilogs,IIats .2( IOca!ed n _113 ot IIle cr.mage -lOcaIed n middle 113 otllle aanage -lOcaIoo n uwar 113 Of Ihe <T.*1age Support ...!i IIImpOCaIy IIooded or saruraloo -seasonalyor semi-pflrmanently _ pennanenlly IIooded or sabJraIed, or IIooOed or_oo .;( ntemlillendy exposed roots}) -no 1Iow-_ Ish populations -lOw lIow-sensi1lve Ish popu1a11onS. high IIow-sensItiYe populalfons on-site ordOWnS1l"eanl on-sile or downstream ~us WillI site In hI!;C1Iy (max 15) penneable 5IIata Erosionl -spaIS<l gas:s.hertlS or no veg abng -sparse wood orveg abng OHWM -dense wood or vag abng OHWM OHWM -wet1and ""'endS 30 -60 m !rom Shoreline weiland exlendS < 30 m from OHWM wetland ""'endS > 200 m from --protectl~ OHWM -rT10defmety develOped shoreline or OHWM -highly de\'IlIOped shonl6ne or subcatdVnenl -undevebped shoreline or , points A suIx:aI::fYnert subcatdVnenl I (max 9) ;,1 Water Quality -rapid !low through site -moderate !low Ihrough site :!-slOw IIow Ihrough Site -< 50 '"' V9Q cover -50 -60 '"' 00 .... ~ > 80 '"' vag oover Improvement -ul>'lJ8am n bas*! from _and is -s 50% of bas*! upstream from > 50% of bas*! upstream from roots 19 X ~ wedandisdeYBbped W81Iand is devetope<l holds < 2S '"' overland runoff -hoIcIs 2S -50 % 0_ runoft -holds > 50 % overland runoff (max 12) UA = Not Applicable, Nil = No If1foonaifOn available Jominant Vegetation: Wildlife: P/-f Iff .. , 'C 11.1 I~ ~r Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Natural i4Z SIZe < 5 acnIS ; -SIZe 5 -10 aCI1IS -SIZe ,. 10 aCI1IS II Biological ~. 89land.low>eg~ -2_>eg -high vag SIIUcIle . seasonal surface _ -pe<manenI surface wale< -open warer IlOOIS IhrtIu1t summer Support .~~ -two haIlitaIlypes -i!: 3 habtat!MJes -PASPOW PSSPFOEST PAS POW PeA PSS PFO EST PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST )5,.. Iow~anl vel$lly« 6 spedes) -mO<lenlIll plait <iveIsiIy (T -15 -high plan! dversly ~ 15 $pedes) .. species) -< 10% invasive SIledes -> 50 'Mo i1Yasive species i 1010 50 'If! ilvasive o;pedeS -high potma,y PI"O<Iuatvty -)5. low prtmary producI/ViIy modetal8 prImaIy ~Iy -high organic accurt1Ua!Ion 1ow0lya1iC accumutal10n -moder.II8 ~Ic accurootaIIOn -high 0Iganfc 8lqlOtt ...x low 0flIaIIIc 8lCpOIt --low 0flIaIIIc e>pOot -many habla reM.veS ~ lew haIlitaI rearures -some habIIal lealUreS -buIIe!s not !isttJbea bullels very dslurbed -buft'erS ~ dslurbed -weI tonnecIed 10 upland habtaas PoilIS ,{ IsoIaIed from upland habilalS -panIaIy conneaed 10 upland (max 36) haIli!ars - Overall 7( SIZe < 5 aCI1IS -SIZe 5-10 acres -SIZe > 10 aCI1IS . ~ low halliat Clversily mO<lenllll halllat <iveIsiIy high hallilat dlvelSly Habitat --low sancIUaIY or refUge -mO<lenIIIl sanauary or refUge -high sanauaryor raNge Functions PoilIS..1 (max 9) Specific -f. low nvenet:faI8 habolal -moderaIe InveIIeIlraIe IlaIlhI -high in'teIIebrate hatial Habitat low amphIlIan hablat -mO<lenIIIl ampl1tlian habl:at -high aml11i1Jian haIlIaI A low ISh habftaI -moderaIIIlIsh haIlIaI -high IIsh hablat Functions )( Iowmarnmal habolat -mO<lenIIIl mammal hablat -high mammal haIlIat PoilIS...z ¥-low bini halllat -moderaIe bini habl:al -high bini habilal (max 15) Cultural' Z low eOJcaIIonal oJlPOl\Unilies -moderaIe edJcational oppof\Ul1i1ies -high educational ClP1JOfQJnilieS Socloeco-2 low aesthetic value -mO<lenIIIllaeSll1etIC Value -high aestnetiC valUe lacks commercial ristleries. -moderate commerdallsher1eS. -high commerdallisherles, nomic A ag1cullure. renewable resources agrictJllunl. ~ resouroes agricullUre. renewable resouroes lacks h/sIOf1CaI or 8IdleologiCal -hlstor1cal or artheoIogicaI sIl8 -!mponart hlslortcal or an:heologlcal C IlI9JUR:eS -some passMI and aaive sIl8 lacks passive and active reaeadOOal OIlIJOfIUnilies -many passIw! and aor.e t. recreallonal opponunilies -privaIety owned, sOme PUDtlc _ reaeational opponunilies pdvaI8Iy ovmed aa:ess -unresoiaed public aa:ess -y na near open space -some cor. oeaIa1lO open space -direaIy connected 10 open space PoilIS..l (max 21) Notes: ~"P-5ff PM c rr CONfVcrrq; TO !V'A't CI( VJ7I !2rrC/I