Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA97-192
© CITY OF RENTON �' Planning/Building/Public Works ,• "" =-= 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 0 ` `9 '3 g v) F-. ' JAI 2 19 8 . -f.4s'A u 2 9 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED °A 4 2 2 .3 U _ 1 -PI IlliefEt. SEA VA * 71564;,4 U.S. POSTAr' * / 91- 19Z TASCA JAMES G 221 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA 98055 ,,-„ I ,Sty"+iGItN1 -�:- ' b��/ t �'�'�} , NY° 9 2 MESS �,,,",,1 D ,1 iiETU1 ;r TO SENDER ` Wd�� c►: i,� � IltittittltilttttitltdatttltltttillttititlttiGttiltttttll,l I ,00 *1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control , flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. V ' GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles'of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR . ' AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP) - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing toMerk R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, • _ Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 24,1998. This • . .. ,. .matter is also scheduled fora public hearing•on January 27,1998 at 9t00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.Sputti:':lf',you are interested inattending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to'ensure that the'hearing.has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing'and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE•THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 Brig© . . Boeingb, (Agar Boeing ,o / •..' :ce., ;&ZI y,., Complex s, #? ft a Hangars S 01 ,,r,;Flenlon'v,, EMunicipal ,s.Booing `Airportax6 edame m . - V.:;', .,Vi - NN D , i: . . .... 1 1 rLS Ca zi'",,,,,, of 'w' . Ha. , .. 0 V ., GENMALOT.DOC y Disposal i © CITY OF RENTON ..IL Planning/Building/Public Works s t '., ". ; / Cg 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 a v, JAM A 8 or,.�e .}� fr, wr y` l Or/ Vff ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0 F� • 9 E • F 0is4 ;i, 41 Tn,F 41412 A.TTALAH SAMIR 344 RENTON AVE S ` ` RENTON WA 98055 • CELI',':RASLE , __Y cat/ S ADDRCSSED ��"` 1nvr a -a NApEE n FORNac�D -- O Wd CO RETUfsN TO SENDER e-1%- (V10.a v:3/.�.b'S �1 1 1lfi11lidillinil1l11l1i11ili'lii'l'i1I1i111 { 1ll11illiii11Il11{ • 6ti(Y O v't) ♦ AR + 142/,Nr REVISED NOTICE. OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 23, 1998 • • Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The , f'[lowing briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. THIS REVISED NOTICE REFLECTS A iHANGE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. ROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM /'CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING, . DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. ,The project will also include levees and/or walls to control Iooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of he dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the mpact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the , Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR . FAVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) UBLIC APPROVALS: Special/Fill and Grade Permit(SP) _.'•Shoreline;Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application must'be submitted In writing to Marl(R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South..Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 09.1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on February 10.1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor . Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 . ' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997(REVISED JANUARY 23,1998) • Ci!�:/;"!7 o Q v" •sR' Complex O Ha Nat}Yi% e c1;�.1iTh c pR,y ,,i .'a.. :�,5{i��'P0M'•,1' _ 9i -.S..c _..;'�e�' 1r' vlc.. _.a'`�.,)s. .iii:., Ji'r,y:F,:i}' :i';i;:14.a .,� �I:±� t ...1.. iC' ,. ,! ,... ia :�= . ._. :'s ' " 3� y o pc� Disposal 'y',, GENMALOT.DOC ' a a CITY OF RENTON f. tielL Planning/Building/Public Works / „ ,,(4'- •4 ''st,)),.....;.-4.:z..r_ _,7a Ill $1 VIM% — 0, (..3. JO 2 19g gi5=4 a - 0 2 9 5 *200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 w .: ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED - - * t .-- zz -is- c i-? si tirEl) ill'ip igif : Lf / I • \' EIGHT SIXTY BUILDING L P 114/1/ 9 n -4..! /„ c 950 WEST PERIMETER ROAD `1 Le ./990 ‘j., • RENTON WA 98055'--- 'Vine .----tz• Ail- ) , : rD , .:-. L1 .1._of-i--------- • : : „i „:-;.,tii-i:- i ii5:-I.,•f• i 4 i i i i ii _ ---------. ------- ,..,_-__f AlabREy bi "1 lir ' "'''''" ' ' -'5 'c.-k.'2m'i,.---i -11.1..iitimhizimiiiiiii , N KAI 0'Al r'' ,..,.> 14 d c,, •Biihr.S.STS/4.1 ivs 6��Y 0� ♦ + NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events.. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate.for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fjli and Grade Permit(SP) Shoreline Substantial.Development Permit(SM) _ 1 Comments on the above application must-be:submitted in writing to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division-200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA=98055,by 5:00 PM on January 24,1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on'`January 27,1998 at 9:00'AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave:;South.'If you interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,,toensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. • I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ' DECEMBER 23,1997 • Budge 3oeingnl B . o *41\ Y1);K•A•iu Boeing a t g?'r LF. � Complex s, Flangars; "i'F .. N: 6th Si . "1: r biunici al „'IS:'Boeino. L ,. :,. ._ rie`Airpbftq;• ,,....., N: .,,i .. .. .� .. � .. _ 3o-72•('%�'.�,... '2=D:.:d ,, ir�;t?Jt.. .Cl� P1L'i: �. .... -. !}',.;,�.. e,`%r•:�1`..t... '.�j i2' �cr`i'2 itcP'yj(`' 1G -'11 ui p 1.`•.?V •A+ ;tf(' Li�•l\;ij0" ...._- ;Cr.•. »1 ';, ���,.. _. ill._ �S1'.:;1...? �.;_' _,• ,i,y� ..,.._.., 7.1. :1%. ; tea . Hal Leo GENMALOT.DOC Disposal �% d 0 CITY OF RENTON .,,,, •,• , .,,,. _., • _ ... •..._______ sell Planning/Building/Public Works '••.,,,..•'-;:z; , 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton,Washington 98055 cr E, 0 JAN 2 3'9 8 • c04,4ji iA — U co 1--- 1.1.1 Cr: ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ett A"52. 4 -5`8 - "8 -P"kill' StE --,-,-;1-- , z-r,,'el F.;':•-•l;.1). z ‘,.,jij rr-,,,,--_:::,:,:':,...:,:;,.,::-.: .;:sleoJz TASCA JAMES G ,..:.....6- 221 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA 98055 I -"-c--;z---j.:7"%.,,, NOT DELI VERABLE - AS ADDRESSED ..,,_,) co UNABLE TO FORWARD ,--- I al I iti d iiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiillifidiliimiiiiiiillii RETURN TO SENDER 41-.;i7sSC)!:, ,i,i VC; „.,._ "-'' •IliliiiiiiillnitilIfitifitliiit -,. - ---• _/ -31 1. .. •_.„ - C,�TY p, ♦ ♦ - REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION - PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 23, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The Hollowing briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. THIS REVISED NOTICE REFLECTS A CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of he dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland. to mitigate for the impact on the river. ENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the edar River. TUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) (PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP-) Shoreline Substantiaf Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application,rnust besabmitted;in writing•to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill-Avenue;South,Renton,WA'98055,by 5:00 PM on February 09.1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing'on February 10,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South: If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 'PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997(REVISED JANUARY 23,1998) 61.40, . . ta;;���;j: ' morn 4`�?,w:j�.IA Complex u I? .. �,ien1Q4' . ?g5unicipat;.} s.0.41.9 fa�i..x .A., _ <. .., ...1 c;',• .*ei t;z F•g g tr• "`FJ i -,:�t�' _ ....C.::'. _. . . , . ._., Hat X Disposal fir,• GENMALOT.DOC 6 0 CITY OF RENTON . ma Planning/Building/Public Works , • •• /,-,-w -4' V;44,0 44 1,:, „.. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 JAll.21'9 8 W..feirTr:ta.:;.3 . Z 0 2.9 A * * cc rt-: PB ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 11. IT- Pr •j a--s‘ ' - ..:::'7:7:1'5 0:41,4- - U_,S,...P_OS T A G tl\ •••(, 'J ',-,'7. . ':If ' •V. -'',1 ' i JAN 3 0 i998 7.7 CITY OF RENTON .,:_..._ Engineering Dept ATTALAH SAMIR 344 RENTON AVE S •-.17:',-;,(,i ., :.,. :... c ::.;. '''. ..1—..:,:.!:,;':: N— RE TON WA 98055 g AS 6) NOT DELI VERABL E - ,e- ..-,—,,..ar.1 NVP LZ . c.,•!_.- c3 .4 P . . UNABLE TO FORW C ARD ------7---I cr) VI d e-,) RETURN TO SENDER 47 1.1-10.- 1 •31ht-_,,sr.,/2.%.4Bea. . iiIiiiiiiill.ifilithilittilliimIllilliidnilitillncliiiii ___..../ • • • (1 'Nrc NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application,must.be submitted in writing to;Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division;200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 24,1998. This_ matter matter is also scheduled for a public;hearing on January 27,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor . Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 Boeing Blidg©iV nt t `4. ��a; 22i__ Boeing it.0:tic4--�• Complex Q - "e.':01-n•,.. ::•i:ci:• I N:Eth St. yi R'ntop V - . • ,;hlu614dr;, 's.Boeing ' %Airport s End e , N i - a- ' k X rim '3 .. .R' _ _ :` C'ity� �o Hal 2o GENMALOT.DOC 0 y Disposal „ p CITY OF RENTON .AL Planning/Building/Public Works 4., F :q -4 :n f 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton,Washington 98055 0 JAN 2 3'9 8 1..�r n - 0 .2 9 5 *. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED . _ °C Cr �s 6 -+ 4 - -t Pad 1� 4* �. a 7AGE li • EIGHT SIXTY BUILDING L P 950 WEST PERIMETER ROAD RENTON WA 98055 RETURN .\-\Se44 TO �a"�'A ITER -_. of Pry L ADDRE-SS UN /ND N >-�1 � = Battss/21,,a•3 I;iti?Fi!4E1liiEilei9SStlmhi!:aiii:Ul?ff 3E:1i?:ii-FSIi( Gti( Y 0 ♦ ♦ REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . DATE: JANUARY 23, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals: THIS REVISED NOTICE REFLECTS A CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. • PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM I CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING . DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control f ooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of tie dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the (Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) • PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade'Permit(SP) Shoreline SubstantialDeve.lopment Permit(SM) , domments on the above application must besubmitted;in writing to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, evelopment Services Division,.200 Mill Avenue South,,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 09.1998. This matter is also scheduled fora public,hearing on February 10.1998 at9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending,the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. `(PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997(REVISED JANUARY 23,1998) 6oeingl,' ♦�k�f 1 ti"sii. PAi 147�77 -.6oefng °' - -.4 7:,b, ' Complex Q ..• 'ktlu si'eoa . ..,.. ,- .. - n-.0.. . ei't`I i�i:''• ,:ri ..J�i • .. •i:i gi'^•tsn',.'::1' ., ' 1.1.".'tl'-S3, .';., ,.—'- .. :b' ..•i,, ',_. `lam; • ob' ,.�:' ...,..; ..., .., /Cry. .e4`;. p . . Disposal ye,, . GENMALOT.DOC '1 SE7 51. l LW ! V ---__----__—__1 I.- bf r.h:r�fir ALi 1419L2i --'� �� -__ _-- . �• •bv y° --_-_-- PORT QUENDALL SITE N?:,51 e•■e E, �■t)�i-::,� ;o i ;tf,anuq� =!Ii' ... '•-�•r�., trr•• 1 11• `Ktwi--'__-:-_-_-_-_-_-(ALTERNATE DISPOSAL) V ;'a■ = �....i„�, '` t_..fir ►.; I w 9m f>D__Ei.i 8 ..• ..eL.�p 4 ..t sir erl l.J�.; �araw:a.■a owM11191 ►r.;z : :=-,''' ___________________==__==_-_ sue. w� �lMf N©�■I�E��i S1 ___ - ______-____=-__--_____ n.3a ;him 7,o .a�1�_s war I. : al r4 =__- -------- _ -_? ::C.���..eea- �►F�wYYY_YYY_�.Iw►. �.A �l,� _ Mal Ia�:YYYYYr .Iw�-. Ind S•111'. 0%F ..■.r■\: +1 peueul- v--• r\tea /i2b:04 ____ ______ _________________ '■••'°- :am.: ■ ■az zinc . .e J I xitohm ■1.1��InI • ___ ..:a ____ ________________________ ____ _-__ %?an��. :am. >7 1+�tj-y;.II■ YB■Ia tea... /.����llj ��;IJ►\\l\_ 1p _—__ I'___________________-___-___ '4` l.mmun.E:pFoau • '; IrblEA iii•l•dl'L. �iA e.rA, v•.y%`A -_:ij:___ _____________________________ :n n::::::::::::::" Z.•Ii� : r uniil _,,•,7@ 61' :tA9Iiil. '4` 1,"'.w• I■1 F =: I l _________________ — -- o g _— -- - �`^�,1 1 14 ^:?:;:e;.� jai..► J� IIWu. , ___'1_1ti=_--_-____----_____'--_-'f14= • :: ••,•zi":m..n r 4 rmitvi.''� ♦ �•■IIIw PU r* � 1u.:•,11■■1 ___ ______-_ _________-`Tram. ax.lam. �� ishiih177... , t-':i r -••.. .. ip, 11 to ____________________________________ _________________________________ ii+IFS:IIE:I.Ltt-ii u '` i - .rr- __ ___ _______________ ______________ �. '"i qt�:71;,��;ilf �'j•".'�' ••'•ee.yrn. . 'Ind ' r7.1.11.3.2tvra ____=_-'__________--___--=-_____-_=__-___=- I•► ., I� Y���rrj,;, rill:, :7 ._�/,"..: • =_ __-____—_-_ _ ___--_____________-_ .i•p i���Y_ .:;=:c.•,r,,,, :ltE7]f111:7 i•o`+o�iE r ------------------ --------------- =_ • Ei ql '^itimv%_ 1770 Erg /`,►�;F�is =lrr....r.°..... �.w■Wl:.: �....IF: - f+''�'ILl-:..�;:•1 i1'� 1 11- �... =____=- _________=__---=-==== -=--====-===-_ / ■u °'� 3 a 11I�_ ::a g. �a� :'_ 1■� _ _ _ _� C ��''rp; _____________-______________________ _ _____ _ �'itili. E` ,.Chi'�nr�IIIIFCI, �� �:j■�' 1■i1�,i�::ii?� ill Eli --4-.-,:,:...-:::.--:::_:::::_::::-•_:-:::_:-.:::;::::::_f_f_f_f_:::::::::::::::::::::_:-::::::::::_:::::::4 mil 1 13112,%),•1 F:i..i4i....1;w,%v.rim lifintitiar.vit \., eimi I ! � ®J❑snx � ._ _'' " . , , .��gl1 � = .aa : Mul \p L 0g.u n ° m a_ : u■w.uiuE p �_ I �.71 1 5,71::'. -,-Pislits:inftey. �.'.. I ` 2 i.-7 '�t.iikl' ©� _ ,--_ a�. •.1111"1_—•• _=....I z I \lk_,/�...,,,:1 -i= �mg g.... •l:ilaiinrr- Z111 ®m •3 -=JIYFIIin � z dl • ' fag :,::; �■■®��4iaau.<+•,� �I41�II�k7!'1- . 1- .,I • �Ipj ,'i �'; ��i�w .••�:• _ In:i'_' ®Q,rr?,'i ...Illlllq il�•`� �� :E:_°JI Ali ::iu,uri.•',r.�il�s. la.unsog.rp, ` - =_. !MI.- l::'.Inn,B i % x Q,b 51. . ' N.6TH ST. • •-F�\ Y• ...., __=s" c • 1 7 ula:-.:��•—i..��luer;r` _ _ _YI I �,�,,• i.,., _ _• �-_ •.C J��171[5f1e'� \ , - -1111.►i .1.t. ®�®-I: •�"=.1„ ,u- :!ilia ,11■_i ■© ` 0 -: r l'` r YIN, . ♦• .:-. `al O _c___ > _♦ 1\ a ,,.l ' .•- c i gig., Nu C r •r`,11 r1•� .: x{th St. I••` i�.i R I11'. ®; ,111!!1•_ -�j,ali C3 ,� ✓ N.4TH ST." Kumar• won! ;' ' �r��1��© ww. 0111111101,r ■■ 1' ;�`� '4i , ,• -.._g — and ' Ate t `_ • ®7��iI■�`•+f ���La.,a' ,, I,.,e�__' e.x.i��l-�;'_',1'y,I L= ,�C ��� ;�� xE tna si I I �� Ih "4 I i■■I sIII�npI..;L 4.I AIRPORT WAY •S.. 1 ®!.." '�J!............. .S 701:1011111101 iLt........144.0.0.1.1g:,:" --ii„. -.14. (•;..5.0,64, #IMM1 lint MN ttfISAff �, `•`/I'".. q��•iu.:a'W�t' i�i mil, 1`\ie\1 �0ryq 1i ‘ Milk'rtfi-.P. •i`� a^..r V 0.71 .ftci■la II•:.. �;s41 '�j-i.. 4,,,, Opr .,. J f 4 "• `wiztl No/ii�.;-=:_I vie-4...-ill fflim II y^,'_ ---_,_ . ,<,„ _1.2 sw L��' ��`.a 0 S,4111 ,.,•W_ _ _.. fri. - Ilr gi ,r,._„...,_, , ti ..°A.V.• (DISPOSAL). 0°. '..ip.�'.......... ......,,,....., ■ It ` �,'''� Cw cal ._-I -/"1'n< ,„, ..... '^ 4:::, .....I .... I � . Clell i-7L-- ct,��,n,,,��i„ ` ••t ', Cn. z:.m„ wi. moll CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES `• • I I I AI!__ ,I'1 `••� ,Jpf„IT `I'J.-•,\s..r. .a,_ •y :�1 I ! I s. a., BEACH I KENNY■ E �IrEQlr@! ..' M = .r: 1w.+.[,•," 1" �. ll I m, Y I I 1""i; ..\ grRd7S1� his, f.• ,..-� '"' }P 1,., Y' �j. . 4 1 Lake ,,.;��.' , g 1 "1 f' I \ r rnl•L " Y .. ■ N..4 •♦ .r V. d gYii NI B19i „, Y v I 1 i_:: I T t[71 Id't`:. r •i, 1 �_ ii ', .. 1 .;,. ", ; i Was h i n i t/�n 1 . - All c rd" >c stilt 41 . .. . r i��'��'I �.11‘ Su" 9� Il 4'r i i='' �, If:.4 Y1I:w `\C. `t4Y I It!iim.f�r.!1 ,u.l, i ���Y (r'� `7 — —I 1 — J z I I ILL 4 Ste.• — . ,....:2, ...„.r. titiida 1 .• •st,. z * 1 X °Mr a 4 1''' -'''''' ' Z.'s:01'H L.,. — :: . , ,51•••.1 . ......,,,rzsit . 1.1,07.,„,/, plio;i,i .11.....ii . ...:---- : "rg.' t 4. 11,' MT' 6111. I \ j ‘Ir -"-ATari=1,6''' IV '," •' i rim"- ) ,Will ,- ,,,:t.., .A. ,,,,,, Rita! " 'IC IRRIMMIRL 1 X ' •"-.... 1 I/ " ' . r[1:21s. Piirt-41'''44 ' ril- r ,;E,r — ips — •"I '3•�+Ti` —1�rawer" - \\7 �[/�`. M �YJ.�.,. N .� � ► : a e^ wimi __..._.—i'a.h�.lo•n I? .1173 •.,'. 1:•r {I �.l \ 'hl 1 .ii � L7� s n illt.■n1�W• 14s �s i�� IIfSlI4J I • 0 d. `` +nN s ra w•._�Y ��+::• •• .11©aIIL'. vll=rr. a %",'I, IT II1,, �' Wfilt t ,i ;YN . y. J .k�� •�'l.., m tl.v� 1w h , tl ors RMa�.� r r� �a�t9Oe ��i�ct�� k.lt i-\ I ����l�1`�i � �'I4e��� �ul, { ,Td"'�� � �i'rt � II !f 1. r / I.JI, l"'" �..' £', `i ._ Ifetliiirr.,j'.2; tart .A':`s.\:fF:.'.::.:a,nwi,F,-$.,..-- -1 -- ST '..F•.S 1•_ • I�il�s ' ,, - __ t[ ItITx dm'_ ,,,sr 11I��•:9' r•®_� ,:•y i ,I" O ;:q i • r .wY."I.0 a.raar'• y! n,11 y� ram. ,:"o' r fM t� c�«7!1n[� m\ !,g} a�1� kj y J I I NW IS. � j( W, r PJ - r (I,• ltl�c�. \ IRJ1 ;r p..n I11 Y' � y,�( 3' y rH lw i `7: 1 !1I 1.11 >F: 8, _. z Y—S —h3 I � �� ~�i14:1 '�'r.n�tt k' ^r�"'�'��` ,.. -- I -,„km,.."; . • a 111 ie1� „ IItal.frlr+ � �,/ •c�.• :;.;,.b_ N k�^r 1R: `'• _ I i----- 1.,W5�k 1 Yl.,w=i-- y •. "IRIVEtr •�' EARL'•GT —aC�' y' �R ��� II��rF f + �•• .9r •Illf�il " • • 1w� �• .,n•CS'�1j°.;t ! sJnn• rrt V 1i!� �, s`•+yJ�,rf g." a TrH�li�ipllq�i■�a'".�{�I(•,, /y) i®■` �. � . ,I `i• ' ,•:••.: I /I}'�'� .'`� a`.J ▪ JIIl ece 11 I ak ,fi kit:! 4, `� '2:1k SI }ail�.;:r� ':•tt. ,-;k1 •''L A.4.1ji (• g1• ,� 14•• , L �t?..:' (f��l' nl• ::° it 4 � 1 4 'r!:' ` s4>• • e I•I .- 1 W2!6 0 II -;I ti{Sy=% 4\y*-` q; 1 ' ' '91' "r.;.;'S,i4,. ;J I' iii iii G�G`1 t I ,.,m C a ''� I REj��ON K,x = • 1h7A. ' ?IP' r. \\ yr„ lit �R !', u. ` `. �\,� I !i .,:,,ir1:l:; .,.. .L•, OOD V4rie . ....so:I!!'","••:-"i.e --• "•-v ,,',,•• t,i ' ' 1 , ' l• ' 1‘ . Al Iiiit'V'' s".— rc4A,V.T.,(-, .-.%-,- N---- , .J!. :r7c1�1 :�i 7IR7� NI ..a��1 ItAtt�" .�11 ` •j i 11 O N �' �: d� 11� `3�r.z E N41.7,....,,...t.,4 � s� : : '� /,1. •I.. L!�,� I ti� �+ — J w9r". FAIRWO�Dll�_ p!' ll Y apt I••."• :1 c Et a ' '•(.•_., .iY\.'.e Imo•.,{7' 1 eG I=lii sA"Ylw°�t i1GC Iw,.n i i {I ,t�':> is o .o..}t;i-- �+ —u■_I r • F i lii =c,• 5� „n Rt• 1, -. a r•.Yi :6dlS'}�� ' .I _ _.... - �� -;,•.cif ' - , 0{-'r._ ,xI�cI `••ts I "4 � QF* .! ", "v r%' I - m , ��•�(r'�,.! u7.. iit r Y S, i. ...v! 2„Nw•y t air1Y i.:‘,..,.: . • ... ,, • P,iA,}F7r;.;''' �} �.N I sm ,l. E •wNu •� ce:..7firkitir. tI -,4i p• .gn lyl_ st E 1R{!- e. AS?a. • I' G!``)..•�I DF C:r .�4?;1":'7' I' } Y �e• :,�f671!. x'f"". ♦.9� t [,..5. `.1�''�'„ -` i ']]qq `I l� v 1 3'x 1 I 1 i lrF@� „�ama,�J ,'ifs'.. *•` • `-?7.: -� R.�_i •� t.i C i I ' I +.. LLY��E" ' l'I"" .I„-' •�t'' r♦ y;r.. ,.. ® i ..V,so,r ' rJ \ 1 e `� r'11• A,:j'% -., !/I —_ _ — _ r �, s cant_ �i � '"`d,: .sk'',X�° -- :9' y l/ ' s 3 i I >. 7P�, jar - � ...N-�-- +. -- N.urw E :.J--.•'A7 )fir.;/ t J. I rn ,,.. i r.s I 1 I bf Y Y • rn. ...,i\'� >• 1F;1i Ij is`„ ..1:� 1! I -� i i•i y' ..�. Q'4y ...... 't�77� 'Mil .id. i 1 / vnwln 1av1 I • Y ■ 1 t -.. S.'S4 :, Tinq I IA ^ } °w°.`iwi •i i ,3,�• a : I L Yu^..I s, +v. if t� - �0. I1 > ye':�I'u..;t,.•C '(FL r' ) Y i!� _ �r • Y n ,yf a i .:4,..•` . '•, ('}, el:. kl:Vs_• �•:1,.• 1` Fr.. f '..... ,.rye r i... • :;' �1•.. 1'• •ry 36•�o. a:.--Li.: • �..yr'_q- ::•'TI - 320 'I..w T .t fir' •it 's - -y .i .l�.. i�s�'b,. �r{�',.I �,Y1 0. �r' 41 "`'t, I Not"..in I., .�:.;y ..• ill - :Y: 'p I•,�,1 RTrJ 1 '. N�ir IT11/i„�tx - • N . rNili�:c ,�,lyr�j. .N t yINxY� i •••K•'�'').:•I''71yy1.��: 1''•ii:. ' Inn, >s 1 a : '>, }rr�i;,�• lFU .IjI -:F-• `.}.`'r Y �• ' ^ <■ IT S,ti `� y1 •t . .,im • ..� :x.t9/. 1�:1:••nT .•a,7';', ! a ✓tiA�,/� :... i •" I. r :?;,,. Y.... • .kJ Y� y "f I tJ°° '•i�� se .r x r tt 11 I t:'4 � F'° V6.) N Y,lune s i N R g • .A I `� 1 „'i�2 . 4. l:,' imk..lF�• I N M N IMl 1jL,r�la 'T r I Ems■ /':' 'i. •' .w:rr• ;•!• ••.I �.:MI 1111 I H: to- ,.4;' s. •r.L►m II-� t y. L. t ��.+.•i• � ,r:�, `` S .:li••'ri '.i, •� '..f i . rr •II' 5 1C1 x ^txry• = ° ha_, iiiii tt�i. rrr.N ' u Sri r[ rlxl41r', ti Gr: S• .■• .mil n uu �'- .. A... BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 7:00 p.m. Renton Municipal Building Thursday, May 7, 1998. City Council Chambers AGENDA cF�oo Op N7'p `ION 0 R�'Vr°'/t(/ilic 1. CALL TO ORDER: � 194 2. REQUESTED ACTION: ®1/ (® A. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, City of Renton - Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, Cedar River from Logan Avenue to Lake Washington,Narco Site (adjacent to the Cedar River just upstream of I-405) - applicant requests a noise variance for dredging and levee construction. B. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, King County - Bryn Mawr System ImprovementBoeing Interceptor, Cedar River Trail Park from Logan to Lake Washington and N 6th Street - applicant requests a noise variance to construct'a sanitary sewer line for King County and storm drain for The Boeing Company. C. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, W.S.D.O.T. - Bridge Painting SR-169 and SR-900, applicant requests a noise variance to clean and paint the structural steel portion of(2)bridges. D. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, W.S.D.O.T. - SR-167 84th Ave S to S Grady Way Culvert Construction - applicant requests a noise variance to construct a new cross culvert which will require pipe ramming. 3. ADJOURNMENT: sp - q1 - Ig2, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 7:00 p.m. Renton Municipal Building Thursday, May 7, 1998 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: Jim Hanson, Chairman Larry Meckling, Building Official Dave Christensen, Utility Systems Jim Gray, Fire Prevention Dennis Gerber, Police Dept. Mickie Flanagan, Recording Secretary VISITORS: Ron Straka, City of Renton Utility Engineering Supervisor Ross Hathaway,City of Renton, Project Manager Bruce Farrar, WSDOT Manny Quintero, WSDOT Ray Schug, WSDOT David Schor, WSDOT Dave Lindberg, WSDOT Rick Andrews Vickie Sironen Glenn Reynolds Beverly Franklin Ira Franklin MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and introduced the Board members. 2. REQUESTED ACTION: A. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, City of Renton - Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, Cedar River from Logan Avenue to Lake Washington,Narco Site (adjacent to the Cedar River,just upstream of I-405) - applicant requests a noise variance for dredging and levee construction. Request: The City of Renton Surface Water Utility, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is requesting that the Board grant a noise variance to allow for 24-hours per day construction for this project, including the daytime use of a pile driver. This project will include dredging and levee construction along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington. The Surface Water Utility is requesting a variance for sixty-three (63) days of continuous night dredge work and one hundred and twenty (120) days of continuous night levee construction and bridge modification work. b-1 of Public Works Minutes Page 2 Justification: Construction time is limited for this work due to a short period of time for construction within the Fisheries window for the Cedar River(June 15th to August 15th); because of the limited time for construction of the levees and bridge modifications prior to the next flood season; and to avoid production delays at the Boeing Renton Plant because of down-time for the South Boeing Bridge. Ron Straka,Utility Engineering Supervisor,and Ross Hathaway,Project Manager,City of Renton, 200 Mill Ave. S.,Renton WA 98055 gave a brief project description. Work to be done between Logan and Williams Avenues will be done in the day time only. If pile driving is needed for levee construction, it will be done during the day time only. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Elizabeth Hemingway, resides above the Narco site: In response to what the noise level in the evening would be; Ross Hathaway stated there would be dump trucks with back-up ambient sensitive beepers, as well as a bull dozer to shape the dredge pile. He further stated she could call the city if the noise becomes a problem for her. Marge Richter,300 Meadow Ave. N.,Renton WA Ms. Richter inquired as to what the dBA levels will be; will pile driving occur at Wells/Williams; and will dump trucks have mufflers? Ross Hathaway responded by stating that 84dBA is calculated at 50 feet/66 dBA at 400 feet; however,the Army Corps of Engineers is overseeing the project and will have an inspector on site at all times to monitor noise levels. If pile driving occurs, it will be done only during day-time hours from Logan Ave. downstream, primarily on the Airport side of the river. All dump trucks will be equipped with mufflers. Ira Franklin,537 Williams Ave. N.,Renton WA 98055 Mr. Franklin has a concern with haul truck noise and the chosen dump route. The applicant suggested ear plugs as a possible solution and that if the noise becomes unbearable, to give him a call. In response to whether the haul route could be changed to Airport Way/Rainier, away from the residential area, Mr. Hathaway stated they will look at this route possibility again. Beverly Franklin,535 Williams Ave.N.,Renton WA 98055 Mrs. Franklin is very much in favor of the dredging project and feels it should have occurred long ago. However, she is concerned about the 84 dBA noise level impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Hathaway explained that 84 dBA is only near the equipment and that the noise dissipates. If obstructions such as buildings,trees, etc., are present, it dissipates more quickly. Mrs. Franklin would like the city to look at another haul route in an area where businesses are closed, for night hauling. Ron Reynolds,55 Logan Ave. S.,Renton,WA 98055 Mr. Reynolds' home is between Airport Way and S. 2nd and he is concerned about the truck traffic. Mr. Hathaway is to provide a telephone list for Army Corps inspectors with 24-hr. numbers. In response to whether the Airport could be used as part of the haul route, staff commented the FAA would not approve. Boara of Public Works Minutes Page 3 Chairman Hanson reiterated typical conditions set for noise variances of this nature. If the noise should exceed acceptable levels, other mitigation measures will be taken. The following are answers to questions raised by Board members from the applicant: 1. The number of haul trips during evening hours will be approximately 14 trucks per hour for 30 days and then tapering off until completion(total of 63 days). 2. There will be 63 continuous dredge days and 120 continuous levee construction days included in this project. Under ideal conditions,the dredging could be done in 30 days;however, realistically they have planned for 65. 3. The applicant will consider a southerly haul route change to Airport Way/Rainier/3rd Avenue. 4. The dredge material is too coarse and porous to re-use in the levee construction. 5. The levee construction night time haul trips will average a maximum of 5 per hour; significantly less than the dredge hauling. 6. The Army Corps of Engineers is coordinating with Boeing and their shift changes to mitigate traffic impact. Fueling will be done during shift changes. 7. A street sweeper runs with the project for clean up of any spillage. 8. There will be water tight beds on the haul trucks. MOVED BY CHRISTENSEN,SECONDED BY GERBER to approve a variance to the Noise Ordinance as presented by the applicant;to include 63 days of night work for continuous dredging, and 120 days of night work for continuous levee construction and bridge modification. Work will begin on June 15, 1998. This approval is subject to Mitigation Measures A through G (attached as Exhibit 1); and to include an additional mitigation measure H) That a 24-hr. notification number be posted for residents to call in complaints or voice concerns. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Hanson advised that there is a 14-day appeal period provision for anyone wanting to file an Appeal on the Board's decision. The Appeal must be filed through the City Clerk's office. B. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, King County - Bryn Mawr System Improvement/Boeing Interceptor, Cedar River Trail Park from Logan to Lake Washington and N. 6th Street - applicant requests a noise variance to construct a sanitary sewer line for King County and storm drain for the Boeing Company. Request: The King County Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Treatment Division is requesting a variance to allow 24 hours per day of construction within the Cedar River Trail Park from Logan Avenue to Lake Washington and on N. 6th Street from Logan to the park. The project will construct a 36 inch sanitary sewer for King County and 24-54 inch storm drain for Boeing. • Board of Public Works Minutes Page 4 Justification: The County work is necessary to alleviate overflows into Lake Washington, and the Boeing project is necessary to alleviate flooding within the Renton Plant. The City of Renton has entered into an agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project. The construction time is limited for the work because of the short period of time for construction within the Fisheries window for the Cedar River(June 15 to August 15); because of the limited time for construction of the levees and bridge modifications prior to the next flood season, and to avoid production delays at the Boeing Renton Plant because of downtime for the modifications to the South Boeing Bridge. The aggressive schedule required by the Corps project has had a direct impact on the King County project. The King County and Boeing pipelines must be completed before work begins on the flood control dikes and levees. The City , has advised King County that work in the park must be done by early July. This will require 24-hour construction and multi-crew activity. Rick Andrews,Project Manager/King County Wastewater Treatment Division,821 Second Ave.,MS/130,Seattle WA 98104-1598 gave a presentation to the Board and offered a Hot Line No. of(206)684-1251. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Beverly Franklin,535 Williams Ave.N.,Renton WA 98055 Mrs.Franklin asked what the depth of the trench will be at N. 6th Ave., and south on Burnett; and stated that the Hearing Examiner has it in writing that there will be no night time work within 500 feet of a residential area. The applicant stated the trench will be 25 feet at the Interceptor and will be day time work for 4 days at this location. Mrs. Franklin has a concern with the pump noise and feels it will be a disruption to the residents. Ira Franklin,537 Williams Ave.N.,Renton WA 98055 Mr.Franklin is concerned with the traffic impacts to the neighborhood,especially with Boeing shift changes,and would like a re-routing of traffic in the residential areas. Following a brief discussion it was MOVED BY CHRISTENSEN, SECONDED BY MECKLING to approve a variance to the Noise Ordinance as presented by the applicant;to include 130 calendar days, back dated to March 16, 1998,for that portion of work within the Cedar River Park area,and a maximum of 10 days of night work within the N. 6th St.area. This approval is subject to Mitigation Measures A through G(attached as Exhibit 1); and to include an additional mitigation measure H) That a 24-hr. notification number be posted for residents to call in complaints or voice concerns. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Hanson advised that there is a 14-day appeal period provision for anyone wanting to file an Appeal on the Board's decision. The Appeal must be filed through the City Clerk's office. t Board of Public Works Minutes Page 5 C. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, W.S.D.O.T. - Bridge Painting SR-169 and SR-900, applicant requests a noise variance to clean and paint the structural steel portion of the Bronson Way North bridge. Request: The Washington State Department of Transportation is planning to clean and paint the structural steel portion of the Bronson Way North bridge over the Cedar River, located within Renton. They are requesting two 60 hour weekend night noise variances allowing the contractor to work between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., for a total of 10 days to complete the project. These nights will be interspersed throughout the contract. Justification: This request is being made because of traffic impacts to the area. There will be a one-lane closure on both sides of Bronson Way, at the bridge, as well as sidewalk closures. The containment device around the paint preparation area takes a substantial amount of time to put up and take down. Therefore,with the two weekend closures,the work can be done in a significantly shorter period of time. Dave Lindberg,WSDOT Acting Project Engineer,3241-118th Ave. SE, Bellevue WA 98005 gave a brief project description. Bruce Farrar,WSDOT Air Quality and Special Studies Program Manager, 15700 Dayton Ave.N.,MS/138,Seattle WA 98133 Mr. Farrar explained that the pressure washer will have a 90-95 dBA and the abrasive blaster will have an 85 dBA at 50 feet. The noise levels inside the nearby retirement home should be approximately 60-65 dBA. With a containment system for some of the equipment, it should be even less. Mr. Farrar said he would measure the dBA as soon as work begins. This work can occur any time from 6-1-99 to 9-30-99; however it will not occur during Renton River Days. Ray Schug,WSDOT,3241-118th Ave. SE,Bellevue WA 98005 Mr. Schug agreed to shield the equipment while being used to reduce the noise levels. He suggested canvas or possibly plywood. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None Following brief discussion,MOVED BY MECKLING,SECONDED BY CHRISTENSEN to approve a variance to the Noise Ordinance as presented by the applicant for two 60-hour weekend closures for a total of 10 days as requested, and to include two(2)additional Mitigation Measures,H)and I): H) That a 24-hour notification number be posted for residents to call in complaints or voice concerns; and I)that WSDOT will provide a containment device around the paint preparation area, (canvas or plywood was suggested). The following language was also added to Item G): If testing is above 52 dBA at onset of construction,that day time work would be considered by the Board as a possible mitigation in lieu of providing hotel accommodations. MOTION , CARRIED. Boara of Public Works Minutes Page 6 Chairman Hanson advised that there is a 14-day appeal period provision for anyone wanting to file an Appeal on the Board's decision. The Appeal must be filed through the City Clerk's office. D. PUBLIC MEETING - VARIANCE FROM NOISE ORDINANCE, W.S.D.O.T. - SR-167 84th Ave S to S Grady Way Culvert Construction - applicant requests a noise variance to construct a new cross culvert. Request: The Washington State Department of Transportation requests a 45 day nighttime noise variance for open cut construction or a 30 day nighttime noise variance for pipe ramming from the City of Renton Noise Ordinance, allowing the contractor to work between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. These nights will be interspersed throughout the contract. Construction will begin in the summer of 1998. Justification: This is a joint project between the state and the city. It will benefit the city in implementing our Comprehensive Plan to improve drainage conditions in the Renton valley area. WSDOT has determined with their Construction Office and Construction Traffic Control Section,that maintenance of daytime lane configurations will require some culvert construction work to be performed during nighttime or weekend hours. This project will improve wetland and drainage conditions in the SR-167 vicinity at SW 23rd St. Dave Schor,WSDOT, 15700 Dayton Ave.S.,Seattle WA 98133 Mr. Schor gave a brief description of the project,explaining that it will be advertised with alternative methods of construction. One method will be open cut construction requiring 45 work nights. The second method of construction will be pipe ramming,which is a trenchless technology that does not disturb traffic movements, and requires 30 work nights. There are two problems with this method which are: 1) Securing a qualified pipe ramming contractor who will bid on the project; and 2) if there is one,will they submit a reasonable bid? Bruce Farrar,WSDOT Air Quality& Special Studies Program Manager, 15700 S.Dayton Ave.,Seattle WA 98133 commented on the kind of noise to be expected above Shattuck Ave. Sheet pile drivers will be used at night if the open cut method is used and 100 dBA can be expected at 100 feet. The nearest residence is 1,000 feet away with an interior dBA of approximately 64. If the pipe ramming method is used,the dBA would not be subject to Ordinance levels of noise control. Manny Quintero,WSDOT, 15700 S.Dayton Ave.,Seattle WA 98133 explained there would be pumps running for water control during the night at the ramming receiving pit and opposite end. This work would be done at night. WSDOT hired a consultant who is a pioneer in this field and determined this method can be successfully done;however, WSDOT is only accepting pre- qualified bidders. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None Boar of Public Works Minutes Page 7 Following brief discussion, MOVED BY CHRISTENSEN,SECONDED BY GRAY,to approve a variance to the Noise Ordinance as presented by the applicants;to include 45 days of night work to construct a new SR 167 cross culvert and to improve wetland and drainage conditions. This approval is subject to Mitigation Measures A through G(attached as Exhibit 1); and also includes an additional mitigation measure H. H) That a 24-hr. notification number be posted for residents to call in complaints or voice concerns. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Hanson advised that there is a 14-day appeal period provision for anyone wanting to file an Appeal on the Board's decision. The Appeal must be filed through the City Clerk's office. 3. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Hanson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. , . Ids .. ' , Dredging up excuses. ... . . y ,''• King County talks about saving salmon—but joins in a 1 • :•,-; - a Renton dredging project that threatens Cedar, River ¢ F' runs.BY CHRIS CARREL 1,'.4 9' _ : • i s ; s ',A', 3+ x.. YF € r: s ' Farther up the Cedar:For chinook and sockeye,the last step's a killer. • . ' WHAT'S GOOD FOR RENTON isn't nee ',er."The mitigation is grossly inadequate." essarily good for salmon.Next week long- `. . overdue dredging will begin in the Cedar DREDGING MAY REDUCE sockeye spawn- River near the mouth of Lake Washington. • ing,which has increased in the lower channel This$8.5 million project will help control a in the last two years. More importantly, growing flood threat to downtown Renton— .though,it will likely benefit predators that but also create new problems for the Cedar's •.dine on juvenile salmon.Scientists suspect 'f fragile sockeye and chinook runs. :that trout,sculpin,and squawfish have con- On June 16,work crews will begin re-' tributed to the decline in Cedar River chinook moving tons of sediment and gravel from the and sockeye in recent years(though sockeye ' last 1.25 miles of the river,lowering its bed .,have bounced back somewhat).Because the by 4 feet.This,along with new levees and river channel was dug lower than Lake Wash- flood walls,will prevent floodwaters from •,ington,lake water backs up into the Cedar, overtopping the river bank and inundating t slowing its flow and the baby salmon's exit. the nearby Boeing plant,municipal air- "Where the water slows down it's easy pick • - port,•and downtown district. And it will ings,"says Warner.Dredging will boost the complete a drastic alteration of the Cedar's backwater effect.That means more baby • course that began.around 1912.The river sockeye and chinook(an endangered species .: originally flowed past Lake Washington .candidate)on the lake fish's menu. into the Green River.But Army Corps of En- The Army Corps of Engineers acknowl- gineers spokesperson Mary Martz says :edges that dredging will affect sockeye and sharp-eyed Seattle investors,hoping to build chinook and has earmarked $850,000 for • a freshwater port, finagled an artificial mitigation, including revegetation of thechannel through their Lake Washington .riverbanks and delta, construction of a tk. property.The port never materialized,but sockeye spawning channel in the lower the altered river remains. .Cedar, and additional,chinook and coho Unlike a naturally sloping riverbed,the habitat enhancement further upriver.The artificial waterway is flat and prone to sed- idea is to augment spawning and habitat iment build-up.Until 1982,says Martz,the upstream to balance increased losses to lower Cedar was periodically dredged.Since •.predators downstream."It's a good start," then,the channel has become choked with 'acknowledges Eric,Warner, "but it only. ' dirt and gravel-The Army Corps says the :covers a small percentage of the impacts." river is certain to overtop its banks in a fu- He points out that while more'than a mile • ture flood. 'of river habitat will be'dredged,only 700 feet ' • ti. All this would cause considerable pain to ,of chinook habitat will be created in the • c Boeing,whose 16,000 workers turn out$14 lower stretch of the river.Even as the dredg- billion worth of airplanes a year.,"They're .,.ing start looms„the.Muckleshoots have f trying to get out a plane a day,"says fish- ,,asked the state.Department of.Fish and y t eries biologist Eric Warner,who's followed Wildlife to require additional salmon-en- the project for the Muckleshoot Indian tribe: •hancing measures. ' .. "They make'em on one side of the river and'. , Council member McKenna doubts that fly'em out on another.[If it floods]they just. additional mitigation funding is available stack up."And so King County,Renton,and and,with predation solutions so uncertain, ' Boeing are each pitching in$1 million for •.that fisheries scientists could use it effec- �• the project,while the corps picks up the rest. tively anyway.For now,the Army Corps is County Council member Rob McKenna, •on wait-and-see mode, pending post-con- --_ - - whose district includes parts of Renton, t struction monitoring."We'll know more as ' sees"no other option[than dredging]." we go along,"says Martz.Should the moni- McKenna argues that the project will toring data call for it,the project plan in- . • also benefit sockeye salmon that spawn in +eludes contingencies for more mitigation: the flood-prone lower channel. But the But the Muckleshoot appeal raises a nag- Muckleshoot tribe has appealed the state's ging question:More habitat enhancement • fisheries permit,,claiming that-the flood can clearly be done on the Cedar.Why go for a control project does more harm to the'.'•'theminimum?KingCountypositions.itself r'``" sal iton"than good:"We're not so concerned•'as.:a7leader'in'saving salmon. Shouldn't about the actual dredging,"says Eric Warn- that include going the extra river mile?■ — STATE O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000 February 23, 1998 Ross Hathaway Surface Water Utility I ' City of Renton FEB 2 (31998 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 CITY- OF RENTON Engineering Dept. Dear Mr. Hathaway: Re: City of Renton Permit CLUA=97=1"92 —j CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY- Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit# 1998-NW-40006 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on February 6, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, February 27, 1998. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. �II ' If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. 0 Sincerely, Zi/VV/4' • Ann E. Kenny, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AEK: aek SDP.DOC cc: James D. Hanson, City of Renton AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 23rd day of February ,1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. g --pi pi aAk f t C � Signature: 4 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this a 3rd day of F-E%�" , 1998. 1(AlielLt ---N/(//n-MIAA' Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at r/g/L%f1Y11,A ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Cedar River Dredging LUA97-192,SP,SM The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT February 23, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM LOCATION: Between Williams Avenue and mouth of the Cedar River SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on February 3, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application,field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 10, 1998 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 10, 1998, at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Neighborhood detail map-Narco site Exhibit No.4: Neighborhood detail maps- area of fish spawning channel and dredging area from Williams Avenue north Exhibit No. 5: Neighborhood detail map-dredging Exhibit No. 6: Haul routes area of airport and parking lot City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by MARK PYWELL,Project Manager,Development Services, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055. The applicant requests a 10 year special permit and shoreline management permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the river at Lake Washington. The project consists of levees and/or flood walls, and dredging of the lower approximately 1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington,with temporary storage of the dredging spoils being on the Narco site. The channel was created when Lake Washington was lowered by approximately 9 feet around 1916 and that event established the elevations along the Ichannel. Due to the low grade of the channel there is a lot of sedimentation, and it is anticipated that over the lifetime of the channel there will be re-dredging intervals that will be based on flooding and elevation surveys on the aggradation build-up. The Army Corps of Engineers tentatively will be giving a 10 year permit for the initial and maintenance dredging of this channel. Construction is hoped to start in the spring of 1998 and extend into 1999. The City is asking for a similar 10 year permit. The project is intended to contain the Cedar River up to the 150 year flood event. It is staff's understanding that recent flooding has been due more to the degradation of the channel because of sedimentation build-up rather than the actual severity of the storms. The intent of this dredging is to return the channel basically back to its design intent which would be able to handle those flows. The Narco site,which is one of the potential temporary storage areas for the sediments,has some wet areas. They do not qualify as wetlands due to their small size or the fact that they were created by human activity. There is a pond on that site and the City will be maintaining a 25 foot setback from the pond. The actual storage will occur down on the flat area of the Narco site and there will still be about a 300 foot setback to any of the residences in the area. With the possibility that some dredging will occur as often as every 3 years,the spoils would need to be removed as quickly as possible. The dredging spoils that come out of these operations are very desired as fill as they have a tendency to be fairly clean and they also compact well. The haul routes for the dredging spoils will be down the airport and then out onto Logan Avenue up to 6th. To get to the Narco site,they would be traveling down Park Avenue and across and over onto the Narco site, crossing under 405. There is also the possibility that some of these dredging spoils will be going to the Port Quendall site to be used there, in which case an alternate route would go up Park Avenue onto 405 and then off at the Port Quendall exit and onto the site. This project underwent environmental review with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers taking lead agency status on the project and the preparation of the environmental documentation. This was adopted by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee on January 6, 1998. The project encompasses a total area of about 74 acres,which includes the areas of the levees,the disposal site, the mitigation and temporary storage area. It is estimated there will be about 170,000 cubic yards of material to be removed. The dredging and hauling operation will be approximately a 20 hour a day operation with the trucks being taken off the road for maintenance during the peak hour traffic flows,and also when the airport needs a cleared area around the runway for initial flights of new Boeing jets. The levees will also require approximately 60,000 cubic yards of imported materials. Basing it on 20 cubic yard trucks,there will be about 8,500 truck trips averaging one trip about every 6.4 minutes with a maximum frequency of one trip every two minutes to remove the dredging spoils, and about 3,000 truck trips to bring in the new material for the City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.:LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 3 construction of the levees. The materials both going into the river and from the river will be tested for any contaminants. The park will be restored upon completion of the dredging and the construction of the levees. This will be a joint effort between not only this dredging operation, but also the construction of the Metro sewer line in this area. The operation will be 20 hour a day operation,basically to be accomplished in the shortest time period possible for the least amount of disruption. The majority of the work will actually occur in an industrial area and along the edge of the airport. All surface drainage that is existing at this time will be modified and re- established. Some of the existing outfalls will be fitted at this time with gates to prevent back-flooding from the river. Staff would recommend approval of the Cedar River dredging subject to compliance with the mitigation measures contained within the EIS as adopted by the City of Renton, and that the permit have a 10 year life. Ross Hathaway,Surface Water Utility, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055, indicated on a detail map where the various features were located. The plan is to put levees and/or sheet pile walls along all sections of the river where needed. Because the sheet pile walls are more expensive,they are only used where there is not adequate clearance between existing structures and the river to provide a levee. All of the levee work actually starts at Williams Avenue bridge and goes downstream. The south Boeing bridge will be fitted with a lifting mechanism to lift it out of the way during floods and an enclosure structure which will be provided to close off the opening that would be at that point. For the most part,the levee will be at the top of the bank or set back further. There will not be a flood wall actually down in the river,although there will be some sections that may receive rip-rap treatment because they are eroding at present. There is discussion of a flood wall near the gazebo. Staff would prefer a levee situation there,but a temporary flood wall structure, something that can be assembled in an emergency, is being considered. The intent is to place a permanent levee there. Leslie Betlach,Parks Director, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,Washington 98055,explained that the City has been working with the Apny Corps of Engineers and a landscape architect. The trails will meet ADA requirements with maximum slopes of 5%,2%cross slope. Although the levee system will be different from the present berms,efforts are being made to create something similar to the current trail which will meander over,up and down,around the levees. It will be an 8 foot wide asphalt paved trail with similar access points at 6th, at the non-motorized boat launch and to and from the parking areas. One of the areas that has not been worked out is the area around the restroom and the picnic shelter area. Several alternatives are being explored. The boat launch has been designated a non-motorized launch in the last year,primarily for safety of those who float down the river,but people will still be able to launch a boat from that area. There will be approximately four locations where there will be minimal vegetation,perhaps turf going down to the water's edge. The remainder of the river bank will be revegetated with more native plantings which will primarily screen the river from the pedestrian user,but provide habitat for the fish along the river bank. Mary Martz,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,environmental Resources Section.,P.O.Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124, stated that she was the environmental coordinator for this project and the main author on the EIS packages. There were several alternatives evaluated in detail for this project, all of which included some measure of dredging and levee combination along with bridge modifications. This was about the least amount of dredging that was looked at,primarily for concerns by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and State Fisheries regarding impacts to sockeye salmon. She stated that the deeper the dredge,the faster the river fills in City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 4 because the lake backwater backs up further upstream and causes sediment to fall out easier and faster. If a moderate to minimal amount of dredging lis done, it allows the river to carry out at least part of that sediment all the way into Lake Washington without building up into the river. At this time the dredging is scheduled to occur June through August 1998. The levee construction and park restoration, if funding is available from the federal government,would happen in the fall of 1998. The dredging is funded and that will occur. Access for future dredging would not affect the park system once the • levee system is established. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:50 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION � I Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, City of Renton, Surface Water Utility,filed a request for approval of a Special Permit to dredge portions of the Cedar River together with the construction of flood control devices including levees and walls. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was'entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official,adopted the EIS that was prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The project will occur in a linear corridor running from approximately Williams Avenue North to the mouth of the Cedar River at Lake Washington. The nature of the project has introduced a"river mile" (RM)measurement that is used for measurement. Various features or facilities will be denoted by their river mile(RM) location. The "zero"(0.0)point begins at Lake Washington. Williams Avenue North is referred as RM 1.23. 6. Work will occur in the river channel as well as on both banks of the river. The banks are alternately called the east or right bank and the west or left bank. Located along the right bank are the Cedar River Trail,the Senior Center,Renton Stadium,Boeing facilities and portions of roadways. The trail varies from a fairly linear bricked walkway immediately adjacent to the river between Williams and Logan to a meandering pathway through landscaped knolls and flat grassy meadows from Logan to the Lake. 7. The left or west bank has a mix of buildings, senior housing,Boeing paint facility and the Renton Municipal Airport which include hangars,plane aprons and runway. 8. Including the Williams Avenue bridge,there are four bridges crossing the river within the project area. There is the Logan Avenue bridge(RM 1), a public street,and there are two Boeing controlled bridges City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 5 --the south Boeing bridge(south of North 6th Street as extended west)and the north Boeing bridge, at the mouth of the river almost adjacent to Lake Washington. I I 9. The proposal is intended to address the periodic flooding of the areas along the Cedar River from Williams down to Lake Washington. Currently, flooding of low-lying areas along both sides of the river occur periodically in less than 100 year floods. The Cedar River trail and some of its underpasses flood,as do low areas of the Boeing complex,the hangars and airport runway. 10. The Cedar River channel was originally created when Lake Washington was lowered with the construction of the Ship Canal and Ballard Locks. This resulted in the diversion of the Black River to the Green River and the diversion of the Cedar River to feed the lake which was now drained by the locks. The system has a low gradient which causes sediments to build up and fill the channel. Over the past eighty(80)years the river had been periodically dredged by the City to provide more capacity during high flows. This activity was phased out in the recent past. There were conflicts with other, river management needs including salmon spawning beds. Each flood event that occurs transports and deposits gravel and rocks in the channel,a process referred to as aggradation. This process of deposition results,basically, in undoing over time the results of prior dredging work. In addition to filling in the channel,the results of this aggradation can be seen at the mouth of the Cedar River where a delta has formed and reformed after it has been dredged. Delta dredging is not part of this proposal. 11. The current proposal is intended to provide a minimum 100 year flood protection while interfering as minimally as possible with salmon runs. As described by staff: "Immediately after each dredge cycle, the project reach will provide up to a 200 year recurrence interval flood protection with 90%reliability, which will decline until the channel aggrades to the maximum allowable bed elevation to provide 1100 year recurrence interval flood protection. The estimated average level of protection over the project life(100 years) is 150 year flood protection." 12. This means that during the interval immediately after a dredging operation,there should be capacity for a 200 year storm event. That is,there should be capacity for the amount of storm water that would occur once every 200 years. After dredging each flood event will deposit materials along this reach of the river, again beginning the aggradation process all over again. The proposal includes not only the physical construction of flood walls and levees but also a periodic redredging of the river to maintain channel depth. 13. The proposal consists of a number of associated actions. The river will be dredged from Williams to Lake Washington, a combination lof levees and flood walls and interlocking flood doors and over- passes will be constructed, and a hydraulic lifting mechanism to move the south Boeing bridge above the flood way will be installed. 14. The river will be dredged to a depth of approximately four(4)feet below a surveyed bed(1995)of the river. This will require the removal of an estimated 160,000 cubic yards of sediment. The dredge will taper from the existing depth at Williams to the new,4-foot lower elevation. This will extend approximately 20 feet out into the lake. 15. The dredge spoils will be dewatered and then moved along normal haul routes to a temporary storage location at the City-owned Narcol site located along the south side of the river just east of I-405. While some materials could be used to prepare this site for development, any such use would require a separate permit. Also materials may be sold or given away as demand is determined. The quality and cleanliness of these dredge spoils]generally makes them desirable fill material on other construction sites. City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 6 16. The applicant also proposes installing a combination of levees and floodwalls. This will increase the holding capacity of the channel by extending the natural channel's banks upward. These structures will be constructed between Williams'and the lake. The levees and floodwalls(hereinafter walls)will vary in height from two(2)feet to seven(7)feet above the existing terrain. Walls will be used where there is insufficient clearance between structures or terrain features. 17. The levee designs will vary depending on the cross-section of the areas they serve. Some sections will be higher and wider while others will be narrower. There will be sections where the recreational trail will meander atop the levee providing a wider top flat area. There will be sections where the slope on the river or"dry" side would be a;bit steeper or shallower. Similarly,the walls will have different designs,basically in the footing areas where slope and materials may vary. Again,both types of structures will also vary in height. 18. Taking advantage of some of the natural terrain,high points will serve as "natural flood containment" structures. Some of the knolls along the more northerly end of the trail/park system will be left as they are and connected with the new constructed levees and walls. 19. There are certain features of the park,particularly between Logan and the lake,that will have to be served by either crossover,ramp-type structures or openings that would be secured during flood periods by closing gates. These areas include the non-motorized boat launch,the picnic gazebo and the restroom and basketball facilities'and parking access. 20. Staff has reported that the terrain on the east bank closest to the river north of Logan will not generally be altered. The levees and walls will not be located immediately along the river bank. The trail will still generally meander with views of the river. Some sections of trail will be raised above the shore on top of levee structures. The new raised terrain will reduce or cut off visual access to the trail from parking lots along the east or frail side of the river. Similar loss of view will occur from the west bank where the perimeter road is located but that is generally not used by the public. 21. On the left bank or airport side of the river the structures are intended to protect Boeing facilities,the airport and hangars from flood damage. This will consist of some of the higher or taller seven(7)foot tall sheetwall or levee structures. It will taper down to approximately 4 feet high from RM 0.41 to the lakeshore to avoid interfering with FAA clearance requirements adjacent to the airport. What is called "controlled overtopping"will occur for flows greater than the 100 year flood event in the areas of the lower containment structures. On the trail side,from RM 1.23 (Williams)to RM 1.07(near Logan)the brick trail will be raised approximately three(3)feet. 22. Some of the existing storm drain butfalls that enter the river will be re-fitted with gates to prevent back- flooding from the river. 23. As noted,there may be necessary modification to some of the design features and park features including the boat launch,picnic areas,basketball court, and restrooms. Approximately 50% of the plantings from Logan to the lakeshore will be removed. Landscaping will be restored although there was some concern about federal funding for all aspects after year one construction. 24. The low clearance and design of the current south Boeing bridge causes it to trap larger woody debris during flood events. Constant surveillance and debris removal is needed to prevent the bridge from either failing or damming up the river. As mentioned,the bridge will be altered so that it can be lifted by hydraulic methods allowing flood events and debris to flow more freely under the bridge. City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 7 25. The levees,wall footings and other work will require the importation of approximately 140,000 cubic yards of materials. 26. As indicated,temporary storage of materials that are not directly exported to developing sites will be stored on the City-owned Narco site. There are some small wetlands on Narco site which staff has noted are man-created. A Category 3 wetland will be protected as necessary. The temporary storage should not adversely impact any environmentally sensitive areas. Staff did not know how long "temporary storage"would occur but suggested that materials would be moved prior to the next dredge operation. 27. A proposed spawning channel will be created upstream of the Maplewood Golf Course at the Cedar River Regional Park. This action will necessitate the removal of an additional 7,000 cubic yards of material and the placement of another approximately 700 cubic yards of material. These two actions are to provide a spawning area and bank stabilization. Additional trees will be removed to accommodate this new channel. New vegetation will be planted. 28. The proposed dredging will be accomplished during a Fisheries'window to reduce interference with spawning salmon and other fish species. The shallow dredge as proposed was designed specifically to minimize environmental impacts on the various fisheries resources. The deep dredge used in the past was found to be too environmentally harmful. The deep dredge might have reduced or eliminated the need for some of the floodwall and levee structures. 29. The dredging and hauling will be accomplished over a twenty(20)hour day. Approximately 8,500 trips will be necessary to remove the dredge materials. It is anticipated that there will be one truck trip about every 6.4 minutes with a maximum frequency of one trip every two minutes 30. An initial permit will be issued by the Army Corps for ten(10)years. Periodic redredging will be required to keep the channel depth constant. Intervals will depend on the rate of deposition which varies depending on storm events and the amount of materials carried by the river. 31. The project is expected to start in the spring of 1998 and continue into 1999. The proposed permit would cover that proposed duration. 32. The importation will require an additional approximately 3,000 vehicle trips. Importation timing is not as critical as the removal of materials. 33. The proposed main haul route would be from the east perimeter road to Airport Way to Logan to North 6th to Park to Bronson to Mill across Houser and the Narco site. The return route would utilize N.4th. An alternate route if the materials are used at the Quendall site would go north on Park to I-405 to NE 44th to Ripley Lane and the Quendall site. The return would again use N 4th. 34. In addition to the work on this project,two other projects will be occurring near or in this same corridor. Boeing will be doing an upgrade to a storm line and King County is installing a new sewer transmission line. The various entities propose coordinating their various efforts to minimize duplicative disruptions to the trail,roads and landscaping and to restore these various elements. 35. The City is also seeking a 10 year permit from the Army Corps. That permit will correspond with the proposed permit in this case. City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 8 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed action appears reasonable, although it will create temporary havoc in the river and along the trail during construction, and will permanently alter the terrain with levees and floodwalls. At the same time, it should be remembered that the current channel and shoreline is itself not natural. The current river environment was created to alter the course of the river when Lake Washington was lowered over 80 years ago. 2. The Army Corps found that the shallow dredge might have lesser impacts on the salmon and other fisheries resources. It is unfortunate that one of the deeper dredge methods was found unacceptable since it would have required significantly less alteration of the surface areas and complete disruption of a popular City park. It would not have required the levees and floodwalls and the relocated trail and park facilities. It would have retained for the most part the existing contours of the park, and it would have preserved the views and water access and intimacy the trail provides in a unique urban environment. Be that as it may,the Army Corps chose the current solution and the City agreed to implement the shallow dredge and its associated impacts of levees, floodwalls and park alterations. 3. Some solutions appear necessary to prevent future flooding. Although flooding and inundation of low- lying land adjacent to rivers is a natural phenomena,unfortunately a substantial investment in improvements including the airport, park and Boeing facilities have made protection a necessary evil in this location. 4. Substantial property damage does occur each time the area is inundated and inundation has been regular enough that a permanent solution is necessary. The proposed plan is appropriate given the desire to protect the various properties in this area. 5. As noted,the permit will be for an initial period of ten(10)years to permit maintenance dredging as necessary to preserve the minimum 100 year flood and provide an interim 200 year flood protection level. 6. The truck traffic and its proposed frequency and 20 hour per day schedule could create some impacts on general traffic as well as nearby businesses and residences. The work in the river could have similar impacts since it will also be occurring for long, uninterrupted stretches. The objective of this sustained work is to complete it as quickly as possible. 7. It appears that all in all the project is well designed. Efforts have been made to coordinate three separate projects located in or near this corridor. This coordination should minimize the duration of disruption. 8. The periodic redredging is also appropriate given the regular occurrence of storm events which will \refill the river bed. 9. While the permit is focused on the dredging of the river, a major aspect of the project are the levees and floodwalls. These features will have a dramatic impact on the City trail and linear park. This was not given much attention in the staff analysis. There was some mention of funding for restoration efforts. As noted,the Cedar River Park is a popular City facility providing a retreat from the urban environment in the heart of the City. It should be restored as quickly as possible. 10. In conclusion, it appears that the project is necessary. As such,disruption cannot be avoided but it should be concluded as soon as possible and the environment restored as soon as practical. City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 9 DECISION: The Special Permit for Grade and Fill and is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All mitigation measures contained within the EIS shall be completed as soon as practical. 2. All landscaping shall be restored within one(1)year after the levees and floodwalls have been constructed. 3. This permit shall expire ten(10)years from the date of approval. ORDERED THIS 23rd day of February, 1998. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXA R TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of February, 1998 to the parties of record: Mark Pywell Ross Hathaway Leslie Betlach 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Mary Martz Paul B.Crane U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Boeing Company Environmental Resources Section P.O.Box 3707,MS 63-01 P.O.Box 3755 Seattle,WA 98124-2207 Seattle,WA 98124 TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of February, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..March 9, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This City of Renton Cedar River Dredging File No.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM February 23, 1998 Page 10 request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or . ' I • • I • S' • . •z ? 0 ...., a_ 1 NCARs . t / _ I V) ___i , ill ;-------------- _____--...,..__ ,t -, -.• •-• 11 —NI _,j10 Li 0 , Cr--- .:__,___„,,,„...,.... ,_ x F.-------:7,---,..- -:‘---:-7:::=-r-fz...----------74--1_1„.:„- s-_ ---7.---, — - -- -- - ---- ----L:------- -- - • .i11. - _'•-'5--4r4--r-_____. __________--- — -40-_,------7- --------r-- (-) 1--I \ -\• .1 • - — ..tt •-•...„... . I \ I I- 3"I LEVEE TYPE-Ill • FLOODWALL TYPE II , L 35+00 t....--------__---____ I CEDAR RIVER FLOW I I .‘...... __ LEVEE TYPE - - CLOSURE STRUCTURI I , ,.. — "N'---\N.:; Th7:....__...,....,---......__.._ i,:.,-__-.s44.--2.2...__•tr_,„_,,,c,,--.-.._._:___ _-,-----_-__--.1_.v i-. --....--„,---, ---I..-...._ ... - -- '---___—__%—>r-- -> '''':5"•-•)--- 11 0+00 - - — ---- ---,---..:. -_—.---• __2,-,.e.., _ ..1..--A---......--,_ ..- _______--,-1---,,, '''•*',,, ,' %.'•••, --------r",--"--. ---(---,,-- 1----, a/0"84- 11P118F, - — ---_---__:7-_,-7---- ,„/ .• -... °lc -i •-•-- ' K- ,.." 1...... , •-•---- .----- -..--7 .---4...,.--=''.---%S.::?Z". i , t , \ \-7,:-.---' - \ 3....\ --'-'-- 1:-!.." ---- ------- --- ------...---:---:-.....----.. ...ti.---- ,-.'" ,-._ 1 ? -,----,-. ....-.--...--................._ 1..___.--.:-.:::::- )-- ----':-..-'------- • ' ---'-----7----'' ' ': ' -\ ,"`.---`'ut• . , --_.., •-----. _ Iii\ Alf,-1-,- - -------::-.::_s ._ - ----------_—.4,--,— _ .. --T..-___----,-, .......--_.... - --,- -,-,-..: _________Air--4- / ,-.?N• ----7.--.7'----a-r-•...:-----:,-------- z*:::: 1'1°- ill _a.. I ` --ad- _ - .._... .,. t----:::-..-----,-.. _:_..- _-._-•--=---•-..-:.:----_,-.,.-. .-----:::::--- . ..- ±,-----1--,- -------- , , i ,..,.., • 1 , 1 ,, , , , ,-.... ...ii 1 , -r! I ....=.....m I I I i IQ 1 i 1 1 cy 1 1 1 i‘9). 1 ii RE,), 1111 -----> ' • • - - \AO6 f ' <Is P 41 Jo, .1706, 4110 7.,, 100' 50' 1" = 100' DECIECH SIR. to 4.„ • . (... .?•7,,, Wells Ave. Williams Ave. . . • • . . -... Lan Ave.tig " . . . ,i::::.;1:ji ..0i,:.. .:,-.-.:;.::,:.::::;,-; ,:::y:::.g:::: :.,.:::-. :::,..::.,:-::;,,,::::,,..:.: ::..:::::..:,•,.., ----------../ .. 0,. :•:•:. .., . t-k- iiiii rsgi .--/..dati • . .. .. .. . . • „ . .. ,----• :-,.-.. „..,:-,10.•,k-i .„,,,,,,,-..?...:A:::•„4:4pAy.:44 • ---..-,--..,-.0 ,wL;•:Es.-,e•vk,,..,• .(r,e,1?,p, g ,,.,,--. 17tv,,,.,::::.,,,...••;sop:,,,,atmg,,,,,4.::q0.?,gox.fpfe-ii.v.k.4,:s:rh,,,fac%E7•••= :,,,iopf4,/.0 • . ,,,,"gioake,-N-e,,,,,Filtwgp....„. .!!•:,.:;... .rt..., . cslaoqw4,4,115:-E',..Tva•=•-z.,,,,---- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING &SHORELINE APPLICATION RENTON HEARING EXAMINER a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months A Public Hearing will be held by the prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County second floor of City Hall, Renton, Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Washington,on February 10, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider State of Washington for King County. CEDAR RIVERthe#2051lowinDREDGING etitions: The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County LUA-97-192,SP,SM Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees Cedar River#205 Dredging and/or walls to control flooding during 9 g storm events. The project also requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, as published on: 1/26/98 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$36.06 Building, Renton.All interested persons are Legal Number 4153 invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. eAtro.v.? Published in the South County Journal aside January 26, 1998.4153 Legal Clerk, So C,• Count Jounlal 0 Subscribed and sworn before me on this s ` •ay of AN. 19 ‘‘‘ut flItI, l\‘N1]• 1/4'� . F1%.. ( i 1 r( Jrc\ �� d 2N......�'sstoJ a-i .r • ce, 01. : NOTAar :• 0_ Notary Public of the State of Washington cn- residing in Renton - = King County, Washington y'n-F '°OBLIB o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING& SHORELINE APPLICATION a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTNT HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months A Public Hearing will be held by the prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South Countysmeetingand inf the of il Chambers on the Y g second floor of City Hall, Renton, Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Washington, on January 27, 1998 at 9:00 State of Washington for King County. AM to consider the following petitions: The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the South CountyCEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192,SP,SM Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers City of Renton seeks approval of a io during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees Notice of Public Hearing & Shoreline Application and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. The project also requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. as published on: 12/29/97 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development al The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $36.06 Building,ces Renton.nto Thirde Floor,eepersonsMu are 9 9 9 Building, All interested are Legal Number 4034 invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. /e.. Published in the South County Journal ^.� December 29,1997.4034 ` Legal Cler , South C unty Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this- d of , 19 Y ri 0 . :�� .;y; Notary Public of the State of Washington `' `,oTapy d : residing in Renton -0 • `n King County, Washington • CITY IF RENTON 1 ; u. ' \ Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 3, 1998 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for File No. LUA-97-192;SM Gentlemen: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on February 3, 1998. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 277-5586, if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Mark R. Pyw ICP Project M ger Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant SHRLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE RECEIVED: December 19, 1997 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: December 29, 1997 DATE APPROVED: January 6, 1998 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn.: Ross Hathaway PROJECT: Cedar River#205 Dredging DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. The project also includes the construction of spawning channel approximately 900 feet long and other habitat enhancements at the Cedar River Regional Park area and temporary erosion control for a temporary stockpile area at the NARCO site. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec.s 7, 17, 21, &22, T23N, R5E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington &Cedar River APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton SUBDEV.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department ,,,yoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 2 of 3 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4.01 Shoreline Uses&Activities Element page 14. 4.02 Conservation Element page 15 5.03 Conservancy Environment page 20 5.04 Urban Environment page 22. 7.06 Dredging page 28. Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The City shall ensure that best management practices are followed to prevent soil erosion and turbulence in the river to the extent possible. 2. City staff shall coordinate the work in the river with the Aquifer Protection Program. 3. The mitigation measures contained within the EIS shall be followed during the life of the project. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. ‘.---72)- 4 A 1�` '�` ' 2l °v ) //5 Planning/Buildig ubli arks Administrator Date SUBDEV.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 3 of 3 TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: If Conditional Use, Section of the City's Shoreline Master Program authorizing the use: If Variance, Section(s) of the City's Shoreline Master Program being varied: This Conditional UseNariance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: Date Signature of Authorized Department Official cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review(Neil Watts) City of Renton, Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka) Applicant SUBDEV.DOC CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 1998 TO: Gregg Zimmerman FROM: v, Iark Pywell SUBJECT: Cedar River#205 Dredging LUA-97-192,SM,SP The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Shoreline Master Program. The dredging of the Cedar River is necessary for flood control within the City of Renton. This is a joint project with the City of Renton and the US Army Corps of Engineers working on the project. The EIS was prepared by Corps and adopted by the City of Renton as a SEPA document Section 7.06.02 of the Shoreline Master Program states that dredging is permitted when necessary for flood control purposes. Flood hazards exist at this time along the Cedar River because the sedimentation has been allowed to build up in the area from William Ave. to the mouth of the Cedar River. The purpose of this project is to dredge the river and create a river bottom that can be maintained in the future. The City will be creating additional fish spawning area upstream of the dredging area as mitigation for the dredging activities. The dredging of the River will be a net benefit both to the prevention/reduction of flooding in this area and to the wildlife habitat. Public access to the River will be disrupted temporarily during the actual dredging of the river and the construction of the berms and other required features. However, this disruption will only be temporary and is for the safety of the public. Access to the river will be restored as the project is completed. CONCURRENCE DATE .2/2-/9r NAME INITIAL/DATE (,Ziyjeze y z 2 3 ,i ess� 4 '2--� \\TS_SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\PROJECTS\97-192.MP\GREGGMMO.DOC\mp CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 3� day of 7tapY . , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Stf‘OVV.A the. refnnt documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing of locji QOSS {tatAna ( An oce.e butt) C s 1 11^ (Signature of Sender) S14443- V-• STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 5Ana 1t. • See signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forc4he uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: d.j.,.. , i'9�18 `- f'� Notary Publi and for the State of hington Notary (Print) My appointment expir Pojeot Name: Ctdsr Z• e-r' • 205 arcs &� Project Number: l.Uc • 91 • 19 2 I S r, Sm NOTARY.DOC 0 •1rCY O C, • Pilid L,Nrco� REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 23,1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. THIS REVISED NOTICE REFLECTS A CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUAd7-192,SP,SM I CEDAR RIVER 0206 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events.Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck.Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 09.1995.This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on Februery IS.1996 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are Interested In attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division.277-5582,10 ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner.I1 you have Questions about This proposal.or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277.5586.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. IPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPUCATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997(REVISED JANUARY 23,1998) t ; t-n to *:1;. • V' V firma k GENAMLOT.SOC CERTIFICATION I, vi ill' Ion all , hereby certify that 4 copies of the above document were posted by me in 4 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on ; Iar 9 2 ,t6lq Signed: 'ywwvt ill ATTEST: Subcribed sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in and State of Washington residing - , on the a(o1r day of 4) . 159e MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE RECEIVED: December 19, 1997 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: December 29, 1997 DATE APPROVED: January 6, 1998 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn.: Ross Hathaway PROJECT: Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and flood walls to control flooding during storm events; and modifications to the South Boeing Bridge to allow it to be lifted during flood events. The project also includes the construction of spawning channel approximately 900 feet long and other habitat enhancements at the Cedar River Regional Park area and temporary erosion control for a temporary stockpile area at the NARCO site. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec.s 7, 17, 21, &22, T23N, R5E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington &Cedar River APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton SUBDEV.DOC 1 I 4,- City of Renton P/B/PW Department ,Jaoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 2 of 3 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4.01 Shoreline Uses&Activities Element page 14. 4.02 Conservation Element page 15 5.03 Conservancy Environment page 20 5.04 Urban Environment page 22. 7.06 Dredging page 28. Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The City shall ensure that best management practices are followed to prevent soil erosion and turbulence in the river to the extent possible. 2. City staff shall coordinate the work in the river with the Aquifer Protection Program. 3. The mitigation measures contained within the EIS shall be followed during the life of the project. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. /i/e#,(8/7// ' 1‘ Planning/Bygld'fig/Publ orks Administrator Date SUBDEV.DOC • CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES MAIN HAUL ROUTE DREDGE AREA/AIRPORT EAST PERIMETER ROAD TO LIGHT ON AIRPORT WAY AT THE AIRPORT LEFT ONTO AIRPORT WAY CONTINUE TO LOGAN AVE., RIGHT TURN ONTO N. 6TH ST. RIGHT TURN ONTO PARK AVE. N., RIGHT TURN ONTO BRONSEN WAY, LEFT TURN ONTO MILL AVE. S. CROSS HOUSER WAY ONTO ACCESS TO NARCO SITE(DISPOSAL) RETURN:ACCESS TO NARCO SITE, CROSS HOUSER WAY TO MILL AVE. S., RIGHT TURN ONTO BRONSEN WAY, LEFT TURN ONTO PARK AVE. N LEFT TURN ONTO N. 4TH ST., LEFT TURN ONTO LOGAN AVE., RIGHT TURN ONTO AIRPORT EAST PERIMETER ROAD AT LOGAN AVE.BRIDGE OVER THE CEDAR RIVER. ALTERNATE MAIN HAUL ROUTE(TO PORT QUENDALL SITE/ALTERNATE DISPOSAL) DREDGE AREA/AIRPORT EAST PERIMETER ROAD TO LIGHT ON AIRPORT WAY AT THE AIRPORT LEFT ONTO AIRPORT WAY CONTINUE TO LOGAN AVE., RIGHT TURN ONTO N. 6TH ST., LEFT ONTO PARK AVE. NORTH CONTINUE TO SR 900 AND I-405, I-405 TO N.E. 44TH ST. OFF RAMP, LEFT ONTO NE 44TH, RIGHT ONTO RIPLEY LANE TO PORT QUENDALL SITE. RETURN: RIPLEY LANE TO NE 44TH, LEFT ONTO NE 44TH, RIGHT ONTO I-405, EXIT TO SR 900 (PARK AVE.N.) LEFT ONTO N.4TH STREET,LEFT ONTO LOGAN AVE. RIGHT TURN ONTO AIRPORT EAST PERIMETER ROAD AT LOGAN AVE.BRIDGE OVER THE CEDAR RIVER CITY STANDARD TRUCK HAUL ROUTES WILL BE USED AS THE MAIN HAUL ROUTES FOR ALL OTHER PROJECT HAULAGE. HAULDOC\ 1 ay MI r a Q, mle s, ____- PORT DENDALL SITE a Fag Eg Egli; r c _-::::::::::::-(ALTERNATE DISPOSAL) i ■'il �a::: W►•trl1 air••;lira C a / _ I \I _ - __- ____= _ ■� ..fir 84470,�m ._2 �,71-__- . ..1111 ` tt mi"If II ig El L4:04,141,7 ta.:• . \‘.. ,.1 4,,,,,,;;;//'::_=_;_:_:-.=_:_:-:_=_- :::_-_-:_:- =_:::_f_f_::- -.::- -::- -:=_::-::::_:_:=;:__, ... 41, (I Lialitrafil um on in 11%1 oila.ih lli ,� Al!.., _����©ultiron ow Am;13�i tor,Si Illa :, 1 imr f:47 -_-_-__-_-:'d..-_-_ iip; -7.-:-:-:-:-:::-:--:::-:-:-.-:::-:----:-:-:-:-.=--7.--:--:It- - i:WI':P.•i ■ • ¢•• sae:aa� i\fir %Q►/pi/1'. ' _ _ __- --_ a._aw� • I �M■ 11!"q �, BOO:�• -- ''•'_---_'---- ------------'---- --_-- s,��:.era:_ • \I :nil . .p.•• rat: 1 �1'1 .ea l �� .•n...,ll.:::!gin. 11 a ,,;1,mi mr , �� _= _ -=-=--- ---==-==-=-= ==I =-h ,1�SiliVI ii'{�1�g tAih.,.�✓ I ��2�11111Milt Ei 4:NIiilIrd •'I �1. �F�.- r .n-• •- •• •«'C�'., . L.1161 1Jg ip. 4 1��( ,I. ��%tilli�:� .:. /.• ;, ;L tiElli�.R. ►�"I_ -A0i,T/1►• •,•l'- 1!I 'r� \ /i'IIN ,. II.y�!■1P=11..IOIIIpIiit p..ILrm 3... .�-- __j_:::- :::_---------------�- --_Z-_-+:-_y_�__- __ ___- ��1,.-: - `iiriIII■In......::.3'/5„,„ , teal,-r a I == 1'E:.:_ ,S 1{V 1-tt _===- _- _- _- _- ��w ' a -�!nei r. 1 0Ge1ee:.-..\�.�t: - --- -- \ "' o `I=� ,...`,.== 3i.:::-EEf 111 \.i�e�..'eke° ______--____ via _-_____-__--__--_________________- ___ r�A� ,•L'11'qapt €nuIi�1; �.i..= �., AI "NI m�I..!ii� .P..o,,y:moms._ i c�`pt�1 �nrt111.,y,,; 1 , :�� h,SF, �J. r CIC..I.:nam.. --___ ____-_- _____--_--_-_-_-__--___________-___ _ __--_-___-_- jik :ril gill� U1,1. r.. :.I�lI .o:zg �_ ai E. M9.5 ::- =_=_r-:-=_ _-_ - _=r====-__ _- __- _- _- _- _- _- ====-1,` ,1 b"WEEir C: EII��-11111\%�Cc -'s�� eil itim 1;216 rip Ire: v k, � 0.�^dill al Is 5'. i Ei• `.+� p■ 1 u� �■�••• _ .aly o. ]O \., �,�, �-- ����<„=___=__-===== ==_- =__ - .L� ►ar:�1i4'iJll EEE., ■aga: iJ':�ti®b�A,1k11 ..... �����„qt, --:/din= _==_______- yeti. 7 a - �'il_'�—� `.:e✓�,: I°,� . ":::;�=C - :Ilili��'AMNIA - -• :i�u1i., I...4.: l�� ����:r:y nllf.V.fl.d`I•r ©� •... ::i_1�� lima.'=..�' u.. ikiiiumcl:=1 - �� .,s. --1 _..mai:k.�■is .� al" [S1 9 .I \�:i yF.. .iii.: :I..:.�dL^]-.Ili .1. ....i " 0l11+_aulerc 1 �1 �C w■•..+�.ni ta ��'����5 C fl 19 // �, :' \�L_i9: i� '_ ; p < ' _ TI �,1.�v�;.=p2=:'-1.wi :.::?4:'''. ,:®O"!7 . /% G�IY , ::' 1 0 :e= 1 sloe `hen :�=•��'i ir'o4 �� ter=■� 11••:•:a: 1 . 1 8 _=__ _ �..;W�;, ..: :� - .:�r.. Milli . r .w a.y I......®• :r: &.Iv:'1lartQ4. ® J / -al Q x,u Tl . „H .�`V_ 11..u..l.`:.:. ., I lla Ir _• I�II�.: >_ : _ ::I:le. �ime ��/�11?re aigi • 7 B ii-4-.i N. :q ST.t. Mt ti. �I •' ���/ M l A St • ?�':���`� %�;- ■l�-R �1..'`a► e¢r• jwf.ell S.II_� •er' -���� ;� • IIEI�C/�I'm y.is ul,•-, 1■ ii11 ,3 AIRPORT WAY -1\1•I, ,•tti=pu,®c ...''�f�............... - r• - .I'y1>f1 1�.=•il„ OI �.!\t":11°u17 t I. !� �4 C: V ` •:';Immi` Iff MT L.....s -------.Th ei • % JrU;11 ,bi .1 / _ �♦ (DISPOSAL) .,. :.�"4�o1`•�i:•. . .., S. MulF,M 1 -,-... i - MR 1111111.--.-•-•''1". IT 5, ..... .,. ./-Aillor111, III,t,� `I �/ • i • E• . IFS ice=.®�i ■ ..: I r ���c�N. .CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES k BEACH I �pa,.N -� �i t �� I KENNY• E I71l+tlSJ•` .' t�'i �:W.• :�•.,; ; I �f' i IN= % 1 "a I ter. • 1.;le' I c? t f:;'i--. • ;1, ••• 1-1111E1•t• .� , c Wa s kink t n I II" ‘. " ta �r..ri 7 , ' alliMIE-ar 13,Nlif ...,„...c.V i i - • , • ''Utillv — i•-• . 1.„. 11411... wli.. 1 . ri...4,4: -77...7 ,:',91.1itif•-. • tteitit%.14‘N -1 . Fii,..•• W: lt„,‘„•4.,.4 •,,,I.:,,,, .,,,.• 2 sliki it ' "'''' ,.. oi , ."N...I• palm. 1 `• / �' , 1-‘ '�}♦:': ''�. 1 1,;vt.7:i 4 • ,,..1 '.14 il cA •'' ' '• V i e� ' �;1 i 17�� I rAtiNet ®1fl' ' II s rlsr,:in riSlipit...NJ „,, s IMIrnalt Irs, „ „, \I ' J• .' """� � '. L1Q{YJ •y;1w. -- f �{, e � 12161315:1't.�� '!� j Co— 'iva�.•a7• .114 1 — ~^ r■��1 • •a^ I Ili �l1.aR y� +I r'��m �.i,1,..rriii V S 1.4 .�: ' iT g[�i �V 1 ,� Q ,d4 � R" INN'. il _ : .'. I �Y q:,t'��� �' .',�*���.�,•G cn on, .. '. ,.y "'4e��� ��fi�:�t7...� I .,.'.r rri �/(411° r5 11m_ 17Ii�� _.- �. ,=•4 .I.' a .,, .0 .I .I'■iif 1� l►}{{ ..rl�.on'+ '..;�y ,t--I. - ri -la.. r�•.r � �� �� .: •� � rye ,r ICJ0!L.� '� 'I • WV '.n. 1 LfMP�q w(,c 1 1: fMil= mja�y'� •1 • ••/--,. 'f3 t 1 m yLr..w. 1 Y,N t ��� " _.p,+I ,'.u? S 18r�: �r�'.', Oil}TiF'".Q4' ,rsoi,„„i'. Ne .r'(rr.r..4.-LTR: i •'T�'. 1t u 7 RIVE EARL•GT i T1E' 1o, -10110•^' is " iii It 4 1 1!1(� 1i Y3 sr •bl,.t1.�11(� t '.' ;n', § .�• •..,alto• .. v . if. '''''''41,.: I ,, ' L ^•!N ar- — ' . iii v A L 'I R E$�ON �r;' ?? '""•`s+< �•rM1i;r R � I I ; ,^' N . , ^` '1y^ � e ; l� '7 "! ' .� �\ • � •L.• 00 .ri�I -...':4a.,+..•..:: ', "`t � ` � ` 7F 20 e . C�: _ g 22 • E N p 'gl� AI '� eel „_.. , 11. .X: C wd/ 1 I d{. "°. ,1« +�{„,ti. #,...t .. ' ,_ FAIRWOQD .. .. ,p \.^ '$ 11 •,0,I.{t:l-- - _I ,�• -11•_' i u' 'iti rypi -til:w,r�r• •5r r W..n y ♦• '='•' !Fh'>. '•- ' -4- ..-;11 .,,tutA ` • . F u+i - Ira t dt a'" �� .1.y,.:� r r' 1a! r.. it,- �(ra,! rt i Z i i • 4,,e.3 ri•^i'7f114 Yn..r' ` ...4 �i pi g..u ... I an '���, a c . MriYi1F a i t}ia" ^ t'. yTy����^j, ,� yg{ �;�i:+�YiiT, '�.:,in (yr, it �'� {T1RII�a d aua, �... J' •��. •1 :t.�,' 6 ,.j�'j J \..Cy t ''r SQ, .�p�'`t'_1:''�' • V I �fR711 t �.' 4 9i c _I, , iii ,- C.,g .7-tee.,`1 po:.-:','gc6't,, I ® i 7i AL,.N 1 t' •, Y��n�R+. •Inj"'"... ��' ,,;,•51 't' `��`' ='`�► -4 1 ..f. !_ e __:. 1 1 'i {nao:s p liaYtl� .'{.,1 y..il ''..,,e,;;.:'..ft' •^lc ! j v, 6„�snl > T .. 111ra74-- . .. N-i-- __r6—wunw {t• -II+J , .^nt �¢ rr�''.. 1'!r 9 II .,, 1 IL ,, - 41 { •�■. .;t:l-— �::'•+ter •'r2•>K r_ r N p I N r.r• • .� ...' , Vtiitiini.T llr '-e- P'r 3ryfp` 1EIA 1 Milla/ I"e'11Yitn r,.�`. I •�"• y > IiII • •_�- ... bro• g ' ' J. • 7 ti ,._,.I `. .I I;. ::,. :4,: ( .LLarJi' ,• 2 N 1. ...yy1!� . 04 , oIV , ,r 1.r. 1 s. .'�y.d" or1' t}i`'�''�if'I r'-.•{� 32a '1... r '+ � i. '4 ?. r�, Y �ra ti EE, N�,�`rr S 3...yf� ;S. 'r`I.Yvr � 'x!m: '.t,,,� rl.I>; `..1 v � ' I _ N J...; j ..... €l t6±���y.;;�i ///ttt���e•.-,,Ai- ' 1 1.'d r y NYrnR• N iul� r' y IE c . 4.• ..1•�'vN.,'' gE , `13. . � u:�?iI • Y < 1 a .r. Ir,i1;�,� N tr. t • ` :A `� — -: _ .:;•. •i9:'jC' ... , Y 1••i is I s111 t/1.ri {{p.pl 1 ...n < iti,: , I ..., . M . ,.• . ,,/ e-• - iik :...,,,I '..1 '''...ill r, . ; �' I a 5 1 .=1 a anon r :t •53•1 n ' 1. •. 15.�.. I YMirl � � i c 2• •i w^. C- , c .. , • s. ` w 1 SI Qvfl /Inl!L, fCf..v ' 4. REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING & SHORELINE APPLICATION RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on February 10, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING LUA-97-192,SP,SM City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. The project also requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Publication Date: January 26, 1998 Account No. 51067 HEXPUB.DOC • `E EL.P<.:::>:::<::<°> RV I CES ,IV I 1 ISPN »<'<> > _> [emm:: ;m:E «< o so LIST F . R U C . . PROPERTYO : E `` ' ..................................................................................................................................•....................... ................................................................................... Qo the.sub .ct;.sie......... .................. • PROJECT NAME: Cltlnr wRWc.r lberca:451 APPLICATION NO: L-VEct ' q1' t qZ1 Sr Sh'1 The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of,the proposed development. NAME - ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • ,, • • (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • (Continued) • NAME • ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • • Applicant Certification (, , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: O City of Renton Technical Services Records O Title Company Records O King County Assessors Records Signed Date (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at on the day of , 19 . Signed (Notary Public) • d.... ..........ggghaigtogior§optl ::. .::'`vain`:>.ec.. . ... 1 «: SI I.T. d.::.�s1rJw+ .�•..... ...................::;;.>;::::.;::.::::::::�:�.::. .::.:;.:.;;:;;:.:...:.:>:;,<.;:<.;:;.;:.:>::»::::<::::>::>::>:.;:.:::.::;:>:<:»::>:::» <:: :>:<n:'::::for<�17�e'S•a�C`' . f.... as .:::ri .:..: :...ri' :'sviioirn:: f re::me'��a:N:.:..a:,:::>P:..ui� c..........................t..........t..�..Q............ #4...........:... <�»>:��G�� >vii i:•iiii:i:{:%:::i:;$:iijiiii:i:Jii%i�'»:G:•;:o:::}: i:;:;�iii:vi:•ii'y:Cv:i:iiiiiii::{�.%ti�i.v:���'•:��%}$.`•:viiii}}f�:{isv'riiii%.i}:%i.`Gif;�:ii:i:i;:::};ii�i�� <y%:v:?;:;:i;•:;i:ii::::i""i:�i�)iii:•is�ii'!.}i}i}i}i'r$iisY:::::isii:isJi"ii:•i:::}i}'r'iiiiiiiiiii>'ri'rii?ii}iiiiijy:^}'ri: '�`•�'�:: :5::::�...::.<:.'•::::::%:::::::::::::i:::::;::>:::::::;:rri%«z»»;:;:;:y::s:;:%;:%X:cr,.+:#:`::::;:;:;:;:;;i%���';:`>::::�::;:%<:<::::4S;r:S%%%.{:::%i:::::::::::i:;;oi:?':•: ...........:..:.:.. ':i}?ii:?ii'j'iiiii'::'.:'ii:•i. •i :i;::;:y;:ii:i:j;:i;;:yt;ii:j{y.v::iY';: Iistprop.doc REV 07/95 2 BROZOVICH FRANK&DARLENE SWANSON DAVID C AMERICAN LEGION# 19 66 WILLIAMS AVE S 4616 S 124TH 1308 BEACON WAY S 00626-001 , RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 STARKOVICH RUDY ANDERSON ROBERT L MEAKIN VIOLET 80 N RIVERSIDE DR 316 CAPT GRAY CT SE 7100 S TAFT RENTON WA 98055 OCEAN SHORES WA 98569 SEATTLE WA 98178 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. SALVATION ARMY RYAN MAXWELL H 7 0S2NDST PO BOX9219 PO BOX 336 NTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98109 RENTON WA 98057 TENNESSEE GROUP L L C BROZOVICH FRANK NEWMAN JON+LINDA 710 S 2ND ST 7547 S LAUREL ST 8070 LANGSTON RD S RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98178 NEWMAN JON+LINDA CITY OF RENTON THE BOEING COMPANY 8070 LANGSTON RD S HOUSING AUTHORITY 0 PO BOX 3707-M/S 1F-09 S ATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98124 T E BOEING COMPANY CITY OF RENTON EIGHT SIXTY BUILDING L P PO BOX 3707 200 MILL AVE S 950 WEST PERIMETER ROAD MS 1F-09 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98124 T E BOEING COMPANY RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 PO BOX 3703 M/S#1F-09 435 MAIN AVE S 435 MAIN AVE S SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON DOBSON WYMAN K BENNETT W E BENNETT W E 821 N 1ST ST 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 STARKOVICH RUDY GROSS WARIN L+BRENDA E EVANS M JUNE 810 N RIVERSIDE DR 829 N 1ST ST 817 N 1ST ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ZIMMERMAN JAMES V+THERESA A BURKHALTER JOHN P DOBSON CAROL 813 N FIRST ST 803 N 1ST ST PO BOX 59 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 J ; } CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON TRUMAN MARGUERITE HALLER BENNETT W E . BENNETT W E 14626 SE JONES PL 20 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CHARBONEAU PHILIP CHARBONEAU PHILIP DALSANTO EVELYN G 14636 SE JONES PL 14636 SE JONES PL 15017 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • RENTON WA 98058 C TY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON BECKER GARY B B NNETT W E BENNETT W.E 14631 SE 145TH PL 2 0 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 •I' SCA JAMES G DALSANTO EVELYN G BROWN DALE T 221 WILLIAMS AVE N 15017 149TH AVE SE 14704 158TH AVE SE NTON WA 98055 'RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98059 ANDORSSEN ROBERT J+PAULA Y 14804 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 ARNOLD NORMAN C FRESE LAWRENCE R&JUDITH S WELCH LARRY L+MARY F 320 RENTON AVE SOUTH 316 RENTON AVE S PO BOX 819 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 CALLEN FRED C CALLEN FRED C PAULSEN KENNEY MAE 113 LEISURE WORLD 300 RENTON AVE S 4208 BEACH DR SW#302 MESA AZ 85206 RENTON WA 98055 SEATLE WA 98116 EDSFORTH JOHN F+SHEILA DINIUS JOHN L HOLT JACK D&MARY JANE 54 HIGH AVE SOUTH 1512 S 6TH ST 1517 S 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 LEWIS ELIZABETH F GARFIELD LILY W&RICHARD.0 LIN JAMES 125 S 6TH ST PO BOX 1706 1719 SE 7TH CT RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 FULFER MICHAEL R+WENDY L BERGQUIST DOUGLAS J+JOYCE M LAKERIDGE DEVLP INC 13016 SE 95TH MAY 1801 S 7TH CT PO BOX 146 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 L KERIDGE DEVLP INC JONES WM WAYNE JR+DEBRA BEATTY DIANNE L PO BOX 146 PO BOX 146 1730 SE 7TH CT RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 MCGATLIN KATHLEEN M MALESIS LOUIS G+MARY K HEMENWAY DANNY C 1724 SE 7TH CT 1718 SE 7TH CT HEMENWAY ELIZABETH 7 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 1712 SE 7TH CT RENTON WA 98055 STEVENS LISA+WERTZ VICTOR K NELSON/NELSON MILES DAVID T+SUZUKI VICTOR 1706 S 7TH CT 1508 SOUTH 6TH STREET 1510 S 6TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • o r L CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE S IIENTON WA 98055 • RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 LLRED MARGARET M (TR) • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 2 506 168TH PL SE BENNETT W E 200 MILL AVE SO NT WA 98042 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CiITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON ' ANMARCO 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 9125 10TH AVE SOUTH NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98108 ITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON COLUMBIA&PUGET SOUND RY C 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 0 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ITY OF RENTON LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 200 MILL AVE S PO BOX 146 435 MAIN AVE S NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 HAPPELLE DOUGLAS E+CAROL A KOEHLER WILLIAM+LYLE,CHRIST GREGORY DAVID C 2 20 SE 8TH PL 2142 SE 8TH PL 2140 SE 8TH PL NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA • 98055 • -RENTON WA 98055 VILLACRES ENRIQUE C JONES STEPHEN R+LINDA S JONES DERRICK M+WENDOLYN M 2138 SE 8TH PL '2136 SE 8TH PLACE 2134 SE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 - RENTON WA 98055 BA7BICH JOHN BLACKLOW DOUGLAS J 'ALLIBHAI HAFIZ K+SHARMIN 31902 SE 291ST ST 2130 SE 8TH PLACE 2070 SE 8TH PL VENSDALE WA 98051 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 GRELLA SCOTT A+MOSS,SHANNON MAXWELL ROBERT T ATTALAH SAMIR 2068 SE 8TH PL 410 RENTON AVE S 344 RENTON AVE S NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 J HNSON PHILLIP E+BONNIE J tBISHOP MICHAEL J PICKETT DAVID C 350 RENTON AVE S 326 RENTON AVE S 317 SPRING ST ESTENSION NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 GLASTONBURY CT 6033 , H BART JEAN G STARKOVICH RUDOLPH J+BEVERL TONELL AUGUST I 0 WILLIAMS AVE N 810 N RIVERSIDE DR 20916 MILITARY ROAD S NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98188 NTON LOCAL 1797 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON B OTHERHOOD CARP&JOINERS BENNETT W E. CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S 2 1 BURNETT N 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON T X DEPT 200 MILL AVE S BENNETT W E 1700 E GOLF RD#400 CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 C TY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON CHASE FLOYD C TY HALL BENNETT W E 2200 ABERDEEN AVE NE 210 MILL AVE SO 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98056 • NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 G ULIANI JOHN R JR MCNEELY HELEN M FORRAS PETER K+NANCY 8 2 N 1ST ST 806 N 1ST ST 2030 ROLLING HILLS AVE SE ' NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 S HUMSKY DONALD FRASIER CHRISTINE 'HEITMAN RUBY V +MARGARET SEVERYNS WILLIAM 50 LOGAN AVE S 2019 JONES NE PO BOX 836 RENTON WA 98055 ' NTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 1 ITMAN RUBY V CITY OF RENTON VENESS JOHN ALLEN+CAROL M 5 0 LOGAN AVE S CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S 36 LOGAN AVE S • NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 A LINGHAM WILLIAM D CITY OF RENTON P• BOX 48117 BENNETT W E SEATTLE WA ' 98148 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 C. 0 4. .1* .11�Nrr°. REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION . PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 23, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. THIS REVISED NOTICE REFLECTS A CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River ffom Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Sedar River. TUDIES REQUIRED/OR VAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) UBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 09.1998. This r'natter is also scheduled for a public hearing on February 10.1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200.Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in Writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who Submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. IPLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 OTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 N ATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ' DECEMBER 23,1997(REVISED JANUARY 23,1998) tint i ' a M1,0 ' Morn °' `-.1.476 4. Complex d Q 0461.11.1 \ > c.L pp. SL , l;i• ;W te.Vr:Fi.F4' (M�.q N ve 'ti o`er Dispposal yh,, GENMALOT.DOC ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... • ...................................................................................................y..................................................................................................................................................... ::;: :i:isF;:::;:;::;;;::YY;::.:::{:;i::;:;;:;;;i:::i::ii:;:::;:i:;:::;:...... F... .. ..� .. .. . :Ri�rid...........................................:................... :::;;.....::::::::::.::.::::::;:::i;;;;;:::::::::::.:::::;:.::.::::::::i::::i.................... :::::::;::;;::::::i::::.;::fii::::::i:i;::::::;;;::i::::::::i::iii::i::i .:.>....: AU .. .1.. *VMS ......... • iigooNgiviCHAMBERSSECONMFLOORRENTON. MUNICIIPALOSUILDINimitomigg G r € in .::T��€O : :l�atip�S :I:s#.ed.;a.:!�::tr�::!�.r..�p.:.�.::�..::IC��t±�ft::�trtr�bet.:can. .:end::.p�fi:.r1���s;�.�r.�l::::xh�::c��cie�...rk.wt€�clr.:. ...........IAA................�..3........................................................1�#�'....................................:......:�+:...::.::.::.::.::.:::::.:::::::::::::::::Y::::.:::::::::..: ::.::::::::::::::::..:::.. .......� ..wi..1.I��...��r�i......t..m...w►.�..k�..c�..l.. ..f..t.��.�r1 ....f.th+�.!ifia��t��r�.�f..#h�:.�-tE3���1 :F.;���t€ner�::<:>:<::>:><:<::;::;:><::><: PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Dredging PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-97-192,SP,SM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Location: Between Williams Ave and the mouth of the Cedar River including the area within and adjacent to the river. PROJECT NAME: Highland Market Place PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-97-175,SA-H,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a retail shopping center development including a total building area of 81,249 sq. ft. The proposal consists of a 37,853 sq. ft. QFC Market and an adjacent 15,000 sq. ft. retail anchor and 2,100 sq.ft. for shops. Separate building pads are proposed for a 12,800 sq. ft. building of retail shops, and a 6,500 sq. ft. retail building and 3,500 sq. ft. fast food restaurant oriented toward NE 4th Street. The site includes two existing wetlands and the applicant proposes to fill one wetland (9,964 sq. ft.) and provide on-site mitigation. Access is proposed via two driveways off Duvall Avenue NE and two driveway cuts off NE 4th Street. There is an additional service vehicle driveway proposed off Duvall Avenue NE. A common parking area with 325 parking stalls is proposed. Location: Northeast corner of Duvall Avenue NE and NE 4th Street. AGNDA.DOC • r f . City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: January 27, 1998 ProjectNanie: Cedar River Dredging Applicant/ City of Renton Address: Surface Water Utility 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 Owner/ City of Renton Address: Surface Water Utility 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 File Number: LUA-97-192,SP,SM Project Manager: Ross Hathaway Mark R. Pywell • Project Description: City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Project Location: Between Williams Ave and the mouth of the Cedar River including the area within and adjacent to the river. ' Boeinga,, oga BrKlge lti • N fiA t,o,e ';n comp Bbeirl ex iyF:: 1 ;Hangars; > C 1 '''nt ....:; N.6th St. PReritbr c r•:Miiiiciq�l ,., ,5.Boatnq � 3 c� Dr. v::p. +.��i�i',"{:.t'-('t3:: -off o 42, Hal C-• Disposal _ _ "�. . r City of Renton PB/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192,SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 2 of 9 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record:: City of Renton 2. Zoning Designation: Unzoned River Right-of-Way, 3. Comprehensive Plan Employment Area- Industrial :Land Use Designation Residential Single Family Residential Options 4. Existing Site Use: River, Park,Airport 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Lake Washington East: Industrial, Residential, Linear Park South: Residential, Commercial West: Airport, Residential, Park, Commercial 6. Access: From adjacent parks, boat ramp near NE 6th Street 7. Site Area: Approximately 74.68 acres including Levee and floodwalls, disposal site, mitigation site and temporary storage site. Approximately 19.7 acres of constructed river channel dredging 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: N/A, New Building Area: N/A Total Building Area: N/A C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexations Incorporated 1901 156 5/18/09 1300 2/3/48 2170 8/2/65 3945 10/7/85 Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning 4404 6/7/93 HEXRPT3.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner • CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192,SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 3 of 9 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: N/A (Private & Park irrigation) Sewer: N/A (Private S. Boeing Bridge relocation) Surface Water/Storm Water: N/A(Existing outfalls&Airport revisions) 2. Fire Protection: N/A(Private- S. Boeing Bridge) 3. Transit: N/A 4. Schools: N/A 5. Recreation: N/A (Park-will be restored with levees) 6. Other: N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section Resource Conservation Zone 2. Section 4-31-27 Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Section- Residential Rural & Employment Area- Industrial 2. Chapter 8 Environmental G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The project consists of levees and dredging along the lower approximately 1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington with temporary storage of the dredge spoils at the NARCO industrial site. Modification of the South Boeing Bridge and a salmon spawning channel will also be part of the project. A more detailed description follows: HEXRPT3.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department '--- Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 4 of 9 The project is located along the Lower Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the Mouth of the River at Lake Washington. The project includes dredging of the existing channel to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the 1995 bed profile (preferred alternative "minimum" dredge described in attached Detailed Project Report), and construction of levees and floodwalls, to provide minimum protection against the 100 year recurrence interval event with at least 90% reliability (just prior to redredging); and periodic dredging (as frequent as every three years) to maintain the design level of protection. The project is in a constructed channel that has been regularly dredged over the last eighty years. Because of the low channel gradient (due in part to the lowering of Lake Washington by 9 feet circa 1916), dredging is required for regular operation and maintenance of the facility. Regular redredging by the City is also a requirement in the contract for the project with the Federal Government. Redredging intervals will be based on regular bed elevation surveys to determine the amount of aggradation since the previous dredge cycle. Therefore, ongoing redredging is included in this application for an indefinite period (preferably for the project life of 50 years). The Army Corps of Engineers tentatively will give a 10-year permit for initial and maintenance dredging. The active construction is scheduled to start in the spring of 1998 and extend into 1999. There is a remote possibility portions of construction may not initiate until 1999, and we are requesting the permit cover construction initiating in both 1998 and 1999. Immediately after each dredge cycle, the project reach will provide up to a 200 year recurrence interval flood protection with 90% reliability, which will decline until the channel aggrades to the maximum allowable bed elevation to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. The estimated average level of protection over the project life (100 years) is 150 year flood protection. On the left (West) bank the project will require a total of 3620 linear feet of steel sheetpile floodwall, or high levee constructed of soil, averaging 7 feet above the existing ground surface from RM 1.07 to RM 0.41. Downstream of RM 0.41 to the mouth of the river, an earthen berm averaging 4 feet high with 4 horizontal on 1 vertical (4H:1V) side slopes will be used to avoid conflicts with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety zone restrictions for the airport. The riverside trail or adjacent berm will be raised up to three feet from RM 1.07 to RM 1.23 (Williams Avenue) upstream of Logan Avenue. On the right (East) bank, a levee that varies between 2 to 7 feet high with 4H:1V to 3H:1 V side slopes will be incorporated into existing park landscaping from RM 1.23 (Williams Avenue) to the mouth at Lake.Washington. Some cast-in-place concrete structures will be required as floodwalls adjacent the trail between Williams Avenue and Logan Avenue, under the Logan Avenue bridge, at the intersection of N. 6th Street and N. Riverside Drive and between the gazebo and rest rooms inside the park North of N. 6th Street. Some access points will require flood doors, or ramps and stairs, to cross through the levee system. The dredging will be 4 feet deep (below the 1995 streambed profile) from approximately 20 feet out into Lake Washington to RM 1 (Logan Avenue Bridge); the dredge will then be tapered up to meet the existing gradient upstream at Williams Avenue bridge to reduce headcutting (rapid erosion at the upstream end of the dredge) that could negatively impact fish. The total volume of sediment to be dredged is approximately 160,000 CY; the total volume of material to be moved and placed is approximately 300,000 CY including dredged materials, levee materials, armoring and landscape materials. A hydraulic jacking system will be provided for the South Boeing bridge to lift it above the water surface during major flood events. Closure structures will be located at each end of the South Boeing bridge to provide for a continuous level of protection when the bridge is in the raised position. A controlled overtopping section of the left (West) bank levee system will extend from the South Boeing bridge to the river mouth for flows over the 100 year event. HEXRPT3.DOC + City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner . CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 5 of 9 Dredge materials will be disposed temporarily at an upland site owned by Renton, approximately two miles upstream of the project near the left bank West of the Cedar River Trail South of 1-405 (the NARCO site). The dredge spoils will be removed or sold from the site periodically until the next redredge of the project (within approximately three years). Some of the dredge material may be used at the NARCO site for future site development; separate permit applications would be made for these future site development projects. Alternatively the dredge spoils may be donated or sold for other projects and the NARCO site never used. Small, low quality wetlands exist on the NARCO site left from demolition of an industrial site. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has determined the wetlands will likely not be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps. The City of Renton Code indicates the wetlands are not jurisdictional under 4-32-3 D because they are human related and less than 5,000 SF. A HEXRPT3.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 6 of 9 human created pond exists on the NARCO site off the extreme south edge of the proposed spoils pile location. The USACE feels this is a water of the United States; City code indicates this is possibly a Category 3 wetland (4-32-3 D.3.) and may require a 25 foot setback (4-32-3 F (3)). We will provide a minimum 25 foot setback from the pond. Sediment transport analysis of the selected project design indicates that maintenance dredging may be required as often as every three years to maintain the design level of protection. Approximately 50% of the ornamental plantings in the Park downstream of Logan Avenue will be removed and several trees along the left bank will also be removed. The Park will be restored after completion of the work. Storm drainage improvements, including water quality treatment, will be provided on the NARCO site if it is used. This would consist of a grass lined swale marginal to the dredge spoils pile, settling pond with elevated outlet, and normal construction erosion control measures. It should be noted that the dredge spoils will consist primarily of very clean gravel and rock, which are very well draining, and will not readily erode in a stockpile. Therefore the dredge spoil stockpile will not be covered, and additional stormwater detention will not be necessary. A spawning channel is to be installed upstream at the Cedar River Regional Park (just upstream of the Maplewood Golf Course). The spawning channel will require excavation of approximately 7500 CY of native material and placement of up to 700 CY of gravel and bank stabilization materials. Excavated materials will be re-distributed on site or transported elsewhere in the project as needed. Excavation of the spawning channel will require the removal of several trees (primarily cottonwoods and broad leaf maples) and some other vegetation. After construction, the areas will be replanted with trees and shrubs. Impervious area will not be changed by the project. Locally, where levees block existing flows, the area will be regraded to prevent ponding. Existing outfalls to the river will be fitted with flap gates to eliminate flow reversal during high flow periods. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on January 6, 1998 the Environmental Review Committee adopted the EIS issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation described above will be constructed as part of this project. The proposed work is in compliance with, and a required part of, the above referenced project. All work will be designed and constructed to comply with all applicable local, State and Federal environmental regulations. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. HEXRPT3.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 7 of 9 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DREDGING APPROVAL CRITERIA To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that the activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: GENERAL CRITERIA: A. SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY The project land area is approximately 74.68 acres including Levee and floodwalls, disposal site, mitigation site and temporary storage site. The project also includes approximately 19.7 acres of constructed river channel dredging which will require periodic redredging. The project is located along the Lower Cedar River from Williams Avenue to .the Mouth of the River at Lake Washington. The project includes dredging of the existing channel to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the 1995 bed profile (preferred alternative "minimum" dredge described in attached Detailed Project Report), and construction of levees and floodwalls, to provide minimum protection against the 100 year recurrence interval event with at least 90% reliability (just prior to redredging); and periodic dredging (as frequent as every three years) to maintain the design level of protection. The project is in a constructed channel that has been regularly dredged over the last eighty years. Because of the low channel gradient (due in part to the lowering of Lake Washington by 9 feet circa 1916), dredging is required for regular operation and maintenance of the facility. Regular redredging by the City is also a requirement in the contract for the project with the Federal Government. Redredging intervals will be based on regular bed elevation surveys to determine the amount of aggradation since the previous dredge cycle. Therefore, ongoing redredging is included in this application for an indefinite period (preferably for the project life of 50 years). The Army Corps of Engineers tentatively will give a 10-year permit for initial and maintenance dredging. The active construction is scheduled to start in the spring of 1998 and extend into 1999. There is a remote possibility portions of construction may not initiate until 1999, and we are requesting the permit cover construction initiating in both 1998 and 1999. Immediately after each dredge cycle, the project reach will provide up to a 200 year recurrence interval flood protection with 90% reliability, which will decline until the channel aggrades to the maximum allowable bed elevation to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. The estimated average level of protection over the project life (100 years) is 150 year flood protection. B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PATTERNS; It is estimated the total dredging volume will be 170,000. The dredging and hauling operation will continue 20 hours per day. With 20 CY trucks this will result in 8,500 truck trips averaging in one trip every 6.4 minutes with a frequency up to one truck every 2 minutes. The levees for the project will require approximately 60,000 CY of material, resulting in approximately 3,000 truck trips. It is anticipated the levee construction will follow the dredging and frequency for truck traffic for the levees will be significantly less than for the dredging. Other traffic will result from delivery of plant and other restoration materials, delivery of equipment for the South Boeing Bridge modification, maintenance equipment and other crew activities. The volume of truck traffic may be reduced by some recycling of dredged materials for levees and fill. Some traffic HEXRPT3.DOC 4 • City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner • 1 CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 8 of 9 will occur due to ingress and egress from the mitigation site. All suitable surplus excavated materials from the mitigation site will be stored at the site for future work by the Parks Department. Clearing and grubbing materials will be hauled to a suitable disposal location (probably Cedar Grove for recycling). The completed project is not anticipated to result in any additional traffic except for periodic maintenance dredging every three to ten years. The main and alternate haul routes are as described below: Main Haul Route: Dredge Area/Airport East Perimeter Road to light on Airport Way at the Airport. Left onto Airport Way and continue to Logan Ave., right turn onto N. 6th Street. Right turn onto Park Ave. N., right turn onto Bronson Way, left turn onto Mill Ave. S. cross Houser Way onto Access to NARCO Site. Return: Access to NARCO site, cross Houser Way to Mill Ave. South, right turn onto Bronson Way, left turn onto Park Ave. N. The a left turn onto N. 4th Street, left turn onto Logan Ave., right turn onto Airport East Perimeter Road at Logan Ave bridge over the Cedar River. Alternate Main Haul Route (To Port Quendall Site/Alternate Disposal) Dredge Area/Airport East Perimeter Road to light on Airport Way. At the airport, left onto Airport Way. Continue to Logan Ave, right turn onto N. 6th Street, left onto Park Ave. N. Continue to SR 900 and 1-405. Take 1-405 to the NE 44th Street off ramp. Left on NE 44th, right onto Ripley Lane to the Port Quendall Site. Return: Ripley Lane to NE 44th Street, right onto 1-405, exit to SR 900 (Park Ave. N) left onto N. 4th Street, left on Logan Ave. Turn right onto Airport East Perimeter Road at the Logan Ave. bridge over the Cedar River. City standard truck haul routes will be used as the main haul routes for all other project haulage. C. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, FENCING AND SETBACKS; The park will be restored with landscaping and habitat vegetation as approved by the City of Renton Parks Department. Sheet pile floodwalls in sections along the Airport will be screened by trees and habitat plantings. The mitigation site will be restored with habitat plantings. No fencing is anticipated. D. UNSIGHTLINESS, NOISE, DUST; The project is proposed to operate for 20 hours a day with shutdowns for maintenance. These shutdowns are anticipated to occur at peak traffic hours and Boeing Airplane takeoffs. E. SURFACE DRAINAGE; The Airport drainage system will be modified and local drainages re-established due to requested changes and regrading. Receiving water location will still be the Cedar River. Some outfalls will be fitted with flap gates to prevent back flooding from the river. F. REUSE OF SITE Any new development on this site would require the appropriate level of review by City staff. Due to the size of the project site and the level of development that would probably occur on this site, it is anticipated that a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner would be required. HEXRPT3.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner • CEDAR RIVER DREDGING LUA-97-192, SP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 27, 1998 Page 9 of 9 G. TRANSFERABILITY OF SPECIAL PERMIT This permit will run with the land and should be transferred to future property owners. H. PERMIT EXPIRATION: Staff recommends that the permit should expire ten (10) years from the date of approval. This special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not begun the activity within six (6) months after the granting of the permit, unless the Hearing Examiner grants an extension of time. If the applicant can not obtain a window for the dredging from State and Federal agencies within six months of the date of approval of this permit, the applicant needs'to inform the City in writing of the dates when the dredging will occur. 1. REVOCATION OF A PERMIT: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department is authorized to revoke any annual license issued pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance if after due investigation they determine that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this Ordinance. Notice of revocation shall have reasonable time not to exceed forty-five (45) days in which to remedy the defects or omissions specified. In the event the licensee fails or neglects to do so within the time period, the order of revocation shall be final. A total or partial stop work order may be issued for good reason. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Cedar River Dredging, Project File No. LUA-97-192,SP subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with Mitigation Measures contained within the EIS that was adopted by the City of Renton for this project. (2) This permit shall expire ten years from the date of approval. HEXRPT3.DOC y City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:StL F C IWdsklvvaUtr COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pyvfit'OF RENTON !YC.-11 PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar Rig 2 3 1997 SITE AREA Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 BUILDING AREA(gross): 'AVIL Jima Linv t51UN acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site.. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS -- Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics — Water Llght/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation - Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS , Sla cea vd i 55cP ee; k ve(`t(lvz1/ -{i s1ova. &)4,ec6 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information �IsJneeded to properly assess this proposal. (VIA IA 1 2/2 q/ Signature of Director or Authorized Reoresentative Date City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTA-L 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION• REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Igylcs COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 f BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More • Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation • �S"--- Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals • Transportation - Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 0,1 z-cl rL/'l e r 0 Hof c Z2-ec-,,.....40 54 1 � ,�rZL� ctifi - ,em,,r: u G ,, sit.,_ _ _,,,, 0.0 i rGuuOcO t1, d- ``'• B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ) a)rc, _ 777/ , , _Ct° c� > / ) 71 P a. L4-6 �� ,64- c - -<- - c� T� ...-6./4_e_oe-c-c-6(.7 ip 6r--727-c-r7 i-,-2 .•, (4.-A20)/9c- __,___ o-r_t; c- .%i_2e:6),.?-e)-e---74 k „ , -1.. c-ie ,V2,e-c--e 09-> f el)-22.€l-c ,L5'77--eic,2,6 & /,a_e_r_46 , g C COD.R�Lc.AT eCOM ENT 7 L��2CtiO (� pia .),2> 2�;eSV`e___"� icx. e--""t,c30 �V7d /d _ r-->L1 �-L 77-Le—z awe 2, e ,>kil ) /4, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. �/l�c 1/ ianature of Director or uthorized Representative Date 4A City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works . - _- ENVIRONMENTAL-AS, :D:.EVEL-OPMENT A-PPLIC-A:TION REVIEW SHEET' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:AiYp k COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 . . .APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM _. _ -_ DATE CIRCULATED:_ DECEMBER 23, 1997 . APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility - PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 ..._._-_ LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 .BUILDING-AREA(gross): N/A- - • , ,- - .. acres. l SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's - NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth X - Housing X Air X Aesthetics X Water X LIghtGlare X . Plants X Recreation X Land/Shoreline Use X Utilities X Animals X Transportation X Environmental Health X Public Services X Energy/ X Historic/Cultural X . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet yes 14,000 Feet — B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED.COMMENTS A Notice of Proposed Construction will be required to be submitted to the FAA prior to construction of levees or sheet pile north of the Cedar River hangars, prior to the initiation of construction, since this is on-airport construc- tion. We have reviewed thi :ppllcatlon with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where =• itional info ,"on Is needed to properly assess this proposal. � 1 - Tci.u.. t z 1 lin Signatu 4.f Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.•• Rev.10/93 r.,E::',EIY:I<.QIY%: ::: 3 :$r'' r;: ::?'`'::::':'':rtiii:`isi::2::'< ::::::::':< :%:::::'<'c::r:•`;:;:;:j;: ROUNDINeiRROBERIMIOWNgg.§1111 h► <:300.feet:::of:::�fh�:sub eci..s.te..;::::::;:>,:<::<:>:::>:;;>::><>::::�::<.:>:<;:::>:<:<:>>::<:>::>:<:::::<>::::::<:::>:«:::::�<:::>:::<:>:: PROJECT NAME: g^✓L'4, `5� ,� 2Q� / " �'a'``4 U� ,c r,A1 APPLICATION NO: WP.• 11• tit, Sr) six% The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 'sefit t • 21 •96 •• . • •• ;,FL.OPMENT PLANNING DEC 1 1997 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) ij171 C;fit"1d V F !�' , r • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVE SOUTH ' 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA . 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ALLRED MARGARET M (TR) CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON 261506 168TH PL SE BENNETT W E 200 MILL AVE SO KENT WA 98042 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON ANMARCO 2010 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 9125 10TH AVE SOUTH NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98108 7 C TY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON COLUMBIA&PUGET SOUND RY C 2010 MILL AVE SOUTH 200 MILL AVE SOUTH 0 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 200 MILL AVE S PO BOX 146 435 MAIN AVE S 7 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS E+CAROL A KOEHLER WILLIAM+LYLE,CHRIST GREGORY DAVID C 220 SE 8TH PL 2142 SE 8TH PL 2140 SE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 VILLACRES ENRIQUE C JONES STEPHEN R+LINDA S JONES DERRICK M+WENDOLYN M 21p38 SE 8TH PL 2136 SE 8TH PLACE 2134 SE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • RENTON WA 98055 B BICH JOHN BLACKLOW DOUGLAS J ALLIBHAI HAFIZ K+SHARMIN 311902 SE 291ST ST 2130 SE 8TH PLACE 2070 SE 8TH PL RAVENSDALE WA 98051 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 GRELLA SCOTT A+MOSS,SHANNON MAXWELL ROBERT T ATTALAH SAMIR 20168 SE 8TH PL 410 RENTON AVE S 344 RENTON AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 JOHNSON PHILLIP E+BONNIE J BISHOP MICHAEL J PICKETT DAVID C 350 RENTON AVE S 326 RENTON AVE S 317 SPRING ST ESTENSION NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 GLASTONBURY CT . 6033 1. A OLD NORMAN C FRESE LAWRENCE R&JUDITH S WELCH LARRY L+MARY F 320 RENTON AVE SOUTH 316 RENTON AVE S PO BOX 819 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 CALLEN FRED C CALLEN FRED C PAULSEN KENNEY MAE 113 LEISURE WORLD 300 RENTON AVE S 4208 BEACH DR SW#302 MESA AZ 85206 RENTON WA 98055 SEATLE WA 98116 EDSFORTH JOHN F+SHEILA DINIUS JOHN L HOLT JACK D&MARY JANE 524 HIGH AVE SOUTH 1512 S 6TH ST 1517 S 6TH ST lNTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 LEWIS ELIZABETH F GARFIELD LILY W&RICHARD.0 LIN JAMES 15125 S 6TH ST PO BOX 1706 1719 SE 7TH CT IE 1 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 FULFER MICHAEL R+WENDY L BERGQUIST DOUGLAS J+JOYCE M LAKERIDGE DEVLP INC Iii016 SE 95TH MAY 1801 S 7TH CT PO BOX 146 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 LAKERIDGE DEVLP INC JONES WM WAYNE JR+DEBRA BEATTY DIANNE L PO BOX 146 PO BOX 146 1730 SE 7TH CT RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98055 MCGATLIN KATHLEEN M MALESIS LOUIS G+MARY K HEMENWAY DANNY C 1724 SE 7TH CT 1718 SE 7TH CT HEMENWAY ELIZABETH RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 1712 SE 7TH CT RENTON WA 98055 STEVENS LISA+WERTZ VICTOR K NELSON/NELSON MILES DAVID T+SUZUKI VICTOR ;706 S 7TH CT 1508 SOUTH 6TH STREET 1510 S 6TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON TRUMAN MARGUERITE HALLER BENNETT W E . BENNETT W E 14626 SE JONES PL 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CHARBONEAU PHILIP CHARBONEAU PHILIP DALSANTO EVELYN G 14636 SE JONES PL 14636 SE JONES PL 15017 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON BECKER GARY B BENNETT W E BENNETT W E 14631 SE 145TH PL 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 7SCA JAMES G DALSANTO EVELYN G BROWN DALE T WILLIAMS AVE N 15017 149TH AVE SE 14704 158TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98059 V NDORSSEN ROBERT J+PAULA Y 14804 SE JONES PL RENTON WA 98058 • • I BROZOVICH FRANK&DARLENE SWANSON DAVID C • AMERICAN LEGION# 19 . 66 WILLIAMS AVE S 4616 S 124TH 1308 BEACON WAY S 00626-001 NTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 TARKOVICH RUDY ANDERSON ROBERT L MEAKIN VIOLET 810 N RIVERSIDE DR 316 CAPT GRAY CT SE 7100 S TAFT NTON WA 98055 OCEAN SHORES WA . 98569 SEATTLE WA 98178 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. SALVATION ARMY RYAN MAXWELL H 710 S 2ND ST PO BOX 9219 P O BOX 336 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98109 RENTON WA 98057 TENNESSEE GROUP L L C BROZOVICH FRANK NEWMAN JON+LINDA 710 S 2ND ST 7547 S LAUREL ST 8070 LANGSTON RD S RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98178 NEWMAN JON+LINDA CITY OF RENTON THE BOEING COMPANY 8070 LANGSTON RD S HOUSING AUTHORITY 0 PO BOX 3707-M/S 1F-09 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98124 1'HE BOEING COMPANY CITY OF RENTON EIGHT SIXTY BUILDING L P PO BOX 3707 200 MILL AVE S 950 WEST PERIMETER ROAD MS IF-09 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98124 THE BOEING COMPANY RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 PLO BOX 3703 M/S#1F-09 435 MAIN AVE S 435 MAIN AVE S SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON DOBSON WYMAN K BENNETT W E BENNETT W E 821 N 1ST ST 200 MILL AVE S 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SIFARKOVICH RUDY GROSS WARIN L+BRENDA E EVANS M JUNE 8110 N RIVERSIDE DR 829 N 1ST ST 817N 1ST ST NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 Z MMERMAN JAMES V+THERESA A BURKHALTER JOHN P DOBSON CAROL 8 3 N FIRST ST 803 N 1ST ST PO BOX 59 I NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98057 HOBART JEAN G STARKOVICH RUDOLPH J+BEVERL TONELL AUGUST 100 WILLIAMS AVE N 810 N RIVERSIDE DR 20916 MILITARY ROAD S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98188 RENTON LOCAL 1797 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON BROTHERHOOD CARP&JOINERS BENNETT W E CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S 231 BURNETT N 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA • 98055 BURLINGTON NORTHRN SANTA FE • CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON TAX DEPT 200 MILL AVE S BENNETT W E 1700 E GOLF RD#400 CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S SCHAUMBURG IL 60173 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON CHASE FLOYD CITY HALL BENNETT W E 2200 ABERDEEN AVE NE 200 MILL AVE.SO 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 GIULIANI JOHN R JR MCNEELY HELEN M FORRAS PETER K+NANCY 812 N 1ST ST 806 N 1ST ST 2030 ROLLING HILLS AVE SE 7 NTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SCHUMSKY DONALD FRASIER CHRISTINE HEITMAN RUBY V V%4MARGARET SEVERYNS WILLIAM 50 LOGAN AVE S 2919 JONES NE PO BOX 836 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 HEITMAN RUBY V CITY OF RENTON VENESS JOHN ALLEN+CAROL M 5 LOGAN AVE S CITY HALL 200 MILL AVE S 36 LOGAN AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ALLINGHAM WILLIAM D CITY OF RENTON PO BOX 48117 BENNETT W E SEATTLE WA 98148 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 . • • • • On the 84' day of lsln U sv6i . , I deposited in the mails of the United ' States, a sealed envelope containing M*Ice. for an Adottti glciitivt ChvtvOV►meh LLI:bcuwlevit- documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division • • Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities • • Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy • • • (Signature of Sender) %tunti & tL. Se .iipie.v" • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING, ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that c--)A-nei. ? signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for die uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • Dated:�1 U' - 1 Notary Public' and for the State of Wash's . .n Notary (Print) My appointment COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: C.e�1ar 1R144.100 Seatior, 2d5 Project Number: LUA •91 , 192, SP,SYY1 • • • • NOTARY.DOC may., CITI_ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 07, 1998 • Washington State , Department of Ecology . Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 . Subject: Environmental Determinations. . Transmitted herewith is a copy of the notice for an Adoption of Existing Environmental Document. The City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee adopted the EIS for the Cedar River Section 205 Project on January 6, 1998. The EIS was prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers for the Cedar River 205 Project. Public hearings were held in the City of Renton at the time the document was prepared. Public comment and appeal periods were satisfied during the preparation of the document and its adoption by the Corps. CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 LUA-97-192,SP,SM The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include:levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the.dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site'or will be sold or,donated to other projects. The City will also create a salmon spawning channel, provide plantings,and other measures to mitigate for the impact on the river. If you have questions, please call me at(425)277-5586. For the Environmental Review Committee, �� Mark R.P I, AICP V Senior Planner cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources - Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities V . Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy • • AGNCYI TK nnr\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 • . WAC 197-11-965 Adoption notice. ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption for(check appropriate box) DNS X EIS other Description of current proposal The project consists of levees and dredging along the lower approximately 1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington with temporary storage of the dredge spoils at the NARCO industrial site or sale of the material. Modification of the South Boeing Bridge and a salmon spawning channel will also be part of the project. Proponent City of Renton Location of current proposal The project is located along the lower approximately 1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington. Temporary storage of dredge spoils, if used, will be at the NARCO industrial site, near the left bank of the river just upstream of 1-405. A salmon spawning channel will be constructed'near the left bank of the river in the Cedar River Regional Park site. Title of document being adopted FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 RENTON, WASHINGTON Agency that prepared document being adopted United States Army Corps of Engineers Date adopted document was prepared June 1997 Description of document(or portion)being adopted Final EIS portion of document If the document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630 ), please describe: Document has already been finalized, all comments have been addressed. The document is available to be read at(place/time) Renton City Hall third floor service counter during regular working hours We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document City of Renton Contact person, if other than responsible official Ross Hathaway Phone: (425) 277-6205 Responsible official: Gregg Zimmerman Position/title Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Phone (425) 277-6211 Address: 200 Mill Ave. South, Renton Washington 98055 Date // 6lg5c Signature [Statutory Authority:RCW 43.21C.110.84-05-020(Order DE 3-3 ,§19 - 1-965,filed 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] SEPAADPT.DOC\ CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 30, 1997 TO: ERC FROM: A` ark R. Pywell r Ross Hathaway SUBJECT: Cedar River Section 205 Project Please find herewith a SEPA adoption form (Adoption of Existing Environmental Document) for the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) for above referenced project. The FEIS was written and adopted through the Federal Process with the intent to satisfy both NEPA and SEPA requirements. Public hearings were held in the City of Renton for the FEIS, all comment periods have concluded and the FEIS has been published in the Federal Register. The City worked closely with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in writing, reviewing and adopting the FEIS. The Headquarters USACE has requested minor clarifications in the document, this work is scheduled for completion in mid-January 1998. These clarifications will not require further public comment or adoption procedures for the FEIS. cc: Ron Straka U:\RHATHAWA\CR205\PERMITS\ERCMMO.DOC f _, City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:, 4* 4W COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-.192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322. LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth X Housing X Air X Aesthetics X Water X LIght/Glam X Plants X Recreation X Land/Shoreline Use _ X Utilities X Animals X Transportation X Environmental Health X Public Services X Energy/ X Historic./Cultural X Natural Resources Preservation , Airport Environment 10,000 Feet yy 14,000 Feet TI Os B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED.COMMENTS A Notice of Proposed Construction will be required to be submitted to the FAA prior to construction of levees or sheet pile north of the Cedar River hangars, prior to the initiation of construction, since this is on-airport construc- tion. We have reviewed thi ,pplication with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have identlfied.areas of probable impact or areas where :.•itional info (on Is needed to properly assess this proposal. ,� ` ‘--T . (Z I I Re Signatu 4.f Director or Authorized Representative Date I , DEVAPP.•• Rev.10/93 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION §77.13 Construction or alteration requiring notice. §77.15 Construction or alt n not requiring notice. (a) Except as provided in §77.15, each sponsor who proposes any of the following No person is required to nuwy u1e Administrator for any of the following construc- construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form and manner lion or alteration: prescribed in§77.17: (a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and (1)Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater level at its site. height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement (2)Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will outward and upward at one of the following slopes: not adversely affect safety in air navigation. (i) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of (b)Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph the height of another antenna structure. with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. (c) Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arrest- (ii) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of ing device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph an appropriate military service on military airports, the location and height of which with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. is fixed by its functional purpose. (iii) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of (d)Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in subparagraph (5)of this paragraph. §77.17 Form and time of notice. (3) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height (a) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under §77.13 (a) shall which,if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National send one executed form set of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division,FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the over the area within which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of road, which aver is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a FAA Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal Administration and the regional offices. to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would (b)The notice required under §77.13 (a) (1) through (4) must be submitted at least exceed a standard of subparagraph(1)or(2)of this paragraph. 30 days before the earlier of the following dates— (4) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be in (1)The date the proposed construction or alteration is to begin. an instrument approach area(defined in the FAA standards governing instrument (2)The date an application for a construction permit is to be filed. approach procedures)and available information indicates it might exceed a standard However, a notice relating to proposed construction or alteration that is subject 'o of Subpart C of this part the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Act may be sent to the FAA at the same time the application for construction is filed with the Federal (5)Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports(including heliports): Communications Commission,or at any time before that filing. (i)An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory (c)A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement. (ii) An airport under construction, that is the subject of a notice or proposal on and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and except for military airports, it of overcoming that presumption.Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions s clearly indicated that that airport will be available for public use. of Part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground,or an alteration (iii)An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. that will make an existing structure exceed that height must contain a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden.Only in exceptional cases,where the FAA concludes (b) Each sponsor who proposes construction or alteration that is the subject of a that a clear and compelling showing has been made that 4 would not result in an notice under paragraph (a)of this section and is advised by an FAA regional office inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice on a prescribed form will a determination of no hazard be issued. to be received by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours before the start of the construction or alteration (d) In the case of an emergency involving essential public services, public health,. (c) Each sponsorwho undertakes construction or alteration that is the of or public safety,that requires immediate construction or alteration,the 30 day require- (c) subjectment in paragraph (b) of this section does not apply and the notice may be sent a notice under paragraph(a)of this section shall,within 5 days after that construction by telephone, telegraph, or other expeditious means, with an executed FAA Form or alteration reaches its greatest height,submit a supplemental notice on a prescribed 7460-1 submitted within five (5) days thereafter. Outside normal business hours, form to the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the area involved,if— emergency notices by telephone or telegraph may be submitted to the nearest FAA (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet above the surface level Flight Service Station. of its site;or (e) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph (b) or (c) (2) An FAA regional office advises him that submission of the form is required. of §77.13, or both, shall send an executed copy of FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area involved. ADDRESSES OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES Western Pacific Region Southern Region Great Lakes Region New England Region HI,CA,NV,AZ,GU KY,TN,NC,SC,GA,AL, ND,WI,MI,SD,IL,OH,MN,IN MA,NH,VT,RI,CT,ME Western-Pacific Regional Office MS,FL,VI,PR Great Lakes Regional Office New England Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AWP-530 Southern Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AGL-530 Air Traffic Division.ANE-530 15000 Aviation Boulevard Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 2300 East Devon Avenue 12 New England Executive Park Hawthorne,CA 90260 3400 Norman Berry Drive Des Plaines,IL 60018 Burlington,MA 01803 Tel.310-297-1365 East Point,GA 30344 Tel.312-694-7568 Tel.617-273-7143 Mail Address: Tel.404-763-7646 Southwest Region Eastern Region AWP-530 Mail Address: NM,TX,OK,AR,LA NY,PA,WV,VA,DC,MD,DE,NJ P.O.Box 92007 Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Eastern Regional Office WorldwayAngel Postal Center Southern Regional Office Air Traffic Division,ASW-530 Air Traffic Division,AEA-530 Los Angeles,CA 90009 Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 Alaskan Region P.O.Box 20636 4400 Blue Mound Road JFK International Airport Atlanta,GA 30320 Fort Worth,TX 76193 Fitzgerald Federal Building AK Tel.817-624-5534 Jamaica,NY 11430 Alaskan Regional Office Northwest Mountain Region Mail Address: Tel.718-553-1228 Air Traffic Division,AAL-530 WA,OR,MT,ID,WY,UT,CO Department of Transporation Fax:718-553-1384 222 West 7th Avenue Northwest Mountain Regional Office Federal Aviation Administration Anchorage,AK 99513 Air Traffic Division,ANM-530 Fort Worth,TX 76193-0530 Tel.907-271-5893 1601 Lind Avenue,SW Central Region Mailing Address: Renton,WA 98055-4056 NE,IA,MO,KS Federal Aviation Administration Tel.206-227-2530 ra ntl Ce Regional Office Alaskan Regional Office Fax:206-227-1530 Aire TrafficDi in ACE-530 Air Traffic Division,AAL-53060 East 12th Street 222 West 7th Avenue,Box 14 Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 Kansas City,MO 64106 Tel.816-426-3408 FAA Form 7460-1 11-931 Supersedes Previous Edition City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:TA(CZ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services .r Energy/ HlstorldCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet . 7 /7 l 0C/' ern 16o1166 "a1-A-Avlce,4) , B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where ad itional information is needed to props assess this proposal. i-/('t a , a A., /- 4 -9 ri Signatur of Director or Authorized Representative Date nGveoannr ., . Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:SOFEC IWdskwt&kv COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark PAP OF RENTON r`r lrrn PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar R+t/e1 2 3 1997 SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 I BUILDING AREA(gross): I /UiLLuIty%.1 ui VISION acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics _ _ Water Ught/Glare ` Plants Recreation , , Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet . B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1el1davvf 1TESCP cer1 ke Vev,tivd fir s1ovc,c,e_ w- a,j iuk Co ,l7e, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additionalIn�formatio/n�IsJneeded to properly assess this proposal. A) -f"// /V01- 7 212 q/q 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lQ,YILs COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare - , Plants Recreation ��----- Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Q/72 oc 6 f_-/'l e C _0 ( c2 . Z,,C� c /ac /t r), (__(//7-?-(J74-,-7z7'° 4,2Ca r<� c.2 ,upc...0 Lc_-_&„.. _:g4 ,e.,,, as:0 , _ 4:d A.A0( B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS , C- 1 4•4 11 9 Id"-13Ly. Cevt-,--- Ge_.)e � d /r- , / CZ cci` > ,zee z i ) �' /,64- cam- ✓-0 c.e_ 'v7,7 /20' oei �-� /' 6 , ," �y 4(ear)-2 le �f7-v 4-7' . 2 % �.^CO DOE S M41 ENT „L ry ,rD/GUY.2� �?/7cl/� A� ' /�J 4 Cl/Y1G( /o 7 / 7,7ze,s,e, C22e "2.Z . —11, e-e f , We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to p properlya assess this proposal. ignature of Director or uthorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Pi: Yorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CO✓`5YW'li a COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998_� APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell i97 Lit 1. PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar RI4ILDING DIVISION SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics • Water Light/Glan3 Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities • Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS it 1 it/6 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad 'onal information is needed,o properly assess this proposal. Ott e- � � ( o--�-%7 ature of Dir o or Auth rized RepreserStative Date A PP.DOC Rev.10/93 RENTON FIRS ®EST FIRE PREY- 77°N!BUREAU City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works nr ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION YfkOQE1.i 7SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f 4 Ye Yrty'eh-tIuvt COMMENTS DUE: JANU ikig ' APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on.the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Ught/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet . Mom, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. 21101/77 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date f]FVAPP-DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Wktehe COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wafer Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health • Public Services Energy/ Histortc./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 130 Go(An W(rtLjt We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information Is needed to property assess this proposal. 10ed i z/z LI/(7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:1WVtSpd 101n COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 02, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-97-192,SP,SM DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 23, 1997 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Surface Water Utility PROJECT MANAGER: Mark Pywell CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Cedar River#205 Dredging WORK ORDER NO: 78322 LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River DEC 2 3 1997 SITE AREA: Dredging 19.7 acres; entire work area 74.68 BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUlif- imo UI V I()N acres. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �v G O WI W(.2, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is needed to property assess this proposal. A)a ORA Z/ELI A Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 • eVY O4 O� . NOTICE OF APPLICATION • . PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS . DATE: DECEMBER 23,1997 i i A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application end the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM/CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River I from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also Include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events.Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck.Temporary storage of I the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. IGENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the • Cedar River. , • STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) • PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fjll and Grade Permit(SP) i Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 24,1998.This I matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on January 27,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor . Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277.5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586.Anyone who . submits written comments will automatically become a party of record end will be notified of any decision on this project. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION , 1 • DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 ' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 I DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 • • II • 1 ....... ,7 $ wLrSi lex 2 0 M�9a v 34 an Gry., s Hal GENMALGT.DGC Dispnoeal .'4. • CERTIFICATI:ON • MATT /"I inINI in , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on • . P' EMre6-4 2 V • /'f' 7 � Signed: • • /�... is ' . STATE OF WASHINGTON• ) ._ _ ) SS C-OUNTY OF KING ) certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that '--rna k :ni,0. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. . I Dated: 07�, 19617 `_J/ C7�yL- Notary Publ• in and for the Stale of ashinglon Nola ry • . MARILYN KAMCHEFF • My appoint r Ml- EXPIRES 6/29198 • Oti�Y O� • • • ��N�o� • NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1997 A.Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-97-192,SP,SM / CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval of a 10 year permit to dredge the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mount of the Cedar River. The project will also include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. Dredge spoils will either be removed by barge or overland by truck. Temporary storage of the dredging spoils would be located at the City's NARCO site. The City will also create a wetland to mitigate for the impact on the river. GENERAL LOCATION: Lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) - PUBLIC APPROVALS: Special Fill and Grade Permit(SP) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Mark'R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 24,1998. This • matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on January 27,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mark R.Pywell,AICP,Project Manager,at 425-277-5586. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: DECEMBER 23,1997 8021 = ... - • Complex g • Ha gis;?`i ` • (r. 35shiti: i'( e rgrA,,' N. 6lh St. ;MtiiiiPal • S.Boeing Bridge (I) �A 4c c Ciry� • Hal �e GENMALOT.DOC 0 y Disposal Sit. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: December 23, 1997 To: Ross Hathaway/Surface Water Utility From: fiark R. Pywell,AICP/Development Planning Subject: Cedar River#205 Dredging Project No. LUA-97-192,SP,SM The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has received the above-referenced application for environmental review. The date of Tuesday, January 27, 1998, at 9:00 AM, has been set for a public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. The applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. ACCPTMM.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING & SHORELINE APPLICATION RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on January 27, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: CEDAR RIVER#205 DREDGING LUA-97-192,SP,SM City of Renton seeks approval of a 10 year permit for dredging of the Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the mouth of the Cedar River. Project will include levees and/or walls to control flooding during storm events. The project also requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Publication Date: December 29, 1997 Account No. 51067 HEXPUB.DOC • �CIT�-- DF RENTON • Planning/Building/Public Works Department ' ,� ' Gregg Zimmerman P.E.;Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor October 21, .1997 • : MerriMartz Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 •: :. _,; • • Subject: . CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT -,,SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL.DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSISTENCY •. Dear Ms. Martz, The City of Renton has a Shoreline Master Program that is in compliance with the Coastal . Zone Management (C.Z.M.) requirements. The City Planning Division, which issues Shoreline .Substantial Development Permits,`.has been .kept fully informed of the above referenced project and has reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for consistency with our Shoreline Master Program. • "'. The •project will occur along a'segment Of the Cedar River that has been designated as:an : Urban Environment under the Shoreline Master Program::::;:The objective .:of the .Urban Environment .is :to_ensure the :optimum'.utilization :of :'shorelines `within .urbanized :areas .by providing for public use and access.to the'.waters edge. ;The dredging portion of the project is: .. required :for:the :main ann tenance of r the`;Cedar Riverp Chel into: Lake. Washington. The , remainder:of the ,project'consists of,the:.construction of.berms*and `flood walls designed_..to :``'.'. contain the flooding .of developed areas.of the City:adjacent.to the Cedar River. ,These berms and structures are being design.ed.and located ih a,manner that will maintain the public access to the Cedar River. The project,.atthis-level of design, appears consistent with the Shoreline. Master Pro ram. k Thank you for your assistance. We look forward.to"working with you to ensure the timely completion of.the Cedar River 205 project..i. + :: :. '.:. Sincerely; :. Mark R.. ell;AICP Senior Planner . . :.. .' cc:. `. Gregg Zimmerman Ron Straka Ross Hathaway _� :Linda Smith (Corps) , . -. ,. : : . , H:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SERIDEVBPLAN.ING\MP\SHORELNS.DOC 1 10/21/97:4:431P,M 200 Mill Avenue South=.Renton, Washington 98055 •i3 �::'%?� `i'iriCiiiiiiii%'%i?� i%,''•,'.'•,i'```:ii <iiiiii?i '<`iii''ti'Y.Si<>il� 0.0414:?y"iEiEi;:'?: %i .......:....:::::::::::::.:::::::::::.�..............................................:..:::::::.�::ll.��E(..QFM1=N'I•..SEi�V.1�1=S..b�.IV:IS..:..:.:...:::.�:::::::.::.:.......:..,.:..:::.::...:.,.........�<...::..:::.:::::.::.:::.�:.:.............. ........................................... . ....................:....................................................................:.. g 'tease': tfath a 'addi o ai> Note'.>tf€ftereis''rrr'`re>�'ijai�<Oefe''�1:gvsnir,.p...........�........................t..:..::::. EXISTI NG LAND USE(S): <„dtariz`:'d<MasteCA>'.>(gat."ra #nr....a......................:.:::::. ..::::::::::::.:::::::::. :. l . Employment Area - Industrial (constructed river channel NAME: CITY OF RENTON & park), Mixed Use City Core, Low Density Single Family (unimproved former industrial site and park), Single Family ADDRESS: Municipal Building • 200 Mill Avenue S EXISTING ZONING: • City ROW (no zoning designation), Public Use, Resource Conservation, Multi Family, Urban Center, Center CITY: Renton, WA -ZIP:98055 Downtown. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): • TELEPHONE NUMBER: • (425) 27776205 No change from existing • PROPOSED ZONING: AME: Ross Hathaway - Surface Water Utility No change from existing SITE AREA(SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): ADDRESS:200 Mill Avenue S Approximately 74.68 acres including Levee and floodwalls, disposal site,mitigation site and temporary storage site. Approximately 19.7 acres of constructed CITY: Renton, WA . ZIP: 98055 river channel dredging PROJECT VALUE: TELEPHONE NUMBER: $8,515,000 (engineers estimate) (425) 277-6205 R��[[ IS TH E..SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFE R PROTE CTION AREA? PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY • PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: SENSITIVE AREA? Lower 1.25 Miles of the Cedar River from Williams Ave. Bridge The project is within and adjacent an existing river !o 20 ft beyond the mouth of the Cedar River in Lk. channel and wetlands. Washington;on the NARCO site upstream of 1-405 on the left bank of the Cedar River; upstream of the Maplewood Golf Course in the Cedar River Regional Park. All work is in City of Renton right-of-way. (See attached maps) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): (N.A. see attached maps) • • • • • • <�::<::::<:;:;::: »::>::>::::>::;::.;> ::: ::: . > • .:: :::: :<:: tac '§e .arate..shedt:>>If:::n: : s. 1.:.:.............................:>;;::.:::;:<:.:;;;:;.>:::>:::::<:::::::,.. G . '>::::DESCR1PfilON.:O.�..PROPEF�TX_(At. .....f�.:..:...:.......................................::.:::.:.:::.:. .::. (see attached maps) y``y..yy i i::ii}i:Ji}iiiii:•ii:iiiii}}>}}}ii:•iii>ii};}iiiiiii:O::L:•iii?iii:�iiiiiii:4?iiiiiiiiiii>ii}ii" '^':�:�:::::::.�::.vq'::;;:i:.}:::n;:n�n..:.}'?:ry,:n;:v::.:�:::::::.ii: iJiiyiiiiiiiiiii:4:fi•ii}iiii:Cii}:�}iiivii:?iiiiiii:^;i ii:4:J:iiiiiviiii}i}ii: ? i(::ii}ir vti::j:::::iii:;isLii:(:}i:?::iiiii}:):ii:i:::iii:v:i::::i :{i: < :4i:yi:fii?j' .: :::isiiiii::ii?i`::iiiiii::i::iiiisi:::iiiiiiiiii:>:iiiii:?:::iiiii:ti>:iii::iti:i'r:::i::::ii:::<:i::i: ............. :<:: e$;.::.: ::>::::»::»><:::>::>::::>::>:: ;;:'.:.:.:;:.:; ;:»< <:>::>:::.::::::::::>:::::::::::»::»::::>:: .;:.; :..: .:.; ::> ':.:.. :.: ; :<>: '.'l' ;--.��.:: ::::staff:::w:�Cl::::ae�terrnine...fe. . ..... .:: ::::.;. ::. :. : . Che�k::�C[..a . .l�ca�[an.::t.: ±es.;�ha�E.:a : .:: :.:::�'i�:.:::.........:.::::.:.:.....:...................................................:.:.:::::::.::::.�:::::::.�::::.�::::::::. .:..........� PIS...........:: : Y�!. :: :..................Pf�Y............X....:..:....................:.:..:..::.....:::::::.�.:..::..::.::::.::::::::::::..:.......:.............................. —ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ REZONE $ • —SPECIAL PERMIT $ _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ . TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ — SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ . _ PRELIMINARY PLAT • $ X GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ _ FINAL PLAT $ (NO. CU. YDS: Approx. 300,000) VARIANCE $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ (FROM SECTION: ) WAIVER $ _PRELIMINARY X. WETLAND PERMIT $ _ FINAL _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ HORELINE REVIEWS: _TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY • _ —X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ FINAL CONDITIONAL USE $ _ _ _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $ _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ • • -,A::FID' Vl <:€`4F O:INNE:'SH P r >> < `'> :i.:Mi iMi.: >::•: :::: a (Print Name)/Z,N,ynrf T STR-A el declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,.the uthorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein ontained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. To BE a CQUIRE , NEEDED) ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and `-, -i ;41/N0r for the State of tkjA ('i residing at L'�)"(_,E„ ,on the I gday of Name off//� nTer/Reprre�sy�en^�t/a((�t�iypv�e) Da C 19 l�:1 4,,l e V • s 1 g Il (c - j� I - (Signature of Owner/Representative) �JL4t..i.st, C 4.12.) (Sig ature of Notary Public) 4.1 A .......:..:::::::::::::.i.: ::::.::.:::. :: : :::.:::::..::.: ::::. .(Thisaect>ion:to.:be<:c. . .1e�ked;:b C. ...Sta:..,} �..._:.:.:.::...:: ..:.:.::::::::.::..:::::.:::.�:. .:..:::::>::::.:........ :.:. ;:.;:.;;;:.;.;;:.::.::.;:.;:.;:.:;;.;;:..:. :.:....:::.. ..._ ::<::::>: >:>:::�.;:::;>' PL:: :>'U:::>:::tLA::<>::PR:>::<:FP: ::`i'P:::::>;:S.P::>>13Vt/I.P: ::>:;: : >:: :> '<:><:. :: :::::::::: :C1t. ::Flle..Num#per.:,. ....::.:..:::::: ::.: :. .. . :::EGF.: SA ::R ..SH . C. ::.......:::..:................................... ......... ::::. ................. >:A..'D>::: . ik:RU. ::': ........................................................ <i ':::::>:>:.igii i_: »ii:R<:: :>:;:>:< -ani::>-;.4>::::<» i..ki:::i ::.:;.:::.;>:..:;.;::='::::: ;:.:::.::.::.:;:.:;.;:.::.;;::«.;:<:.;:::::.;:.:: W D SF�.....:RSP.....1 . .. . . ;:»:<:»::;:::>;:<;<:::<:>::>:;;:;:::;;>:>:;:;. ;.: .:� �:>.: . S->::::. ::>»;>::< «: ::::<:::<::>;:::>::>::::>::>::>:<:::>::::<:::::>TOTAL.PO. TAGE.PRQUIIj.fC#....*............ is Storm\65160\Master TIO.N:&>FEES>> 'Iiii;:.:. :.;:.;;;:<.;:.;::.:.;:.:.::.,:.;:.;:.;:::.;:.;:.; ;:..� > .>:: .; <::: : .�>� :::: t ;::«w:I �erm>Ine<::fee .. .............. ::.:.;;;:;. :::;:>::: �: ::>::>:::::::::>: :<::<�.heek::alt.:.:a . Itcairarn::::t:, Ies.aha�E..a . L .....C><t...s...a�f: .::�. :.......... ..... :.:.....................................:................. ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: REZONE $ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ 1 TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ _ TENTATIVE PLAT $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ JX GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ _ FINAL PLAT $ (NO. CU. YDS: Approx. 300,000) _VARIANCE $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ (FROM SECTION: ) WAIVER $ PRELIMINARY T X WETLAND PERMIT $ _ FINAL _ROUTINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _TENTATIVE _ PRELIMINARY X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ FINAL _ CONDITIONAL USE ' $ T L VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $ — _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ _ _ 7 REVISION $ . 01NNRS.HIP............................................................................................. I, (Print Name) i'erNeQc1' J •ST-(24t-(C4 ,declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,L the 'uthorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization),and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (TO BE ACQUIRED AS NEEDED) ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,in and iVp,c..1.) 3 5 C-4 for the State of 1,j4Sfi residing at (Name of Owner/Representative) S(:4TtLF , on the I t day of p�L 19C� ' , ( gnature of ner/Representative) ,(/rY.c.e( � ✓t41(—, (Signature of Notary Publi. ..{h)DA C, FEQ/C if ::::; '<> ::>::::::: :>:::::::::::::€:»:> f:.;:•.;::::;> •....;:.;:•;:.;;;:::.;;:.;;;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:•;;:.:•;::::.::: : .::::. :..: ;be..cai..:..I...,g.ki ;.0 .;- fP:f: :::::::::::::::::>:::::::::::::::::::::::>:<::: iii:: ;:::<::::::::::::::::::: :> ::::::: ig,: :>::>: .............. ..............................:.:: . . . :::. : :..::::.:(Thi .sect>ton:::tQ............ar► ...e..... .......�C.... ... . a►... .1 .................................. .......::::::::::::. .:::.:::.. ...... ;:.;:... ........ ;::. ber SCFtA.....13....SN.1?L.;.;:CU.;:.;:.:LiA :PP.....(~O.....TP......:SP:.:.;;:.:EiNLdVIP................. ::>:::P.,.,. :<:::::: P:>-;».: :«:S . >[ai:: :: :: : : :>;:::::>: :::::::::::<::::::«::<:;:::::i:i.;: >:: ::.:�:: ::::.:::::.:::::::::::::::.::.>;.;:;:.;::.;::::.;:.:..:.;;:.;:.;:.:.:. AD.....W.....E..UD.....SM......Slt1[I�.....�?ItLt.N.......�ftJIHP...... . .P.....�........................ ........:...:::.:...:::.::.......:..:........ .. ki: >'><ikii 1 » > >:: :: `..,.,;;::; z :[§iii » iNiiil '»> < s OTA:;;;P:;::;;T .G.;:..P O :.:;: :>:. ::. :..::::::::i*x:i: :::;:: 7z:::: . ..:::::TOTA#::.�Iw)wSR .$.........:.::::.:.... ....... .. ... ....TOTAL POSTAGE PROUIT��Ca. $.:::..: ..: ::::::::::::::::::: . :.:::::.::..:: :::::. H:Storm\65160\Master • PROJECT NARRATIVE CITY OF.RENTON / US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT The project consists of levees and dredging along the lower approximately .1.25 miles of the Cedar River upstream of Lake Washington with temporary storage of the dredge spoils at the NARCO industrial site. Modification of the South Boeing Bridge and a salmon spawning channel will also be part of the project. A more detailed description follows: The project is located along the Lower Cedar River from Williams Avenue to the Mouth of the River at Lake Washington. The project includes dredging of the existing channel to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the 1995 bed profile (preferred alternative "minimum" dredge described in attached Detailed Project Report), and construction of levees and floodwalls, to provide minimum protection against the 100 year recurrence interval event with at least 90% reliability (just prior to redredging); and periodic dredging (as frequent as every three years) to maintain the design level of protection. The project is in a constructed channel that has been regularly dredged over the last eighty years. Because of the low channel gradient (due in part to the lowering of Lake Washington by 9 feet circa 1916), dredging is required for regular operation and maintenance of the facility. Regular redredging by the City is also a requirement in the contract for the project with the Federal Government. Redredging intervals will be based on regular bed 'elevation surveys to determine the amount of aggradation since the previous dredge cycle. Therefore, ongoing • redredging is included in this application for an indefinite period.(preferably for the project life of 100 years). The Army Corps of Engineers tentatively will give a 10-year permit for initial and maintenance dredging. The active construction is scheduled to start in the spring of 1998 and extend into 1999. There is a remote possibility portions of construction may not. initiate until 1999, and we are requesting the permit cover construction initiating in both 1998 and 1999. Immediately after each dredge cycle, the project reach will provide up to a 200 year recurrence interval flood protection with 90% reliability, which will decline until the channel aggrades to the maximum allowable bed elevation to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. The estimated average level of protection over the project life (100 years) is 150 year flood protection. On the left (West) bank the project will require a total of 3620 linear feet of steel sheetpile floodwall, or high levee constructed of soil, averaging 7 feet above the existing ground surface from RM 1.07 to RM 0.41. Downstream of RM 0.41 to the mouth of the river, an earthen berm averaging 4 feet high with 4 horizontal on 1 vertical (4H:1V) side slopes will be used to avoid conflicts with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety zone restrictions for the airport. The riverside trail or adjacent berm will be raised up to three feet from RM 1.07 to RM 1.23 (Williams Avenue) upstream of Logan Avenue. On the right (East) bank, a levee that varies between 2 to 7 feet high with 4H:1V to 3H:1V side slopes will be incorporated into existing park landscaping from RM 1.23 (Williams Avenue) to the mouth at Lake Washington. Some cast-in-place concrete structures will be required as floodwalls adjacent the trail between Williams Avenue and Logan Avenue, under the Logan Avenue bridge, at the intersection of N. 6th Street and N. Riverside Drive and between the gazebo and rest rooms ' inside the park North of N. 6th Street. Some access points will require flood doors, or ramps and stairs, to cross through the levee system. The dredging will be 4 feet deep (below the 1995 streambed profile) from approximately 20 feet out into Lake Washington to RM 1 (Logan Avenue Bridge); the dredge will then be tapered up to meet the existing gradient upstream at Williams Avenue bridge to reduce headcutting (rapid erosion at the upstream end of the dredge) that could negatively impact fish. The total volume of sediment to be dredged is approximately 160,000 CY; the total volume of material to be moved and placed is approximately 300,000.CY including dredged materials, levee materials, armoring and landscape materials. A hydraulic jacking system will be provided for the South Boeing bridge to lift it above the water surface during major flood events. Closure structures will be located at each end of the South Boeing bridge to provide for a continuous level of protection when the bridge is in the raised position. A controlled overtopping section of the left (West) bank levee system will extend from the South Boeing bridge to the river mouth for flows over the 100 year event. Dredge materials will be disposed temporarily at an upland site owned by Renton, approximately two miles upstream of the project near the left bank West of the Cedar River Trail South of 1-405 (the NARCO site). The dredge spoils will be 'removed or sold from the site periodically until the next redredge of the project (within approximately three years). Some of the dredge material may be used at the NARCO site for future site development; separate permit applications would be made for these future site development projects. Alternatively the dredge spoils may be donated or sold for other projects and the NARCO site never used. Small, low quality wetlands exist on the NARCO site left from demolition of an industrial site. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has determined the wetlands will likely not be considered jurisdictional, .by the Army Corps. The City of Renton Code indicates the wetlands are not jurisdictional under 4-32-3 D because they are human related and less than 5,000 SF. A human created pond exists on the NARCO site off the extreme south edge of the proposed spoils pile location. The USAGE feels this is a water of the United States; City code indicates this is possibly a.Category 3 wetland (4-32-3 D.3.) and may require a 25 foot setback (4-32-3 F (3)). We will provide a minimum 25 foot setback from the pond. Sediment transport analysis of the selected project design indicates that maintenance dredging may be required as often as every three years to maintain the design level of protection. Approximately.50% of the ornamental plantings in the Park downstream of Logan Avenue will be removed and several trees along the left bank will also be removed. The Park will be restored after completion of the work. Storm drainage improvements, including water quality treatment, will be provided on the NARCO site if it is used. This would consist of a grass lined swale marginal to the dredge. spoils pile, settling ,pond with elevated outlet, and normal construction erosion control measures. It should be noted that the dredge spoils will consist primarily of very clean gravels and rock, which are very well draining,'and will not readily erode in a stockpile. Therefore the dredge spoil stockpile will not be covered, and additional stormwater detention will not be necessary. A spawning channel is to be installed upstream at the Cedar River Regional Park (just upstream of the Maplewood 'Golf Course). The spawning channel will require excavation of approximately 7500 CY of native material and placement of up to 700.CY of gravels and bank stabilization materials. Excavated materials will be re-distributed on site or transported elsewhere in the project as needed., Excavation of the spawning channel will require the removal of several trees (primarily cottonwoods and broad leaf maples) and some other vegetation. After construction, the areas will be replanted with trees and shrubs. Impervious area will not be changed by the project. Locally, where levees block existing flows, the area will be regraded to'prevent ponding. Existing outfalls to the river will be fitted with flap gates to eliminate flow reversal during high flow periods. r 1 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION CITY OF RENTON / US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT (PLEASE SEE THE "FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 RENTON, WASHINGTON" FOR THE PROJECT.) The recommended design was selected from a range of alternatives with varying degrees of environmental impact (please see the "Final Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact Statement Cedar River Section 205 Renton, Washington" for the project.) Selection. of this design was based on the ability to provide the most effective level of protection while causing the least environmental impact to the river and riparian habitat. The environmental impacts of the project has been avoided and minimized by the selection of a minimal dredge depth to reduce increases in the backwater effect from Lake Washington. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated by: 1) the planting of vegetation along both banks to provide habitat and food sources for fish and wildlife and replanting of the park (approximately 200 trees, 1200 shrubs and 3500 groundcovers); 2) the construction of a spawning channel for sockeye salmon upstream of the dredge area in the Cedar River Regional Park (adjacent the Maplewood Golf Course) in Renton to mitigate for lost spawning habitat and likely increased predation on salmon smolts; and 3) the addition of large woody debris to the river in the vicinity of the spawning channel for Chinook salmon rearing to compensate for increased predation. Initial and maintenance dredging activities will be limited to June 15-August 31 to reduce impacts to salmon and smelt. Monitoring will be conducted for five years following construction of the project to insure the success of mitigation measures. Proposed Construction Dates: Approximately June 1998 through October 1999 (initial construction); maintenance dredging of the Cedar River will be required indefinitely, on as high as a three year frequency. Hours of Operation: Work will be done as dictated by the specific requirements of the location, generally work will be Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. However, the work hours may be extended for the in-water work (dredging and bridge) and associated work (hauling). Some work in the vicinity of the Airport may require exclusively • night time construction. Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes: It is planned that the primary haul routes will include the Airport East Perimeter Road, North Riverside Drive (Cedar River Park) North 6th Street, Park Avenue North, Bronsen Way North, Mill Avenue South and the underpass to the NARCO site. Other hauling will occur along Maple Valley Highway and a short segment along 149th Avenue SE. Significant reductions in haulage traffic will occur if the dredge spoils are barged to another site. The Cedar River Park will need to be closed downstream of Bronsen Avenue for the duration of the project and access along the Airport East Perimeter Road will be significantly limited at times. The contractor will be required to file a Traffic Control Plan with the City to identify hauling routes and traffic control measures for • the construction area. Erosion control measures such as storm drain inlet protection per the King County Surface Water Manual will be used. Any readily erodible soil stockpiles not in use will be covered with plastic sheets during rainy periods. All construction equipment will be required to have muffler and exhaust systems in good working order. 97-748.DOC 12/18/97 I•YPE :OF APPLICATION:>`&<FEE -:. ::> >> :::>::::>:::<:::: :.:::;>:<:::::>:::;: -- :,.;.;..1::.:;: fees < ;: :' Check`:atEa lieatfa a`: `es>�iat>:;`:>::;:<;:;.:;::;::>:;::;.«::;::<::::.,;: :::::::>:> :> >::::::»<:.;:.>,,," :>::>:: n.. . a.. .l` :,Cif`':<ataff>w�ii.>.a.eferm ne.... ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ REZONE $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _ CONDITIONA PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _ • APPROVA $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ X RA)E & FILL PERMIT $ _ FINAL PLAT $ . : : Approx. 300,000) — VARIANCE $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ (FROM SECTION: ) _WAIVER $ _ PRELIMINARY _X WETLAND PERMIT $ FINAL ROUTINE VEGETATION— MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIE • —TENTATIVE UBS AT NTIAL DEVELOP $ _ PRELIMINARY FINAL _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $ — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ �'is REVISION $ : :>::>:::>::>:::> :•: :::>:.:::>. >::::>:<:: .::.>::»: : :;:; :::.: -•••.:.. :. AF I .AVIT OF.. .WN R P ............... ....... ............ .: III I, (Print Name) Eers4.cc V13712.40C11 , declare that I am (please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application,&the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (TO BE ACQUIRED AS NEEDED) ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before-me, a'Notary Public, in and -p NA-C-0 S . C-4 for the State of (jJQSH residing at " j (Name of Owner/Representative) S E4TtL , on the (I" day of (S gnature of ner/Representative) Oi41614 6 J/ , ,.___, (Signature of Notary Publi. - { .rNDA C, F512I .::. .... .::..:::.:................:... :::>:::::::::::>:>:::>:.;»>:::«<:::_. ..:. :»:::.:,..:. .: >:;:..::: :This sec. n<t :::be:.:c.om Mete ::::b. ::>Cit.::::St f:::„:„.„::>„:„:::::...........:...„>:....:::.:�..:::•::::::•::::.:::: :„....:::::::::::::::: CFt. Fi#e:.Numb.er....: :::::.ECF ... R...:.SN:PL:.»»:CU::>:<:LLA:::»::PP::>::>FP:>:::TP'i RVIVIR:::»:V:<>': : ':<>>«<:> > :«::<:A..�D::>:::<::: . >:::::>: .:PU E?::::::S :< : : €:::P: :::P :>F TI :i... S.P. :> ><>[ :> :::>::>:::::>::::::::::::::<;:;:;>€:::::::_:::::::::::::::::>::>< : . U� .......W....F .... ...... ........ .MS.......MH..........M P......5 ........A....................................................... ..... ................ :::::>::::'TOT.i.A f1wES:::::»$::::::: > ;;;::::>::::::::::>:::::>:::::::::>::>::::>::::>::::::>::::»Tf)TAVRQ.STAGE;:p t0U1P.E.P..>:..::::;< . ....................... H:Storm\65160\Master -\(ELOFMFNT PLANNINr CEC 1 0 '1997 ,�. •j • . • . , • . .. . ,• . i• Lake ; • :`.a , 41. Washington rr c--3 . i® CJ Legend N. Bo iris: rn coz - I c Berm Viz'r :. + >. ,.,,,,..,,, \, , arC¢o zz Leveediti yv „<,...„,, Overflow Section -N,1, ✓✓ +. . ,.,?,,,.,,,,, i gm at. � ,. r� d '� ' Boeing. °' Cedar River park 1�.:�)`�•'y o M ;gi.. " . : ,v- A +I Complex 0) • Lakes n z .f 7' ., + m . 0 Moor roads I. , Y•r'i(4.` : '•` +' // Cedar' � trit3Utafie5 '�` - •; 5w=;, ; < ;r�S+, \ • Renton city limits .4. J:. \ •� gyp. •. CANADA7n 0 2,[11 1 • fMt:lrli� ® .1` �S. Boeing. • ` 1 AIcpOrt .n Bride - -1 WASfStfilf FON _,;,,..,w o.g. t' .z«, • ;, '• 'nLY+ `;J• +• ot5 :r, yyl2 �( a) f r,.. ,. 3r . co Renton k. �ti` ' C ' OREGON f � S .t ,,. 410 • \`\ �a� Source Information you a .� if Lake boundary information obtained from •. ./ Washington Rivers Information City m G System (WARTS) database, t. Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). Hal dim 't City boundaries, streets, park and river . information obtained from King County. • 'S' Airport boundary from US Census, Disposal. 1994 TIGER data. Site Figure$: Project Map - N It is understood that, while the Corps of Engineers and Information - ,US Army Corps of Engineers suppliers have no Indication or reason to believe that there are Inaccuraclee In Information Incorporated In the base map THE CORPS AND ITS wwws r - pate: 3/14/97 50o O 5OO OOO Feet SUPPUERS MARE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY WND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IAWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE,NOR ARE ANY Preparers LDD SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPIJED WMTH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, DATA, OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. gQ F_ o 2030Oujj rF.OF •3&,.:,:::::::i...sie,...:;,. may` Q momw- •a,. €SW-Q4 Q zo ' ,::_i.....y!,:,; 404- 0} v :;. opts $ w 62-gr. z ogpz_i7 LogW. m C zW �z �.,� �, :sole i ...:...Z•F.i?l.-.:C.•::.:.. : ar il zm w 1 _ 3 ^—o 042 ., 2 ay(� II 3 cU']77 C' Q UT a) u • m_ tL C1 m N NC O _ MBEff O o�� c O c� n v ml ti O cc ' C O m :iiYgi?;: ,"ir O 0 c — 0 .�lA ..�. C'7 :r iti z 4.-;N :V.-': .?:?::::::::::Sig:::::::::::§:v...Z.:•:•:1::•.:4::.:::::.ii•Fh::::i:•:•::::•:F:Xiiii: 4 E I . cc • j g c8 .0) o • •'..:�••I c bk a• O'� U�J Ct 0 = ro `�md >.� ` i.i.„,ii..0.1.14. . CI CL • l:. c °'13 S. m Q °' as . llhi3 o T c,, c3. W • _--... , ) I A - I :::•:,..::. -... • . ?;:.::•:.,:•:.:: :: • i I --•••• .. ''....__.......___ ..--.......„......... z 1 .• 1...____ . : . _ . . .- . f--------' , -........ <I -. .- x. .".......h , : .-- .-- , , -----____.---" ---- *---...:_._--:-_---_ -------"zr--,S I •. -,.... c'.-- i/ --•--,....._s_'..--,-- _ --...„. -____ --------.... • _ii : •: .1.5 1--'I .. „...-----=-.-.• ... -...7••-'-'-.....-............._.........., ....-..._.... . . 1 •, ."..,r, ... r••• 1 .._..._, ............„ RE-ALIGN ROAD 7 . (I) z • • C'... ...). .- --..'" ... ._ -------------. nt — .------;--...—.— ---..._.--t=••- 17--------------.. .....:=-4.--TT.-------- .."----- NORTH I.- 0 - `i-- 1-- i . ... _-„.......=.. ”.,._.....,...,...,.r_-_-.. ........----,,=•.,%,:qp...v...7.----..,.,..--....„ ........-----z--..„-- -... __L....) .`,7------ — -... . _ ........,,,, ,....,,,,......_..,:-...,-,.,-... se ....r.a -,--.....--. --- el i4 I-i'''' C...) L 20+00 I L 1 04.0 I3R IDGE r . L 1 5+()0 LEVEE TYPE III ER • z a . o ... LI '--- C 1 1 Ac CD EDAR RIV FLOW 1 2 ... -- . X X • •. g , ..-.! . -<---' LEVEE TYPE I LEVEE TYPE II LEVEE TYPE I . , ee •---4-7-v--!, . -, --,, ..,..=-----•--- ___---.---- ---•.-__..7t.----- gz-x•-t.s-o- _9m1-4,-.1=45-,----ITY-:— t'''' ''-il—''','- ro-•_.. "" 'I'ti -777-1,--,r-.--1, ''''''''''''.- -•-•:;:::-;4:1•,;,-::.- Amp-.. AD OVER i - ------,--•—.• - :::,-.-t------.:,-,..-cgyazeiv-la-. 7----, --,.---,,-,.--.---:--- ,_. .,_____,...-.4.,_,.=...._ _.. ___.--= .,-.-____:.•.-ef__-•-,-......,„____-- 2, - -... „..,,R-1-54001-- -2-0----.7.--- 7. -----4----7,---.,./-,-,_____4„.„1„.„'-`22:f2t4.-7-'',..1-.t7--."-"*FiXY:.-__.'. I G N MEN T , .cr ---• --; 4 ... 14.... --------45. ;,..r ""'''..." ,/".L-...-.2 ,..„,---.1<-1-' ,_..__,_....<... .._.__..., .--•-'''.' ---------"-------'',-'._.._.--------..„ • ;* " '''..... ' e'. ..r..., •-:-/,, i--.. , ,../-4 ,./- -,= .M • Algr._e....,.-:-....1.4__.______. . - •- _ `•-\, ' .1 i 4-,-' • . . • i I i .. ,.• ',7,..n'' ....-„,..----------- : \."..":""Ai":•;••='"''''` .: • k, • .-,c... ......,- %---_, 4.,,,-; ,;.----- .--..,----,----... ?;-,, : f 1 L-1".-•-•=": "^-74:---"-r.4%,-:.--::•. . \\i? Y I fa' 1 0 ion I : • .._?.. .• - ,-,..-._ - ---- --• • ..1 - _ •-....,•\1/4\ --r .: e 1 1 ,.., 1 ... - S ' .,' '' i'------------'': 1 Ill I /IP I's' •-•N 11;-------- ‘:-1'..•1.:\V;? -, ' I -1---.../iii ; 1,:il • .--,,.....,„,,••••..71":::•• ,......._...7 .. • ‘!; _Ai' •-• .: _ 121:_-_=_-_,--_-,---.2_--^-rc.7-_,..,.-04./-r: C f? '1'1-7-7---- -'-'-`1.-t! 4-1'.-14-1-;21-V --; `. ;'':----:7;:' If I lif 57'lidAdqVig./7.--/ ":s-":--- ---" . . ...4.1,::‘,....,z-....-Pr/:-.•i:: i k c , : • 1:: i If E --- ..\- ----i• ...._ , --1 ..• _...../....... ..,:i s",. --...:-----,--4.----____L„. ..-7.-..,....„:::-•:,i i :t•:' . e i _i-': ' .4.- / / .-- " ' .• -1 %------c.T.:-.-1.:::-----: —_-." ti ,...:.i.;:...,N sl.y_„././1 i 1/ It : : "a - ---- - ------ ;----------•--',,,a="....- I a,' _..,.-' "---21V LEVEE/ALIGNMENT./ ;------- ----------------- ."--4-‘.:..\--,..-.--z-.,;„•-•-•i ill.,.. .,:E, ., i E 0 t &I;. 4.2.Z....y..... .. ..... "4''' . ..."..3''''' --. **.',.... .---..'-------- --..".-- : ii-; '' • - - .- l er‘Z......---.......:--1.7.--....a---.7--,. ------- --.. ...."-- .si,...."6-- .--`,..Z__.,./.....".r/Ai. i --d- i r l k r ..—• ..,...•••:, .. , 2 r i , nt: . . : : I-, .--..".:: rii_.;_- ,_______--____:_z i•,--s, ..---- S.. ---- / Paved Parking ....____,-/( sr --------.._ .:--• :. ",......:;----------.....4 .....:,..;_„..-' ---,..,..-2--;---- . - _—,_,........-____4\NZ---:::-A-----:----2,././ i "4:f.... ..7.-; I -.° .....---. ‘----..-3: . . ‘,.._..." • •--._........."- -...._:...-,,,,,.. .. •:.':'- --.--.• • . . - „_, . : . . A, i i. ) i 1:4 ....... - - - - - - - - -, - -.- --- -- -- --- - --... -- - - - - -----.15-'-- .... •••'------ f/ Pi•1 r.--i ...., .._____ __ .-: _ . , (VY : ,S. 0_„, . • LEGEND ...,A -7-,---..---....._______________________\., -: *NZ.. .4,1v,vo • CEDAR RIVER 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT — — = LEVEE CITY OF RENTON .• - GRADING, TREE INVENTORY, DRAINAGE CONTROL AND SHORELINES PLANS 100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1" = 100' r-R-R-prpr-pi 1 1 ..,..-._..-._,•-•.,_,--.,_„•-,,,,,,. FLOODWALL ALL TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LEVEES WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON FIGURE 7 . ,• SHEET-1 LEVEEIFLOODWALL FOOTPRINT FOR PREFERRED ALTER IV NATE15-SHEETS) , , ,- -. CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON 1 SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE I I • B C I. I . 1 1, DSGN: BR A(4021 CHK: i SHEET - DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 13-MAR-1997 14107 DESIGN FILE: I:Oclesicrtso/cr fcascivgicr_clprl.c1gn SCALE: I - = 100' I • „- I • I , I I I d `--_ SMALL 1 — , EL i 8— -`- • --_ � �"'~.— L- PLANE , _� -- HANGARS • "z. I Z w SMALL__ _.� ARs E Hq _ ." .7:----.............---...............-- ---ir.......-"-...".•••-.........:.........::::--...........-.......•••'........."N' e ....}1J77 i - - . rv— �=- .._..-w --•--�.' ....._....,, ' .m. - oft _......-_r-- -•-�•_ ._ • �,..y-_:-_.=-±- •:.--_..- ."•.r. _ •' . V • • _ u:v;....,,. r_a:.:vc ri,w_"•_'rr1n..,.„-`-'-'- :,....ur _ .„ w...... cl=.__ `... `-.:`+. _ • -•1 -• _ .. ---•__— _.�.� � _-L- ..._._au:.,.'u:Sl___._.. ._._- _--•-•-.._..-.. uu:. c_-::cva.•...,,_�'s,v: — �'�— -;_: •�-ram. _ �J a 1 L so+c;o_....__._.._. LEVEE TYPE III - L 35+00 FLOODWALL TYPE 11L 25+Oo f— 1 I CEDAR R IV ER _ FLOW 1 - .. w: r:__ �. E V E E w- - -- : 5+00 ... . `-�'- .-``�_ CLOSURE STRUCTURE• `-t J+ �--- ` •-ti-:-`-*- .•_•��fir' �-�v.i 1� s..• --"_.....-_. 1 .. >� TY PE � _ 1 -._• , ce /-. � ,......:-A-------„::::::"-t�.� I • _--!.`-.n _ - _- _ _.}; _.L.�� �-'- --•---' -.."�:-ram "' ' r � :� f ZE �/��I�- � - 0 _ '� _ \.+,�_ :-"•``::J `-.'� ; k -a :..'`• - /-X i J? -. - „,.1 ,-______-.-,...... / .rye•+'-`•\=-'.� _ j .. --_. 1�=- `` _� ��� -`�..'••`-� - .w,`\�r-+f ±-`-yam"` —_ _ —= _ /= :71:�w . '� "`'>>�-.-- i • .,,,y, f ter r_ _ ;� _ `!'_:• � �-_ •'_`= _ • - Y. a! _ �.. ` ;•1ti ... ram: _...•,._-----.�-, - +� L _ ___.. --•--' -M1i i -..__ �. v.."`'.:.� - -_ .YV t— — %—�" I er J- u.. - <> _ :i 1 --YN _._ _ I-- 1 I 1 1 • 1 Z_ , 1 1 1 1 SAY 100' 50' 0 ' - I" = 100' IHHI-1HI-1 100' 2I cN4 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE 1 CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ' FIGURE 7 (CONT.) CITY OF RENTON , GRADING, TREE INVENTORY, DRAINAGE CONTROL AND SHORELINES PLANS SHEET 2 1 ALL TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LEVEES WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON I SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. ' I • PLATE , B CI.2 1 1 DSCN: BRANDT CHK: SHEET DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 13-MAR-1997 14:10 DESIGN FILE: I:ledesi9nsocrtc4civmcr_dpr2.d9n 1 SCALE: I - . 100• 1 s. • I I .i: .. .! ........,....._...4i..1z1.,.........-...-....-.....-........................................................ • I I Zr N Ie- 1 s r wr-_ _ — = - cn T: CLOSURE STRUCTURE :::I .:: ..,.. ..• -.__._..�_. .. J =a 1• ,.r ,y v ij f u t0 =Rai _ —r,rr• • �•.'.l_.....:._.^..._:w.•-... _.. ._-•_�.a.>•�r..w:3.�.._.».-___.-._.r ..n....w..�::_. .hVN.F-:•:ma 3 FLOODWALL TYPE L 50+00 -` .....f .., L 45 I Q ' SOUTH +00 LEVEE TYPE 1, L 40+00 I 1 CEDAR RIVER 1BOE)NG 1 FLOW =BRIpGE ..„---------------„LEVEE TYPE 11 .-: ; R 50+00 < 4 OD R 5+0 II a E � _1.EVI:.E: P _ E� : , 1 • _ - ... _.. _ —_:;.rim = - . TRAIL - - -- - ______m":_,"".........._....._.• ........i........47.7. .. j. ;-;',..' --- — TRA I • ::.. I0b S . • ��•:-::"u`.'- •i';; _ a s: — _ _ .....— ___ --._..-- GL ' .SU: :-:•.. :::::: : : R E STRUCTURE �.. RUPTURE r • • « _ Y ilif - /Pi _ _ I }s i t: I .. i :: - ;-..1, • 1 1 I I • I I 1 • O�Y O� 1 + _ . 100' 50' 0 100' 200' ,N�o� I" = 100' I H H I--I H I- 1 1 1 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT; SEATTLE ' CEDAR RIVER 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT CORPS OF ENGINEERS. CITY OF RENTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON FIGURE 7 (CONT.) GRADING, TREE INVENTORY, DRAINAGE CONTROL AND SHORELINES PLANS SHEET 3 ALL TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LEVEES WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON I SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE I B C I.3 1 - I DSCN: BRANDT CHK: SHEET DATE AND TIME PLOTTED. 13-MAR-Igo7 la:12 . I DESIGN FILE: I:odes.gnsocricocivocr.(1Dr3.dgn SCALE: I -• : 100. I I • . 1 I 1 =ilk W!L{- /- f !mil _ _ a; --_. _ s — _?.I I + „_ ..,•_tt "`"'" - l f I. J y _ .-•;fan...:............�: :.ter. - __. ,.n `'ffi I J f% / •_ :`}:% ! ...„• -°: r. v - :vim _ _ ``_'� -ft. •ram-\ �•% /Q��v - /`-...., /—''• � - � ��- pi,�wh I• -^ 60 t0� _II 1 -------------_,„.........L............„ \ '/, �tip,, r"` L --.� _•_ . •- •:S J Y.". r rev •-� .�1.". .- ..-::—.:.'.�--�.-.�___.--______.—... •!�`� _. •ti-- -� �.�:.1 w ;; s�f� � .// i'�I V r� _ '"-ter_ ��—_-- _ - --_-- ^" -• '_.`-�.�. l• i -is ,/ =.,,:`sue �( - •---- ��..--'"l • • I ` � .�` .��`•� 1 f- Wit.':- :•�„✓:/ A�� ss/`r.-.i°.:-�:' ` ` CO - !��I_ "-�� :•'x,�_.._.. _ _ ••��_ .• /'�-.. "=�� - _^``+ : 3 i ` 4.`4-_-yi f. `f`rx/'t �.0,` i -4-4. :/r V " r-•^� S+'�-�"� -'.'"�.�--�_:. •' .r':-`.�?c"`�": i --�';. ..� ice , 1 • a -:�,<L .~ fl -�. '-�- ....+.'. .!// - .! 1^�� J 1,�!'�`i ' f rs;"`�- mot..'_"t,.�.+...,�. :Y; - _`.•..i�.v,"...•-...',�..�-�.- I • 'YlA' ?a • �-• • r -/ i / • • • • • d i - II 0 __� __ 'l .. ••�'••' rr,•...Y '• /--.l.-.,.. �• .,ate .- ?-'.%f/�/���'!"..=:S_.__-.— I 1 .mi l''' :/` - f....• z. 1;4 : •- T -- r` j••:;:^ �� -'A5 ' / —� tir-- e-- r r.:. ':;j;./!i rJ 1 V. •- A� f i•\.A--- _ - '•` r •%. w- i ,..m �•- ----_.r. _- .�.� -•'" K'°•; :lei 7d;; J _r. . T 1!i ..... � ;fly' / i f :t`- '?�` - • +_.C71..�� � -� j f— may`'". .•<'""�: d:rl-ram, -r!^''1 :--`. f j'•` I_ '• �-r- ?- .r - ;�y� `-_'C! • i is I '`•::-.. .i ``.. =`mot �" ,--'�}!''. • ;` • '100' 50' 0 100' 200' OS'vY O� I" = 100' 1 H H E—I H F-1 1 - 1 1 YQN�O� U. S. ARMYCORPSEER OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT, SEATTLE •• SEATTLE, WASHINGTON CEDAR RIVER 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT FIGURE 7 (CONY.) CITY OF RENTON SHEET 4 GRADING, TREE INVENTORY, DRAINAGE CONTROL AND SHORELINES PLANS 1 CEDAR RIVER 1 ' ALL TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LEVEES WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WASHINGTON I SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE I [ B C1.4 1 , 1 DSCN: BRANUT CHK: SHEET • DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: I3-MAR-1997 14:14 DESIGN FILE: I:Ode5ign5mcric0civmcr_dor4.dgn - 1 SCALE: I - r 100' 1 • } S 1 .oS`CY O� �-4 T • 4' -1 • C T CEDAR RIVER 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT _ �� CITY OF RENTON v y' �z' ` `` qZI/ -I GRADING, TREE INVENTORY, DRAINAGE CONTROL AND SHORELINES PLANS '~ 1 ALL TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LEVEES WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED \ .-' / �/ :� q • ter• '`-'• -\�y,'/ - .< -- r . •• " i.j- t`'4 -4.-.! `.. .• /;-./'-i..::ue ` --e_s.1 // ..; A /' '� jl C' ,gyp �;_.,.."„1;:".-,... r° -, - -_- , '` • .! ,,.%` '' jam`% ' . `-.)-> ;4''- / • • • • • '��-•_..• (,, i t=•-s: ��• f f :�j/ (,V / [\� ref /. -v -9 _ - 100' so' 0 100' 200' '•:. ./ t U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE F 4 1 ` CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON FIGURE 7 (CONT.) `^' _ x rt! SHEET-5 WASHINGTON - ' CEDAR RIVER SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE , B CI.5 ' 1 DSGN: BRANDT CHK: SHEET ' DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 13-MAR-1997 1416 I DESIGN FILE: I:mdesignsmcrfcecivOcr_dprS.dgn SCALE: I - = 100' I • • • • • 25 - • • i 20 - 5 • 0 - I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I o (MO (.0 N N N *- go V V M _N ,— N .— ,- tt M M N (0 O CO CO U CO 00) 0) r ((0 N- O (Q a ((0 2 Qom) OT co ((co O N N M co M �t V (n (() (n (0 co (O (0 c0 c0 N N- N N N m a0 CHANNEL DISTANCE (ft) FIGURE 6 • DREDGE PROFILES FOR ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES • i. ` 1 1 I I ••• . .:.:. E ALIGNMENT • I I 1 I.5' 1 IS I I ' 2' MIN. TOPSOIL ' • I AND SEEDING I I I LEVEE EMBANKMEN 1 EXISTING,GROUND 1 ���cc5 T MATERIAL SURFACE 2 I 2 ueA I i I STRIP 6' AND REMOVE I g UNSATISFACTORY MATERIAL I I LEVEE TYPE I 1 NOT TO SCALE I I I • I I . I I • E ALIGNMENT I I • I 1.5'I 4' I f 4 I 1 I.S' I ecr - - - •, 2". MIN. TOPSOIL I AND SEEDING I I 3" AC PAVEMENT 4" GRAVEL BASE 3 LEVEE EMBANKMENT I " u�' MATERIAL 1 • I 3 -._ � i —/emu I I STRIP 6" AND REMOVE I UNSATISFACTORY MATERIAL I LEVEE TYPE II NOT TO SCALE I I I I E ALIGNMENT IB" MIN. ROCK I 1' S SLOPE PROTECTION I I ` I 4" MIN. TOPSOIL AIRPORT SIDE 1 RIVER SIDE AND SEEDING I I I 4 I I LEVEE EMBANKMENT I I 5 I 2 µATERIALI 1 t / /Q - J I I \— STRIP 6" AND.REMOVE • UNSATISFACTORY MATERIAL • 1 • g LEVEE TYPE HI ' •NOT TO SCALE 1 I . I • I . I . 1 FIGURE Q • I • TYPICAL LEVEE SECTIONS• I 1 I I 1 I II • r .1: , vl / I 1 1 17-EXISTING TREES > . vI 1 1 1 I 1 / I • E A'IGNMENT • .' 1% 1 I STEEL CHANNEL s < I 1 1 1 •� -�1 1 / I I� , • I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I- • —HI EXISTING AC ROAD I t • r6V/rAF ar virn• EIRIMMEGginNU I V w•d• - I EXISTING GROUND LINE FISTEEL SHEETPILE , I 1 I I t i FLOODWALL TYPE 1 • • NOT TO SCALE I ' I I t ALIGNMENT I I I STEEL CHANNEL I 1 • 1 I 1 1 STEEL SHEETPILE I 1 1 TOPSOIL AND SEEDING 1 OVER RIPRAP I I I ____Li1 r 1 wwuiia' ^� 1 • e�iiIID%.7 EXISTING I .GROUND LINE I IPRAP SPLASH APRON I 1 1 I 1 FLOODWALL TYPE II 1 ' NOT TO SCALE •' • FIGURE 9 • I I TYPICAL FLOODWALL SECTIONS • I I I 04.114 WM.: 3.111.1 CEDAR_RIVER_DREDGE_PROJECT 1"-w°' '"411721.1A'"A"' • AP.% CITY OF FK,4.4..44, OMMILID4 PAM RENTON NARCO_SITE .....,. , . i • DATUM ! Plonning/Building/PublIc Works Dept. DREDGE SPOIL_STOCK_PILE_SITE I If WOK MP 111111V/ Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator 5,1[04 Ora I./4.0ftealLY NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR ,P,.... . 1 ___... ._.. ..._ _._ .. _,....\ \ i i .,.. \.,, .,,,,, 4, , .,,.. !I ‘, imitimi\ ..siars",serai. ,,\:,...i. r.r"----------------------------------miki.,..xl,,, ,,• ..i.,...::, ,, -------, ........ 'a-. ...-11-, 1,11:7-..._-_—_-.C.-.:1-".- i ; k 3 ;, • . \,•••• • u) ''' tf/S•n,,,.3-- , -,-----. `3 \ ' 4 4 .': . t, . '3 — . . , ,I --"'" c..) ',. , 1 '. 's \-• 71r.:, • ..• ' '-'‘ ..' t , t • N. \ . t. , '4 Ilk t ', " i ) \ '44 • ' 4 , \ \ 'i \t,.i,,,,, , i t • ,- • .... .... 4 •,,, , \ i( 4 \\ ."., 4 ' 1 . • '• I •----,:-. ' :.•• :•:.„ .•:'•ilkt ,., vs __.\,•,.....• 3,,, .;\,k.wrs,„..* __,,,,--%,N. 12. '• '-' ‘.-.-"3••••-'"'"-\,,) '' '03-1PIPV..\ •t".- ' 't 3 1 ./ ,y.' A i. i '1'0, '; ' 1•,'„ 't - .s , / Vka,,..• •Q2 ,. .1 1 0 ',?, ...,.......... 01 •. . . • ,.... t.. .. . • 1 -,'`'. ''.... . . '3 * '31 .../1 t .4. `;/ ..• •3 33 •. r , . -I? • ', • • tt ; • . / t' i .. 3 CI ED .. , ., 0.•:TP '! 4,.' ,;, ., ., /\ 3, •3,,, ' 3, , -- . . - 0,'d ) \ ', ', '. ‘) \ •'..,,\ 1,, •• , .3 i ff .I 3 • I-, :... '.; I( \ • • • • , ,, -• i# , -, —IL— \ ; • ;; •.'.\\ .. .::•. ''' '''-,. ) ' ‘‘ k s „•-:,\/',/ fIllliil \W tu; 41k ' oil 104 , k , 1 k . ... ., ' .., , ..‘ •• , ,., . '-••• \, ,,. /•..,/A ./:-. . . ...•-:,1.,. .17,,',/ RI 1 ; ii.../.••:;-if •-• ' -: 1 I• ) ;i / ,..., • ., „ .. ,, ,,, ,, •,. , • \ ../.I 8 0 . ••-",.:<••,',',....,-•..../..,... / s . , , , i, ....„ ,....Cmitymoifi Rellon A a _.. i ,.. . . , „,. ,,, a ___L____L eir-Lf.izih)ty't'l-enter .-1Ci 4 3: \ C.i i , ,... •-.., 3., ..\-/ ?R. t rr 725-----', / ''1 f ' I . - .../:•,•'-.....:.•:::-". '`,:••' " .. f , .... , ..:s, i.,„ / „,.. :. _ ..I e /.- tD ,./ „., • . '.„ ,, i. I 1/I? ; : i;(i ! I ," ---2/./:.•" /01 0 . 3 , , ..' 12,__I--,.1- r— 1 ...•- '''' ' \ ,'..';',i ': ( 1 :.• ' : j './..'''' ././." a \-5 i' (' !.. ,.......„ .,„., er5 1,, i • ., .' -...--... ,• ' ' * '' i '‘'•••.•'' ' , • ', ,I.,t '- 4 '4 44 =.t 250' I ,,i • ..„ — % • , tt /„.- ,...-- o ‘ / • ) \ • i i • 4, ‘. •. • - ---•- •--'....-'•? ••• ‘:,.3. • '•••••.'3uf ,_ ; . f• ,--11:-.•.. -----....----.-:,/.,•-',...:-.-".. , ,••"' \ U ' i Eirz:::: :- 1--._„:::-.-•:::::::.( 1 0 , •(,‘ M . , rizr.::::::::•,z-...::::::::::-..E.T1i .:, f; 'F5 `• ,,. i •,. , -... ,,.0, WI; .-,,' ,, 0 : N., ....., 0 i 2 NJ „1. l! :-?..‘.f ,,. . / 'f'i' .''i r - ---' ii;'•' i ' •'t i'S',2Z..-...-'`, qt, ; ,_-.- - „ • „' - . .. „ - - I. Jitii .1111 -- .9.. ',? \ 1 , ";•• ‘ \ ',.. I• Oil! .. 4 47:-•*,"'„,, 43 • 1 1 < ... ...,.., liffil ' I ;, . 14// fit H,/, .,r, • ••••----., ' i' ..,•';' ,Q /.,, I iii•-••• , , v.• ..., ;iijt , , . . •/,„J CI i Hi i •• II :f ., . \--- '' ," ... . , ... / t ; f ; . ''f•i•,1! 7,,„ a ... . • , . •, s t „ ,•f'.' cri IHH '; : .. . i ., . .. ., ' .a. • • . ..... ! N„, •,. •••,.0 ;;; 1 •/••• CO filii c•'' , " .../ ! ••• '-. 1--.' 4 -6, , i.,t,1 ..... (0 1;.44); . • • , ..:3 t i• , , . ea' !,t;: r"-••, : . , . i j'iP,14 k k I I;j H ,p• -00 :IL!! , • . . . • .• - • 0'. ,' !. '.. 1 .. . ': — - '' ' -...1 '• ''.. ' ; ° :.iH I j N 9.5. .:I ii • , . „ , .• ',! ...; — i; m . „ . . . ., ; ; .',:,•=„... ,, ,.; • 1-- , • , 11•111 ca A.,-: f 1 i •, "•.1. '''.•:-.:::,: N'-,•••-1, i • • ',',1 1 \ '• ', ‘,. ' ' ' '• V.- --.N...1 ? P"- li; a: 8 iiiit */ i ,1 , '• -,.,,,:,,:.•-, •• . . . ; ; , .: i: \,, ,.. ,••••••. \ .:, ', , : , .. ./ 1 .- Hill (1) Pr ffH / ._,..,1 ,,,:...,"/:•,...!, •••_. ,s , '..\ -------._r \ k , / i!, !pp en • -13 Hi! i , ( . • • ' 1;'1 i; 60---: i r.)1 \ \ • A • , I OM 13 ,, , ..'4.,„ , , \ , ,••:••,3r2y,:.:`'....--27..:::•,-.:'. 31:2,.••••;t• .. .... 4 1 " OM .. Co ,HO ., , i .,, ;, -• .; , ,.,,v• %, ' in, , - i I i‘-•••:-•:::::..., -.:::::7=.--:'.s.,::*,-,..'''.• -•,4 *c? i• 1 i ,.,10, ;,.4 !i;!; / I, , 1 • • •,,1,--.,.--,--- ...--..:::_,..:•,:-.,:;;;,v..,-,,,,... ,., -,,,,, ,,, ,„ i i :,4 si (D HO, , ',.../, •• ,.) ' `• % ...,'04 t, ; ,• •; t„,-4 IP 7,IV , 4, .,.. 1 '‘. i..:......7:1'.•-••:.:::-...:75',Pris,;:`‘.".'''',..ti.".‘!%, ." '• H 1 4 1}i • 3-'""...,-.4.4\ i!1'1‘i 0 1 '1' 4 .4 4 , '42'' J'4' •. ' '''--.::.:::•.-"."'6"'''."'''1."...'':::',..'%s:4'•:....'• S '4 4 h 1 ) ::. ;.,; . ', . .,4.. \ .,,-', .. i ...5' 'H44.1*. I 14, .g '';i' a .,- ; „•,. .::-..----:...-.....-,---!?.- :-:,,,..,‘...,-,‘:,-, ', ,,,. .1 , i ; ) , Hii! , ii? I i !,., . ' -, ;•:-:'!•-6 •-•., ', , , 1 • ,. .-.?f ,1.•`• , • 1, r, i ., ;?i?1 .i i; f '..< 1 i ;3 ' .,• , .„,,;: 3 r•-'-'•3 4'ilk .:.:.•>.,5.... ....?4 ••• , .• •- ,• •,..'44, 0'•,' '; / 0 , ‘: ' ' ; i ?IN": i v, i•Hq 1. "J-....., ,•,,.' i. ,..',:,, 0 Nib' . it ' • ' •. . • , , - t ,• t., 0 t• ! •:. 0, s i I f -,, ;i: ,,, cc, Iii1; 2 r-,, , ! • • cp ,0A••• •d, „..,, \ \ "‘' ' , s.,,•,,, de. s„...... < \ .„..„., c., . ' ,, ',H•• ifn; • ,irri im 1 , : ,,rsr : ',s,', ':,-,..-5'••. '...,.,".;,•'*/1,..(•.l','•,'''.,..1'....;..;, :'..„..:', , ,./' s 1 t 0,', i.lill z' \ ' ' '`'h..., i ; .1 k.',• ' ' •I ka. ,-. i \ : I,\ 0 ‘ , , : ,:. \',,‘-,:,., ?k .,1 i ;74 k •: ,,, ,,,-. / j .. i -----7:-...:.::;.--,..!.4://,‘•-.,'........ ,.• wi.• f' ; : H/ 30 7.., .. , .. . ; f.,.,( f „ / ',,_ E:,,,.f:".;;;;;; ;.ti!.!•//'''' ( i I II i i r' ;•i ,,,,< • „., , ,. : ; : 1 .:.......rA;'-',"::;,•;-;',.ce,..`.-,/ i I.;- •, I? •I 1 t M — ' • ,1.,):C\/),' I,,' i' ‘, ,.:--;`..,...1:•44... ":/i.:-.:.-1,1-• i .. ‘ " ,•i t i IIIII ,•••'''''., a ‘,. • , , r. ' , ,.,...,,, 1„1 . 1j)i e s, , j r I ... ',..,,...1 ' :I} (hp . ori, l f . r /If Lit 7.7..------,:,:•-•.....-.....4 1H; ,k3. ,.-S • v / 1,11 \ I' ,.. I co . 1 r .3, 1 I I t....:1--:::.. - -----)31 f ..;CU / fl. i i ,4'4‘3, '. • 3 3 ;---..--/•• .: ,...'•>.- 3 a i f g o ; i , g'.\\ 0 . 0 ';'; 1,!. ./ !. — 4 _ . . i . , „, . ,. ./'..•6/,.. .' i i ;• 0\._,"--Nik, \ 0 6 i ' f .; ; ... - , ,. ,,. tn ‘,%.‘ .• .... . ., CD 1 ',... "---- i ', k 2 ..... !,,. f i X. ;0. <., I'. -,` „...._6F. / , •• ,..% ,',', • 0 . . t ..2 : .,:.. ...,• ‘i '1.'1, V \'., 1 ( •./ • . ;. ,...• ct i, ‘ ,.,:\ \ , 1.•.-.:-:•''!,/.--.' : ,• ; ,,' = 4) - 1 t .', \,.. i 1;1 / 1/e//j•I •:::.1;:...::.:',/ 1 • .. ' •, • :..,,.. f . , CO - s• 1 • •, y ; .., .• 1„. ,,.. 3 a I , iy ,••,.., 2 a \ 1 g al t @ a) s; H , CO Z• i .,.\ ‘s, .-' ; • ti• , r••••. ...:,..,1 a § 0 ri / .• • 1 ,•-•'' //:/.`•r,/...' t..\. s• • ; 's Z ••-h 0 .• t-t '‘ • ,(),••5 ..:-.1'.; 610 •... ., .., ;s I, 1.1\„...ti,„••-•.-\, .t-s:''t' • '•j f f I Y1 CO CD .< . .I.11 •......“:..:i,,,w,.,,,, „ ,......-. - ...,,,,;••::.1. i,if/lc,,.. -"•• •„. \ ; sal 41 4,•,..:---,3-,--\ •'‘, , . , ., . .....„ ,„..... i / " .-.:,"-----, ,, . , q . • ‘4,3•4',53 I 3 3 ,,.,-••-• - r 34-3•43314 "'''3., ; t •'',. li1,41'.',....-•••• CD : •,1;.if ....„, ., .. . „. al ••••• • q'g' ..cit 1 17/1 /.../../..qf j• ,••- .,. ,.,:,z q• .4o ,,:: ; ,((/•,,,,,,...q...,.. 7 , ,,,ili.iol,,,,,,...„.44.... , . .. , ,. . ,. , .. .. • .. .,„. ,.,... ..............,..:,'7 -.7-••••' k. , • " ID \ , , • ,‘• ',. ...! ••••••. .. . ..t i S 1 r r..,.'filiiii0fritli.:::!:,;;;;;;:.'...7/4: ,V,0.••• , ., •-•-_,„ i I ..,‘:‘,. ...,.--,'•'-'....;•‘-:',•, ,' 1 'I ., ,.... . "--k-, r; ,"! ii•'illi,/,;,,'III/f • s• - • /„.., „,/./..• , •••., / Irrilijii,s11/11110(1/2.1,,—, t s\ •,,‘•,:,:'::2-,;;•.:'•;•,.*:,.•s'•.. ,„ -1 ',.i L5.. i / - f /t);,..,‘,.„,,/, /,(/!;•'/; ? ' k sk t. $ ' \ '•• \....• 2:•,•,%,. •••• i .. L//.'11/2,,`,,,,,,v/.,1!„,•11-0.111,/,,,s / f f i,....,',':,;:',,s.2 -..‘.-,,„ L..... ', ''.\.lis '1, ., ''',. %, \ - '1'.'•-•:•:•...-s. \ 3 • . . "....., r•• i -•it,f/,' (//../1!//.'./1%.fli.r., •----'( ; 1 r: ',-.%.,'•'..::•••‘-',-'-'r•r,.. ', ,, L ,. ss's ••,. .; .,. ''. •,, ,./,..• "i,,iN''s... ‘. t , / ) 1 i 11/2/1.,r 1C4 ,',Ifily,,; • r / i f . ••••::§:'.3•••? ...frrv,..,. .,, r • ' • Z'., ' " / r fh,,,,fi/rj ,'I /f/illjfill r , " - ; • -• ,-, ,.; 1 ..,4,/,'r'. ii 4, ,g) • 1,),,.,,,,i,itie://:,,ii.,,,,iiiiiiiiiiiimii , ..„.:,. • J ...........,,,c„,.::.:..,...,.,......,. ....... , f ,, ; ..,., •, .. ... , 1 , . i I 111).( .. •'••••-, ..0., .5.:.,-..--•,`• '.k k.!‘,) ) I ', i t I 4 t 3 • .• '''''. ' ."' -4.- 90.•• ••••(‘,\\.'1 ' 1' 41.0! f / i '.. it,11 , , ' 1ri y t 4.--- ; ...," 41H;!;;31i 3 i / '• .•; 01)4 .•... ' Iliri;1, 4:1. 3 4 1 ,• ',•,, ''i •':4 4 ' i;1; ; ,, •`•5 . /• .11 fi.,;f•••1\•,. , ,1,",• jilopt\;/: /,..i\ , e 1 •,, i 1. ',,,,'•t!, ', i• , P k, H J 1 ' , i.• .'., • Irifilll,:.:1 ', : 1 1 ': \ \ \11 x i,\I‘,.;,i\1 ;i.' i • ../` 111! 1, t ,,, / If •4 in!! \ ,..;., t y, • - y ..„„._ ,. ,... ,, . .; • 1'3 rill,l'i i 1 I 1 I \\ ,,,0'' : ,' f .'•. fAill 1 ; '' '1 /If'•",).1) t_,..;,• . , ... i . „ t / • ,, i t ' ' "" , ! :. ,. t i , „ H/lib', •',/,,t: / ' ,',//' .-... i2,:\ l' ,''„/...,/.,;',..,/,••••'-',..:^.',..:....-'2:::,;...:-•;"..--•7-7'"_:••'-TLC-.7•••-•.";:.;".. - .'1 i „ t, , ,,.... ... fl.t•, '/'-, .. . .• ,,', ; i 42'62 ..._: ....."...,-' / , .,...-,/ ,,... ,. • ....,' .'' /•. ( ' / ' „,:,,,• , ' ,e' lif ( , •.,....,, NI Illi ti;i 1.,•...1.::-./././'I/ C'/, fi t•I;;;;•':-....:•••`,. i;'h?i`f. :ii ..• 1, ... .:•'' .....,'', • . ...,.• • ,, i i41.1ii•j7'1 C ..-- N • . r ,,, .,r ,• ,,, . N 1 i fiN.1,'f li,i•'" ••• „-...--'''. __.,...,„ \ , ,• . • • ' ' . N• '.., . i .. t • , . . ,.... .,"• ' • •. . _,1 . _____.... _____ ____. --..- 1 U tj g Narco Site Dredge Spoil " ') W Y' Storage:Site Li o - Section Looking North 1- Scale 1"=50' Wj Distance varies Approximately 130'Minimum orro -- 250' rW i U, 1 n'' 150' 7 :LA 11 U, Gl+ Dredge Spoil Pile 160,000 CY 2 ^ i l i -.. Water Quality Treatment Swale H i i ! i Cedar River Trail Area Covered=250'X 960'=240,000 sqft I Section Area = (150'X25') + (25'X50') =5000 sqft g Effective Section Length,= 860 + 50' = 910' b Approximate Volume = 168,000 CY 1 AA 11A/4£25rd 5! s N 5 -------- ---_____—_ It e NE 21st Sl yC• y I^81 77rd St J NE • ————————— ——— L NE Zan St. I _ NE 2ah .aE _- _-_-_-___ --___ --—__-__ z i—� EY --____-_-_-_— ___--_-_-- YI .1 * w'_ —_—_—_——_——————_ ———_————————— .ie .c ' NE 17th y z 3 . FTAN ____________ -----------_ _--_—_----_---_-- N Icm w = €J .,0 •F, gi] „ i. - , . ___________ , ct. .. .., ___ =____ I t.Q,2U St.\,, `.' a hE® HE 12U sl „„,,,. -- _ _ _ / CIF? J NE nm jsL I o� --- it \®� a J NE 101h J sN[Ian rct. �� �iCb .S FPI. ...JJJNr 1 'rn�',y� NE 101hln�8 _ NE 9l - �O`hsC INE Is(.zL NE �� 9IhSt. ����--oo. f.i.7}.1 C P V 9u` c ,? �� NE BU At ti� NU✓ "� `4 9N Cl. 1. • • � <U BO +E 8U CL j��J' NE BU SL z .6 NE Blh SL. NE 7th St. NE 7U . z i a K �. NE ® E6Cu L . _ Emil1 N 61h St. J N 6U SL a ,k g I NE 9 111111t3,l[ rsl �/ 6�z� tll� — s r3 ( 4aa^ Nr ` ' 11N5U SI. r (k+h z 3 a I '�� SOUTH vy,5a ` = BOEING �a B „� ;. BRIDGE _ _�� �° N lth St. , NE 4A$l. I NE 4th I. ( [NI ilj—EV ill ' ..st El .1 '''' V-I PillW i NE 3rd Pi 1, \a PIE 1.6. 6" F. \-.._ �.t,et Nay k / . NE fid St —. —iir___)Erall ----Ilt: (1111 'ti 'u-j ' . 4- 1 .-r. \;., ,,,,..,'U- 1S '_5 2rd St . ^_:. d J,` I ✓ .rd SI, •� <� ®r"� 4 p ^ ArimalfOR D,Effif _ 1 ..ii lop dIj- I..„ h. UI 11,_fA�� a NARC❑ �s7 SITE `� ii !_N_---.__1•- INn � / ,h IY i`. 81h ....,4,--_,-..:, 7 K fs o," 8th a S Renton Kdape PI S P� .I V >°S 9 r^ •\ I111I o • a � I� \\r� Mils De`F � u� t `: . FIGURE 15: PROPOSED HAUL 0 =2000 ROUTE. FOR DREDGED MATERIAL f-{: : 311 == ( IN FEET ) 4 ) 3 - ; - - 2 I Q- - _ ^- • i i i` 1 N N tD v , N i N dow O - — — lD — N t-.^C7D I '� OD O 111. i I '. k �D a W N •• N. =� N �, N .V N m! to �� --T N �- A PaN JI''f 1,-,‘ N OaO 4: O O _ X . - .: 0 a in --�-en _ �ile�G x u`. ,; 'eV �>SiY� I o 1111111.111.1.11111111.1111111 /V Oa 0�1 ,v� ' 6/111111.1111 .11 -' _X_X _ v000. --. _�. o tD ®,y O o o� WILLOWS ONLY THIS SIDE NCO 08�` -,�_ o _�`'� e I e,o;�iC a.aoe"ooa.®o® p ❑ .... 7..000000100„,„„,„0,000001"'"IIIIIIII......\ ; )1 X N X X_�cv • • -- - O ' O N J • = X _ c; J I.- 1 ci:1\ ---.1 , .7 �! , a It1 i \ T v • • . f\.3 Vt 1 ----- --- U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE - CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' SEATTLE,WASHNGTON LEGEND CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL I ' FIGURE 16:(CONT.j 0000 ROSES MITIGATION PLAN j 1 P. Z-� SHEET 2 1 s' , CATTMLS RENTON MM.,. WASHINGTON .• WE I 3-44,5__ (Z.n WILLO,S, CURRANTS D 97JAN30 I C-4 • ' DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: II-WAR-1997 14:22 ��'•-'. `V:l DESIGN FILE: I:odesI onsacricrarchscricoGOc.dpn 1 °..- uL MARrz ' 2 , 4 3 . 2 , ./ - 1 \ _ , . ). . _,...-4.._ .„.------- : •::,-'.:.. :F 7r • . .- . -f\-- • ./". • . .--- -.41 - .-- --. .... - . `, "------3:-.. ..... s.. -... . . -... .... .." --.. ... ------ .... •• -- — ---.....- -.... • MS ... : ''''''' ,,s..........., ... ........''''....' ---V--- 4, - - - - • _ _ ...... _-1- - - - -v - ...- ... . TYPICAL PLANTING SCHEME FOR RIPARIAN VEGETATION . • . , . o-- . „.,-.7 •• tit VAApircto—W.. 261AD tr, iii .• • ... ,,, _ J 01.--,-...•,' 0-.;•:-..r? - , ....-vs.:', T 40 V' -- .... .l'010,40P. -crjraimis" - ' -dia, qN2W:44---iir4,4114 - ltiVet*, ,?--,op rivg V' 41 Jiro pi ti••• .......... , . , , 2, p. 3 0-No tore.,4.44 off":14(# 1)t) 0I-4 a 00.; .....-- "I'mowr" yen. ilvallif112; 'aft. "qiiift....1/ 10/45L-veall OW AP" F,V' "" ' i a 'OA' eter'• Alw-ii - ..,,,q....... ,.....--- ......,_ ...„,... _ it*Lotigw, ___„___... k warip-sall4 -.....,.. .---•-' ,,.;,......... i a- — -..i.P. •".ft_itica . 111...-stirrm'i. ,..- _ -. _.:- _-;---- _.., ___ iih... 116163,.4•,_,.. 411111111aw _-----'--- - - _... - - ......00" _ \2--' ---.....- ••••.... . .... ii- ..." -... ............. ... _—_ IV'- ...-'.... .... ..- .... ".4.11Z• - i, ___-------- - ... ...- -.. • ...._ .- - --. _ --21 s. Vtill.a... *41. • • Nr _......... _ - ... ..... _i_eft - CHANNEL CONNECTS AT DOWNSTREAM END TO RIVER \•\L-------i • • • . A,. -s, \ , •-- ‘270-ec.-\c". ..- Ni....... i , %NEI, t,,...• ..'",r P‘'_... '-‘1/".rie•-.,_ •-• ----_- .-)'‘ . . , ..., ..... • .. c.• . . . --.. ... \ K. . \ GROUNDWATER P D • • N ., -.. _ <EAfErdiz...i-ZED •L SIDE CHANNEL PLAN .t • 1--- • . _..., ., _ . -, • - 2 ' I..—...r......—....., -___ . _ . , _. -4 I Co c.n 11 i ____------.7—_ --------- "\N. .::i.:-:i:••••• — T,..) OD ‹.....,0 • — :i: ' — 0 ti i I ;....1 1:0 • 1 i tO — • • .41P) N.) __--______ 1 cs)\ i ){: 0 --------- A . — --_-______ .b. to _----i- ------- - --____ (19 ------•"'''''"'"'.---- • 0 iii _ Th... .. .,,i 1 . - _ :2 Iv --J------- --, CO 0) 1111110011111-11111111:---- ---------------- - IV a :4 .-------- / NI 0 X ) *0) _ _ . ,,,w.i...,;,,..,... ....,,,,,.0.0,,,,.,,,-4.,2,,,v=-*'•dis:0,,..-..' a, tE) ,..... .,,,,.."*"......" .4'.* ) d I Is, 111111 . 0 ° --------------- i ____,. r5 ..• ..- ---oivatiock ..., k,s.L.._.=:::___--___.),. ro .................................„.„--/ ___ - • 0 a 1/4:/..r.-• — °• C.' .....,,,carint 0 1-1- l0 ;... .00 "o) cie,„)...•• c -oil. ev# t). `7--::_ • 0 a g/P1 t ....qs.IIIIIII.0.40;agee • Z 0_0.• —. .:. . . „,..-0Cic1 C:64311" 0 .••• tv • — co i 1 . ...4. --.11- d4 ro A IV C3 ISIIIIII • ..... Ifoo00000010000191011111.111111.1.111111111111.111\ B I 91 I • i'' cvaiiiire**640- 0 0 ` — 'co'- -.s, 6.- • A :, i . valipp., --.1 )(______--)L------ ) •- I ''' 0 .1.6 i i <-?37:.)\\ 010.AP • . . ---------.. ._-_..-----_Q. ,fi 0.'4- ,4___.---*-------' .• _..... ...../ '-- - _ - - • ,...!!_ .-- ca X )("------.-- ---- I .3, . 7 . 1 , c \ \ i 1 u.s Oil 0 1 /— OA _ _ . • _ , \.. cp:D, • --- y. -,,------' i • „________, k_._,,.---- liti I ... .., i .. , , -------‘ - , 0 _ z \ ...., ••• ... . --,.. . 0 . ..... , 0 ••,... ,• ... Ail . , J , ),--- --.1 1 -..I N..... I _.....-----l__------------T-------* '\-",.. •.• \ c•..1 — kt ‘11 i ... I N I U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SEATTLE - GORP-S OF ENGINEERS •• . SEATTLE.WASHNGTON 1 CATTAiLS LEGEND FIGURE 16:(CONT.) . • CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ; 00e0 ROSES MITIGATION PLAN 1 Z-1111.0w— SHEET 2 1 , . ".•• RENTON WASHINGTON -, - larE oreiTATI.410. f%A..0. OA IL ....arZ Ctp DATE AND iii M.4E PLOTTED: II- AR WILLOWS. CURRANTS D -199T 14:22 97JAN30 C-4 i DESIGN FILE: 1-ciestonsOcrfcIorchiscrIcoo0c.don ".`LE MARTZ ,.. VC, 2 4 A — - 3 2 • - ' • • EN-PL-ER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD 12/16/97 I had a conversation with Gail Terzi, OP-RG, Environmental Analyst, regarding my data from the proposed dredged material disposal site for the Renton Flood Control Project. The site is the former"Narco" industrial site, shown as urban land with buildings on most of the site in the 1973 King County Soil Survey. The field data showed that most of the site was highly compacted gravel and other materials with ruts and other low spots likely left by heavy equipment during building demolition. The wetlands are•. largely confined to these low spots. It was,not possible to dig below 4-6" by hand because of the highly compacted soil.,,. The wetlands were generally ponded water sitting on top of the soil. Wetland vegetation is present in the wetlands and appears to be about 3 years old. A large pond is;present along the base of the hillside to the south of the site. This pond appears to have been there a long time, even when the site was industrial. A number of large trees and other wetland vegetation are present in and around the pond. Based on my verbal description and data sheets, Gail said that the Corps would not consider the small wetlands jurisdictional, so will not regulate them. The pond would likely be considered a water of the United States, however. She can provide a memo to this fact in January, 1998. Merri Martz Biologist ',I DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) N rCO t, CI. Date: t 1 f P& (q7- i Project/Site: � 2�- Applicant/Owner: C i.hA, , 1 "c en'v ' County; lei( -Investigator: 1v\rt fq 7 . l-t ti'U {InLJ State: Lk)A Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed/ OW No Community ID:o Transact ID: Is the area a potential Problem Areal . • ' •f-e Plot ID: L. (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have Morphological adaptations to wetlands with a ') Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. PO u.+l t%1A-t'U< Y2 p.ZbL> FI FAC w 2. 'i c fi l tt*icn't. r'p.R.n s N PAC U s , 3. 11. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC • ��0�D (except FAC-). Include species noted (') as showing . morphological adaptations to wetlands. Describe Morphological Adaptations: 1 / Remarks: r [' C�(G� rn �� o.thzr r0(31-,FA C tJ 1 FAC, p uLn+5. nQt c'O�c /_tL HYDROLOGY —Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wdtiand Hydrology Indicators: _Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage Aerial Photograph X' Inundated _Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _Water Marks • _Drift Lines " Sediment Deposits Field Observations: — 0- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) _,Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches i Water-Stained Leaves (in.) _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Free Water in Pit: I —Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth to Saturated Soil: (In.) Remarks: A Waterways Experiment Station /91 •p Unit Name: l.Lr baxl. i Drainage Class: Reid Observations T onomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yee No Profile Descriorion: depth Matrix Color Motile Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions. • Cinches) J•lorizon (Muneell Moist) OM/noel!Moist) /lburdance/Contrast jlhi;oeoheree,etc, 1/q11 , -F1:0 siIr 6 c i /V. /0 Y2 6 A -reio/Itire$4, iar ,S-c 3--;it & 'o;- +-b t.0 hei OW —& " ct t- 6s.6t/e4i--a-✓ t-C.-0—A' -5 . Hyd ric Soil Indicators: I • —Hiatosol _Concretions _Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer —Sulfidic Odor _Organic Streaking —Probable Aquic Moisture Regime _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List - Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List . k Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors j_Other (Explain in Remarks) I Remarks: pA.san o l J r` 601.`tit c o bL,/ - m od-L s - b ii(ik-- rn �r /�-r�;,��r�al' �afih.c�- -1:l-ttz.n, fed ox i nib rphz2c fit. . e s:5 WETLAND DETERMINATION 1 HI ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Cril No (Circle) (Circle) ydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? es No - Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedend? 421 No Remarks: 40.e i-LailIS CoLCs. Gt - rGim pen-61- 1 £(?Yl' ' -tV-4 0,0P1,100-61eal s wF s E 1 s t-Lr •ec61, shDw s b Gte:Cd r%r , .fin Sid . - -- - --- I - - . , 1 DATA FORM riai'JTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Al ,(CO 45it te Date: ///Ai,n7' Applicant/Owner: (i is Of R et)i-itii County gt 0s1- Investigator: M�.t•rr a LLt !j-r h State: lei: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been di turbed? Yes ) No Community ID: Is the area a po tential Problem Area? • et' o ' Transect ID: Plot ID: �-- (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION (Note those species observed to have morphological adaptations to wetlands with a 9 Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 9. --- • 10. 11. 4. 12. --- 13. . . 6. 14. -- • 1S. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC . p/C (except FAC-). Include species noted O as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands. ' Describe Morphological Adaptations: Remarks: • it HYDROLOGY _Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Widand Hydrology Indicators: _Stream.Lake, or Tide Gage X Inundated_Aerial Photograph _ • Other - • X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available . _Water Marks _Drift Lines Sediment Deposits • Field Observations: • — Drainage Patterns in Wetlands— (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Surface Water: • _Water-Stained Leaves Can.) _Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Free Water in Pit: _Other(Explain in Remarks) 1 Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) • Remarks: ` - I A Waterways Experiment Station 1 !91 Map Unit Name: ' LI r ha"- - Drainage Cla--- Sald Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): IConfirm Mapped Type? Yes No . p:`f cia-fr it] Srlfur.z-ti.. ln_i-ea 07at poit.') Profile Description:Depth Matrix Color Mottee Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions. • 'nches }lorizon SMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizosoheree.etc. 1-& r' /t:>'rl'i�1 ,14c I�,,_ /6 y24-/e, a . and 612. I /amw " � e Hydric Soil Indicators: —Hiatosol j_Concretions —Histic Epipedon _High Organic Content in Surface Layer —Sulfidic Odor '_Organic Streaking —Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List - - )( Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ,i_Other (Explain in Remarks) i °merits: i l • WETLAND DETERMINATION . -lydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y:97.8.}No (Circle) (Gird°) Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? • CYes)No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: O/L Q.9't''n ?na!/2Q4 or) p o c vix—pGt e 567 S .• '' • 1 • - . ' •^.7..i:••;',. . . . . , . _,.4.1&.!7./:.... . , . :.w•-•,;: ''.• ;.• .":"% .: • I 141.4401 1.11 I - "-------------------- "'"*. '511.47•11.61"' A Pim CITY OF CEDAR_RIVER_DREDGE_PROJECT iibet17 ,,•:. . , 1 11.2oo' • 011.701.1. 7....., VIVA------. ;.,, .• I _ RENTON NARCO_SITE . 46•711. I i , DATUM I p 'rig/Building/Public Works Dept. -g= „g- -- . PI ILL 11••..7 , I F,0 I CM 1,9. 111111V* Grie°gngr"Zimmermcin P.E., Administrator DREDGE_SPOIL_STOCK_PILE_SITE BY DATE APPR •••••• SW 0.1201.1:67 ',:‘.AI"'•''' '' 1 SatTr-Ist---- II. '''%I.:.;!...&it. ra----- 7 ,11_ . r . - •. . ...•• •• /.. :. -- -'k. , ... - •. . . :,...;, •.:1 • riu P'' '`..e. .1 .. at, ..., .....f.:: .8., .,.,,,„, _ 's•, ----------_____ . • •,._. 000V •. ......., .1, • ..• ,., • • • ,. ... .. , . • .. _________ . 1 ...... . ...,................. i .. - • .. - . . ... ... ... - , .., .... ,._............ '.?.. Nei ,/4., .• • Illk• - • , •••• .. .. -•.. ‘:..2 i. . \n-- ‘,....• . ()-. .. 1 i t (, c. ^, '.„ •1,, ^ • 1 . '.,i •.. P. 01 •0. . , .' : • ', . . , d,. ,___• ; , . \I Illir lukttik t It \ • •‘1 /-405 4 ,,, •,,,.:,-;.; , leiN , . - . • 0 'c , / c). 0.4-.4. ' ii\ \•••••,;:•., ." ... X \ A .1r,, i \ lialesaimmlim..._' ' ,,,,,, . :I 2: .: :.;•. .'A j-\."h. _.,•>---,••••-• i '.. '. , ';',...‘„ ;:,* / 'i,,...t. ,.. .*; i, -----;,7"4‘. - ' 1 . % • i. :,„, , .,, , •Y0'.".•.. \, . - V,' • .---- ' . I, • : • .• . '0,. ../ i• • .,, ••••• i • \ = ow j: '.4" . \ '' .s0 • - 0 • ••e. f,-. ! ''' /, :I. .' * •%.. .. • . . • / ' 1 . ; ! .• . , . • *! • . , . . . • - vi ...,K, ok, . ., • . , , * . • , . 6 ; : p . vi'' b • -. 1tilifli.,,...,, .;,.i6... t ..7 ... ; • .• • . • • ____n____1 . ..., ,..c.,.: „.. , -;• ...., rii . R , ;.. .....---$ .,,, ., • . , . ?. ... . .. •• , . . •. 1 .. . , . . . - • , . ••....... ..,::.:•.,::\.-..,, . . . .,. .• .. . . .. , • , 1 i .. . . c • , i 1 I 5 s' ''l q•'3'f. • • ,....&• 10 `.. ., . • ', 1 .i:•-f.:<.;,.........- . ..', • ..• •.. • •• . \ Ity of Renton • . -e• ; •• i:'.',7! "::. IP • • ' • • / i 'l N., F .....7)r c----` . g - 7.0 niriiintyTC.ente.,,i1 R 5 •.,1:A. -,/, .......--,., ... .. • . ..- ..•..i,...F. , .. .. . . .. • • . . . • • • .,_. , ±_t_ . n T... .,. ,,,, , a .:. 7,..:,...••••!,;11.,.,/.•-.. .: . • . .. . . • , Cr •- . . I .• . : 1 . ,..• •• : .4 9 •C •? • . .. . .•.''.. 1 I .14_j__, ,, ' 0 , .' - ... . • . . . . . " . • ..... . . •• • , ., e ..••• _ .`......... - `. •„I; , ( ,,, , , • ••• - t• :1 1; , ••• - ..... • , . ••• ...•.. .... ......:, . ...-• \ .. 1 i •. . • ' + 1' .' ' • • ..1 r: , , • EV 1 1 • , . , ., ••..1 1 1 z4 .....:-. ':..---•-•••-' ••' ,"' ' ' .1': :'-.' •• ' ' ' ; o . le 250' 1 "2 1 '•• . .• •••...._.........- ,.. .., :::-, : 1 ..: _§",...,.'., ; .., %• .,.... , ...,.....- .. . . . .c . . , Cu , ! .• ; .. v.'..':,,,,i•'''..7:...'....-••• ••• ' '. • ,r• • • • .• ':, • = • . . . .... ........... .....' . • cf.:-1 '• i':-.....7 c\1 k . ....i..._._:_ . . .... - ,.;:, 1.•cr• . ..- • . . • el 0 .?, •••• .....•.. . .... •-•. ',. •: r.. . •. 1 : .. • ' •• \ ,,,... .....• •••-•.. ;;;•'••••• • . : 0 •••• :.I• '''. .• ' • xf . . .. . - .• I ' • ••/' • - - • '. "4. ' ••:Mk o . .. . . : •• • , , :@ 411141111111tab ..4 :. ":s' ...'i ' • \ ' ,..... ,4, - • ' • . • : ; •• • I V ,..... g, r„ • • • • . • I .. 0 t,,,., i • t.• •• ... . - : • F. •i,r; "4 tke0 .5.••I,i.'•• I , m. Is .'m . % ..1 '.1'. 1 ' erg• •' ..., , yili . ,:tiili rr i's pt I ts .. ' 1 ,..... ...---1 •-.,-.• , .:' ..,-...., .i . If::0-1,t...,.,.. .,.... •.,... ." .. ,, f ; , • , i .1,1h.:.i 1 I!. 1 s•'• \ , ".''1 .... .. • .•'' . ..... .... . . -4.. . ..• ). • : . . i . •.. •1• ' /'••• :4?; • ,. 1 ... • , , . i A , zi ••..• z.:.... / •q .!i 10;1 i II,/ ,.. gv.. • . , ... .. . .., • . • 1. ..,..., ,....,,...,... .1 (..0 .. ..• .. ,,,. ;. •:: :•. ...... .,•, .„.. \..:, ...., ci ii 01 .• fj : 1; . / r;;',...'\,..A4' ••'' / ' .„ : i 1 . , . 1 ; 1 Itt 04. • ig •.• ,AN) 11 tt , .k. . : 1,1d. .. F ''. • • ....., '' Q.. ''s"' . '‘. 4. ft.' sf§ I ••i I . •I ' ; •• ,,.. . 1. , . '). .. . , , 'A‘ C r-• .• • ••,4 •,.t (..(••:•,. .1.„,_,,4•.,. !. ' : . • • .4.i,;••!, ° ' 1,r ! .. . % • - . , • dw... cscri.: ,•„, , , • . • , , ,47.....,. . 4,4' 1,.. .. . . ' • s ' 0 . . ... ,i.•:I :.. , • t I ' ? t • .. . . • . • , • 0 . ,:. ,.?).... ‘, . , ,......• . • ... • \ . . ,E.. ,•. r.....! .,....,:/ .......s. k..-4,4 .. . • • ' . . . \ . • ,... , • z - 6 ;!..-,. i (i, • , .. ., 0, , , , ,, , \ • • • .. - ..,_ .i;;• .1 1 ,. . \ . . .fror'•••• .. • '• , •-•. . .. • ,r! ---0: R . • . . , ."• •, .. , , , . . • .. ..".• a) * .':;.• ' • • ' ' \ 1 ; '....':.. ......:...,\ i .• '. ; f • •''. : • ' -' 1 • N :. • , ; '! \ ;• 0 • 13 .„I , . rr• . ' i.;Si. Er • , IH1,. : .•-. i I • „,....... ... 14**Iriilitl \' .i . 1'0.5-rs'.......' ••:-...‘ '''.:'•• •v . •• • . I. r• • 1 ,..i .0 "".ar 1,:t ; i ••••• a C1) W ; I . k . I ...V' .'? '..." • • •,, 7 ; '•••g.'•... tl I 1".; ...`"•••• *.**::.:... ..4;1:;* '• .. V. ' ' ... .' Ty‘.; CD,. '1:!.:.1 :i .. , •,.:... i •tb, *, -** .....••• '0....*Y. '.!V.'...•:...••-•... .•:. •.:,....."q.F••• •• • 't.' * 1 . .* , • I I:,, .!''• I .• k ' . •';'•'''' .1..-s.:'-'."::••••:.. -....;',P11;'.::::'.. 1 .../0..' *0 *. ',k,Z:'.i ' : , :.• ..•• •• 1 .) 's./.. '! .i.',' '', .....•'J.: ....\ ...; ( .. . , ;to:,..;4:7........:::::::„......„ •-....• .•-....•i4 •.; • .. .. i ' : I.T; '•••••'.. ot 1- • 3 ...,; , T., .,,,,‘,., ; ; '• • .\''.....), ...,.., . . .3.. :.....:., •9 ...•.•:,,... • . %.....•• . ' ‘ ;II s•-...••• ; 'd •. , . .. ;t.' .:, •:,z-S•••••+ '1,3 •• - •. ••.• •- ' - • •• I 1 ''' i ;• ' 4 . ,';'' • \..,•'• ''11.‘• '...'.., '‘ .•-• 1 .ki?.f$:-.;%--a,....."- . •';‘.;;. '--•' ?T. N..k I .' !'1 c ;.. iq , \ ,.., w i ;Ili . I.,• . .. ......,,,, ....q./.4......-..: ":. , • .•ii.i.,g..•• • .°-" •/• , :"-,,,, III i;!. 9-' ' i'''I ' . i 1 ' ' It, .3.f.,,,... . ' : ... '..;:....61'.°• • • • Z., i .-v4 ! i'... I.:; :. F ,... •. . . • : :0 • , 1 • .. .. . . , •. r!.7. , .• 0 ' • • •• ''''' :,' ? 1 W '!:%.I . 1 ‘1,.' 4 !' • = \ •4. .....y, • .• A ' • , •.. .... •'• • P.• . 1: •. '•:.' a 1. . 0 ' . , .• •...., : \ • • co . .. • ,. . , . ,, --%. . C.e . ':: 11. •I . ' a' . • ,1 ;;: r- 7.1:\ ; \ • • •:. a 71' ' . 1. . ,.//./,'/..l' ; •• r ' •••• - •••• •::':"... . . • " -1 . i ., 1 i I in!! 4 g.;0. • 1 , . , , ,. , ... , • ,.:...,........„.... ... .. •• . • ,. . . .. , : , . :,, „„.. ,, „ 1 , ,.,. _ .. , . . . : .. „. . . .„,,,.„..........„.,,.. . . . . . , ,,, .„ , „ ...., 0, ... . ,„ •‘: ,3 . .. • ••,•ii•,,....f ,' / • , . • ..*•,•„.:,•;::*, .."• .. i.• .. ... ; :, i I 4, _re m 1 ',,,- ! %,, i • • . i., I 'il ,.... ‘ • , ... , 1 ( i.) p:.. ;•.! 1 ,. ....,.•••• .. ,..•./., : .L: • ., ,,.,.. b, ,, i?....,...;.i.,..,11,..v.. .;,,,.,?....,...i.,......,......,....,..7....,.. ...:..„ ..,, .. . x ..''.ii,.:‘:•!..,ii..!...1.:117...:.:::•.:.......7.•5±.*:•.-f.,:-•-•.::::-•:',-:;--,11111 11.. ..':-:1'''' 2 III fh ••• : fi ''. •....'I .... 0 • •.. ;,. • , •" ...., • , ,.. .., I *:1••••',,,/,''..•-. . ••, ••••" '' ., I , • '. ' 1 ‘ ' ., . C, ..• '..\A . I t. c). '. '- 1:,'.:'.'..*/.1/1',..;%•:. ..• ' ' . .• „ ... , J • ; ta.,.%:•:•••?:•`//• :,•,',.•.. . ..-. .v,... . .. 9 ':. IF, ---icl .4,.\\ 0 •::;."?(I) . ': ••• .• , . , .. • wii•,,...,•••••;;;:t,','./,...)....... . ---.,. x f,, • • 4 • . .L. • ,.. . .„-. ., , ,... t, . ix,......,.... •.. . 6...> Y.,'7E-•,;--, 'Ne:.2..,--\ CA . • • ex .; .... • f ,. 4t1% i • .) .... .. • „v.. " ... •. , .... , i / .'/ ••.' r..'-Y- is'..• • . -I 1 1• •. • , .., ' •V • • • • . ••,::,;:••••••,\ :,..<. ‘.. , • • . ... tr 6 . ... . . . . . • • i,•-•:: ....•-:....•,:,. . qi . •. . .. . . •i i)./ ,a) 1.1 . .. . •. . ; i" •.‘‘..t.' ::•....•::‘,.* 'A •••••• 8' I§ ca ... „, • . . . , , -.r.., s.: .. ... • ., :: :....-- . . .. , , . . .... , z ....... 0 i ..• ..,.. . .. .. ,. . .. •. .. . . „ , . , . . ,.. ... .• .. „ :_ ..,.. , . . ,.. • 1 . . ..,....f,. ,, • ... .\ 1,, I •A . _, ; •., i:;',","•:;::%.:1'2::2.f::•\(\''tk.' : { :, .'.k.,.., y\•:,....,\-:,%.'.•',.,...., ' ''' • s-1 Cli g . ' ... ..,, ,:;: i .4:4!:''.S.s \\.''.''.' ,'.• : • S 1 ' . • I ; ' '', . 07 --•.1:3 ),. ..'.iPi. '\. '.i....,,'....:.•..... .......:•.:.:1::: . • .. . ... 16- c v-,:::!^:Ct , , .. 1 ;..:1'Li' ... '. ...4.,,-.4........., • • . g „t•-. N '!, rk.'.'.... \ , •.". ' .-........... • -.N.. •. Q.: ...-.. • . . • . .. • . .cn 0 • .1 .. '. • 4t. • ,404,0 a : •,! ...:;•:\, .,,,.. , - .. '2. .; ; • :. . .... -- 2)'''.;..• ''''`;,'...,;...;;k ° . . r.. •••••-. • CD .• / • • .:..... \‘'‘'.>:•,:.k•:k k. ; ., . • . • • . . . ' • ' ? . . •• •...... • • •• • • I • .-'• • : .1,4 o'.3• 1• '''' / 1. . • •c• , . • , . .. . s, : .1+..', • '..#11.'ille (.11 • ' ' ' • •.V.:C'oj' " •. . ,. 1 ' ' 0 • ' . • . • .2.1 ..2 • .. ' , . -!3 , / .. . .. .. • .. • t, iI . • ' . . . . • .. ., '' ;I 'Z.,''.••••.'...."1/ .`. ::.•:.:,...1.1";:ii..:,•,'..1,/,....:: ••, ,i ,S's' i• . ., . . . ,..'; ..'(..414..,. . ..• •. ..,;.•....,. . ...•..% • •• .• . .,'o ' Lr•..., ' ; .1 : I • • •. . • . • • • • '•• : ''.. •',/./...1://'iritlf; t '••• .:.:i. • • ' ': • .,•••. • • i .. 3 'to ' , • • • . e I . .. .. . •• . .• . ::',' ..... ,:,•1'. .ii'%::1,W. ' •.?: .1.1..V.I...; , ..••.....• :. .. • •••... •6/cle,:s '• ; . . . ..,• .. , . , .•.- •.' .; i,' • .i ' ••• • ,4s.,',..k,145.0'i • • . . . ,, ., . . . . ;.: / • 4, .ii::::::.:::...:,,:.,,7...:...../7/.:;,.......,,..,,,ylit.,sii,i,,,..,,,., . . . ..., „.......„;... .../r.,,,:.f"i t t '•'I/ , . ... . / . . •.• . t .... •. . • . /. ' . 1• - . • . A I' .''.‘,..,..• 8 • . . . • . . • .... 401.,• / /.. . / • ' .:,•,;;;.1:,!'!.[ ,'. ;: •.‘••••.,I.;. i 1 (:1 i ' .•:‘ I t::••• ' • ' ,-:. „ li. . ... t.. t ri;.....11 ' ', • • , . 1,'1 i! ! t. i. fi"1 .f • . . . . . . ... . .. , ... • I . '' •1 ...• " ' 1 .. t • • . • -•• •••• .. ' - ' . '.. • • ' . . •' ' ;'.'\ • '. .. . .. . . ' .4 1 . . . / "!'i : Ii . . • ; s, • . i, ! 1 •• , :. i: ;•. -...4.%.i • ' • • ' I . ••.•• ,' :':,'!'• ' .' '..,1.'. •, . /• ,,' '""""" • .. • ......,..../ : • ,.. . .; ,i ..•,•, • • • • . .: .i.4.1!•,'. ..,.. • . : • : •. • ' ..:-••'''''..**. i ..': 'I ' / / ... .1. ••,•.•••' . . .•• ' • :.../ / • / / ::"!`:;•.•, • "" ' :: , 62.5' '•• "•::.:•'. 1'.'•'•. • • • ,/ :• . , • ' •• z7.I 7 .• ./ / , . . . . ..- .. . ' ' , . .• ..... •• ' . -:',.:::•-•'. .' : • . .• . - ..-.' ' . 1 / . I.• •• .. ••• ••• • _ .., ..._ --....__ - - ---- 1 f. .,,:.;'•' .... ';:.12...,:•••:. 7---- , 1 . '.. . • • . . • . ... . • ••• •- . . - • • , : . . . __ . • ..:. , • .....- . . . xt , DEVELOPMENT PLANNINrN .. ,..., • • . • . .: .OF R E - ,. •-:1;....*. .2.P;f.' • •CITY :Nrril N I . • ' . • 'AND ?RON THE 70 Cif11114011te ninnies .1rA4 . '-*Dire. ,: . .2.. e *AZ X lk . IS TE • , DEC 1 1 1997 , : .....:v.;.. ,!.. 4••• '...312.. ,;-''.. •• '. , FO LLOVING 1 • ; • , . . • : i• - • • ,?;.;• • ' . .. E'Cr'r.--11Ti\lir"'":c.0 fli-_,..., t., r. .. I . . 00)1ariniltii.or * ' •:.. . j ; • - i• • • •1..f. •'.., . •• . . , . • . .... fi.-k.ii,•:, =• • ,;•, t..,:-.• •. . ..-..:., •,••-•t '! • ;;• .• ' i-t.•-,-• : ...,,,..--.. •-,.,.. ..-. - : • :. : That laid •Ceisairtia ..... .."' .'ilii-o-iio*- A.; I. • .... ... I. •. , It o tb24. cg•unty . • 1. •z /we should be dissobred and'a Dearssikke... ..• licilisteVaupxyst.stioad be . • . 1 , . , : • ,, ....f.,• . :.••.• . .,:i' : ..: ,;:••• • .... entsrsd herein, r • • . . , • - • 7). . , • ..... rig.... . . .. . 1. ". • That pzlio to the distribistlia oT the Dfitri , . . • 4%4 sash assets, seiepeissatise su34 be it. its 00044;0401.14iii is' here. Lao • .. ,!......t•-. ...:.-;.,•1.1,:,•,;• ,• :.•;,:.•.$!....?..'•4:: -,,f.. . '• ..4;..: ..i..:; ..,..:.j.,,.... .., . : above statek•sid iga,ploolitgod b.j.. ti-71i::4:::;.•-:.-.7...i...:. ,I,i '.....*•, •1.•.. . ,. . : ., *- .:_-,:. •••,.‘•-• - 1---.• • • • •:, ' • I. ' ,-.'i• 4-••• •:••• 7- . •;-‘ ••..-,. .•.._'; -411:1"•s- '. • - :•.•*:1-• ' 1,1*-1:-./ •!.•,,..„!•-•:.:-....--...-.•-: gyt41•. e...-!:.,..i......,...-, I;..4 ,.?.... -.. . k•. •...,. • k 'i •4....r.A....• !i.....ei:•:;: : •'':..•:. •••,14..f..g.,: , .f:. ''':',A..;: 1D-to:it.ir. • • ., . . That'all -Ow lu ri • viets ")'reill. :i aid.ip•#i's%dial'''. tetather id th 't 1 • • • .. • . • ••• • all imProVs.ainta• 'feuds 'OA asset,:stin.,ifeeik.,' ••Nor iuseription , ,•of said Creameelal•Uteri's; Dietrilt'Ss 't'....,z0 . . . f , ,ft a 4•{41Rattri, iist.ludIng ' •-• •I !, • • .''-i:••ii ' • ....:...;;;.:34,1,;:,... • )..--, e•- • , • • I, hi :., • , . any hares:tepid-14**v sbes3A ,i4;'iltilVsiiiiiike4.11,,iii I . ...., • 2,..i.;;A...., . 4; •• - • •••/..i. • - • • oat Wirer Uinta the Olt7 aril:sten a . ., 1 f ,Lsipsi •srporatiadi• elitlisshlisgtes. as harel &bora at.at.41'.,',. 1.'d;,•.'..':. , .,...:-. • , . • ::•"•:•;•!F•;,.:,:•_::,4•....:k.!,..•'.:::v.;... • . , • . , --."-:•"1."-' ...-.1'..- tz.: :er::..Y... . - • :2. ..1•••:•••• . •-•••'"it.,!4•: .4..• ' .., ...g 4,4,4,7, 10(4• .. • • :-.-•A:.•!4•:',Ii•.•:•'••A`te..•:y!.4.,....---r•-•.*. . e,4 .- ,'. .•:-. ,. .4 -.Tfi • F 4.Nor•-• ••-:', "-:,•••'' ;41,14..'-• AY.4-::'' ' ' .'.•-4 •-''';'•.z1•-*; • --,,•••!"•',••,..4 ....,. . • " ' :' •• :1''.'.,' ••••!...'..:'7'"1".4,X.•;i:•• •., i,:...l.',..•::. - . .:1••::-ii. '--; ..• .-t: "" ....1 . . .. • S.• • -,--• :-;.•,.::-.4-•.::...4.-;:••-riT.41,...,,, ,,.....,:•;,,..-j,i....-....• •-... ..,..-,,,,..- •?,:,-i -•,..• .- -•:•7•• ,..—:4,4.s,••••:...--,••07,tq....,....-.. -; )••5 0,,,4.- . ;.:: ,,,,,......*:,n.;;•tv:• : • Tiz-,44.41-1;'..".1.- • -: ! 1. . • .:.:. ....."'' '••. . ii,'f''2-e'. 4-•r:•;,,;;••••'.•'•'..'I'i...."."•!..."":..i.l'.,.',i.?••••',;Y.,".....•.":•„i 1.",-.‘..•..,.7...--.,/1,z .•,•4,1;.,....0,'.0.t‘..,1,ci,.yv.1..,,•,.,;....-,..4....','•.•:l/'e•r 4 1-;S:.,';1"Vs4.1.,'4.!i A l4lx.i4-`1 rf.v.p,s4-1,V.V it••.g4t.4..4:;.7!.:.:.,1..'-.....,.1:,,..;'.:.:'.:.•.•li:,-."':).P.e.4.;r..4•!.:.kI..j.,,••-,.;,.;.OkY.ri.I,'"-'-ii1Xk.. .•1't(-.A 1.1 fL.e",?..6.'•.,I.=•-E.-•.,cs..,•t'••.-•l•-••pt•i:i:„.,,.,.,_•.1..A,"..,3,,.At.I,,•..-....i A-;e••4P•,•;•,•..p., iC0 .!%! gea 1 .0i ,• 41 "tC5 °1*LIeTr' f '4, 1-4 . g4 - 1,‘ ...i....•.;•'-:'.,..1?.-...,..,!:1•:,•.:'..n'.,,4..:•'‘•...;....:.... ' -• . ...•,•.-.•;7.,. •.7-'..;":—:..•- 4 fo! - ftIi • N •, A 4 4 6t •-•"'"•- •.' v. -.• i 1, : '•' ••'' •"•::7-":"..4 ' AM.'llu-.V......1m•Is..! .-Or1 10.....-:".,?;'-..‘I;'S•'•,;'•1..•••,.1,is:r•.0:..‘4„.t.4,,.l.I'.'..'. -• .a , ,'‘....!f.••;-•••4.1-i-': .••t.Ti",*1'.r7 `';14,7'::-".."--,•Yv-.'4';•,.'.'• •'•7:•':.r,'.: i•.::••..". .. 1"; A ' VI It * 04 • ,• .,• • •- I.. 'i• ;.. t• :...' • : :-• .....1,,,,,71i, .• r .1,,' vvvit A1cis ...,A••'..,-Ki•.f„!,ti.-.. ‘,.,.t-,i:Af,,-iZ:.•;i1t%4•••f",. i..4i....4li1,..3;,.7•.e.'„:0.;.f4i t f,'.1"•1.,4,i• •Z..s••is .1.-...t,.••.,. . i;-/-„,.,-af ..444 ,iii.t,ti.',.14 ; .-, .-.'I, --Pic.r.:•:•1• -r44 • ;‘,....:•;:-:.•• ...4 : ...• ;•;14.,:,..i , ,-. ‘.56" . •. :...i,'''' ' •-•‘'. . • .4c."5.. ..:1!•...:54..f.11.*.P•`..-"' '' :,...1."..",:. 't, . :'': "•••' 1 •• . .. 1 • Akt 71:.folwii•:Ditt.. ..),...;•"•:,. •-••••'. ,7. ••••..-.,k4;,;:••!4P.,1\•::,,••••,J411,.;..1;.-Ajc• ... . . 1.. .,-2.,..4 . ..•...-.....1... ,..;,,,,.--,k,..c.,..-..,,..N.vi4:•....,,:...,,zz,?;•;.,.,-,-. •it: •:' . '• I .. , ,. ..... -,..„........,,..-4.4;_,:i...,/.........7:.,,,..t.,,..s..,.•:.;•:,•...,...„.1,?,.,..i.-..•• - - . ! - ... .:: ''..,.. ,..;.,!•.;tr.;,:‘,..s-0.7.;..„:.,.3...?„.....-........ ,.„r:,:.....:1.,?; •..,•-• :-'•,..• . . , , .- . I.. •:. ,. ..,..,,....„ .4: .. ,i;,.:.•:,;.•;.4... ,!...n.;(,,,,,v,-. ..4iya.;.,...0.:::i ,.'.,... . . i ........,.. . - ‘5'..".--,'• ':' •:"• '4:!, 4-,....••-•.--4i••••we.,:-F,,,.:-.';',i-•.:-.....; • .: -•.,• ••-.; ;.-f: .• . 4.. :.-$4.,!:::::. ...,,,Z ..:::;-.1 - ,.,2....., i •,,,,.....wk,43f.,4,•1.:•:,..: I ' , . . ... ....1.:- .." •::.-..;',.,•••-. ...4-;..4....../14., 4 ','-,1 .,.:il '-it.:-,. '4...-fi. ,...,; I . 1 :', .•:, :....".',.1µ.r....1, .7-A,•, ,ii,..t.g•! 1.1,•". ..1,%•• ;-:......"."'••.A.• . ...'• •'''....16::;,...'•'i.,.S•FI ,.....0,?-.fi.-4.4. •.; •flpt'' ".lc• .'•''- • ... I l' c - .-,4 ,.-:'f•`...:1-T.f.C.!•'‘'....' ;tr!titt4.17;',4:4',.‘A , /..-• c;,;.•;-z-:i ..1.:,-::. - '.. .; ..1.•• i ' - • ';'• ---.•'• ..,..•:...:!-=;:....,a-••••fl'g-,-•1. .., .,•,,,i...-..*,, "-i;', ...i;. . . •• ..iC . 1 ..I: :. ,;.', ..,,.....,:,...2.....4.1.'-'....1..1 A;I; . i4f.5•.i.-ti.. :-• •":' • " ••• . , 1.1''. . .0. .,....'•••;.k'...5.:•,•S'..:..k,-....4 •• ;4;7•.•,,:'--:,.•:.:.,s,::.:.30...„.... .1.!.. ... .. . : s .., ,,,,,..: • 1... ,•.,,k tc, ...,-,,L1;,,,,,.. ./1::., 1.,,...:•%c.i.1.•lt: .• -- ?,i-...... •,. ... .. ". ..-.'''.' • .'.4,;.,.......'-•=54. ••.; '.••'..;.f.:•0:k.., . : . : ,.. ,•-•,-,:•......,,./i-...,1.,.-.J.,../..•.-„, .. .- .:........ '.... • :...•• •• ' .• • • ..•.'it•-.*•••'..... '41‘.4,1••••C...i'" ..0•;`,•,:•...,...•,. 1:••,•1.•.',..:1: • • 1 . ! • .kieSe.''•'40..q‘Ci ' .' • • •• •• . ----- ---' • . ., i r_ IN THE SUPE IORCOUTAT OF THE STA TE OF W ASHINGTON IN AND FOaTHE COUNTY OF KING IN THE MATTER OF THE DISSOLUTION OF COMMEAC ,WATERWAY DISTINCT NO N0. 4 9 4 0 2 1 2, King County,.State of Washington � FINDINGS OF FACT ) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The matter of the petition of the commissioners of Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County, State of Washington, that said district be dissolved accordin to law, and the Answer and Cross-Pietition by the City of. enton, comin re g be heard on the 29th day of June, 1956, pursuant to Notice given and continuances regularly toa l had; l Y I i It appeag that due and legal notice has been given of this hearingb and by posting of notices; the Court having heard the evidence, re Y publication commissioners of said district, and has considered the ss the Answer and'C City of Benton and the evidence adduced on its behga ross-Petition by the the Court being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following: of exhibits, and FINDINGS OF FACT I. That said Commercial Waterway District No. 2, Kin Washington, has been for man g County, State of y years last past, and now is, a commercial waterway district duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington; the dissolution of said Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County was duly authorized by favorable vote of the voters of said District an an election held in June of 1954. That said district is wholly solvent and owes no debts except current expenses; that said district has no outstanding bond,'issues, or obligations of any kind and that it has cast assets and income greatly in excess of any current expenses or obligation; that there is on hand with the office of the King County Treasurer, King County, a cash balance of approximately$18,857.99. III. That said City of'Senton will continue to need the use of said Cedar'iver included in the Waterway District; the City of"Aenton is in need of protection from the waters of said river and a need exists on the part of said City for the use and control of said river. IV. That the properties, real and personal, owned by said District are situated wholly within the limits of the City of Benton in said King County, State of Washington; and saidreal property includes the following(in addition of any other real estate or interests thereihn): • A strip of land and of the channel and banks of Cedar'River,the centerline of which strip commences a a point opposite the Pacific Coast railroad Bridge(knows as Newcastle' kBridge)over Cedar"Wryer in the City of centon, and extending thence northwesterly a distance of 8320 feet more or less to the Inner Harbor Line of Lake Washington, the said center line running.gnerally in the channel of Cedar'Aiver, said strip varying in width from 200 feet more or less width at said beginning point at Pacific Coast a a Bridge to an increased width of 500 feet more or less at its terminus at Lake Washington;which strip of land is more particularly described on that certain map entitled "Commercial Waterway No. 2,King County,Washington, "idght-of-Way Map showing location of canal and bearing the names of commissioners Douglas Miller,"ay Elliot and Joseph Baxter, as prepared by J. A. Earley,Engr."the original of which map is filed in the offices of the City Engineer of the City of ienton; and said map and description being by this reference thereto incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth. V. That Cedar"kdver entends for a distance of almost two (2)miles through said district and through the City of"nentoi as more particularly described in the immediately preceding paragraph;that on occasion quantities of gray71, sand and sediment are deposited within the banks of siad river, which deposits need to be excavated from time to time; that the banks of said river channel have been protected by piling,riprap and other means so as to protect the City and surrounding territory from any flood waters. VI. That said Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County should be dissolved;that all the real estate and personal properites of said Waterway District, including the improvements, rights, choses(unclear word in original) in action, funds and assets thereor of every type and description and the real estate hereinabove described and any assets hereafter accruing or discoverd, should be distributed and set over unto the City fo i}enton, subject only to such existing leases and/or easements upon the real estate as are not filed and of record in the office of the Auditor of said King County; however, all monies now on deposit with the King County Treasurer's office as above specified, together with the income from rentals and leases now of record should be distributed unto the City of Ticenton to be used for flood control purposes and the maintenance, management, improvement and control of said river channel, its banks and the properties aforesaid, and for such other purposes, not inconsistent with the foregoing, as the City Council of the City of Trenton mya determine from time to time. VII. The Court further finds that the commissioners of said district have petitioned herein for'compensation of said commissioners, as required under the law, and that prior to distribution of said cash funds--hereunder conpensation as therein set forth should be paid, together with current compesat',ion and all incidental expenses by said commissioners for the final dissolution and transfer Of said properties to the City of Trenton. DONE IN OPEN COU%I this 3rd day of July, 1956. J/C. AGNEW (stamped name) JUDGE • III Ii AND F". OM THE FO?cEGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COU"icT MAKES THE FOLLOWING: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW X. That said Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County should be dissolved and a Decree of Dissolution thereof whould be entered herein. XX That prior to the distribution of the District's case assets, compensation should be paid to its commissioners as hereinabove stated and as provided by law. XXX. That all the properties, real and personal, together with all improvements, funds and assets of every type and description of said Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County, including any hereafter,discovered, should be distributed and set over unto the City of"nenton, a municipal corporation of Washington, as hereinabove stated. DONE IN OPEN COU"ccT this 3rd day of July, 1956. J/C. AGNEW (stamped name) JUDGE • P?cESENTED BY: M_Shellan Attorney for the City of i<enton Approved as to form (sgd) Wm V. Cowan atty for Dst. Files/Waterway/WD 2_7_5 6 RESOLUTION NO. 848. 1 II WHEREAS, certain legislation has been introduced during the present session of the State Legislature providing for certain means and methods for the dissolution of Commercial Waterway District No. 2, and WHEREAS, such dissolution would be of considerable benefit to the taxpayers concerned and the City of Renton, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Renton, that the City! of Renton go on record as being in favor of the dissolution and disabandonment of Commercial Waterway District ITo. 2. A copy of this Resolution, duly certified, shall be forwarded to the Commercial Waterway District No. 2 Commissioners. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27th day of January, 1953. I � Wiley Cro - City Cleric APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 27th day of January, `1953. R C.== '\'11""1-1-1 Jo R. Baxter - Mayor • 1 r w . • . RESOLUTION NO. 867 I WHEREAS, the commissioners of! Conmercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County, Washington have notified the City of Renton of their intention to peti- tion the Superior Court for dissolution of said Commercial Waterway District No. 2; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON: 1. The City Council of Renton hereby finds and determines that said Commercial Waterway District No. 2 lies wholly or chiefly within the limits of the City of Renton; that the City of Renton will continue to need the use of the Cedar River included in said Waterway District; that the City of Renton needs protection from the waters of said stream or river: 2. That the City of Renton hereby declares its need and intent to €-cquire) and to petition the said Superior Court in such dissolution proceedings for dis- tribution to the City of Renton of, the land, improvements and other assets of said Commercial 'waterway District No. , and hereby authorizes and directs the filing of such petition by the Mayor and City Attorney of Renton in such proceedings for I dissolution; all under and pursuant to the laws of Washington including Chapter 266 of Session Laws of 1953. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 6th day of July, 1954. ;'347-° 0....„4--e c_4_ iley Croo1- City" Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 6th day of July, 1954. it 4 V-- Joe R. Baxter, 'Mayor RESOLUTION NO. MAUS, Commercial Waterway District No. 2, King County. State of . Washington, has heretofore been dissolved and its properties and assets distributed unto the City of Renton as more particul.rly{appears in that certain *DECREE OF DISSOLUTION" dated July 3. 1936, as issued by the Superior Court in sad for the County of Sias, State of Washington, and WHEREAS the !ling County Treasurer has • heretofore beam authorised to honor certain warrants issued by said Commercial Waterway District. subsequent to said DECREE!OF DISSOLUTION and to transfer and pay unto the City of lento' the then remainder of all funds in his hands, belonging to said District, together with all funds and assets of said District now or hare- after accruing in the King County Treasurer's office for the account and credit of said Commercial Waterway District No.. 2, and WHEREAS the City of Renton has • now been advised by the Xing County Treasurer's office that there are certain outstanding warrants which are out-dated end:are unseasoned. and WHEREAS more than six years have elapsed since the date of issue of said warrants, NOW TituvoBE, • BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or RBNTON, AS FOLLOWS s 1. The Office of the Ming County Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to cancel out and declare void the following numbered warrants heretofore issued by Commercial Waterway District No. 2, of King County, Washington, to-wits No. 984 No. 4801 No. 1959 No. 5165 No. 2504 No. 5400 No. 2567 No. 5512 No. 3514 No. 5819 No. 3849 No. 6026 No. 4211 Na. 6433 a more complete list thereof being attached Hereto had suds a part of this Resolution. Upon cancellation of the ad'ora s ttionsd warrants, the them remainder of ell funds in the Office of the King County) Treasurer, belonging to said Comeerciel Waterway District No. 2, together with all collections of unpaid assessments, tastes and other monies due or payable to said District, as provided in the aforementioned DECREE OF DISSOLUTION, shall be paid and transferred unto the City of Renton. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of March. 1958. Elton L. Alexander, City Clerk _1- ; • APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of-Maroh. 1958. (I Joe iaatair; Mayor • Approved as to forms • Gard M. Shelitai City Attorney • • • • • • 1 • EVEL P',fENT PLANNING \1 ON 1 CITY OF RENTON CEC 1 ' 1997 ;E7t, '--AVED MEMORANDUM DATE: December 29' 1993 ' • TO: Gail Reed, Airport Supervisor FROM: Sonja J. Fesser, Property Services SUBJECT: Ownership/Iegal Description for Cedar.River Per your request, I have researched City records for information concerning the ownership of, and the legal description for, the Cedar !River. The following comments are a result of my findings: That portion of the Cedar River which lies within the City limits was at one time included in the Commercial Waterway District No. 2 of King County (formed in 1911). In 1954 an election was held in the City of Renton which, by favorable vote, authorized the dissolution of the District. In 1956, per Superior Court Cause No. 494024, it was decreed that the District should be dissolved and that all properties, real and personal; together with all improvements, funds and assets of • every type and description of the District, including any hereafter discovered, should be distributed and set over unto the City of Renton. Included in the decree document is a legal',description which describes the center line of the land included in the channel and banks of the Cedar River as commencing at a point opposite the Pacific Coast Railroad Bridge over the Cedar River and extending in a northwesterly direction a distance of 8,320 feet, more or less, to the Inner Harbor Line of Lake Washington. The strip of land varies in width, from 200 feet, more or less, at the bridge to 500 feet, more or less, at Lake Washington. For a more particular description of the strip of land in question, a specific map is referenced in the legal as "Commercial Waterway No. 2, King County, Washington, Right-of- Way Map Showing Location of Canal an bearing the names of Commissioners Douglas Miller, Ray Elliot, and Joseph Baxter, as prepared by J. A. Earley, Engr.". A copy of this map is attached to this memo for your information and use, as well as a copy of the Decree of Dissolution No. 494024. If you have any questions, please call me on Ext. 4412. OUT '- = oc0 J,,,,e2 • ' f� /gA2Co2 4_r„,, _s ��)'e E5710Lr ik/C/l 8/S/Z I 01' w S 3Y na& ob -a;C 0 _ . S' 73 / L i/ �JOf'•c 3 g�iJ/6 .. / 1630 .234 • ne . / Inner Harbor Line �1 Sea'0 i r,. . --,.-;,_/.—.x' i,,.,./ef—in ier. A.03i¢t-s74--(': 1299 .824 • ete „ r 17 ,22 Crate ,•-e ��o a lane Ramp` : T51 . 13_ _ 9 , se 438• % ��..,.+ L Ciiamp II ' Ramp - '\ '/ �1= oncrete Bullead -:-, ` v — g := y . • sacQEs ti;_. 7. 696 Ac/2E 5 98. 55 54.5 ,r 183 . 167 ; � ; • . .:�/�/ •. —' -.' •.. East "•/1544.957 , ; \ CD \ t . r M t Renton 1. -� ‘\ \ • . . • Municipal \; c 1 The Boeing Company Airport '.'t 1� d 1 \ - �•G 1 11, ``o �•\ i `'' , ci Fr? m 1 a \ s - \ .} () 1 ` . V. 1 ill 41i m ✓ 1 - co zz 1 !'1-. `-�' '''�:'`.•t%�'r-�r+Yi`,.• .��`�i.•� A�%-�; • Fa�.l�..f ' ,�'.'C7 �,: '.K<7'nf� � _-_ ___ - "_ gran-.<r.`r n...F __- r�ppty4i yy �{• •. IC.a '• S. �:w?1 s - ,_ `•.y i •1T� . " t. _,,,, aca i=:..,..* s :;"• : �g•.•a s-- . ,..�.i�� '.� :% t�, t�� f...,y a c�3' )' �'.':`:�'',Sy�F.:. �' 'S4a.F`ti/:" i �'S�� "�",�,y•;',_L•,�.•-".y..-.'• �• "t•••`•:.-._� • 1•,:>' ..v. ,: j* ��'el'."75. . .-`c".5r�. c ter, t,� �f••dk •a. rsi`'t_ •�- -�c-.=, -" 1'. T..,,) v_ ' ' c '.,. ••;ter '._ .rC+ •},4 •:,1.,•,':« o', ik,:..•� .r �'-o':J' *Y• tJvYrii ^� ,- - •, •1• �:c- . 'i ..t •'Q' ;e, .,a r ' .t .•(. '•'_��e.r.. i F-'iF.' '"i " �y'ry� •``�a •fh. -u :a�:-.•• 'St;3',.?`-'aa:-.✓ 'u '�T .-, . .ja '- i=�.a•. • Z, .g. f.' 'r �. . I : �'.k,.. ? .r -..;•,-:w� ! �g r•„F. -.►I a' •.. J•'. r „•d°. ..4.. v "ts"1,S< �°s . :a• F ', :'y t,.4. ...s. i-^kt rr- .; fix. +: •r`-.x- ,..a�:y ,-„,✓-' •y4.• p -a. JJ '', �4- �x h: _ t,;"•t.:a A �" "t) -. :+-•' yy .:: lt-`ti A.ti.•'[ > Fy !;_ I �-.;N•,.. ra;'s., "• `i.`•+tom. . _ c •~ ++. A ~!"r•�: '^ ri.• - .r ,. �`P•. S :s rt.Z` •.a�`°�„ ar �. 3 z,,.. •''•.--�-- ' �, i>a Y re :K l*f. ''h 3- is ,. t'i'. i' 'i " :.-'v• 4'.Y -:r: :`-1 ..t _ r=.r' h c � "ti �3• -.iK' t ^...�►•'..�� ;t:•ar'a { Z..'" ' 4- �v I Tt< „,,,,,..-�' .? a st arv.•. 4;.`, f' i ter, ,4Y•.. �•+AIJIi 14':•y�(r,s„ ,.4+`La:.�} :13.1'�(-p-r: max.•�:?^,ii.x•- e:3��-e' `y,-i._ •.'-',J .. a'F --tir,` �-x .0 [ a � "C.•.•r•- •f . • ;• '-' e t-;r 1 :r 4•:. ._ N-. hy'i, i -, .y ti-'�: '.xis K ,• 4$4 ¢.n.2.-ram• '•,.• -*`Rk';. ..r iaZ,:-. +.r*1F: ;'t- ^*4. `� •t `SL'-,„"r. ' 'Q•+.v: vq. .+ 1%. .,i7er . '•<j:rF •,r, • .`,..,� F�i .7. � t i t *.2'c,},,r "-" a:5i+'1 -'g�- _ ,. _ s.£ `-� ^',t• *( S-q� -^3aH-a't c is 'J1 x2:: !C��• -�j •��.:i.ta✓ ��►'..-5 ...r.c _` -•,. f t e 4�; •:•a �y �+i.1- `�_" . �yt�y "� >:;.>.. ir'• 'Y',. .1 . �'.7 ���,- •' .x' "'-,`'s'c¢^'�arL o z�..,. e1 - ...7" k r-j`•--..1*:.Y'a.':-,- tr.-....+i izi" .4.2E_ ,.,,g•:i• .:ys'�a. 's^fty -s{. . =�+ '_ � '� _ a. „,„..` ti ,.t .s o-•..w2 'yam 2 r .....it- "^ '"r'r��i'i a¢j 4.{ - _ S„s r 4 +L• y •T: t :.�4 rl-- i t-• �'.az• ` '- ':,'.'5�,:;;",r?4 1�,{?t '.•'4. r=�.�=y•c.[•t- �- s� .^:�•:a ��-'S 't�FD .t c r ,rx�yi s,:: ---F -.::�-�..+r��77�.....�• ..J ..,ey- ?�y'.a�'•;.�,_ __ `� � ri � •£ • -YY` -'`� T a1`>:sip .d. ,tS it ` u a•..':.- a -:-`),..-' -,.• J! _..-. r 1"T-S+-�J _ eYr. ,..i- c {. t!__.i_. •n..:^ r f-/'. �w -_'f" xr G.--' `ry,,. 4, •i •L3' ••s-"� +'-y -F'.!4.• .�'q.. `4,,-: 1+ 'w:ia- ..e 3''" r''s^'-c_;^j f ,::� -7. _,1,- "4.a'1 ,,.f.," -_Zr-..i•yi ? S. >1, •� 'r��.�r :s°�- r + T �$ iti�. •�� 1�y X' s: ...�• .•�. �� �. .ram-: �` _i `l+ ,�, is .•.�w•TV �n.'I - +� '� .: �. "' - h T >;•.a - _ ,�L.j _ _� wit a': rr r'.4: fit. t y M e:'?:i Y'-� '.. ..4 ,Z '`+ '. �L.A«. �Y_ .... ?r'._�:L'-�" 1 :'N 5:-�_` ? �- •., .J�t'::.i� -- r',•h �:5i � � -+,•"'` _ �?� .::p�..is a 4 1��� ,a_ - n=!T ..�.:"!.. _ 7• _ ? c�'? �s'�'. i•r - r n - -c:,a!'r i :tta i.. '`.._.- Y .-•ri.,•: ,-r ;. :Ler,3.s,.a•F•J:i .1.--, ,/` ='�• a;#1? ,_. `l +. - > • - C r ;'�'. :� t'S-" - a.t ,.:3 d•! '<i'.7s`.•,. r E �a'� � �:�"� n_-..::�_ r -' `.�- .Gy- a'a .< -,' ••'' .e. f• •Y• Fri.. '.w''t, C "a' �">• V.;•:. • •f_•:" +:� - • ~•`c ..t :.�-'a... {r - - •:J"''y..r rj :'.7-� .::s ` <.�:, ''ti;.4;,.rk -�..y;4" �r.� n-k: rj• '`"' ''`; "• s yt.o. ;.'.:�" tysY'• £ c; 4: . -r 1 i , -s- ,� ^'<"r. •t,i. 5''''i..F +.5: ..* -.?'a ;:-5 '+� ~� q•' ,� r �•:T _•y ►r J ::L j • xSr 7 - .-•f-.- _ r-e> ,?; r i -!s. ,�' 1 :,-i- r.�3. ate,i:! '°w� ,' ��y- 79 , I:: tl:' ,-.. !` +• j : _ L t -.r ,+ ..�;:%`-r'rh.'.: 3:.1 t•c,,t• ._�=•: �i.'�= .:sti `n::°J- '•�. - j 9";'� i:,�j` :r•. c• ) :-_ •_�- •9., ..3 :-t yt" aw, s '- ^"_, --1:':'_. •-+-d- Z_..;t •!4 '� .-, _ A 1 .Zr. �- +i•4-�.r`f•�`}..:v!. "%'+. r i._1 1., ,;<ti:=.f+- _ 'K; ;V, C 2 ! 1,"l S ,4y :• `..:. - "F.._:4 �i.7.. : -+ it ;Al? r`:. - C"- iti-< �" L <'..•_:-.0•: :." ..s �.-: t�•r:FE! _ __i • Tl ri,. - wt, < .<: :.*, ^ -; r�-a -:i ...ti � _, • L-�.--�. "' a•.7'r"•c c-r", "..:_ "�. '�tYi f .P. •::.)„ =1:• L. L3 .r3.?1 r.•,- ,{. r 4 .`. ?^A .::,'+• -ir,-,'• T.'- :.. "_'�• -_ "t W '!� S,ri�j %'i '.r, -•.�_r�r •-_�•�t•..":,'...,....--...-:•.,; :��.73'� .� ,^•i �:! ,r- j.t :c. ,� '��'` zf- •-•Y-:`,/;--g_1.;.:!,A1l _ ' #4-••ict,', .-;-;z-'P..-..� x.•!•i4 -3!'r •y...-- !#: - •.#a,,r N.ti,`4 �: o` --:ram ♦,,L:._*,%;,aci� 1-rA: �i ..y..rf .a'i`^ Ti+ ' 1%-: • • 7 e.S' ..- :•rs. •..�.,� :>� �i ..:si. ? a .r;:•t�'.r,•�: .�?7y• l -`€ .s:•.. :•'�i' 'rrr,. :=t� r:, _ ;• v�r,. �s `t t� ♦� - ti'�: `K£..-� `w-�X r��`•,r_ '1�- 4,+�ti ": r{=s o �6 + t '•a ? ��.a.-r .,is ! •.� �' �.K � s �� � -•: . y ?��..... i•.� tr'- . +.• y_L { - ��.z ..;';#;'.r-,..4. ;¢r, fib'.t-q+-.-" -M-"-•�"•"'_r"_'"1• r,.,'.� :..-t, l• :l. r� r;.::C�•- a.yl'i a"•�5't:'l.;�-- •--... .� S•" •.R • x • .; .r.ex:...•-' J Y,•-u- w..:", Fri;• ,• -.••' -»�4 4�1`5..•'-•... r• S''uc. .If `a..'.:..i1"•j^"' `.:-j ':1 f r:-.• •r • 1::;, .kX•.. ,I K . -,f•, ►...-:::- :s •'.� ':>-_ b; r.iX-�."=o:T; =s'. -.,,•,:,.?,-�".,,- -K.. ;14. _ ti.•- 9:..•t-s...,mac•? T •,n'r -y '-a.. -n.rr: F :.r' ... 'C �'� - ,ram .-,,-5 '.sue h...,`,Y �t• _ ,.w7 .-.•V• `. .,r f s ;{� .+r- '.4'L:W. .;--,:;••'r .1 r. y," ?„r-4-.. .( r -t '.- r- Y _ 't ice -:',%': •rq- %S .;y_w - :•r-".. _,r ti Y!71. ♦ a - 'r1..• �'".'ai'• -� "1 '�' c' .t•�'S :tr.:- . ='F• - -ar. - .7-i _• _ -"'l - '' ?yam'..r.., ..�V j!•f•'_i.' �`� f:.;;< �' r: e'':i.4,a• '"r,'' i :t >.. 1 ::uj•,-,.• t i 3.rrr,' . x.,`:: , v- ,•.-• -t.. .. �,'s_,- *; :; •_% ..l, <►+ta`t'�O. c; ,.�y•`y� -r•,.r.���h .r. .'r•_ i 7�.a.•. �.<a`re., -:*r:_'o!_.z. _ -•:s' ' ..2ti a".,..:: `` -. _` • i' ••s -'t• :0 _r. ., .:..". ",.. • i-t yL q � .."j.. .v-IA..r.,y.. •..is . • .:T'i�.: . .s.. ti_�:<.5r."'.ir _ i< d.t `.•` -'-Y,�• .a:%t :Af ,- rb�. !- •1', 't fi_a=. ''`'••_; : � • • C?:c�� r .• - %i:.-�k: Y :� .r�. �}';y �..� •"a<:, ,.;�'C... ''`-''�:ii:-•y._�..,,c. f. .� .� .� "."�r."r.: _ - � .I e-Eit- •�`,, .Qf«7t�f ••' � .M•-:•fi,: s; i,►�.r•_ yp1 `4" _ i.+'.1.... �y ,4 ',sW :s3-4-•4=70. .•r*✓ V .i's••=:t �'T•• ; ;•• i' s-. - �-s, tit_ �y.:' t- ,,c;.. e�- � >a e. rn '�.',- �,�'�-j - rr•tt-.2 •-�_4'r"' '���. •,. I • I •i ra• '✓" i :._!:. -., ..:„i rj r% ,rg-'r•`_ '.• _ -y j� i' :tt• f ,7 _ ,!. r I. _ -�-a•�•-r*_•.,�-_',c x.:sr2 l• c,;::e:'�. E, ..�.. c.l .s#•"-►'�`rr�rX ..� is .-I. `7.f .:-?•+'ii� :� , •..ry.�` _ f' °^ , .: �t• ' max" - i•i R:ti'S i,"-- �..,?>`J.`. ...i• ZI • -"`;•" 3-:• i•s;` SI t y-:.y,r,;• '£' �' -,: . k: `N•-a_:. . k���.a ,•: y 4 y. »,ti �� � !•b: .l.. •.F, .' � „ f 'c`• t 'a Fes._,..-F r -- .• _ $ .''r s, l• -.1 � - :. lin'• '" �2 ! •, tn c'rn- '4"•sr x�:�.'t,-S^-»•.. :y�e - -'�' a3 Y�..� Ti, J. {.� -saa„ -�cr7. �. iYn i--p.� ; �: 1 y_�„` "ti%-.i�?'''•r__ r7' yi 'f'._ "�'-;."�"��•h1 a'�� t•�a .�c f ,-� j ".+i 1y �4-,�r- -•h'Z„2-'�za _ .7.= ` e,c - g �_ ;;'�r•K' z,' .;. �S'•Yi �,^,!• _ �•.Y *,. - ••c•. -,5�r'- - a`,,,1 ,1-4, ..Wit`. "-';.--4•-._.- ,1,•L -f t ::,.,•sit iS .• -w,T • f;•-?.._-'- ..,*_.,•� i• ;,•1.r�-:.s �� ' :1`c�=; J5:- F+ R•+f _y y�• 4.-.:v-' „~'; ii.. ,'G.r t�: �,,• y -- ` -ram .,4� 41.. 1 .r',,. V .._�.?;: -.Z --r"r t..;q i�0 'Th•- • `r•i'' 4•,6- y '! .•�' f �'""„"'''.' - R, �r*,--: G=•n • . 6_:. w+,J ii^ as ' �.• � ,,,< . w �..�, {: r ,r �'+� :tie f J. ^w- t� "r!4 f3' �,., i� �--' ��1� .3- �,..r �. r o `:;,-' i.i Y `3 .Y �` F:tt t 5�.-- •,+. :J!.-fft'?-•:14,,, :y.--•< -� ;,,,.•:�5,•T}fit i a... .L a.der.'_.� -"'`:4 C` E '^ - •`t+,...w.`n.:-•- 3" .,li c'..-" -•'- Y� :,r,^► r�..� F -.f. �rf�._� T..yw`�...� ,� rr�,a s-" >'.?' ?'�a.:s"^E_y.fi� •t?nY�.�i;" >t.i� i� ✓•4"•'.• .�-.'s ..c t. Y- � '+.. .n� c".: s}C 'y'.,r. ...cy � � ,� pe e'iw, �. r _ ..,f" r. S.:S' ..,.r � ��J �:;•y •7..-r3�� "�••✓ 1�.�. r --•r� r ti _�,',: 'J ti .,, i '.,' "i+' 2 Y a i. i-•'�r y > �d M1,.. :` .`F: 2.'> •- -r 5-,., f• '.. -q3-'.•`{'.t . .• 9..c5 -•r lc:., v2�r r• •,.K '.rr'� A; r'-s e• r"•- . T F ..,: , .:.�a• �^:�.��' 's� "r a!t• ,�� �r. :.F``d�y .ts'{�.2 �ct✓'� ,«'�n,� -, _ • . a-t�'S"�' qc5,,��. .�1;:1,.'� '� ,a} �;:��' ;.za •�?�.t. .� :3- �""?'i._�l�s! F -r. i�.,u: ... ..•x.-S:;•'. s�a.. �.7� i- v-�}.�^p `� .13;Y�`4'-t'_c�''� '�:��,.,.'9 • I.�ya�F;.y.e; • �'yZ ,-- t f7.p+'t -. " .'E:. '3"'.^r ' i'+�rP,..' : ,;•• i��r I�"'..+t.' ! t )x..ty •.'�-�*..,�%1i• ..i�-t z�= r wZ: :. 3 .14,,Err-• '`a, _ '6 ;;;y �u�'.,r! -F,-r.a d .C., 4..,.+44.- •.� ...y'. of ~�,..„.. rt.„.. _• Gy`Trr'v:rii i v� a..+r.y. 't ',><,=,...? .,,} =r x_„.. ' J; �.: 'ems.': _ 't- St . f.' R J', tN-.f�� "',E d" W _ .4 .E' 3i .I d'' # )"c i7 $ y. Tt � .ry /'(�. .., .,,- ay , :„. _ �1 � -". ,A... :: . '.. ,,.•x3 4, j .L,iP .„r. 8+T.a: ',,,,,,, « 'S"...i' •• l _.,,. ..•. K ! :•r ;11., 'a*.._ T ',_ r »� � wr:iE7�t t..'- !L* .,c' ft. ?�T' n .c..i• •wa; . Y' >sx • _ _..�•r 4C _, �+'h'Nv „.- . b2••." ... > , . .. .bra-9 iY`4 '� �. 1y •...� •s7 . - � 1 .. •F �y�'►..� k:c� ,'. tt� r -rr" 4f�iP:ci t., {Gy 'ti t,:.'i-'k r t i � r3 �t -ta Y"^x'. _, ?..t- ,rrs�Q * ?` aj• t''l . 7 ' Irli 1 •- j,,iy1 .er}•.-•:> '1 i:`'' 4, „}' •'' , s' •r i, ''..-"�' .3.t '-S -r.. i,'i 1. ., }� �' .c.` ` F ♦'� �':;y," � :i�1 - "•�' r•-. ^ '�?.Ci,- ` i+• ,err'• 'e `'•.T'R�_+ .;',4 ••*.., _''''. F•" •-• .-r.s -r .'. ""`Y�r',,. I7yj��'. +,.� ..r- ♦.!rir 's- .T"E:'Y ':':.• ca a'' "`.i• 4;,- .is- !N 7. !t r .5:; r4, ' '>' Y''•. x ✓S- ^'=p M••T C- \ =y -/. `:^ -`�t ` i-C�..•nM. ,�. .'W aSt_/Yra irL rf, '. �.'} f�f � .i ;-C- ..1 !` l. '.�i l f I_ �c L-' r . - * -vi rsi. .w,.., 'i"T ,,:._r..-,. '%: i%-:�-r�G.fiiY j: -4 /1_'e'_:til h- -,--' J.?..,: •zn_,-:} ,:.i,y-, -A; !;• ►„ ,r..: q 1 -' �L s . 4E 3:-- r ']:itA 5. H F t..•i Y � vrs"',` ...'sj-..t.:rf+- 4. .•tlj .J -7 a_� 7 x l .t .•. � .•'i: �D -•! .-yam .r.- s. - n ti�a �, �- :^c-- N,.'N9� :..,-I• ,', t' a=^.a. e'1,er„ .- ;} C,t-r..+- =•.:_:, __ •j= Wiz' £ 1•y 2- • a 1 j.+c i {_ "-:r ~ ,�• } r �'' y • .S' .,:,� -"C ak,';-: '•2•' ,,. :r! e{" f •F.,r`+.,ysx,, �'»p?e• ..)" a7>-ti.r.1 t - ►. 3 ., , "s _ry� ; TX Ty .:t .,•,. �fti�i"•= S.r; � "s;� _;: 1 '; � y,,; :��+�►• `� :,y,_`�>e':� ' .» ...•`3 � ,,.' t '�"ti " �'° r„ r �';_ : •'aT>":_i y rya _ �•. -:<'�r .8 ;! i?.'�c g.`�a -,-. .�.; S.s .r:`7,• :i x.. •,F; ':•�. �5+_,... .,..: 's '}"CN;"-,may- e r�z ,«{ _ . � -�- � aa. �.�•,j..T�;6i •r > .;.1 i' 2� �yr� z ~ � ,ti_` .•Y•� _ ....r,,.l��t to`'i3, v� ,.-.f F: �i .i- "�3i ,?it' "' :- a► - tom.. 11.. �J ::-'i'-V`"% V- 'f'',i i'- `[,�,--- -..r:; �e 'r4.1:.,:"' ^,' :..4. ..1-X,...'-! _ '.:a,•--;•- `':-, .7�, h,: Y..- c � _•. a a< ¢"•,�p'.� -P s �t-� ,> p��„ -1 'r -i -a -_/''•.;�--.. :r.T' '�' `. , s 1.' :.. _ ••,» r 'x,: ip.,. "�3=' ,-a aa�«......t I -,7.'�' • -"s�.�r�. �•�Fr��a�� y.+�'�..;.� +�..��.,,s �3.vA -.> � c.�/_'..aT✓"w: `'::'t7�- .�• :''b"- >-� -�7`,� '�...;�•`. •s 3 r .-..ter: .^+'a"'a • r 5 � [(„"+�,t {a ~� c •'-4 �yJ'S' .Pa-.`�- 1Jr'F ...-ems•..r . �ay.{ �i - :_ .St�_ .> - L• _...� •�.f .�n` ,. r..Y • ' �, ,.•�+'i_",e.3.-91 s ,+ - + .`z,-< �,••.. � _ '�•-.�"h- ,h n,..� _ +..: -c}.1"7.• r"4:f•"v ::ri `kilt Y_`: -•> '.-,tr •?.•-� g' :- -+ . rt,f,'4 , ,R'; L t`_... •• tai','"^-•.7ti '. L }. - u,:C -+.I :Y" 'r 1. ..t..,-.. „,s '�.- ." N f+- x • Cr ...-Tic\: ':" tr 19" .w ; r -.:y.,."��i'J, • . y-x.., -i s. ;zG r e "j Y..,x• ,..1 „.,.. :'7G .y o7•L' ? yr• + • _`tc.% P`-• •.+ae J 5t.4�� •~+oic. .. t.„S :•: " e. : �yr�SFF:7k" '+ "*1-• „ r „t'. � ,.'4.. '•3;', ? tl;,?L{: �!t"+'v' 'tf'' rl•».,'.'ct+ = Soo• fft '�Zc``si"'`' 'b.,, . •.; 'e 'fi .. 9; ?..r.:3.,' :�... ...r`.'L-X.,;,,i„e tg.tAr o d'4r,:4. �rxcv w by :o 4,1 ..T. i„, .,. • ., �. i .! -•, tiSi. • 4., -r •S• .a 1,�.Vt < L'"t �i.�S," � ..,4.... n jt+•.7' 5�,- 3S�• y�. ::.. L .0 -,�1..M .??- •.1r_'• • , •,'e.•_+• .6�. { yt• - • '- K";•, tr. 'fry .,r.`•`2 sr.-,7 r , �L2 3 •� r • t A.: • r "l+. `.CPC • ' a,. 4.#' • t- 4,<<r ...:�F"- 'Y'Y K•- r,F ' .C- '� > =4` y.. ^ •'17T.F� ,o w e_ .•< -,I.: X_'-'4'Cn,-+' = '>'•- s>t ..y.-:a.:'t? c-a a-.,,, - » - 1's. '.*'r b,: r•' `-i-, ,i" "n r.�-.t+ ',e r<'' r i5l ��..• . ✓ t t `-f7'- '" •:•t ,-_•_.rVY..- .v w n's: 5:_ ._J .x t :r. ...;i . ,; e. "r >F•+:j ,,�,,. ,,,,,fi21 i` .Y .'�c. a;.i. '•:y'r., ._n. ;r.�� S. ,,; -. ,::may.. T- •-.W ;� 1...r >r: '""? '.t r--�U ,au..,:. _ ..e4 .O''' 4 sue' Y Y-�,,`5-r-# � :. • :.v •i`.a.X�1e'� ',s,t ..tdri 3''""of•.;..,,.; r'.., 'id. s� L,•.f.•,_"tip:ls'�t 9_. "-c. � .' ,•- •a _��f � ry � • '�rR � ���+ii ��^- ..ems Z. lt.,` � 'y ,a- _ "- .� �. '�? ..: � tn �" j-•t3"'. .� "+' .ra } G; ',:. �'.x-•�' .}t_6v;r• -•. a� ii ..31; �.,. �,.+a- ;f-��`" .j•v .,� �•. ..s.s;,a 3`'af:q 3t,.q-i e-.•_. 5G `�,.-,'.. :r ,' ;a?-Wti _x .P•"Y. n•9,.'"i•.:pF s . . K.'. :�"V .rss+..'... Y. • . µdw R �.yi:.�„e �,�..3('�. }, _:+L`t :�l'y)'E3..�..�1. ":z•�!^- �`;.tY- '�L�``='+..i' 'Yh°��:'Y�".�titr,-�C!<a%>. 1_.J.i$ L�d _ ". �l Y•,� _ �ty2 � `""` ,,;.'i;..",c x - _ Fe� :�,,,, _ 'Ya •,wt r <• ,' j •.r: r- •�.h: c' c:k• .A f�• a. M. is-aa.'.y _ :. rk f,44- -r3aCa •',-re ?Y:}�:ii' -'k. ,.1:•, ';"at. •r' ,•.. J' , .. ,t 'S R N.,r v�` ? Y4TY r��ry .,.h'�'�t.l'i.: .,V`i>�.,}:✓n. r.•j},. ;� {r.�M�' .1..i...: .`'...fv •., ?.?^'.. .. .•.h �'r5'dti1. r' �3' •# •.{,'( •C,••. "a't,'.!. •.•3':*wr .. I• ••,'. •ri,:: Cl, . �_j•r . 4� •. ... . �`4'r, •e `•�' ,..••k-4�+,..%� ... .,'2:. ...•X+.�C.v� _,;�. k <t.,."��-r+�',��E. -.•' +,~••t'' 'tC,v. "� i.'.G !7'•.�4"A` �! 'S' .R'Mf�s••. ,»•T. • a • :'�. Y�:�':°:i �"X .it%�f4.. ,,,o. _c �i: r.:it` �`5 eo;� .i.. s.:'a: -fir .•a.,--.�:L>'%s- ' i Y^ :i; i. y,a- -.1f S*,,-;.✓1%• �s+`�. '4./, C7�. - irs... ,7L �L_ 'a� ".t 3� .,,• •4. F-7,,•.,'w •: � 'w.. . `yti '•f'4,, :li< '1,'; a,t.- 5.,. ima. irl+., nS•sa.. e. = a 4., ,ef,j f'�?, !r. {:.• +�'Y, :i r� :'�-Je3:• - '� _ =o`er .e.�- .�:``.••:r'->_-.T•kz �: .>�# ;�=�,�=:";=: .u-.��'' f ''A' C l♦t- .i y�- �5� `Sj�'� -�r"~$�5::.., %�-s'�r$. •} � � .i.i .vt' z�...- �- q� :{or`u1Y3.s. `! -i. .-.. xJ Y. s. ^•u' :E '$•`-' t_.t. ,> .•s, ,-' `a. F�2+7 : sr ua y.•;� 7, .iy` _y�,ryy J:^ �-5-'_..•n�:•'„ :rf:. �:�� $ Le >. �ti�x.:t.!-l.. `�S�:.,.,'�l '�S. .ti S -y z.,. 33 ! �;s, -•.-Y:. '�-1= n�+•. ,�.: _ .+ - '��l'T.•' - I.Y •awrn;•~ .��., r�•E�- •A:sZ Z�:� �� .?r�. eY�. :,F n1•..J, ,E. ; •.n���s� � � '.�i(_ 1r,}i' �3' y.�.. ., ,;'< .=r ,row „ •:a:•:' J- n; <! } f � .}.a,_ � ..,r. h..,,:-.��tr.:r: •k.f?„+', .3 f vr�.�-sz ..s,..•:3.:i. - f �sb �,�s � i' .0 �.syT x>k•F .•C S _ _ L.;t. i H. `"_ :s. � t_r� a Mfc r i S y 43 .; �','L`!^ �q tr- ti' _ -.i1 5 f r1F cc � �i�s 1 r ¢ �A' 'a ,c: .'"`t ""� �;? . ,.. f FJ`• , -.i^ _ t+. sd ,:;,* {..<�€ r.}•: .•a,t ,, ..�. .Fik : �c t�? 't _..1. - �•_.,•rj�- + .•ti `� • J s-,.t -_ ,`.ic. t:•r• � a: .�,7a,,• -•�. ,-at, t:.�� >.. X,fi.t.,,-[r••:..r.-3F ` } �.�. �ai.: �{4;::tiw.z�t' - v7• �a.x .rs�.f r. :>S-•c• Y� . f:t; Y.. '. =-- F'3-.+' .y- �'-'>..-^ " •v- --- • :F .,: •i',,-s s.1.:. --4-: .;�L,:L«: - t d �'r ., a ; 's- - ,..,] r ,5 :- ?L':s._ .: �.�'t<7'1"ll F,�� 3?'3 . -.4^'' '4` �;^.ca: �'" -s-. ••5 :*vr�• •w".:.:.:....r:- p ,`' ,.,,. .,4 C. �;1.,;#:-v..p;,,4, ✓: _ -.:Ix:-, t.;,,.• '� _ ..;.. 'a r'�'I,'?r�°�e.rt=. w,,�7.,.a-��s;,=,1`._"-°�`s_:� t.�c - -. � '�:,e., d rs,?.�,:T:,,��,�.•.'�'j'1�'"'� `�',dlF�E3�c3' 3�a`�kr•e '�,`3'..��"3^' ^bt���'M'rw �S?rF- `:3�f ?�Y�.`..F�-i��•s�r:2� jr"t.';;^¢ ��r'�•�r"''. i ih .(.. . `.� fi � . { r G, J�.. ...> � -..-1• �h,., iJ.<�,:�,>; I' .:.t 4� j����. fi L "h � t iiriniir 4 .•4T,.`Y•:.. y:` Xy 3•:;.,4`r- fin,_? fJJ ,r, ^may � :'a 7.•i«• r a: •.°� ':•.-V�r.Y, S= �•♦y • •' :�"�,". : .� tr :a' a'i ay:: {` ] • .� -i.-�..;, -.?: f., - '.r`: ,�,., `-',•t •t-1- L.. 'mow,�Z W.F • i 3F+ft 4- :: .. ..`s,.i+ d +, 4,4 t". t.JJ:�'. , '. - r %! Y"*1 .K':r. ,!]':..�` :.�.�w.� .G_.j•?� y, }j j •5,-. 'bn• -ib. }`I •`! 7s 7 .t. ,,: 2 h..., .-..A ,•..,4,;li '.♦ 1- . =�:^ T;. r.-- sr<_ {� '•;l-�--t,�. :: ; :,-�' ., 'te �� .�� -..3; ':^�S•1'�}"-� ,.,. •n.'`- -� '< 'C•- -i-�•x S _ �Sw f•wi_ Y I .Y u'L - •-ti \,t<.a•1`�" .t:�. mil' ':�. - • °C'� :r� `:C:e :-;�1 Sp r �� _ .,Z :�>•w Y .(..:;(• •E. �. '. � i ::l -'�:-.r:� '1 ...•'"". .: " �.'s,. S 't.." 4.:t •j. sr1- ?:M1 _:'sfM _i;::.ra.,,r,v: p- r a • t 1".-_.. :y. Y.'`.}}•Y.::.. •,lY; E:-- .s. fC 5 ':) y a _ - f..x ?-s-11.,�{ �7... 1�: D �•�-' r E - •d•s J- =-�' - 1c f 4i.,�, _1.f _"�," S� �• � s'1.�`i,•�=:3- r'. _y Y�, .y-%fir_ � r y• {. 4 . :l :3 k :L-.' �t' .>• a5.1 i ,.• -Oi`:.. y=?• �' •{'.•i�"l•:�fv` - �E } ?1�.-::G,�i, �;`t.: .,.,r -.v•c�i_.a C-: ' �' - -:5� -',31 pp .t`,�7..IL l' �,'a 1r:5• :.2 >! •� :.•• C 1 -.^,�,:.r" ?.}; r • ., :t .,='i- ..•T. ,?c`� f' l t' -3 _".. .•.*•.,C •,,x r, ..'� i•.5., 4 .. 'j, -t p. +i 1 :.o :s -•,•�_`,c-,F.:.�pv',� :-. ..e..•� -- ."�i � n.-'Yr trfi a- ...5' •f�'1: -., a 7�*# 4 r- .,."'M.•': i a.:` :J.{ �i�' .,*�h.,,. C• `S ..t.i�,. iH ,r •i _ y tt.: 1 < << :1- ?- ?. Y".sa -•••c,f. _ 4 -.:' .s 5 c: ;ems• •"• : ..*Y " , . � ,,s J!: ,:-.. ' ` i• a - , 5 .�::i .q:� -� •. � ..• ,r•�.. ..v rq�_:p•t,, -x >r...r �i'F�,t:. j, � "�z� -^- _ , 1 '.�_•.,.�s ... ?.•- 'u•-.. .`c..-, Fi�'b :.•� rr;r.� Rr �. .rt� ?� ..-�R• F 5�s-Si-- '`w,R �;7'- �.•c _ I. A te.. i t .. ,-:M f-;�i� .`a •? r-•,••_:� s.;?, ',t f-v.,1 7` `-; • ?• '.F' •a•�.•.v;�,r G'-� -.. '� -:4: S{L,• a' ,, tea.}- '� - >� f • � ". .. �..,� •�h •- + .. 7 _`v� . ��-� t. :y mac., d .. 3�Cf;�, •���'�' a r t• � ^-1 .a. t mot.• t J+•f� ?� "-x, µ� r c t•+" v.- ••-,� r''�'- N.L.. to ;:�•-t :zr -� :� • _`.r •�� t 3 ' . +} t'z` .feu;1= •3 � �.f::� .,r `.3•sF. .. :d' ,e x'�.. , • -5 -+"a q:P ,r o--.., i'. ,>;• ,..!':._ fix 7 ,:... . � ,i „4i fig, > 3 ,.r +. :'.r X= :r' �'- v. K '�c';r.•o^'_+., cqa.. .••3 _ 'ram, j.:.7�F :t,�JE .}- 'w .s, `4 = :. .s 'tt-_: �: •k�G i �i+ t •-. . � '�,� ...Z. l g:[n 5^:. it,- C` �, C•<��' %7. c z _ �.a; 1: rb.; � 1. ^; F y T • 4 A.4.P."y VAI- -'j- '`fie .a S/ ;=9 :QF rrpp .-•' q 3 : r^' `1! .E3y-+" `�,5`s'1 • .ri.•.� k' ?a_; -2 k -C:4 -• '" -C:a• ..,-a, 4 t .� :s<w•::.>-, •'.2.,.L`-t `T4. ..,9 t= t i-31--�r.4, .!_- r.�`s r;,,.. , - , c ^} Lt ',,.;yy.�•`,'• i, ,a •..?'h T-.:h�" `:a.: 1 F + 4' n>., .a.�J .•f.,n.� a =s ,5. b .�..',� = -•,`'7 ..�y3 �^c..a;. -+`;'�.._.� .T • V`L ',. -1`.G -W ik. - k c'1 V 4. ~pi a: .rv.1::. C eH(..r •� _ .S.�i f4 i' ; ... •..... .�t 7'�.-": e 1"i. :1 :.. r . ,�.• .':._ _, .�•,.' h::Y - A)--'� 5-- � _ 3 S _ F n Y - .. ' �:y i - _.._"], L, i.: ;' , -•--J'. .'"_ 4 <yti` ..'_. -a•_,t • ��,'ar"„ .4`,,:tom r•-. +.3 . '°'ti• ,4 .� iL- ,`- _ ..r.ir F t' L �.w a, �t'• �C> :¢..,1 p JK E t9 rYe,c- Fs' tt L '�' '- e. •�•'1 ,rr. �, -) z• ... , ,..: ,_ _, s..r...�;, :...�: •:c. �^: ka ::� �.s• f3 :� L._.• ••� •.•sv s t ,`'c'.,..�,::s? �r•f :< #y'�: x'k..: •-.� S,;-. 'a -t. - s,.:y�7 ... :., ti � '�vs.. �.. ... .:. J�'c-:.,g1 .'4 ��+-• .� re v_r'_ ..�ln>':' ..'�: ..as .,-.a E f-: �� }'^.f7• �r - )-. '` - - y 7 ! _ 3f F, /, -_,S. - .r: 3 F..y -- ^r- �•' y>�:' _�. '7 r.4..f -�� �..,?.,,,•,_ r :•:v ,.�..� X^� )'T:t i'�''.':4 .i •f c.'. c. • M1..-.-- +.'fir' �: 16' i_`f-.>, •• - -Y �u 2..:�,i�`-.'', .l'- -t.; ;.3� t-_:i '� s.�} tx S^r.,.•• ♦ n 6. 3"� �._��'•, ,_P ��.:i fr�.� �- i.. •rs :.:a: d 4.,� t - - S •a. 'F :.x,3:-'. c, . r.:_' F C^.� .- s d-•2 S•i.•4a� - -� r.,i __`r:'-.• -` .�" ..� .�.. ,....c..0 A ..,� •� .� r"� tc:.r •3 q .t.7� t. :�Cn�•:4',.•E - �Fc,n•^1• - .v r;�c 1F&�� `f`:' -.7;•:.A�c.;�.«�'n- -� • � . •* 1�" '�,`.�.�.1::. {' }►.. � ,f,., ��•a t -:Z c.-• .«� r "t:+�•t.. .r.:�F .s - $'� � L f cry a t r. _t:i C`. p '^ +� • .. . c �'.::ij ti•"�� ;; p :t, .i•. ..{...'- .�.�•a ,y f _ r.„ �S .. t-S:.-+• ",-;_-. Sc"ar"_-�.d i -!•.Y ' ,t ZC' :'s... 4 ..L'Sar ., -�' --i;S 4t:^-.}• a h`> .?••• • '�v i 7i•,-: a ^,.'• �".;• ;•i. m_.'F • _ 'r, - #;h,,,,• - !``' ,-. r _ i : .�.• -' • 1;:• _ • •�:•k- 5.fit?ritekk7.A. r e'u7 `�Fa • is tr -nr-r ,:� _...•'- '•a-.a - .L"A•'•eA';� `�• A.� t t..�-'ow • {..��a•�...-. '[• fir* t .:...,• i r; x o%♦ ;,. 1 ;t _rc•' F, c. {•,dY-6 „r_;r.- - it ::a.5. Y•"; �1-y ..F rr Y .:y'.:"t :t-•, r r•J 0:,..`",t�:i..i?.• s'•„'+r $, - !' .a.s _ "I'•11 c"S ' I1. s t •? :4,'.7. `.t..'rr, z.; ..- {.,;.i. • •� ' •.i: :'cr+ ira:. f. ✓•c• ::F Ir..; k .i�- `r s�1: __a.t"�1 - '{ pp r� T r. 'v '" F.::1 �•-.tea 't{ '"`i -rr }1 �a,•�'-�- _ � _ .r .,L'�a s+ -t`. {" !.. - •s ,.. Wi z.r .i ,, a 2_= t 1�'....:f.:Y _c .'_• Y. :c- °-•l r_ s• , Z. J` -:. t r - ✓.•ts _r 4 • 1,-...- .� ''' ii �,lt ) _-.! .. C +•---• c.r-^.i. •7 r�" mot. -s•.<:`� `L_':i_ r r ` `'",r f �'+ • �' S'•u .:Sr: t 3 c :. c:.•- _ Z • & ?F>� _ zr L _ - � 1.'. t:' ti _ St � G''•��'_. F:• .� r r.< 5 '•.C. . A ii.. Er,- .Ae,,r h+�1 E - J, '^'� L 7. _ i�.rµh.._ .a .k G, F t .':,,L.i.---?-'( '1'-K...-. - ' =i4.v s:! .y,y. �. :1.'.,Y.• ••H ti;& •-'c:+n�¢s:.-. .,,fit 'az .$. , ', +•a �Ty,� 4 'cr• _ i;, .{,i, , r _.r..- '..t`� � ,.:7, _ `'.. . r.''.4..:r i r•'i: .a,r L^C.tir) t '��. ��,"'j� , ,!•4•af.si�N.At. !-�' •�,,�d.• '•a.`�' �*:-S"$�s� �<5.?tQtn,.�'l'`•i,3. t<3•.i1,r3� 'o� t"�i',"' .,xt� _�. . �' .x:.�,� •q 0. u°s a -,( :s '{ -3tx -�v r_.7 1 d' r":�G-C,','t `� _ Ca , `� ' ^t, I �i :- .�'t'. <`c ir'3 -,,.r:. .--.lc.;�,' ..x ;:1 r:.ti �. .ri. }r :f<\sf<._ L:.;::ti'••+'.�.>. ♦� .:',- :rA,' .,c..r q;:.-,+ vc. .a;'.EtJs. ..,+.i...__ti�,...,.•. r.� I.,:'�. x _r - 6: :+�'C: •.. i�. J v r-.v Y r '4 j.iL< x. J Yaa,. •,,:;r"^ ;,�i,:=sd-' ail t`: r? i- .-,.a:r;..;. a, G-.� r .tom. ''� i.: ...<,``.ti�.t� .,�-: .?v. .�,,;i ;:,y.. .� �'?o.-�: :rl -.-f• , >_�. _ . a s .� e.':2 .7., •,.�._•:c ;^ w,.ti• •.�_, -_ .......,.i.�rS_ ..... �t4.•_-1 . c" F;. E.i;:..�.a s 1._ .t. C .:;.• ti- .n7- f. _ -Q`:,.._ -•.s .� i• .tT u<� '`. :e.,f�� �:; {F� K..� _ k ar.• f'��• k. 3 k.Y ::r�- �Y � +,s:•'`_.,�' eur.T- L.5 39"..[•�✓+ F'- - ir, f +-`-,. r ;f•• • rir: :ift't �.� e< 3f"i s2 .T'� ,L sS P' 1 -Ct�..}.u,T: • �..�•,•. - ,j'�? <r.-, s.: •'-C:f:.:.kw. - - Y'i. l.L :-. .� LF _ .�' -- 'ti_ -;•30• ea- rS'4::c�- - • - t '�• y d' �" .�%•: .`� - ,..� .S,w.j-',fF,fi a,r�.a,.."i `- � �.Y�'r; . .s�rT 4; �y,�- .i'•`-�: '� • , r:•�� ;r :.:y y j tLz''':r - 4'. 5 +-,'4 1-A...'Tti•`` '.4 J �� r. ` ..: ,.,'- `.l• :? a ,-`t z �. .s,-c �. .,-♦ ,.a•. .611:_ - �- :,:_• .5.4•, ,+5, - , .� 3r r`,I. i 12 ti '-, _..:• 4. :.i •• <i- e • - •4,::-. _; e .• n 'r -- . ,nc ..1):~�.`s•' _ P_' •iu^?i t,• t4? •6:+1�� .:l..t• �'. .'(.£ ' tr, �::w..v.: -K•L.3'{U,'+�s F,�-4. .i,Y:J 'cG¢.,r '?..� '4-.i.�.••Z.ex. ,�...,A.-...»:} x3.1 'S�::s r',:=ki ,t ..!s..,r -ar*.!cC -f i.-... iiv • •�s-1 '•i :+- r a ..'qua J ,..1 T,T'•x aA-7;a t"."• i :.t: 1.7' ♦;'.�''• �.Y-t'•�r T ,_•3'-' tt.;:- �i:.`i•: - ^_']. �- i f i . r:t.- S;�$ - _. "`y.. - ). i t-.•ittstr.-t r r "Pr3 :LL. V F:;.,. �S':tj' �:i .7." .i•: - a :cam' ;tr a, .t,, ,. ,;T.c::'^:-t'(t .. °' ;�.'� � ♦.•J� ,�_'tt•i��a. a ,.M �.t ,�y •�i„Y+`� �:-^ C'a r 1�"�M'�:ri..,i•jy� :tf� 'L2 �.`.' ? , ,a ...•: i • ..v:' ti ,. 1 { .5,A.'• ti--"F:�.•...•:•t:.v.i ,.',., :`'r. '° `ra �'Y. ? -'` +.'r.0 s. .,r".+..m ^ . .:,Xs .� R. 'i=' 7' � ••, rr.r'.: i�,.. ,,,c,. T - e+c• kr._ ,;n... '4 a�',' E_�.. � � "' � - rf. �:zGk. ``>,-" � =sr .''`•�`x; •$gig, � `^va ��•'.y'� <Sfi.rfr�+•^;. ;G�.� �=`-� Y�..s,.,,.e;��..a. �i:�:a<� .R%•j, 1 ate {.SF. ,. '•z _ t •^+:Q' �'1. 5-''`.! '�• C: �-,,,... �•e _4•'� ��a'-3as"_��;* ~" c '-a i •� `1r 5 c 'i •a- a•�. a +� r�3� � �' �•¢�- `c...i.. r _ -0f: r° • ,•"-,s ., .'�r•_ a 3 It a, r, at 4„;,.•lr.j\�. z:.,4y_ •+ ,.ti • ~ _'iy3iy. ^" ' !'L •yr c},�'••-v �,c�'% '� '..::{.^:•!s34 W. f'P=:- �}t •�fi�_ ��' '�'•.+we:5;:�•s •-'ti4-.}';:.; Y'?�-:�S. ..:-9 r+n.1x�.•�_'.'� :5:L•q.-. '}{ -,+�: -�r.'" :��G: _ �ric r,.-'�' ..K;;;. . : � • -L.'7 S•1 ":.1JyJtit. yct_.x.. i'l '�; '3-:•+.p!Y r , :. .. Y.r x yt.n. � ,.. ,r �,,.� .'f.:.'t':., e •y t > .w• tt`+-'•.c .y'.i3!', �.h, ".5 '- '•-•v • 6..r.1� .. ♦ 4� 4 �n't' .�..�J ]: Qj .4.;• '•S +y �lQ if al.'e•.i., (.'�ly,• T • `C' s • r- '•s '�..i..._, � +:•.-�..;•. '�'1 a�rv,..ar.1.' 'j;.;, r ,. .r: R r,uyX�i �.�i.: e � :� - s� ir~► -.t,, :'S7y`r_ air,* y �'" �.: ,.. .r ., /'�Y�- 1�M V..t•.- t>..''v�::.:'.•"-r•,•. •._..,-,-,L2 :- 'j`_.` 1,y •/ry`4 - ^''`• .Ry 3 r.-r .,.�=..v r t:f.i.1... . s a i- ... 1_ '�`< :>'}Y t v w 1•"•i•�fZ.. -s.•s♦ , C.:.� Z. •� r:, .�r� f : ( t.:♦ 't'S•�.n�• > s..'••j��y :i' L.. � �"a,,...",r 'J.�•i,• a�' :t Hr .�+ 5' Y:. _'.`�"�+`-•. dr R-�-n. 'i'�' ..s:X:r .z°`• .k''*1�' �Y.>r". �^?�'� -"j' � - y'4 .a al3`c�� G�is�'<-tC ..,� ;f <� �• �� �' ��'�',�: ��r�+"y' � .* _ 7-1!t•- a3-r_..,- 1' - ML iz'1� 1_< e .-,-:. h. '-,- n-. , � + ', ,A t t .;.,s•� ? r ' .,. - ..? t �i ��n f aa��'' �-•r -_. 1., 'Y� sc.<,.iv �."i: '� tiy ��r •.� ;r� �,.,R..c((.:�� F�:i c_=�l'" �'"�.��,, S-�••" •�..'t:.Y ,Laj,�c�`i,.:'C'i;��f i�',`�,J�f�j�jt,F ���jjti�s - r '-a. .0 .�!-aq .:� l ,fi : :.-.••• l 'j 3^I f xq 2'!.-f ���_.l .. .fi ' � .'�^�" r 1 * 99...r ; `�'!� ? lx z tea: ,�5.'a `2'�c :c}�„•t�L. -�rAt. 4:: ?�..q.,.s a4.„,- � :aarc4- z't •t,.S•=.,7,,., k4� '4.-.L, c ,, tY,r� '•E 1 +u' 'S.-;'-i•-. o .i, �:.e_"%�2'."1 i ' „,8.-r. ,:+•• .<"7!". 'iikt1••"i x+``•ytit.7.--1, -/ �,'i. ^'•c s'}•y:t= :'t' +Z•.� ` -,:..•- .e.g......_„..?,,,,.-,.y�S ..:z Y '?y.+:.r:;''� .Fr..t.. z ^•, ,,,,.t,�:,`� s'S3sjiY"•' ':�•- ••wi:< ``;...-:>• q.:.,.i5'y ark 'cam r1 � • •--•,•t,ar-: �� a•".i ��,-'�T,7�,•:A'1 �•i.LC• fi'. }. iP% S - =:iC..'.:.�'4 f i- fNhy sf,:..:S ti�. ,�.�. al� .0��=M,u-b�. `Y^? �I'�J':� tC,,^c�. �- .d. _ 'i..r' -.. >'y •-i .4.,r y 's?., .: .1-cr,;_3.,... :-.,r, z, ti ,s `• ... i .',. X- .5.' .h,.- �: _ .r +.•tip+:-.'. � �_..,�. _ ,�: �" - .FJ•r,;i �1 -r^ J.••. •,-.:.y- �. - :.cam r1•+--J;?..`a5iw+c- it �• �. t�`.. } �r,,, !.� e r iµ:.i, ivi,, DX 1 .,y 1 .;`,` .,01 •t ,i try 7kl'...r - +.pia ci��'�a `S ti 4,•• D rr`.;• J°' ,":{+, t .r 4`,!-f'4. Y.f.1/c .ft 3'1 S Se. 1}..k�' •f;F .1'g• - .y��a'�• f;:... -j':.t.n Z:' J ✓ . ::--;a`g}-•rk�^++ +.� �..cF- _,,t,. ° F ,a ti,1 •� -r+rY i y-:! j,ir',i',.- -> , • „.. �r 5+. �.t,,.,.. .�. �•y 'T.^^.-, ___,,,,,, 'Sf :,„t - _.r�� `R• `h '•Ikf rR "3� ,it ,r- t°.f c}a .• 7'. E'•`c�•4'' tF, '••••:. ••: z.' .-i- "' A ; y d •L'S. �.,Yc p ssc;, �,.^ r. • '.+. .,;•'•.c iT: •;.,g. r_„s<;-. a •_ a ,��.-, i 4; ?+-n""'•'.'^'_•• .. -' =:tm ..70� :t�„„�'.w:.r.2'%:!4w'.+iti.7'. .. .. :;r7,sQ'4'<ra�-: ,Y:.r.'wi, " • A444' S.Ti N • THIS SPACE PROVIDED FOR-RECORDER'S USE: r`SParL 5 Ds-sec's/lc) 1 RANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 0 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF ❑ 0 0 Cu t'r) WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO i1 ❑ Name City of Renton IAddress `� If) City.State.Zip Renton. Washington m m 660965co ,i N STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED ❑ N n) THE GRANTOR North American Refractories, which acquired title as NARCO Investors, r•_ '...) Inc., an Ohio Corporation for and in consideration of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS AND OTHER "3 -J VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, in hand paid, conveys and warrants to City of Renton, a In T" Municipal Corporation, the following described real estate, situated in the County of m ,i) King, State of Washington: ,i w See Legal Description attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". • rJ I I • 1 SUBJECT TO: Those matters set forth on Exhibit "B' attached hereto and made a part 4 herein by this reference. ( .4 D FILED FOR RECORD AT EiQUEST OF q TRANSAMERICA TITLE INS[jRP,NCE CO. 737.1) 105111 AVIS. NI P.0. I30:< 1.10:3 B[:LLEVUE, WA 9S1 ))) . Dated: Qom ' I, 1 ) 93 1 . North American Refractories ,a,�6+¢ct°er+..,��� �o CARS ,, GO _ : pI; G \7. 44..,4':y= ; I. = r �ehe y STATE OF WASHINGTON ) '4�q% ��• '. J� g } ss. °..SH'NG.G.... COUNTY OF King ) . On this )S 1 day of fe-ce,)-7)4.PA., , 19 c , before me, the LoJ K undersigned, a Notary Public d for th,e. St to of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared " f to me known to be tin— Pres-idcnt.a-rrd- JLe_ Secretary, respectively, of xNorth American Refractories, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, r)F\'ELO PMENT PLANNING and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said or ration', for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated ( �,.Y'iF �NTnni that 2_, ...-e-QJ authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixe ((if any) is the corporate seal of said corporation. ` EC 0 10 97 GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year above written. ' 1�'ii Nota y Publi � c/ � for the State of Washington, residing atYf Q,f/Ti(�2/ My annoir}tment wires: c-./-9,) ,cviLOPME ;-' CITY Or. EXHIBIIT "A" DEC LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � i i1 6� PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 162408 ; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST' 1/4. OF SAID SECTION 17.; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 500 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 17, WHICH POINT LIES 1200 FEET EAST OF, AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 17, A DISTANCE OF 1200 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 17 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 162408 AND NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 17, AND THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; Up THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN TO A POINT 1, 136. 22 1.4 FEET NORTH AND 1, 239 . 88 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID 0 SECTION 17 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID DESCRIBED I{INE: ' e'{ THENCE SOUTH 81 DEGREES. 24 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 703 . 61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 56 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 624 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES 35 MINUTES .00 SECONDS WEST 357 . 00 FEET TO A POINT 1, 440. 92 FEET NORTH AND 320. 13 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER' v4 OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE NORTH 41 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 160. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 26 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 216. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY (INGRESS FROM AND EGRESS TO HOUSER WAY) AS DESCRIBED VN EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2817181; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY, OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. • • 1 • iXHIBIT "Bi' • EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul.Railway pC��r� �D; � Company 4E T .i i PLANNING PURPOSE: Electric transmission system _;'�.\;11-1N AREA AFFECTED: Portion as described thereinDATED: Decembe ��ee r. RECORDED: Januaryr21, 1918 iLC 1 0 99 RECORDING NO. : 1186i01 EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:• ' `,,J . GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Co. PURPOSE: Roadway AREA AFFECTED: As now constructed DATED: Julyl28, 1934 RECORDED: October 11, 1934 RECORDING NO. : 2824086 (Covers Parcels A and B) I UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation PURPOSE: Overhead and underground facilities AREA AFFECTED: Portion as described therein • DATED: September 21, 1962 RECORDED: December 18, 1970 RECORDING NO. : 6725195 • Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other activity which might endanger the underground system. (Covers Parcel A) GO ,� Reservations contained in deed recorded under Recording No. 255605, 0388309, 505981 and 4041480, substantially as follows: Reserving all coal, mines and all metals other than clay and shale for making clay products and the right to explore for and mine the same (Covers portion of Parcels A, B an'd C) nt 64 Reservations contained in deed recorded under Recording No. 417501, C substantially as follows: CI 1 Excepting and reserving all coal, (clay, stone, oil and all mineral products and the right to explore for and mine the same (Covers Parcels A and B) 1 Reservations contained in deed recorded under Recording No. 281718, substantially as follows: Excepting and reserving all coal, 'mil, metals and minerals excepting clay and shale for making clay •products and the right to explore for and mine the same (Covers Parcels A and B) I Said instrument was amended by Instrument recorded under Recording No. 6723504 MATTERS SET FORTH BY SURVEY: i DATED: --- RECORDED: January 12, 1993 ' RECORDING NO. : 9301129013 DISCLOSES: . Property corners set and location of ' easementsl • Any questions that may arise relative to the location of the Burlington Northern Railroad right of-way referenced in the captioned legal description. Lack of a means of ingress and egress to a public road due to the location of a railroad right-of-way between the subject property and a public road. There may be an unrecorded revokable private road crossing permit issued, however, it would not be an interest in real estate and therefore not insurableiby the Company. (Covers Parcel C) 1 1 Any prohibition of or limitation of use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rightsjof the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now, or has formerly been, covered by water. (Covers Parcel C) ' i ='IELOPMENT PLANNING nP PENTON UT; , f 1 0 1997 PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 6 AND 9 AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/.4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , LYING NORTHERLY OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 162408, AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 17, WITH THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH 59 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY MARGIN 285. 94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE; THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST 42. 68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST 114 .56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74 DEGREES33 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 134 . 69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST 119 . 34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST 111. 10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 96. 15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST 118 .76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 108 . 28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 66.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST 95.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST 73 . 78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST 182 .89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST 80. 24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST 155.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 06 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST 65.58 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID '1DESCRIBED LINE: SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. rl • • DFVELOPMENT PLANNING EEC 6 EC• � �':� je cei Si Tr / (r �w•r," IJtes..41 /di' , � SW MAP 17 23- 5 ZENTON ,�0 �Q• cy.. 0- 6e MAP eie ��p` �, �tibti SCALE-I°= 100' FEs.�i9,, 4�_• 1325.11 4,� ppty NE9-45-Mf 47.5.95(N 1) --1 o°t 4 t b , / ill"," p ., 14 i -..p,,„, • cApo, j 3��•"I ,. ti� \- �'r bAy' .vim- ��1p11 ,� , w� Rid y - �� 3L 41:11114 e..T6id P.s- 4411 ,0 • 'E 4dyty9 y °ski• e - •-j,Sc �e q R. � P,R 47o sy+.E',p CO. r sb 0s� R --ee p ep F z7o ivy- 4 �- I,. � • OI N•2 por• ).• N.' iSn O k1 1 ''' . ® S- h r 00 Atr �\oAyb r 8 Qr 2• . n52.ziu. o t5a o 30o Z .1 N p Z\;ok* V1 .i CN Y. V 3 I 1 5M •,)�0. n Z t 3.20 �� ` ok m Joo O 40. y,pp0 f- itogaN tm11 = 30 h = 15, c _A.", ° S �___, • ) Ne113,6 %So (h 4-80 A0'8 012 1-89 011• • • _ 1 So0p Rt Lot 2°�ypt1g 1. ,,� tO,,�29�of 3 j11 \-, 1 • to. iSo 4 - • 1 In 28 °,69ktiy •"v 1k'h h r V 14, in 6910,'+Dt * 9'htlk�\• •(t' • , soo N • p�,ti tOa i Ai. (jV 59¢ N 16o •-t�/1sf>t>vL . . . .. . .. . 1.• ER 4. . •- ,0 0 •,‘ • I r. r, ,.. iva, 43 Cr ;1.7.,,—7-—4.,,...„.c. '•43%. V. •Vc-, ';. ' .',/ •,.... . ..,..., 4...,.Z,. .3 e*,./, 4, .4. , 4"-a 1 c 44 f‘.. .„. I 2'.'• g.t" ,.0..,, /o....7.•;, .=7 I • 4,4.4. •,,,, 44, ..‘.-( C.:Z. s.21. . „.•-..?•., a ' s -' .... .N., 6 •.?"---.\,r4., "vav ...... -,•., > • •• S C cL, ••••. .3.>.. ',. 2:.;59 4n, ' ,----, •,... e.,1-sr.,„ Ac. .>i.\\\ T.• \ -. -,... '',I• --- ........‘ ,.....1 '1..f, •,, . % \ •.1/4, I% - \*".. T.,4 \\ a I I \ • '! \ \V \ \ 1 \ • I - I g N.. i I 1.-----, i \ • F,"'''' — ••••• I tv. ,t/ \ '•-•,. \i,i, • •-•.. .,'a I ••••••. • -Ti... , I . -.... •,.. ‘____,* •, v.,..„... "'.,,,.,.. •il,., ,,,,-2.• !.1 /42cZc_ e II AO ok,;,,,4 -- ---- '1 ‘ ect‘..Aeikk r I __.. __ ._ ......... • _ -........ Z•A; 4%,..71111: I .....,, •=4,., c: • , . . ( - -`-'"v 4:1. ..c,---: ) . • • • , • , I 1 , I , I • , riEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF r-1Ft\1-f-n m EEC I 2 1997 . . 1 1 , a a ...,J?i.... 1 riC.7.,—" PFt'C'll'iiV LP , . . , 1 , 1 , 1 i.. t , ✓ t . S.w. q. .7 4. 513-164 Ix0 I • spy. ti� \ N. a� CEDAR RIVER t- fin,,,, \ N n. a t,° r ,� \ n va d `.FP4 \ ax.ce�G��'� ''•c�`'c see-,z. `''%+. to. \ �__ \F.� V. . �ti\ . 6ti 9 R I \ �A 23- %a. \ Ss2. C. 20.39 • c \sc +�� 'r� o '_J • rn w i CV \ ti c11 \ o Z • czt-z. Z ,44'1Q4_, s=,—G I J • 1 i • , is _ f ir*75:--+'•,Y^ _.•i - I. . __ o .r1 DEVELOPMENT PLP}'•- 1 I CITY OFREN' 1 DEC 1 �, I I E V ,.,..urn co: I UU EXCISE TAX rll no. ui—y-29 Cing County Real — �/Il� A7mA/ S•j�Y 'roperty Division 5—A AUG251987 f._.�Pgw.v,,�4 ci�iuNfL QUIT CLAIM DEED L08605.'71 .! THE GRANTOR, ';King County, and in consideration of mutual lbenefits,itical b and iinoconsiderationn of theeoffthesbenefton itsfto be accrued through the provisions of KCC Motion No. 6927 and convey unto the City of Renton, a municipal corpora.t on ofe the s eState of Washington, aifee simple determinable in the following described parcels grant land, situate! in the County of King, of State of Washington: PARCEL A r That � portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 E., W. M., King County, of L7 and lying 'northerly of Chicago, Milwaukee nandiS•t.nge Paul rRailroaderightrofiver ') way. (Being a portion of Government Lot 10 and of the abandoned bed of the Cedar River.) O 0 SUBJECT TO THEIFOLLOWING: QRight of State C lyingRight ofwi Stain eh'effWashingeon, if any, in and to that the Cedar River portiont of said premises Cb ! prior to its shifting; Right of the State of Washington in and to that portion of said premises, if any, lying in the bed of the Cedar River; Right, power, privilege and authority to construct, operate and maintain a sewer trunk line upon'!and over "the shorelands of the second class and bed of the Cedar River, owned by the State of Washington in front of Government Lot 10... included within 'the limits of a strip 20 feet in width having 10 feet of such a width on each ofa line running south 61°08'23" East to the East Bank and North 61°08'23" to they West Bank from a point centeris South 34°40'28" East 2,043.0 feet from ntheeNorthwestf corner theeofrsaideSecwhich tion 22; as granted to the State of Washington by the municipality of metropolitan Seattle., recorded January 13, 1969 under Auditor's File No. 6457798. Easement for river protection and flood control work along the left bank of Cedar River, as granted to King County by instrument recorded January 26, 1966, under Auditor's File No. 5981635. Perpetual easemenit in, over and upon said premises he con , tion and.maintena'nce of a flume and dam for the .purpose tof divertingstruction River overflow waters from Lake Youngs controlling works and pipelines at Molassas Creek, recorded December 11, 1929, under Auditor's File No. 2576179. Reservations contained in Deed: Executed by: Amy ,L. Bond, as executrix and trustee of the last will of Charles H. .Burnett, deceased Recorded: July, 20, 1928 Auditor's No: 2477060 As Follows: Seller'i reserves all mineral rights on said premises Right of Pacific Coast Railroad Company to remove trees interfering with use of its railroad rightjof way as granted by Deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 4660. I An easement for side sewer affectingthe portion of said premises stated herein. Recorded: June 24, 1975 Auditor's No: 7606240570 �� �ti Width: I 15 feet EVELOPfv1FNT� `�' Location: Paralllel to and contiguous with the Burlington Northern Railway GIT"r)F r11--'' right of way, on and across the following described I parcels: 1907That portion of the;SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, lying easterly of the Cedar River and Northerly of the Burlington Northern Railway right of wa ^• e ��rA Government Lot 10 and of.the abandoned bed of the Cedar River)ing a portion of Portion of Government Lots 3 and 8 in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, lying northerly of the Burlington Northern Railway right of way. l Page 1 of 7 4Oi?5 E RCE >":.r:s zrj��T; That portion of Government Lot 2 in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., Northerly of a line beginning at a point on the West line of r '= Government Lot 2, 592 feet Northerly from its intersection with the ', Northerlyllmarginright of way of Columbia Puget Sound Railroad; • Thence No th 85'00'00"• East 159.72 feet; F'• Thence South 84'00 00 East 219:79 feet; Thence Sou1th 42'00'00" East 151.41 feet;Thence South 83'00'00" East 106.92 feet; Thence North 45'30'00" East 147.84 feet; Thence due North 52.48'feet; Thence North 35'00'00" East 369.60-feet; . Thence South 85'30'00" East 283..80'feet;• Thence South 62 00 00 East to the East line of Government Lot 2, EXCEPT portion lying Easterly and Northerlyof a East line North 00 10 line beginning at a point on said 20 Quarter Corner; ° �� East along said line 496:59 feet from' the East Thence North 80'15'00" West 145.40 feet; Thence North 15'00'53" East 166.00 feet;Thence North 79 55 50 West 110.00 feet; Thence North 12°29'25" East along fence line to river; 0). . Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. O. • SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: • 1/1. C Any question that may arise due to. shifting and changing in course of Cedar GO River. O ' • Right of the Statee -of Washington in and to that portion, if any, of the GO herein. described'which lies below the Tine or ordinary high water of, the Cedar ' River. property • Any prohibition or.limitation on the use, occupancy, or improvement of the land resulting from the rights, of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land. • ' PARCEL C • Tract 1 - Gove y rnment Lot 7 and that portion of Government Lot 8 lying i Railway)yinfSectiong22,� Township 23 North, Range Northern ght of Way o5 East,lumbia W. M., PugetSound 1 TOGETHER WITH that portion of meandered Cedar River according to Government Map of 1865, which may have attached by operation of law; situate in the County of King, State of Washington. Tract 2 - That portion of Government Lot 3 Section 22, Township 23 North, ak nge � East, �J. M, y g � 1 in Northerly of Burlington Northern Railroad (Columbia.and Puget Sound.Railway) Right of Way. TOGETHER WITH that portion of meandered Cedar River accordingto Government Map of 1865, which.may have attached by operation of law; situate County of King State of Washington, in the i SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: • Easement and right ;Of way over and upon said property to a bank protection and/or other flood control works, includingt right aodf access over adjoining lands, granted to' King County by instrument recorded under Auditor's .File No. 5152836. EASEMENT AND, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, its Purpose: successors and assigns . Area Affected: ' Temporary construction easement Dated: See copy attached Recorded: June 21, 1968 July 3, 1968 Auditor's File No: 6371926 . Page 2 of 7 ,A - EMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TH�. ,1F: • Grantee: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, its suc- Purpose• cessors and assigns Dated:• Temporary construction easement Recorded: July 2, 1968 Auditor's File No: July 17, 1968 6378196 (Affects Tract 2) EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, its suc- Purpose: cessors and assigns Temporary construction easement Dated: Recorded: August 26, 1968 Auditor's File No: 64 5, 1968 (Affects Tract 2) 640t0mber 2032 Right, title and interest of the State of Washington as to that portion of the property herein described lying. within the abandoned bed of Cedar River,. if any. Cr) RivAny erUestion that may arise due to shifting and changing in course of Cedar N CDAny prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvment of the land • resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters Go which may cover the land. O" Right of the State of Washington in and to that portion, if any, of the property G herein describedlwhich lies below the line of ordinary high water of the CedarRiver. AN EASEMENT FOR SIDE SEWER AFFECTING THE PORTION OF SAID PREMISES STATED HEREIN. Recorded: June 24, 1976 Auditor's No: � 7606240570 Width: 15 feet Location: Parallel to and contiguous{with the Burlington Northern Railway right of way, on and across the following described Parcels: • That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, lying Easterly of the Cedar River and Northerly of the Burlington Northern Railway right of way, (being a portion of Government Lot 10 and of the abandoned bed of the Cedar river): Portion of Government Lots 3 and 8 in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, lying Northerly of the Burlington Northern Railway right of way. d PARCEL`d" _ That portion of Government Lot 2, and the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 22, and of Government Lot 9 and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 23, all in. Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Section 22, with the Northerly margin of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railway Right of Way; Thence Westerly along said Northerly margin to the West line of Government Lot 2; Thence North along said West line 592 feet, more or less, to Cedar River; Thence North 85. East 159.72 feet; Thence South 84' East 219.78 feet; Thence South 42"I East• 151.14 feet; Thence South 83'11 East 106.92 feet; Thence North 45'I0' East 147.84 feet; 1 Page 3 of 7 TE1/QCD3 c Thence North 52.48 feet; Thence North 35' East 369.60 feet; East I Thence South 85'30' ' •'1 • Thence South 62' East 4292feet; feet; i • Thence South 1'15' East 554.40 feet; I • Thence.S.outh 20'40' Nest 526.68 feet to the Northerly margin of the'Columbia 1 and PugeeSound Railway Right of Way; Thence North 76'55' West along said Northerly margin 60 feet to the Place of beginning; TOGETHER WITH accretions thereto.which have attached by operation of law; { I EXCEPT a strip of land deeded to King County for road by deed receded under Auditor's File No. 820283 AND EXCEPT TIa portion thereof lying Easterly of said deeded strip; AND EXCEPTithat oortion thereof described as follows:. I Beginning at the West 1/4 corner of said Section 23; I Thence North along the West line of said Section 23, a distance of 496.59 feet; Thence South 80°15'00" East 197.10 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of abandoned road and the true point of beginning; Thence North 80°15'00" West 197.10 feet, more or less, to the West line of said Section 23; Thence North 80°15'00" West 145.40 feet; Thence North 15'00'S3" East 534 feet, more or less, W:stt:erlifyie:nidn:rolfirlaebaonf- CD Cedar River; Thence Southeasterly along said meander line to the doned road; Thence South 17°16'00" East along said Westerly line 271.68 feet; Thence South' 13°03'00" East along said Westerly line 176.35 feet, more or less, to the' true AND EXCEPT that point of beginning; lf� portion thereof described as follows: Cq A tract of land embracing a portion of Government Lot 2 of Section 22 and a GO O portion of Government Lot 9 of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 N East, W. M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: GO ng at ThenceiNorthII0h20'10"corner alongcommon theoline said commonSections to. said and Government to said Sections a distance of 496.59 feet; Lots and Thence South 79°55'50" East 197.10 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line • of abandoned County Road No. 1244 and the.point of beginning; • Thence North 79'55'50" West 197.10 feet, more or less, to said section line; Thence continuing North 79°55'50" West 145.40 feet; Thence South 14°18'07" West 340.78 feet to intersect a line 320.00 feet ! Northerly of (measured at right angles to) and parallel with the Northerly i margin of the 'Columbia and Puget Sound Railway Right of Way; • Thence South 75°41'53" East along said parallel line 364.02 (346.02) feet to the Westerly margin of the J. E. { Thence Northerly along the Westerly margin Rofdthe J. E. Westerly line 'of said abandoned County Road No. 1244 to thees iRnto and the beginning; point of j AND EXCEPT that portion described as follows: I 1 That portion of Government Lot 2 in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 5 ! East, W. M., described as follows: I , Beginning at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 22, and running thence North 0'20'10"East on the East line of said Section, a distance of 665.14 feet to the poillnt of beginning; Thence North 79'°55'50" West a distance of 211.55 feet, more or less, to a { fence; r . Thence North 121°29'25" East to the meander line of Cedar River; i Thence Southeasterly along said meander line to the East line of said Section 22; 1 Thence South to the point of beginning. 1 9 g. Situate in King County, Washington. I SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: • Page 4 of 7 TE1/QCD4 i 1 I - I EASEMENT, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS �;REOF:. rantee: 1 Ross Vick Purpose': i A non-exclusive easement and right of way for 1 egress, drainage and utilities; ingress,Area Affected: Over, under and across a strip � abutting of land 50.00 feet in width upon the Southerly boundary of property Dated: instrument recorded under Auditor's File No. 607vevyed it Recorded: December 8, 19676304607; Auditor's F February 14, 1968 File. No: 6304607 iEASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 1 I Grantee: King County Water District No. 90, a municipal corporation; I Purpose: Sewer mains with necessaryappurtenances; Area Affected:i Permanent easement Dated: Temporary - Southerly 15 feet; easement - Southerly 50 feet; March 17, 1976 Recorded: April 14 j Recording No: 7604140482 I 1916 Any question that may arise due to shifting + River, and changing in course of Cedar I I Right of the State of Washington in and to that portion, if any, ' Rivern described which lies below the line of ordinary high water of the Cedar Raherer,• • of the property Any prohibition or limitation on the use, resultingofrom the rights of the occupancy or improvements of the land 9 public or riparian owners to use an C� which is now or has been formerly covered by water. Y portion lip UTILITY EASEMENTIANO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 04 Q Grantee: 1Municipality of n N Purpose: I For sewer trunk-line necessaryandi i appurtenances OD Area Affected. I The Southerly 15 feet; thereto; Dated: September 27, 1 Auditor's File No: 6248248 ctober 11' 1q67 . • Government Lot 4 in Section 22, Township`? Situate in the County of King, 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M.; State of Washington. SUnJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: • EASEMENT, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEROF: Grantee: County of Kin - Purpose. ,For rip-rapbank a municipal corporation Area Affected: protection ;Along the right and left bank of Cedar River of property • Dated herein described; • April Recorded: April 6, 1960 • Auditor's File No: 51528429' 1960 question that may any arise due to shifting and changing River. g ng in course of Cedar • Right of the State of Washington in and to that portion, if an f herein described which lies below the line of ordinary high water of the River. Y, o the property Cedar Any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land. TE1/ C I Page 5 of 7 Q 05 • i i °.,-nit dated December 18,. 1961; recorded ember 20, 1961 under King Count elution No. 23587 and Auditor's File I 5366130 w y herein to allow the removal and processing. of sand andgravel,N' Fiorito Company, Reservations contained ,in deed from Northern Pacific Railway Company to Diedrich Dierssen, dated June 5,,1902 and recorded in Volume 298 of Deeds, Page 306, as follows: Reserving and excepting from said lands such as are now known or shall hereafter be ascertained to contain coal or iron and also the use of such surface ground as may be necessary for mining operations and the right' of access to such,reserved and excepted coal and iron lands for the purpose of exploring, developing and working the same. Permit and revocable license in favor of the State of Washington Department of Fisheries'; granted by King County to construct, operate and maintain a fish holding'ipond, according to the terms contained therein recorded under Auditor's File No. 7709150687. The City of Renton, on acceptance of the delivery of this instrument, does hereby agree to the following; which agreement shall be binding on their suc- cessors and assigns, and shall be'a covenant running with the land: To accept the lands described herein and develop, maintain, and operate' that portion of the lands not used for the golf course as sports fields and passive park uses including trails and picnicking; and to initiate such' development within five (5) years from the date of the acceptance of this conveyance; In To reserve mutually agreeable blocks of time for athletic field use by G" sports organiiations scheduled by King County Parks and Recreation Division; public access to the Cedar River for the non-golfing public shall be pre- CD served so that the fishing, hiking, and other water related activities, including those of a passive nature, and other use's of. the County land now Oq existing may be permanently preserved and enhanced; O The City of Relnton shall provide a plant/earth and/or other mutually (0 agreeable safelty screen to protect trail users from "stray" golf balls, should King County acquire and develop a Cedar River trail corridor. Any and all user fees for the golf course, athletic fields, or any other recreational facility or program, shall be at the same rate for residents of unincorporated King County as for the residents of the City of Renton. The lands describes herein are further SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: Deeds of Right to Use and for public recreational purposes as granted by King 'County to 'the State of -Washington, the terms and conditions of which may be found and are contained in said deeds recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 7801060531, 7801060532, and 7809120684. The land described herein is hereby conveyed upon the condition that it shall be used for public park and/or recreational purposes as' provided for in the Deeds of Right to Use for recreational purposes to which these lands are subject. TE1/QCD6 Page 6 of 7 . ;m the breach of these restrictions, ..hole, or in part, the grantor or its successor shall have the right to re—enter and take possession of the • and to hold, own and propertye possess the same in the same manner and to the same extent as if this conveyance had never been made. DATED This 1.8th day of August , '19 87 , I • ACCEPTE ., i ,Sr� KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ayor DATED: ( �7A 1S'1 BY FOR: /c Ti Hi1I y K g County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) [n COUNTY OF KING 1 ss • CD CD On this day personally appeared before me Jerome Saulter to me known to be the Deputy County Executive of King County, Washington, -the • O person who signed the ahove and foregoing instrument for King County for the uses and 9 signed� purposes therein stated and acknowledged to me that he si the same U0 as the free and 'voluntary act and deed of King County and that he was authorized to so sign. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 18th day of August 19 87 . II • n n or the State of Washington, residing at Duvall I • • • • iIf• • • TE1/QCD7 Page 7 of 7 , • 4.: cs•g s •6[A.�t'. • 0,-r•,/ :' ::, a G L. �dl/ Sa�IS�J/' .�;/H?� /'1/ ,z6 'moo/ �Y w • � r' ".,., "� ,, MOS•,rs.6C;It: ry .1 G<'6/2 / / /.i 4 p 0 7L 6 S ,,, '".: .,i: ® 401 ^ ( /IS /v clLP'9L•� Co A IV 6' ag S SY N / ,, i.- `1 , 4 ° Aria (j., G < D _ / ,:� .4 . ti ,try 1F — ill`r 4,1 j. n, JJi _ O11Y00' ain,?! �S,;e S / / ti.< 4. �`a.'�` , fy' 1d;o°68//Oy o> S4'Zg9 // : c '••' '•! pI OB'L6S 30b•02.68 5 ••� / / , • Y-ti. 1 ',k., Sly — / ti r ;i• V •TLL n00 S� J: < N J mod' — .''bf9� �: 0.9>>9 5 — — _ — — — — — l , /';/ lk ,.^ N , o y. •1oA, N i g tt•. (.11 O 1.1 7 'J d,s� 1�C•49 C4i4• .,0 77 r ,\\� by+a6/ c_ .v.4o.'o»r,vC,1 r7c7' A..7, ' 31 ,v0 r , �� 2�•21 12'1 / Fy Jos.>c.rsr :z'4E �g� • 'c r77rc?. , .ct•� E SS 4. -...e.. i..- >'..`•.. ,`. r,• he c'1f'Z.I"' S � ' ,} rhh17,:2 : z " ,.x._ 2'� /-n.14. :�;.�y.isL�M= 1 _ ) uca. . ..., 4 ti sir" !. jUNNV7ci., N1.vv,-i(1iaA7•Ir DEVELOPMENT PLANN!Nc ern/OP n.FNIT(IN ill.t pl 4'if is' . 1ti .. ... \ .. . ._.... ... • •.. ... . , / r,�f • itF PER w I / 1. Lr•. try P l" r` 1 / {s� of Gv \ . . 4<ti o /. 3� 2 i�,e3�n oa o.a�5a, {--� 1333.80 z --- / ✓'��'�o a15� La. h0 REN raw oz D. ai56 F, ft•a "�,: DIKE : , •. / 4 • J /�F p`'s 10.70 d e':r` Ga 0. E` N. / AC. �fS/y7' l t / i /4/li lGA7o^.J Sii[e 0 \ • S,9 69-37 �'.• ,ya' fi :' 0b / \ e ' 9 E • •. (.i•_+�. yh' ../, alp' / / / \a ' / n' CS S Ca/ Sh i59 7L 2/Y.7y � 2 2 ro 69 3a-1l \ ee,72I7271 SZT6 01. / %Gcia w D • o�P t<5 0• / l / �'46.y SON 0r. RQ `3os•"7a" _ 3 .v _ __ 7 I 7• r, _ :1 �i ''N ?:;rig.•;?:Y.„......„ y .s'8-8fi%criy;:i:;4ry .'•:•:a:` ,g� w, !7£{Y•;it:'s. {. .<..f. - ..r.:.,.;4.♦...:•. +;-%3i;.;Y : �g 3:fr 05 •fir.}•;..%:<''G?:'+•''•$ 'G•:.{. % in;{/.• ..•`Z:{•Yo-yS•.%?n•i. :;rh$:•{::{4:..::::..., 'S ii;%``•.'a,'•{y?°••..•;aF,F•$F�'L:;•.+:a,•:x.,�; .d., F •./�YF$:•1.%::%.4.' >:• { ;':i: y'kif>:i>r. , .✓;::ar>.,., .., x•:}}+Y}:;.; i.;'{:;i: .�y{./q;;jKS:;?•• .;a»ckri•':? :.:{:{:••i.{3i?:::y. •:•/s:;:•::::..... i:r.{..,..•;c�''..f K:•, .:. ir•{.:fG•G:•?!iG£{ n.. Spf{f£:} %::}+Y. ;.� . ..F � .{.:.....{.. ..f.. {,. .,•: `:yi .,} :•.{/;{ rf {`•'r (p�� •:.{^::£:?: �•S;7•:5;:;•.w:'r•. ../ . iy: . ,{,r • • . •�)4 ' {i'v7. 'f Gi>�},. �F{t%i':£i' Y>:a: 1,'••t,. .a:•£ �: `' ' ...h' f•. &^ a•/G/ 3f'/Y•gr��y:}fc: %r;:. 4r;:i:l.;:;+.C $ r ;:.'' r ;\ X g ::7 (q... ,'• ! : lii M j pm rLLL �". ?sr•.;;} s`FY}rr':3�t;. _• .. }:?G.,'•.Y•}:' i3 .••.z' �,.: Y:>y/ t^ �::.',%:$'•YSk•:?Sn:;?•\ :,.,•G'•S:N:::2':•%•i:::55• 5x.,•?r' r•`,•:':r` %?t :a• •?',`'•..\' .9%• rl.. '• 2 z . . .,,.„,,afi,t:2:7.L %::!i': :¢: • . .. k` `fi•: `'}.•2•�> C.,�y, S:.�c/�! : r..{,.,,ti,>i...�. '':�GS••• y'F•?� +�}:•\�,�.: k`?'•' `•P. < �<SJvr(�f, '✓•:..:�''(;•> .. i `'y,+:.:•;Sfk,+ it .:ll•: •:•{xt}}:$ fifi:•$3... :`y•:'<::3`i.r.a5a: :>£ • 4: : <¢is •.,by5 r: :,':i ':•2y:Y i'r, N,•y z�•Z?6.., .. ,:F.. ..,Yt`.ys{X ycSy':,f'y�i•T�"J�,?����+�'j�fr r.;,,�`5� :.•} •G{, G:.,' yJ., •:i'.v:' +,!(...., Y,.',.G,:•).,{.A, ,}'fNJ:: �,>' S `, . ./' Yn 'T/.<`� }>:t W ::::::1:4:: % ' J i:t:i • s;;F7:?'!g%:;;'s�z�•zs!kfir; ;: GAi. 3 Fy/i?x: ^. Z_, < r., Y / F•y:: y x • .�}74.,?;.Y2 ¢ J� t/ k/• r(,r.� f.} �•• �qCH....1 . {•{<;y;'..r:y ;• ,.{y,{:��?;t,�',a,•`.�',v;fYk^%.��4a<ta,`•'.'$ S: ''Y. r�4,�/ .{/..krG::ic,.. t� z Z '•U'S'j „,..45.7 .,:::.,,.:•::,..,i..,.:::::,..;•.:::::::. 111.11.0. ,f • "1.:::::ef,; %'; :�'::;';. .. t?\ ii£?;$Sy» �` G=: , ,Y`, dry on ' ia f�1.6 11 H ... ... f .c '1::.: ••:?:;::{Ef•y '•y'k{.`.:�;:: k"�~';t£,. f''�%:::•,••'•,•i>•',!`?•''{Y.>S r :.�'y, 3:,�{� f�3,,� •'';$'` �`p;'�dti:+,'y.,` • f3tf.+,.,.i,/'•., i'ski;+�...:,;7S.,y;`:\i ,�fi �'>��?o-}y'{Y,' �2 Fr•��: ;.:<'$! �? } A• t t3.k•:Y Y�x ;At..� % '� n .t>G` .,1 a• •• O 7 r s{\,.}� i <w <£ .? 4• r2 \v�r•SZ. Qf•*•,r :,t'+• ''% ,r'a, �:'`/ U • G'' iF ,,v . ':y :°s :; 6::i,'. k K>' <• '``. f:z` :F. �a a O §::.%�%>;y'.•r :: )Yr% `.Y.: {...!; . .�sY{:.h.g.1.• ,\•re;`v,3 tiw{.:::5' •': •f ®Lii lid C.9 './%/ < .f G• : Y%.1/,•r+• { '.ft.,), 44 4k.A Path r:••'¢Y'• 4.11 f�rG ,3�Y; fk' afi> /.,..,>.r �''•sj°''?`ytl:v3.,y:*,a.� ;:,25•:/f.v;r:t .:. ;¢y�,',Yy,-}JC\ it➢ a 1; , tlr{: {rfi.Kg{:? :.. #•. i{ k. f ' s,4); y. -0 /t ay !':-$' •,r,.?{/•r �.:.•fir 2{ r ,.?w �.{{.. 2r .. •�::}'•'•;:iln5jf k .•tom:`::;:G ';45.4, •f:;y{•s:t•';Goi.%-?.:y?5.%,..y:{>.,�:::K.'>: v`.{\?t$G' •?` ::?y' 6 1 f. r:,..,,k:}:..%:::r.;; : s0:: ::7ti•.{ i::••X:i i:ii Y+'2¢7:a:••.:••?.,+�,.e{y.Fi...,•7•'' ,•..1.:3% . `�.. I. O i:).h. ", ..r:.; :i lt;•.. ::.{:.�,...:: n.•:y;\\, , .{• k.;; 'tv .G v '\ ".. Lk (may,//w/, \,v:{ .•`.,r.`':'::£• ;.;�:• ..K'•Y. \ .. 0. fi J )wi ` Yr?i :•��:;- .v:).� :?:f:%:''�':?? {r•\:<. }•his..Y' \'�.`• ::�iyi`fi4.\� •.)•i:rr; ::.¢}:....Y..y$U.d:•:S,r;\y.. `i?\.,\?C.. t ••:{';•:��:..•//}: � ::?kk`:•' %#?2 ::C{:�}.ii r;FiS •SSSi•`:v';:?iii,5,•.•:+�ar..2:2Lkh:.2.;; '.{n7`; ?;, �v j I � $;}':%r${y\� ::;{:.:y A":�• 'V:??.n \\$yh}.•:{•Y'^'rP• r~. U;r;>•.'�, '{€:: ;a.,,..ai::{�:£�yr•$ :':;•r,': �.y:S .,,,u.`,f•.t: :{, ;:Zf•vy�(..7}£iF•'' t$•.•f •: :??:}` ,,.:*: ,2<;,t'.;{?. Y;.y: Y YY:4y FkY•:i\'4 ` {.?:<•;• ? {• ; ` • 'y:}:ti.;�{ . a :}:•.? W :t,',• :,,�.•r. �3�, li,,{y::.; -\•G` Y ,�`{.fk�,j \:.f\. �f % :.�:'y" ,:r�,.s;Y.%i.;.�v{y,,ti��: �G$�•t+-`.�•."` ,�-F!,�.:, i.S{..•`r�?rc£::2f=??.t• ,G,f• .C:.� \�: :�::�.f``G:`:}'.^ ;;;::{vk'•< :� YES��;?,• {:i,Y,'�..:.�^w3 X` :F:`atf;:$•.r`;,ti�,.�¢•?. W••;iy •y�• •• r`�O}'• a•` jam:%: !.4; ••�: a.,{.:. , t;{+;J•�: •,`:?•7:`y,�; .t'� ♦ \,:� >V,FL ,,t2;:.,r:.?'yy.3 r .>G. ••!,Y'i!h'�y. ;;.... ;ii.m*\x.; : ..:.:::Z.: i ?`.ri:::.: it ,,;, �: .•/..§E:,w.;'c 4%r,:`?: ...k. {...:i.$•{:{: r\r .F�� i. •:}s.�t'� +.q ,\a\. R� Z ,�, �•7�r�t , ) \ �• k.w`',? s , +�i�J.'`''rF' •{.: Yfi?y „:;•`:?lL .�.,�7: ?;, `;v } M ��\tv '+,Yf•Y•{,.;,.•), :•.O`..S• �• •,./: i ::. a \L. U;a. . ;:}:$`. ei,:t 4!;Y:J:a . s1. •:.C.,.+k:'\ 'f `\•,? 'Y�''{!'rt;{:{:\ '• p•,; •G:. : �. ..\ ,\ ti'\ .';G{` �:{,� ¢...¢ .t„\hjy}�•y ..U?•h.\ h� �:v�l',jj,%'::fS: f•:{�::: 4■1 �11 '' .?y. :.,ch •Z;`y: .§ `a.0,,,,.. w ? {y,+{}{.,:}.a . ?Yt• .a:.!•e.. T • '.<>: r:{••.\\• {.`p%}".�f: ,':.. 3fi•:'r: ry.,.J{`. :; ;4•d•:{•%s. '•ri{ G•,``,Y`).;{:;.�°ri'Z7, ::y:<•?:`a.Y "'•.�.> t:c%$;%$Y!Y} W • {,\.,?Z..a\ •':•`:�>':<Gi.�:.•`.•;"? ?t:?.+,. "••.•�+.`..}•,.`•i:: s.,,a.•. :f ?• t,:}r: 2 w`r$,.. Y� �£},• r�/ ,,.' .4 \�Z/ s'k:iq...:?•t 'f;. a,..kte��?'S;yw•{ ? ?•ti{:k'.FM1i•;{r:.; .K.:pi;?•l ; `2:,;;i:k:r'•:,r�, t�;.), ;G v•'•``Lc,..k.•F�{y�•^{ 1.:>+C g,',� '%/,;f).:;:,.:/. y(�],/�1 <i't:,4;;:{:.tt.. g iyi{i4i:;•'a. .a7\: 'k?•:•Gi•`• •s+'f{.2:•`Y?.'•z4"'a ,`i}i•.,.,{.,7•t,•+j•4�':�:; yz"\.., fi�7�a~;1:..�..:F•,'£}n.�y: Z +`N {:• r.: :S'.,,,{+,:.>, y +.?:`: g. C,,.. •,.. ?g, :C,. 3 .,•A�. bS kG .C..;.,/iSs .:.{1{£{¢N :1 k n''%.•: \`t\\L\\ .: . ia::`` .:•S::i?.`': ,ai•/?i, ' / .�,�',•:5:: :•:!k?.yAli.li i. }.fi{:\{tij"•)?'�,%•:c4•` :' ••,w•,'.t..I;<.4?•i?3:•' :.•.r/•, !'•il :: •{,:., .; ,• / i.G$,' •:y'i;{ W ;¢:• {{:::!r,.2:Z•}i fik,:: }Y..:Li¢Y . a.}<,:ry,;!. 9' .r ;: ''FY!i'%6i%T;;:??;%Y >:{Y %+ <k' ;..f:•:.•,;c:\\.:•:� 7'':?' t• ,92;r. C,,...�:;•lf ��•,{,,•,;; ..Y:. �, {Y ki. /;r ::.:::. J ;:?`'c{G;�. ,?;i:: :::k`�`?C•ry\:• .'; . ''•,%•r••' 1It y $• $ j/{:�</:�•.;:•:Snr•r 0 J'Y//..'.i.::. f%v,.;:;';!: .}`{4„1;�,`y\,.:{} \ :7i% .•,;•7}. v,•p ,h• 0:i:i., . �:V•?`v?,�,} /•G•„;`Yi a`' 1 U'r,¢¢ ti': xiY?7y;;:hYi:t``5 '� ``N`�',.'•' ? r,'r�fl .£%/'• �:£''i.: ::�\v !:¢;{.:%.;;:;1;,�,•i.• `• �r•:"}.vh /CC• /,•;.:,:i .' •' OD n`•:: <iwi- r •. ;>{4. i <?:::. ! .,a;•.fivl ..>S '�:S'::S::ikfi:. •::_.:a ?�R' :/''':: .J¢:i<::' i• 4 r r % �jGY6:..< / ;;laii:Mai•. 1 ate. r---i Z C.:4 J.;.,:,,r:.•:a. ii,;:2 G':`Q•'•:••`,:1••ki• ; •,\'< k .A: '�.�` :n:o-:imad lF' o?y,,!':,y,!;q,. . k' �•//GGi{ i•`•i•:'•:.`?:• `. �yg�,. •)�•0+.•' •ty�.•rJ:!•x�..„�••: i,`:.{.{.yY'<':;:;•:;;;•;%'• '•Srr.!.;.:::::::.... h�l _ 4.1 `':2;'S;•/ii'{{.!•.}}•}:•{'/,.{.\.. ••::T)+::i' .w.,>,<, ;SS':r.; f.;.4..., ,{h '.•.': :<%ir.$4;:::::::::•5:;2%! £`r£x lG:• i :•: • ` 3s :,:'•`• �::?y +\;r3,;a Gt{r'S4'•; {,¢ ./" :S f .,,G}}: '~ . r.:211 CC ►Wr/J, ,fin {. \{ 72 � r'�``�'#<#•`•�%<i'�;2•Y}:•Y}::•:• _ r1 >:F/ :•2Y'r:i+ i:;':;:$Si`, t{.,•\`D.- �`, �F;r,tT •rY.••: {' •.t;{.:: .% ::f;::� S'/' ?:%:}::a! 'k..;y�:2•L./{.,'•.` `;t f l;£�'\'>,:: ,.1%. .Y�t•{+4,..S i:i:•::.;:i $':::: }2{::;;K*.%*...'•,. /rY•..f., I ::i:i :; ?\•:,;,L ''�3 v\.� w^g.�t•;c3r�l6,trrS�tt>.:::r•..::F{{.,,,{:,/y...• .: :,•.y,;!k.•tt }#{''.h�:;�:�:Y:Y.,.L\ ,��)};X.�sf$�.);•SN,;;;i:'t::l:% NaW • .?!r.t h. ik. . .3't;•:�v ,•,)G rtt;g,';<�' S,t�>{! h.'•r >.`"f#•. � '<ff t<<L S, ,:.:w...,r::::1 .42, .<•J•• . \� '•'a .. 2 J.•`.t< �,v 7... ..a:::�•':�.`,2ai•.i>:%2?Y%�'vi�. /:�G.'•:,$i:?#;?y+z .:.�• .2; '<;��q'y���/ } }..;:,¢,{.S;,..�,v. :a}}}F.•:.;.).:: ::.t:{a: .,?..:¢f}:a2.i T.1 `�-^l uJ ••• • f ' 4 ( < 'J� ...............,:„:„::::::::„.„:„.....•., ., k.�..4 •\. ..�/:poi:�Z•. �". �1 �{•::r;.:•YS}o-:.:):S:}7••Y::i7iJ� �:1➢;' x ,�:.� /:.. .:.y.22t. a. ':?Y���<''iL%i;•.:; ; ,:., .,� .•:::.,.:0:r':Y:„..,!i i{' s:' iP •:f.., .,/ ,;/.::.%y,?.} k..a)> 'k.yt.. ..G..a:.r•:::;;•:.•:,.•:.):.}?ea4r,•S}' ,,, '�, rI'`y r.J:::::.:+'{v.£i'Cv:.v•.,. ''.Y'I f. ?'Y. L!k'<£S{'�:•Y::. $;,;i;::?'r,.i ir:�:%{!.: ^' pEl (i./ •i � . .Y >�•S:Y• .:!/;{.;. :f•}:,:5^.::::.S:,i'•, ;1. J F• )�%i?;i2${?:Y:.:.;; •✓..i••- l -:f7f//•::./i2;! :'"••;r •/ ¢//.;;Yk:'}::?,k;Si;v'.S<,a].,t Xf' ..--.. /.� s.... iIcV ' :'i::'Y.•.'1.`-`'Y<i}r.,;;:.:$ ii:Y: :..../. L ICE U g . i$• ;. Y,.,•:•.'{7/.;r}F;•:. •`:::?•Y.fF :n / : : ; i::f•j . {•.`< •%^:a::7 n•:: : ` Rtr��� ''' .!:Y:.;{,,'/r.•:}:.r /:G::}:.::, J:Y`••}:•::•.: .��;Y:'�✓�:i..y}yiFrs { :: }F./,:,{/..,/,.Y•::}::z G: ..%tY..;fy,. AJIi::$:.}:�':•. .}fln S:aC.:F2 :......::.•. F::.F.hW.... L re.TIT ofd4+ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY iA, SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS . :�T1,e��--� y 1 P.O. BOX 3755 { Ca 'M1����t:"l ; ;'I SEATT L E,WASHINGTON 9 8 1 24-225 5 G T. O . REPLY TO 'sr�1TE5 OF NTION OF I I EN-PL ZIA. 2 1e7 Ron Straka __ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Fourth Floor . 200 Mill Avenue South . -. Renton, Washington 98055-2189 Dear Mr. Straka: As you are aware, the Corps of Engineers is about the complete the feasibility phase of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study, which is cost-shared with the City of Renton: Enclosed with phis letter is the final Detailed Project Report and final Environmental Impact Statement. The selected alternative is the minimal dredge alternative which will require dredging an average of four feet below the existing river - , bottom combined with modifications to the south Boeing bridge, the construction of levees and floodwalls and necessary mitigation measures both on-site and upstream near the Maplewood Golf Course. The Corps' fullyfunded feasibility cost estimate for _ construction is $8.515 million. Basted on the current estimate, the local share is 47% of the construction cost. If, this cost estimate were to rise above approximately$10 million, this project may not be allowed to remain-in the Section 205 program. Approval ' would be required under the General Investigation-authority. The reason for this limit is that in the Section 205 program, the federal government cannot provide more than $5 million and the local sponsor cannot pay more than 50% of the total project costs. - j Therefore, $10 million is the maximum amount that this project can cost without having a separate approval requirement. __:.4 The Corps considers the $8.5 million estimate to accurately estimate the cost of - construction. However, the modifications to the south Boeing bridge are an unknown factor and even with large contingencies built into the cost estimate, it is possible that 1. costs could increase. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Linda Smith, of my staff, at (206) 764-6721. ---] ,--- 77. 7----,- ...- J. Steve $ster Chief, anning Branch I enclosure 1 — d CEDAR RIVER, RENTON, WASHINGTON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY DETAILED PROJECT REPORT • • Corps of Engineers, Seattle District North Pacific Division • June 1997 ,I � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is submitted under authority of Section 205 of The 1948 Flood Control Act as amended and in accordance with ER 1105-2-100. The City of Renton (Renton), by letter dated 4 February 1993, requested Federal assistance in reducing the flood damages along the Cedar River within the City of Renton. The Boeing Company (Boeing), which has a manufacturing plant at the mouth of the Cedar River producing 737 and 757 jet aircraft, supported this request by letter dated 26 February 1993. This report addresses the need for and desirability of undertaking a plan to reduce the flood damages along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River within the City of Renton, specifically along Renton Airport and the Renton Boeing plant. Under current conditions, portions of the left bank of the lower mile and a half of the Cedar E River are overtopped during the 1.6 year recurrence interval flood (2,600 cfs) Flooding over the right bank occurs at a 23 year event,(8,000 cfs) for the Boeing property and between the 2 and 5 year event for the adjacent city park. Two bridges owned by the Boeing Company span the river within the study reach. The northern bridge, at Lake Washington, does not significantly affect flooding in Renton during most flood events. However, during flood events greater than the five year recurrence interval, the south Boeing bridge traps large amounts of floating debris and requires constant effort throughout the duration of the flood event to maintain maximum flow capacity beneath the bridge. The bridge deck and structure, also suffer damage during floods, primarily resulting from logs and other debris impact and from flood fighting efforts during debris clearing operations. In November 1990 a 50 year recurrence interval flood event(10,409 cfs) Occurred on the Cedar River. Flood damages for . the study area during the event were estimated at about $8 million. Historically, the Cedar River flowed into the Black River and drained into Elliott Bay by way of the Duwamish River. In 1912 a private waterway district dredged a channel connecting the Cedar River to the south end Of Lake Washington. From the 1950's to the early 1980's, Renton regularly dredged the Iower mile of the Cedar from the mouth to the Logan Avenue Bridge to a maximum depth of ten feet below the present channel bed to maintain channel capacity and improve flood capacity. In addition, until the late 1960's, a sand and gravel operation annually removed significant;quantities of gravel from the Cedar upstream of I-405 (RM 2). Renton reduced the amount of dredging quantities in the 1970's and discontinued dredging in the early 1980's because of difficulties obtaining permits and the difficulty accessing the river because of the Boeing Bridges. The river bed has been steadily aggrading since that time. The Cedar River system supports important runs of anadromous fish, including chinook, coho, and steelhead, and the largest sockeye run in the continental United States. Salmon generally use the project area as a transportation,corridor although there is moderate spawning by {` sockeye in the reach. The lower mile of the Cedar is the primary spawning area for longfin Ga smelt in the Lake Washington basin. li i i Historical sedimentation rates and records of sediment removal from within and from upstream of, the study reach indicate that the channel is clearly aggrading over time. To evaluate the future condition of the channel if no dredging is performed, a sediment transport model was utilized. Results of the sediment transport model predict that the channel will aggrade to such a degree that in less than 20 years the river will generally flow across the airport. Flow capacity under the south Boeing bridge will be reduced significantly and the open area under the bridge may become completely blocked by debris and sediment, which will force flow to pass over the airport runway on the left bank permanently. Channel bed aggradation throughout the study reach will also result in increased flooding within the portion of the channel which flows through the center of downtown Renton. Aggradation of the channel and possible avulsion to the airport runway area would seriously impact or eliminate salmon and smelt spawning in the lower portion of the river, and could pose a threat to salmon migration. Structural and nonstructural alternatives were examined to address the flood damage reduction objective of the study. In evaluating these alternatives, legal, financial, policy, social, economic, engineering, and environmental criteria were considered as well as public and agency input. The most likely without project condition is assumed to be the channel 10 years into the future. This reflects the likelihood of some spot dredging by Renton to limited portions of the channel if a Federal project is not constructed. Five alternatives were evaluated in detail: the no action alternative and four alternatives to provide 100 year protection. Alternatives to provide greater than 100 year protection were also considered. All alternatives combined various depths of dredging (maintaining the 1995 channel, four foot dredge depth, six, and ten feet) with levees/floodwalls and modifications to the south Boeing bridge. Levels of protection throughout the dredge cycle were also evaluated. Various dredge frequencies were considered as well as varying levels of protection. All alternatives included modifications to the south Boeing bridge to raise it above the water surface,during flood events. Evaluation of potential debris blockage of the south Boeing bridge showed that the bridge structure could not withstand the design condition of complete blockage and subsequent overflow. The sediment transport computer model was used to evaluate dredging programs selected in each of the alternatives that involved periodic dredging of the channel. The model predicted that all alternatives required significant redredging of the _._ channel approximately every 3 years. The Corps also evaluated an overflow section for the left bank at the airport, extending from the south Boeing bridge to the mouth of the river. The overflow section would insure that for E events greater than the 100 year recurrence interval flood overtopping would begin in this area (just prior to redredging). During events larger than the 100 year flood, the overtopping along the left bank would reduce pressure along the right bank and provide incidental additional protection to right bank structures and facilities. However the primary benefit category would be to reduce damages to flood protective works for events of this magnitude. The level of protection for the right bank has not been quantified, but is estimated to be between the 100 year and 150 year flood event (prior to redredging). Other alternatives were not evaluated in detail for this study because they did not meet the project objective. Such alternatives included: ii • I I • Operational changes at or modifications to the City of Seattle's water supply project at Chester Morse Dam were not feasible for this study. This alternative is being pursued separately by Renton, King County, and Seattle as part of the implementation of the Cedar River Basin Plan. The dam has,limited!storage capability for flood control because of physical limitations and the impact of flood storage on water quality and water supply. Corps studies in the 1980's showed that even with flood control at Chester Morse Dam, a flood project would be needed at Renton to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. • Nonstructural alternatives were not suitable for the project reach because of high residual flood damages. • A settling basin (sediment trap) alternative was evaluated but eliminated because of the rapid filling rate predicted by the model, which showed that the basin would become filled within one flood season. The basin also had the potential for increasing predation by creating a large Iake-like environment for predators. it • Wingwalls that restricted the low flow channel width, with the intent to increase channel scour, was also eliminated from further consideration, based on the model's prediction of an insignificant decrease in total dredging requirements over time. • An alternative considering the removal or setback of levees upstream was not successful. It did not significantly increase the channel capacity of the Cedar outside of the immediate levee location, nor did it reduce sedimentation rates. • Channel widening or an overflow channel in the project area was not feasible because of high real estate values. This alternative provided little additional capacity because of the flat channel gradient • Upstream sediment control was not sufficient to reduce the need for channel dredging. Sediment sources are scattered throughout the basin. The recommended project includes dredging'of the existing channel to a minimum depth (4 feet below the 1995 bed profile) and construction of levees and floodwalls to provide minimum protection against the 100 year recurrence interval event with at least 90 percent reliability, just prior to redredging. Periodic dredging (every 3 years) will be required to maintain the j rq design level of protection, based on regular bed elevation surveys to'determine the amount of i , aggradation since the previous dredge cycle. Immediately after a dredge cycle, the project reach would provide up to a 200 year recurrence interval flood protection with 90% reliability, which would decline until the channel'iaggrades to the maximum allowable bed elevation to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. The estimated average level of protection over the project life is 150 year. R � iii v G I The project would require a total of 3620 linear feet of steel sheetpile floodwall averaging 7 feet above the existing ground surface on the left bank from RM 1.07 to RM 0.41. __ Downstream of RM 0.41 to the mouth of the river, a berm 4 feet high with 4 horizontal on 1 ;. vertical (4H:1V) side slopes will be used to avoid conflicts with Federal Aviation i^ .'= Administration (FAA) safety zone restrictions for the airport. A riverside trail will be raised 3 feet from RM 1.07 to RM 1.23 upstream of Logan Avenue. Switching to the right bank, a levee that varies between 2 to 7 feet high with 3H:1V side slopes will be incorporated into existing park landscaping. A riverside trail will be raised 3 feet and continue upstream of the park to RM 1.23. The river channel will be dredged 4 feet deep (below the 1995 streambed profile) from the mouth to RM 1 (158,000 cubic yards). The dredge depth will slope up to the existing gradient upstream of Logan Avenue bridge to reduce headcutting. A hydraulic jacking system will be provided for the south Boeing bridge to lift it above the water surface during _ major flood events. Closure structures will be located at each end of the south Boeing bridge to provide for a continuous level of protection when the bridge is in the raised position. The controlled overtopping section of the left bank levee/floodwall system will extend from the south Boeing bridge to the river mouth. Dredge materials would be disposed of at an upland _ site owned by Renton, approximately 2 miles upstream of the project. Sediment transport analysis of the selected project design indicates that maintenance dredging may be required as often as every 3 years to maintain the design level of protection. The recommended design was selected from a range of alternatives with varying degrees of environmental impact. Selection of this design was based on the ability to provide the most effective level of protection while causing the least environmental impact to the river and . riparian habitat. The environmental impacts of the project have been avoided and minimized by the selection of a minimal dredge depth to reduce increases in the backwater effect from ' Lake Washington. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated by: 1) the planting of vegetation along both banks to provide habitat and food sources for fish and wildlife; 2) the construction of a spawning channel for sockeye salmon upstream of Renton to mitigate for Iost spawning habitat and likely increased predation on salmon smolts; and 3) the addition of large woody debris to the river in the vicinity of the spawning channel for chinook salmon rearing to i compensate for increased predation. Initial and maintenance dredging activities will be limited to June 15-August 31 to reduce impacts to salmon and smelt. Monitoring will be conducted for 5 years following construction of the project to insure the success of mitigation measures. The total construction cost, based upon the fully funded cost estimate for construction during -- 1998, is estimated at $8,515,000. The local sponsor's share would be 35% of the project costs up to the $5,000,000 federal limit, under the section 205 authority, and 100% of the costs over this amount. The local sponsor's share is estimated at $3,999,000 and the Federal portion would be $4,516,000 (reconnaissance and feasibility study costs totaled $484,000 resulting in a $5,000,000 federal investment). The federal share represents 65% of total project costs up to the federal limit, with no cost-sharing on additional costs. These estimates are based upon the (- cost sharing and financing requirements as contained in the Water Resource Development Acts _ ,R of 1986 and 1996, and Public Law 99-662, November 1986. The recommended plan has average annual benefits of$7,797,000. The average annual costs, based on October 1997 prices and conditions, evaluated at 7.375 percent interest rate over the 100-year economic analysis period, including allowance for operation and maintenance, amount to $1,390,000. iv 1 Thus the recommended plan has net benefits of$6,407,000 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 5.6. Renton would be responsible for operation and maintenance of the proposed project, which would include levee and floodwaIl maintenance, maintenance and operation of closure structures, bridge operation, and maintenance dredging. Average annual maintenance dredging costs, using a 3 year dredging cycle discounted at 7.375% are $740,000 ($2,387,000 every third year). Maintenance of levee and floodwalls is expected to be $8,000 annually; bridge maintenance for flood structures is expected to be $6,000 annually. This detailed project report (DPR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are submitted for review and approval. Assuming a July 1997 report submittal to higher authority and relatively quick acceptance of the report, the plans and specifications phase could start in October 1997. Seattle District could receive construction approval in March 1998, and actual construction could occur between June 1998 and June 1999. In-water construction will be accomplished in the period from 15 June and 31 August to avoid adverse fishery impacts. ir V • • i ! 1 i + CEDAR RIVER AT RENTON, WASHINGTON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY '° -{ DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS , Paragraph i Page Executive Summary i-v Table of Contents vi-ix SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1 . 1.01 Authority 1 1.02 Study Purpose and Scope 1 1.03 Flood Control Needs 1 1.04 Dredging History 6 1.05 Pertinent References I 6 1 SECTION 2. PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA 7 2.01 General 7 2.02 Criteria. a. National Economic Development Criteria 7 b. Environmental Quality Criteria 8 c. Regional Development Criteria 8 d. Other Social Effects Criteria 9 I SECTION 3. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 9 ' 3.01 Plan Formulation Approach 9 3.02 Plans Eliminated from Further Study 9 +_ 3.03 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail 11 3.04 Alternative A - No Action 12 i -'- 3.05 Alternative B - Existing Channel Depth 13 13 3.06 Alternative C - Minimum Dredging 3.07 Alternative D - Moderate Dredging 18 i * ' 3.08 Alternative E - Deep Dredging, 18 1 d.. I: I3 1 . �ti 1 I 1 I% i r7 vi i Page SECTION 4. THE RECOMMENDED PLAN 19 4.01 Recommended Plan, Alternative C 19 4.02 Description of the Recommended Plan 20 4.03 Design Features 20 a. Dredging Depth 20 b. Levee Construction 21 c. Floodwalls 21 d. Bridge 21 e. Closure Structures 21 f. Erosion Protection 22 g. Interior Runoff 22 h. Hydraulic Design 22 I. Park Features i 23 4.04 Relocations 23 4.05 Real Estate 24 ,._ a. Description and Acreage 24 b. Navigational Servitude 24 c. Public Law 91-646 and Acquisition 24 c.-- d. Estates 25 e. Real Estate Cost Estimate 32 4.06 Environmental Impacts of the Recommended Plan 32 ' 4.07 Mitigation Plan 32 • SECTION 5. COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE 34 5.01 Project Cost Estimate 34 5.02 Operation and Maintenance 34 5.03 Design and Construction Schedule 36 SECTION 6. ECONOMIC EVALUATION 37 6.01 Purpose and Scope 37 6.02 Location and Description 37 6.03 Existing Flood Protection 39 va 6.04 Without Project Conditions • 39 6.05 Project Benefits 43 6.06 Alternative Project Costs 45 — 6.07 Plan Optimization 46 6.08 Project Justification 48 6.09 Risk and Uncertainty Evaluation 49 6.10 Assessment of Local Sponsor's Financial Capability 50 • vii • Page SECTION 7. COORDINATION 51 7.01 Coordination Framework 51 7.02 Coordination with Key Agencies 55 7.03 Coordination of Report j 57 r- SECTION 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 8.01 Conclusions 57 8.02 Recommendations • 57 i r." FIGURES WITHIN THE DPR Number Description 1 Vicinity Map 2 2 The Cedar River Basin 3 3 Study Area 4 4 Historic Cedar Drainage 5 5 Inundation Map 14 6 Dredge Profiles for All Action Alternatives 15 7 Schematic Overbank Flooding with Project 16 8 Project Map 17 Exhibit A Real Estate Map 26 Exhibit A-1 Mitigation Site 27 Exhibit B Assessment of Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability 28 Exhibit C Certification of Lands 29 Exhibit D Attorney's Certificate of Authority 31 APPENDIX A Coordination Letters & Financial Plan (with Detailed Project Report) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDICES TO THE DPR (Bound Separately) B Hydrologic C Hydraulic D Project Features E Project Costs F Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report • ed viii ! a - I TECHNICAL APPENDICES TO EIS A Stream/Riparian Habitat Mapping and Distribution of Sockeye Salmon Redds in 1995 and 1996. B Predation on Sockeye Salmon Fry By Piscivorous Fishes in the Lower Cedar River and Southern Lake Washington [1995]. Report by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. May 1996. r C Predation on Sockeye Salmon Fry by Cottids and Other Predatory Fishes in the Lower Cedar River, 1996. Report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Army Corps Engineers, Seattle District. November 1996. D Distribution of Longfin Smelt (Spririnchus thaleichthys) Eggs in the Cedar River, Washington [1994]. Report by Harza Northwest to the City of Renton. September 1994. E Lower Cedar River Section 205 Longfin Smelt Study, Final Report [1995]. Report by Thomas Sibley and Richard Brocksmith, UW, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. April 1996. F 1996 Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) Spawning Survey in the Cedar River and Four Lake Washington Tributaries. Prepared by Merri Martz, Jeff Dillon, and Paulinus Chigbu. Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 1996 G Lower Cedar River Section 205 Study, Aquatic Invertebrate Study Final Report [1995]. Report by Thomas Sibley and Richard Brocksmith, UW, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. May 1996.' ix I I ' I ` :: '; SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1.01 Authority. This Detailed Project Report is submitted under authority of Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act as amended and in accordance with ER 1105-2-100. The City of Renton (Renton), by letter dated 4 February 1993, requested Federal assistance in reducing the flood damages along the Cedar River within the City of Renton. The Boeing Company (Boeing), which has a manufacturing plant at the mouth of the Cedar River producing 737 and 757 jet aircraft, supported this request by letter dated 26 February, P1993. 1.02 Study Purpose and Scope. The report is a final response to the Section 205 study authority. This report addresses the need for and desirability of undertaking a plan to reduce flood damages along the Cedar River within Renton. The Cedar River drainage basin is located southeast of Seattle, Washington and lies entirely within the boundaries of King County. (reference Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The basin is approximately 40 miles long, has a maximum width of 10 miles, and drains 188 square miles into Lake Washington at Renton. (Reference Figure 2, Cedar River Basin). The City of Seattle operates a water supply system on the Cedar River utilizing Chester Morse Lake at Masonry Dam (rivermile 37) and a • diversion at Landsburg (rivermile 21). A joint City of Seattle-Seattle City Light hydropower facility is located at Cedar Falls (rivermile 34). The study area is within the lower 1 1/2 miles of the Cedar Basin (reference Figure 3 Study Area). The channel in the study area is an artificial channel constructed by a commercial waterway district in 1912 to connect the Cedar River with southern Lake Washington. Historically the Cedar entered the Black River, then flowed into the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay (reference Figure 4, Historic Cedar Drainage). The Renton municipal airport, various public buildings, and a Boeing airplane manufacturing plant are all located in this area. Two Boeing bridges•used for transporting jets between the manufacturing hangars and the airport span the Cedar in the lower mile, and the Logan Avenue bridge is located at rivermile 1.07. Williams Avenue, Wells Avenue, Bronson Way, and Houser Way bridges span the Cedar upstream of Logan Avenue, and the Renton library is located at RM 1.52 over the main channel. Renton has a city park and a trail system on the east side of the river adjacent to the Boeing property, and a trail on both sides of the river from Logan Avenue to the library. 1.03. Flood Control Needs. Flood producing flows on the Cedar River occur from October • through March and are generated primarily from maritime rainstorms and snow melt. In November 1990 a large rainstorm hit the Cedar basin, resulting in widespread flooding. The Cedar River reached the highest level recorded at Renton since 1945 and the third highest recorded at Landsburg (RM 21) since 1895. Basements of City Hall and adjacent buildings were flooded, and flooded runways forced the city's municipal airport to be closed to air traffic. Sediment accumulation on the river bed exacerbated the flooding. Sedimentation has reduced the channel capacity, particularly since Renton ceased periodic dredging of the channel in the 1980's because of difficulties obtaining permits due to new environmental regulations, channel access, and cost issues. 1 ice- "_._-—— -._.. / Legend . Lakes ..-.) \ . • /\/ Cedar & tributaries ,L Tr -v;' . . . .• - . . - . . - - Cedar River basin :- •-' ;' .,,.• County boundaries ;�__ KING COUNTY :' 4 • fair lie " ■. . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : . . . : : . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - `-attle Bellevue ?: " • r alto -- = tll■mbll i `�� y` - _ . a. . 1,43 Y- lens j 0.-Cs4 -:; Washington •- j _ i . r. r . wiry_4s�. r W- :A: S . . N . . :G T; p: N Rent ,* )4 • Vashon 1 Island _ _ y s72 - ;-r , ,.,_ 1 1 i <:.^ ' '• _x,'it _ r--;:sue _ _ .:�`�..._�;, -J @ai.%,js'�•�_ � ry{- . i'r.;v :fir'. „_..:My,... ���'aC•r-,'•.' �.,, 7 ii?^7., r:r�•: V"�. •��r� 'Ps. ,-�•'c4 y�.1 .� _. Yn:` .'.:+yJr' +. • �Y-�'c-Sr•• .F'•:I' J'��•• Y"1.. .j�Sw t.; _ Y-L. '!f •-.e+. r.- :Y'�':•-�"'.- 7�.n;;�.,5-.mow+- Kernt :zf :r &' `- � ;-'.• • 'e:.t r,�- '3%'ry -17,vy�:s ��r�.. ,�4-'?1.::**.•..:.' ._2'`rs�'.y7;,..`'-"'s`�.:..:�....:,x^'•a � p.. _ �. , :;;J'; _;:.:. -k ' �:,ems. s,__�..._. ,'r;9-,:4-?�:-. K 1•T T I T•A'S • i r• - - .�,�:,�'%.:e^.�,[ir"'' e �-air•- %4;�:�?`-i�•r:� `w ,�r.:�'�„}. ; :•:T:_�r'�:; `� -- --- - -- �'0 V--lr-1 Y - — - ---- •\ • . . . . : - Auburn: : . : : . : : . - , . - . . -r :. - . _ • _ ;• .,. 1 a:,._ ` x �..;:: ;`:V • 1 . . 'Tacoma' L ---------'-- - . . . N A" . . :i . . . . . . • • . . . . . . ; • P I E R'C E COUNTY. ,� -.,. . . _.+ f� . _ - ; .. ••1..�,_ . . . . ..9. .`.`.\ . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . :f . . . - . . . - - . . . - . 4 0 4 8 Miles -- • : : : ;...---_._Y . Sources River information obtained from Washington Rivers Information System (WARTS) database, L:: Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) and T1994 TIGER data, US Census Bureau. -',.-.. _ Figure 1 4'� _ - h b undernbod that art the Corps of Enpineera and irdormation City boundaries, wetlands end addFtional data provided -• 1':; US Army Corps of Engineers ft kl un, nsto no indutien a tenon to beta in etzt there■re by?Ong County. Wetland data is tional available inaccuracies in information incorporated in the baseman,THE CORPS AND RS for the lower basin only. • Seattle Districty �'•�,-i SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND.INCLUDING BUT NOT UNITED TO "`''•�"' • Date: 2/4/97 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE.NOR ARE ANY ViCinitY MaP SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION,DATA.OR - Preparers LDD SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. .. ... -- f .•• •_-_.. .: -s- - Cn ..f....._.Y,sOc...nraiCcn_c- .w-..n..s.v.a.4..^...,- --.._----._- • t . Legend L �;;---- : - _------------------ ------ - . ---- _ --- : : _- Lakes --•--:). ''• • • • • • • • • • :.:,.: -i /�/ Cedar & tributaries Cedar River basin , : : : . : - County boundaries. • 4 ICING COUNT.Y. a `-attle Bellevue ' mtmartllsh .- • - t 3.. • 7 • — • • G W. :AS RI N r O - Ne,,44R W hnwn▪ � • • Island :� '_ z` `:.a_ • .-- 1 .<;w- ``r'...n._<.i.,"�. rrz�=n" .x'•: °• -- '"'tir c 1S•lt- ...1 -, fi" =.... .: 171, • s. �: _ Kent ^eys wt;: _':1, :-.4..- .!-...," v,,,,,_ ., ;, -,., , ' ip? 3:; :i. :, �4' a-,:..• r"Y':. : :>N^-.-..' fit:?n•-'• - - - __ -•�-�•�r�� c: ,�•;_; ' �-.'�_�:::- _rt:�u .<:::�.�sf� � ,•e:.;..-�.::�-..-;_;•.� K 1-T T I T'A'S - • -_ — •— - - - - _- - ■ - -- - - _ -eir''3v _ ', I.., .n (= :t', •'• ^•n"µ'me=`w.y2 4 ' rs" •s. Auburn: . . . =�="-= _ _ = << '`.::; - �coma�Ta - • N A P I E R-C E COUNTY. • . . ;", . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . : : : _ _ ' --' . . . . ... J -. . t . . 4 0 4 8 Miles °,f i . . . . `�., -=ter• - : . �� .; Sources River information obtained from Washington Rivers Information System (WARTS) database. u�` Washington Department of Wildlife(WOW) and ..L 1994 TIGER data. US Census Bureau. Figure 1 c r~ EiriEUS Army Corps of Engineers his unde.ataod that,rye the Corps of Engineers and i�wmt6on City boundaries, wetlands end additional data provided ':`:: c suppliers isend have no iat,uhUe or tenon to behave ehat the.e■n: by King County. Wetland data Is available Seattle District SUPPLIERS in inform@on incorporated in the baaemaK THE CORPS AND ITS for the lower basin only. y�;.i SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ViCinitY --,•:'- - Date: 2/4/97 WARRANTIES OF MERCWWTABIUDY OR FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR USE,NOR ARE ANY MaP ,`=` Preparers LDD SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT 1D THE INFORMATION,DATA,OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. • co �L illf II cts }+ vrx�Ya I S -y.4IeV4� ^^f*l ars,, `:, •+i`1 a�.ii.';i'' Qj C' `,�''.::+fit; 4,!1.1s. • b a ati b L Cl) L'� MHA::°j'f ,1..'.I>, 1{F.,',':i+.• '''.I':':,5�e '•i;iF''.!1{ 0 V CIS0 VJ ;�}�;l�.ft1.}jI�ct•i .f.,�7('r.� .0,F,t a� 4--, Cl) as .„ ai.' r\ji;: r m u� • $y 'T� i:�'•, p V' ,:rfi'i%atlrr•eli;eid; +ri t'r:. su:::•.. .•,'+, S of S q CD N N �x�,,r...rr'' «:,.: ;;: y a• .b°31 das .}Yors,,}'Ftf:i?,),. V:•,...tf'y,T,,,,,a„6'' :.: i;F'. a,t't".t,cc 6j[a1s.,i/ () CC .._I 0 rtV r4'4.1 y' .A., .,i.£y.tr:.r ,rl��•:!.6 ::\,,:li�•'`,t�.'•.. C UJ b p /C cn,;f`i i,,j•:. r;:r.*jtSv�' srd i'%7 'r;�;:;',•'.^+•a •sx- 83 U ?.` ,'�i r. is },1� ''.. t..•., .•1'.l t , 'C ti Ga {CAy= 'LX�,' r'';''',101'''�• 's." ':: :vi a.l4 J,P:4•; ^y•:C•,.Sr '2:t" z1.0 s • •cL•�.zy;'.` ^'\'f ,f. y t ?#: , ,q.,:4 ',�'ta pa (!� r.•. i t Ko, s . /�� ri ur'{'HS�y,F�1 r:;;:•jhu,r'�. � F� ,afi'I'r„'�. ,:.i '! >,d^ '� :fi.a"J,-,t(rj•4'S a,!r;'" i ;!'''',•d(' '1�jti{;., ':,.. ,,, • ...oa,x,r`'•.'i+'ra i%: ,`S?r..yt:r .a '` ,l' :�afa•f :i cio .;�i�y^:?i,4:?' r,}'t,.'.jh,, .„4 .,7,..'.';t mil-i'. ',i;• ror,.., r a\� ii f ` a yr,,,. .#! '"r' ' t,, N -{:}' ..a 7 tra cr { an r J t , r -,. 'k\i' ,C ,y,y 5 r 1,4 4 ,,1 y :,t�Alt,.0..., riP 'rkey'4{!,>'''°:1:� "(('#"i 7•».,cJ: :.',i;:.:. N}•r O 'Y;§v1 i4. •/S}'.i,St}{,rss,,. ..5, :n''tia,Y.'s;:'i :�x'ri:"'ti:'~ :i'' Y jri ' ,,'3 i' r.yfr; r(. r ,..•.ap" '•`%1:'(f•",' t•' �3 yam.,i'.1'.,q� � a,.•,`:t.�j y:a{:,;, r 0s',V ,T%.R 3':t{ +ct7.gr':4:3+,•r1.4,4 is "::i:.•Y..*'''''p co _4.4414 V 2>Y1. .r., `s Xd, 6„• r 5..`vr7is .,.Y( �.:r,. 5?ti. -4' •.,' 1, ����a 'r.te tkx4,•"-,1 ^s `�. al•' y1S�fi'.>.'. 4;i a t':`K C • may, �i 4 ,e �. ;i:, +10 Pik t •�`, }e'';''T}n1.,j', ; ■ FC !.t,.�, t',s t,S,�•i!.a,^.I,:?!'r- 7t,' ,gi tAa.'``1�1,''.:,...,',.4, '' COt) N ,a,': c'�3sr, ' w 4 r; `7�4a!:•y.„ 't& v/w�i9r11-^7qu,„. < V 4 s'n'T,�'try 1i4.; i ti dr?fv'`' {y su6nhG:?rr1 4f�rrPJ>;4a� t r�M1ft t� ` i ^„ N l j '' t ,{,5%ry01 '?;,•t.1`•':'•.fit,�; r !., raa .':',` :,�i,1:{; • `F',/,,� t'�ar¢�.{ti M1.fa (I 1 t^� y ll:�..Sy • wt.'i'^' ><R•: '} :,�-',�'f u,n1.'.¢, •L F .ii':,,.1"•,t�d'� •';}hi��,';Sv4'e.„1,'.y':.. f'fa '..}:. :'1>ri:�'F ;G(•'T`:;u`q :r] '�t:!:i:'t'ii�F+•• ,,w4":•�, 1%-�'s':4•c�!:,;•11 '=+.r l? ''efvi r q,,G. tt•.�:f',�r s' • rlStn � A'�i'it ;N ;F: ^: P.:3?i:.r^c. •"✓:rF:k ,. l/�'`] ....0.•,t ti t'a4;t�rry:;'a +• =SIj.L• ,41,,01±j r,�':jYAn�,..,, ,J`'•s7r a1� 9 ,..xl.,},...1 r ,'" '•,}r .,4,:t`I ti,'., t,{.tyti',:,, N ,;ir:,1r�1 i ::lt'�7 T,�.'1^y ,�v)h?�'151.•T':+aaiy*t;t{ G,v yr =4 Yc' Syjrl i t '�:i,rin rJ'•'ru 1t;1•u 7 is{' r(j,` "�:: IA i�r^:fw Yl,.,}t}�ra �aY.R'S+;'`'` <j4r�.?ya; � !e. .:yY,:rv::.C:t:'j•..;�.: ■ Pfi yi:1i i+t 5 :' :n/ a 7: 4,rfi`. "yd4 J !'CyQ;:',.;..?` ii 1':1::='+ x' '''!FJ ,.a 6tI .,i%'I :A t! 3 ;e.t.k. Win:°r?�e,. •,,,,,,?ii:n",,,'t,j ..t .,-- sr`hN z..1A .ytf' d'%.,• >.;F-ie03{l + '4-1.q i.; tliy'.1ty •1••• % ■ .., ..u+: i,: Earn tP .}i Lj.;�•':r re t, , :r)t,•'+fi'w y /.,' „`.i` i ,,: 4:'k.P .R7�, �s+n4,',!sS;.�,l'^ Ni;; r./t;5:`,:•.: :° Cti .r:,°"r, r^ ' X'C�t t'fs^.t�% ,.• „ri;,',i.:r' ;'i'�. :;'r�>:ltl:,3a.a ":::1 ':i1:A' W 2ry'.a ?t + •` air;,rj.tr Yc. .i# yn,. :.i'':J9,F.�Y`.�Y:'; ',:i;,' j.;'•.'lJr.`"it,:v::k''.`rio^1 ty�° '+ '•K�f •,::t .4�tii,,�.. rib. . :ta^ 'fir' :.•1•,+?% ��K:^._.°`=F`9 n: 1pt';� -<c F•••v, :. '�ZF�� ,"�t!ri?:r' :*!•ti.'';�1�� 1�Y �r" f•a y: s`r:: 'VJ.° t YS, t:. N'�i7+"'- :S•.,,•' ,,� r'agtTr.:•i?,`. -{r r d"; . ._ j.;L ,t i! „rr'•r;, `4�3:: rrt' q.'"11 1::ii:... t "1;e✓ ['J:'t+:, ty'' ,t{t S.:,4 i. ':tG ii?jr,::;•.r57•• .` q'.4;d'[9,e7:a4E S.v',i�r}� � �ry (rx1.l.''�t`� .:'��'ryr;:{:zf,{, �3n,.,•. *f yt ': + 3ke.1 4x` f'7.:N 4J `,M1 e•'ti5 i par,... 5'a,;k11:9„ • 'f'r cgx G?t?'+' r' -y aa;.r"I lr? ;1% '•,p.}c :°„' •t ',... ppry:';•,'...,`:`, k, W:. �"t' ;,�7 •��!. J,',���'��Iit/ !�9;;;Rir`r�`,',iT`t7f:�': .r,'rFS. •[.;:`al:• P�•;�'°ra'�..,y ,i• 7t 1.(,. 1''!}>fµx�'�7lxr�l;r?,r:Y i ` 'h'u':�i:h. '!��r�S',,,.`,isy';t•„` Vol'h `�,r'•n, :� r '�':�' ��;;;^'`.�>:`:'ft'a':i;A',n$..,'•-s�•. 1 e: t l' war - ei f r ti: §1'Iptit�yt��?i5r. ,�:ir'!•T�ry`'}:1�{ � :, i.�f�� 'Ti'��r,'; . '•a;l+.�_r°.dg;'�=`r,''a i•`. a�/:' :a P.,, !':`',!Y '• 5' •*,t{A ta11$��. :-. jt11L,V r:,�:,:*t!::` a:..l:i:`; Yy? .'1 rk1'`;�';:'. r• ':Y�', r% t%r° e.-•�•r t'��55yy t 4J b4f` ., . ,;r.;Si ';; - � !"+, �:'ip=., N'J i:3v'a'A''�:?'Harry}':'.111.`.'«a:y •r'E' y'fit'- ``'1?:�'.}tii.�,J�''t'3{ Pk.,�hlt}! }''�'`7:;'; �o :��.;dr,�•::r ;1. i=i �iiy,i.,.,,;;ea"j aa4r• ! 4 e,,: 1:4,,,�:C ° i0+,;.;,5� e • ,Ri` n. �'r if t` �'.�1, ,�`�t�r�1t���1•r�_;•;•'�'f,•:h^'.i:1, .,(f i •;ts'at ttylf[a . a ^�`i r x, Str • yr,.:f' „awn• '.ti4 ^fT:.1f:Tj}r�+L��.-.-i,•1' a...A1 !r•;�. ,,.;,;{'i:k si '�``r�``� �'�}' y'��' ,•,'�9'S;�1'n"'�r�aiY.��,'?`'�(�• ''P!S'$�1na;ts;. :i;'ji,:ts{::•riF�'rt,'.;I r�i{ 'tea.+'[.,, .' :)�:44.:R .7ci:• Diti,': '`'t,K.Ac,: V ;.t7^ i,u 1!hr'. -11' : r�'`'''''.t ''r;rh,;.:�!k=lefil i'''i: J, .tSri.,,Yr.G•:}i�;fl11dii ,.;:;,,Cv/,r,tl}If:cr. <� i , 0:5. _ y,,:V ig••RV a}.4,n, nY S t S• t'i' �, T x Cu, 51 •.¢ i '?lc" pt,';v••0:.;r'rd. Ta A a{rr:''ir`i" tat r t i '`.ftil, , °Tg ? I:.r'':.t. 't'!1"`'.fit r1;. ..,.,�1' if •:0 +'�ri�:ri°a : 'iy' r r%41 4,..,t: 1'L .t.,:'1 1.1;. Fi�+rsn, •:r.F. ,fi Z"e,1't: .. f..yC,!�:a,�ti'. i•,1;te14.;.. �. .••• ..9'..� 1 k B` .l�l�:c •.�^tu F; q^. 1:v',�..•Y1�4.,if'.%:}aa yyi .:,.w 1` `t ZO ,`,r':<) :.J'•;•1ti. '<�r 'r.�s. Ft�i��ff�t,:t;t�'�;.:.:,.,.:f'�arit.%:::i„<'r :" p ,,.; E'r,a, ',:y�:'s,ytic .yaf`ysr.,,f• `iil,{lr ,,, r;; 4ii,!;;-;: y2 p .�r�r3f� 'f.rr.SG�^�'!i OW, � t�.;l;r.,: ,,, , � t� F . ,r . ,1 :,a i, iga',:'�r�,P !:;0i;�'•',.' < ..at .�• 'W.2i4,�,,.^Yt. -i(`;Sq :{ALrs'1•,:f•'1"t i;y`:+"'{i. .1,'is•ti.t.;:; p p•3 4 ti ��aa��i.tla ; j".ti 4.?:15� . t 71.,...{:/y { IJV,,ir ,f' ^•�'1 v'? 1•:.s�.i'6 r.�i 1✓`: rv4x,'a at.• sR }`"; }jrrt.•i 4'•Y{YtaS;. £nti'ir•... +..�;or Cl: ,'lYr`P; e G tI`'%. •' '�fiii' ivii.5. }i�l+.ii``k),, .1r',.,t'`A;c'y'r.:r;,0i; e rr, a ',, }+ ,� a S z Sr{>�: .' ^'S sF`F4 f'c ,aid,�,.,,..��h' T;si^t�'!n�::f.tt4%`y'a p� t 5 fi ,5 my , , kh. ; ,T.+ py,u1_:; Fy `,�Ixer ,y��l�rr:� "�f,``�.,'n:'�'it::� r•,�,K.`r � 8�a� i 1>(a` ;, ,1, Ci' tY.'.7s.7''�' 3,f�, ! i � i:11 i r;t 2 z 3� `�r�4:R't •�lttyi�?r. �6 ^.a1: {� �y,1.�P,�AIiF:;SSR•.1:•i•! w < '1r'S,, .). p ,ar,, °pgns:<,>,,•'.4.. 1p ctte :,g�• cr {trr ,>t,!�Tr•:'a'b,'''�r`;s r:,F`^`tip}.�{•(j�{.`f, '' •+�''44"y:'S;"•^a"At" I1!p,2C _ :! +i'jir� yslir i.4 to '4f k• I. .• v7f:i. ' • q'Z t� :. .c4(rg�` [ >) ar�'.e!<,n �'i,4.y.�(/y,j?},e. rj�e� d 1' 24 o °pp3 �'..:;:,;i4',tr•r .ge r �t t t, ,( t'i: .6, ,� t� O°$ W i,'�r ",ry ^S''�' 'F���i��Y�Yi'r'�7••a'1:'•� r�:J` ..I V. p�!' r4.4.4t,,!'l1 ' a ..'.f.,ir. fv,t{,'v`'J , 4„ `,',:: p.m., w:i� ..,75h; !f.#':' .. ran..,• ,':I��.,,'", `.fy:'".St�': fah Z w . :1:}3L:n,,.r",t ', .',1;",t(r '! if uc,S`rSr i •:rr E`. y ,n :)....?A.:,,,,. ..s, }fry,'; y:.. 'w.1..,' ,r i1:tg; (n be'_W�1mW r:�? ; t•. it, '�';i,ayl-""�i 4.4: s:.Y,e'�,,.:Y'�et=�i�SYkf' . _ pp i• ., ?y'•„f:•';t. �,'.if, •.*r. .i i.v4..:'r,.ik,.,s. f�' p S F • t 'v )!r gt�fipt'� gg' t. :.^.,yri::s: __ Jp �.1 _.gig!''H ITr '!rt,Udh' G °8 p E—z .if• Cy(t r.,. .,ir.,a . :r .X:e,.a, a w rs- rt •it�r '�xt� .rr $,rr I s a.�8Z361� ''1J�'V ihl}.?�. .{Y.,,,�`,`�. i :p i''a.,ri of IH�Ty' `g.rj T `Y,ih I+S' cu y ` '.*..it, : ,, 41! QCO. .1 t.,4.in ,... , ?�• r, � :y j t^yJ J -a F rl' t : ,+ ? '^'y" c. fit, :t r ,t''�r�5 ny 4,'. o %nj'Fr t'" y t i' .rl cam` coy el r �4 ,k o za U '� J • ;,' yJt, .11r1., n f • we. apkri L °' ` !;ii'%} f 'ice 1;t.!_:r' `' Z".41 ( ` ii3 I +11iI11111'I !! . t „..,.,....,.._ ;,,....:t,• N ikY:1� Y.i`eki 4;C3-wf'/$ 4f:e5:• ' L-:,I. . J ... .. Zi. .. (� •. it Lake . . Washington . . • Legend N. ... . Airport boundary 4$;.":-il;, :,,.;'.': geg Cede' River park _is::, -P3:;o:Yl:•; ...,..,,.,. Lakes r',. F : a1;; '`: ,.,,,...,,, MlIor roads Y;G s..,11�;; :-:_:_ ,.0.....„' Cedar & tri twtari s`'•�' "'yr;:' ',r•,, Renton city limits t. )tM1 tr,,., 'y ., p _�,.. Boeing • • : :Kfi:�..: :••,:l!,., Complex A> :tK.. 1i fM.'4'k .':t.5 Hantjar• s, < (r CANADA :t.:;:f 7k:.�:rt::_:•i <:':•:. ;:'.;:'„`,`:• N. 6th St. • 6 Fenton>':-: , - ••-. :::111(R9ti toiif: ••:I untcipal . .S. Boeing `* • IDAHO >' '� Bridge m •irport :: ;' _ OREGON t'r: ~t y:,,: {: 3 :r ::7.^r�::•,:: Renton › . 0, .. f.?;::::-.....i:..i....... .:.:,::••;•::•••Thigi,'V.%;:012:;•';; Source Information �� Lake boundary information obtained from <I, Washington Rivers Information �' �a/ System (WARTS) database, City� Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). City boundaries, streets, park and river Hall Ce�r 4�0 information obtained from King County. River 'y,5 Airport boundary from US Census, 1994 TIGER data. Figure 3: Study Area N 4It is understood that,white the Corps of Engineers and information US Army Corps of Engineers suppliers have no Indication or reason to believe that there are Inaccuracies In information Incorporated In the basemap,THE CORPS AND ITS t , r I Date: 3/14/97 500 500 000 Feat SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO • PrPnarar• i Ilf) � rar_� VVARAANfIES OF MERCFNNTABILfTr OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE, NOR ARE ANY ... •. ',... • .' ., - ,• ..,;...-.z!,Ity::!;i,tfc i-,-1 e D; . • '01 40 iil 15.... IP Legend -33, -4. Af Historic Black and Cedar Rivers co Dredged Cedar Channel Lake Washington Renton city limits Renton ... Source Information Lake boundary information obtained from Washington Rivers Information System (WAFIIS) database, Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 4 Oe,„d City boundaries, sets, park and river `10/. information obtained from King County. 174, Airport boundary from US Census, Op 1994 TIGER data. . C cir R; \„,„„......... 4 a/ Ock p,, ry' To Duwamish River /frof Figure 4: - Historic Cedar Drainage N It is underetood that,while the Come of Engineere and information Sit LJDasteA.rmii/C9o7rps of Engineers 7 Prena rpr I_no A 500 0 500 1000 Feet — .. euppUens have no Indication or reaeon to believe that there are Inaccuracieu In Information Incorporated In the basemap,THE CORPS AND fTS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY IOND,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE,NOR ARE ANY SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION. DATA OR 1.04. Dredging History. Prior to 1912,1 the Cedar River flowed into the Black River, which joined with the Green River to form the Duwamish, finally emptying into Elliott Bay. Periodically, the Cedar would flood, flowing directly into Lake Washington through a series of extensive wetlands. In 1912, the Corps,of Engineers (Corps) granted a permit to Commercial Waterway District No. 2 to dredge a channel to connect the Cedar with Lake Washington . The new channel eliminated all flows to'�the Black River. The City of Renton took over all authority of the commercial district in 1957. The mouth of the Cedar River and the lower 1 1 /4 miles, considered navigable waters of the United States, have been periodically dredged by Renton. (The construction of the north and south Boeing bridges in the early 1960's has essentially eliminated all boat use). The extremely low gradient of the river in this reach leads to significant deposition of gravels and sediments in this reach and the delta. Renton dredged the delta and parts of the lower 1 1 /4 miles at least once in the 1960's, twice in the 1970's, and once in the early 1980's. The Corps permits generally allowed for the removal of between 75,000 and 125,000 cubic yards of material from the lower river and the delta. The dredge material was stored at upland sites owned by Renton. Until the late 1960's a local stone and gravel operation mined large quantities of gravel from the river upstream of I-405 on an annual basis. In June 1993, Renton obtained a Corps permit to dredge up to 111,000 cubic yards of sediment and debris from the Cedar River delta. The material was disposed of at the Elliott Bay PSDDA (Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Area) site. The purpose of the permit was to eliminate a roosting area for nuisance birds (primarily gulls) which were posing a hazard to air traffic at the Renton Municipal Airport. The delta subsequently filled back to nearly it's original elevation in the spring of 1995. 1.05 Pertinent References. In 1979 the Corps prepared an evaluation of the Masonry Dam for the National Dam Safety Program, "Cedar River Basin Masonry and.Timber Crib Dams, Cedar Falls, Washington, WA-255 WA 256. Phase 1 Inspection Report." This report recommended the construction of a new spillway for the Masonry Dam operation and the replacement of the crib dam with a roller compacted dam to improve dam safety. These improvements were implemented,in 19,87. In 1987 the Corps completed a favorable Section 205 reconnaissance study which evaluated modifying the Masonry Dam to provide for flood control. The study was terminated in 1991 at the request of the City of Seattle, the local sponsor. In June 1993 the Corps granted Renton Section 10 and 404 permits to dredge the Cedar River delta and dispose of the sediments at the Elliott Bay PSDDA site. In 1996 local and regional agencies involved in the Cedar Basin including the Corps, King County, Renton, 11 the state, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe completed a Basin Plan designed to protect the water quality and natural resources of the basin, and provide for flood control. King County and Renton have a joint Flood Hazardi Mitigation Plan for the Cedar Basin dated November 1993, and a draft of a revised plan dated 1996 which should be adopted by next year. Both plans support a flood control project for the lower Cedar River. 6 5. SECTION 2. PLANNING AND OBJECTIVES '' .; • 2.01 General. For this study, the planning objective is the reduction of flood damages within the Renton area of the Cedar River in a cost effective manner and with minimal impact to fish and wildlife habitat. To meet the planning objective, the planning team considered a wide range of criteria. The planning team used the planning criteria to screen and evaluate alternative plans and to measure each plan's contribution to the National Economic Development (NED), Environmental Quality (EQ), Regional Development (RD), and Other Social Effects (OSE) of the Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines. The criteria considered include: identified outputs; factors; and conditions which impose constraints and limitations on the planning process; and rules and guidelines for evaluation of the plans. The criteria also include other needs, opportunities, and concerns in addition to the primary planning objective. Not all the criteria are compatible, and no plan could fully satisfy all of them. Applicable planning criteria for the study are presented in the following paragraphs under the account to which they are primarily related. 2.02 Criteria. a. National Economic Development Criteria. The NED criteria are used to guide the formulation of alternative plans to meet the objective of developing maximum net benefits to the nation. The pertinent NED criteria are as follows: • Reduce flood damages within the designated area of Renton. • Reduce physical and business losses and time delays for production by Boeing, which provides a significant contribution to the National Economy. • Reduce floodproofing costs within Renton. • Use the congressionally mandated Federal interest rate to determine annual costs and discount future benefits (currently 7.375 percent). • Minimize maintenance costs for dredging. • Use a 100-year project economic life to evaluate,flood damage reduction plans. • Include in the average annual costs interest and amortization of construction costs and provision for annual maintenance, operation, and major replacement. • Measure economic efficiency of alternative plans by net benefits. (Total annual benefits minus total annual costs equal net benefits.) • Maximize net benefits. . I 7 • Each plan must be complete within itself and include all actions necessary to realize its economic benefits. I • Each plan should be stable as related to economic conditions and realize its economic benefits under a range of reasonable future economic conditions. b. Environmental Quality (EQ) Criteria. The EQ criteria which follow consist of specific environmental resources related constraints and opportunities applied to each I alternative to maximize contribution to the environmental quality objective. These include criteria imposed by Federal, state, and local regulations and those uniquely related to the Cedar River basin. The significant environmental resources of the study area are described in Section 3 of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS). The EQ criteria are as follows: 1 • Minimize disturbance of threatened or endangered species and their habitat. a rl • Maintain effective passage for anadromous fish in the Cedar River and its tributaries. • Minimize disturbance of longfin smelt and salmon spawning beds • Maintain habitat for birds, mammals, anadromous fish, and resident fish in the study area. • Preserve the riparian zone habitat along the Cedar River, including shallow water areas and riparian zone, overstory, and wetland vegetation critical to resident and migratory fish and wildlife. • Preserve aesthetic values within the study area. • • Preserve recreational values within the study area. `? c. Regional Development (RD) Criteria. The following RD criteria include opportunities related to increased economic efficiency within the study area (or region), but do not necessarily benefit the nation as a whole. _ • Protect the Renton Airport and Boeing Plant area from floods, reduce flood fighting costs, and aid the community in improving the outlook for economic development, without encouraging further development in floodplain areas. • Contribute to overall community development by a reduction of the depressing economic effects of flood damages within the study area. • By removing the airport and Boeing from the FEMA 100-year flood plain, improve the community's outlook for economic development. 7 8 m d. Other Social Effects (OSE) Criteria. The OSE criteria listed below include those engineering policy standards that are applied to all alternatives to assure the maintenance of public health and safety and those opportunities and constraints related to the social well-being rr of people. This list also includes areas of concern listed in Section 122 of Public Law 91-611. • Enhance the quality of life in the study area by reducing the fear of flooding for those in the flood plain and reducing the risk of injury due to floods; without encouraging further development in floodplain areas. • Avoid increased flooding in unprotected areas. i . i • Avoid the relocation of public facilities and properties and the resulting inconvenience to residents during construction. • Consider safety issues at the Renton Municipal Airport, which is used as an overflow facility for the Sea-Tac airport. ,When the airport is inundated, it cannot be used. The alternatives that were considered address all the regional development and other social effects criteria mentioned above. SECTION 3. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES. 3.01 Plan Formulation Approach. The plan formulation process begins with the identification of the planning objective and the planning criteria and the development of the without project condition. During this preliminary phase, structural and non-structural. alternatives are identified that address the planning objective while considering the planning criteria. The wishes of the local sponsor and the concerns and needs of Boeing were also considered in the preliminary phase. Workshops with resource groups and agencies, including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, King County, and state and federal resource agencies, provided valuable input on alternatives to be evaluated and potential project impacts. The general public provided input via public meetings. The recommended plan was selected after the evaluation of each of the feasible alternatives' contribution to the NED, EQ, RD, and OSE accounts of the Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines. 3.02 Plans Eliminated From Further Study. A number of alternatives were considered and eliminated early in the study process. 1. Modifications to Chester Morse Darn. In the 1980's the Corps conducted a study of the addition of flood control to the City of Seattle's Chester Morse Dam, which is a primary supplier of municipal and industrial water to the city. The study was discontinued at Seattle's request because of concerns over who would operate the project and be liable for flooding ` during the flood season and water quality issues. It was clear during negotiations for the Cedar River Basin Plan that complex basinwide issues are involved in modifying the dam, including fishery issues, municipal water supply needs, and flooding. The evaluation was clearly outside of the study scope-for a Section 205 project, and could not be completed to fit the tight time 9 frame for flood control required by Renton. Further, the addition of flood control storage at the dam would not resolve the rapid sedimentation rate for the lower mile of the Cedar River, which is a prime factor in the localized flooding issues. King County, Renton, and Seattle are ry pursuing an evaluation of adding flood control and/or fishery enhancement to Chester Morse as part of the recommendations of the Cedar River Basin Plan. The addition of flood control in the future would improve our project's efficiency. 2. Upstream Levee Setbacks. Preliminary studies show that the setback of levees upstream of Renton only reduces flooding in the immediate vicinity, and is not of value for reducing flooding in the study area. During major flood events, the existing levees, which generally provide less than 20 year protection, are, overtopped, and the area behind them becomes available for storage. King County has a policy prohibiting any structures or development within the flood plain that would result in a rise of any amount in the flood water surface profile ("zero rise") and as a result, the llconstruction of extensive new levee systems or the upgrading of existing levels of protection is unlikely. The county is actively pursuing relocation of residences within the basin that are most prone to flooding. 3. Widening the River Channel in the Project Reach. The lower one mile of the Cedar River is • tightly confined between the Renton Municipal Airport and the Boeing manufacturing plant. The existing 110 foot wide channel could only be widened on the right bank to a maximum of 150 feet from Logan Avenue to the south Boeing bridge, and to a maximum of 250 feet from the south Boeing bridge to the mouth, because of dense existing urban development. This . - would result in the loss of the city park, and the reconstruction of two major bridges. The sedimentation problem would not be addressed. A hydraulic analysis showed that reductions in water surface elevations would be minimal because of the flat riverbed gradient. 4. Upstream Sediment Control. Based on data provided by King county, there are a large number of sources of sediment throughout the basin. It would be extremely costly and difficult to armor all of the existing eroding banks, and it would further degrade the remaining riparian habitat in the system. Land use policies to reduce erosion in the upper basin from building, farming, and forestry practices are an important part of the Cedar River Master Plan. 6. Nonstructural Floodproofing or Relocation of Buildings and Structures. A significant portion of the economic damages experienced during the 1990 flood event occurred to 'r. equipment, supplies, and planes located at floor level at Boeing and the airport. Boeing and the airport have since implemented some floodproofing, such as storing materials on second - rather than bottom shelves, raising electrical equipment off of the floors, and having flood fighting materials readily available. Floodproofing would not protect the south Boeing bridge, though Boeing actively removes debris,froth the bridge during flood events until the bridge becomes submerged by rising water. Nor can floodproofing protect the majority of the planes parked on either side of the river when;Boeing is operating at peak.capacity. Relocation of the airport or the Boeing plant is not an economical alternative. 7 . Sediment Trap. A sediment trap downstream of the Logan.Avenue bridge was evaluated to try to reduce operation and maintenance costs, and to lessen environmental damages by • disturbing the channel less frequently. :The trap would be dredged periodically to prevent any r f'`1 10 further accumulation of sediment in the project reach. During feasibility this alternative was discarded as sediment transport modeling showed the trap would rapidly fill in, becoming ineffective before the completion of one flooding season. The trap sufficiently slowed water velocities to the point where finer sediments that presently flush through the reach to the delta were deposited in the trap instead, resulting in an additional volume of dredge material which would have to be removed from the trap. The trap also raised environmental concerns, as it created a deep pool habitat for predators. 8. Wingwalls. Wingwalls were considered, with the intent to narrow the moderate flow channel, increasing the sediment transport capacity of the channel and slowing the rate of aggradation. However, sediment modeling showed that such wingwalls or channel width constrictions did not effectively reduce the average annual dredging requirements necessary to maintain the desired channel flood flow capacity. Additionally, the estimated costs for construction of wingwalls or low flow channel restriction structures were quite high. 9. Overflow Channel. The Corps evaluated the effectiveness of an overflow channel in the lower mile of the study reach. High real estate costs and the large size required for such a channel to carry the required discharge precluded this alternative. 10. Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge. Under existing conditions, flood flows over to the left bank upstream of the south Boeing bridge, relieving some of the flooding pressures on the bridge structure. Under the four alternatives evaluated in detail for the project, levees and floodwalls prevent this overtopping, raising water surface elevations at the south Boeing bridge for major flood events. Under these conditions, debris blockage of the south Boeing bridge becomes a major concern. During large flood events, the bridge may potentially become blocked by logs and other debris, which would elevate water surface profiles significantly upstream of and in the vicinity of the bridge structure. In addition, the bridge structure itself would be overtopped and be subject to very large lateral and vertical loads, well in excess of the design loads. A reconfiguration of the Boeing plant was considered to avoid the need for the bridge,but the costs were in excess of$30 million. • Two alternatives were considered to reduce damages to the bridge by floodwaters and debris: — 1) a trash rack and strengthened piers for the existing bridge, and 2) the addition of a hydraulic jacking system to raise the bridge above the with-project 100 year flood elevation during flood events. The bridge cannot be permanently raised because of maximum grade restrictions for towing planes across the bridge between the engine test area on the right bank and the airfield on the left bank. The bridge could not be removed, as it is crucial to Boeing's operations. The preliminary costs for both alternatives were similar, but the trash rack option required extensive overbuilding of the levees upstream of the bridge on both banks to compensate for the raised water surface resulting from debris blockage. Therefore, the temporary jacking system was selected for further evaluation. + .� 3.03 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail. In addition to the no-action alternative, four alternatives to provide at least 100 year recurrence interval.flood protection were considered for further detailed study. All alternatives include:. dredging to various depths in approximately 1.25 miles of channel; a hydraulic lifting system for the south Boeing 11 : . L !_ bridge; closure structures at the south Boeing bridge; a berm on the left-bank downstream of the hangars; sheetpile floodwalls and/or levees on the left and right banks from the r '= -:f' mouth to either Williams Avenue, Bronson Way, or I-405; and a 15' wide buffer strip of vegetation planting on both banks. Dredge depths evaluated were: 0 dredge (maintain to 1995 channel), and 4, 6 and 10 foot dredging below the 1995 channel depth. Once the most economical and environmentally acceptable alternative was selected, this was further evaluated to provide optimized protection to the project area. Based on sediment transport analyses and water surface profile modeling, a 3 year average dredge cycle interval was selected for all alternatives. One and two year dredge cycle intervals ental imp acts to fish and invertebrate habitat in the channel unacceptable environmental createdP P ',A and would result in increased dredging ,costs, which are borne by the local sponsor. The results of the sediment transport analysis indicated that dredge cycle intervals greater than 3 1 years in length required unacceptable levee/floodwall height increases to maintain desired level of protection. The actual dredge cycle will be based on channel cross-section surveys. Maintenance dredging could be required less frequently than 3 years, but the 3 year cycle was used for economic and environmental analyses. Upstream of Logan Avenue the four alternatives require a gradual sloping of the post ,' dredge channel bed to meet the existing bed, to,reduce potential headcutting during the fall/winter months; when the channel in this area contains salmon eggs. Significant salmon spawning occurs upstream of Logan Avenue. All but the deepest channel dredge require no significant dredging of the.Cedar River delta. For all alternatives, the disposal site for construction and maintenance dredge material is 2 miles upstream of the project, at a city- owned upland site termed the "Narco site." Should the sponsor determine that other. disposal sites become more economical in the future, they will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits. Downstream of the airplane hangars on the left bank extending to the north Boeing bridge (RM 0.41 to RM 0.02) all alternatives assume a berm with 4H:1V side slopes. This is to - meet FAA safety requirements for areas adjacent to runways. The design level of i=_ protection incorporated the predicted aggradation of the channel bed into the water surface profile model when levee height was determined. The level of protection is increased above the design level immediately following a maintenance dredge cycle. As part of the risk analysis, we assumed that the design water surface profile was the 90% reliability water surface elevation for the selected design flood event. The optimization evaluation included considering 200 year or greater protection, and a controlled overflow area at the downstream end of the project to provide additional protection for some areas during flood events larger than the design event. Figure 5 shows those areas that would be inundated by ( the 10,50,100, and 200-year recurrence interval floods under present channel capacity. 3.04 Alternative A - No Action. Nolaction by the Corps would be taken for flood damage ;; reduction through either structural or non-structural means for this alternative. The lower 1.5 miles of the Cedar River is an artificial channel created in the early 1900's to link the Cedar River with south'Lake Washington. 'The characteristics of the artificial channel reach causes - i the Cedar River to deposit a significant volume of sediment annually throughout the length of Sb Yyy, 12 Id this reach. The no-action alternative would result in the continuation of average annual flood s`::.._ : damages in the study area. Under 1995 channel conditions these are estimate at $3,121,000. `. =•'` The flood damages would increase annually as channel aggradation would divert more of the nos Y river flood flows onto the Renton Airport and the Boeing facility. The sediment transport analysis predicts that the existing channel will fail to provide sufficient _ flow capacity for anything but low flows within about 20 years if no dredging is done. There would be a continual need for flood fighting and spot dredging. Within 10 years, without the I recommended project, average annual damages would escalate to $11,072,000. By 20 years, average annual damages would be $26,149,000. The without project condition used for this analysis is based on the channel aggrading to the 10 year future condition. Using this assumption and discounting the damages, the expected annual equivalent damages are estimated at $9,569,000. Under the no action alternative, costs to conduct spot dredging and flood fight activities have not been estimated. The Corps has estimated that the existing channel provides 1.6 recurrence interval flood protection at the Renton Airport, and 23 year protection for the Boeing plant. The upstream portion of the artificial channel reach would also lose significant flood flow capacity if channel aggradation continues unchecked, creating greater flooding problems for the downtown Renton area. Should aggradation continue to such an extent that the main channel avulses onto the left or right banks, environmental impacts would be very severe and salmon migration upstream to spawning areas would be essentially eliminated. The loss of channel capacity would move upstream as the channel continued to fill, , creating greater flooding problems for the entire Renton area. . 3.05 Alternative B, Existing Channel Depth(1995 Conditions) with Levees/Floodwalls and Modification to the South Boeing Bridge (100 year protection - predredge). This alternative would require limited initial dredging (31,000 CY) to a uniform width at the existing thalweg elevation. Levees and/or floodwalls would be placed along the right bank and left banks from I-405 to the mouth. The Logan Avenue; Williams Avenue, Wells Avenue, Bronson Way, and Hauser Way bridges would need to be raised and/or strengthened. The south Boeing bridge would need to be replaced, and deployable closure structures would provide levee closure at each end of the bridge. The channel would require periodic maintenance dredging (predicted to be necessary every 3 years on average) of 114,000 cubic yards. The levees and floodwalls would range from 1 to 2 feet higher than Alternative C. Construction costs are estimated at $10,918,000. Construction costs include $6,618,000 for the project downstream of Logan Avenue; $1,000,000 to extend the levees upstream to I-405, and $3,300,000 to modify 5 - bridges. No cost estimate was made for relocations required to accommodate the levee system I from Williams Avenue to I-405, an area of intense urban/commercial development. Dredging costs of$1,841,000 are expected every 3 years4 Annualized costs, including maintenance dredging and routine maintenance of$14,000 with interest during construction of$403,000, are $1,420,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 5.5 w 3.06. Alternative C, Minimum Dredging with Levees/Floodwalls and Modifications to the - South Boeing Bridge (100 year protection -predredge). This alternative would require dredging to about 4 feet below the existing bed of the river (1995 conditions) from the mouth . up to Logan Avenue (RM 1.07), (158,000 CY), and then dredging a uniform bed slope up to 13 [51..:i12 smiig queitp..1 Qt...xt .__�t...a:) Q:t�.. .. �� .R, 4-.. . .ai 4-4 1, - ..,I 61ULlWLY • • • • 25 • 20 • • 2 15 � Existing Channel ----Four Foot Dredge . - -• -'- — Six Foot Dredge 10 - - Ten Foot Dredge W J W 5 • .0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I. I I I I I I I 1 I I I �1 p1 I I 4 p� O CO CO N "3 c8D NNN ct2 O � r_ rrdd1! N ° N ,T c ti O_ w tD fcv N CT) CT) '-t V to to c8p LLD CO CO c�0 R. I� N. (� N. co co CHANNEL DISTANCE (ft) • FIGURE 6 • DREDGE PROFILES FOR ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES .—..... FIGURE 7 SCHEMATIC DRAWING �� - ' OVERFLOW WITH PROJECT FOR 150 YEAR \ A rW RECURRENCE INTERVAL FLOOD .��� `�,� ..: ' Note:Just prior to redredging the channel,the overflow a\ ` 1 levees on the left bank downstream of the south Boeing o ;, _. '•' I- `%=;.;o:%:�` :i_� 'tom `�?r'Yi \ bridge begun'to overtop at a greater than 100 year recurrence / .f,,. ar•. yams, 4.4'. rI- _ interval flood event. Immediatelyafter dredging,these levees , .\'ti 9 9. - -:F= 'i: , can provide up to approximately 200 year protection. ,.•.• ta I!��t_ <- Bya 150 year event,some floodingbegins upstream of the I j- ' project over both banks. 1IC) •(`. �� :; ?y •Tat 1 _4� ' se'Jar1l A' /..::.; ri'..•0. , NO� \-0,-,----- -;.-,-- -,v-rii-- . -.• 1.- le //' , 1 7 .% 41.11, Atir''-."''\(( r,ri, :� oil , , , 1.. E \: , .,,,„ . ...,... ..... . ' . .. 1.,. .."._ + 1 �I ,! s_..jr...,\,_,) ;moo, 11/ ` VVV ._.. 4. ., - - 1 • t . tit •�_ ill 1 a •'. iilkiir 1 li i!-‘ ti r_. ,:.:, .,„... :: i ,. , • ., ._ , . • . E9 I 't , ' '., 4j •) _•"`-4'-',� e�+� I �' ? I( 1„:„,, „,,„........-4., L. , .,..a+;. -I a ,. 1}, ,I,\ 1 , M ._ i � + I ,. . \IIr i ►:�,.� , I '°SFr `, 1 ,L`"_ .3 I J. -� (. I ! I _ ,,',-.:1.-r7.i.)Eir,--: (,--•<. i-\,,ir:NN i , .,1 AitakIl • • ; 1 ! , v 0 I!C' �. gip.+, 3 �•fY s1v v 0, d A li,_9_ -...e. *474. it ,..,i'l .,-*1.- 4 i I o . 4 Ilk i ,. til".\,.. 11 `711 ..._ ,, , .,. . ,. .6 1ml . I{{ i.- ,• .',. it ,.. . _r5 1 Fd`., err -. VI 1 i , �ll ` Q.1.••., ) %. ..', iTj 1:1 �/ 7 i.1 _ 1 '11. 4.+a . c _:L�1 � ft Nou I° j i '„ 1 Or.; � tl �°' `• »fit+ Ft, ! 1 n j}, 1 t74 :� t;�'t '; . TOIIIIIIIr°.— ' \ A.k.r.,1._,„7-4—!.__Li.t i il, i' l;i'r;t,ill ,II !nu's/ 17,. -.-.11 Ir. "--;_;,,."4.:',7 4 . !- .,,,,,,, a ... .>. �� '' I ' ;�,� 'av i' 1 11 '� _ ii r147111-f;, t i� ' �,Si: '^%4 �•, J�r�, U rt;- // r`�• -N, 1,51 o �f`i'. al . `a- s ,` `jai;,T 41 a it , z } - . n ;,4., f7' S`i•rl� L•Yr:M,•1_ ::IA.11•i ,:.'}'_i_I:li=?Kii5� ,(.f� .� • . •^.,. 1 I.r et. t �� If�J�J'j-- III. p.-4.,.---14,&-:*,,,!7,i-t.**--:,4.%.....• �� r`t f�' I .�!'it r'.;T.�,�, �}.r] ' �.. .1 '� • .':J ..-.:1 r: ' .. "-,"1- ,!,%11; + ,l`5" ip ra If. \`Stdln:..lj_. 'tF 1.-0-,tr. 0 1p _--.7._-..._:•, ,t.34, .'",••Nt x iit 'O �0 1�7�I'a r411i��{' 17*;i4 :ilil"'•'r :� h il"0�-*a}l�_rJ-,1,: ..';1 -tiles;., ,k'" - _ F I. • : Irlaiti .i7,...I'.0--,-••Mil p 'r,:,,,„ cf.8 ,,, .,;41.0 i';"fi — '„_:16;,_. — * T F .1.0"-'''.-r-1%!ts i'l•t*>,. .4 ; -IOW ei, ). ; • c .,. :,„4,7f NA =-' 1z -Y ..: 1, 01 t,• ; •••• , �., .. t� , ,,7, •. • . fL it ..4I4 , I/� ilia f I���L•\°\4,I y 6. -ram 1 - •' ; I : „����jll zoo' am_ ~`tt:+ife'� :�"4.• `j � •rn � rya-;+�-- y, , 6. .0r/\T7141111k1 s10 .: ► r1-1: { V7 `�' tea' FT ► :F - .* W, ' 'f ir ii— FIGURE 7 Lake • Washington ` .. • Legend N. Boeing• , ,� .... Bridge:A':v 1 ,,,,,,,, \I - Berm -�':. 1 ....,,..... U Levee ,ry:'r� r>:.�i 1 Overflow Section it'' !3:.M..•l 1 ,,..,„. '��..y, •t^�,yr.•� I. j N c raig channel: ` ;:a :: '4-$:'4. 1 ' - t-:. y:.q ! 1 AlrpoTt tiourxiery -::.:`�•F..:. :, -...' i' Bbeifl r • ® Ceda' FPova- park :• ; :'f,,"t'jn ') ; g c Lake: r,; ,, Complex Major road; ;,; :; r,. :; t O Cedar tributaries "f'' `Y"` ` ,', c Renton city limits :Hangars., 0 '=:':r'a'. 1.'i.k..':.h: CANADA tRe.ntOn S MUnlcipal 1S. Boeing •` IDAHO =:Airport'• `yf.' t Bridge N :V.IfASflltsldTOii:: • -v,-', 1. 4':'•, ::,::. i; 1 C .••'::•:•:::•:::::'::':::::::':::':::.:.::.::.':..:..*:.:.:::.:.:':::•:'::::.:'.....*:.::•.*:.-.':•.••;'...':..*::•*::::'....:.-:.:..:...•*::-:':.:::.::.::::•. /;1„:,';... ‘1!,,,,, :. "j[.; ::_,, 4. Renton •Source Information 41111r° Lake boundary information obtained from ., : 4-, Washington Rivers Information 1. Clty� 433 System (WARTS) database, L Washington Department of Wildlife (WDYI). Hal Vij City boundaries, streets, park and river ■ information obtained from King County. S' Airport boundary from US Census, Disposal 1994 TIGER data. Site Figure 8: Project Map __ _-__ N R b undararood that,while the Corps of Engineer!and Information ,US Army-Corps-of-Engineers euppite�ava no r lrailon or reason to believe tthat there are r , • Inaccuracies in Mometton Incorporated In the basemap,THE CORPS AND ITS •,�.�,. ;pate: 3, .. , 5O, 0 500 I OOO Feet SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY FOND,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO '• Preparers LDD WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILTfY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE,NOR ARE ANY ASUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPUED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, DATA, OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. meet the existing channel bed approximately at Williams bridge (RM1.23). Estimated average maintenance dredging volume would be 171,000 CY every 3 years. Approximately 1.25 miles of levees and/or floodwalls would be constructed along the left and right banks from the mouth to Williams Avenue. The south Boeing bridge would be modified as in Alternative B. The levees constructed along the right bank from the mouth to Logan Avenue would average 5 feet in height, on the left bank the levees/floodwalls would be 6 feet high on average. Total construction costs were estimated at$8,320,000. Interest during construction is estimated at $307,000. Maintenance costs of$2,387,000 are expected every 3 years for dredging, and $14,000 for annual routine maintenance. The annualized project costs are $1,390,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 5.6. 3.07 Alternative D, Moderate Dredging with Levees/Floodwalls and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (100 year protection!- predredge). This alternative would require dredging an average depth of about 6 feet below the 1995 bed of the river from the mouth up to Logan Avenue (195,000 CY) and then dredging a uniform bed slope up to meet the existing channel bed to about Bronson Way (2200 feet upstream of Logan Avenue). Estimated average ' J maintenance dredging volume would be 176,000 CY every 3 years. Levees/floodwalls would average 0.25 feet lower than Alternative C and extend upstream to the Williams Avenue Bridge. Total construction costs are estimated at $8,531,000. Interest during construction is estimated at$315,000. Maintenance dredge costs of$2,453,000 are expected every 3 years, routine annual maintenance is expected to be $14,000. Annualized project costs are $1,427,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 5.5. 3.08. Alternative E. Deep Dredging with Levees/Floodwalls and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (100 year protection -predredge). This alternative would require dredging to an average depth of ten feet below the existing bed of the river from the mouth up to Logan Avenue (260,000 CY) and then dredging:a uniform bed slope up to meet the channel bed at about Bronson Way. Estimated average maintenance dredging volume would be 185,000 CY every 3 years. Levees/floodwalls would average 1.5 feet lower than Alternative C and extend upstream to Williams Avenue. Construction costs were $9,257,000. Interest during construction is estimated at $341,000. Maintenance dredge costs of$2,575,000 are expected every 3 years. Annualized costs are $1,520,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 5.5. 18 1 Table 3.1 Summary of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE DREDGE CONSTRUCTIO MAINTENANC Total DEPTH (FT) N DREDGE E DREDGE ANNUALIZED VOLUME VOLUME Project COSTS (kCY) (kCY) ($1,000) A (NO NA NA NA NA ' ACTION) B Maintain 31 31 $1420* Existing C 4 " 158 171 $1390 195 176 $1427 D 6 ! E 10 260 185 $1520 * Does not include costs for relocations and additional real estate SECTION 4. RECOMMENDED PLAN 4.01. The Recommended Plan, Modification of Alternative C, Minimum Dredging with Levees/Floodwalls and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge. The results of the planning ' analysis indicated that one alternative, Alternative C, Minimum Dredging,(dredge 4 feet below 1995 thalweg) best met the requirements of economic, engineering, and environmental feasibility while responding to the selection criteria and the sponsor's needs. The alternative meets the sponsor's needs to provide 100 year flood protection to the study area. The shallow dredging depths called for in this alternative minimized impacts to fish and wildlife habitat but still provided for an acceptable closure time of the south Boeing bridge during flood events. With Alternative C, it is estimated that the bridge would need to be raised for approximately one week for a 100 year recurrence interval flood event when the channel has aggraded enough to require redredging. The closure time for the bridge will be less than this immediately following a dredge cycle. Varying levels of protection utilizing the four foot dredge depth and three year maintenance cycle are more fully evaluated in the Economic Section. Providing 100 ', I year protection is the locally preferred plan. This alternative will provide 100 year protection just prior to redredge and up to 200 year protection immediately following maintenance dredging. The moderate and deep dredge alternatives would result in an increased length of river channel f affected by backwater effects during the summer months from Lake Washington. Under existing (1995) conditions, the 'summer backwater effect in the Cedar River extends approximately 1,000 feet upstream. With the 4 foot dredge alternative (Alternative C), the backwater effect goes to approximately 3200 feet upstream of the Cedar River mouth with a potential loss of 235 redds or 470 fish. With the 6 foot (Alternative D), the backwater extends to approximately 4000 feet, with the potential for a loss of 550 redds, or 1100 fish; with the 10 19 i foot dredge (Alternative E), the backwater extends to 6000 feet, with a potential loss of 1270 redds, or 2540 fish. (Reference Figure.6 for dredge profiles for all alternatives.) This increases predator:habitat, through which'downstream migrating salmon would have to pass before entering the lake. It also eliminates more sockeye spawning area. The 6.and 10 foot alternatives also required somewhat greater initial and maintenance dredge quantities. • Alternative B, Maintain Existing Channel,(1995 depths), would require that the south Boeing bridge be in a raised position for more than 10 days for a 10 year recurrence interval event in the year immediately preceding the redredge cycle. This would affect Boeing's production Ischedule. Alternative B also required that levees extend.upstream of the Williams Avenue bridge to I-405, the modification of 5 bridges, and relocations of homes and businesses. 4.02. Description of the Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of: 1) Federal construction of 1:25 miles of levees and floodwalls along both banks of the Cedar River from the mouth to Williams-Avenue; 2) Federal dredging of 1.25 miles of the river during initial a construction to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the 1995 streambed ; and, 3) modification of the South Boeing bridge with a lifting system and deployable levee closure structures at each end of the bridge. The project is designed to allow overtopping along the left bank from the South Boeing bridge to,the mouth. Therefore, levees/floodwalls upstream of the bridge on the left bank and along the right bank are overbuilt approximately 1 foot up.to Logan Avenue. It is assumed the channel would be redredged, on average, every 3 years by - Renton to maintain channel capacity; the actual frequency will vary based on hydrologic • conditions. Mitigation will be constructed for negative impacts such as: likely increased predation on chinook and sockeye salmon's fry; loss of some salmon spawning habitat; decline _ . in invertebrate diversity and abundance; and the temporal loss of riparian vegetation. 2 Mitigation elements will be 1) the creation of a sockeye spawning channel upstream of Renton, 2) planting riparian vegetation along the project river banks, 3) placing woody debris in the river near the spawning channel, and 4) limiting dredging and in-water work to the June 15 - August 31 time period to avoid impacts to migratory salmon. Under with-project conditions, fy. some flooding will occur for greater than 1100 year recurrence interval flood events upstream of the project in the vicinity of Wells and Williams Avenues. Figure 7 shows schematically where flooding would occur. Flooding is more extensive on the left bank than the right bank. a `6 Downstream of the south Boeing bridge, the levees/floodwalls will overtop for a greater than 100 year recurrence interval event (based',On conditions just prior to the need to redredge the -"� channel). Reference Section 5 of the DEIS for design details. Reference Figure 8 for a simplified depiction of the recommended plan. Reference Exhibit A-1 (Section 4.06) for the location of the mitigation site. Appendix D, Project Features, describes the design elements in r__. detail. 4.03 Design Features. a. Dredging. The river channel will initially be dredged to about 4' below the 1995 bed elevation (158,000 cubic yards). The channel will be deepened from the mouth of the river to ~31 ' Logan Avenue (RM 1.07). The dredged channel bed will slope up to meet the existing gradient at Williams Avenue (RM 1.25) to minimize headcutting immediately after dredging is complete. During plans and specifications, the Corps will evaluate whether a small cut-off wall is needed at the upstream end of the project to prevent uncontrolled erosion upstream. fl 20 The lower 2-3,000 feet of channel will likely be dredged with.a barge mounted clamshell, dragline, or hydraulic dredge. All upstreamfsections will be dredged with a hydraulic excavator. Sediment will be removed directly from the,channel in the dry after first • constructing temporary berms from excavated material to divert the river flow. Access to the channel for excavators and/or trucks will occur at the south Boeing bridge, Logan Avenue bridge, and Williams Avenue bridge. Dredge staging areas will be located within the city park. The upland disposal site is at RM 2, upstream at a city-owned location termed the "Narco site." Transport of material will be by truck. Potentially, some sediment could be barged to the PSDDA site in Elliott Bay. The existing channel bed material will be tested during Plans and Specifications for contamination, but it is not anticipated that significant if contamination will be found because the material is mostly sand and gravel. Dredging of the delta was found to not significantly lower the 3-year accumulation profile and was therefore removed from the maintenance dredging program. Maintenance dredging by Renton could occur as frequently as every 3 years, depending on hydrologic conditions. To reduce impacts to fisheries, all dredging would occur between June 15 and August 31. b. Levee Construction. Levees will extend on the right bank from the mouth to 750 feet above Logan Avenue. Within the city park the levee height will vary between.2 and 6 feet and have 3H:1V side slopes. Existing landscaped mounds will be utilized where possible as part of the levee. The levee embankment will be compacted to meet geotechnical seepage and levee embankment integrity criteria. The levee side slopes will be seeded. Upstream of Logan Avenue (RM 1.07) an 8 foot wide riverside trail will be raised an average of 3 feet up to Williams Avenue. On the left bank downstream of the airport hangars (RM 0.41) a berm with 4H:1V side slopes will extend for 2000 feet to the north Boeing bridge. •The levee will average 4 feet above the existing ground and be designed to allow controlled overtopping of several days duration. • c. Floodwalls. Steel sheetpile floodwalls will be required along the left bank from Logan Avenue (RM 1.07) to the south Boeing bridge (RM 0.74) and again from the south Boeing bridge to RM 0.41. In these areas there are a number of buildings, utilities, and roads which cannot easily be relocated. The floodwalls average 7 feet in height. Sheetpile will be cold formed with seals used at the joints to reduce leakage. Sleeves are required in some locations to provide passage of utilities through the floodwall. d. Bridge. The South,Boeing Bridge modification will raise the bridge above the river during a flood event by means of a lifting system. The bridge will be raised to one foot above the upstream levee elevation, in order to provide clearance above debris. At each end of the bridge, four new foundations are to be built, and each foundation will support one large hydraulic jack. One steel lifting girder is to be passed under each end of the existing bridge, and will rest on the jacks. The bridge will then be unbolted from its current foundations, on which it will still rest while not raised. In the event of a flood, the jacks will raise the bridge clear of the water surface. The new foundations will be further bankward than the existing piers. e. Closure Structures. Three temporary closure structures will be used for the project; two to close off the south Boeing bridge entrances, and one to protect the restroom at city park. The 21 i closure structures will consist of steel I-sections that are inserted vertically into preformed slots that extend below grade. The slots will be spaced at regular intervals.. The I-sections allow for ly wood planks to span the distance between the vertical columns to form a wall. The Operation and Maintenance Manual to be prepared during construction will stipulate training exercises and the provision of teams to install the closures during a flood event. The Boeing plant is staffed on a 24 hour basis with large numbers of employees. Boeing and the Renton airport both have emergency staff available during the flood season. ' f. Erosion Protection. The majority of the levee alignments for the left and right banks are set back from the river channel and require no more than seeding for erosion protection. 'The floodwall on the left bank downstream of the Logan Avenue bridge is on an actively eroding outside bend of the channel and will require 400 feet of riprap protection to be placed between the wall and the river. The lower 2000 feet of the left bank will require Class I riprap to prevent erosion of the bank. Velocities along the left bank in the vicinity of the overtopping 4 levee range from 8.5 - 10.5 feet per second. The levees along the right bank are set back 60 - 100 feet, with velocities ranging from 2 - 4 feet per second. Erosion protection is not required along the right bank. g. Interior Runoff. Boeing is in the process of constructing an interceptor line along the right bank to handle interior drainage problems'for their plant. The line will connect the existing .. system that presently drains into the Cedar, and reroute flows to drain into Lake Washington. This will significantly reduce their interior drainage problems, and improve water quality. The Renton airport also has drains which presently empty into the Cedar River. Most of these pipes have become plugged as the river filled in. The dredging of the channel will improve ' + interior drainage, especially for small flood events. The outfalls will require one-way valves ' be retro-fitted to the ends of the pipes to prevent back flooding from occurring: The airport -'° slopes towards the lake, so some drainage, and flows from the overflow section, will drain into Lake Washington. The Airport has, as part of its Capital Improvement Plan, a project to install an interceptor line adjacent to the runway to reroute surface water flows to the Cedar River downstream near the, North Boeing Bridge or directly into Lake Washington. This would eliminate the need for many of these retrofittings if the project is done in conjunction with or prior to the levee construction. -.ter. L- h. Hydraulic Design. Flood flows were based on a Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir ,:Y Regulation analysis, routing Chester Morse Lake inflow. The levee embankment and floodwall through the project reach conta�in the 100 year recurrence interval flood event with -'t9 90 percent reliability during the third year immediately prior to redredging. The overflow levee/floodwall section will be designed to overtop at that event in a controlled manner to minimize damage to more developed and higher value areas of the floodplain on the right and left banks. Levees and floodwalls on the left bank upstream of the overflow section and throughout the entire right bank will be overbuilt by at least one foot to ensure greater than 100 year (90%), third-year-before-redredge level of protection for all areas outside those affected by overflow. Inundation of the left overbank by overflows from the overtopping section should be limited to areas downstream of about RM 1.0. Overflows will flow across the existing airfield and directly into Lake Washington. Immediately following each maintenance dredging, the level ofprotection for the project reach will be upto approximately a 200 year � p j PP Y 22 recurrence interval event. However, there will be some flooding from upstream of the project area. During large flood events, such as the 200 year recurrence interval and larger,the left and right banks of the river will likely be overtopped and overflows will cause flooding within Renton. However, the with-project flooding condition will result in less flooding overall of upstream areas than the existing condition, and most certainly less than the future condition if channel aggradation continues unchecked. Additionally, during very large events, upstream bridges will be impacted by debris and the resulting debris blockage may cause additional overflows over the banks. However, the with-project condition will reduce the potential overflow flooding from the without-project condition by establishing an upper limit to the total channel bed aggradation and loss of flood flow capacity in the channel in the vicinity of these upstream bridges. i. Park Features. The Cedar River Trail Park will be revegetated following construction of levees and use of the area as a staging site for initial dredging. Levees will connect existing mounds and will be seeded with 3H:1V side slopes for easy public use and maintenance. Steeper slopes where required will be planted with low Oregon grape or other groundcover that does not need mowing. A temporary closure structure will be located in front of the rest room to connect the levee sections and provide protection. The existing gazebo and courtyard will remain unchanged. A narrow stretch of park near the entrance will require construction of a short (500 feet) floodwall to retain the trail access. Trees and shrubs will be replaced on either side.of the levee to retain parklike features and provide habitat as part of the project mitigation: Some vehicle with trailer parking will need to be shortened to allow construction of the levee, otherwise no parking will be affected. However, since use of the boat ramp is restricted to nonmotorized boats, this should not affect use of the park. Existing vegetation will be salvaged where possible. All other miscellaneous park site features such as light poles, benches, etc. shall be relocated and/or replaced if damaged. All new or replacement plantings shall be coordinated with the Park Department. The design of the new levees will not inhibit positive drainage or create drainage problems, and park trails will be replaced or restored to meander over and around the levees. The existing boat launch facility at the park is designated for non-motorized vessels only and will remain in place after construction with existing uses allowed. Native riparian vegetation will be planted in a 10-15 foot wide strip along the right bank in the park downstream of the south Boeing bridge (see Mitigation Plan 4.08). Species will include willows, Oregon ash, mock orange, and various shrub species. It is expected that the Parks Department will not actively maintain this area, except to remove invasive species (such as blackberries) or dangerous objects, such as hanging limbs that could injure park users. The planting scheme will be designed for species that will not grow too.high for the airport clear zone along the lower 1500 feet of the river. The riparian plantings on the park side (right bank) will also have several designated open spaces to maintain visual access to the river for park users. 4.04 Relocations. A 300 foot long section of a private airport road used to access the hangars will be realigned. Facilities that need to be moved include: 2000 feet of a private airport asphalt road, a water and pressure sewer system that presently crosses the river on the south Boeing bridge (relocated to run underneath the river), park trail lighting to new trail alignments and elevations, a swingset in the park , 2000 feet of chain link security fence and gates, and a storage building on the left bank near the south Boeing bridge. 23 1 it H ' 4.05 Real Estate: A. DESCRIPTION AND ACREAGE: The location of the project is in the lower one and f one-half miles of the Cedar River in King County, Washington. The City of Renton is the Nonfederal Sponsor for this project. This project involves approximately 79.68 acres of land for initial construction of the project. Approximately 7.90 acres fee are needed for mitigation and 11.13 acres are needed for perpetual flood protection . The remaining 60.65 acres are temporary easements needed during construction. Access to the project site is by existing public roads. All the project lands are within the City of Renton ownership. The material dredged from the river will go to a temporary upland site that is part of the National Economic Development (NEI)) Plan. See Exhibit A and A-1 (Appendix'C) for the real estate drawings. Presented below is a listing of the of the real estate interests for. this project. Acreage Estate Estimated Value g 7.90 Fee ' $362,000 11.13 Perpetual Flood Protection Levee Easement 194,000 0.65 Temporary Work Area Easement 10,000 1/ 60.00 Temporary Disposal Site Easement 210,000 79.68 I $776,000 -�, " 1/ The value of the temporary work alrea and disposal area easements are for one year availability fora construction. B. NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE: An Office of Counsel opinion of 14 July 1983, states "It is our legal opinion that the Corp has a superior right to the flow in the Cedar River. This position is based upon the Federal Government's right to regulate navigation in general; and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Ala (33 U.S.C. 403) which prohibits creating `- obstructions to navigation without a permit. On Deeember 11, 1911, the Commercial Waterway District No. 2, King County, Washington, applied for a Department of the Army permit to rechannel the Cedar River into Lake Washington and eliminate the Black River as an outlet. This permit was pursuant to Section 10 of the 1899 River and Harbor Act (33 U.S.C. _,, 403). The permit was issued on 5 January 1912. The permit provided "that the new channel - .a created on account of the work herein per itted to be done shall be navigable waterways of the _; United States, forever open to the public without charge for their use." On July 3, 1956, by "DECREE OF DISSOLUTION" the Commercial Waterway District No. 2, King County, ' r- State of Washington was dissolved and its,properties and assets distributed to the City of Renton. All,dredging;for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project will take place in the navigational servitude area. ' C. PUBLIC LAW 91-646 AND ACQUISITION: We advised the Nonfederal Sponsor of Public Law 91-646, as amended. The Nonfederal Sponsor has previous land acquisition experience and is fully capable of acquiring. any lands necessary for the project. See Exhibit B 24 , for the Assessment of the Local Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability checklist. At this point it appears the Nonfederal Sponsor currently owns all the lands needed for the project. There are no families or businesses that will temporarily or permanently be displaced as a result of this federally assisted project. Thus,.no resettlement or relocation assistance is required for this project. The land in the project area is not known or suspected to contain hazardous and/or toxic wastes. The Nonfederal Sponsor advises there are no outstanding mineral interests that need to be acquired or subordinated in the project area. If there are any outstanding third party interests such as public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines, the Nonfederal Sponsor must•clear or subordinate any third party interests that could interfere with the flood control project. 'Before advertisement for construction, the Nonfederal Sponsor will make all lands necessary for the project available to the Federal Government by a Certification of Lands and Authorization For Entry, Exhibit C, and Attorney Certificate, Exhibit D (Reference Appendix C). The Nonfederal Sponsor will provide the Corps, within 60.days after authorization of entry for construction, supporting LERRD credit documentation, including credit appraisals for lands made available for the project. D. ESTATES: The following standard estates apply to the Section 205 Flood Control Project: (1) Fee.- The fee simple title, subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. (2) Flood Protection Levee Easement. A perpetual and assignable right and easement in (the land to be described) to construct, maintain, repair, operate, patrol and replace a flood protection levee, including all appurtenances thereto; reserving, however, to the owners, their . heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges in the land as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. (3) Temporary Work Area Easement. _A temporary easement and right-of-way, in, on, over and across (the land to be described), for a period not to exceed one year, beginning with date possession of the land is granted to the United States, for use by the United States, its representatives, agents, and contractors as a work area including the right to move, store and `� remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary structures on the land and to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of-way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. (4) Temporary Disposal Site Easement. A temporary easement and right-of-way in, on, over, and across (the land to be described) for a period not to exceed one year, beginning with the date possession of the land is granted to the United States, for use by the United States, its representatives, agents, and contractors as a disposal area, including the right to . : • deposit fill, dredge and waste material thereon,move, store, and remove equipment and 25 ( r .4..... .: ., =•,i . Li 1 I • . • • . . . . L___,, • , ; . • . 1.,---.... ,-. t-t-1-.1:41,1 a'1.•- .1.:..i .t,.• 4 V / / • • grvvvvirvi . --"' 1 .• ••••••• 11. 13 acres for Levee &+-Floocl Wall I/1111 II I hiderhil;A•kl!S11 II.1. r_k...•:• ,'N i ''-i•"-• •••+..• 60.00 acres for Dispol'al Site • ••••••••••••4 11111111111 1 :, -;-rtity 1:.-i'riii-'4-, 1,,,.\\./ CA •••••••4 :=I=-.----•=1:=I I ,; METrini .-11'1111111-11!!1 Clil 1 s'- rn ...•40.Ot4t".4 0.•••4 n . 1:--- Seattle District USACE , ..... i :. 4 x•. ;" - ----v.V• ,c'elir -- §s • . -_ ! .,•-••• p • z 1 , I ••••• ' 0.65 acres for Temporary Staging Area Cadastral, Planning & Control Bran 1 1 , i 1.:•z;:;til I-I • •••••• F.- ,••••, /- • 2.90 acres for Fee Mitigation Site . ; ••••• • - 8:4 . Real Estate Division , , I-- -._12__..1 1 ‘...... • , . c (-4z--1 ---- 6•-••, . '.....,.,,i ••••7 • f , Prepared by: Steven D. Mortenson ;,) _,- • ..**Ly---: *°*•••••.••*•'i (.., , ••. - 1 i __.1 f•-; k-7 ••• .1 g. •••/ -, , , 4••••••i/ I t I ? '- TRUE 0 NORTH Illimm,_ • • ,.....••••"*"........."....-- • t.,--, -• i Tit i 1••• 1 ****** / i i ' 1 !\ l." .:5 zi -- ...41....1.11 -- u........L.......L.....1„.......•••••• • • .\.....Y.' 8' s 7)/ •••, i •e • 31 - gi 0 ...-----,...............-. • ......-- r**1„,' i R ..,-/-• ...., sn . T. r•• • ..1 ---.....-- 3.4 ,,....±:„,.....40...r-cl.r.-•••3_. .- • ....:::•-•••••"1"."..........Z....... t,••• / ) .---, . T '7'1'1 ,.....f.'"es} •••'" 0.,!••• i en .4tistuntistun=== i 1 1. t„,7\ ..""..-.:•::.'"- '. -bTei .. • -- • - ---. . I.- p Sm ' ,'''.' _,...e,...__._:::_____________-..•: ....______-.------7,.."--- ""--. 1-0•••• 4--1........:L.7. ... 1r..n II 1ii 1.-------.----••••••-le 'N.; 1 _ - • .. I t•-: •- .4 . . „••••••-• .,.... ; a . 1, , i / -...••••••••••' .•‘;''..? ....•••. 1/./ ./ T ••••-.21•:•(**•-.." t •• i i ' i C , I 3 . ' 1-- I ...• .........‹;0. •......„..........r.,...................7 „...........:..........., .. ...................... .........„......,.........,_/..........*.....*_.....................*"." ...................*. .1.,„4:-• ‘ _.; __, i i ! -• '!- --- , -- i , ...,••••-,••••• '.....a -4.- i -I- 1 ! i 1 • •,,. •: i. l• - . ...... I - ,....-""s".... .r.. •-• a - '"'•••••",..,7.,.:y.7).a.:..,-..-",.....--..-..--..-- . , 1 • -i. .3'•-t. .. ;*. I i ; I I ,.„,,,,,,:,..... ..4*.•itl,„..,.. ittglift.i...•.'..1::t•• . . ''.-'" 12...r........ i I 1 . i TRUE NORTH . ,49 Nu7"..".".... HHHhe"..e.,..„_,4•:z=z------ ---•*T•••••,......., ;...!...4i....1 :...,...,,,. r.n. _____ _ e_ ..i... ..1 x.r.,sar.:•-•-.'.-- wovv.....WOO ....... . t . ................................**,.‘ ............** ...... I •. I ... I 1E 2111 ---•-----,..,...\:. - - • . . - ----• •••••4,--f:.• I ii:i-:- ,. it i'.. .------.f ; ___.-------.•''------• ---------- ---------------- ---....... 4 • ? . I _, • •• ......• ,:netZev...17.tftefffeellt.I.11 . - .... . . .... . . ...........-.....-......--.........-1-...".:--.1 i .. ''.....-..."....... . . 0 1 41 ......... . '''‘ , .-.*.'.. ..."....-..... ...„.}STAARGEI 1ttN..."..............±.............T..r?... ...........c; ............... .... .,..... . . ii ...: , ....".......................................7%._....".-. ..................„. ; il Al ................ ............*.................Z.s;..... ...... 1 1••• 3 .„ .*••••••"-- --.--")•....- / -- ,./71•""...."..-C - . . ..---•-•-1-7.............. .-.--- 5 1"......• ..,........,-„ --" .......-......- . •••• . ....•••••••••••• 1 -"--".":::*".F.L--...-j./7... -*".-****/ '- 111":11Y - i .- . - .......-............... .......4..., i'l 3' •• . ........ ..••••• ( 1 IN iii ,....i.si mg' • i •i•Yi!" ,. .,i. . : • i.. .• . •• . . . .: .. :. ... • -,. ....„.„-----........-•-• --__ _......s.--•-•-: _....--_......-........,7..•- : - --' I • - ---------------------2 7.------ . 17 _...., r--1 ....ILL TO NJ (Cr .........t.:....................„,- .........1 III '' •; I/Ill."'" 1 1 • .1:,11V.' iola....A.V.• 1,..t. L , • 8 leu 07 . . . - .........., 4.. . . „_.............. ... ................, _......... .........__: ---- I. i ii Iii __,.- 0.65 A • c.,05054%./..e.f."041 •-••••••-•11-• 155•1•7,0teelify.1... . I 1‘.--"' 1 ••• • ..... .. 1 •i.....!.... ....• 'q3Iiiiiil ...."'. . 'II il 0,••• if -""ff• ••• -..:,I 1 • a ,.•,.: .. ••. -•- ::;!.................... : .. .r. 0, 1 A .\• • .......„.......,,t......... :, ‘,..e. .. .....„,,,-.,.. .,....;:44, .„,.., ..„,,, ._, ..................„ _..... .: II. ......,._,..,...,......, ,...,,,.›., . .: ::::. , . ; •••• .........06..i;..".^..:;',!...."...4'....'".....,....• e.. 4-11 • -..„„•-•_-,-.- I I' ''''....- .: .- ....„........ ----...._ s•-• - 111411 .. ........---' ••,"•••---.•,1 i ::-1." / ''', ••• ', ." : .., i .. I "s% . ..-- 3 0,1!P I. i • • . 00P ROLO MO MIMI*LO .••••••••••••• c , _ ..%. ... •• ....... ,‘: t'- • .' .....•••.-• 44 I I I i i ir,. knolle$6;Allo:WRMAR1r -* •..„.... ,..... • ...............c; . ......................1.--r..."1....-II 26.56 ...•• - .0.1...70 CI 'Ns.,. •. - _.......... rt) `I '- II 12S1 "...tir•' . .. •• -i.- ' • - X............-•-•••-: -" ............._.....„....._..."*"....-"N X I__--- .-1 I ...--„, - - :... ...,../..Iiii=";""5"... -,,!!`....'..=.'9,-'-'"..'011/ 3 •.4,4r0••'"--;^ . •i*=•••••"T;•'•"... „,............,............._i1"_1•:-...v3,...05..•iti..;,,irs.,11,30.g...4.0.. ..,',$. ..",. ........" ...:.,........-.."Z ...' Ikrk'!...7';e5it • ....., .....:,;...„...••• I.X 5,1 A 4! • 4 fli OMR Si.'..., N.Q1-----2:. , ,............... is......e 1, .... . i ••••••-•••••••\ i • .... 'I.'" ..-0=:•= •••••••" •„:"... '''..1 ....,:=•.....•., __/)__ --! ,- - - -•-. .... - ---\---- - - • 1r="\ 1 ..)- -- I-- - -='''-"--•''Igiiii2i''...,...."'".." - ..!. * . ...••••:".•:;":„....,"-'3 • • ' •3417'1-,..4. I' I I: 1•3 ..'3. '•., • 1 .•: .- ,-.. i I .• 7...:---wwliii! ,.......--.6.., 1\ \‘...\,.............., • ,, "........4. eiFlt.r-..- •••57 ......"..*,-;4:411'i hi• .................A. ........,''' ...0,...:Y...-„,:.....^-....... .......,..... ..--.";"-'''''''-.......' \ ../ . .. • I- k r • oo -. ......., jail tolli I' ;12 C2' ' •-----"......7. ----7:::--'...--,.. '-':---•-•• 6- N . - ..----5:----- ‘ 3 •r''''.---- ' : i 4..r•-l'!: •••• , •••• I•••I --,... k ...----...."' rtrisr'i• -1--.' 1 ..., ,,, .. 1„H-f--- • ••- : ••• .......... . i• :f 1 [I ! * 1 • ' tir1;115%c 41.1* II 1 :r •••-•••••-• r›,•••••,.. ....vow . . . 1........„..-„,...."-....ss '3P.: - .....,.. ,s• ‘s), .....:•-•• ---- a . • . , ,• ,, ........„,,,...,..„..„,,, _ .. n .... • . .4,-...00.-••• II ).-.'1 "::!..5::3 ';''''" • • A, .u..... I,. - , -•-•i.........:....:0,,. ;! .....•:ge,:ii..-t:::,:-L..-Vr.7.1.iiii.....6.......,.,,.....7;:'"-----'0.00. ;. ..7:4. 11,0- 11-211 I.-..• . ... 0•-.- . ,...:-:•••••• a a,-- ! u •ev,,,.....,..F.,,,t......- .cr.r. .. ........ .,.,- ...,4;$1,,0 ....- ....................“. ..r........::::•::::::!i •••-•-• 1.x 1 -•• ,,,e•#.4.,_, liP tio0=W; . 1. ...- ...• I ... I - 4,7 • ggV53 ".---,;:•‘) ....."'",it,,,,,e.0 P ... .......,.Tr*,*•• ‘.. ••• I •.- ...__ ........ 1 1 .-7,.: L..... i 1 ---. •••\ 1 a KT1 :\1 aii. ES.. 111. 1 ••••-•-= : L.......-; I . , i.,, 13;.10.! .......-• '••`"' . - I ,...•-•'....................";.„ ...,Ai . ,,,-• ' p..1 ••••••3 d „i, .e ...g;gc;,,„:„,.:.,••••••• II j ii x ...,._, -..,--.,-----... .. -'" ;";..? --..• C:) . \\r4A- 4relii .. .•-•• 0.°..!..,•",ari-. ^-''- • 1 I 1 I I lik t: ------r.-*‘--f-A_,,,r ............... i„....1.1‘.--x ...a..ii\VO.1.• I a - • • •• !:, i'.: ...". RIO::••1'•:••30.31 . II 1 , .. •.......ii1.10.j..?-..::rs:::•::,i p h r• 21 • ••••••._---1:-- Vx •-•%. ...--- " ,k‘*VI. 'Mill • .-.. ,..•••:!-- 1...-- .••••"' 0 01,51.1.......... (....= Wit313!'f.Iff:".":::. •- •••..71:3‘•.'1.••••r!........_..._ .. '-`3 •-.-........ ' ....---.. • * • • 5 I lb 11„,...---•--\I ‘1,.. ..• . ... II .:. . ...,... i •••••••110...rt.,:, ,,,,,--r---.',,,.0 0-- . , . ... .. . , . . . . ,..= ... I *---.:ii 5' ...--P--- .:.:1,7-.-.--.::77.2,..:::..,..,,„. • • - - \---.... il i N 1 ,.--- N\C A • 1 1 1 . ,._J : •' "-', -1 i' 1 •••-¢p --i,'-' ---•:•11,' :.;„A't:44- -, ..-------. -''i " ''' I i-----•-:-..,. ...-- i s... .:1,.Or. it-...•::::.:6•••<:15.:1*i:<",....;'''"....::- ;2•'.:.3..'... -----...•4 4. al ..; . . *A • 1 1 • • • a MAIM 1.---.-.-4.) / .5.... /..1-.....P. ::.)/-•-•••;/;;;. .'10- ; .,. . , . . i : I: II •:'1 \ i It 1 i i....,.......; .. ....f:., d.. -:.- ...--..----.44, ,...,*r 0 rl I. i ii f i -• ---.7.%.1,--„.....0 a-• x -‘.......--:::,-.:•"" . _ , • : ORM,i.,::: i-----•:-.--: .., .•h. g,r-e3...":":.K-....e4,-• 1) : -:•'.• ': .,:-: nr .- 1 11 ..0 ....,..... .. ........;:•---- ,-... ..--- ...- .. \\,1". \ :........ ••• , _......- - t.t• a t 1 : ;'. I ENE.'r-1-"•:" ' ill „ - f ••1 ! : .• .-: • ... I I i --::::•--- 2.2% , -;•.- i •4-- -4,‘v2. 1 -2- ------- i . i . ... . .../_,,,Al2...f....-2= .0.,...--t.:-<:..r......,.,;.---.0„..,.,,,„--,. . ..• : . I .. _,....., -,1- 11 limn ty r-,...;.:::-I:. . - -*:: . d-',.:1- ..4.-.0-':',.•• , -i- (411•:- I 1 . 't'3.1 I •-•: 4 .:.--• i*-,•• ‘ --- -.181" .• •,,.. , - - ..?.. .., -....i- i 1 i :•V ,,,,,,,•-• ..,-....• ,. ,,,....-::;-..r,•'..„.. - .-- i• 1 e'-'-: • , ,." .• '..,..r.--..:* ' k a Iv A ..- •••- •-.....;;:' ) to !• .... .."..??:• • „...4-.,........;,k,f . i.isidu..es :-.*....-,,,,•4/. .... At.. .• - ti -.:(.. „........,- .-•...--- . ., , • . . . , ....„..... c....--a--' x •-. .....----..... - ...... .-- *-- - a ;I i! 1, ef.orS....* •-•'" .- .VIA.1 . .• ...---- i . - • - -- ------ --`-'-• ...- ' • 1 . I . ! P. '""‘•-•.,....... „--' i , IA 1 t 1,1 a i--.. Li .. , ,„.„,,„.,.....,.....„.7,.......,.._ / „ s- ..• *:' ••• i ......• i : 31 1. i *..... .....-..."...... . .i..T. -3.••••••t. : • ."11.111""er , ?•21./.*:. .t.5....• .....• z. ••••••......... \ iki.), • I. •--- 3 t 4 ' • i . . 3 i i X\V:%•:' ...."*".. t=r-....-:= -------1====i 1 r-'1•-',.--71 . . ,,...- -.....• 4,.4.: ,-..;. • . " • :11t.-•*--.. - -- , ? ..___ , s ,...........- 1 X.-v•••••"-- . .•- l823 __...: . i t : ,.... .....----1,Vs, E , , ..., ..., I ; _...,_, : . •. . ." ......._- ,......_. ,i_e.„: ...„•,_ , :.. . : ...... 1 . - : ..........'•••• t ,*•-,;1.i. I., e-- . : i ie 1 d.••••••• * il tl.---•-•-•--r' ,•-..-7,•-••• ' • 4....;•''.....4.4"...4../.......r.r....:651S..•-:::. •',.7.:,:,. ,...C:;.:%,-...-'::::. u.., .....-- N ig -- - ....,z„,:.-...-.:::-... 6•-.'''.:. .:4;.1.. -. ,..• : ;:•.-::•••7; .f.- •••• Ir' - 44:1 162305467 ..... ..:;,.;./.117 ..t ' 1....":71 ••••••-•---- ii.;., ..."-- ..- --',..,,-;.--7/...i..- -.-- • ...-- .-.... s42164.-.....,......,....,..„,..,,,,,i„.44. “. ! .. liz mil 7:' .:........... -rt-g- --9, Aye. ....N„,...s...,„,„.. ..... ,.....„......,7_,...... .....„,„:........„ , , \ CEDAR RIVER SECT 10 ' FLOOD CONTROL PROJE I , : , -- --,...•_...... ,.,................. ...-1.,......-...an ,. . r • ." "'" 0.4 et,...ie,... f..*:, 1.•';'. .'''''''-"' • •-•' :••1 ...t.....eraeit:5„,:. . .„. .5•••••••,, •-•-••••-•-1='-‘... ret! ..* •- -.., ....:................................,-•-einv•4,....,.. 7.,.... •1 WI --, or2.414 : 4.156:51-4e*II"Zi:`44‘;,-3...{% ill NIP,• .6' --4' • Y 1 ` •'. 4---2-•?:••: ' 172305901kt " --.. ,,11 1112911..1 .....„.,:,.„: .11111110r. siligilirlia. ..mity.4,-17-,..--.....-,.... 1/1111 •.=11111114.01m I ..., zo, too. o no' • 1 4:::-• .::-•-*%i.:••- ..••-•,,), i , • - ----------- .--..:--..., 9..-.,;--i. - - T .,-..... ill . f.tg ' iVe-- - • 7:-."'-'------•"-=-11- 7-7----- 1 i ir.n ,f i 1, , ',FILE: J:gscw9stwOreatestgsaq-ficdr C •••• ., • ..... . - •-• 7 0- -.: 1-2-. , ,; t ...:••- • - .• - - -• • • .-...•-• ., es r- .4i02.••,.... • o 7g¢ F ❑ vzZ o 1-1-,ocii . <�O pLI ° o ac _z- s •e^� 41s�1 € pUw t 4r " eC-<o wi_7,, + r s ;' ` nosF�g s, t t .:' t flal :i aBFO c }9 J t �C mF"�W ir W I I C. 11Mb ) , ..- z .....::::....:.::.......„.......:...y , V I � aC=cc }, a t Lo-g ♦r L �j cp O C U +� 3'S N W F' �� ILL ai ui� ccc� - m o O 0 N rrnn O vj U m N mcffco CG c a; +i t o 0 as _oc M 0 rn bTi E CCC c rfd 0 ® Ds CO lei•53 cc0 _ wav O :� Ti. :4-6-61 .1.:::::'.:.:'''ii:::::::::-:' :::::::•::::::::7,-;.-4:-....y........4.,2:::::§:..5.;41:.:..:.................................. +r i ti z 0 , .:14,. ....'..,s.j.:V.:.• •:- E O 3� El ;�aa 0) o EL 0 S. cU ro o, y v. II• • 4.0 . E � �c C � oo' . rcis oo Ef :fU 1O ' l�Q� c• LL a UA;=j U,; tr) v.f ill � I L Exhibit Bff ::::.� CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION CAPABILITY Legal Authority: a. Does the sponsor have legal authority to acquire and hold title to real property for project purposes? Yes. b. Does the sponsor have the power of eminent domain for this project? Yes. c. Does the sponsor have "quick-take" authority for this project? No. The Non-Federal Sponsor has the authority to acquire immediate possession. However, title vests after just compensation is determined by agreement or judicial decision. In the case of this project, the Non-Federal Sponsor already owns all the lands necessary for the project. d. Are any of the lands /interests in land required for the project located outside the sponsor's political boundary? No. e. Are any of the lands/interests in land required for the project owned by an entity whose property the sponsor cannot condemn? No. II. Human Resource Requirements: ' a. Will the sponsor's in-house staff require training to become familiar with the real estate requirements of Federal projects including P.L. 91-646, as amended? Yes., b. If the answer to II.a. is "yes", has a reasonable plan been developed to provide such training? Yes. c. Does the sponsor's in-house staff have sufficient real estate acquisition experience to meet its responsibilities for the project? Yes. -2 d. Is the sponsor's projected in-house staff level sufficient considering its other work load; if any, and the project schedule? Yes. e. Can the sponsor obtain contractor support, if required, in a timely fashion? Yes. • . EXHIBIT C DATE: Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers ATTN: Real Estate Division Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 RE: Certification of Lands and Authorization For Entry Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project _• - • Gentlemen: By Project Cooperation Agreement dated the day of 199_, = the City of Renton, Washington, assumed full responsibility to fulfill the requirements of non-federal cooperation as specified therein and in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. This is to certify that the City of Renton has sufficient title and interest in the lands hereinafter described and shown on Exhibit A, attached, in order to enable the City of Renton to comply with the aforesaid requirements of non-federal cooperation. Said lands and/or interest therein are owned or have been acquired by the City of Renton and are to be used for the construction, maintenance and operation of the above referenced project and include, but are not limited to the following specifically �I enumerated rights and uses, except as hereinafter noted: 1. Fee. Fee simple title, subject however to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. 2. Flood Protection Levee Easement. A perpetual and assignable right and easement in the land described in the attached Exhibit_ to construct, maintain, ' repair, operate, patrol and replace a flood protection levee, including all appurtenances thereto; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all - such rights and privileges in the land as may be used without interfering with or • abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired;'subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. O I Assistance and Real Property Acquisition uisition Policies Act of of the Uniform Relocation AssQ : 1970, (Public Law 91-646) as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and � .a Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR•Part 24. 1, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON BY: NAME TITLE 13 r-- i � I • ,; II • 1 I i CED205CL.DOC 3/24/97 3 EXHIBIT D • ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY PROJECT NAME: Cedar River Section 205, Flood Control Project, • • Renton, Washington ° ;: I [Name of Attorney], for City of Renton, Washington, certify that the City of Renton is vested with sufficient title and interest in the described lands required by the United States of America to support the construction, operation and maintenance of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project; that the City of Renton has authority to grant the Certification of Lands and Authorization For Entry to which this Certificate is appended; that said Certification of Lands and Authorization For Entry is executed by the proper duly authorized authority; and that said authorization is in sufficient form to grant the Certification of Lands and Authorization For Entry therein stated. SIGNED this day of 199_. NAME: TITLE: . • r.^ . • 1 a:CED205AT.CER 3/24/97 r'. j �� I 4 , ,- .,:.---% supplies, and erect'and remove temporary structures on the land and to perform any other ;;= work necessary and incident to the construction of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right-of- t-. way; reserving , however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and 5 privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public = utilities, railroads and pipelines. E. Real Estate Cost Estimate: This cost includes an estimated value of the fair market value of '" the project lands, both Federal and Nonfederal Sponsor costs for title work, appraisals, review of appraisals, coordination meetings, investigation of utility and facilities in the project area that may require relocation, review of,right-of-way documents, legal support, crediting s. i activities and other incidental costs. 1 Lands and Damages 1 $776,000 Non-Federal Sponsor's Costs 15,000 i. Federal Review and Assistance Costs 12,000 Subtotal $803,000 Contingency 20% 161,000 TOTAL (Rounded) $964,000 • - 4.06. Environmental Impacts of the Recommended Plan. The environmental effects are documented in the environmental impact statement. Probable significant impacts of the project include: Loss of adult salmon spawning area-and increase in predators of sockeye and chinook fry because of the increase in lake backwater area; loss of some bank scour pool habitat and coastrange sculpin habitat; decline in aquatic invertebrate diversity and abundance; and a possible decline in brook lamprey due to frequent dredging. The project will provide ,, mitigation for adverse environmental impacts. 4.07 Mitigation Plan. Mitigation planning was carried out using sequencing: avoiding, 1 minimizing, rectifying, and compensating for adverse impacts. Impacts were avoided to the maximum extent practicable while still!accomplishing the project purpose. The minimal . effective dredging depth was selected as the preferred plan to avoid more serious impacts;.the delta will not be significantly dredged as part of the project; riparian vegetation will be left in it place and intact on the right bank between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge; the in- _ water construction window has been reduced to June 15 - August 31 to avoid impacts to adult _ salmon; and headcutting will be prevented by sloping the dredging upstream to Williams . Avenue. During plans and specifications the Corps will evaluate whether a small cut-off structure is required to prohibit upstream erosion from the project. t 1 Adverse impacts have been minimized by placing bank protection on the left bank only below _ the OHWM (ordinary high'water mark) and planning for a "jagged" face rather than a smooth 1 ,t: face to allow adult salmon holding. Adverse impacts have been rectified by salvaging any riparian plants removed during construction for later replanting. Unavoidable adverse impacts -..�: are compensated for with a mitigation plan. w LI 32 r.=_ _�;;:= The formulation of the proposed mitigation included an evaluation of unavoidable adverse >' impacts, possible on-site mitigation options, and finally off-site mitigation options. In order to adequately provide compensatory mitigation for the identified unavoidable adverse impacts, we established a minimum threshold of mitigation. The minimum mitigation required included: 1) replacement of 2560-3840 square feet of sockeye spawning habitat; 2) provision of either suitable safe shallow water habitat for sockeye fry near the mouth of the Cedar River, or stable spawning habitat for increased production of sockeye fry (better egg to fry survival) in order to compensate for likely increased predation on sockeye fry; 3) creation of mainstem rearing habitat for chinook fry, 4) increased detrital and insect input to compensate for the decline of aquatic invertebrate populations (major food items for most,resident and rearing juvenile fish); improvement of rearing habitat for chinook salmon on the mainstem of the Cedar (better fry survival) and, 5) provision for some increase in adult salmon holding area.(or provide physical , i factors that will naturally create holding areas, i.e. large woody debris from an improved riparian zone). • We evaluated on-site areas for the possibility of providing the above identified mitigation. A side channel created along the left bank (park side) could replace sockeye spawning habitat if it had sufficient flow to keep the spawning gravel aerated and did not fill in with sediment. However, because of the likelihood of severe sedimentation and possible contamination by - urban/industrial pollutants, this was not selected. Riparian vegetation planted in a 15 foot buffer strip along both banks (willows only on left _ bank, mixed species on right bank below the south Boeing bridge) in the project area would provide increased detrital/insect input to the lower river to compensate for reduced aquatic invertebrate production/diversity from frequent maintenance dredging (items 2 and 4, above),. Hydraulican alysis of as well as create.hiding/resting habitat for adult salmon near the banks. al Y the 15 ' wide buffer strip showed no net increase,in the water surface elevation for the design flows. The creation of shallow water habitat with a native marsh plant (Scirpus acutus) was evaluated on the delta at the mouth of the river. Such habitat would likely provide adequate safe habitat for chinook and sockeye fry. However, it was unknown if the plants would survive the deposition of sediment and the local sponsor strongly opposed any mitigation on the delta. Therefore, it was'determined that delta habitat,should not be pursued. No other on-site options were possible, so it was determined that off-site mitigation would be necessary. King County had previously evaluated possible restoration sites in the Cedar River specifically targeted at salmon species.• We evaluated the proposed plans for the sites closest to Renton and determined that the Elliott Levee site (owned by Renton, which has one groundwater channel already excavated'on site by King County in 1996) could be suitable for creating a - sue: groundwater fed side channel that would adequately mitigate for items 1,2, and 3, above. This s E site is publicly owned and is in a suitable floodplain location to expect shallow groundwater. Also, access from city and county roads is good and would reduce construction costs. It was - determined that an off-site groundwater fed channel of approximately 9,000 square feet would adequately mitigate for loss of spawning area and increased predation. For purposes of the 33 1 1 feasibility construction cost estimate, the development of 5 acres at the Elliott Levee site E: ;::::1:- upstream of the confluence of Madsen Creek and the Cedar River for a spawning channel was 'r .,. P estimated. The addition of large woody debris in the mainstem would improve chinook rearing habitat. Two locations were evaluated for improvements. The project area was eliminated because of the potential for rapid burying of the debris because of the high sedimentation rates in the lower mile of the river. The addition of debris along the riverbank in the vicinity of the i upstream spawning channel was chosen as a more geologically stable area. Monitoring will be conducted for 5 years after project construction. Monitoring is designed to determine if the mitigation plan is successful and to confirm the extent of impacts on key - species described in the EIS (see Section 5.6 in draft EIS). If monitoring demonstrates that mitigation items are unsuccessful or impacts on key species are more severe than originally l expected, then contingency planning with resource agencies and tribes will be conducted. 5.01 Project Cost Estimate. A detailed cost estimate is shown in Appendix E, Project Costs. i Fully funded construction costs reflect June 1998 price levels. The quantities shown are for in-place conditions. The total fully funded construction cost is $8,515,000. The local { sponsor's share would be $3,999,000 and the Federal portion would be $4,516,000 based upon the cost sharing and financing requirements as contained in the Water Resource Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, November 1986. The average annual costs, evaluated at 7.375 percent interest rate over the 100-year economic analysis period, including allowance for ' ` . . operation and maintenance, amount to $1,390,000. Maintenance dredging costs are • $2,387,000 every third year, or $740,000 annually using a 3 year dredge cycle discounted at 7.375% . Maintenance for levees/floodwalls is expected to be $8,000 annually, maintenance for the south Boeing bridge flood structures is $6,000 annually. Design elements to be completed during Plans and Specification include: the hydraulic jacking system and closure structures for the South Boeing Bridge; mitigation site features; park features; ' levee/floodwalls (with utility relocations); and dredging. Plans and Specifications is estimated to cost$478,000 and last approximately 8 months. 1 1A 5.02 Operation and Maintenance. Renton is responsible for the operation and maintenance - (O&M) of the project, including levees, floodwalls, closure structures, dredging, and bridge operation following the completion of the project in accordance with an O&M manual to be prepared by Seattle District in conjunction with Renton. The sponsor will be responsible for operating and maintaining the project as described in the O&M manual to insure serviceability against floods at all times. Operation of the project during flood events will require the monitoring of river levels, placement of the closure structures and raising of the bridge, and �-~. verification that the project is operating as designed. Flood exercises will be required I periodically to train local sponsor personnel in the proper operation of project features. Removal of debris will be required throughout the year to allow proper operation of drain r pipes and the south Boeing bridge jacking mechanisms. � i General project maintenance will include mowing the grassed levees, removing undesirable , r'1 • _ vegetation from the embankment side slopes, removal of debris from levee slopes and • I . 34 structures, correction of all types of animal burrows and, if required, restoring the embankment to the design grade and section. As the age of the project increases, maintenance of the project will include replacing deteriorated and damaged equipment. Particular attention, to closure structures and jacking machinery will be required. The local sponsor will prevent encroachment on the rights-of-way that would interfere with project operation and maintenance. An inspection program will be developed by the local sponsor to recognize and correct any conditions that could adversely affect the project. The O&M manual will be prepared following project construction. Items likely to be included are listed below. - Resurvey the Cedar River channel annually at cross sections established by the Corps to assess the need for redredging. - As necessary, redredge the length of the project channel to the original project dimensions. - Maintain the levees, floodwalls, and seals. -Repair future damage to embankments resulting from pedestrians, rodents, and vehicles. - Replace shrubs and trees planted for mitigation purposes by same or comparable species if replacement is required because of plant mortality or uprooting (during the first 5 years). - Blackberries, reed canary grass, and other invasive species will not be allowed to grow on the levees nor the bank so they could obscure inspection of the condition of the levees and floodwall or impact the growth of plants required for mitigation. Pruning of mitigation plantings will not be encouraged. However, minor pruning of vegetation to maintain a few areas for public viewing is allowed. - Periodically thin willows, on the left bank as noted in the Operations and Maintenance Manual. - Water plantings for 2 years following completion of initial construction. - Maintain the upstream spawning channel. The channel will be maintained and cleaned out as it necessary to insure adequate flows for spawning. • - Maintain culverts, flapgates, and other levee and floodwall facilities in a good state of repair and in good operating condition. - Maintain the lifting system, new.piers, and portable power source for the south Boeing bridge, including a backup generator power source, in a good state of repair and in good Fri operating condition. All elements of the bridge constructed for flood control purposes as part of this project are the responsibility of Renton to maintain and operate. 35 -- - Maintain closure structures for the bridge and park in good state of repair and operating condition. Insure adequate storage locations for the closures, in appropriate locations for quick ;;:-, : and easy installation. - Provide for annual flood exercises piior to the flood season with appropriate crew to insure ` that the bridge and closures are in good operating condition and that trained crews are available at all times. - Maintain a staff gage at a site recommended by the Corps for the operation of the bridge and closure structures. - Identification of specific cross-section criteria to trigger permitting for redredge. i.. - Renton may choose to construct small berms upstream of the Federal project to provide some additional protection to downtown Renton. Sizing of the berms must be compatible with the Federal project to insure that it does not preclude the functioning of the overflow section at the airport. - Annual inspection of the project will be conducted by both the Corps of Engineers and the local sponsor. Any deficiency discovered will be the local sponsor's responsibility to correct. - Annual O&M costs resulting from the project are estimated to be $740;000 5.03 Design and Construction Schedule. The schedule for design and construction is listed below. July 1997 - DPR, EIS, and Sponsor's!Financial Plan submitted for approval to Corps higher authority. • • October 1997 - Seattle District receives funding to initiate plans and specifications. g , t February 1998 - Seattle District requests construction approval and approval to execute.PCA. s-. 4 March 1998 - Seattle District receives construction approval and authority to execute PCA. March 1998 - PCA_executed. May 1998 - Seattle District advertises construction contract June 1998 - Construction contract awarded. June 1998 - Construction initiated. March 1999 - Construction completed. 36 SECTION 6. ECONOMIC EVALUATION 6.01 Purpose and Scope. This section presents an overview of the methodologies used to 4y: evaluate the socioeconomic effects of the proposed flood damage reduction project along the Cedar River at Renton, Washington. A variety of without project conditions, project alternatives, sensitivity evaluations and project optimization scenarios have been considered. The outcome of these evaluations combined with engineering, environmental and local sponsor considerations have led to the selection of the recommended plan. 6.02 Location and Description. The floodplain under consideration is the lower mile and a ;-, half of the left and right banks of the Cedar River located in the City of Renton. The 1996 ' population of Renton is estimated at 45,170 Within this river reach on the left bank, the City of Renton operates a municipal airport. In addition to the airport facilities there are approximately 14 aviation related commercial establishments, along the left bank. The Boeing Company's Renton production facility is located on the right bank. All 737 and 757 aircraft are produced at this facility. Immediately upstream of the Boeing Plant and the municipal airport land use changes to residential and general commercial/retail use. Also located in this area are a number of public buildings. Renton Municipal Airport. Renton Municipal Airport is a general aviation facility serving the City of Renton and other nearby communities in Western King County. The airport provides regional aviation services for air charter, air taxi, corporate, business and recreational flyers. It is also designated by the FAA as a "Reliever" airport, diverting general aviation aircraft traffic from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The airport has a single asphalt and concrete runway with a full parallel taxiway on the west side and a partial parallel taxiway at the southeast end. The length of the runway is 5,379 feet; the width is 200 feet. Airport facilities include an air,traffic control tower, airport administration building, and airport maintenance area. The total value of the public facilities, including the runway, taxiway, lighting, etc. is estimated at $3.7 million dollars. In addition to the 14 commercial establishments, Boeing has two aircraft aprons and leases several buildings from the airport. Additionally, the airport has aircraft storage and hangar facilities housing approximately 358 aircraft. The assessed value of the commercial establishments, excluding the Boeing facilities, is $3,950,000. Of the aircraft located at the airport, 331 are small engine craft with an average value of$60,000, 25 are larger aircraft valued at$250,000, and there-are at least two jet engine planes valued at$2.5 million. The total value of aircraft is $31,110,000. Also located at the airport are aircraft fuel facilities and seaplane facilities. The total value of property on the Iower left bank of the study reach is estimated at$38,760,000. The Boeing Company-Renton Facility/Plant. The Renton Division of the Boeing Company produces the 757, a 194 seat aircraft with a range of 4,500 miles, and three versions of the new generation 737: the 737-300 with a capacity of 128 passengers, the 737-400, which can carry 146 people, and the smallest version, the 737-500, which carries 108 passengers,. Three new versions of the 737 (-600, -700, -800) are expected for delivery in late 1997. Total employment at the Renton facility is approximately 12,000. • 37 i i Production rates over the past ten years have varied between 13 aircraft per month to 26 aircraft per month. Although the value of individual aircraft varies due to customer preferences and needs, the average value of a 737 in 1995 dollars is $35 million, while the average value of 757s is $61'million.- This represents between$6.16 billion and $133 billion dollars in sales revenue per year, based on historical production levels. Forecasted production r rates in 1997 are expected to be between 18 (first quarter) and 21 aircraft per month (forth quarter), representing between $8.8 billion and$10.0 billion in sales revenue per year. This rate is expected to increase substantially through the end of the century with'rates peaking r during 1998 at' 32 aircraft per month ($14.7 billion in sales revenue). Production levels are expected to be around 25 aircraft per,month through the year 2000. Given the level of sales revenue, as well as direct and indirect employment, the Renton facility is not only a critical employer for the city, but for the PugetSound Region as well. : The majority of the Renton facility is located along the lower right bank of the Cedar River. There are an estimated 22 structures that have been identified to be in the flood plain on the `° right bank. There is also an airplane apron (apron D).located on the right bank. The Boeing Company uses two bridges that span the river during their production process, the North • r' Boeing Bridge at the mouth and the South Boeing Bridge at river mile 0.74. The airplanes enter the Municipal Airport across the North Boeing Bridge, and are then taken across the South'Boeing Bridge for further finishing work at aprons located on the right bank. Planes are y taken back across the South Boeing Bridge for finishing work at aprons on the airport, before ' being flown out. At the airport there are some electronic installations and critical functional .--.- testing of mechanical, electrical, flight control and avionics systems as well as fueling and leak check of all airplane tanks. The Boeing company has three aprons along the left bank and approximately 8 structures. Each of;the aprons can accommodate 8-13 aircraft. The total value of Boeing structures located in the floodplain is estimated at$408,000,000, while the total value of building content and equipment, excluding aircraft, is estimated at $1,193,000,000. ry The total value of property located in the lower reach of the study area which has been included in the economic evaluation is estimated at $1,639,760,000. This includes those areas --3 outlined above, all located downstream of the Logan Avenue bridge. Residential &Commercial area. The area located upstream of the Logan Avenue Bridge to I- 405 was not evaluated in detail. There are an estimated 300 residential structures and 50 _'a commercial/public structures located in this reach. Under the current without project conditions, the area is not significantly impacted by flooding. However under the future 3 without project condition, flooding in this area becomes significantly,worse. With the '°� proposed project in place (priniarily the dredging component), the area would continue to have protection from approximately the 1Q0 year recurrence interval flood event. If higher levels of protection are considered under the overall project, this area would receive additional protection. Existing and With project flood damages for this area have not been quantified, - any flood damage reduction benefits this area receives through implementation of a project • downstream are considered incidental for this analysis. 1 38 I _ 6.03 Existing Flood Protection. The left and right banks of the study area have differing levels -.:.-< 0 of protection. Based on a 1995 channel survey and hydraulic modeling completed as part of this feasibility evaluation, the left bank has protection against the 1.6 year flood event. The right bank has protection against an estimated 23 year flood event.---Since the channel-was - routinely dredged prior to the 1980's historical flood damages are of little use for the economic evaluation. However, in 1990 the area experienced a 50 year flood event resulting in approximately $8,000,000 dollars in damages. The flood event occurred over a holiday weekend and during a low production cycle, which substantially lowered the damages which could have occurred. Additionally, if the 50 year (1990) flood event had occurred under the 1995 channel conditions damages would have been greater. t_ Expected annual damages based on the 1995 channel are estimated between$3,122,000 and $4,329,000. The without project conditions are expected to dramatically worsen due to channel aggradation in the future. Expected annual damages have also been estimated for a ten year and twenty year future without project condition. Annual Damages are expected to be • between $11,072,000 and $14,654,000 (as broken down in table 6.1 and 6.2) at project year i ten if no measures are implemented to increase the channel conveyance. Based on the hydraulic modeling under the estimated aggradation rates, the channel would be expected to avulse at project year 20 with the majority of the flow going out of the river channel. If no measures are taken, after twenty years average annual damages could reach$26,149,000. 6.04 Without Project Conditions. For purposes of evaluating the economic feasibility of a 4,--"' proposed flood control project at Renton, a most likely without project condition must be k, identified. As is evident from the discussion above, establishing a realistic without project condition is critical to correctly assessing the economic feasibility of any proposed actions. , -, Historically the river channel in this reach was dredged periodically. Due to the difficulty of obtaining dredge permits because of environmental sensitivity, the channel has not , been dredged since the early 1980s. However, without implementation of a Corps project it was assumed that the local sponsor would be able to obtain occasional emergency or routine dredge permits. Based on discussions with the Corps Regulatory branch, it does not appear that under 1996 conditions, the sponsor would have been able to obtain an emergency permit. However within 3 to 8 years flooding could become so extreme that obtaining emergency permits would likely be possible for limited spot dredging. Although it is difficult to estimate the quantity of dredge material that would be removed under emergency conditions or otherwise, a dredge depth of two feet at some cross sections was selected to assess the hydraulic impacts on flooding. Based on this preliminary assessment, it appears that periodic spot dredging may lesson flood problems the following year, but the quantity would do little to lessen the flood problems beyond the initial year, thus occasional dredging (emergency or otherwise) cannot be relied on to resolve flooding issues. Overall, flood problems are expected to significantly worsen in the future. It is assumed that any spot dredging that does take place would have an insignificant effect on overall expected channel cross-sections D regardless of spot dredging. The twenty year future conditions appear to be too extreme to consider as the without project condition, using these conditions could overstate project benefits. Using the existing - condition damages would not accurately reflect the severity of the flood problem due to the expected sedimentation rates. The ten year future condition was selected for the without 39 r t project condition for the economic evaluation. This without project condition appears - reasonable given the sedimentation rates and the possibility of implementation of a long term solution beyond year ten. The costs which would be incurred under the without project condition for occasional spot dredging have not been considered.• Average annual damages are quantified based on the channel aggrading to the ten year future condition and then remaining at this level for the remainder of the project life. Expected annual damages have been discounted and levelized over a.100 year project life. An uncertainty evaluation of the assumptions used for the without project condition is included in Section 6.1: T' Four damage categories have been identified for the evaluation, these include (1) right bank structures, (2) right bank building contents, (3) Airport& left bank airport facilities, aircraft& business, and finally a category for (4) Public losses. Expected damages were evaluated for the 1.6, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 year flood events. Damage estimates are based on a combination of personal interviews, insurance records, county assessments and historical flood damages. The Institute for Water Resources Analysis of Nonresidential -'' Content Value and Depth-Damage Data for Flood Damage Reduction Studies 96-R-12 (May 1996) was also used extensively. Expected annual damages were estimated for the 1995 channel condition, the 10 year future condition and the 20 year future condition. In evaluating variables in the depth damage relationship that showed the most variability, the percent depreciation in Boeing structures, content and machinery was the most significant factor. Two tables are presented below covering a low and high value range for expected annual equivalent damages (third column) for the four flood damage categories considered in the study area. Tables 6.1 and.6.2 also contain annual damages expected under the 1995 channel -! conditions and the 10 year future conditions. Expected annual equivalent damages under the without project (discounted and levelized 10 year future) condition range from. $9,569,000 to $12,719,000. Table 6.1 utilizes an average depreciation rate of 30%, resulting in higher damage estimates, Table 6.2 utilizes'a higher depreciation rate of 50% resulting in lower damage estimates. Boeing was unable to confirm these values, since all of their insurance values are based on replacement costs, but felt the values were reasonable. Based on other Corps flood control studies, a depreciation rate on the order of 30% to determine commercial property and structure value appears;common. Insurance information provided by the Boeing Company does not make a distinction between content machinery and;content inventory. II Depreciation was applied to the total'content value, it is recognized that inventory should not realistically be depreciated at such high rates and this has resulted in an understated damage estimate. The insured value of the inventory also'fluctuates depending on the production level .711 in any given month. The values used for the damage estimate is based on the facility being at 30% of capacity, which equates to delivery of approximately 25 aircraft per month. Boeing's current and predicted production levels are substantially over this rate, but given the cyclical nature of their orders, using the 30% capacity level is reasonable. .� Tables 6.1 and 6.2 demonstrate the variability in expected annual damages based on the assumption used for depreciation. To simplify the evaluation of various plans, the more conservative 50% depreciation rate will be used for the remainder of the economic evaluation. 1 (Quantification of benefits, BCR and plan optimization was completed for both assumptions, there was no affect on plan selection,or optimization) Expected average annual equivalent damages as reported in table 6.1, $9;569,000 will be the reference without project condition. 40 - -TABLE 6.1: WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION - EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES MINIMUM * CATEGORY Existing Channel Ten year future channel -Average Annual • Conditions Expected° conditions.Expected ` Equivalent Damages n ., ,• . : :, ,:. -An yual ' - Annual Damages- 0ver;the Project Life: Damages ($1000) -" ($1000) t:::=($1°,000)) ,. . As o�j ..,! $997 + j- $450 $1,110 gg Ot� a $2,569 $8,076 $7,060 } :g 1.1 p `� , ;y t $45 $992 $793 .";�. err y $58 $894 $719 0. . tr i•Tp s Y-� = $3,122 $ 11,072 $9,569 Fi g ,-;:, _,, —_e;, f * Minimum damage estimates above are used for the remainder of the evaluation. TABLE 6.2: WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION EXPECTED ANNUAL DAMAGES MAXIMUM CATEGORY '-•Existing Channel =:Ten:year future ..Average Annual ' Conditions Expected .channel conditions., :: Equivalent Damages':: r Annual - Expected Annual- over•the.Project Life - _ !, -Damages ($1000) .. Damages ($1000) e, • ,. :($1,000): F. .�i : t :Z $630 $1,554 $1,396 A"°�: eo ate€ p. = $3,596 $11,214 $9,811 tom- ` . Z-I'M 4 ,-,� -; •._.',e $45 $992 • $793Ral- w;g0 $58 $894 E'1v' $719 4 ��ar ; '� om' ` "�� .. ` '" 9Wn ' $4,329 $ 14,654 $12,719 • �� mo t. ,. ... _Y.. . a 41 ` II i- r Expected damages for various flood events under the without project condition are presented below in table 6.3. - • • .- - - - - TABLE 6.3 DAMAGES FOR VARIOUS FLOOD EVENTS BASED ON LEVELIZED 1 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION ($1,000) � . -5 ,i vt7 y`z lG„ i .:4- '�iti6'' L.L �"v --ti*'>�+e.•c4 -u f t-....,r 34iL7 : . { z., "k g - c -a 'ri"i:'�.'x, :,--,-., -c'•-'a,i isa. 4- �,+p ; "?- c�.,C'. al �,� -� y„�.,r c i w,. �!'��'��. :s`�,'"'tis:uu,yea fi-� d�- � � .a=- �.h r ,� "`�'c�' t..� ��t �...A�...c-� I , k �'y'•+ °- `V" ,G�` :NY -" J Li41:E:V :14A z'a"'�, \ 11 firFt"., r .; , x'-`''``.+ r ,, x ,g STR.0 �' W ZerON =�IRPO.RT .�'YPT,BLIC":,P O,tAL i! ]� 4Sr ' ' �f}' '�'yti.. +1Y,,'v' �{�/)rl� 3tt ..;,n..'Cc'�+�' !v' '"�v. -I �.- '"j, 1,RLQ'- .c..n-' 'lG ,�Q "3�7 M v-,;' 1;RE x' r't L ,s ✓ ,x sv,S q: "Y h;,^ ni. to ss -f . i i'. ,; ,� .,.5.^*r,'• -...1P "`"_£_�.; it fir 7 i . '''` ``�1;s.,.,Y�" -7 -• - . 4'-i,�,V,q.,-�h +.: '- -s.} .' K✓i .-r he..- `.4 'Y � ��WYyY �-t....ra 1' . �F^ � J�'Y� t Y,txh �,i5 :. ' � . � 3.�4 Y.`� .. . .+ fli^: , 62.5% 2300 $0 $0 $464 $466 $929 10% 6400 $1;860 $15,647 $1,498 $1,210 $20,215 4% 8400 $4;575 $36,286 $1,943 $947 $43,752 ', i 2% 10100 $12,115 $83,619 $2,442 $2,351 $100,527 1% 12000 $17,656 $117,758 $3,411 $2,817 $141,642 .5% 18200 $40,125 $250,464 $3,972 $3,917 $298,478 .2% 21500 $46 637 $273,762 $4,193 $4,027 $328,620 ' Aircraft Production Delays, Business Losses and Impacts to the Municipal Airport. During flood events as frequent as the ten year event the municipal airport must close because of substantial water over the runway. Closure time varies between approximately two days for a ten year event, to ten days for a 100 year flood event. Additional closure time is needed for debris removal and clean-up which could take at least several weeks for significant events. f This presents not only impacts to airport users, but significant safety concerns since the airport is used as a reliever facility for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. These impacts have not been quantified for the evaluation. Fl .1 Use of either the North or South Boeing Bridge is also precluded during moderate flood events due to substantial flows upstream and downstream of the bridges. Flood fight activities t= including debris removal also take place on the bridges. Following a flood event the airport remains closed for days or weeks depending on the severity of the flooding for removal of silt and debris and repairs. The impacts;of even moderate flood events have a tremendous impact M. on Boeing aircraft production. The economic impact to Boeing in terms of business losses j associated with flooding has been considered. Based on insurance estimates for business interruptions, losses were estimated for a 25, 50 and 100 year flood events based on 1995 channel conditions. Losses per day are estimated to be $843,000. The business interruption - cost is estimated at $6.7 million dollars for a 25 year flood event, $17.7 million for a 50 year r-S event and $25 million for a 100 year flood event. Based on discussions with Boeing representatives and industry analysts it does not appear (i reasonable to include these losses as part of the NED benefit evaluation. Although impacts are 42 substantial, it is reasonable to assume that production losses could be made up within three to six months. This of course assumes the facility is not operating at full capacity. It is reasonable that Boeing would incur an increase in the cost of production either through penalty fees for late delivery or increased labor costs due to additional-overtime, these would be considered NED benefits. However this information is considered to be proprietary and thus estimates could not be made. Under the future without project conditions the continued and frequent closure of the bridges and the airport as well as production delays could conceivably result in a decision to relocate the entire facility. Costs for this were not included in the economic evaluation and have not been considered under the without project evaluation. 6.05 Project Benefits. Project benefits are based on a reduction in expected annual flood damages between without project and with project conditions. Several levels of protection were considered during the evaluation. These include protection against the 100 year , recurrence interval flood event, based on the 90% 100 year water surface profile, and the 200 year and 500 year flood events, also based on the 90% water surface profiles. Expected annual equivalent damages, damages reduced and residuals are presented below for each of the , ;: levels of protection. TABLE 6.4 EXPECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVELENT BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF PROTECTION ($1,000) `. RB.STR . . -RIB CONT <AIRPORT . . PUM IC TOTAL:. f - '�� , ' ` o h $997 $7,060 $793 $719 $9,569 7 7* Il ; , p -. $307 $1,857 $29 $28 $2,221 emu.'o 'A 1 s ,4 �' e.uced $690 $5,203 $764 $691 $7,348 I ; u" +, , Bama.es $997 $7,060 $793 $719 $9,569 �y r�� • „ ., i£ $166 $1,106 $26 $25 $1,323 =1l am ]'ea a .: $831 $5,954 $767 $694 $8,246 ' e(ytiF< rM — , �r 0 �.- ---- *4t 'ai r+ s_-1--r.2-,A 1 &,- 04.I. , , e 3 ••,I, $997 $7,060 $793 $719 $9,569 .NFL. • a $14 $341 $26 $22 $403 - j ainai 1' educksetti& $983 $6,719 $767 $697 $9,166 ; As discussed in the plan formulation and plan optimization sections, various alternatives to F: obtain 100 year flood protection were first evaluated (a detailed description of costs is ! presented in the following section). This was followed by an evaluation of different levels of '._ protection based on the most cost efficient 100 year project design. The most cost efficient 100 year project design consists of constructing levees and flood walls, modifying the south Boeing bridge, and dredging the channel to a depth of four feet, also referred to as minimum • 43 .I dredging. This alternative also includes completing maintenance dredging of 171,000 c.y. every three years. In order to be certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the alternative must provide 100 year protection just prior to re-dredge. Based on further economic evaluation, it was determined that the-benefits that accrue-between post- - - dredge conditions and pre-dredge conditions were significant and should be considered in the overall project justification. Immediately following either the initial dredging as part of project construction, or maintenance dredging, the portion of the study area downstream of Logan Avenue will have approximately a 200 year level of protection. The same holds true for a project design for a 200 year pre-dredge level of protection. Under this case the post-dredge level of protection is estimated to be in excess of 500 year protection. The same would hold true for a 500 year pre-dredge project design. However since damages were not quantified beyond a 500 year event this was not considered. To assess the variation in level of protection during the dredge Y-] cycle of each of the alternatives (100, 200, 500) an arithmetic average of expected annual flood damages reduced and residual damages between the pre-dredge and post-dredge conditions was used to estimate the overall impact of the various levels of protection. Expected annual damages reduced and residual damages, incorporating the variation in level of protection 1.._ through the dredge cycle, are presented below. Project benefits range from$7,797,000 to $9,166,000 depending on the level of protection. TABLE 6.5: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS LEVEL OF 100 YEAR.PRE `200 YEAR PRE � SOOI'EAR FLOOD ,PROTECTION DREDGE TO-200 ` =DREDGE TO 500 = ;PROTECTION YEAR:POST- YEAR POST $1000) =DREDGE-`($1000)- ` .:DREDGE,($1000) .` ;: t Q- $9,569 $9,569 $9,569 a4-41oAv .-424 = $1,772 $863 $403 Dama a duce: A $7,797 $8,706 $9,166 :p • 44 • !f :1 6.06 Alternative Project Costs. Four alternatives to provide 100 year flood protection under pre-dredge conditions were evaluated. Each of these alternatives involved a different depth of dredging as part of initial-project construction as well as differing maintenance-dredge •• quantities. Listed below are the construction and maintenance dredge quantities for each of the alternatives, as presented in section 3.08. The table also includes cost information for the expected maintenance dredging. Based on results of the sedimentation model, this volume will be dredged on a three year schedule. The present worth of the maintenance dredging over the life of the project is used to estimate total project investment costs. Alternative Dredge Depth Initial Volume Maintenance Maintenance Volume Cost B Maintain 1995 31,000 c.y. 114,000 c.y. $1,624,000 channel C 4 Foot 158,000 c.y. 171,000 c.y. $2,387,000 D 6 Foot 195,000 c.y. 176,000 c.y. $2,453,000 E 10 Foot 260,000 c.y. 185,000 c.y. $2,575,000 Total and annualized costs for the four alternatives evaluated to provide protection against the • 90%, 100 year flood profile just prior to maintenance dredging are presented below. Total �_. project or investment costs includes levee and floodwall construction, bridge modification, initial dredging, the present worth of future maintenance dredging and interest during construction. Project construction is assumed to be complete in less than one year. Interest during construction was calculated by multiplying the construction cost by the federal discount rate and dividing by two. Routine annual maintenance for levees, floodwalls, and the bridge is included as part of total annualized costs. Estimated routine maintenance costs are $14,000, which includes $6,000 for levees/floodwalls and$8,000 for the bridge. Maintenance dredging has been considered for a 100 year project life. All costs are annualized over the 100 year project life at the 1997 federal discount rate of 7 3/8%. Project costs are presented in Table 6.6 for each of the alternatives. • C'. ti 45 f i I TABLE 6.6: PROJECT COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE ' - - -100.YEAR (PRE-DREDGE) LEVEL OF PROTECTION " •• '-- 3 YEAR DREDGE CYCLE i • µ A :. A• L �LT .�B T• C`' ..,..-',AL,T D ALT E "' PROJECT COSTS ."MAINTAIN .,, .,:.4.FOOT;; _6 FOOT - to FOOT . " - EXISTING .;;_`..DREDGE DREDGE DREDGE• .. . : '• CHANNEL MINIMUM MODERATE MAXIMUM; - - : ::.($1,000) . . .; ($1,000) : ($1,000) . : ($1,000) .� �r' aV AI . 41 � r . *$10,918 **$8,320 $8,531 $9,257 Yt '� ,j , , 1 l�, ::F 3 $7,731 $10,022 $10,299 $10,811 '4" 7 1 L ! yr. • '` $403 $307 $315 $341 1 ' -• 4 i E: °• y ' $19,052 $18,649 $19,145 $20,409 01 LL, � a f1U,° - . $1,406 $1,376 $1,413 $1,506 .mow Hh• Y4r, ,� ,.. �•'- ,,-,447 `k $14 $14 $14 ' ' a t, � �t• .r_._i.,,1b,-T:.: --..-A-.. I $1,420 $1,390 $1,427 $1,520 '-p er 'y� '' K.4 _ 2,4i r '-Ly: "1 ,; G+ - sal ...,yv-s i }.:;yam i *Does not include costs of additional relocations and other real estate cost associated with construction of levees upstream of Logan Street. **Costs include additional rock for overflow section and off-site mitigation real estate and 1' development costs. These costs, arenot included in the other alternatives, but would be expected to be comparable. I - 1 • Alternative C, the four foot dredge option, is.the most cost effective alternative to provide 100 year flood protection. Annualized project costs are estimated at$1,390,000. This alternative was selected for further design evaluation and to determine the optimal level of flood protection. . r . 6.07 Plan Optimization. Maximizing net tangible benefits is an economic evaluation concept 1 to determine the size or level of protection of a project or investment, to the point where the last increment of cost is equal to the incremental benefit. The optimized project is referred to as the NED (National Economic Development) plan. During the plan formulation phase of the w Cedar River evaluation, alternative plans were identified that would provide 100 year recurrence interval-protection to the study area. Once the most efficient and acceptable plan was identified, different.levels of protection were evaluated. An increase or decrease in the 46 ,, ii level of protection would be accomplished through changes to levee and flood wall height. .:.: Substantially higher levels of protection could not be provided through changes in the dredge cycle or dredge depth. Dredging to depths greater than 10 feet created an unstable channel, r: and dredging more-frequently than 3 years caused unacceptable environmental impacts.-• y-t Alternative C (4 foot dredge) was determined to be the most cost efficient alternative to ensure 100 year flood protection to the study area under pre-dredge conditions. This alternative was further evaluated to determine the level of protection which maximized net benefits. Lower levels of protection were not considered because they did not meet the sponsors' project objective of providing at least 100 year recurrence interval flood protection. Further, based on the damage-frequency relationship, there appeared to be little evidence that benefits would be optimized at a lower level of protection given the extremely high potential for damages at relatively infrequent events. Higher levels of protection were considered. In this case the water surface profiles for the 200 year event and the 500 year event are very similar. Therefore, design considerations and costs were only evaluated for the 200 year (pre-dredge) level protection. To provide 200 year recurrence interval protection to the entire study reach, levees had to be constructed on both banks of the river throughout the entire reach from I-405 to the mouth, and nearly all the bridges spanning the channel within the reach would have to be strengthened or modified to withstand debris impact damage and lateral loads resulting from debris blockage. The the'$8,320,000 is 12 650 000. This includes estimated construction cost for this alternative $ construction cost for the 100 year Alternative C, with additional costs estimated at$1,000,000 to add levees up to I-405, and$3,330,000 to modify 5 bridges. This cost estimate does not include the additional real estate costs which would be required upstream of the Logan Street bridge. Project and annualized costs are summarized below. PROJECT COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE 200 YEAR (PRE-DREDGE) LEVEL OF PROTECTION 3 YEAR DREDGE CYCLE October 1997 Costs Initial Construction Cost $8,320,000 (100 yr, 4ft dredge cost) Additional Construction Cost $4,330,000 Present Value of Maintenance $10,022,000 - Interest During Construction $466,000 Total Costs $23,138,000 Annualized Project Costs $1,708,000 Routine O&M $14,000 Total Annual Costs $1,722,000 This expanded.scope of construction was not acceptable to the local sponsor. 47 I I 6.08 Project Justification. The table below summarizes annual project cost, annual project benefits,;benefit-to-cost ratios,.and net benefits. -- - - - - - - TABLE 6.5: SUMMARY BENEFIT-TO-COST EVALUATION Annualized =x Annualized R` Benefit to . Net Benefits :Costs -Cost Ratio J :;Benefits ,.,;.` - Range . . .-- �A ternatue F f a'uy4_�"it ',. u�4 xR•-E.'iy-.q-5"t'.] i E ems, x�t�.;._. �, ,� ��µ��s. edL -k s 200 a " l'z -Dree g. �' 0 --0 -, A ,� +G $7,797 $1,422 5.5 $6,375 , : 11-'�% `` ' $7 7797 $1,390 5.6 $6,407 o �,.�6 e+ .< - $7;797 $1,427 5.5 $6,370 F, ` $711797 $1,536 5.5 $6,261 4.• '-"- zxr:y' fir.' 5,t -C- S ,. 2000YeaiPre D. e+ae to $8 706 $1,722 5.1 $6,984 _ t'S00yea' PosDre!ge y . - : ProteGtlo,�, I`° :g= ' is ¢��-��,-��"� +��.�ro s;�=� .1 "R` k, -0_- =. I J {";r *Does not include costs of additional relocations and other real estate costs associated z with extending levees upstream to Interstate 405. • Based on the evaluation of net benefits, the plan which would provide 200 year'protection ,= appears to be the NED plan. This plan provides the greatest level of net project benefits. However the locally preferred plan is to provide 100 year recurrence interval flood protection ! to the project area. The local sponsor does not support the.expanded scope of the project as - '- outlined under the 200 year project design. Further, providing in excess of the 100 year plan would be inconsistent with the city and county flood management plan. Therefore the Irecommended plan incorporates the most efficient design to obtain 100 year recurrence interval level of protection. Figure 7 shows the location of overbank flooding with the recommended -7 project in place for a roughly a 150 year event (pre-dredge conditions). The left bank is designed to overtop prior to the right bank to provide for a controlled failure for events in �� excess of a 100 year event (pre-dredge). The right bank is expected to get some sheet flow -,,,, = from upstream of the project in events in excess of 100 year. - --° 48 rt; 6.09 Risk and Uncertainty Evaluation. A monte Carlo type risk evaluation was not completed for the economic evaluation of this project. Based on the preliminary screening of alternative costs and benefits of the project, this type of R&U evaluation was not-appropriate or - necessary. However, variables that would have a significant impact on the project benefits, costs, local sponsor concerns and project selection were considered. These included damage estimates for buildings and structures, airport closure and business losses, incremental benefits for the varied levels of project protection through the dredge cycle, without project conditions and sedimentation rates. Variables that have a significant level of uncertainty have also been evaluated for the local:sponsors financing plan. These variables included the frequency of maintenance dredging and whether the material has a commercial value. Probable and,non- probable failure points were not evaluated since there are no existing levees in the study reach. A probabilistic evaluation was completed for the hydraulic uncertainties. All references made to level of protection are based on a 90% reliability. The following briefly'discusses how uncertainty in each of the economic variable was addressed. Damage Estimates. The most significant source of uncertainty in estimating damages for the - study area was the percent depreciation in building structure and contents: Rather than reporting a range in the DPR, a single point estimate was used which reflects a higher . depreciation rate. Airport Closure and Business Losses. Based on discussions with Airport and Boeing' . representatives there are multiple variables that would effect the level of impact closures would have on aircraft production, airport users, and safety issues. Dollar estimates and ranges have not been quantified for this evaluation. Variation in level of protection. Estimates for damage reductions were based on an average level of protection over'the'three year dredge cycle: Annual benefits and costs are considered' below for the level of protection just prior to redredge for the four foot dredge alternative. -i The locally preferred and recommended plan would provide protection against the 100 year event just prior to re-dredge. Level of Protection Expected Annual Expected Annual Benefit-to-Cost Prior to Re-dredge Damage Reduction Costs Ratio 100 year $7,348 $1,390 5.3 200 year $8,246 $1,729 4.8 Without Project Condition. The expected annual equivalent damages under the without project condition are dependent on two factors which could vary; the sedimentation rate and the frequency of spot dredging without implementation of the recommended plan. Under the most likely without project condition the channel is expected to continue to aggrade for the first ten years and then remain at that level through the remainder of the project life. If the sedimentation rates are lower over the first ten project years the expected annual damages would be-lower than the $9,569,000 used to quantify benefits. If expected annual damages remain at $3,122,000 (based on the 1995 channel condition) over the life of the 49 , project (rather than worsening) the damages reduced with the recommended plan would be $1,525,000. This figure is an average of the damages reduced just prior to re-dredge (100 - year protection) and the,damages reduced immediately following dredging (200 year protection). Given the annualized costs of$1,390;000 the-benefit to-cost ratio would be 1.1. - This benefit-to-cost ratio does not reflect the reduction in project (maintenance dredging) costs which would be expected under a lower sedimentation rate. t If expected annual damages remain ati the 1995 level throughout the project life and maintenance dredging is required less frequently, both project costs and benefits would change. i Project benefits using this assumption would be $1,525,000 as outlined above. Project costs, if maintenance dredging of 171,000 e.y. (identified with the recommended four foot dredge ir' alternative) is required every ten years rather than every.three year, are outlined below. Hypothetical benefit-to-cost ratios for these assumptions based on varying levels of protection are covered below. , Construction Cost $8,320,000 PV of Maint. Cost (171,000 cii.y. every 10 years) $2,300,000 Interest During Const. $307,000 Total PV' $10,927,000 Annualized Project Cost $807,000 Routine O&M $14,000 Total Annual Cost $821,000 Annual Benefits $1,525,000 k (100 year pre-dredge.to 200 year post-dredge) Benefit-to-Cost ratio 1.9 1 Annual Benefits $1,099 000 . (100 year pre-dredge ) Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 1.3 0 Although the above covers only several of the uncertainties associated with the without project condition, the above demonstrates the impact under the most conservative assumptions on the a benefit-to-cost ratio. Financing Plan. The uncertainties associated with the sedimentation rate and the potential commercial value of the dredged material are reflected in the sponsors financing plan. The local sponsor has developed three financing scenarios based on changes in these assumptions. al 5 - 6.10. Assessment of Local Sponsor's Financial Capability. The local sponsor has identified ''- ;- three potential funding scenarios for project construction and maintenance. These are located i _- 50 1 in Appendix A in the Financial Plan and Statement of Financial Capability. Also located in Appendix A is the District's Assessment of Financial Capability. The costs referenced in the financing plan and the draft Project Cooperation Agreement are based on draft feasibility. These costs have increased slightly from$7,914,000 to $8,320,000-(1997 prices). These changes will be incorporated into the final Financing Plan and Project Cooperation Agreement. All the costs in the main body of the final Detailed Project Report reflect the most recent estimate. The sponsor has been notified of the cost increases and continues to strongly support the project. SECTION 7. COORDINATION 7.01 Coordination Framework. Coordination with interested parties has been accomplished throughout the initial appraisal and feasibility phases, to date. Resource agencies and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have been particularly involved in this project since the beginning via meetings, telephone calls, correspondence and assistance with environmental baseline studies. A copy of the initial appraisal was sent to all resource agencies, tribes, and other interested parties in October 1993. Official coordination began on 22 March 1994, prior to initiating the feasibility phase, when an interagency/tribal meeting was held to scope the feasibility study. The concerned agencies participated in scoping the environmental baseline studies to be used to evaluate impacts of the project on fish and wildlife resources in and adjacent to the lower Cedar River. These studies have been documented in reports and are included as appendices to the draft EIS. As the EIS process began, a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 1 June 1995. The public scoping comment period was from 1-30 June 1995. An agency scoping meeting was held on 24 May 1995, and a public scoping meeting was held on 13 June 1995. Another agency meeting was held on 12 June 1996 to update participants on the delay in the EIS process, the continuing work on the alternatives, and study results for most of the baseline environmental studies. Memos have been sent to all attendees and interested parties regarding the events at each of these meetings. The draft EIS had a 45 day public review period and a public workshop was held on 29 April 1997. The public review period revealed that there was no significant controversy about the proposed project and preferred alternative. In general, most agencies and individuals support the project. There were concerns about impacts to chinook salmon, especially in light of their potential listing as an endangered species. There was also some concern whether the upstream mitigation site would function as intended. The final EIS was modified to include mitigation for chinook salmon, and further details on the mitigation site were added to clarify it's function. The following table summarizes the Corps' responses to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Coordination Act Report. A copy of the report is included in Appendix F. • 51 ==i '� USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (February 1997) Recommendation Disposition. - USFWS Recommendations' Corps Responses: 1. Due to the high value of the riparian zone we Partially concur. The riparian zone will not be recommend that this type of habitat be replaced. disturbed except as absolutely necessary for Most bird species were observed using the narrow construction of floodwalls on the left bank. This strip of shrub and tree vegetation on the right vegetation will be salvaged, as feasible, and bank [upstream of the south Boeing bridge]. Tree replanted on the right bank. The mitigation and shrub planting for overstory cover should be section describes how the lower portion of the pursued. Plant large sized trees and shrubs to right bank will be vegetated with native plants, reduce recovery time. Retain all native tree including several tree species. The local sponsor {i species along the bank where possible and only has concerns about the safety of using cottonwood i remove non-native invasive shrub vegetation. trees in the park, so it is likely Oregon ash and Fast growing trees such as native black alders will be used instead. Conifers will be used. cottonwood and alders are recommended for the bulk of the plantings. Native conifers such as Douglas fir, western red cedar and hemlock should also be planted to help block light from Boeing at night and to provide a long term vertical habitat component for bird species. _ _ 2. The levees, as proposed, will incorporate Concur. This recommendation will be followed -= . existing "islands" of higher.elevation ground and to the maximum extent feasible. tie into these areas to create a continuous levee. , Using these high points in the park as part of the '4 levee designs may increase the riparian zone diversity and width along the lower river.. We highly endorse this concept as well as leaving all , trees along the banks and only removing non- . y native shrubs. 3. Revegetation of disturbed areas should be Partially concur. Disturbed areas will be o completed immediately after construction. A plan revegetated in the fall season immediately after all should be developed to monitor the success of construction is complete. The creation of a these efforts. Creation of a terrace or shelf shallow water terrace will not be possible without . associated with the new shoreline to provide placing significant quantities of riprap in the shallow water habitat for fish and wildlife should channel to maintain the terrace. Sediment is be investigated. Planting of native emergent eroded or deposited from the project reach in such submergent marsh plants in the newly created large quantities that a terrace would be extremely -_ shallow water habitat should be explored. Care difficult to maintain. Monitoring will be should be taken to avoid the invasion of Eurasian conducted to assess terrestrial and aquatic watermilfoil, particularly during construction. It vegetation, particularly Eurasian watermilfoil. is vital to identify new colonies early in order to eradicate.them. We recommend an extended . monitoring program in the area following construction to ensure watermilfoil is controlled. 4. Due to the sighting of turtles in the project Concur. A turtle survey is currently being . } reach, we recommend that turtle surveys be conducted. To date, no northwestern pond turtles 1 52 i conducted to determine species. Species have been observed. The final EIS addresses c,..4;_::..., identification is important because one of the two pond turtles and the Corps has determined that the native turtle species that may occur in this proposed project will not affect pond turtles, even �.- P location, the northwestern pond turtle, is a species if they do occur in the project area. of concern to the Service. 5. If a dredging alternative is chosen, a Partially concur. Monitoring for the preferred monitoring program should be developed to test alternative is described in the final EIS. Smelt the assumptions concerning habitat. Smelt could spawning habitat will be monitored, as will be monitored by looking at the resulting substrate sockeye spawning in the project area and composition during the spawning run, looking at mitigation site to ensure that all assumptions made actual use in the dredged area for spawning and prior to construction are indeed valid. Surveys by checking egg viability. Sockeye could be will be conducted each year;which will show if monitored by marking a representative number of head-cutting is occurring. Future maintenance redds above the test site and looking at dredging will be designed to avoid head-cutting depositional rates, or scour depth at each redd based on survey results. site. Potential head-cutting and channel configuration changes should also be monitored after several significant storm events. 6. If this monitoring produces unacceptable Partially concur. The Corps will monitor the results, we recommend that the Corps reconsider project to ensure that all anticipated impacts are the proposed three year dredging cycle. The adequately mitigated for, as well as to ensure that Service believes that the precarious situation of no unforeseen impacts are occurring. If salmon and steelhead resources in the Lake monitoring shows unacceptable results, the Corps Washington/Cedar River basin and the potential of will engage in contingency actions which may the proposed project to adversely affect these involve new mitigation or a reduced frequency of resources warrants a cautious approach. Close dredging. However, the purpose of the project is 1 monitoring as described above could provide early to provide 100 year flood protection in Renton. detection of potential fish resource problems and Any reduced frequency of dredging must ensure possibly avoid catastrophic results to the fish that Renton is fully protected from flooding. community in this system. 7. Before dredging, sediments should be tested Concur. The sediments will be tested before for contaminants and a determination of whether construction to ensure they are clean and fit for disturbance of any contaminants found could be upland or in-water disposal. Based on past testing toxic to fish and wildlife resources. We are (and the significant presence of sand and gravels), concerned about the possible presence of there is no reason to believe the sediment is . contaminants due to the close proximity of two contaminated. During construction, the new major industrial sites, and the heavy use of fuel, concrete pier structures for the south Boeing oil, solvents, and other chemicals. Contaminated bridge will be isolated from the river with coffer •sediments should be isolated and stored away dams and any water that percolates inside the from water, particularly rivers, creeks, and lakes. coffers dams will be pumped to a holding.area. All new concrete structures should be sealed during construction to contain runoff from the _ construction site until the concrete is fully cured. Runoff should be collected and pumped to a g x settling basin or other treatment area to remove contaminants before discharge into the Cedar River or other surface water course. Fuels, oils, i , i - solvents, and other potentially toxic chemicals ' should be properly stored and protected from 53 4 ` accidental release into the river or lake. :: . 8. Construction activities should take place Concur. The in-water construction window will between mid-June and mid-August. This timing is be June 15-August 31. • necessary to miss most of the major fish migrations and minimize project impacts on this part of the life cycle. 9. We recommend that gravel removal be Partially concur. In areas upstream of the south accomplished by dewatering the stream as much Boeing bridge, coffer dams will be used to divert as possible and constructing coffer dams to the river away from the dredging site to prevent exclude water flow. The actual removal can then turbidity increases in the river and lake. Below be completed in an area isolated from flowing the south Boeing bridge this will,not be possible water and should reduce the entry of fine sediment due to the lake backwater that backs up water up and additional turbidity into the Cedar River and to 8 feet deep across the entire channel. In this downstream into Lake Washington. The actual area, a clamshell, dragline or hydraulic suction method could be dragline or front end loader. We dredge may be used. recommend using the method that creates the least disturbance to the terrestrial habitat while still protecting the stream. 10. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan Concur. The Corps and the City of Renton will should be developed to protect water quality in the develop an erosion control plan during plans and project area during and following construction. specifications, and during coordination with the All steps should be taken to minimize turbidity Department of Ecology for the Water Quality and fine sediments from entering the river and Certification. lake. Sediment retention structures, settling ponds, silt fences, or other measure to protect water quality should be employed as needed during construction. 11. At the spoil disposal site, we recommend that Concur. During plans and specifications, the a catch basin be constructed to contain all runoff dredged material disposal plans will contain these and prevent sediment from moving downslope and other best management practices to avoid into nearby rivers, or other water bodies. The returning turbid (or otherwise contaminated water) spoils should be covered during the rainy season to the river and lake. to reduce erosion and additional downstream sedimentation. Revegetation should be started as soon as practical to provide long term erosion and sediment control 12. Gravel and cobble removed from the lower Partially. concur. The local sponsor will be river could be cleaned and stored for future fish responsible for disposal and storage of the enhancement projects. These substrate materials dredged material. The Corps has recommended may be appropriate in some cases for restoration that interested agencies and tribes request the use of fish habitat in upstream areas. This possibility of some of the material for fish enhancement should be investigated. . . projects upstream. 13. We recommend the Corps investigate onsite Do not concur. The Corps investigated the mitigation measures for fish impacts. • potential for on-site mitigation for this proposed Development of off-channel or side-channel project. The high sedimentation rate and limited habitat for longfin smelt spawning or salmonid . space appear to make an on-site channel or side- spawning and rearing habitat within the project channel ineffective. The Corps has proposed an reach may be possible. Because the existing off-site mitigation site for spawning and rearing 54 . channel is narrowly confined by development, the habitat. On-site, riparian plantings will be opportunities to widen the channel or add provided for compensation for impacts to aquatic additional fish habitat features appear to be limited invertebrates and salmon holding and rearing. mostly to the lower river. Any fish habitat features developed for mitigation should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. 14. We recommend the Corps explore the Concur. See response above to recommendation potential for off-site fish mitigation measures #13. 1 similar to an investigation of on-site mitigation opportunities. There may be potential fish mitigation/enhancement projects upstream to the project that are feasible to pursue. We recommend that the Corps coordinate with King • County Surface Water Management Division who ` may have identified potential fish habitat. restoration projects in the lower Cedar River basin. A combination of on-site and off-site r. mitigation projects may adequately serve to offset fish habitat losses. 15. The WDFW presently operates a fry trap Partially concur. The Corps is coordinating with near the mouth of the Cedar River. This project WDFW to determine a new location for the fry -- as proposed would make this trap unusable and trap, as well as to determine when WDFW would would jeopardize several years of data in a long like the trap moved. To date, the WDFW has. 4„.,._ term study involving the Cedar River. For this requested that the fry trap be moved just prior to reason we recommend that a new location for a construction to a location upstream of 1-405 (site • fry trap be found in-cooperation with WDFW. not yet determined). Because the sediment load is - This trap will need to be installed at least two so significant in the lower river each year, years in advance of the implementation of this WDFW recalibrates their trap every year. project. This will allow both traps to be fished Therefore, it is not necessary to provide a new for two years and a calibration curve to be trap two years prior to construction. _ established. - - 7.02. Coordination With Key Agencies a. FWS has participated in the process since before the feasibility phase was initiated. They were involved in scoping out their own activities for feasibility as well as recommending baseline environmental studies. A contract was let with the Fisheries Resource Office to conduct the two-year predator study in the lower Cedar River and immediately adjacent Lake Washington areas. FWS attended all the interagency meetings and prepared numerous letters -- and the draft and final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reports (final report enclosed as Li appendix E; a supplement may be required after the public comment period). They have also been consulted pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and have concurred with- the Corps' Biological Assessment. They have reviewed the DEIS and concurred with the - selected alternative. I _ 55 - r' • b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has received information from all the interagency meetings and plan drawings. EPA has not attended any Of the meetings, but coordination by telephone indicates they are confident their concerns are being met through the process. They have reviewed the.DEIS and concurred with the selected alternative. c. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS has received notification and memos from all the interagency meetings but no personnel have attended the meetings. Consultation on Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is ongoing. d. State of Washington, Department of Ecology (DOE). Staff from DOE have attended most of the interagency meetings and been involved in scoping the environmental studies and have reviewed the DEIS and will condition their water quality permit to maintain water quality, w' during construction. e. State of Washington, Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW); WDFW staff have been involved with all the interagency meetings and been appraised by telephone conversations and memos of the progress of the studies. They,participated in scoping the environmental studies and reviewing the results, and have concurred with the selected alternative. f. State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources (DNR). DNR staff have attended most of the interagency meetings and received memos on the progress of the studies. DNR has agreed that they do not have jurisdiction over the.lower mile of the Cedar River since it was a { , private channel and not previously part of the state aquatic lands,. Any dredging of the delta would fall under DNR's jurisdiction. g. State of Washington, Office of Archaeology and.Historic Preservation (SHPO). A letter and copy of a Corps' cultural resources survey report was provided to.the SHPO on 15 June 1995. The SHPO responded in a letter dated 26 June 1995 that they concur there are,no properties eligible for the national Register of Historic Places in the area of potential effect. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT). MIT staff have been involved extensively during all. aspects of project planning, including scoping and assisting with environmental baseline 1'4 studies. Staff have been present at all interagency meetings and coordination via telephone, conversations and memos has also been conducted. They have reviewed the DEIS and have concurred with the selected alternative. i. King County Water and Land Resources Division. The.Water and Land Resources Division staff have been involved during all aspects of project planning, including scoping environmental'baseline studies. King County was the primary agency behind the Cedar River ' Basin Plan and is heavily involved in flood control along the Cedar River. j: City of Renton. The City has been involved in all aspects of project planning, as the local sponsor for this project. They have been extensively involved via meetings, telephone conversations and memos. They have additionally coordinated involvement with Boeing. 56 7.03 Coordination of Report. The draft Detailed Project Report was submitted for agency and sponsor review in April 1997 concurrent with the public review period for the draft EIS. Reviewers were in favor of the formulation process and the selected alternative. Boeing, the -f. city of Renton, the Cedar River Council, and the Lake Washington`Forum strongly supported the proposed plan. SECTION 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I 8.01 Conclusions. This study has included an examination of all known practical structural and nonstructural alternatives for meeting the study objective of reducing flood damages in the study area. The alternative of a combination of levee/floodwalls, dredging, and modifications to the south Boeing bridge to provide at a minimum 100 year recurrence interval protection through the dredging of 1 1/2 mile of the channel to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the 1995 streambed elevation is the most cost effective alternative which also meets the sponsor's needs. This alternative has the minimum environmental impacts of the viable alternatives, and • mitigation has been provided to mitigate unavoidable impacts. The plan is consistent with national policy, statues, and administrative directives. The plan has been reviewed in light of overall public interest, which includes the views of the local sponsor and interested agencies. I have concluded that the City of Renton is capable of meeting their financial obligations and that the total public interest would be served by implementation of the recommended plan. 8.02 Recommendations. I recommend the proposed work be authorized and funding allotment - of$4,516,000 be made available to complete construction. The proposed work would be • improvements for flood damage reduction for the 100 year recurrence interval event for the designated area in Renton, Washington, as generally described in this report, with such modifications by the Chief of Engineers as may be advisable to meet provisions of Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended. Authorization is subject to cost sharing and financing arrangements with the local sponsor, the City of Renton, and is based on the cost sharing and financing requirements as contained in Public Law 99-662, November 1986. Prior to construction, and during Plans and Specifications stage, the local sponsor would sign a • project cooperation agreement (PCA) with the Department of the Army. The local sponsor will: provide all lands, easements, and rights of way necessary for the project; hold and save - the United States free from damages due to the construction or operation and maintenance of j the project; and, operate and maintain the project after construction. Date 3 j v[ ( 7 77,frei Donald T. Wynn !_ Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commanding 57 ; APPENDIX A COORDINATION LETTERS AND FINANCIAL PLAN [ • i CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 STUDY APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS • INITIAL SPONSORSHIP LETTERS (RENTON & BOEING) • ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S FINANCIAL CAPABILITY • SPONSORSHIP LETTER • DRAFT STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY • DRAFT PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT i ' s<- Yam. FEE_' 9 .1993 _j i% ti- t. CITY OF RENTON �.tt Mayor ► Earl Clymer February 4, 1993 Colonel Walter Cunningham, District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Seattle P. O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255. - SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR SECTION 205 ASSISTANCE FOR THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT Dear Colonel Cunningham: This letter is to seek the assistance of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended, in reducing flood damages along the Cedar ,.. River within the City of Renton, King County, State of Washington. -- In November, 1990, the Cedar River flooded its banks and caused in excess of $6.6 million in damages in the City of Renton. In addition, the flooding shut down the Renton Municipal - Airport, threatened, bridges, flooded the jail beneath City Hall, and prompted the evacuation , of nearby residents. The current channel capacity to carry flood flows is limited due to significant sedimentation over the past twenty years. The rating curve for the Lower Cedar River Channel has shifted upwards by approximately five feet in the period between November, 1968 and November, 1990. As sedimentation ,. continues in the channel, further reductions in channel capacity will result in more frequent occurrences of damaging flows. At current rates of sedimentation, even nearly annual flood events result in water-surface elevations high enough to impact the airport and other - structures. A recent study prepared under contract to the Boeing Company (Permit Engineering, 1991) estimated that flood waters would begin to inundate adjacent Boeing aircraft storage areas at approximately the five year frequency. This points out the increasing vulnerability to less frequent and more catastrophic storm events. The City recently complet ed re-survey and hydraulic evaluation of the lower two miles of the _k- Cedar River through Renton. In the study a HEC-2 model was used to 1) identify locations where flow can overtop existing channel banks, 2) determine the bank fill capacities at those sites, and 3) several potential flood relief alternatives were evaluated. The results of the HEC-2 study, conducted for the City by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. indicated that the study reach can only safely pass the 2-year event. As identified by the study, the most significant problem area is along the west bank of the lower river channel near the Renton 1 Colonel Walter Cunningham Page 2 U. S: Army Engineer District, Seattle I Municipal Airport where water would overtop during events having a return period of about 2 ' years. Renton understands the cost sharing requirements for the feasibility phase and the The construction phase as described in the Water Resources velo if tpmenthe reconnaissa98e.phase City would be willing to enter into a cost sharingagreement s tudy is favorable and acceptable. _ reciated. Please contact David Jennings, (Your consideration of the request would be a P(206) 277-6205. Project Manager, Renton Surface Water Y Sincerely, 1-- ii 6,ASe_ax,sodux., Earl Clymer ayor C:DOCS:93-102:EC:DEJ:ps CC: Lynn Guttmann David Jennings cam \ • \ . . r. . , 11• I !, I' I . II P.O.Box 3707 '• Seattle.WA 98124-2207 February 26, 1993 Colonel Walter J. Cunningham + . Commander, Seattle District Office 3 ! U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Center South 4735 E. Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134-3495 Dear Colonel Cunningham: 6 E/NG Subject: City of Renton Correspondence to the U.S. Corps Requesting a Section 205 Flood Control Study of the Lower Cedar River. The Boeing Company strongly supports the efforts of the City of Renton flood damage reduction through section :; 205 program. Current proposal is to dredge the lower portion of the Cedar River. This program application is of particular interest to The Boeing Company. Flooding in the past and the immediate potential for future flooding imperils Boeing's day to day commerce. The Boeing company delivers a commercial jet aircraft, I ' from Renton, nearly every business day. If this schedule is delayed there are substantial monetary penalties. But even more severe is the dissatisfied . customer, the airline, upon which future business for the company depends. The revenue generated by the Boeing Company sales of jet aircraft to foreign firms makes up a significant part of the United States balance of trade against a world wide U.S. trade deficit. Boeing's net exports of commercial airplanes reduced the 1991 U.S. trade deficit by 18% or $ 14.2 billion dollars. The enclosed brochure "Jets and Jobs, Boeing: America's Leading Exporter" discusses this in more detail. Boeing's Renton plant delivered (317) 737 and 757 jet aircraft in 1992 which represented approximately $14 billion in sales. Of these jet aircraft, (178) were exported represented approximately $7.3 billion in sales. Of the two jet aircraft, the 737 and 757 currently produced at the Renton Plant, the 737 is the most popular. With 3,000 orders, the 737 is the best selling commercial aircraft ever produced. Currently there is a large backlog of orders for both jet aircraft produced at Renton. • • Page 2 colonel W. J. Cunningham l The enclosed "Factory Layout Guide" illustrates the complex manufacturing process required in producing large commercial jet aircraft. The critical "pinch points" in this operation are the two bridges that span the Cedar River, one at the mouth'-and one approximately one-half mile up river from the mouth. It is across these bridges every 757 twin jet must travel to gain = access to the Renton Municipal Airport for its maiden flight and delivery to the airline customer. S-fidEOYE7 During the November 25 and 26, 1990, flood of the Cedar River these referenced bridges were in danger of imminent loss. If The Boeing Company were to lose these bridges, even just one, all aircraft delivery and most production would shut down. The effects of this upon Boeing, its workers, families, the U.S. economy, and airline customers would be devastating until new bridges could be constructed. When the next flooding event occurs, we expect the effect to be even more severe. Damages to the aprons where the aircraft are prepared for takeoff and delivery, the adjacent manufacturing building, and the plant utilities infrastructure would be extensive. For example, the 1990 flood occurred on a non-production weekend, resulting in damages of $ 6, 600, 000. We anticipate that the next event will cause even greater monetary loss. As a result of the 1990 flood the sediment load on this stretch of the Cedar River dramatically increased. Studies done, post-1990 flood, compared to data on pre 1990 flood conditions, show this significant increase to be an increase of four feet of additional bedload in the Cedar River Channel. Prior to the 1990 flood, what would be termed a fifty year event would now be a ten year event. Given the atypical fall storm events and the spring snow runoff occurrence, a sustained rainfall in the spring or fall would produce a flood equal to or greater than the 1990 flood event. Every year there is a continual build up of sediment on the previous years river bed despite the typical scouring of the river bed that occurs during fast flows. • F R • Page 3 Colonel W. J. Cunningham -s The Boeing Company has prepared emergency plans in the almost certain possibility that a flood will occur again. This preparedness is an additional cost to the company. In the event of a flood,. sadbagging may delay waters for a short time until critical items can be transported out of the way. Other than moving items there is nothing else we can do to prevent damaging flood waters from entering Boeing's m4nufacturing facilities. There is nothing we can do to protect the bridges from loss in the event of a major flood event. QE/NG The cost to replace these bridges would be approximately three million dollars each. This figure does not include plant closure, the unforeseeable permitting costs, lost wages, penalties from airlines and other penalties as previously referenced. It is critical to The Boeing Company, the City of Renton, its residents and the local, regional and national economy that the Cedar River Channel dredging occur as expeditiously as possible. • _Sincerely, • Del Rowan • Manager, Corporate Public Affairs cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Enclosure: BCAG How to Build an Airplane BCAG First Family Commercial Jet Airplanes BCAG Factory Layout Guide - BCAG Jets and Jobs , I • . i � I RENTON', WASHINGTON CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 PROJECT ' + PRELIMINARY ASSESMENT OF THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS FINANCIAL CAPABILITY The non-Federal sponsor's plan to finance its share of project construction and maintenance is satisfactory and sufficient. The sponsor has identified three potential funding scenarios. Scenario 1 is considered to be the most conservative in that no outside funding sources will be used, the dredged channel material has no commercial value, and . maintenance dredging will be required,every three years throughout the project life: Review of the city of Renton's!Financing Plan and Statement of Financial Capability, focusing primarily on scenario 1, confirms financing will be accomplished rt through a combination of issuance of revenue bonds intermittently over the project life and utilizing operating revenues currently generated through Surface Water Utility rate assessments and funding from the municipal airports operating budget. The revenue bonds will be repaid through increases in the surface water utility rates. Issuance of this type of bond does not affect Renton's legal limit for the issue of General Obligation Bonds.. The local sponsor is aware that prior to execution of the PCA, the rate increase to repay the revenue bonds must be approved through the Renton City Council. Currently, rates are $5.23 per household per month; with,the project in place under financing scenario 1, rates would increase to $7.98 per month (between project year one and 13) and then remain at this level over the life of the project. Based on a survey of other surface water utility rates in the region, this appears to be a reasonable increase. Under the existing rate structure the Utility generates $2.3 million in revenue. The proposed project has significant potential costs associated with maintenance dredging, $2,387,000, every three years. The sponsor has identified funding sources (Utility operating revenue and revenue bonds) for these expenditures until project year 20. The sponsor intends to fund maintenance in a similar manner beyond this point. . Based on the financial data provided by the non-Federal Sponsor, this office has determined that the sponsor has provided reasonable assurances that they will be able to provide the necessary funding prior,to PCA execution. The sponsor has also demonstrated s their capability in funding project maintenance. Lin Smit Project Manager iH 4#7 CITY OF RENTON Mayor Jesse Tanner June 5, 1997 Colonel Donald T.Wynn,District Engineer Seattle District,Corps of Engineers P.O.Box 3755 Seattle,WA 98124-2255 SUBJECT: . SPONSORSHIP LETTER FOR CITY OF RENTON CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 PROJECT Dear Colonel Wynn: • This letter is to advise you that the City of Renton has reviewed the Draft Project Cooperation Agreement(PCA)between the Department of the Army and the City of Renton, for construction of the Section 205 flood damage reduction project along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River at Renton,WA,and does by this letter express its intent to act as Non-Federal Sponsor to provide the items of local cooperation that are set forth in the Draft PCA.• Enclosed are drafts of our Financing Plan and Statement of our Financial Capability, demonstrating how the City of Renton can pay its share of the project costs. The construction • project cost ($8,162,000), as prepared by the Corps (3/31/97), includes.the costs for initial dredging, levee/flood wall construction and modifications to the South Boeing Bridge. This cost estimate is fully funded reflecting fiscal year 1998 costs. The City of Renton understands that cost sharing under the Section 205 authority is 65% Federal and 35% non-Federal up to the Federal investment limit of$5,000,000. We understand that the Local Sponsor is required to provide funding for 100%of costs exceeding this Federal limit. The attached Draft Financing Plan presents three scenarios on how the City can pay for its share of project construction. Although we anticipate being able to utilize Scenarios II or III, which j secure funding from other sources, we are able to committo the funding mechanisms outlined in Scenario I. We further understand that the operation and maintenance for the project could be as high as$810,000 per year in order to maintain the designed level of flood protection,and that this expenditure will be our responsibility. We have outlined financing options for this portion of the project as well. As demonstrated by our financial plan, we are confident that we will be able to finance project construction and maintenance costs. It is understood that the signing of the PCA by the appropriate parties will not be required until such time as the project and the PCA have been reviewed by Headquarters USACE. Sincerely, • iayoerd-4--nner r H:DOCS:97-354:RDH:ps Enclosure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2580/ FAX(206)235-2532 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date -'- '77 UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT April 28, 1997 Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project: Draft Financing Plan,Draft Statement of Financial Capability& Sponsor Letter(Letter of Assurance),and Draft Project Cooperation Agreement (Referred 04/21/97) The Utilities Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation • to authorize the Mayor to sign the Sponsor Letter (Letter of Assurance) and Statement of Financial Capability for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project to solve flooding on the Lower Cedar River'in Renton. The Sponsor Letter and Statement of Financial Capability is needed to demonstrate to the Army Corps of Engineers that the City of Renton is a committed sponsor of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project and is capable of funding the Non-Federal Share of the project costs. . • The Committee also authorizes the Administration to freely negotiate with potential funding partners for the project. - 41-344 T Y • • Dan Clawson, Chair Toni Nelson,Vice Chair d =w C Timothy J. Schl• z , Member H:DOCS:97-353:RDH:ps CC: Grcgg Zimmerman Ron Olsen • Ron Straka Ross Hathaway CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT • DRAFT • . STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY WO. PLANNING/ BUILDING /PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GREGG ZIMMERMAN, P.E., ADMINISTRATOR Prepared by: Ronald Straka Ross Hathaway Priscilla Pierce H.DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:43 PM Page 1 DRAFT STATEMENT OF FINANCL4L CAPABILITY Colonel Donald T. Wynn, District Engineer Seattle District,Corps of Engineers P.O.Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FOR CITY. OF RENTON CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT Dear Colonel Wynn: This letter presents our Statement of Financial Capability for the City of Renton Section 205 flood damage reduction project, and serves to verify that the City of Renton has the authority to raise Surface Water'Utility rates,,as necessary, to meet costs as estimated for the Cedar River 205 Project and presented in the Draft Financing Plan. The City,specifically the Utility, has the authority to issue revenue 'bonds for the initial construction and any frequency of maintenance dredging needed subsequently. The City then raises rates,adequately to make payments on the bonds, as required by the bonding covenants. My staff have discussed this particular project with our bond counsel and we are assured that the City can bond for these projects. Background The City of Renton, Non-Federal sponsor for the Section 205 project, acknowledges that the March 1997 estimated fully funded cost is$8,162,000. Due to the $5,000,000 cap on the Federal investment for any single 205 project, and due to the fact that the Corps has expended.$484,000 during.the reconnaissance and feasibility study, the lFederal share of the section 205 project construction cost is estimated at $4,516,000. The Non-Federal contribution is estimated at $3,646,000. Maintenance dredging is anticipated to be required at a maximum frequency of every three years, at an estimated cost of$2,387,000, which will be a 100% responsibility of the Non-Federal-Sponsor. Additionally, annual routine operation and maintenance of the project features, also a local responsibility, is estimated at$14,000. The following discusses three finance scenarios addressing project construction and O&M separately. Under Scenario 1 which the Corps will use to assess our financial capability, project construction and maintenance are funded partially through revenue bonds paid back through an increase in.our Surface Water Utility rates, partially through existing budgeted Surface Water Utility funds, and partially through City of Renton Municipal Airport existing revenues. Under Scenario 2, the City utilizes the revenue sources identified in Scenario 1, a funding partnership with Boeing Company and the sale of dredged material. Scenario 3, relies on all of the above funding mechanisms and funding partnerships with the State of Washington and King County. Funding for project maintenance under. the three scenarios follows the same general'methodology. Based on conversations with the Corps of Engineers, it is adequate to show,sources of funding for 20 years of 3-, project maintenance funding and availability of a disposal site; we feel confident.the NARCO site or another compatible site will be available for this time frame. The following gives a more detailed j breakdown of Scenario 1. Details on the other two scenarios can be found in the Financing Plan. f ' H:DOCS:97-303:FRDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:43 PM Pagc 2 I Scenario 1 r::s The local share of project construction is $3,646,000, the Local Sponsor will be credited the value of lands, easements, relocation areas, rights-of-way and disposal areas (LERR&D) which are estimated at$722,000. This results in a required cash contribution of$2,924,000. $364,600 of this is from the Renton Municipal Airport through budget appropriation and authorization from the City Council. . The funds are lease revenues and are currently available. The Surface Water Utility has allocated the balance of$2,559,400 in its Capital Improvement Budget Plan for fiscal.year 1998; once the rate increase is approved,revenue bonds will be used to generate$2,125,000 of these funds. The balance, $434,400 , is funded through cash including rate revenues, interest earnings, and other fees and charges. Under this scenario, OMRR&R periodic dredging will be paid for through Surface Water Utility rates, interest earnings, other fee revenue; utility revenue bonds, and Airport revenue. The estimated annual cost needed to complete periodic dredging is $796,000 ($2,387,000 divided by three for a three year dredging frequency); in addition to routine levee, floodwall, and bridge maintenance of ; hz.: $14,000. The Renton Municipal Airport will contribute $81,000 annually from their operating budget. The remaining amount,$729,000 annually,will be paid for through a combination of revenue bonds (typically the equivalent of $467,000 annually), and Surface Water Utility rates and fees (typically$262,000 annuaIly). Table I provides a detail of these revenues. Table 1 -Scenario 1 Cash Flow Analysis (October 1998 prices) SOURCES OF FUNDS FISCAL YEAR NON-FEDERAL REVENUE BOND FUNDING FROM SURFACE FUNDING ISSUE FOR 205 AIRPORT FOR WATER UTILITY REQUIREMENTS PROJECT 205 PROJECT(1) OPERATING REVENUE FOR . 205 PROJECT(2) FY 1998 $ 2,125,000 S 2,1'25,000 S 434,000 • FY 1999 S 14,000 'S 14,000 • • FY 2000 S 14,000 S 14,000 • • FY 2001 S 2,401,000 S 1,340,000 S 243,000 S 818,000 • FY 2002 S 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2003 S 14,000 S 14,000 ; i` • FY 2004 S 2,401,000 S 1,400,000 S 243,000 S 758,000 • FY 2005 $ 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2006 S 14,000 • $ 14,000 • FY 2007 S 2,401,000 S 1,400,000 S 243,000 S 758,000 • FY 2008 $ 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2009 S 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2010 5 2,401,000 S 1,400,000 S 243,000 S 758,000 • FY 2011 S 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2012 $ 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2013 S 2,401,000 S 1,400,000 S 243,000 S 758,,000 t • FY 2014 S 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2015 S 14,000 S 14,000 • FY 2016 $ 2,401,000 S 1,400,000 $ 243,000 S 758,000 • FY 2017 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 • FY 2018 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 ' (1) 1/81,000 x 3 years=S243,000 ' (2)generated primarily from Surface Water Utility rates. Other sources include interest earnings,and fees which are part of the Utility's revenues. H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:43 PM Page 3 ;. �I, I The bonds for the initial project, along with operation, maintenance repair, replacement and rehabilitation(OMRR&R) will be paid for through a 53% total increase in the monthly surface water utility rate per household spread out over 13 years. Currently rates are$5.23 per month,with implementation of this project(and other CIP projects)rates would increase to $7.98 per month by the end of 13 years at which level it would continue, in perpetuity as outlined in the attached tables. This increase, although a substantial percent, results in a rate that is comparable to many other cities surface water utility rates in this part of the county, and will still be reasonable: Under the Revised Code of Washington 35.92.020, the Utility has the authority to assess fees for funding operations and capital improvements. Rate increases must be approved by-the City Council and Mayor prior to going into effect. The'ICity recognizes that approval for funding this project under Scenario 1, or any other scenario, must be obtained prior to execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement(PCA)between the Army Corps and The City of Renton. The City has the legal authority to issue these bonds for'the above amount. The City of Renton has recently been assessed with a • > bond rating of A-1 (Moody's). The Surface Water Utility aloneigenerates approximately$2.3 million in annual revenues. F'- The three year maintenance dredge frequency in Scenario 1 is based on conservative•sediment modeling results,typical maintenance dredging frequencies may be lower. Sincerely, «<DRAF'I>>> City of Renton H:DOCS:97-355:RDH:ps • f 1 I • H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:43 PM Page 4 1. Section 205 Flood Control Project _ pw INITIAL PROJECT AND OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (OMRR&R) 20 YEAR RATE IMPACT SUMMARY OF SCENARIO 1 RATE IMPACTS RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY SCENARIO 1 WITHOUT PROJECT,.. • • . • ;SCENARIO 1 PROJECT IMPACT FISCAL INCREASE IN PERCENT REVENUE MONTHLY INCREASE IN PERCENT MONTHLY INCREASE IN MONTHLY YEAR MONTHLY INCREASE IN BONDS RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY FOR SURFACE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY SURFACE RESIDENTIAL SURFACE WATER SURFACE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WATER RATE SURFACE RESIDENTIAL WATER RATE SURFACE WATER RATE WATER RATE SURFACE (IN WATER RATE SURFACE RATE WATER RATE MILLIONS) WATER RATE FY 1997 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - $ - FY 1998 $ 0.29 5.5% $ 2.13 $ 5.52 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 FY 1999 $ 0.30 5.5% $ - $ 5.82 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ 0.30 $ 0.59 FY 2000 $ 0.29 5.0% $ - $ 6.11 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ 0.29 $ 0.88 FY 2001 $ 0.34 5.5% $ 1.34 $ 6.45 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ 0.34 $ 1.22 FY 2002 $ 0.51 8.0% $ - $ 6.96 $ 0.26 5.0% $ 5.49 $ 0.25 $ 1.47 ' FY 2003 $ 0.56 8.0% $ - $ 7.52 $ 0,44 8.0% $ 5.93 $ 0.12 $ 1.59 ' FY 2004 $ 0.23 3.0% $ 1.40 $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ 0.23 $ 1.81 ' FY 2005 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 1.81 ' FY 2006 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 1.81 • FY 2007 $ 0.15 2.0% $ 1.40 $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ , 5.93 $ 0.15 $ 1.97 • FY 2008 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 1.97 • FY 2009 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 1.97 ' FY 2010 $ 0.08 1.0% $ 1.40 $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ 0.08 $ 2.05 • FY 2011 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 ' FY 2012 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 • FY 2013 $ - 0.0% $ 1.40 $ 7.98 $ - 0A% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 ' FY 2014 $ . 0.0% $ - $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ . 2.05 • FY 2015 $ . 0.0% $ - $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 • FY 2016 $ - 0.0% $ 1.40 $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 ' FY 2017 $ - 0.0% $ - $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 $ - $ 2.05 ' ALL COSTS BEYOND FY 1998 ARE IN 1998 DOLLARS SFCFINAL XIS SCENARIO I RATE SUMMARY 5/E/97 It 01 PM 9t • . -- x ... i... L,.., a ....-:...• ' .. .. - - . �, - - - on_2-05_F1_ood Co_n-tr-oLP_r_oj_e_c_t <' INITIAL PROJECT AND OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (OMRR&R) 20 YEAR RATE IMPACT SUMMARY OF SCENARIO RATE IMPACTS RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY SCENARIO 1 - ••SCENARIO 2•:..• :••• •;• .1::; ;i. a;,....t;.:c} SCENARI0i3',;y : •u:.;.V,P' ;•','.• .WITHOUT PROJECT,..;..':.. FISCAL INCREASE IN PERCENT MONTHLY INCREASE IN PERCENT MONTHLY INCREASE IN PERCENT MONTHLY INCREASE IN PERCENT MONTHLY YEAR MONTHLY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY SURFACE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY SURFACE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY SURFACE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY SURFACE SURFACE RESIDENTIAL WATER RATE SURFACE RESIDENTIAL WATER RATE SURFACE RESIDENTIAL WATER RATE SURFACE RESIDENTIAL WATER RATE WATER RATE SURFACE WATER RATE SURFACE WATER RATE SURFACE WATER RATE SURFACE WATER RATE WATER RATE WATER RATE WATER RATE FY 1997 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 FY 1998 $ 0.29 5.5% $ 5.52 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 ' FY 1999 $ 0.30 5.5% $ 5.82 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 FY 2000 $ 0.29 5.0% $ 6.11 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 $ - 0.0% $ 5.23 FY 2001 $ 0.34 - 5.5% $ -- 6.45 $ - 0.10 2.0% $ 5.33_ $ 0.10 2.0% -$ 5.33 $ -- - 0.0% $ 5.23 -- FY 2002 $ 0.51 8.0% $ 6.96 $ 0.24 4.5% $ 5.57 $ 0.22 4.0% $ 5.55 $ 0.26 5.0% $ 5.49 • FY 2003 $ 0.56 8.0% $ 7.52 $ 0.48 8.5% $ 6.05 $ 0.45 8.2% $ 6.00 $ 0.44 8.0% $ 5.93 • FY 2004 '$ 0.23 3.0% $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 FY 2005 $ - 0.0% $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 • FY 2006 $ - 0.0% $ 7.75 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2007 $ 0.15 2.0% $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2008 $ 0.0% $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2009 $ - 0.0% $ 7.90 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ ' 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 • FY 2010 $ 0.08 1.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6:05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2011 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 • FY 2012 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2013 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2014 $ - - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2015 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 • FY 2016 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ' FY 2017 $ - 0.0% $ 7.98 $ - 0.0% $ 6.05 $ - 0.0% $ 6.00 $ - 0.0% $ 5.93 ALL COSTS BEYOND FY 1998 ARE IN 1998 DOLLARS SFCFINAL ALS Scenario R.I.Summery 5I6,97 12 05 PM CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT DRAFT • FINANCING PLAN �, PLANNING / BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GREGG ZIMMERMAN, P.E., ADMINISTRATOR Prepared by: Ronald Straka Ross Hathaway Priscilla Pierce i H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:41 PM Page 1 CITY OF RENTON DRAFT FINANCING PLAN AND STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT 1. GENERAL T= The Preliminary Draft Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA), between the Department of the Army (Government) and the City of Renton (incorporated in the State of Washington) names the City of Renton (Renton) as the Non-Federal Sponsor of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project (the project). Total cost of the construction phase of the flood control project is currently estimated to be $8,162,000, including design and project management. The local share of the construction phase is estimated to be $3,646,000. Non-Federal contributions (land, easements, F *. rights-of-way, relocations, and cash) will be provided before the Spring 1998 scheduled advertisement. Estimated Operations, Maintenance, Repair Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs range from $253,000 annually (10-year dredge cycle and sale of dredge spoils) to $810,000 annually(worst case scenario 3-year dredge cycle, no sale of dredge spoils). The following documentation is required from the Local Sponsor by the Army Corps of Engineers, under ER 1105- 2-100, Section XIV - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, as a part of the Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project. This document fulfills all of the Local Sponsor responsibilities stated in the above- ' j referenced Section XIV. The following are included: I) FINANCING PLAN A) CURRENT SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES B) SOURCES AND USES OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION C) THE METHOD OF FINANCE:FOR ALL NON-FEDERAL OUTLAYS INCLUDING OMRR&R. II) FINANCIAL CAPABILITY A) CITY OF RENTON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, REVENUE BASE AND BOND RATING B) ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION v H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:41 PM Page 2 I) CITY OF RENTON DRAFT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT A) CURRENT SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES The most recent fully funded project costs in 1998 dollars, as estimated by Patty Cardinal of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in fax dated 04/02/97 to Ross Hathaway of the City of Renton, are as follows: Construction: Mob,Demob&Preparatory work $162,000 Side caster/special purpose dredging $1,810,000 Bank stabilize,dikes and jetties $2,918,000 Associated general items $1,383,000 Lands and Damages $722,000 Planning, Engineering and Design $601,000 Monitoring $53,000 Construction Management $513.000 Total Construction Costs, fully funded S8,162,000 Cost Sharing* Feasibility Study Cost- Federal Share Program Limit $5,000,000 Feasibility Study -$424,000 Reconnaissance Phase -$60.000 Maximum available remaining Federal Share $4,516,000 65%of fully funded total construction cost $5,305,300 Federal Share of fully funded total construction cost $4,516,000 Feasibility Study Cost-Non-Federal Share Total Construction Costs, fully funded $8,162,000 - Federal Share of fully funded total construction cost -$4.516.000 - Non-Federal Share of fully funded total construction cost S3,646,000 6. * Federal funding is 65% up to a maximum of $5,000,000 including Feasibility and ! E Reconnaissance studies. Maintenance(OMRR&R)Annual Costs: Worst Case Annual Maintenance Dredging Costs(3-year dredge cycle) $796,000 Annual Routine Maintenance(Levees and Floodwalls) $14.000 Worst Case Total Annual Maintenance Costs (3-year dredge cycle) S810,000 1-1:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5:41 PM Pagc 3 • B)SOURCES AND USES OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS DURING AND AFTER.CONSTRUCTION Assumptions used in rate model for scenarios: The following general assumptions were used in the rate model analyses for the analyzed scenarios. • Assumes bonding $2,125,000 of the initial project for construction in the worst case scenario (Scenario 1)only. • Total Non-Federal share in the budget analysis is$3,646,000 for the initial construction project in 1998. The project costs associated with project benefit to the City of Renton Cedar River Park are shown as combined with the Surface Water Utility's share, and are shown as funded through Surface Water Utility Rates in this analysis. • Assumes primarily cash funding of maintenance projects out into the future, although bonding is used in some years of the worst case scenario(Scenario 1). €;—;• • Assumes elimination of the proposedi NPDES position($80,000) in 1999. . • Assumes elimination of the proposed'maintenance($70,000)position in year 2001. _ I • Assumes interest rate of 5%for investments. , • Final rates shown reflect the target rate to maintain the entire Surface Water Utility, including the proposed project,for the next 20 years. • Rate increases reflect the Surface Water Utility's overall revenue need, not just the financial impact from these projects. All project-related costs are in 1998 dollars; there is no inflation of proposed project maintenance costs after 1998. Several other inflationary assumptions are included in the remaining Surface Water Utility budget for labor, benefits, and supply increases, as well as growth assumptions in revenues through year 2003. No inflationary assumptions are included beyond the year 2003. • 3 • t •t H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -541 PM • Page 4 RENTON SECTION 205 PROJECT PROJECT FINANCING SUMMARY TABLE • c; - °-S P. SCENARIO 1:WORST CASE i'" PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE ' AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITY RATE INCREASE TIME PERIOD' • SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEFT. S 3.281.000 90% S 7.98 53% 1998-2004.2007& •' 1 RENTON AIRPORT S 365.003 10% 2010 BOEING S - 0% —. SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S - 0% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S - 0% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 1646,000 1009E OMRR&R(ANNUAL COST,1998 DOLLARS) • RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 729.000 90% 1 RENTON AIRPORT S 81.000 10% BOEING S - 0% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S - 0% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S - 0% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 010,000 100% • SCENARIO 2 PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITY RATE INCREASE TIME PERIOD' SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEFT. S 160,000 4% S 6.05 16% 2001-2003 -- RENrON AIRPORT S 175,000 5% • BOEING S 2.458,000 67% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 853.000 23% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S - 0% • • TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 3,646,000 100% ONIRR&R(ANNUAL COST,1998 DOLLARS) RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 9.000 4% RENTON AIRPORT S 10.000 4% BOEING S 142.060 56% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 92.000 36% I_ OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S - 0% • TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 253,000 100% _ •, SCENARIO 3 PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITYRATE INCREASE TIME PER10D- SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 55.000 2% S 6.00 15% 2001-2003 RENTON AIRPORT S 60.000 2% BOEING S 844,003 23% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 853.000 23% i OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 1.834,000 50% -- TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 3,646,000 100% O,M3tR&R(ANNUAL COST.1998 DOLLARS) RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 6.000 2% RENTON AIRPORT S 7,000 3% _ BOEING S 93.000 37% "r,,,'; SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 92,000 36% —y g OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 56,000 22% { S TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 253,000 100% -- • years during which Surface Water Utility rates are increasing;final future Surface Water Utility rate is maintained to 2018 (20 years in the future)and beyond. Pae 5 H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/l6/97 -5:a l PM S i Assumptions Used for Specific Project Maintenance Scenarios: The financial impacts of the following operation and maintenance (OMRR&R) cost distribution Iscenarios were analyzed. These scenarios all use the same set of assumptions listed above. - Scenario 1: (worst case scenario) - The worst case scenario assumes the highest cost estimates, and for simplicity of rate impact analysis, shows only two of the many funding sources that the City can legally guarantee at this time. This scenario is intended to demonstrate that the City can guarantee funding of the non- Federal share of the project. ;However, the City does not intend to pay for the project in this ) manner and is actively pursuing alternative funding methods, including sale of the`dredged material and partnerships with the benefiting and impacting parties. Scenarios 2 and 3 outline what the City considers to be realistic cases of cost sharing based on benefit, preliminary investigations of the sale -_-_ value of the dredged material, and estimates of impacts imposed by upstream parties. The attached Project Financing Summary Table outlines the costs, sources of financing and rate impacts of the three scenarios. . .r--- Scenario 1 Initial Construction: The total cost estimate for the construction phase of the project is $8,162,000. The Non-Federal share of the cost of initial construction is estimated to be $3,646,000. The funding for this scenario is through combination of Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Share), Surface Water Utility rate increases, existing funding and bonding, and City of Renton Municipal Airport funds. Real estate credits are used to pay for a portion of the Non- Federal share at the full value estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 04/02/1997 cost estimate. Scenario 1 Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R): The estimated total annual average - - maintenance cost is $810,000. This is a combination of yearly system maintenance (mostly levee and floodwall) at a cost of$14,000, with dredging costs of$2,387,000 once every three years. The three year dredge cycle is a worst case resulting from sedimentation modeling done by the Army ✓ - Corps of Engineers. Actual historic sedimentation rates indicate the dredge frequency will be on the order of ten years. Funding for Scenario 1 is from Surface Water Utility rate increases and bonding, and Airport revenues only. Adequate funding is provided for three year dredge cycle. Use of revenue bonds increases the rates more gradually over time and allows for adjustments to the ' actual maintenance dredge frequency. The Army Corps modeled dredge frequency prediction is considered worst case. The final rates will be adequate to pay for a continuous three year dredge cycle if actual sedimentation rates make this necessary. SCENARIO 1:WORST CASE PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITY RATE R TIME PERIOD' SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION • RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 3.281.000 90% S 7 98 53% 1998.2004,2007. RENTON AIRPORT S 365.000 10% 2010 BOEING S 0% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 0% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S • 0 TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 3.636,000 100% OMRR&R(ANNUAL COST,1998 DOLLARS) RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT S 729.000 90% I RENTON AIRPORT S 81.000 10% BOEING 5 0% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 0% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 1 0% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 810.000 100% • years during which Surface Water Utility rates arc ir•.crcasin f.final future Surface Water Utility rate is maintained to 2018(20 years in the future)and beyond. - + fi:DOCS:97-308.RDH'ps-6116/97 -5:41 Phi Page 6 • Scenario 2: (payment based upon benefit) Scenario 2 assumes the same cost estimate as Scenario 1 but estimates a longer maintenance dredge cycle. Scenario 2 assumes funding from those sources that the City is reasonably confident of; however, the percentage share has yet to be finalized. This scenario is intended to demonstrate a realistic case based upon correlating costs to benefits. Agreements have not yet been reached with prospective funding partners. As in Scenario 1, the City does not intend to pay for the project exclusively in this manner and is actively pursuing additional funding sources. Scenario 2 Initial Construction: The total cost estimate for the construction phase of the project is • $8,162,000. The Non-Federal share of the cost of initial construction is estimated to be $3,646,000. The funding for this scenario is through combination of Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Share), currently programmed Surface Water Utility funding and bonding, City of Renton Municipal Airport funds, a partnership with the Boeing Airplane Company, sale of the dredged material at a value established by preliminary market research, and a real estate credit. Only a portion of the total real estate credits that are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers are used to pay_for the Non-Federal share; this is in part to reflect direct sale of the dredged material and the resultant lack of initial project need for the NARCO site for storage. Scenario 2 Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R): The estimated total annual average maintenance cost for Scenario 2 is $253,000. This is a combination of yearly system maintenance (mostly levee and floodwall) at a cost of S 14,000; with dredging costs of S2,387,000 once every ten years. The ten year dredge cycle estimate is based on typical historic sedimentation rates. Funding for Scenario 2 is from Surface Water Utility rate increases, City of Renton Municipal Airport funds, a partnership with the Boeing Airplane Company, and sale of the dredged material at a value a established by preliminary market research. • SCENARIO 2 PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITY RATE INCREASE TIME PERIOD' SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT. S 160.000 4% S 6.05 16% 200I-2003 RENTON AIRPORT S 175.000 5% BOEING S 2.458.000 67% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 853.000 23% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 0% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 3.646.000 100% OMRR&R(ANNUAL COST.199E DOLLARS) RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES 4 PARKS DEFT. S 9.000 4% RENTON AIRPORT S 10.000 4% BOEING S 142.000 56% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S 92.000 36% '7 OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S - 0% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 253.000 100% •years during which Surface Water Utility rates are increasing;final future Surface Water Utilin rate is maintained to 2018(20 years in the future)and beyond. I- :e i r. s H.DOCS:97-308'R.DHH ps-6116/97 -5:41 PM Paec 7 • Scenario 3 (payment based upon parties contributing to cause) I Scenario 3 assumes the same cost estimate as Scenario 2. Scenario 3 assumes funding from all of the same sources as Scenario 2, but also includes partnerships with other benefiting and responsible parties. As in Scenario 2, the percentage,share has yet to be finalized. This scenario is intended to demonstrate a realistic, equitable, target ease that the City cannot yet fully guarantee, but intends to fully pursue. The City-does not intend'to pay for the project in this manner exclusively, and is actively pursuing these, as well as other, funding sources. .' Scenario 3 Initial Construction: The total cost estimate for the construction phase of the project is $8,162,000. The Non-Federal share of the cost of initial construction is estimated to be ;` $3,646,000. The funding for this scenario is through combination of Army Corps of Engineers I. (Federal Share), currently programmed Surface Water Utility funding and bonding, City of Renton Municipal Airport funds, partnerships with the Boeing Airplane Company and other benefiting and responsible parties (including King County and the State of Washington), sale of the dredged material at a value established by preliminary market research, and a real estate credit. Only a r--. portion of the total real estate credits that are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers are used to pay for the Non-Federal share; this is in part to reflect direct sale of the dredged material and the • resultant lack of initial project need for the NARCO site for storage. Scenario 3 Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R): The estimated total annual average i maintenance cost for Scenario 3 is $253.000. This is a combination of yearly system maintenance (mostly levee and floodwall) at a cost of$14,000; with dredging costs of$2,387,000 once every ten ,: years. The ten year dredge cycle estimate is based on typical historic sedimentation rates as ,,- opposed the worst case three year frequency resulting from sedimentation modeling done by the Army Corps of Engineers. Funding for Scenario 3 is from Surface Water Utility rate increases, City of Renton Municipal Airport funds, partnerships with the Boeing Airplane Company and other benefiting and responsible parties (including King County and the State of Washington), and sale of the dredged material at a value established by preliminary market research. SCENARIO 3 PERCENT OF FUTURE SURFACE TOTAL PERCENT RATE INCREASE SOURCE AMOUNT NON-FEDERAL WATER UTILITY RATE INCREASE TIME PERIOD- SHARE RATE CONSTRUCTION RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT S 55.000 2% S 6.00 15% 2001-2003 REhTON AIRPORT S 60.E 2% BOEING S 844.000 23% SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S I 853.000 23% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 1.834.000 So% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 3.646.000 100% O?SRR&R(ANNUAL COST.199E DOLLARS) t r RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY RATES&PARKS DEPT S , 6.000 2% - RENTON AIRPORT S I 7.000 3% BOEING S I 93.000 37% �' SALE OF DREDGED MATERIAL S ' 92,000 36% OTHER FUNDING PARTNERS S 56.000 22% TOTAL NON-FEDERAL SHARE S 253.000 100% •years during which Surface Water Utility rates arc increasing;final future Surface Water Utility rate is maintained to 2018(20 years in the : future)and beyond. i H ROCS 97-303:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5.41 I'M1 Pa2c 8 C) THE METHOD OF FINANCE FOR ALL NON-FEDERAL OUTLAYS INCLUDING , OMRR&R Revenue Sources Included in all Scenarios: The following are descriptions of the revenue sources proposed as funding sources in the three scenarios presented in this analysis. In addition, several other backup revenue sources are described. Army Corps of Engineers 205 Funding:. Federal funding for the project through the Army Corps of Engineers is 65% up to a maximum of$5,000,000 including Feasibility.and Reconnaissance studies. The remaining maximum Federal share after the Feasibility Study and Reconnaissance Study is $4,516,000. 65% of thefully funded total construction cost estimate is $5,305,300. Therefore, for the estimating purposes of this analysis, the Federal Share of fully funded total construction cost is $4,516,000. City of Renton Surface Water Utility Rates-, The City proposes to repay bonds for the project and partially fund maintenance through its Surface Water Utility rates. The existing City of Renton Surface Water Utility rates for the typical Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) or Equivalent Domestic Unit (EDU) is $5.23 per month. The final rates resultant from the three scenarios presented in this analysis vary between S6.00 per month and $7.98 per month. Typical surface water utility rates in the region vary between S2.75 and S 10.79 per month per ERU. The City will pursue the funding sources displayed in Scenarios 2 and 3 to reduce the project's rate impact to the Renton citizens, and to ensure that benefiting properties and responsible parties are paying a share of the project cost. Revenue Bonding: The City proposes to pay for a portion of the initial construction project, and a portion of maintenance dredging, through the use of revenue bonds. The amount proposed for bonding for the proposed project in the Surface Water Utility budget varies between zero and S2,125,000. Payment for these revenue bonds is proposed from Surface Water Utility rates, which are addressed in the previous paragraph. The City has the legal authority to issue these bonds for the amount discussed, including bonding for the first maintenance dredge in the Worst Case Scenario (Scenario 1), three years after project construction. Please see the attached sections of the Revised Code of Washington that give the City this authority. City of Renton Municipal Airport: The City proposes to use revenue generated by the City of Renton Municipal Airport to fund portions of both the initial construction and the operation and maintenance. The Airport is City operated as an enterprise fund. The Mayor and City Council have oversight authority of the funds generated by the Airport. The Airport generates funds by leasing areas to private entities, through investment income and through grants from sources such as the FAA. The Renton Municipal Airport's total projected revenue for 1997 is $1.1 million. Real Estate Credit: All but a very small portion of the project is proposed to be constructed on City property. The approximate total real estate credit for this property is S722,000. In the funding scenarios, part or all of the real estate credit is applied towards the Non-Federal funded portion of the project. All of the real estate credit is applied in Scenario 1; while only a portion is applied in Scenarios 2 and 3, in part to reflect sale of the material and, therefore, no use of the dredge spoil disposal site. H.DOCS 97.30S RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5.41 PM Page 9 1 As a part of the project, the City will have a disposal site(s) available for at least the next 20 years for disposal of the initial dredge material and subsequent maintenance dredges. The City-owned NARCO.site is proposed for the default disposal site if no other disposal method or long term site is k procured. However, most likely the material will be sold. Several private interests have already approached the City and the r= 'Army Corps of' Engineers with serious requests for the material. 1 " Revenue sources included in both Scenarios 2 and 3 but not in Scenario 1: Scenario 1 shows only two of the many City funding sources that the City can'legally guarantee at • this time. Several other funding sources,exist that the City has a very high level of certainty of, but cannot guarantee at this time. These sources are included in the financial analysis in Scenarios 2 and 3. An explanation of these sources follows: eing_Airplane Comfy Partnership: The Boeing Airplane Company is the major beneficiary of the proposed project. Boeing has stated its support of the project, and negotiations to establish a partnership are intended to be a part of:funding for it. Scenarios 2 and 3 explore cost sharing partnership percentages. j , Sale of Dredged Material: Preliminary II market investigations indicate the dredged material has a local value of approximately $5.40 a cubic yard. In Scenarios 2 and 3, sale of the dredged material r is anticipated to generate approximately $850,000 in the initial project and approximately $92,000 annually from ten year dredge cycle maintenance dredges. For the purposes of these scenarios, this value is calculated to reduce the net cost of dredging to the benefiting partners. ,, I Revenue sources included in Scenario 3 only: Scenarios 1 and 2 include some revenue sources that the City can guarantee, or has a very high level of certainty are available. There are several other logical funding sources, particularly those sources receiving substantial indirect benefits or those that have a significant responsibility for • causing the incurred costs. The City has a high level of certainty that funding partnerships can be established with several of these source . These sources are included in the financial analysis in Scenario 3. An explanation of these sources follows: '! King County Partnership: King County receives much of the benefit of having a major employer in Renton with established annual sales from the Renton plant in excess of$14 billion. In addition, the County has allowed much of the development, and constructed the levees and revetments upstream that have increased the potential for major flooding, and which have caused sediments to be eroded -' and transported down channel to the project area. Severalestablished mechanisms exist for funding r.,, flood control projects such as the proposed project. These include the existing River Improvement Fund, tax revenues, and a potential future regional funding source currently being considered.as a '„' part of the Lake Washington/Cedar River Watershed. In addition, the County will be approached directly as a funding partner. _A---, State of Washington Partnership: As in the case of King County, the State of Washington has benefits and responsibilities with respect to the project. Existing funding mechanisms such as FCAAP have been approached for this project, and will be approached in the future. In addition, the State will be approached for direct funding. Pau '10 H:IX)CS:97-308:RDH:ps-6116:97 -�.�I PM — Backup revenue sources: The following are some backup revenue sources or approaches available to the City that are not identified in Scenarios 1, 2 or 3; but are shown to reassure the Army Corps that the City is unquestionably fully capable of funding the project. Surface Water Utility's ability to pay for the entire project: The City of Renton Surface Water . Utility presently generates approximately $2.3 million per year in revenue from its existing rates. If all other funding mechanisms failed, the Surface Water Utility could eliminate all but a few of its planned capital improvement projects (CIPs) and reduce operating costs, and fund the project on . existing rates. Again, this is not a planned recommendation, but provides added assurance that the City can, and will, ensure the project is funded. Other City Revenue Sources: The City of Renton 1997 total operating budget is approximately $95,310,000. This revenue is generated from a large number of sources such as sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, intergovernmental moneys, real estate excise tax, building permit fees, I • business license fees, admission taxes, and various other permits and fees. The City's general fund could potentially provide a source of funding for this project. The attached pages from the City of Renton Annual Budget (pages 1-38,1-39, 4-3, 4-4 and 4-7) demonstrate the City's ability to generate revenues through the City's general fund. The bonding shown on these pages does not include, and is separate from, the revenue bonds discussed as a Surface Water Utility funding mechanism. H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5 41 PM Pagc I I ' II) FINANCIAL CAPABILITY A) CITY OF RENTON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, REVENUE BASE AND BOND RATING The proposed project for this Financing Plan and Statement of Financial Capability is the "minimum (4-foot) dredge alternative", presented as the preferred alternative by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft Detailed Project Report for the Cedar River Section 205 Project. The initial project consists of dredging of 158,000 cubic yards and addition of levees and floodwalls to provide minimum 100-year, 90% certainty flood protection to the areas adjacent the lower Cedar River. Maintenance is projected to consist of $14,000 annual maintenance to the system (primarily levees and floodwalls), and maintenance dredging of 171,000 CY every 3 years in the worst case, to on the order of every 10 years based on historic sedimentation rates. Mitigation will be provided as a part of the initial project cost. £$ History. Description. Population. Area Major Employers: The City of Renton was incorporated in 1901 and acquired ownership of the Lower Cedar River upon dissolution of Commercial Waterway District Number 2- The City has a population of approximately 44,000 and has a major industrial base. Major employers and industries in the City include the Boeing 737 and 757 airplane If manufacturing/Aerospace & Computer Services facilities (16,731 employees, approximately $14 billion in annual sales), the Pacific Car & Foundry (1,477 employees, approximately $81,250,000 valuation). City Revenue Sources and Taxing/Revenue Generating Authority: The City of Renton has been incorporated since 1901. The City has all authorities as an incorporated City to assess taxes and fees, and receives general funding distributions from the State of Washington. The City of Renton • itroix 1997 total operating budget is approximately $95,310,000. The bond rating for the City of Renton is A 1 (Moody's). Surface Water Utility: The City of Renton Surface Water Utility was formed in 1987. Under Chapter 8-2 of the City of Renton Municipal Code, the Surface Water Utility has the authority to assess fees for funding operations. Rate increases must be approved by the City Council and Mayor prior to going into. effect. The existing City of Renton Surface Water Utility Rates for the typical Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) or Equivalent Domestic Unit (EDU) is $5.23 per month. Typical surface water utility rates in the region vary between $2.75 and $10.79 per month per ERU. The Surface Water Utility also has the authority to issue revenue bonds, repayment of which is done through its rates. The total 1997 Surface Water Utility operating budget is S2,042,000. Example of a similar past Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Project: In 1994, the City of Renton in partnership with The Boeing Company dredged the Cedar River Delta as a safety measure t_t for the Renton Municipal Airport users. Funding partners for the project included the City Surface Water Utility, Boeing, and the State of Washington. The portion funded by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility was, in part, bonded and paid for through Surface Water Utility Rates. This project is very similar to the proposed project on a smaller scale. Total project cost was S1,815,669; $515,669 (28%) of this was paid for by the Surface Water Utility. The Boeing Company contributed $500,000 (28%) in the partnership, and the State of Washington contributed S800,000 (44%). f H:DOCS:97-308:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5 41 PM Paec 12 B) ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION • The following documents are attached to support the City's financial capability City of Renton Ordinance 2536 1 - Adopting classification as a noncharter code City Revised Code of Washington -35A.80.010 Public Utilities; General laws applicable -35.92.075 Indebtedness incurred on credit of expected utility revenues -35.92.100 Revenue bonds or warrants. E - 35.92.110 Funding or refunding bonds - 35.91.030 Approval and acceptance of facilities by municipality- Rates, costs, - 35.92.020 Authority to acquire and operate sewerage and solid waste handling systems, plants, sites, or facilities - Classification of services for rates. -35A.12.130 Ordinances-Style-Requests-Veto. 4641-1 1997 City of Renton Annual Budget - Page 1-35 Utility Rate Analysis Projections for an Average Residential Customer(does not include entire project cost) - Page 1-36: Comparison of,Renton Taxes and Rates (does not include entire project cost) • - Pages 1-38, 1-39: Projected Limitation of Indebtedness for General Purposes City and Overlapping Tax Rates; And Property Tax Revenue - Page 3-123: FUND 402 -Airport Fund: Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance (does not include project costs) - Page 4-3: City of Renton Long Term Debt (does not include revenue bonds). - Pages 4-4, 4-5, 4-6: General Obligation Debt Summary. • - Page 4-7: City of Renton Outstanding Debt. Spread sheets - Summary of Scenario Rate Impacts - Summary of Scenario I Rate Impacts r 11:DOCS:97-30S:RDH:ps-6/16/97 -5.41 PM Pagc 13 ti r.•n_ DRAFT MODEL PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR SECTION 205 STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS • PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE CITY OF‘I RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CEDAR RIVER FLOOD 'DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT ' THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 199_, by and between the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the U.S. Army Engineer for the Seattle District (hereinafter the "District Engineer"):and the City of Renton, Washington, (hereinafter the "Non-Federal Sponsor] represented by the Mayor. WITNESSETH, THAT: WHEREAS, the Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Project at Renton, Washington, (hereinafter the "Project") was approved for construction by [CITE PROJECT APPROVAL MEMO] pursuant to the authority contained in Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 701s; WHEREAS, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor desire to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement for construction of the Project, as defined in Article I.A. of this Agreement; WHEREAS, Section 103 (a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended, specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to the Project; WHEREAS, under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, the Government may expend up to $5,000,000 on a single flood control project; WHEREAS, Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-611, as amended, and Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended, provide that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence construction of any water resources project, or separable element thereof, until each non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable element; WHEREAS, the Non-Federal Sponsor does not qualify for a reduction of the maximum Non-Federal cost share pursuant to the guidelines that implement Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended; WHEREAS, the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor have the full authority and capability to perform as hereinafter set forth and intend to cooperate in cost- sharing and financing of the construction of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor agree as follows: ARTICLE I -- DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS For purposes of this Agreement: A. The term "Project" shall mean construction of one and one-quarter miles of levees and floodwalls along each bank of the Cedar River, Federal dredging of one and one-quarter miles off the river during initial construction to a depth of approximately four (4) feet, and modification of the South Boeing bridge with lifting system and moveable closure structures, and construction of a spawing channel as generally described in the Cedar River, Renton, Washington, Flood Damage Reduction Study Detailed Project Report of July 1, 1997, approved by the Commander, North Pacific Division on , 199_. B. The term "total project costs" shall mean all costs incurred by the Non- Federa l Sponsor and the Government in accordance with the terms of this Agreement directly related to construction of the Project. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the term shall include, but is not necessarily limited to: engineering and design costs during the preparation of contract plans and specifications; engineering and design costs during construction; the costs of investigations to identify the existence and extent of hazardous substances in accordance with Article XV.A. of this Agreement; costs of historic preservation activities in accordance with Article XVIILA. of this Agreement; actual construction costs, including the costs of alteration, lowering, raising, or replacement and attendant removal of existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto; supervision and administration costs; costs of participation in the Project Coordination Team in accordance with Article V of this Agreement; costs 2 CED20S.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM of contract dispute settlements or awards; the value of lands, easements, rights-of- way, relocations, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas for which the Government affords credit in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; and costs of audit in accordance with Article X of this Agreement. The term does not include any costs for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation; any costs due to betterments; or any costs of dispute resolution under Article WI of this Agreement. C. The term "financial obligation for construction" shall mean a financial obligation of the Government, other than an obligation pertaining to the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, that results or would result in a cost that is or would be included in total project costs. D. The term "Non-Federal proportionate share" shall mean the ratio of the Non- Federal Sponsor's total cash contribution required in accordance with Articles II.D.1. and II.D.3. of this Agreement to total financial obligations for construction,as projected by the Government. E. The term "period of construction" shall mean the time from the date the Government first notifies the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing, in accordance with Article VI.B. of this Agreement, of the scheduled date for issuance of the solicitation for the first construction contract to the date that the District Engineer notifies the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the Government's determination that construction of the Project is complete. 044,0 F. The term "highway" shall mean any public highway, roadway, street, or way, including any bridge thereof. G. The term "relocation" shall mean providing a functionally equivalent facility to the owner of an existing utility, cemetery, highway or other public facility, or railroad (excluding existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto) when such action is authorized as between the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Facility owner in accordance with applicable legal principles of just compensation. Providing a functionally equivalent facility may take the form of alteration, lowering, raising, or replacement and attendant removal of the affected facility or part thereof. H. The term "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. I. The term "functional portion of the Project" shall mean a portion of the Project that is suitable for tender to the Non-Federal Sponsor to operate and maintain in advance of completion of the entire Project. For a portion of the Project to be suitable for tender, the District Engineer must notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the Government's determination that the portion of the Project is complete and can function independently and for a useful purpose, although the balance of the Project is not complete. 3 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM J. The term "betterment" shall mean a change in the design and construction of an element of the Project resulting from the application of standards that the Government determines exceed those that the Government would otherwise apply for accomplishing the design and construction of that element. ARTICLE II -- OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR A. The Government, subject to the availability of funds and using those funds and funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall expeditiously construct the Project (including alteration, lowering, raising, or replacement and attendant removal of existing railroad bridges and approaches thereto), applying those procedures usually applied to Federal projects, pursuant to Federal laws, regulations, and policies. 1. The Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on the solicitations for all contracts, including relevant plans and specifications, prior to the Government's issuance of such solicitations. The Government shall not issue the solicitation for the first construction contract until the Non-Federal Sponsor has confirmed in writing its willingness to proceed with the Project. To the extent possible, the Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract modifications, including change orders, prior to the issuance to the contractor of a Notice to Proceed. In any ginstance where providing the Non-Federal Sponsor with notification of a contract modification or change order is not possible prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, { the Government shall provide such notification in writing at the earliest date possible. To the extent possible,.the Government also shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on all contract claims prior to resolution thereof. The Government shall consider in good faith the comments of the Non-Federal Sponsor, but the contents of solicitations, award of contracts, execution of contract modifications, issuance of change orders, resolution of contract claims, and performance of all work on the Project (whether the work is performed under contract or by Government personnel), shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. 2. Throughout the period of construction, the District Engineer shall furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with a copy of the Government's Written Notice of Acceptance of Completed Work for each contract for the Project. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor may request the Government to accomplish betterments. Such requests shall be in writing and shall describe the betterments requested to be accomplished. If the Government in its sole discretion elects to a: accomplish the requested betterments or any portion thereof, it shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth any applicable terms and conditions, which must be consistent with this Agreement. In the event of conflict between such a writing and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be solely responsible for all costs due to the requested betterments and shall pay all such costs in accordance with Article VI.C. of this Agreement. 4 CED20S.PCA 6/16/97 1:29PM C. When the District Engineer determines that the entire Project is complete or that a portion of the Project has become a functional portion of the Project, the District Engineer shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with an Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation Manual (hereinafter the "OMRR&R Manual") and with copies of all of the Government's Written Notices of Acceptance of Completed Work for all contracts for the Project or the functional portion of the Project that have not been provided previously. Upon such.notification, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire Project or the functional,portion of the Project in accordance with Article VIII of this Agreement. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute a minimum of 35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent, of total project costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 1._ The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide a cash contribution equal to 5 percent of total project costs in accordance with Article VI.B. of this Agreement. 2. In accordance with Article III of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, and shall perform or ensure performance of all relocations that the Government determines to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. 3. If the Government projects that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions under paragraphs D.1. and D.2. of this Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement will be less than 35 percent of total project costs, the Non- Federal Sponsor shall provide an additional cash contribution, in accordance with Article VI.B. of this Agreement, in the amount necessary to make the Non-Federal Sponsor's total contribution equal to 35 percent of total project costs. 4. If the Government determines that the value of the Non-Federal Sponsor's contributions provided under paragraphs D.2. and D.3. of this Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement has exceeded 45 percent of total project costs, the Government, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Non- Federal Sponsor for any such value'in excess of 45 percent of total project costs.. After such a determination, the Government, in its sole discretion, may provide any remaining Project lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas and perform any remaining Project relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor. E. The Non-Federal Sponsor may request the Government to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or perform relocations on behalf of the Non-Federal Sponsor. Such requests shall be in writing and shall describe the services requested to be performed. If in its sole discretion the Government elects to perform the requested services or any portion thereof, it shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in a writing that sets forth 5 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM any applicable terms and conditions, which must be consistent with this Agreement. In the event of conflict between such a writing and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall be solely responsible for all costs of the requested services and shall pay all such costs in accordance with Article VLC. of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas or performance of relocations by the Government, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible, as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor; for the costs of cleanup and response in accordance with Article XV.C. of this Agreement. F. The Government shall perform a final accounting in accordance with Article VI.D. of this Agreement to determine the contributions provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor in accordance with paragraphs B., D., and E. of this Article and Articles V, X, and XV.A. of this Agreement and to determine whether the Non-Federal Sponsor has met its obligations under paragraphs B., D., and E. of this Article. G. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not use Federal funds to meet the Non- Federal Sponsor's'share of total project costs under this Agreement unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. H. The Non-Federal Sponsor agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs. I. Not less than once each year the Non-Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the Project. J. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the Project. I 6 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 t•)Q PM ARTICLE III -- LANDS, RELOCATIONS, DISPOSAL AREAS, AND PUBLIC LAW 91-646 COMPLIANCE A. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall is` determine the lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, including those required for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal. The Government in a - timely manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions, including maps as appropriate, of the lands, easements, and rights-of- way that the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide, in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph, and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with acquisition of such lands, easements, and rights-of-way. Prior to the x end of the period of construction, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall acquire all lands, easements, and rights-of-way set forth in such descriptions. Furthermore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract, the Non- Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with authorization for entry to all lands, easements, and rights-of-way the Government determines the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide for that contract. For so long as the Project remains authorized, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure that lands, easements, and rights- of-way that the Government determines to be required for the operation and maintenance of the Project and that were provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor are retained in public ownership for uses compatible with the authorized purposes of the Project. = B. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall determine the improvements required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Such improvements may include,.but are not necessarily limited to, retaining dikes, wasteweirs, bulkheads, embankments, monitoring features, stilling basins, and de-watering pumps and pipes. The Government in a timelyy manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions of such improvements in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph, and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with construction of such improvements. Prior to the end of the period of construction, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide all improvements set forth in such descriptions. Furthermore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for each Government construction contract, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall prepare plans and specifications for all improvements the Government determines to be required for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material under that contract, submit such plans and specifications to the Government for approval, and provide such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. C. The Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall determine the relocations necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, including those necessary to enable the removal of borrow materials and the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material. The Government in a timely • = 1 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM manner shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with general written descriptions, including maps as appropriate, of such relocations in detail sufficient to enable the Non-Federal Sponsor to fulfill its obligations under this paragraph, and shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written notice to proceed with such relocations. Prior to the end of the period of construction, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall perform or ensure the performance of all relocations as set forth in such descriptions. Furthermore, prior to issuance of the solicitation for.each Government construction contract, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall prepare or ensure the preparation of plans and specifications for, and perform or ensure the performance of, all relocations the Government determines to be necessary for that contract. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor in a timely manner shall provide the Government with such documents as are sufficient to enable the Government to determine the value of any contribution provided pursuant to paragraph A., B., or C. of this Article. Upon receipt of such documents the Government, in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement and in a timely manner, shall determine the value of such contribution, include such value in total project costs, and afford credit for such value toward the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of total project costs. E. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with the applicable provisions of the • Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, and shall inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act. ARTICLE IV-- CREDIT FOR VALUE OF LANDS, RELOCATIONS, AND DISPOSAL AREAS A. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall receive credit toward its share of total project costs for the value of the lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, and for the value of the relocations that the Non-Federal Sponsor must perform or for which it must ensure performance pursuant to Article III of this Agreement. However, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not receive credit for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas that have been provided previously as an item of cooperation for another Federal project. The Non-Federal Sponsor also shall not receive credit for the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas to the extent that such items are provided using Federal funds unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that such creditis expressly authorized by statute. B. For the sole purpose of affording credit in accordance with this Agreement, - the value of lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, shall be 8 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM the fair market value of the real property interests, plus certain incidental costs of acquiring those interests, as determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. s � ; 1. Date of Valuation. The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights- of-way owned by the Non-Federal Sponsor on the effective date of this Agreement shall be the fair market value of such real property interests as of the date the Non- Federal Sponsor provides the Government with authorization for entry thereto. The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by the Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement shall be the fair market value of such real property interests at the time the interests are acquired. • 2. General Valuation Procedure. Except as provided in paragraph B.3. of this Article, the fair market value of lands, easements, or rights-of-way shall be determined in accordance with paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, unless thereafter a different amount is determined to represent fair market value in accordance with paragraph B.2.b. of this Article. a. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall obtain, for each real property interest, an appraisal that is prepared by a qualified appraiser who is acceptable to the Non- Federal Sponsor and the Government: The appraisal must be prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of just compensation, as specified by the Government. The fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisal, if such appraisal is approved by the Government. In the event the Government does not approve the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisal, the Non-Federal Sponsor may obtain a second appraisal, and the fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Non-Federal Sponsor's second appraisal, if such appraisal is approved by the Government. In the event the Government does not approve the Non-Federal Sponsor's second appraisal, or the Non-Federal Sponsor chooses not to obtain a second appraisal, the Government shall obtain an appraisal, and the fair market value shall be the amount set forth in the Government's appraisal, if such appraisal is approved by the Non-Federal Sponsor. In the event the Non-Federal Sponsor does not approve the Government's appraisal, the Government, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider the Government's and the Non-Federal Sponsor's appraisals and determine an amount based thereon, which shall be deemed to be the fair market value. b. Where the amount'paid or proposed to be paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor for the real property interest exceeds the amount determined pursuant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, the Government, at the request of the Non-Federal Sponsor, shall consider all factors relevant to determining fair market value and, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, may approve in writing an amount greater than the,amount determined pursuant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article, but not to exceed the amount actually paid or proposed to be paid. If the Government approves such an amount, the fair market value shall be the lesser of the approved amount or the amount paid by the Non-Federal Sponsor, but no less than the amount determined pursu'aant to paragraph B.2.a. of this Article. 9 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM 3. Eminent Domain Valuation Procedure. For lands, easements, or rights- of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted after the effective date of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall, prior to instituting such proceedings, submit to the Government notification in writing of its intent to institute such proceedings and an appraisal of the specific real property interests to be acquired in such proceedings. The Government shall have 60 days after receipt of such a notice and appraisal within which to review the appraisal, if not previously approved by the Government in writing. • a. If the Government previously has approved the appraisal in writing, or if the Government provides written approval of, or takes no action on, the appraisal within such 60-day period, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use the amount set forth in such appraisal as the estimate of just compensation for the purpose.of instituting the eminent domain proceeding. • b. If the Government provides written disapproval of the appraisal, including the reasons for disapproval, within such 60-day period, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall consult in good faith to promptly resolve the issues or areas of disagreement that are identified in the Government's written disapproval. If, after such good faith consultation, the Government and the Non- Federal Sponsor agree as to an appropriate amount, then the Non-Federal Sponsor shall use that amount as the estimate of just compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding. If, after such good faith consultation, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor cannot agree as to an appropriate amount, then the Non-Federal Sponsor may use the amount set forth in its appraisal as the estimate of just compensation for the purpose of instituting the eminent domain proceeding. c. For lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by eminent domain proceedings instituted in accordance with sub-paragraph B.3. of this Article, fair market value shall be either the amount of the court award for the real property interests taken, to the extent the Government determined such interests are required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, or the amount of any stipulated settlement or portion thereof that the Government approves in writing. 4.. Incidental Costs. For lands, easements, or rights-of-way acquired by the Non-Federal Sponsor within a five-year period preceding the effective date of this Agreement, or at any time after the effective date of this Agreement, the value of the interest shall include the documented incidental costs of acquiring the interest, as determined by the Government, subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. Such incidental costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, closing and title costs, appraisal costs, survey costs, attorney's fees, plat maps, and mapping costs, as + g well as the actual amounts expended for payment of any Public Law 91-646 relocation assistance benefits provided in accordance with Article III.E. of this Agreement. C. After consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Government shall determine the value of relocations in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 10 CED20S.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM 1. For a relocation other than a highway, the value shall be only that portion of relocation costs that the Government determines is necessary to provide a functionally equivalent facility, reduced by depreciation, as applicable, and by the salvage value of any removed items. 2. For a relocation of a highway, the value shall be only that portion of relocation costs that would be necessary to accomplish the relocation in accordance with the design standard that the State of Washington would apply under similar conditions of geography and traffic load, reduced by the salvage value of any removed items. 3. Relocation costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, actual costs of performing the relocation; planning, engineering and design costs; supervision and administration costs; and documented incidental costs associated with performance of the relocation, but shall not include any costs due to betterments, as determined by the Government, nor any additional cost of using new material when suitable used material is available. Relocation costs shall be subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. D. The value of the improvements made to lands, easements, and rights-of-way for the proper disposal of dredged or excavated material shall be the costs of the improvements, as determined by the Government, subject to an audit in accordance F:+ with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. Such costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, actual costs of providing the improvements; planning, engineering and design costs; supervision and administration costs; and documented incidental costs associated with providing the improvements, but shall not include any costs due to betterments, as determined by the Government. ' 11 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM ARTICLE V -- PROJECT COORDINATION TEAM A. To provide for consistent and effective communication, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government, not later than 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement, shall appoint named senior representatives to a Project Coordination Team. Thereafter, the Project Coordination Team shall meet regularly until the end of the period of construction. The Government's Project Manager and a counterpart named by the Non-Federal Sponsor shall co-chair the Project Coordination Team. B. The Government's Project Manager and the Non-Federal Sponsor's counterpart shall keep the Project Coordination Team informed of the progress of construction and of significant pending issues and actions, and shall seek the views of the Project Coordination Team on matters that the Project Coordination Team generally oversees. C. Until the end of the period of construction, the Project Coordination Team shall generally oversee the Project, including issues related to design; plans and specifications; scheduling; real property and relocation requirements; real property acquisition; contract awards and modifications; contract costs; the Government's cost projections; final inspection of the entire Project or functional portions of the Project; preparation of the proposed OMRR&R Manual; anticipated requirements and needed capabilities for performance of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Project; and other related matters. D. The Project Coordination Team may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that the Project Coordination Team generally oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider the recommendations of the Project Coordination Team. The Government, having the legal authority and responsibility for construction of the Project, has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Project Coordination Team's recommendations. E. The costs of participation in the Project Coordination Team shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VI -- METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the parties and current projections of total project costs and costs due to betterments. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a report setting forth all contributions provided to date and the current projections of total project costs, of total costs due to betterments, of the components of total project i costs, of each party's share of total project costs, of the Non-Federal Sponsor's total cash contributions required in accordance with Articles II.B., II.D., and II.E. of this Agreement, and of the non-Federal proportionate share. On the effective date of this Agreement, total project costs are projected to be $ )1(e Z i 000 , and the Non- -_ Federal Sponsor's cash contribution required under Article II.D. of this Agreement is projected to be $ -2))P16 0 Od . Such amounts are estimates subject to adjustment 12 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 " 1:29 PM x; by the Government and are not.to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the cash contribution required under Articles II.D.1. and II.D.3. of this Agreement in accordance with the following provisions: Not less than 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled date for issuance of the solicitation for the first construction contract, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of such scheduled date and the funds the Government determines to be required from the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its projected cash contribution under Articles II.D.1. and II.D.3. of this Agreement. Not later than such scheduled.date, the',Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of the required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, Portland (Seattle)"to the District Engineer. The Government shall ' draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such.sums,as the I Government deems necessary to cover: (a) the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations for construction incurred prior to the commencement of the period of construction; and (b) the non-Federal proportionate share of financial obligations for construction as they are,incurred during the period of construction. In the event the Government determines that the Non-Federal Sponsor musteprovide additional funds to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash contribution, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional funds required. Within 60 calendar days thereafter, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with a check for the full amount of the additional required funds. C. In advance of the Government incurring any financial obligation associated with additional work under Article II.B. or II.E. of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall [INDICATE MECHANISM: [1] provide the Government with the full amount of the funds required to pay for such additional work by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, Portland (Seattle)" to the District Engineer. [2] verify to the satisfaction of the Government that the Non-Federal Sponsor has deposited the full amount of the funds required to pay for such additional work in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government, with interest accruing to the Non-Federal .] Sponsor.] The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Government's financial obligations for such additional work as they are incurred. In the event the Government determines that the Non-Federal Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet its cash contribution, the Government shall notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing of the additional funds required. Within 30 calendar days thereafter, the Non- -f 7 Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with a check for the full amount of the additional required funds. D. Upon completion of the Project or termination of this Agreement, and upon resolution of all relevant claims and appeals, the Government shall conduct a final accounting and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with the results of the final accounting. The final accounting shall determine total project costs, each party's contribution provided thereto, and each party's required share thereof. The final accounting also shall determine costs due to betterments and the Non-Federal Sponsor's cash contribution provided pursuant to Article II.B. of this Agreement. 13 CED205.PCA • 6/16/97 1:29 PM 1. In the event the final accounting shows that the total contribution • provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor is less than its required share of total project costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II.B. of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall, no later than 90 calendar days after receipt of written notice, make a cash payment to the Government of whatever sum is required to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's required share of total project costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II.B. of this Agreement. 2. In the event the final accounting shows that the total contribution provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor exceeds its required share of total project costs plus costs due to any betterments provided in accordance with Article II.B. of this Agreement, the Government shall, subject to the availability of funds, refund the excess to the Non-Federal Sponsor no later than 90 calendar days after the final accounting is complete; however, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not be entitled to any refund of the 5 percent cash contribution required pursuant to Article II.D.1. of this Agreement. In the event existing funds are not available to refund the excess to the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Government shall seek such appropriations as are necessary to make the refund. ARTICLE VII -- DISPUTE RESOLUTION As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. The parties shall each pay 50 percent of anycosts for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII -- OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION (OMRR&R) A. Upon notification in accordance with Article II.C. of this Agreement and for so long as the Project remains authorized, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the entire Project or the functional portion of the Project, at no cost to the Government, in a manner compatible with the . Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws as provided in Article XI of this Agreement and specific directions prescribed by the Government in the OMRR&R.Manual and any subsequent amendments thereto. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor hereby gives the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. If an inspection shows that the Non-Federal Sponsor for any reason is failing to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Government • 14 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29PM shall send a written notice describing the non-performance to the Non-Federal Sponsor. If, after 30 calendar days from receipt of notice, the Non-Federal Sponsor continues to fail to perform, then the Government shall have the right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate to relieve the Non-Federal Sponsor of responsibility to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor's obligations as set forth in this Agreement, or to preclude the Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE IX— INDEMNIFICATION The Non-Federal Sponsor shall hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Project and any Project-related betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors. • ARTICLE X -- MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT A. Not later than 60 calendar days after the effective date of this Agreement, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall develop procedures for keeping books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Non- Federal Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence • in accordance with these procedures and for a minimum of three years after the period of construction and resolution of all relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall each allow the other to inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. r B. Pursuant to 32 C.F.R. Section 33.26, the Non-Federal Sponsor is responsible for complying with the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507, as implemented by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-128 and Department of Defense Directive 7600.10. Upon request of the Non-Federal Sponsor and to the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government shall provide to the Non-Federal Sponsor and independent auditors any information necessary to enable an audit of the Non-Federal Sponsor's activities under this Agreement. The costs of any non-Federal audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of OMB f_..R Circulars A-87 and A-128, and such costs as are allocated to the Project shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 15 } CED2o5.PCA + 6/16/97 1:29 PM C. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct =; the Non-Federal S onsor is required to conduct ` audits in addition to any audit that p q under the Single Audit Act. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB Circular No. A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits performed in accordance with this paragraph shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. ARTICLE XI -- FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government agree to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulations 600- 7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army". ARTICLE XII -- RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES A. In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor each act in an independent ,- capacity, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. 0400 B. In the exercise of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, neither party shall provide, without the consent of the other party, any contractor with a release that waives or purports to waive any rights such other party may have to seek relief or redress against such contractor either pursuant to any cause of action that such other party may have or for violation of any law. • C • 16 CED20S.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM ARTICLE XIII -- OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. ARTICLE XIV -- TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. If at any time the Non-Federal Sponsor fails to fulfill its obligations under Article II.B., II.D., ILE., VI, or XVIII.C. of this Agreement, the Government shall terminate this Agreement or suspend future performance under this Agreement unless the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) determines that continuation of work on the Project is in the interest of the United States or is necessary in order to satisfy agreements with any other non-Federal interests in connection with the Project. B. If the Government fails to receive annual appropriations in amounts sufficient to meet Projectexpenditures e enditures for the then-current or upcoming fiscal year, the Government shall so notify the Non-Federal Sponsor in writing, and 60 calendar days thereafter either party may elect without penalty to terminate this Agreement or f_ to suspend future performance under this Agreement In the event that either party elects to suspend future performance under this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph, such suspension shall remain in effect until such time as the Government receives sufficient appropriations or until either the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor elects to terminate this Agreement. C. In the event that either party elects to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Article or Article XV of this Agreement, both parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Project and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article VI.D. of this Agreement. D. Any termination of this Agreement or suspension of future performance under this Agreement in accordance with this Article or Article XV of this Agreement. shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligation previously incurred. Any delinquent payment shall be charged interest at a rate, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal to 150 per centum of the average bond equivalent rate of the 13-week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned immediately prior to the beginning of each additional 3-month period if the period of delinquency exceeds 3 months. rl ARTICLE XV -- HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES A. After execution of this Agreement and upon direction by the District Engineer, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that the Government or the Non-Federal Sponsor determines to be necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 17 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM Compensation, and Liability Act (hereinafter "CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601- 9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements, and rights-of-way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. However, for lands that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Government shall perform such investigations unless the District Engineer provides the Non-Federal Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the Non- Federal Sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction. All actual costs incurred by the Non-Federal Sponsor for such investigations for hazardous substances shall be included in.total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, subject to an audit in accordance with Article X.C. of this Agreement to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of costs. B. In the event it is discovered through any investigation for hazardous substances or other means that hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA exist in, on, or under any lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, the Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shall provide prompt written notice to each other, and the Non- - Federal Sponsor shall not proceed with the acquisition of the real property interests until both parties agree that the Non-Federal Sponsor should proceed. C. The Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor shall determine whether to initiate construction of the Project, or, if already in construction, whether to continue with work on the Project, suspend future performance under this Agreement, or terminate this Agreement for the convenience of the Government, in any case where hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA are found to exist in, on, or under any lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Government determines, pursuant to Article III of this Agreement, to be required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project. Should the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor determine to initiate or continue with construction after considering any liability that may arise under CERCLA, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible, as between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, for the costs of clean-up,and response, to include the costs of any studies and investigations necessary to determine an appropriate response to the contamination. Such costs shall not be considered a part of total project costs. In the event the Non-Federal Sponsor fails to provide any funds necessary to pay for clean up and response costs or to otherwise discharge the Non- Federal Sponsor's responsibilities under this paragraph upon direction by the Government, the Government may, in its sole discretion, either terminate this Agreement for the convenience of the Government, suspend future performance under this Agreement, or continue work on the Project. D. The Non-Federal Sponsor and the Government shall consult with each other in accordance with Article V of this Agreement in an effort to ensure that responsible parties bear any necessary clean up and response costs as defined in CERCLA. Any decision made pursuant to paragraph C. of this Article shall not relieve any third party from any liability that may arise under CERCLA. 18 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM E. As between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the Project for purposes of CERCLA liability. To the maximum extent practicable, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, - maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the Project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. ARTICLE XVI -- NOTICES A. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and either delivered personally or by telegram or mailed by first-class,registered, or certified mail, as follows: If to the Non-Federal Sponsor: Mayor, City of Renton 200 Mill Street Renton, Washington 98055 If to the Government: District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 B. A party may change the address to which such communications are to be directed by giving written notice to the other party in the manner provided in this Article.C• . Any notice, request, demand, or other communication made pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the earlier of such time as it is actually received or seven calendar days after it is mailed. ARTICLE XVII -- CONFIDENTIALITY To the extent permitted by thelaws governing each party, the parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of exchanged information when requested to do so by the providing party. • 19 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM 1 ARTICLE XVIII -- HISTORIC PRESERVATION A. The costs of identification, survey and evaluation of historic properties shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. B. As specified in Section 7(a) of Public Law 93-291 (16 U.S.C. Section 469c(a)), the costs of mitigation and data recovery activities associated with historic preservation shall be borne entirely by the Government and shall not be included in total project costs, up to the statutory limit of one percent of the total amount the Government is authorized to expend for the Project. C. The Government shall not incur costs for mitigation and data recovery that exceed the statutory one percent limit specified in paragraph B. of this Article unless and until the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has waived that limit in accordance with Section 208(3) of Public Law 96-515 (16 U.S.C. Section 469c-2(3)). • Any costs of mitigation and data recovery that exceed the one percent limit shall not be included in total project costs but shall be cost shared between the Non-Federal j Sponsor and the Government consistent with the minimum non-Federal cost sharing requirements for the underlying flood control purpose,.as follows: 35 percent borne by the Non-Federal Sponsor, and 75 percent borne by the Government. ARTICLE XIX -- LINIITATION ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES In accordance with Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, the Government's financial participation in the Project is limited to $5,000,000 which shall include all Federal funds expended by the Government for planning, design, and implementation of the project except for coordination account funds expended prior to the first work allowance for study initiation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall be responsible for all costs in excess of this amount. 1 � 1 _ 20 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Engineer. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON I BY: BY: DONALD T. WYNN [Name] Colonel, Corps of Engineers Mayor Seattle District Engineer DATE: DATE: • 21 CED205.PCA 6/16/97 1:29PM • • CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY I, , do hereby certify that I am the principal legal officer of the City of Renton, Washington, that the City of Renton is a legally constituted public body with full authority and legal capability to perform the terms of the Agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Renton, Washington, in connection with the Cedar River, Renton, Washington Flood Damage Reduction Project, and to pay damages in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, if necessary, in the event of the failure to perform, as required by Section 221 of Public Law 91-911 (42 U.S.C. Section 1962d-5b), and that the persons who have executed this Agreement on behalf of the City of Renton have acted within their statutory authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have made and executed this certification this day of 199 . BY: [TYPED NAME] [TITLE IN FULL] • ; 22 i 4 CED20S.PCA ' 6/16/97 1.00 D%R CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any,Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative WIW agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by . Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. CITY OR RENTON, WASHINGTON • BY: [TYPED NAME] [TITLE IN FULL] DATE: 23 CED20S.PCA 6/16/97 1:29 PM • • CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL REVIEW The draft Project Cooperation Agreement for the Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Project, Section 205, has been fully reviewed by the Office of Counsel, 'USED, Seattle District, Seattle,Washingto . r�,✓DISTRICT Oy—e_.4/ EL Date U _ , • • I E I ' 24 CED2o5.PCA 6/16/97 • CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE DISTRICT JUNE 1997 Prepared pursuant to the requirements of, among other laws: the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA); Clean Water Act, including Section 401 and the Section 404(b)(1)guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency; Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act;Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Endangered Species Act;Archaeological 9 P g and Historic Preservation Act; Washington State Hydraulic Code; the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); Indian Treaty Rights. • - NEPA COVER SHEET/SEPA FACT SHEET This document is a final Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 'I j Project Name: Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study Project Location: The project is along the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River in Renton, King County, Washington. This portion of the river is entirely constructed in 1911 contained in an artificial channelby Commercial Waterway District No. 2. Prior to construction of this channel into Lake Washington, the Cedar River flowed into the Black River and thence into Elliott Bay. Proponents and Lead Agencies: The project proponents and lead agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and the City of Renton. The Corps of Engineers is the NEPA lead agency, and the City of Renton is the SEPA lead agency. Proposed Action & Alternatives: The basic project purpose is to provide 100 year flood control along the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River in Renton. Additional project objectives include: preventing damage to the south Boeing bridge from high water and logs or other debris; reducing the threat to public safety from flood waters inundating the Cedar River Trail; and providing an environmentally sound project. The alternatives considered are: • No Action -- do not pursue a. flood control project along the lower 1.25 miles • (2000 m) of the Cedar River. Allow sediment to continue to accumulate in this reach of the river and delta at a rate of 0.1-1.0 feet/year. Flood damages would continue to worsen until the river could not carry even normal fall and winter flows. - • Existing Channel -- construction of a levee system along both banks of the river up to rivermile (RM) 1.6 (2560 m) with only minimal initial dredging to even out the channel depth. The channel would require maintenance dredging approximately every 3 years to maintain 100 year capacity. The.south Boeing bridge would be modified to be lifted hydraulically during flood events, thus removing a critical flow restriction and - s avoiding damage from high water and debris. The Logan Avenue and next four bridges upstream would also require modification to avoid inducing flooding upstream. • Minimum Dredge --the channel would be dredged to an average depth of 4 feet (1.2 m) below the existing river bottom. Levees would also be constructed along both banks up to RM'1.25 (2000 m). The channel would require maintenance dredging approximately every 3 years to maintain 100 year capacity. The south Boeing bridge would be modified to be lifted hydraulically during flood events, thus removing a critical flow restriction and avoiding damage from high water and debris. • Moderate Dredge -- the channel would be dredged to an average depth of 6 feet (1.8 m) below the existing river bottom. Levees would also be constructed along both banks up to RM 1.25 (2000 m). The channel would require maintenance dredging approximately every3years to maintain 100year capacity. The south Boeingbridge PP Y p Y• g would be modified to be lifted hydraulically during flood events, thus removing a critical flow restriction and avoiding damage from high water and debris. • Deep Dredge -- the channel would be dredged to an average depth of 10 feet (3 `} m) below the existing river bottom. Levees would also be constructed along both banks up to RM 1.25 (2000 m). The channel would require maintenance dredging approximately every 3 years to maintain 100 year capacity. The south Boeing bridge would be modified to be hydraulically jacked during flood events, thus removing a critical flow restriction and avoiding damage from high water and debris. Responsible Officials: Colonel Donald T. Wynn District Engineer, Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4735 East Marginal Way South P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 Mayor Jesse Tanner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Contact For Further Information: Merri Martz Environmental Resources Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 • Seattle, WA 98124-2255 (206) 764-3624 Licenses. Permits and Other The following permits and approvals will be required. Required Approvals: •Section 10/404 Equivalency Determination •Water Quality Certification 'Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Act •Hydraulic Project Approval •City of Renton Substantial Development Permit/Shoreline Permit •City of Renton Grading Permit Authors and Contributors: (all are Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees) Principal Author: Merri S. Martz Wetland and Stream Ecologist • Contributors: Kenneth R. Brunner Wildlife Biologist Bird and Wildlife Surveys Gail C. Celmer Archaeologist Cultural Resources and Indian Treaty Rights Frederick A. Goetz Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Technical Review Kathleen S. Kunz Wetland Scientist Technical Review Cyrus M. McNeely" Biologist and NEPA Compliance • Technical Review Location of Public Viewing Copies of this final EIS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District District Library 2nd Floor, Federal Center South 4735 East Marginal Way South (Seattle) Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue, S. Renton, Washington University of Washington (Seattle) Government Publications • Suzzallo Library, 1st Floor How to Request Copies of this EIS: Call Merri Martz at (206) 764-3624 • TABLE OF CONTENTS _' Title Page NEPA Cover Sheet/SEPA Fact Sheet, including List of Preparers Table of Contents 'I Executive Summary i Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Action 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Study Authority 1 - 1.3 Flooding History 2 1.4 Need for Flood and Sediment Control 3 1.5 Project Purpose 4 1.6 Agency and Public Issues 4 Section 2: Alternatives 11 2.1 Plans Eliminated from Detailed Study 11 2.1.1 Upstream Sediment Control 11 2.1.2 Upstream Levee Removal 11 2.1.3 Widening the River Channel in the Project Reach 12 2.1.4 Modifying the Boeing Bridges to be Raised During Flood Events 12 Y.. 2.1.5 Nonstructural Floodproofing of Building in the Project Area 12 2.1.6 Dredging the Lower Mile to Historical Depths 13 2.1.7 Levee Placement Along the Lower Mile 13 - 2.1.8 Sediment Trap 13 2.2 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIS 14 2.2.1 No Action 14 2.2.2 Existing Channel Depth With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge 14 2.2.3 Minimum Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (Preferred Alternative) 15 2.2.4 Moderate Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications -_ to the South Boeing Bridge 15 2.2.5 Deep Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge 16 Possible Dredging Methods for All Dredging Alternatives 16 2.2.6 g g 9 2.2.6.1 Barge Mounted Clamshell or Dragline 16 2.2.6.2 Hydraulic Suction Dredging of Fine Materials 26 ,. 2.2.6.3 Divert River Flow for Removal of Generally Dry Material 26 2.2.7 Disposal Site for Dredged Material 26 Section 3: Affected Environment 29 ' 3.1 Geology/Soils/Sediments 29 3.1'.1 Geology 29 3.1.2 Soils/Topography 29 3.1.3 Sediments 30 3.1.4 Floodplain Management 31 3.2 Water 31 =., 3.2.1 Surface Water 31 ' lg 3.2.2 Groundwater 32 3.2.3 Contribution of Tributaries Below Landsburg 32 3.2.4 Water Quality 33 3.2.5 Wetlands 34 3.3 Habitat 34 3.4 Fish 36 3.4.1 Salmon 36 3.4.2 Longfin Smelt 40 3.4.3 Other Species 41 3.5 Aquatic Invertebrates 42 ` 3.6 Wildlife 43 ; t. 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 43 3.8 Vegetation 45 3.9 Cultural Resources 46 ; 3.10 Land Use/Recreation/Public Use 46 3.11 Transportation 47 3.12 Air/Noise/Light 48ee 1 3.13. Aesthetics 48 3.14 Public Services/Utilities/Energy 48 3.15 Public Health and Safety 48 Section 4: Environmental Impacts 50 4.1 Geology/Sediments/Soils/Floodplains 50 4.1.1 No Action Alternative 50 4.1.2 Existing Channel Alternative 50 4.1.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 51 4.1.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 51 4.1.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 52 4.2 Water and Water Quality 52 4.2.1 No Action Alternative 53 4.2.2 Existing Channel Alternative 53 4.2.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 54 4.2.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 54 1 4.2.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 54 4.3 Fish 54 4.3.1 Sockeye Salmon 54 i T. 4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative 54 4.3.1.2 Existing Channel Alternative 55 - 4.3.1.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 55 4.3.1.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 56 4.3.1.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 57 E ' is • 4.3.2 Chinook Salmon 57 4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative 57 4.3.2.2 Existing Channel Alternative 58 4.3.2.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 58 4.3.2.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 58 4.3.2.5 Deep Dredge Alternative V 59 4.3.3 Coho Salmon 59 4.3.3.1 No Action Alternative 59 4.3.3.2 Existing Channel Alternative 59 4.3.3.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 60 4.3.3.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 60 4.3.3.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 60 4.3.4 Steelhead Trout 61 4.3.4.1 No Action Alternative V 61 4.3.4.2 Existing Channel Alternative 61 4.3.4.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 61 4.3.4.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 62 4.3.4.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 62 4.3.5 Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout 62 4.3.6 Resident Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout 62 4.3.6.1 No Action Alternative 62 4.3.6.2 Existing Channel Alternative 63 4.3.6.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 63 4.3.6.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 63 4.3.6.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 63 4.3.7 Longfin Smelt 64 4.3.7.1 No Action Alternative 64 4.3.7.2 Existing Channel Alternative 64 4.3.7.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 64 4.3.7.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 65 4.3.7.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 65 4.3.8 Sculpins 65 4.3.8.1 No Action Alternative 65 4.3.8.2 Existing Channel Alternative 65 4.3.8.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 66 4.3.8.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 66 i 4.3.8.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 67 4.3.9 Other Native Fish Species 67 4.3.9.1 No Action Alternative 67 " 4.3.9.2 Existing Channel Alternative 68 4.3.9.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 68 V 4.3.9.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 68 4.3.9.5 Deep Dredge Alternative V 69 4.3.10 Non-Native Fish Species 69 ! 4.3.10.1 No Action Alternative 69 4.3.10.2 Existing Channel Alternative 70 4.3.10.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 70 _ 4.3.10.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 70 4.3.10.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 70 ; , 4.4 Aquatic Invertebrates 71 4.4.1 No Action Alternative 71 4.4.2 Existing Channel Alternative 71 4.4.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative 71 4.4.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative 72 4.4.5 Deep Dredge Alternative 72 4.5 Wildlife 72 4.5.1 No Action Alternative 72 4.5.2 All Dredging Alternatives 73 4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 74 4.6.1 Bald Eagle 74 ' `, 4.6.1.1 No Action Alternative 74 4.6.1.2 All Dredging Alternatives 74 4.6.2 Candidate Salmon Species 74 4.6.3 Species of Concern: Northwestern Pond Turtle 74 4.7 Vegetation 74 4.7.1 No Action Alternative 74 4.7.2 All Dredging Alternatives 75 4.8 Cultural Resources 75 4.9 Land Use/Recreation/Public Use 75 4.9.1 No Action Alternative 75 4.9.2 All Dredging Alternatives 76 4.10 Transportation 76 4.10.1 No Action Alternative 76 4.10.2 Dredging Alternatives 76 ' 4.10.2.1 Existing Channel Alternative 77 4.10.2.2 Minimal Dredge Alternative 77 4.10.2.3 Moderate Dredge Alternative 77 4.10.2.4 Deep Dredge Alternative 77 4.11 Air/Noise/Light 78 4.11.1 No Action Alternative 78 4.11.2 All Dredging Alternatives 78 4.12 Aesthetics 78 4.12.1 No Action Alternative 78 4.12.2 All Dredging Alternatives 78 ',' 4.13 Public Services/Utilities/Energy 79 4.13.1 No Action Alternative 79 4.13.2 All Dredging Alternatives 79 4.14 Public Health and Safety 79 4.14.1 No Action Alternative 79 4.14.2 All Dredging Alternatives 79 i 4.15 Likely Irretrievable Commitment Of Resources 79 _- 4.15.1 No Action Alternative 79 4.15.2 All Dredging Alternatives 79 4.16 Aquatic.Ecosystem Interactions 80 4.16.1 No Action Alternative 80 . 4.16.2 Dredging Alternatives 80 4.17 Cumulative Impacts 80 4.17.1 No Action Alternative 80 4.17.2 All Dredging Alternatives 81 Section 5: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 84 5.1 Avoidance of Adverse Impacts 84 5.2 Minimization of Adverse Impacts 84 • 5.3 Rectification of Adverse Impacts 84 I 5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 85 . 5.5 Compensatory Mitigation for Unavoidable Impacts (Preferred Alt.) 86 5.6 Monitoring Plan 87 5.7 Impacts and Mitigation for Moderate Dredge Alternative 88 ' , Section 6: Status of Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations 94 . References 97 Glossary 99 Appendices A: Comments Received on Draft EIS With Responses From the Corps B: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, With Responses by the Corps to Recommendations in the Report M C: Distribution of Draft EIS • i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map 6 FIGURE 2: Cedar River Basin Map 7 FIGURE 3: Lower Cedar River 8 FIGURE 4: Anadromous Fish Access in Cedar River Basin 9 FIGURE 5: Historical Route of the Cedar River/Black River 10 FIGURE 6: Dredge Profiles for All Action Alternatives 17 FIGURE 7: Levee/Floodwall Footprint for Preferred Alternative 18 FIGURES: Typical Levee Sections 23 FIGURE 9: Typical Floodwall Sections 24 FIGURE 10: Barge Mounted Clamshell Dredge 25 FIGURE 11: Excavator 25 FIGURE 12: Hydraulic Pipeline Cutterhead Dredge 26 FIGURE 13: Location of Narco Site (Disposal Site) 28 FIGURE 14: Cedar Basin Wetlands 35 FIGURE 15: Proposed Haul Route for Dredged Material 83 FIGURE 16: Mitigation Plan 90 FIGURE 17: Upstream Mitigation Site 92 FIGURE 18: Side Channel Plan 93 • • • „ LIST OF TABLES • TABLE A: Summary of Impacts to Each Element of the Environment vii TABLE 1: Cedar River Basin Fishes,and Status 37 TABLE 2: Number of Sockeye Redds Observed in the Lower 1.25 Miles 39 TABLE 3: Birds Observed in Vicinity of Lower Cedar River 44 TABLE 4: Summary of Impacts 82 • TABLE 5: Summary of Consistency of the Preferred Alternative with Applicable Laws and Regulations 95 ly I ' I } EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION This final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to support federal, state, and local decision-making processes for the U.S. - Army Corps of Engineers proposed Section 205 Flood Control Project on the lower Cedar River in Renton, Washington. Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act (as amended) provides for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enter into a local/federal cost-shared agreement to plan and construct small flood control projects (less than $5 million total federal cost). It was determined that an EIS was warranted for this proposed project because of the significant environmental resources present in and around the lower Cedar River. The level of controversy surrounding a proposed flood control project was also very high early in the planning process. The Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is NEPA lead agency for this project. The Corps is the joint project proponent with the City of Renton, as local _ sponsor. The Corps of Engineers has permitting authority over the excavation or placement of material in waters of the United States. NEPA requires that environmental consequences of the total project be evaluated as part of the decision- making process. The City of Renton,is lead agency under SEPA. The City of Renton is a joint project proponent and also has jurisdiction under the Shoreline Management Act for construction activities occurring in shoreline areas within City jurisdiction. S.2 PROJECT.LOCATION The proposed Section 205 Flood Control Project is located in the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River in Renton, Washington. This portion of the river is an J artificially constructed channel built in 1912 by Commercial Waterway District Number 2. Prior to 1912; the Cedar River flowed into the Black River and on into the Duwamish River to Elliott-Bay. The diversion'of the Cedar River into Lake Washington occurred at approximately the same time that the Corps constructed the Lake Washington Ship Canal and lowered Lake Washington by 9 feet (2.7 meters). Currently, the Cedar River I� flows into Lake Washington at the'extreme southern end of the lake (see Figure 1). Immediately adjacent to the Ioweririver is the Renton Municipal Airport (left bank facing downstream) and the Cedar River',Trail Park (City of Renton) and the Boeing Company (right bank). Four bridges (2 city roads and 2 privately owned by Boeing) cross the Cedar River in the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m). _VJ S3. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Since the Cedar River was diverted into Lake Washington in 1912, the river has been _ periodically dredged to maintain a flood capacity of approximately a 20 year flood (original channel was designed to be 10 feet [3.3 m] deep). The Commercial Waterway District No. 2 dredged the river and delta approximately every 10 years until 1957, _, when the City of Renton (hereafter, City) assumed responsibility for maintaining the channel. The City continued dredging the channel and delta until 1983. Stoneway Gravel mined the channel upstream of RM 1.5 (2.4 km) for gravel until the early 1970s, removing 10,000-50,000 CY of material annually. Since 1983, the channel has not been maintained. The City did not always maintain the channel to the original depth, after the north Boeing bridge was built across the mouth of the river in 1962 greatly restricting access for subsequent dredging. Flooding in the Cedar River, similar to other western Washington rivers, typically occurs in the months from October through April from warm maritime rainstorms with heavy precipitation, often accompanied by extensive snowmelt in the Cascades. In November 1990, a series of heavy rainstorms occurred in western Washington, causing widespread flooding. The Cedar River reached the highest flood level recorded at since 1945 1 0 200 cfs). This was estimated by the Corps to be a 50 year Renton ( ) flood. Depths of flooding at Boeing and the airport were 3-4 feet (approx. 1 m). Property damage adjacent to the lower Cedar River during the 1990 flood were ,- estimated to be $8 million. Flooding was exacerbated by the accumulation of sediment . in the lower Cedar River. Sediment has continued to accumulate in the lower few miles of the Cedar River since 1990, which continues to increase the risk of flooding. Sediment is deposited readily in the lower Cedar River because the gradient is very low and sediment readily deposits when water velocities reduce in this area. Sediment modeling indicates that the channel has been filling in at a rate of 0.1-1.0 feet (0.03-0.3 m) per year on average. r• The City requested Federal assistance in reducing flood damages in 1993. The Boeing , Company also supported the Federal study. The Corps conducted an initial appraisal under Section 205 and determined that there was a federal interest in providing flood control in Renton.. The Corps and the City entered into a Federal Cost Sharing Agreement for the feasibility phase of the study, which is nearing completion. S4. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT This project is needed to control flooding in the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar M River. in Renton, Washington. Current river channel capacity is reduced to the point that the left bank (facing downstream) overflows at 2200 cfs (approximately a 1.6 year event) and the right bank (facing downstream) overflows at 8000 cfs (approximately a , 23 year event). The sediment load coming down the river is very high; it is calculated 1 that in less than 20 years, the Cedar River will no longer contain moderate winter flows and will likely break out of the channel, onto the airport. ,- ii The reduced channel capacity also poses a serious threat to fishery resources. When the channel can no longer contain even normal winter flows, there would likely be • significant numbers of fish stranded and the river would likely be nearly inaccessible to anadromous fish. Various pollutants from the airport and Boeing would also likely be frequently washed, or leached, into the river and Lake Washington. S5. ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were evaluated early in the planning process, but discarded because they did not meet the project,objective of providing 100 year flood control in the City of Renton. 'Alternatives that did meet the project objective were evaluated in detail in this EIS: The no action alternative and four dredging/levee alternatives were evaluated in detail in the draft EIS because it was not possible to identify the clearly better alternative until late in the planning process. In this final EIS, the Corps has selected the minimum dredging alternative as the preferred alternative based upon environmental and economic considerations. The existing channel depth alternative is the least environmentally damaging alternative; however, it was not chosen as the preferred alternative because the cost of , this project is higher than the minirnal or moderate dredging alternatives since it induces flooding upstream and would require additional levees and,modifications to several bridges upstream. It also causes an unreasonable economic burden.on Boeing because their bridge would have to be raised for several days at all flows above a 10 year flood. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS • Upstream Sediment Control • Upstream Levee Removal " • Widening the river Channel in the Project Reach. • Modifying the Boeing Bridges (Not in combination..with other measures) • Nonstructural Floodproofing of Building in the Project Area • Dredging the Lower Mile to Historical Depths (Not in combination) • Levee Placement Along the Lower Mile (Not in combination) • Sediment Trap r-, ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS EIS No Action This alternative would take no action to control flooding in Renton. Sediment would continue to accumulate in the project reach, further reducing flood conveyance. Eventually, th'e river would typically flow across the airport. iii Existing Channel Depth with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge This alternative would require limited dredging, of approximately 31,000 CY, to even out the channel bottom to the existing thalweg (deepest channel area) depth. Levees and/or floodwalls would be placed along the right bank from 1-405 (-1.6 miles, 2.56 km) to the mouth and on the left bank from 1-405 to approximately 1000 feet (330 m) upstream of the mouth. A low berm (to comply with FAA regulations) would be placed on the left bank from 1000 feet (330 m) upstream down to the mouth. Bank protection (rock) would be placed below ordinary high water on the left bank below Logan Avenue for approximately 400 linear feet (120 meters). The bridges at Logan, Williams and Wells Avenue and Bronson and Hauser Way would require modifications to raise them above the 100 year flood level in order to avoid inducing flooding upstream of Bronson Way. The south Boeing bridge would be modified to be hydraulically jacked above the , 100 year flood level during flood events, and the levee openings at the bridge would be closed using rigid movable structures. The channel would require periodic ` maintenance dredging to maintain the existing channel depth. This maintenance dredging would occur, on average, every three years and would require the removal of 114,000 CY of material at each maintenance cycle. Construction of this project would cost approximately $10.9 million. Preferred Alternative: Minimum Dredging with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge - This alternative would.require dredging an average of four feet (1.2 m) of sediment from the channel from the Cedar River mouth up to Logan Avenue and then sloping the dredged depth up to zero to meet the existing gradient at Williams Avenue (800 feet [240 m] upstream of Logan). Levees or floodwalls would be required on the right bank from Williams Avenue (RM 1.25, 2000 km) down to the mouth and on the left bank from Williams Avenue down to 1000 feet (330 m) upstream of the mouth. A low berm would - be constructed on the left bank from 1000 feet down to the mouth. Bank protection and the south Boeing bridge would be constructed/modified as described above for the existing channel alternative. The channel would require periodic maintenance dredging .i to maintain the existing channel depth. This maintenance dredging wouldhappen every three years, conservatively on average, and would require the removal of 171,000 CY of material at each maintenance cycle. Construction of this project would cost approximately $8.3 million. Moderate Dredging with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge This alternative would require dredging an average of six feet (1.8 m) of sediment from the channel from the Cedar River mouth up to Logan Avenue and then sloping the + dredged depth up to zero to meet the existing gradient at Williams Avenue (800 feet __, [240 m] upstream of Logan). Levees, floodwalls, bank protection and the south Boeing bridge would be constructed/modified as described above for the preferred alternative. The channel would require periodic maintenance dredging to maintain the existing channel depth. This maintenance dredging would happen every three years, r iv conservatively on average, and would require the removal of 176,000 CY of material at each maintenance cycle. Construction of this project would cost approximately $8.5 million. Deep Dredging with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge This alternative would require dredging an average of ten feet (3 m) of sediment from the channel from the Cedar River mouth up to Logan Avenue and then sloping the dredged depth up to zero to meet the existing gradient above Wells Avenue(1200 feet [370 m] upstream of Logan). Levees, floodwalls, bank protection and the south Boeing bridge would be constructed/modified as described above for the preferred alternative. The channel would require periodic maintenance dredging to maintain the existing L channel depth. This maintenance dredging would happen every three years, conservatively on average, and would require the removal of 185,000 CY of material at each maintenance cycle. Construction of this project would cost approximately $9.3 million. Potential Dredging Methods and Disposal Site for Preferred Alternative Barge Mounted Clamshell or Dragline Dredge A barge mounted clamshell dredge or dragline would likely be utilized in the lower 3300 feet (1000 m) of the river with 4 foot (preferred) alternative, because the water depth would be sufficient to float a barge if dredging commenced at the downstream end and proceeded upstream while deepening the channel. The use of a barge would minimize conflicts with airport traffic. Upstream of 3300 feet (1000 m), another dredging method would be utilized, see below. With either barge-mounted alternative, the dredged material will likely be placed in a dewatering area in the park, and then rehandled into trucks for transportation to the sediment storage site upstream of,I-405 (see Figure 13). • Barge Mounted Hydraulic Suction Dredge In the lower 3300 feet (1000 m) of the river, it may also be possible to utilize a hydraulic suction dredge which would pump the material and associated water to a barge out in • Lake Washington or to the dewatering area in the park. Use of Coffer Dams and a Gravel Berm to Divert the River During Dredging The most likely method for dredging upstream of 3300 feet (1000 m) from the mouth, is to divert the river channel from one bank to the other in order to dredge in the dry half of the channel with a front end loader or excavator. A gravel berm would be constructed in the center of the river from gravel bar material and all trucks/excavators would drive in.on-the gravel berm. An inflatable, or other type of, coffer dam would be • placed upstream and downstream of the dredging area to divert the flow away from the dredging area and prevent runoff from the dredging site into the river. •:I Disposal Area The disposal area, known as the Narco site, is currently owned by the City of Renton. The site is immediately upstream of I-405 on the left bank (across from Carco Theater). This site was a former industrial site with concrete or asphalt paving over most of the site. No wetlands are located in the disposal area. The material will be brought there by trucks (see Figure 16) and stored. The site is sufficiently large to contain the dredged material piled several feet high. The City of Renton may pursue direct sale of the material to private entities, but that activity is not addressed in this EIS. S6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES The Corps determined that an EIS was warranted early in the planning process and published a Notice of Intent to Prepare and EIS in the Federal Register on 1 June 1995. Reasons for deciding to prepare an EIS included a high level of controversy amongst • resource agencies at the federal and state level, and Indian tribes, regarding the proposed project, and the importance of the Cedar River to the Lake Washington aquatic ecosystem, including the locally important sockeye salmon run. Evaluation of impacts in the draft EIS demonstrated that some of the potential environmental impacts identified during scoping as "significant"' turned out to be of lesser impact, whereas, impacts on elements such as traffic and noise may be more significant than originally expected, at least during construction. Table A shows a summary matrix of all.environmental impacts and their relative significance. The general impacts identified as significant in the draft EIS included: • urban impacts, such as traffic and transportation, and recreation, all relating to construction and maintenance activities. • loss of aquatic habitat after project construction, including long-term impacts from frequent disturbances during maintenance activities. During the public review period for the draft EIS, most commentors concurred with the preferred alternative and the identified impacts (see Appenix A). However, one significant impact was not included in the draft EIS which is now included in this final EIS: increased predation on chinook fry which will likely result in reduced survival of chinook. The expectation of"significant" adverse impacts is a trigger for whether or not an EIS is required, per NEPA. vi I I Table A. Summary of Impacts to Each Element of the Environment (symbols described below) Element of the No Action Existing Minimal Moderate Deep Construction Environment Channel Dredge Dredge Dredge & Maintenance Geology/Soils/Sedim NC NC - - -- - ents Water/Water Quality - NC - - -- Sockeye Salmon -- NC - -- --- NA Chinook Salmon -- NC - - -- NA. Coho Salmon -- NC NC NC NC NA - Steelhead Trout -- NC NC NC - NC Resident Trout NC NC NC NC NC - Longfin Smelt - NC + + + NA Prickly Sculpin - NC + + ++ - Coastrange &Torrent + • NC -- -- --- - Sculpins Mountain Whitefish NC NC NC + + NC Northern Squawfish - NC • NC + + NC Largescale Suckers - NC NC + + NC Peamouth Chub - NC NC + + NC ' Three-spine - NC NC + + NC Stickleback "" Brook Lamprey NC - - - - - Non-Native Fish - NC + + + • NC Aquatic Invertebrate + NC - - -- - Diversity& . Abundance Wildlife • NC + + + + - Riparian Oriented NC , + + + + NC Birds { Open Water/Ground NC - - - - NC Birds Bald Eagles NC NC NC NC NC NC Riparian Vegetation NC + + + + NC • Aquatic Vegetation - NC + + ++ - Cultural Resources - NC NC NC NC . NC NC Land Use/Recreation - NC NC NC NC - Transportation - + + + + _ -- Air/Noise/Light NC NC NC NC NC --- Aesthetics - NC NC NC NC - Public Services -- NC + + + NC Public Health/Safety -- - NC + + + - 1 - slight negative impact or change from existing condition -- moderate negative impact or change from existing condition -- large negative impact or change from existing condition + s:,yht positive impact ++ moderate positive impact NC no change or negligible change NA not applicable J -7 VII Probable Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts From the Preferred Alternative _ • Very frequent truck traffic on City public roads and Boeing private roads during the two month in-water construction window from approximately June 15 - August 31. For the minimal dredge alternative, 158,000 CY of river bed material will be dredged and loaded into trucks which can haul 10 or 20 CY of material each. This will require a minimum of 7900 truck trips each way from the Cedar River to the sediment storage site at the former Narco industrial location just upstream of 1-405 and back to the river. • Loss of poor and moderate quality adult salmon (sockeye, chinook, coho and/or steelhead) spawning area up to 3300 feet (1000 m) from the mouth, because of the increase in lake backwater area from the current 1000 feet (300 m) from the mouth. A maximum of 235 redds have been observed in this area during the spawning season (1996 very high year), so effective loss of habitat is estimated to be 2560-3840 ft2 (230- 352 m2, assuming 1 - 1.5 m2/redd). • Likely increased predation on sockeye and chinook fry in area of increased lake backwater (maximum of 253,000 ft2, 5.8 acres or 23,230 m2). Prickly sculpin and other resident fish such as trout will have an increase of habitat. It is unclear to what extent their populations may increase, due to the disturbance from frequent maintenance dredging. However, it is expected that sockeye and chinook fry survival will be reduced as a.result of this project. • Periodic loss of 45,000 ft2 (4100 m2) of bank scour pool habitat which is utilized by adult salmon, juvenile salmon/trout, and resident trout for holding and refuge. The increase in lake backwater will provide 253,000 ft2 (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2) of additional slower velocity habitat, but will not provide holding upstream of 3300 feet (1000 m) from the mouth. Immediately after dredging, this habitat will be lost, due to the trapezoidal shape of the dredged channel. It is expected that in the first winter season after dredging, the channel will readjust itself and recreate some of the bank scour pool habitat. i • Loss of 253,000 ft2 (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2) of coastrange and torrent sculpin habitat due to lake backwater increase; this habitat will now be suitable for prickly sculpin and provide an equal increase in habitat for prickly sculpin, as described above under increase in sockeye and chinook fry predators. • Probable decline in aquatic invertebrate diversity and abundance due to frequent maintenance dredging which will remove invertebrates during their maximum growth period. Also, the increase in lake backwater will reduce habitat for organisms that prefer higher velocities while increasing habitat for organisms that prefer lower velocities. Species which prefer higher velocities are typically preferred by salmon for feeding. . ' F viii • Possible decline in brook lamprey population due to frequent maintenance dredging. Proposed Mitigation Measures To compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts, the Corps proposes to: • Restrict truck traffic on City.roads to the designated 75 day construction period. All roads, park lands, or other facilities damaged during construction will be replaced in- kind. Minimize spillage from trucks onto roadways by lining the trucks or other measures, avoiding heavy traffic on Rainier Avenue. Removing some material by barge rather than truck will be investigated during plans an.d specifications to further reduce these impacts: • Replace spawning habitat; adult holding habitat and•_compensate for likely increased predation on sockeye fry by creating a groundwater fed pond and side channel upstream of the project area (see Figure 18) at approximately RM 5 (8 km). - = This channel would have approximately 9000 ft2 (826 m2) of moderate velocity habitat suitable for spawning except during high flooding events (>6300 cfs). Native trees and shrubs will be planted on 2 acres surrounding the pond/side channel to provide shading, cover and insect production as well as to-reduce flood scouring. • Offset likely increase in predation on chinook fry by either: 1) placing large • woody debris for 500 linear feet along the mainstem Cedar adjacent to the upstream groundwater fed channel site. This will provide better habitat for chinook rearing during their transit down river and will offset negative effects in the lower river. Additionally, this will provide increased protection to the groundwater channel site. Or, 2) revegetating and placing LWD at the Maplewood Golf Course levee to provide cover and rearing habitat in the mainstem to offset negative effects in the lower river. • Offset probable decline in aquatic invertebrate populations by providing an alternative source of nutrients and insect production..by planting.riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation consisting of native species such as willows, mock orange, western hemlock, salmonberry, currants, etc. will be planted in a 15 foot wide buffer along the right bank (park) below the south Boeing bridge and willows will be planted into the left bank (airport). These plantings will also replace vegetation lost on the left bank during construction. The river is expected to scour small pools along the vegetated bank between dredge cycles that will provide habitat similar to the existing bank scour pool habitat. S.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The public involvement process for the Cedar River 205 feasibility study began with the publication of the Notice of Intent to Publish an EIS, which was printed in the Federal Register on 1 June 1995. The scoping period was from 1 June until 30.June 1995. An ix agency scoping meeting was held on 24 May 1995, followed by a public scoping meeting held on 13 June 1995. Notices to the EIS mailing list were delivered in September 1995 to indicate that the schedule for the EIS had been delayed and the draft EIS would not be published until November 1996 at the earliest. Coordination with the resource agencies and tribes has continued during the time period since scoping. The draft EIS had a 45 day comment period and a public workshop was held on 29 April 1997. No requests were received for a public hearing. Comments were received at the public workshop and a total of eleven written comment letters from agencies or individual persons were received. These letters as well as a comment withresponse section are enclosed as.Appendix A to this final EIS. The public review period revealed that there was no significant controversy about the proposed project and preferred alternative. In general, most agencies and individuals support the project. There were concerns about impacts to chinook salmon, especially in light of their potential listing as an endangered species. There were also concerns about the ability of the proposed upstream mitigation site to function correctly. The draft EIS did not have sufficient information on the upstream mitigation site to fully describe its functioning. In several sections, clarifying information has been added to reduce the confusion which some commentors had about statements made in the draft EIS. Details on the upstream mitigation site and subsequent monitoring of mitigation elements will continue to be refined during the next phase of study: Plans and Specifications. Interested parties and agencies will continue to be involved in the final design of the mitigation. The local sponsor is required to obtain the following permits prior to construction of the . proposed project: • Water Quality Certification/Modification • Hydraulic Project Approval • City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • City of Renton Grading Permit ; ,I • x 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The project purpose is to provide flood and sediment control for the City of Renton, Washington along the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River. The Cedar River drainage basin is located southeast of Seattle, Washington and.lies entirely within the boundaries of King County (see Figure 1). The basin is approximately 40 miles (64 km) long, has a maximum width of 10 miles (1.6 km), and drains 188 square miles (480 km2) 'into Lake Washington at Renton (see Figure 2). The City of Seattle operates a water supply system on the Cedar River utilizing Chester Morse Lake and the Masonry Pool (rivermile 37 [59.2 km]) and a diversion at ` Landsburg rivermile 21 [33.6 km]). There:is a Seattle City Light hydropower facility at Cedar Falls (rivermile 34 [54.4 km.]). In 1987, a new spillway was added to Chester Morse Dam as part of the National. Dam Safety program: In addition, a roller compacted concrete dam replaced the crib dam that separated the Masonry Pool from Chester Morse Lake. Approximately 80% of the Cedar River basin above Landsburg is owned by the City of Seattle (Seattle) and is closed to development, recreation'and general public access, in order to maintain high quality drinking water. Seattle diverts an average of 191 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the river for municipal water supply (King County, 1993). Downstream of Landsburg, the river flows through rural residential lands. In this reach, the river was formerly a braided channel with numerous gravel bars and floodplain gravel deposits. The river is now confined to a relatively narrow channel, with numerous bank revetments or levees, which exacerbate scouring of gravel bars (and downstream transport of sediments) and have cut off the floodplain except during high flows. There are a few bluffsstill subject to erosion, and minor channel changes have ocurred during high water. The floodplain is narrow (200-500 feet [60-150 m] wide above Maple Valley and approximately 1000-1500 feet [300-450 m] wide from Maple Valley to Renton) and the valley sidewalls slope,up steeply to the surrounding plateau. The lower 3 miles (4.8 km) of river run through the middle of the City of Renton (population 43,473 in 1993, see Figure 3). The Cedar River supports runs of anadromous sockeye, chinook and coho salmon and steelhead troUt and adfluvial 3 (lake-dwelling fish that spawn in streams) runs of rainbow trout, cutthroat trout and longfin smelt (see Figure 4). _. 1.2 STUDY AUTHORITY Section 205 of the 1948 Flood,Control Act (as amended by subsequent Water Resources Development Acts) provides for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter into a local/federal cost-shared agreement to plan and construct small flood control projects.- Projects include items such as levees, flood walls, channel enlargements, road realignment, bank stabilization and other measures. Each project • must be a complete solution to the flooding problem and must not commit the federal government to additional improvements to,insure effective operation. The federal share of these projects must not exceed $5 million, without specific Congressional approval. 1.3 FLOODING HISTORY • Rivers on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains, such as the Cedar River, are subject to high flows from October through April generated by maritime rainstorms and/or.snowmelt. Prior to 1912, the Cedar River did not flow into Lake Washington, but rather flowed into the Black River which joined with the Green River to form the Duwamish which empties into Elliott Bay (see Figure 5). At that time the Black River was the southern outlet for Lake Washington. Periodically, the Cedar would flood and the high water would flow directly into Lake Washington through a large area of . wetlands (current location of Renton). At approximately the same time the Cedar River was diverted into Lake Washington, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram Chittenden Locks were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project lowered the level of Lake Washington by approximately 9 feet (2.7 m), and the flow of Cedar River water was needed to continue water circulation through the lake and ship canal. In 1911, the Corps granted a permit to Commercial Waterway Number 2 to dredge a 6000 foot (1800 m) long channel (depth of 8 feet [2.4 m] below low water, in 1911) to connect the Cedar with Lake Washington at its present location, cutting off flows to the Black River (the lowering of Lake Washington from construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Locks by the Corps cut off all flows from Lake Washington into the Black River as well; see Figure 5). The City of Renton (City) took over maintenance of the Cedar channel in 1957. The City periodically dredged the originally permitted channel, in the lower 1.0 mile (1600 m) of the river, to depths of 10 to 12 feet below current low water. The Corps has not dredged the river channel but infrequently removed large woody debris from the river delta in Lake Washington to assist with navigation until the early 1980s. The City received permits from the Corps to dredge the delta and portions of the channel for flood control at least 4 times from 1960-1982. The City was typically permitted to remove 75,000-125,000 cubic yards (CY) of material, but frequently did not dredge the full amount permitted. The channel has most likely not been dredged to the original depth since 1962 when the north Boeing bridge was placed across the mouth of the river. The channel has not been dredged at all since 1983. In November 1990, a series of storm events occured in western Washington. The Cedar River basin, which was already saturated from earlier storms, could not contain the precipitation and widespread flooding occurred. The Cedar River reached the highest level recorded at Renton since 1945 (10,200 cfs), and the third highest recorded at Landsburg since 1895. Basements of City Hall and adjacent downtown buildings were flooded and the city's municipal airport was closed to air traffic because of flooded runways. Depths of flooding at the airport and Boeing were 3-4 feet (-1 m). Flooding was exacerbated by the amount of sediment accumulation on the river bed in the lower reach. The river channel has been filling in at a rate of 0.1-1.0 feet (0.03-0.30 2 m) per year, on average, and the current channel floods on the left bank (facing downstream) at approximately a 1.6 year flood return level, while the right bank (facing downstream) floods at approximately a 23 year flood return level'. In June 1993, the City obtained a Corps permit to dredge up to 111,000 CY of sediment and debris from the Cedar River delta, with disposal of the material at the Elliott Bay Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Site. The basic purpose of this - . dredging was to eliminate a roosting area for birds (primarily gulls) which was posing a hazard to air traffic at the Renton Airport. Flood control was not increased due to the delta dredging. Dredging was accomplished in the summer of 1993 and lowered the bed to 14 feet (4.2 m) MSL (6 feet [1.8 m] below lake level at low pool). In the spring of 1995, moderate flows (-3000 cfs) occurred in the Cedar River resulting in the transport and deposit of large amounts of sediment into the channel and delta, filling the delta in to approximately 2 feet (0.6 m) below low lake Level. In November 1995, a heavy rain storm caused flows to reach 8,600icfs in Renton causing the airport to be extensively flooded and bringing down a.great amount of logs and other debris that was removed by emergency personnel at the south Boeing bridge: The park on the right bank.was also flooded. An unexpected heavy rain storm later occurred in February 1996 with an. almost equal peak of 8,500 cfs. These two floods caused some scour of sediment in the river channel from Logan Avenue to the mouth and deposited large quantities of sediment (gravels, sands) and debris on the delta, rather than in the river channel. ?.. Portions of the delta are now above the winter lake level (20 feet MSL [6 m]). Currently the average depth of the delta bed is approximately 19 feet MSL [5.7 m] (one foot [0.3 m] below low lake-level). The City, by letter dated 4 February .1993, requested Federal assistance in reducing flood damages along the Cedar River within the City of Renton. The Boeing Company, which has a manufacturing facility at the mouth of the Cedar River producing 737 and 757 jet aircraft, supported this request by letter dated 26 February 1993. The Corps conducted an Initial Appraisal under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, and determined that the benefits likely exceeded the costs for a structural solution to the flooding problem. The Corps and the City entered into a Federal Cost Sharing . Agreement and are conducting a feasibility study. 1.4 NEED FOR FLOOD AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Flood and sediment control is necessary in the lower mile of the Cedar River, within the City of Renton. Current river channel capacity is so reduced that the left bank overflows at 2500 cfs, approximately a 1.6 year recurring event. The right bank overflows at 8000 cfs, approximately a 23 year recurring event. The sediment load coming down the river from eroding banks, and other sources, is very high; the Corps calculated that in less than 20 years, the Cedar River will no longer be contained within Flood return frequencies are based on the likelihood of a flood occurring in any given year. For example,there is a 100% likelihood that a 1 year flood level would occur in any given year, there is a 1% chance that a 100 year flood level would occur in any given year. 3 its channel during low flows and will likely avulse onto the airport and parts of downtown Renton. • The sediment load also poses a serious threat to fishery resources. If the channel is filled with sediment to the point that the river flows onto the airport or Boeing property there would likely be large-scale fish stranding and the river would likely be mostly inaccessible to anadromous fish for spawning or other life history stages. Contaminants would likely be carried by the river waters into Lake Washington from the airport and the Boeing facility. 1.5 PROJECT PURPOSE The project purpose is to provide flood control for the City of Renton, Washington along the lower Cedar River. Under the Section 205 authority, the Corps of Engineers is required to select an alternative to provide flood protection that will balance the National Economic Development (NED) alternative and be the least environmentally damaging. A flood control alternative is being pursued because "no action" would cause the flooding situation to worsen and the environmental impacts of no action could also be significant. 1.6 : AGENCY AND PUBLIC ISSUES The Federal and'State resource agencies and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, as well as Trout Unlimited and other members of the public have been involved in this project from the beginning of the planning process. A number of issues have been brought forward by these various entities and are summarized below. A preliminary scoping meeting was held with permitting and resource agencies on 24 May 1995. A public scoping period was held from 1 June 1995 through 30 June 1995 to solicit public comment on the Corps' study as published in the Federal Register, Volume 60, Number 105, 1 June 1995. A public scoping meeting was held on 13 June 1995 in Renton. Resource agency and tribal issues were largely related to the potential adverse impacts . - to fish and wildlife resources. The Cedar River is an important spawning area for sockeye, chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout as well as longfin smelt. Bald eagles and numerous migratory waterfowl have been observed in the area. In response to these concerns, the Corps has undertaken several baseline environmental - studies studies with concurrence of the agencies and tri be, which were included as appendices to the draft EIS. Specific concerns included impacts to sockeye spawning, longfin smelt spawning, waterfowl habitat, and possible water quality problems during construction. Public issues included the potential for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife as well as concerns about whether the project will effectively control flooding in the project reach. There are also concerns about the potential for induced flooding upstream. Several scoping commenters noted that the Cedar River Trail Park located alongside the right bank of the,project area is an important public facility and should not be removed for a 4 flood control project. Commentors also noted that this project may help restore the declining sockeye salmon population rather than necessarily having an adverse impact. The draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 4 April 1997 and circulated to the agency and public mailing list developed during scoping (see Section ) for a 45 day public review. A public workshop was held on 29 ApriI.1997 to describe the project and environmental impacts to interested parties. Comments were accepted at the public workshop and written comments were accepted until 27 May 1997. Few comments were received and are included as Appendix X of this EIS. The major issues raised by commentors focused.on the potential_impacts to chinook salmon (in light of their probable listing on the endangered species list), requests for more information on the proposed upstream mitigation site, the possible changes in bird use of the project area and airport following construction of the project, and concerns about the disposal site for the dredged material and future disposal options for maintenance dredging. These comments have been used to design the project to avoid and minimize environmental impacts as well as to design mitigation measures. Unavoidable adverse impacts are described in detail in this EIS and have guided the selection of the preferred alternative which balances economic impacts and flood damages avoided with environmental impacts. . • • 5 • 1 ;_l • s - - -- -- - -- --- ---. Legend - `, ;_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : `:_:, : : Lakes • - . . . _ : : : Cedar & tributaries �• ;• _ -3 Cedar River basin�:; - ` • . : : : : : County boundaries • ::� _ . . . . • . - . . . . . (�, • • • • •• : : : : : : KING •• •COUNTY • . m�t •• : : •Bellevue •• �� . ,�`' . _ f.__�f. rt- •. . Lice. i 4 v W- • A- - S H • • -I -N - . G: ' N . • ac" 3<^Y ".fah. a`" . ��'..,7 ,3 z�&a`3 +'' .. Kent . . s l 4 _ , w'' �� rum - • ,l• p � - KITTITAS ,,,., �," act=�"-s".-'�r�„,a•� n�, v. ��z",r� `r.r ' .��'" ar„, e& - COU �,. . . Auburn : . : : : - - y ) : . . • .' N • •„,„• A. ... ....•. • i . . . . . . . P.IE.RC•E. . COUNTY . ..'I • • • • .; . ; • 0 4 8 Miles : : '� • I . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �.- `� -_... _ Sources River Information obtained from ' - Washington RNers Information System (WARIS) database. • II is understood Department of WIAdIBe (WDW) andunderstood diet while the Corps of Engineers end information7994 TIGER data US Census Bureau.• US Army Corps of Engineers ^ �;,naturecies in information I , S AND ITS 1 Illa Date: 6/6/97 SUPPLIERS MAIZE NO RE Q PRESENTAT10N OF ANY IOND•INUDINO BUT NOT UNITED To FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP pity boundaries, wetlands and eddtlona/data provided WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR USE,NOR ARE ANY by fang County. Wetland data Ia.available Preparer. LDD SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE NAMED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION.DATA.OR for the lower basin Only. SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. 1 Legend , 1 n n A/ i 1 cReedntaorn&cittybluimtairtsies - - Lakes_...,. . , mvm Cedar basin I , , .... ................ ... - -,. , . -_, . ..... ... ,4 i .•-•.:' — ..-.. "--- "s'4.g Ilf.1•-•"---""`"--74..':,--,--.--3^,:21,3;..1,k,,,-....,- --",,,,%,,,,,.4*._^,1-1,_As , ,6I P.-'-^,q-... ..WM-ArpiR,,,,k,, •",-:,,,,..2,,,,„t ,,,, -, ---:, _...._._... ---I..,...•e47.--,,,,.. ...z.---... ."--...,4,--,m1,1_,:9-34-7,:.-. ...,.---...,, ..4', : : _....„._ -c-a.,-,,kt,Fq...-r-tb•st"War-.40',.•..R.-7 , _. s.,-T.• ' -.1 1,:i ;_-s..f.,..e.4,-_,• ;":0:-.,',,•?-:-'• -•:-.f•-• -A, . ' 1 : :•I .----.-----•-• ,--1,...".th.c- , ,,,..-'? .?4,e,,,R.,,,--,•.---,,,,•...,..,e.,,,,,,f‘v-4-4,:?., ,,,x-e_,•'-"•4•.,----,,,,,v- ....,4•••-v•-•--: .<,- . .•,...*:: :::„,,,,--,,,.•.,..,-.. . ,.kw..',P,,,--*,:•••,:e--5,,,:;.-4,,...,:t.,„'"--,,',.,,,: ‘,.v•-..',7.--*.-w•,*--,,-;•,,,, -.04,,,,,,,,-.;-,,- - ----50,,-.. ..t-,>4;,•,--,4 1 :fot-44.- ,w--f-',.,,.-... ,v-:...--z->2, ...z.,-,7.-4,,, ••::.;:---.6.4.,,,-...-t-v...-:::-,:..- ,-,,,,,, '-..."-i‘g-"-g i',1-'' '1,...e•--- ;-•..,..'',. .-t-'-•.;;,. ,,-,-g.•: x,:zax--*V.:;,.. .3.,', _.v,z4-1•1_ '1 7-- .2:-:...-..--.fl.la-Ai-t.-AW•-It,'sO4i.>'-,tt••,,41',,Z-_V2-c; . -,,..,,,,,_ --- kagit;€0 • . , .- "-•f_.-:;.„4.:*1431.t.,=-4,,-%re,01•-&-WII,14","$.1'1.'Ret•WM ' '',--1,- *-;-.. Rattlesnake -- „--.1,-,.-A-:„-;:i.;<----k-E-_!,-,f,-- to4,...:'---;:k.-,-,..--, •,,-;,-.`•••,.:-.?,-•• •:..-., . Lake .. .r.y._.-......2,3,t,,...e„-z,....,v, -,„,%-„.. .„,-,,,.-ve--,...,:v..„-r,,,, t3/4421,:c•,-...f.41.i,,,, ..-."-,1.7.M"•:. .. .,„,.. -4.-,,4"ri-11? --k.",,--ii,-/-- (,..."-'--- r.z.,,,,4-.... ..4-J'..-,- ,--.. .,---4., ''. •- 1 " , .'z'....„Tel-V..i.,_,,,••=. 1,-: "•2-'.--W ti'.;'(,'-'' a'' ''.4''XS•''-'''_L4''''''''''-''-''-' .r''' . .--V,•...c.z.1...-—.11,74.->•4.„. , v..--,---..---.,-.,-,4---r--..,--.v. ...0-1-4. .,..),, -.1,-W•c&k,-- ., •=--....-fg',.. ....,...4-,-.. . .' ,,-",--'.,- ,q-.-•:"1,.,..., ;-..,-.4.••-4,.,,,,,,, ,•••.,;...,•--4..4-.,„,..,ww.,-w-„..„...t$A%-- ,t,, ,....1.... ....„,...„....„.„..4.,.._ __,,i...-ii,„_,. .„....,„_.,,,,,,...,....„...„:„.,.,,o, . ,1„.?„..,,w. ...44.t20:,.. ._:,_t-,k,..i-;.-;.,.41,:.,,:i ti,-4.WV--;•3*-4 ‹..f'_"-,..& • • •- •-• •••.-,.\"!..,..,-:.- ;-,4-ieciyi.‘'.V.k.-.x4,,,.--wz.7;e4.-tae--ef-Je:-:,-.,.....,"3,--g -,- ,,I.`..,-. =-",.q-*----4-*.e.s.„-..,--c-...a-y-,=-,,,,,w.e.,-,-.1g*,-1 ,--_,,A,_---....-m--4.?„..,...,..... ....--,;-_,,w, .,,,,,,,- -..,..,...-4.s.,-;,-,...,.;-;,-- ..--..kt-N:•*:-.7,--:,,.;,-.-;,v4d.T-sv-.4 W-1.y,.,•,---,4g-%.,.1 -7... . ,-*.z-....5.‘.->w,_,-----,,. Desim Lalo3 q ...4.-:,-.4. -...0 .*41,-4.,, -,eore0-.4.-0,www,..,•7-s:zgi-4,, WO `,,ikW-4!ei->"SV-.5'r-,,,,V-..-- --')Ogg..4.'S -W4.Xiirai%i!, ..` .4.11, -.."0: -- .)4'. •-,--„ki:'''''"---' g--:'.'11'-:-•,. .4. w.--- ---e4, A a ''-'. :-'-'4'..7-CA'''' ,,,,•-•'''-'t'?4 :1'',-4, -.'-'41. ..*-WW-•----,.s.M47r. ,,,.."0 , -•4,-!.• .: ,"...01-"_P'&-•,W,1•-•- 26:igi, Chester Morse Spring Lake .-t , - '- ---e...K-- ,-,V...,., ,....-.,-.1,-- -- -4.,;-*Jil'O:s1 --,..- ,-- , .., --4-4-%,4,,,, 1:; Exy -,-..4.7•-ce--3,*„.. -,..-...,,...„4:.„-xt.s,-- ,r.-A-.,..,,'-'-,-,+'..- ..414tr_<,-ff:., ,..,-,-;av4_,- r -4,%,--'5-c- .44,Z!..._;,,V.-,,r-c-t..-":...-Vir"..- -..:3,1,- •,,,-..-.`"4"..7-,.5.,--""m•,\----1..9".4.`,.4:4 ":"- • •WZ,..,7/4,-74.1";;T 1,*;,...-,,,tref,ft -,-,,:w,. , . --''''-':'-'-'''''Qi.T(Sa."4":.1-. ',i'-•'-. .4ir0,-."‘'. -,1-4,,,..4,,,--:4114,:i.s.':-E0a4=f,it'llt;i0,-471,...---,-,„ :..t.ritaZotifj04,51„.TAz..,V.L.t.,,,,-,Wv„" ..,. 4.-,.•,-- p,41;,,,,,,:a .,...--•.-.\I:,.:',.--.?c-').A.,;4-A.,,•;,-":05,,,,'''."‘'V-c.,,i'A'T-'-'&-,..-,,,Rts--- -\im-,,,.7,,,...,'a,-,...,-4-7.. ..,a'Vt,,--,,,a. •-f-,..r.a* . .m-,e..„ ,,,,__......,.4.,,,t..,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,-v1,-,;9-T,F----‘,.-..---4:- -.T-w,.-7.---:,_4,----':-,- - --*':,$•4-,, _,r, •^1r..i_--:-:-.,,0::.„-_,.....-i„--;:.-- 1 ‘i,"4`i,-,-,,,,e.V.,•4,-,.,-.i.., -..,_g..1...,1,-',.. ...:= ...A.ft,,...-,...-,to,-.:.1 ..,,,,,..4•"-,..::::;::<:..-,:=P,,,,,r,t-: -=..4..3. .,,,i,,-‘1,)v-,',-.4='- rW--.',---,-N.1,---..:F.40....- - -41.0:: :-at:11:-.--",'"--,k,•Y--, --'',..,.•,-,S.:: --,-.---1:=Ygi-N44"=t4....,.-.5.4.-?--7.7 .=-NZ-,!--.W".-,Hz;----"P•---=*.•'-'•-- -5.-='-.4-='6..;:-.---tyg.t..*. c,--:=-5-,4...-t-i,...=.-4475_,,...<1-4, .‘,.-.6V-'7.- .51.,,, ,,-'---..',t,,f4.,,-,,e4.•*,-* Tirr-,- . 4-::::',--Tavre:->,.e.Y.,';RL'i,re.n:' .-'7,-.2..e.A.,...":-`Z.., ,,.. .i.•--...e,...,s..).....-.1-_,,,-....., . s.- .-ir-,,'<,-...e .,-C,-.Y.,-,<,.Vi._,1-,-. .-1,%.k-CL--,,t1,tff-,:i..'",.,.. . .‘S-...s.,,,›..-11.2,,,,,:--... .;_‘"4:.-0.it3„%: -Xd.W.SP-.?"-', •,-.J-V . -42,.'-'..-- ..,Z4.7.*.'- '1AC..--"r"..,:.,1"kg 4.4,-As-W-:",- VOLJ... .N-RiZWIg'q - k-Ci..,:i.Nr*.!:. E';'1,,,W''':31'?::44...27.4-WeAV.?',7*,Z4?:*fAS''''''i4M4r^4'-';, 1:4C1 .1,—•- aF:f.;Z:ra'42:.%4:',;.-.;=.";;,,V.-., l'e......V.Z .:' ''''1...-', :.\{,-"5.-"!e 1:V-1..V.-:'e..^, -,:%,_,‘,1'`A, ...,1.,...,,,,W=',1;..:V-4":414AIV":4"4-''' ',5,-2,.."4,,,,..,:fAk,,..,-..tr4, -.1,,,,,...,,y-,,,,,i. A."4"-Z,,,:z.,,,,,',..,,,.-1.0:,?.(3.,7*,,....4$4,-teki;r4,-.,,,,,,J1"-15,..e.. ..',4,., ,....,.,,,,, ,,t.,"P- -,e,,-.1,cy..,..,;,.. yv ..,,,nU,-"C,-..,. .-.'g,le,':',If.:7.,- .1.". Wlz•P'41:-.), ,,3Y0"''>''• 4"A...:. .•-•-•-•--T,•"4_1,-av:',1,7?,,„:14.-0--.7‘,--ei-';.ti..7?....".---4----4.---..,-----F--•,'"-'•-- ..... ,,,,- -...?" .•t":".:4-f,,e-s•-•frP:--4,,,--t.,..4-.4,;;;,,z.-s -4-;-•;.;;..-:--;- $4:7,-'.-.:•••-•----...4,4..1._...-...-,-,w;,,„1„,zp..7.1. ..,...,4_,L.s,_ „-„,.._, ---,-*,•-•,----A•-:-:*1-,---z•0 tt.,,,.; ntic-,;- ,..f..--,• .--zef.Z.,-.,-.---r-V-.4 ,,Ii'-..-.,t-eit;---it .,. ..4.,,---e---, 4•_,.. tic.--•-,,,,,A,,„-,.,---.0..-.--; _: -.1v_."-3,----4W---,----,,t:4;s: 1-1.1:-%,;;::vik:F--,.:-7L,.."'":P.4,"•-z-A..,•0*- ..-,,„ -7..a-4...4.A.L_`4.t.-",P.,,i'0,-,,,,,....%-0,.., , -v.:4-,e„.._,„,...5.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,;,,,,,-,r,:.,.,,, ,,,,,„:-fot,,,,,,,,,,v;*,--;.::',, ,::-a,.;',Jt-14,?,,---_,,,_.-&,,, ,,,„..4•„.w.--.4-..... -•,-.--,,...,i,_z-.x,•:-.,_:...,. ..7,z,..,7,z,---,•:,,...,,,,-.1&,,,,,,..----- )-,,,,:,-,4...,--, ----......-----$1•Av.--:, ..4,-.,-T--,-74.--7.,,,, ,,,--7-1-7.Nzzo.„..„ •.:z--1,?--.7, Wr'"--7.4,-''t;:l'-,1-'1'7,1M-1-7,'z'-.:.4.":‘,. .'---',...<--'.. tf.,,, e4..."''..kWeati*:,-St"-;ff--,;.:'1- ..74,'-4.,A"7.9'21:-Ip'.424rW''''i,;'f 1:A-s;"" egfik,,,A,s-,."1",..k-,014;‘1.':,31k'4",4_,',V,F,Acjan::-~a/nt4:54-',.-- ,,,IR*..‘/'-'7-46,'S-- -t-'%•:1?=1,=,;'\4,- --1,-. 1''':.;%:';?,..\ 53:-J-4,', 14";aii-‘-'7-141'4P' 4,:r-,,17,...,,,.4.-4<-24%,..§,-e,-,..:,-,-.N.- --4,-.•-:...------ --0.,,---t,-*,....1-,-:-.›,-.4,4,z.u.,,,,,,,---,,-,2-47.-*.- -. 1:,-..----,..=-,1%;.,e,v,::„..-,--,r-. 4-7,:i.:,-.,,z.0,-A,..ii.t.. .,.., „,w. A .A.:.:,,,-,...,44..,,,,,,, ,,,..,,,,e4 ,2„,„___,....,„„_ ,74.4,,,,,,..„*.3,,hc.,,, ,,..*.o. • ‘ • ,,-,,t--z,:tlszr,c-.r.,-...,,,,,,,,„tg:,....--- x--z,,,.a„t.,..;-z.,..,-.---,, .-:E._:--=-:i.-,-, ...---:.--7--_-cir-.„-F...4:,.,=- _,,-..:A,:t.-,t...s.f.z.-...y,:-x„. t-,t,..,e.;-- --:-.„,5"..,f,o.3.s.,.t-r.w, ,,,,,,,....4-.4s.P.,-... ....e.,„,,,----.,,k.----... .4-1 -s-a.4'.. --,-------•-• ..,,-'-'------?. ,---,-...4c..:"'''',X,P,j'-",41,,,,,,,,, --'P.,-'5,,,'.......",--e.-tcz.,`,e's.,0,-.. - ..-0-A,-7,4,a,....,,,,- ..3. ..... .d..-•,f--.-..1,--z-,,,,,a-a.,1,-•-•-•• .,:m---,,-,n4,-;-.7-_,--.=,z;-.,.,,,.•,,,t..---,---,- -._...-jP,.v,_,,-,-...,-.,--,,,,_..,,, --.4,..,.,,,,„,,t--.--A-,41,4„-x,,i?,„ ,:,:i.:-A,,,..._, p.:ps.,:-,3-,_•,„,-.--_,,,,,---,---__,,,-- _-,,,,:t....-.,,a----,;,36,1-'-.,..}..,-,-,-..,,P---,-, --,,,,_,r,,,n.644----- 1,,,,K.T•,..,,,,-,_,-..,..,?,,,,,,„„v-..„ ....,-->.„„„.,,-„.„;„,?,,.„.„..., .t::i.-.A..„--r,?.,,-s-,„,,N...y.,,c,,,-,•,-*,,-z,,,„.-q.,-v-s.,,,,,, x..-..,,,,,,....v„.. ..,...A.„.A...-,.. ..kwkwt,......,_-,..,,,,,oft:: -,,,,,•,,,, — 0:,-'4.T..,:,&..,15".."-,'-::\T-,:%.,..V--,,,,-",,--,-"Cits.L'',...4--,-...,-;i:4,-.'"-,--.. ..","-e....-se•'%-.'t,'.,5 5 1. .''.•.4.65*4:-..,^- 1\5.V.V2-,P'.4,15:•..,5 7.'..'-5.5,~5,0`.....?.P.AA.,,,,e,..r.t.4,'..534,..1,5,,,,5.6.5.55.,..,-,,,,,,,,,t,r,,, ,,-.,,z,,,,,Af.-,r,....,,,...0-,,,,,,,,,>,?...-,,,f-,--..,.\,-..tr „,...,,,,, . -.4,.., ,-,,,,:',..1",..7..ex,, '' "Sqi.:"..1"--,`..',„-. . ... ... ..,,,,,--- -or„es‘,‘- - -,,,...... ;:-.:--<,.. ,,,,,,,,,4.7..,,,,A.4.z ...„„...-2,. ..,,,,,...i.'..,,..n,4,••',..,,lf,,W.,.. ....,, -•••,....,,,q, ..,,A,-,5,-,4_,.,`.`,,,,,kt...t, ,,,,...,...,,,,,,?,•4;y,--§-,,‘,,,„_!-,-„,,,,,-,:,-.-,,,.-.i.: --7,...,, .., ,I,%.,-.:;.,,,,..•--- %.:131 Ifi M-17, ".'%1• -':6- 7>;;Is-k-‘e''' -'iYti'''+1",f.-rE,•-. ..A.'''..;'_ '`,^7;%-VZ4641:7" 1-4,,S,''',1,Zi.--1-,ag' ••'-',441 -'7el•VO:: -4F-53.4=z'A'5'a';,'•-----zs-:4?-k ."'•''''''' ''''''P';'= -'s%''''''''-"'"r---L--------;;W•lk-4'3'-‘' 1 1 .•-Teir. i. - ..,----.,-...tre.zta,--F-c -, -.4z-.4,e.-4.-_,,_,Y,-,41.4,,,-;_•,-A.,,,-e.- -,T-X-yv-f,..,5-•• •A-,,,E--4,,,q--;...-K.... hlf,,W,---.•----‘..<0.--4,,,,,,•:n,t-Q4',-1,1,,>•_-?:*--,--fr--..-_ ,7•-,t.-.0=-,-• -kc--;'-'1 ,v-i*.rr-:,14.7.PZ-...,.'-',a5V.-,k-..--'--....,*?"--:.;5?- '..-;s:W.. ---0-, • .:.,,i......,,,,,,,-..,........„,,....-.>-:- ....;,....:--,,..-„,---.. -,,w,..s..-,...,.,„.2„..,,,,,,,,-,•...;.,,-,.,-S••••.: 4'-.... ---',, ^API",...-`,5.,-,,,,,,,,,..''4...'-',.",-;Z. ..•"...0.- P. ."--••t-• •`•••••••'...%•-'1. -le'-",....4.. ..X1' ""-a•,-- 1.4...,, '`'%Th••'-b-?...i&,.- ,,t4-.1.,. _,,Nrp,,,,_ - ' -' -- -•...big,W=_._n•V'A,?, .1%;.^:g.1"a';',S.7 -:-.,V,Y4,,,,'..-i';_glyr-,,A •,Stt-Za,,,'-'- e''144,4.'7 R,,,S.,,,-....4,,V. "••••,-Q.1 k,e- ,t7t-t`S- 4,•°"4Esa..*„.--4`,r,•$,,,";, -;:=','''.- 4; :i•el',--"-''- ,-,e• '4'-',,Z.i.,'.,4.--'- ''',-.-''-1,74--(-4--1.1144 ,-,:z., ,:i;"*"',--‘* --,trtt---y-. '",-, r•-_-••••.--trrt- ••• '. -- ': '`-'-4.4',--.17,',sk-A--''-'4:14.----'-' ts'r.-,aa..20.-.. -szl,q- - '2-4-1,-,e-tIciAT---2..q.T. -- ,-;: t.,.,-. .;,.V .-.*L.,-... --5-1,1',....•7'44,141-,..,,-.. .,,,,w, --0..8_,4,...:„.75:;:,,,,42,__,,„.„,,,,,_,,,,zs,„._k-,,, ,,._,,,,,.,10..„,.., ,,,.„„z,..<=4,,,,,,,t,„,— - -----,---- ,-.,,,,- --i, ,,,,,,g..,- ,--,-,=14--,--'- g-lqi -e. -------- -,--''v 1---,`'7'- Ve"-h.:0-- R-.- ---1?3'.- -=',..!•,, .-51,-' 4--44 :-*---,,T..•' •-1-4:'ff:4*4- 7..r,4.•'0---”41.,.`".-,...'%-.''''''T-44- _-.V-g•eie.0*. ,,. •• ,,,e.___-,,,-,-.L''T.,.--,...._.',-0,-,-..-7,5„ ,„?,"_.„5ar ..„, ,,,,.. ..._ ,.,:-.--,--,., <,.,-,--t.„.„ ..€4,,,c„-_,, ,,--,z_: -.c."?...„,.,,ze,,z—sa.-,-,, c ..-a, .,„,:St›,...- ,-,',,,,,-cif., .-7'a#5,,-,1A,t-2,-"..,, ,,,,...- -2. .0,-.1-,..t.i&V.,,,...7r,ska.m-44....,.,--1. 7,....-,7-a,,-7: 7-,,i--,-_,---w-,„,-t--.0,, -.'"-,-,--1,-, ' 7 . . - Ni,_,-_,...„.„,--,1„:„..e.,_,-„,„,...„,---„,..„:„.,.„.,„,,„,.„„,.......,,.,-.5,--,...,..,._.„...-.„-.,,,..„,,,_,,,,,,, , ..irr.,,,,:,....4,......-,,,--.",,y_rg,.„-•,..f..1-4,tee _....A.:,,, ...1,...--,,- _.,.... ...., km..r.......1,,,,,.-.••,,,,,v....,-,..,,...,..t.,4,5,c.a.-_,41,--,.5-,_4,-.... _,„..4,,,, •.......,....., - , — — Lake -- ,..,_,-..---•-•...•...k•..,----,•.- .,).. -.: -..7,-,----,,,..,4„;,*-:,-.. .7,,,,„,z's.-tc.,,,,,-4.14,,A-5_7•%4T.,,,,,,A.-- __:.;-;,wox.--„0,,,,,t,e,,-.4,:-.?4,--- .• -- • -,:„--....... ....,..-T,2:-...-4,,,›,-..,---.4-4..--k-,x---- --...-,,,,,,,,,,--No,..----a-f47,..._,...1;...Fe„.„1.-174,k„E,.....,,-.m.,:;,,,,,,,.. --.,,,,,k,,,--,,•-,•-..-,. .w„.•.•-m..--,,•&„-_,,k., _, . ,,,•,..±v.,...-w,R.,,,,,,_-,„,;„--4.,-,,,,---„--.7,-s,,,N,I.,.r....,,,..:.-t.,...c.-t,---, „„-„,-...,>4.,v-,-..--.4---7*..,,. -.,•,-,-„:.------=,,, ,c-7---.. .---. :,•-,5 „,..-r.-•-._,-- e--.,..--..,-4,.,- --,--.---4.. •‘•-•,...,,.----e--,-•p.-,,,,,,----... sp-,,,,--,-„,,,'.,•'---7-'''''---'1*Q•••ni.•-'•‘,..-Z•4,•, -----.A.'• •••-..i.e---4.4-,,,t,,,,r, p, L-------,-,-4;-,- ---:,---%„,f,,,,,,w,v,„,--_,--vr.,- .,,,,,,,,,-,,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,,, ....,_,_1 a . . - '..-ar.:-..s..€--•• ,,Nii-r2.--.. 5-.7v.,..;.,.5_,,,,„ap.24...wr„,„,,,,, ,4:7_,Tsat,,v,...A„,....,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,/,,„4,,,,,,.. .,,,,,.,-,..s.„:1„.4,4•,;,.,-,-,,,,... .,.x.„,, ,.,..„5-...,p .4---_1-2.2..ize.,-- -.,---,-.,.-04'.-----:;,-,-%,:*: .. ---tri,.-Tz-,---,74.5{:,-:-.is:.--vk-. ..3-41-11-0_.-sg.,..-ic>--,7g,455.---..,..:''-c-.z.,:-:,*".;,-v.... • ----,a.,,,,...,A,,,,,,,...,.....,,,,- .... ...,,A,,,0,-,. -,-.W...t.„., . ,,„--,,-,..;..-,.. .,..,:w.,.--p...,-..,.--,,,---.3.--....:.--,-5.4.,,,,..- ---,...-. -:,...47-A-,,,,,--,--,-1,-,- -,...„Z- ''.•,--C",-...4'7,-'-'-'-,.`,-,5- is,2-...-.'.7. -----,Jzk,....-,--t..,-.',,,,."X-z.f.,------.4f!..-1.-,"_"Ftwi- _,,,,,r,z-..7.:',,,,,-,K„,...,,o),. ..F..1-,„, .....,,,,..$,,",47...1,--,,,-,. .F."+"-,,,./4"t:-,,,,,'.----,.--, :-.., ,.".-, gigo-::-...;''g-K;.. ,-..-t-,?:.?:0-.L,,,.,.,-'-i-,-,-- --..`k,-'..---•'-s.:24-tn;;V-.4.e.- -..:',.ra-,.,-r-:54',,-.;..t:0-4'.,-4,---7-':::&',,,, -:.;..-.,,,,5::::ee., ..v-4`;--,,,f1. -J4,41 Cf,,k-iz-?4,4-- -FV;9.-.;; - - -...,,;f;',51,5,1P-,v7, - ' .. __ ,,,74,?,,,...,: iv....:„ .6,--r>5.„-.1-.,.i),.„-.±4,„. ....,-,j4, -,---,,,--4'----izt.-t.7:i-,,,,,,,J,v,,,---'1'r,k.,..,.,,,--,-v,.4-7--.,--:-.-- -_,:-...%..---z.--sof•It,-,,z.,-.....ps.„-,-...,-*,,,,.....,:„.%?:... ...4„...,-.--..,,,_---- ,.. • - - ----c---1,-.-_-:.-4-..---- --4,s,.• -----,,...-- .2..--..---,..,..-.„.„.,,,,— .. .,,,,„,..,,,,-,----,--.--.. .,..--,,.....S.,,.4.......' .........1.",,,..,.,e,..C V-:',13,,•.1. ..:. .---' .-2..4',..14:',"tit...,-,..,-"Vr'a."4.4 4.-,'".':-.'-Ws'' 1.-', -'..i" ..''.-,..^,1 41„,,,•:_--r-,al•:-.e;,(--,v,..3•••elle•.,-.--,. ..- ,•-'•••---;,,:••.,,:c,e e:_:,-....--..-.4- • 1 , f':-'•- •••,- .7 - ....-- . '-..c,-.I.''..,-, ..',',..-tY - • •--• - -v-,..-.z:-iria•,-;?-. 2.,,z-;:',,,*>w„,:"-1--,50.._.•,--;,:ge.. .,'k,?.,,V,;-;_----,A4W.,',Y,Tg-.'"j,4s-F,,,W5-'::>s".-Eril:&“.- --- ..c.,:,.,.*xe-r./.1;;s4V4-;---- I I =.. .-.',-...•.•,-.4--.6:. • • - :, . ---,,,-5,7kr,-----:-.---,4t,--.•---,,,,, .--:.c,_--:•,.--,,,,,..---vtit.-.,,,,--.----- ,,.-•---,--,-.14,--,,,,...4,,,,f.e.,v.. ..,-. ..,..:,,,,A..., ,s.,: •''s.•-•::,-4./.. ...,,-::•."-*,0,•--..--rz.;p,:ik-:,..;:-..,4., ,J-..<4.,-;31,.*.,',•••aigAfr-:- ,-..-,---K..--:7,•••-r.::•.,,t..-,'-';5c--,-'..•---,-•---:-'2.--!3-4..A.-. .,<--,‘--.4.--N-'-'-•, •. ' '."t-'44-------.4=s•-•.7.4%,-.4,„L-''‘,-74---P,-,..-,'-`0'.-..0-;..,--e---,-„,....,,,„:-:,,r,_,.,•,--:„,_-::'„,..„"•,„7.1.7-,..„.„,„....0•:,.,-„./.,_;.f. . .:7:7,-..„2„,--1_,___-:1,,,,---":".„-::-1,:il.:7:,k.s.",„::,,,,:_;14E,,,,..-.„. . • ..4--;---,-,•,,,,,,,....,---1,----&-r-,-,.--,,-_; ,...,-• . • ..„_-•.....14,-:,41,- „,-.::::;*.tqf,--.1 ,-,-,., ..4, --:,-.--,-..-7.-4.-*?a;As-_,,,-. ..s,,,,-.--.--,...- -,...,,,,-a..,.....„1,-;t:-...,,,. ....,• .,,,,...,-,T,1-.2.13,.-,, ,,-.Not-,,,,;‘,.., -'‘::-,..'ZI.ZZY'4,71.5::^i‘r,17,,, ,-;"..,-,-..t:7-1.-1.,$.'"--,-..--,-...''.2.',,,,,-'1,-...",`,.- ..":1-:--. '- Vi.ei,'" Z.t.',,,, ,p".z..t_'` -':%.,": --AML;-'..'ar=rV...,..vil...1-11-P,X2.0,.-.p.--ej,zz.,45,- .-,,,,,,V7i;.; - 2,• 1 z:4-'-‘,e.-?z.-•-'-1---:.a5, .. ...'---..,`.....i74"*'.',Fwis. 7".,-47...,7,-;...).1,,,,Z'.:,.,i'v:A-A',/,..'4,-F,-%-'49,4K.14,,;,,,i.., •-,4,,ia,,g.,.,,,z.-:: ' • ""a''''''',1,-,t',.‘Z.,• ,,A'04.-'-:,,t,*'‘,--," _-%::..V4',.-V''',P-'-' ..%, N . • • . i• „ :•• . - -. --. .co-wg.041-yg,_43*-_-.k-,5 ,-1,4.0,4.,,•*.4y.t - _.• . - ,.....„_,,,..,...,•_•,„.„..„-:_.......„,„„:„..,,,,. . -.-,,..„,„-.,,,-,:,•„,,s..„.,„,„-„.„. • ..- - • .4,-..„..„,4,44.,-,,,„:„:„.„,,,w,- • : -•<-'44W:-.A:W-10.---k:X.R:P.44.-4-..S.-W- . .•,.. '4*--;.,...-1:ma.v-,...."„z• .--- : . •: , ---q,--:.-.,„,t.,9- .--, 2 0 2 4 6 Miles ....... ........... . ......... ......., Sources , _, , i , River Information obtained from • -- J ---- It ie understood that whio the Come at Engineers and information iii94418hashilaTfigteriERRDeParIZMUkientSbmiCcrauWisidlifeS:ureate(WilluD.(W)WAFardi database. City boundaries, warkunis and additional data provided US Army Corps of Engineers suppiers have no indoefion or reason to bolero that Mem are ' by King County. Wetland data is available inaccuracies in informeion inoteporated in the basernap,THE CORPS AND ITS ,..., for the lower basin only. kt.-•.: ,..... 4.-::- Dat e: 6/6/97 SUPPUERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATION FITNESSOF 190NNO.4.1,NCI_FANUOluctILAFBlifTusE.NOTNONUIRITEARED TOANy WARRANTIES OF LIERCHANTABILITY ORFIGURE 2: CEDAR RIVER BASIN MAP ..-..: :::...: IliME Preparer. I_DD SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPUED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMADON.DATA.OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. _ _: : G Cedar River Trail :: Q:::: `.• . • :Boeing. :' ' ::.,.. : ,; gip:,: (r' :Renton ::::Bridge:; :.: :. N Legend \ 5 ini Ceder River park NLakes �� Major roads edam River Par/�/ er & t ri butanes k Ced City limits ey hr Cedar::Rivet::• Source Information Natural Zonepeeds River all Lake boundary Information obtained from �, Washington Rivers Information System (WARTS) database, Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). City boundaries, streets, park and river Information obtained from King County.. ( • FIGURE 3: LOWER CEDAR RIVER understood be ° v1fDns„pp„es no indica bn or rem m believe thatthere I Co s of En ineers Inaccuraclee In Irdonmtkin Incorporated In the basemap,THE RPS AND ITS 9 SUPPLIERS'.MAKE NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND, I UDINO BUT NOT LIMITED TO Mil Date: 1I6197 1% WARRANTIES:OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR P TICULAR USE, NOR ARE •• Plate: Draft SUCH WARRANTIES ID BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION, DATA,OR 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 •I�S SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. Preparer. LDD ,.. 1 , Legend r . ... , Anadromous fish blockage points • Impassable cascade hIngton • • Impassable dam _ • Passable cascade 7 •A, Anadromous fish present _....„..-...: _,. ; -J - t., A/ CityCe Cedar limits - -. ibutanes ._, . .._-*. 8L Lakes -_,--- . , ,-,,,,,,-„,„1,:•,:ig-,--,4,-.1.--*-vi. • ._ __..,..........„, ..,,...-„, z1.*:,744.txzieg,5,A• = Cedar basin __... .7-1 -_,:,,-1 -,,,4. •,, - -'-' "-- —7.-:,'..." 1.,',,IPIlkm.:•,:wit:70,-;04_,-..4-tit kr Ai,* 4.,_ -v tr I*,:17."..•-‘-'-'f7;:',",..'6,''..tfii.V4M4-Vtitz0'..'''' Ote.v.a.-..-.-,a'.- '',P.....-...';',V,-4--:--:•.,---V,i-L,--`3'..,.. .-2s.r,- --,..-''''' -.---,-,-* . --1,.,1.--s-,4,,_.‘',c-1. ..--,-.-•-'w?7,15.-„X.-,:.4.F._----4-. .„5--;‹,-_,-- _,.. ,:.1,5- .• -77:51,01-e.P.,.--4,e.. .-.Svic44,-45.4i..47.-f..'V-<-1 .-.,..:c..4-'W ..,-.7,-„-- -- ,,,,,,,-...,..4.. ,.:,.... .... „.7,..„& Rattfeenake 1 ' ''k-,• .,_,,t-,s,-'.:?:,- -'>--f.--X4, -s.',:;,V.',.. .w-lo-,,a;-t2F4.11.:--v-k• . 0 VY-,1-4"fW>,it'if ;.-`fl,-...,=”.,x.i '-.S.Tricig,,-'.=-7--4.(4k-V=4-k•-,4*- - -f:',,F...._;;.---,M--ri,, Lake we- --!:,-r •-•q--17V, -7?-.,-,-_,-.-.. .4-...4,.,.<%-_-_ -..,:.,,,-4, sql.:,-;,,--6----\-.-As...±.-z-Vs-,5..-1;*-07.A.p., 1--4-4,,,.'e•-•,-4-V--)-,,i ,_;•:.;..-..,-,------ts/..-r-,,,,:„,,,s , ,.,;...,..,40,5(..441.400.-,...- . 1 4,-*,..,, -.4. P-t-..?••••=gwee -,----3')t,...I. :446,-"1.,C:,--_,,,,,z73::011-1-:.),4.257:7,,-=`c.,,,. -1 '''.4-. Q.e..;-......-s--,,..,44.-irt.,-==1-pA....s,;.-:,?.-...t,W, -q.,-:‘,.',•..-4-'1-4,-,v,•,-.s., '11-4,--t, ,. ,.P....-.3-i2s4A-..1,-.=e-'-'`.••ts.••••-4.-!..1.% ".",,,,,,5,', .,4^,,,M.. ..., ,Pf,',33-,.''',TS:?k'f,r,16•.?,-ar'.4,....-_,,,,,, ,s,"--•? 6..‹,.**,r''.."'","j:-.•-•.3 S'5'..;S,1 e Itr,.5, ,,,0.5!),-1,S_,,,,1';',1:-.i.r.t--.7tV.,:‘,P)A,-- ,.. Y.51,-;.41.'%:„..-e..;-_ ,-,-,,,-... -,-.t.,,,..,,,,..,-, ,A.,-,..-,-,:z---,4,-.--,-;.--,- .6"-,,--...A.ve--..--?f,•----r -..,.-,,--`--,,--,...1 .4---,;:-t,-.7,:la4,=.----._,-,„•-,,-.4,:.k.-i.rir.,,,-sri--e--,4,1----,--k:--4,....z,- „...,..,„,,,-,----ds.&,,,S...q1-f4a,g,--,,, ,..c,„,,,.....—eS.,.., ,",,,,e,..,. ?-'44,5-1-1 't..-;.44. 4-r:f M'.r"-6,t'i--%'•Z_06,:;'f;,.'kS-4'"•f",‘,C=';rg'-%g'—f- ---.^,=-43----...,-, ,Os, r ,......w..,--..,— , -..,-.-, ., v A-- . .- -,,, -- ,-.., ,....s,- •q- , ....,-- -,,,,.1-,,,,-..;_.,.1/4.,_;,..--.,,A„si..,,,,„,,„.....,..v:.-.,:„,--...,,,,-4.....1.12:1,,,,-S'.•,,-. .k7....,-%-,.---‘---5..•-,,,...- ,<i,?v.,--,,,,, , I Desire Lake • abaft wale .-.4.•.,-.--, ,,,...-- 1-:,,..,--„_-,•:-..z-,•,..-2,,,,... ..r...m.----..,,..,„*-1, Lake '''''.'-'c-T''''-"I'-•,-,--,-.,:4----er--_,-,1- -_,-,:e.,,,--c,-.4.,-2., s4----,.-k--,-,-.,q-•- .;,---..e_z,-*--..-.--ik,--z---- ‘y•,;.4.-...;?•-•,,,,-,,,3,... ,:s.,,..., . \-,y,,,,,,--7,3-v.fir,..•-ws_,:_,-,---,...7:,,,, ,t.-„,,,, ....„ rkvi,,R,w„,,tls4,,,--1, .,,,,et,,--.=.-c.,-,- —A7.---.7,-44r----n.5 gi-e,-;11,-,, ,-,..10,---5,4-.- ---,44,, Spring Lake ,..,,• , •' -- ,.---.*..t,‹--‘,. ----- ,A.6,,,..y-z,,,,,,,,.. „,,,,,4,,,,.., <1;-..,,:e* ---e,,,z4.-- 4-• ,..K.,A.,-..f,, ,,. ----,,,,..,--r,=- -.,v,---'-%.-1--..,--. .-----.k-',--4.f..b4--.-,,,,' ''',--, .e"...-A?f,''k-i-,1''''.4Y4--- •-, ''-' ''','-1.-,,'''-4.-' .s;07•:-':!'~Afes.'-'-: t"..,f--A'Y'''":/.'e•-.;':::-..p''',,ii---,,--...--V. =,',',f ,-.' ,,,-,k.A,- ,,fg‘,.,'''''.7.- -e.t.&-.4.,',& "4,---V, Chester Morse -_, ,- ws.-_,,,,r,:,A„..,.?-4.1,- -:,...-. .1-,_./...4*....,,v,A. ....e-,,,,z,.1, p..,,,,v,......-,F....7.,prei,...--,--2,Qr..P.....--,k,i.,,,s...,-6.,,,,f...,..c,..,F.,,i,,,,;, ,,,-,,,,-, ;:,,,s„ ,_;.,_ ,b..,-,,,.,.,,s,.....,:k .c,4r..-k-,,--•.%eq.., Lake 1 1 v_.-,4.::,-,,t.,..,,,k.;,,,,,,,4„-.. .J.,3-4,---,,,,,,,,;,-..,-_,,,..... -,..7-,0.,....,-,,,,....,...,--,,,,..e.,,,,,--.‹, ,...--. „-k----.7.-4,2:24-4-..z.;-4,-- ,Vii-,,,y--7-rt-...-:.4A----,,,,e^-t-:0,1;:e.....,,,-,r1,,,,,,,:-,0,.--,',•-•ft-...iy-...tzi,s.,--z-fz,,,,,,a, '-1;.,-...-'1i--,.r-,.-s• E.,-,:4---- -,..ta--2;--'.',1.-;>:.,..:,_,--„rt:-;t:%-,:;.,v2,,,;-.... .F.6...ws..r.,,,<7.c.r.l.k:1-1,..,0*.t.'`.:" ...1'3,k?:,-n-re---,K.,--t.,-;:,.....----,,,..;,: ,,.;---------' ,.., --:,--,4 ..i-b-f.-;;14-ft.:VP::?-*`•- ---("'"Kgei'*1-,rz-zt,,,,,,,,.„ _, I *--<-(....,5,-.-----, '.:-..,- --,...4„..,,,4k41,5..!•....--s--v.....t:,.::-.--.,,,.:,,e.1„..:5,,,-.:E=2,,,,%-p,'Z.7„. .r.,...---..... !...---•,,Z*--‘,,V-...,;r•-,Zt.'..--•-,',..,', ,m,„!•.7.-,..... .-4, __.....„,,,,_,,2,r4,;.v.,.. L.,,,,*• --`'-‘-,.'ZI 4-,,r.',;"4— -''''''..e',,,,ir a.‘,--'.:-..--,"%':--"ef,,,,f^'--f-V-.•-=`,"'.----*.•'s'EA%--.Q.1 ''-.9-,,-<i'lS-''''-i'&,„,,,-'fl,fi'',V,P1zte,*".s.,..1.,.",-- -----,---,-- St-‘-',..-171,ez-,-4:;.-t,::0z,,,,,,_-,3„. t ..--ig.."... -Fi.ilqi,i'AIFW.oe,--,,. • ...-`,..,-.•,--wi...e,9,. ,,_-,..z.,..,,,%----4.-stt-,:ri,24,%. 54-4:41, -•-•,-_-,„,„- --41,,..,---,...„=-:?4,-;.,. .t...4.,..an,...--.-....-,A.v&-=-A...- -..=s---...-Az, ..,‘,...:;,-.4..Li.1,..,.---. .-^1...›,-,..,.4-1,,W4,--, -,- ...„...,,-..j.f.re.rt:iy---,,t1.-...„-44....'vp,r,,,, p:->„.. . ,f-7-,.s-,,,4,y.,,....n..-a-zi-s,61--A-..4,-,,.., ....?-,4,,,-:',-.1.7-..,-;,....y,--:-.-21-_,-,:--<_---,-,*2,-, ,....--,v,:,„•-..S,L,..,,-740•4'a ,tv.C17-?--,,,,I-Efe,f,e,,,,V,,,,-'...ir.--t,Z--,5:-4.,,E,!.. ,,E.,'"7=0.--,>,"?9,,,- -,,,,F2r:SS,C,r5'-, --4.--3,‘.,,,,C2--'..."037',,k--'-'-'1,.,,,...-k.,..-,4 - - . 4,:-\;,--,ss:„7,2,\..,,,L,-,e.,......,,,,--_-,,,,--•_-;,-_-.-..1..,,,-4%-i.r.-f-,z,f1.4.,-..*._-,,:. .-<,.1-6----=‘;':-----,...-.4i-•-•=..'.7,----‘,2‘.7<",-..- -1-.='',-.4-1--..t,--t•--.Z....4,->et--,-',7-."---5".,--r----, -'--'.. "-...-s4----3-=''',42;5-- ''''cv.C7;-.X-60---;?..--Zi•It'.;.4c.R:C.'';.',=:,f-37-' V--74V--454.1 i',34. --',l'•Arf•-;•._•'...TZ.,,4i..-T,,*..c..Cr,...A.--a",‘:f.:4-s.--,,,..';',7,..-3±.,-44 fg:,-.W.-Z,_ •'",.4-, -.•-q,.1--,_sgil k,..3.:3•.tflear.,..,"2—.,,--7;tfk.,--C;;-•.3"41......--2",_''.,1 islYZ--2.,tar.,-X.2,,-----..,7,-;;,-...'.•,.,•04ft...;;), Ve.Z.V 4.--,.-..',,•..•03.'.:.;',..'-':'-."-il:A''.4-^[.. .Y.t5A-1,'S ;Pcr.1Z4.5'..,;&,...I.S5,,--,,,?.e='0111,....';-'.'.7424...c.54'.tr4-9;>Zy:"?r(O':K94.1-4*..'';;_';-S,.."'%'.l:yr.,g4'.;Y''''t,'Zt'-:Ye.:.r'AfeVyA..:ZgZ4*Y'%, -' -1.1(6•V-A,,,_;:..V,V,I,4›.=.7..11 . kl:,..,;,-, -,'",p„.,,,,...._....., ,,,f, ....-- -- .=:_j;:i,r4tre -,-_,:•-4,2*,5:-...F_;,0,,p.V&':,-,-,,.5;..".`).-i.1 ,,Y4,w,,,,:,-1 .-fi,-.0.-4*-5...e.Z.k",:%574-.-',.,,,,P--:-.ecs:- --11.,_P,_,ZA,K.,--Y-4, -•;''z'4-,de.,--e-c..2J2',5,s,-,4;,4%,5t ,,;,,,,,,_ .."..„,..,---,sq----V,,,, ,,-1,4:%1A.,.r:;',2-:-.V.`.,,,,,'..2if-;:74F2-" ---•': '''',...4- '.',`-'tifr''''iz'''''±'&,e,,,V::0'e,Z,Z,'-'1:.'").:--,..;,..:,'"s ."0--"- r-‘,,"4 .1.;.:,--T..., :-.:.,-4.r.'-,,,-,-4,F..;:-...--e --,-,-t4t-,0,....x-- ,:.4--,,,,4.-.4.:1:-.4:..- ..4?:...4-e,,,,-:-.E,,,-,---4:--, v.----,A,..,,,m,:.-,-e-,-E-. 34 i•.,'•.4.,•-'-',",,,,,"'•••,S-'.,...,,,,----, ''-•-•,..--•-•-"•$_,•.•••,,,,,-•,,, •he•.:4,P.W.,.-2.••%,-. ,--.s.,atX,14'... .."..-,.s., •-•.,._,..,....-,";•••• ....:-Z.›,--,......,,,,,,--,,""...2e...-... ....,---';',,-. ..c.,,--'2'•--...,,..k.,,--'_,'...t.e,st,..,..,.•,.-,.,i<1.`-,..--,.5-:,-;"421,..,‘,..."_.,5"74,1",-,.......,,, , 4cif.7.--,'"'0,..,/,•,.. .C.. .i.".•,,C----C.....,-f. -,-,...,s‘l,,,,--,-f-;5,...-'''4,••--T.7,•47-7...F.:`," ..".. -1_,.."-,'",•:,•... ,-,,, t:-..-.' ,re.:,---",.2--N---.01-'1,7,-- -,....--,,,e,"--4 .,",--7-rn.-,47p.'t?z_3-T-64".z.,,,Vi-n?,.,,rzi,,-A,.,02g.,„1,..-4-1',,,,,,,..&,4-a,.‘,--,4,,a_.,0415”. ,-"".-t ..:' ,U.ss,"7:,e.:,...:-.;,'",c,I.*),=.1'. .,;10.:47-'2,1:',5•17-Z ''-*5.7=.-''.:q'z':'61.S.V.r'''^'''''. .eos2,-'t" 1-3t.qtr,,,%2.;;E.Te.1.--,',:e.--_ ,Vkil,'9,1.-Sfr47,:.,,,,VV,-,...t.V.4zr,..ar'k''''. --0.W',4-f„V,--'1-4:".:42.V;C;:-1---iM-',A,-:.-2•Ve'tA.--t-i.,-.-Z'1,. ' t.:.1.2.,..c..,1--.7.4‘.....?-.4,11---a;:i3. ^....,,,,:trps,,,IW.4,,,-.y...,?.-..%--=-_,4„.%74. -1.,....-.....,,,,,i,v,?:„.-_,:k-,....4.----,4,,,,r,..-,,F-- -1„,, ,,r41.4.-„...,&?... ...=-Ivi..;„7,..'T.,.,*:,,,4-.I.,...,/e.:'--...... .,.„-4-x:.,.-,.,_..,..,-'- 4,-'.•#.2..-..",='-4:-.,„4- ,..,,...-,----,f,__. ..4.,.,'-'-?..q-y,:x.„,„.„,..ky„..,.t4-,e,,,,,,,,,...,-,,,....*,--,-1`..e.„...,-,s.,w;,_,e-i..t....:*--,f.".,,i,,,,,..--f_ 4",.,.,„.1.4,,,A,-..;;;.-4,_,-,*.=, .. -r--,,,-`,', .:,',----- 4-.6.2,,v.-7.--,-.,,,,..W.-..--(-',.•-`,,A6 a--.---,--.4,,,,,v4.7-,,--1,-1k...,:.,4..-.2 ,-,,' t--,-0,,, ,',;,--;--- .ri,..'-.;•.-1; =,?(4c,----:,,A,k, e'i-ftc..70,, W.I.-.-4,',,1--tX1137,T.,S.4---.5''a f''',l•:.-,€--E.V---f3--";`.".0-1,=='<iN-K-'--”,., ,,reige-7,14::oi--.`"-',.."-A', , ,41.0,,.!,--..is-,„, ...,,;,,,„1--...-1,:-....i-,:,-7.-,,,,v;--.;-,-,1.,,,!,--;,&z..--...f.-- ;:i..,-,,,,,,S-Z",...,,..:-...,....-••c,..z.-4,,,,,,,- :qv,._,... .--,,--,-,.,x,-,--,-e---1,2....-7-.---4;--1--,.....v,;,- f-..._,,,,.. _z,-„+„_;,,,,---,..,,,,t,,,,,-;,,, .._,,,,,„:,..z.,;--,-;:i+,-*;,..,,,,,,k,1.15„,,,, ,,,, _.,z.!-,...-_,i--L..4.,.,>.:,,-7,,,',4-„_,`,'.:,'Avr...,...2P,:`,, .....t..c-"4.4"2". ,1 '1,-6,-,;:y 1 Z.-,,-,f,',-......,-"4 z.i. ,----,___,,s1,-;..,i--w,y6y.13,1,-,......-*.,T..-...„,-...•?:-,,S4-1-,,,,,x,,..---;„-z-c..-`,,,,,,,:?......ise4,,--_,4:'72..,... ... '&-_•,„.--,z.7,9-65e,,,13,..,...,-,:-..en„,•..-......,M."1-.. ,,....,TI,.‹.,,,,?..3...-e-,,`",,,^7,--P.....,-s,V...cri'..-,::-..,',>.V.4,i,,,..:",..7,..-...4'1',6e.,.:'4",." -?..W1,4 - 4. ,4,4-4', -0...t.....,',...4-.5.4,2,4,,-,..4-.7,.,qt., it'..",-,.....-Y. •*,..--,',...c.• .'-'4,S.,,,,,r,-..rr..•c444%.,,,.y.-4--.. .-,..,,,....--,--,...-.,YY.,4,-'1 y ±....-",^'`--,%-`+.% ...'..1,---""S ,-,--,-,,,,...." ..-",..,.t..-- '-..-..,,,g4.,ek,,...-.,;,.•••• .9•;.....- ... ., 1....-(r re.-m--...--.^-,m-F,-.....,,,,,,,,. --..,--.4. ---...V..,4 6.7-1.-,.-, ,..1-,-.---.,- -.•.a. 7,-,...,,,.--,,,,,...,_,-,-, ,, ,Z.s.---,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,y 0-1,,,,,,,.-,.,,, --.4-, ..,,,,,,,,-„,,,,.. ,a,,,,,,-e,„...,,,,. , ,,-,,,,,,,,..., ...-,-;,,, ,,,,f.e_.,--3•"*„ 5 - • - ,,,;',.^t,V;i,,,,.. ..-''' -.1''''''.-..?7,-<7.-"4 4,-,--'1.-e-V.. .,,,,..".e.a-•%.T.-AV:1,,,,,7..,,....C=111- ....,,-...'.titn,',"-^G.4,3,'?,,,,a0`,-, -,';'S':',......,,.-3-......,,-.4. , '.::-.,t,,,,.',....'3,"...--',,,,'",....,,,..-V,-,;:r..3,P,,, I..,:e,,,,,,T,F,,,,y3,,-,s-a4,,, ,,,...,-,.,...,1,,z,14r,,,,,,,,, , ‘',....4,,,-,'-`11-*V' ,,,-,f,.. 'j,4:'3,:,4<.I':'e.ZZ.Z,Ai",n',4,Fr.,'','Sr.,,,zffji-i;.1'4 +g',P,"a',-,L-4A}':,,).',:;,,,7Z_t.„.'F'-,-,ig„',r:, S..xe,'Z'Pef't,,,A,,V:: ;,:l:S-V'f,.... A.:,.,,,„,P,,,..e,V.:4,3.•,- ,,,',-en ,Z-."A-.,,r4. --vt,t,V.,,,,e,A,'0 p-c, ...?,.."q„:,,,f,if,,..Lc,S.,„,, .,.2....`-, . 'cl-F.0.1-,W.,?-4i-';',--',I=7-",.Z2-----5-ZEta,..-'-‘4,,'ktiV........ ..,.--',E,-.-Ng•-+'--- -4-Vdt,-.-tk-\ --...P-'&- --:-..;,"-.>_ ..,'iral.,--q;:-- .:z.:',..- -,=;.:V77...... . ..),,,p ..r‘e=r.., .',-. ..-41-.„.4-4s5-,.. ..',-...,&-:.,,,,.-- ..-2,?,- -tikq•f,...V.,„--,-.. --.-., I ' -"-q•I'''-:`,'---W.74-'''-=-'-i'f.W,g-i.I7- z.Z-'<-:e=,--,--4,-..& -1.1,7-41'?",.;•:.:*,....v4-ve`ls1.-1.:?-1--3::S1-1-1-r...,,r&-..':*a•-i ie.0...'•••• ' '',•••''"r••'''r'e'4.''''•:-. -•...*IA'Pl'"g-''''1•t:6'er04 4'5.4''AVAN*4.7-a--I4.-,'V,:ge---`,:.'4.,.--restit -Sc3:40-',,,---4-137AP.:4&&-tx.. qw:`,..",.--"'-,--;--i., ", .,--,:e$-.,=.---4,-•iK--w,---',-- .-'-',...."kc't--'f..'sr--“,.,-'"--w--*-N,...'2,7.& --,,,',,,,,o..-, ,,,,,, ...,fr,-;,:. .... , -pc'..1-, .,w_,...-,-..",;,,,,;,,,,,,...,.. .„...,f_. --„,,,. ..-,--s.,..,-;,-;-‘7,41.,,,,A5.-4, .‘,..,,,o---,i,,,,I,-..r.-.7.„. ....,...-:,..*-_,-..-4,„,__,--,,,,-..,1-r...,-„er ,..: ,-.^.>;,-,-,,O. Lake -,-.,=_-_,,L..•,-z-..-:,47,-.?...na.,:,-,-.--_ -,s,-..4-•,-.2,-.4.,,, -,-va,-..7.:,-,,,,t,-.-z*,,,n,--,;., 41.-;,-',--".'-%'-':7-L'7"-'''': '',-,..'L'4,,,""!,,.re .= ''.`:‘.7,-.4%...,-.4-=.5?-raz-z",,: f-7±-,----W-,,,C7,. .-.,_'•1: -;-!,7 -zi-r.- ----..-,--,'cr,f,-,-f7.70-'t,R;Xk_...- -"...),----.Y.,-- -,,,- - -:-. ..-.'r------‘,..,--.., -,--tk-F, _ . r---1_,_,,,-psz=-....-.. --3--,:zu,,,,,,------ -- -,---,- ,-..,1,..---*- -,-;',.-.,w,--..,,-,:z.-----%=t_-,----- e"-,-,,,-.‘*-,.. -... $-- . ' ---4z,,,,,-...;..„-,--_41-, n-s.4v...,,,-,-,--,...5,e"..,7-......r--.3:%44.1,-..`L,,,5,1P,.:,,,,--,pps.,....-r-..,,i,....-----",-,---=.',-,--4..-_,,----,,-?_.'„%--.- ..,,,,--'.,,-21".,w,,,,wVs\•r,.-..,....,,,,,?„,_. I ; .0..,c'-fi_...---,-`... ._,__,..,--,-,3-47....-,o,„, .7.,,,_4_.<4,,`5,.. . ,....it,-N1.-o-,41 aL.:- --4 -.N,-.!-.--`'.--si......e•-4-7_'.-T27.---^..`-1- ---,...,r-Ve. - ..er'-a7.-."--4,.,---- ....'-';c_-4,0,--A' `\,-.,--,...W..-.,-t-'1$,-':;.15.-"...,419?-14... .,'"k,'''', r-,*...4,...."--,..".......t.A.,--4,-V.-.,`F.d-1,„,--"- -,-,'--. ,r.-4----e-*5..Retreat .,,,,,-4:8.--...i.._---2,:*...,------...i,, . a..5-1.,...,.e.14,-,-.1,-.L,..,,,a.s,-,, ,,,,.,,,,,,,..,.4..,A4s.,,,;.,,-,;1,-,...--e -.>=7.,-..,-,,....,-,-..= -,..,r,;$ ,. 1-.6;,,..;1_...e,-,.,--v,.-.c.2=-.-1,--,v--..a.„-----..,,,,,'0%.-..1,-.--. .,,-4-,,--,%... !,,,....,-,_---.... ..c.,z,--,...-,..w 4,,...--:,-,. ..r.o..e-,-,...,-,.. .‘f. .,..s..-.1:-..." "pv_•1,-;- `"c4rz- r-q..:-'1',3'z'''-`-‘-t , ''.--=-...•5-,..T.0-7. ,-.41'._- ..,"-1---,:e'LaCti:..tk,r-,F..,s5.a...-..:_4 - -r" '-`-'''!..4.-.'- 'P '. s"'"jy-4-V.• .Y.Y.'' ‘'. 51:1-.fi,, .-.."--,,,,--',4=-:, ..1,..ee..-4, 24A.,,,- k..-,';,--,-..---,:fil,,,,ce,,--%r ,-...... ....--. ...........,.. - ..---- --- ', .4-. ,-.Crk.'",-,....,4...,,,,..-4 c-4.-.y%.-4t1- r.-,-.04 --sc..4, 4+-4"1-Y,44e----4.4-,<,,,,,^4:_s--* .......'M-7,4-, Y'l.,-.• ,..4.c,y.,44o. - ...V..,-1,Q,`, ..'5%,„,_.4 fy.„,--..,,...,*7-4-4i,<,...y. ,4,„ 1,7-1,,.-_,....e.RN.,4,,"Gk."04',4-,:..tt`4,‘, .„4,,, ,,',0 ,„,...- 4,-,r,M. 4,prky-...7-.F...,;,4".,4,,,k-s_-..4.',,,ip•.4,-„,7,-. , 4,.;:i.r. ,e:',,,,T:,-...-...,e,,,,'..Yr....`",ilp%-4.-. . ,,,,,-,-1_,,,,,,r4 a--J,-,-,...-1--,--A,.4,..‘,..---,-.....v.-,4-z....,..-u.e ,c...... %.;•„4,,...,.....-3„1,-,'-,,,,t.--gr.. ..•;44'-'• - N''',2-,--,_,--,---.5g - .-.„."..,if..E.1---:scrkP-_nq<t,-_.-A,-;•„,... .„.ti..--,z3,...,:„:0-,a-,,y4.5.:;".,,,..5 .-A-II.--:-.s.-,,,„..,-v xe/..:Imi'..p.,-,..e.,,, ,-,p,„,-,U„...,-- -„--.ft'' '''zekv-Le..t4,, ,,r,:v-,,,,',....4.7"..1-.-2, ,--.2i- -•-:,,,-e-,--,-:.„,?",,,,----,-,,,--, - - ' ''''-'4"W.IV;,,--.-1-e-,,l'ilf. =, - Nel.„-r-,a,,t-':*- • .„...,--.v--%;.L.,,.....,-:,... ...--A.c.- ...5.,-,-,.,..-4,..<,... ...--1;.:Vvr4.*---s4 .-e-4,- , .1---Z,--,,,--;-,1,:e-'4',-;a...,-i3.0- ',',"-w-en:0-,..1,.-y.-4:-t s-'4,. ..-",..',-y.:44-hit-4.4.4...,,,,,,::: .,-".-- • I : '.‹.,1•74.--i-f-ire?..-_,•'- ----' - -a..---,-4'-'-,Ffe---..,--";,v,--.',"-3,--------7;:,-.--,,,--0.4,•:,'-----,,v-,--- '.----,-,'" ,---.4,-",.,---,..,,,; ."-...,-,..":-'...','-.'"P?",--:. -,,,,,,:-.^,-,-..,,,-,,,,,,...- -. ::"'......-.-'2,-;;;,,t-N, v....:.-o..,-..'T;'-1,s.' • ''''. ''''''''''', 4Y:';'"'-'•4R•: 11,;;:;,-,'-`-'fr'fe. "'.;--,:tP(V-L4::::,_.: -.,,,,,,4:-4:1-g,-sf;,,,,,,:4y4fAR.,5,143, :f,,!'e. ,,P;',,r-i;.`ZI-,,K...-A- ,`:,?„'Y.--!,,,tz .:.5..,%-tt-&tf -"4-',.z.,----- -.7,-, :,..-S, ,,--r-..--q7.f.0--,ar;"--'1,7-'- '..,P'-,,, ,,Z:-''..'F---'-',,-_-q;-,--''',V-'z'P -a.5--....,1,4-y_Q---1--,., 2.--,---.--,.,,,,,,-,-,.-.,,---4-- -----z.• - •. ,5.-,2-,-...,,,,:,,,,4•,,,-,..__-_,-,,,,,,,,,>,,,,,--,,,,A,,, 4,,,,,,4. •,,-,•.,.4-,2,..tr.,_,._,•,._,,,x,,,,-,._.).-,,,_-,-,.,-z-_,..,,,,.._-s-_-.(,-.%.,-,i>. ,:g,),- _ . . ,,,z,-,-.---,„A„.t...„,.,„;.........,,,,,...1,-,,,t„,- ,...10>pen.,.,,,,,„.•,,,,,,,,k,:.-,-,0,,,,,,.-c,-,,,--p4,,,--0,5,4-1,....,,,,,,,,,,-„,w3.,-,•,,...,, . - --.., ,,,,,,,,,,_,•-...,-;,,,,..,..-.:g$,..„,:::pA-,1,--._,_,,,,--.,,,,,,,,,,,...4,,,,t,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,„<„,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,;-- -.,,,,.,..,-.,,e•_,. .2,3.4„......,,,,,,,,,,....-,--....,...-..-_,,,,,,,..-...,-_-_„_..__-,-...,,,,,,-1,-,,,C,s-,..-.3..-z,,r,,,,,. ..,-.. i:...•,..7....7.4:%„..- vg..., __...........,.., ...- _ . cf-s2-f,,,,- *'',,4,::..,-:'..,..-...'%,,,y;,K.Set,'".f.e.,;,415P'.. .".1%-1.,-`0A-'-9.1.,4W41-7-''Ci-.1'4",'Ar2,'-';.';‘72414,'-'4,''',1•Z-*.e, .Z54 •,,1 .•VV:1,i .4,-,,,,,,,,,,,-,‘,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ,-j:,-.. --•- .c,,-c,--,.....•-•, -.., _,,,,.--,,,,-_.,,,, ., ,-_,-• .-.,-"C.'4,4,..•-1.,,S. • ..."--,y,"‘3O.,.-to-.5:,-.•,,ii,,1-0'-,-,},--",.A.,5-.,--_,",.,4‘,..r,... V..t.,,,k,-4, • --7-.4.7d„.....,„ ,,,,,,,t......„.„.„1.... _,..„.„...„..5„.--,.._,t..„.-6„....,,, ,...,-1.,.,.....,-.,. „.„.....„_..„....,..„. . , ,......,:___,. ._Z-ca ai• ". .....- • ...",.e.-,4 ei,Vi,- 11 , ..,..,: ... ,4."7,-',,,,Z...' ,l'......-,.."-R,.. ...1,,z;•-:'...1(Vp, • , =,-.V.azl.t.--',..Ars.. ,-,Z.:41::17.,t-,4;-•.,34-,,,,-...,...w.,......,, -71 •,,,,,v...--.,... ,',4',-4.- -'1,,,,-...,',W,---:4 -4.1".;',..,..V., vra....-i,,,,.:,..?..!,-X."..,V; ,...,-.7.,...,..-,•f,A,F.,,,,-.3, . '''''-''....,...-zg,a`.s",,.1:-tSt.,,A•1•,.14---,,,'•,;;,,,-,''Z''',.."`c)-"-::,-It21>' 1 -''''",1•4ree-i'47,".*4-CV'Vriivirl':',.-if>".":r ., ..- • V::•••"....V--.7i• -.,- 2 0 2 4 6 Miles • , . ...... . .. ........ ......... 1 Sources 1 1 River Information obtained from Washington Rivera Information System (WARIS) database. --, FIGURE 4: ANADROMOUS FISH Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW) and 1 ; Engineers k in unctordood that.whin do Cord of Enginom End'Mandan 1994 TIGER data. US Census Sumo. US Army Corps of adders Imo no irckdon or moon to barn that there we Date: 6/6/97 inocasncir in'abandon incorporand in the bonomp.THE CORPS AND ITS SUPPLIERS MAICE ND REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND.INCLUDIN3 BUT NOT LIMITED TO City boundenes, wetlands and ads:Nona!data provided WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR RTNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE.NOR ARE ANY ACCESS IN CEDAR RIVER BASIN by Mg County. Preparer: LDD SUCH WARRANIIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPEGT 10 TliE INFORMATION,DATA.OR ,, SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. e, I 1` 1 , 0 __I . 2 1 r•) I- - - - --- . ^e, I to r— , ;.,, "': 1..% " '''.] 11 ..::•-59....h, •.:,:..,:c:42. '•'..'..;•::'''q • --7. .... .. • •• . . ' • • • . . . ' ..i. • . . .t , • • .. • . . ••'.:.*:,).1.X.;r 101S Voi :ti• "1 , I• -- ." , .. • . . . . • • ; • ••. 1.--‘ • . -20`.1'..!........ . • • . . .. • • . • .. • . ' I i .•. . \I 1 • , •., 1-.--j-,7;fT.J7.*:.4)4.1. 1;—, , .. ••_k ID •Ji _Li Lt. • ,1 „.........._t____,L.•,. f,, -..-- COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT N°2 .0-: . ......1 N. .. , . ,...:, . ., ,0 , : KING.COUNTY.WASH. . • ‘..', . •• ........ ,-•.. ..,. N- •II .•\••• ., _Tr_ ,. . . . $ '• " '..' ' ' •• ,,•••...," \... ,...,..„\ ; . \•\ .•-•\1%*f.- , :1,...„.T,-,. • • \tt • 1 r• 0..e.k.,* . _.L..1 COMMISSIONERS-../C mARLOWL;,C.1","/,:* '‘ N . ;..' zr • . .A. ' 1 \i ,, •\ ' . • RENTON • • .. . ... ,om.....„SCBSON.f.v.:Nro, • • .' /7 ' ' .1\ \\.1'±' ,....3.1 2 'I'. • I ..... :X I/ ; ...S.;-',•• ' JUNE 1911 , 1) • ; It.. ..:•f'/%' 1 1 // • \.•;••• ••••- ,-- im. ,-4 • •••• I ' ',A, •""•4 ., / w...1.14,EWEN, E Tenni. P...•in *. . \\ .. ;'''. ' ; • :,.....I. CI:.ot-. ' , i' ' • ."i' \ ...Ceillr.r•-",-4,t_.L.2 • :‘, • /A 1111 . • '''':::.:::'.2.:',:', 1 , .43...••••• . ,- . • . , _,_.• :,_. , 1 1 • 1_13211..1:1.-Ti ; 7.7i.___7_17..._.....;r7_,T_____......_ il . •Ti...t:tlwiiiH:.' lir ... e.- ___ .• , rn 0 • .• • ,......,6,-,--- ,, •---,......,,, -,...,,,,, •I ,,. r I ,..34 if,,.,„ 1,....11..;-:::; y .' 1 11[1 117491 .. :A 441.1r: •. .7: I, . , 4 .....,721, ..' I i‘..4.1,.....4„i. ii zi,i... LI' .al rr„.i'll.ti...".1:1;1'...0:''D...ClcaCi•:':'Ir(... , ''. ' . C • --....?.;.2-F.j..z.:::.'2,..i•t‘.:•iP,i,1 i. ..,i.:.,.::.• 2 . [7.\•••;:...`.,':::' ,y,i :, E1.0 E .. ..,... .. ., . -q-44 EY„ iti , -41 ,-a.p,.?, . 1 /....,..t-,-ii 4.'.••••..4'....a. ail 1, L.,?,_..ii.y..,t,, :4.3..,.,);,.....?....... v.. '.., ,• -•ji • C) M il i -... . -,.-----.1)."•:. ,.:,:..i ,•ii*,•.* 131[0 !:1, 1,....: .... ::.'ir.....,."..„..k. _,.'At'....,.: ,..,b,"•thr".51,11 lig . .1 Fr ,. ,k, I., 'I . .1.4.iire a - . • \ a . . • • It'd'.'1?.1).• Rti'ioit id•P L':::. ../. ''''''....' ';Ttt.41-Virg MI 4 ..,!..r als:ea _ • . \ " •''`..t •• . ... ' * . •VTY,111.. ..... . 2,, / ,........ 411a,AA i 44„.,.. 4 r.„..w_.T....._:.,,;, i 1„1 L:-.-1. . .-., ,i), ,:.(.i':. .., :- .. .„1 . • 21 - --_, , $ . • , 4 rj - I A . • • • • •41 1 1-•.' -,.).i ,..‘, ' • Eon.. • '-... ---...,,,,... -r„,„.„L-*, ,,..xitt e.. 1- 9 7,.1.11)..:.Wii;ir://;;C7,?•,/:. P ... T • :. • xi mu. .4f.'''''.0,,::"-r'''7,P;q-2 ----/ „:, :A 6.- •v,i ! li .iff„,i,•.....,.. .., ... fj% Is _ ; pt I .1::.;ii I , 11______1 • ,‘,..-...1..--.. :1.1:'i,- q :7;.:'..!--1';::".":.•!..\.:?;. ,,,:\\‘::::.;!!'...."' . q,ii. „. . ., %1Z14 MI .11,1 1184 1--, tr•-'• .„, .ff, . . 1 .... ..„ .•"- • •Ii2iril '4 4-4.,:g E:< :1 -. 1•;t.*1. • '. ... "4-- ''/fil• -k ..g.'. •, • ,i: • -..../".4 . . -. rri 0 0,_ ... .: ^-,m.. ..2. -.s-P .. -.7. -...... /76/ -`'..:,.• . :a 2i Tisi I-421 41 i.j,'40 51 kii•!,, )./. .:..11-_•:../ ..iIf..-,'.; 14.../,1 • , 4r.....,,• :a : 5 ...4.. ....,•:.5,i d m . .,,,,, ••• 7 • , 4511'4614o b .,-5-'r•e: . . ... .-'i...: 1-3,. . Est, ;Au - m •f ; ... ; • L,•,. ..__,L__L,...- .L. ,•-, I,4.. ..c. .- . ., • • 4:7. •3 •' 6F _ • • •••• i j ,: . • ;1 6 ri •..sts)• 'N.:,......'. , . ,,. • :9' e „,,,,, 43,, .,,-• .--,--. _ : ..,... z.,. r• x ullai Vo4 • iI a . ;,-.k.-... ---..a,g• s ; , .....1...... [6_8_1 i C9]160k....4),'6 • i•. , • •.. I 1 '1 rIti'l ',1•Eiga.--•,...... reil'. :• /7_._.•l .1. r.:. 1-1. *. _r_I-- - 4...F:z1-J 1*,;;:••••••• •• 1 •',...,7,1 ..,...... 11,1.1;:j'alt,i ...,4.,.,„.,.. p, •,•,. P4iFu kl.„... 11 /,••• ___-•,-,— : ,,,,,, - ..,._._z; • ..,: g4 Xi .4 • ;2. „ . c•k-,• - - IT,•V. ,„c, ,., 1_• 1-•.. ... ‘,I .°: ler • P .• , .1 • r., 1 4,.....". i••.' ••1. skg:t2,...7c'lzii 0,...4" /i \ am M t77:-----. , M k • ..•-7. • 1 ni< 0 ----..-------...--___ ::•--- ••: !!• . ,. • .i., ... -,. . 14., As -••„,„-,1-.41.1. t, ••••• i.N. . tit ":,-. at' -1.,10 A I ' • 0 • • Oa"rum,. .. ‘-;r—* . T_-..-.1 0". v. .., ,. .••--.""•<.;;,-........ . ',e a.. vi :., ,Y . .. ..... . •,. -... -- -;...• a: ....... :4 ..c : - .. •'?! ;•-: ', ...,,' .,,, ,•4.1 J.,..I. 1:17."t&.',.'., I •, ....4.:LI,.... P•••1 1 '4" '-'-'i B I . .-7,-.,...2_ Ig.h..1, .2%,•,0 ivr •_,.•...- ztk: ...,-...7,-",.•• ' . • • ,..J.. ..,,,,i., .20 --2 :2„: .r ',,:ii----- -• -.."111111140,"41\ -.7;•?;-!. .. ..--..ti oil;„77 . • ,.."--V....a:a. 7Aor/It! ';'' ''''''k, ,.6.4':....:7;%.. .•7 . .. • :1.2477 ;7'. .17, 1•'''.. •••!...\\..- • •••",'';k-i-- .?"'"." 4 51 ei,Ir:ggiv- 111111r ' r : PIkli" - r.,-,.;; .- 1 1 '''-•••. — •."----,.. - .,:yr,.„,.,A„..7.„ ....,.,,,,i,,....,... r., _ .4.. E-11.fglw '11,''R' . • • ''''' ......•4....—., ••.: .......:....,..,........,c .1.V. =41:1.4.‘q...,.:ic' ' ; -•' • .r2; __„,..;--A------, .••••••••;,-..`, `4,•>. .\N• .., ,.„.1rti " •„, ,.,,..1.ti• ,:. ...• •=al.rr.-!''' ' -:--. - . ?h.,/2.• . - :".'-':' ..."'-""' .1 ._....---, •,. N.X ?••' )i . ..... .. '14 l';•:P., >, , / : ; , , ., 394.42'..Ve, . •Vali. 'ig ,,-....„. .:0;4 ';.'..-mii ' ." ". .t.1.,--,.;•---; ., •...... •„•,. i' .._ '... 4P143, , / i ....- .:.-,-,4!.t,:.• - it, . 4A ,.m, ,, .,..._, ........ ,.:._ ..••• ,:.. ..... i F.., ..„ . • ••••.n_tnt....... ....." . • .1 ..,—.) - r l'fir. . :r, :i•,, .IzZl..,,,i.4-t.."1j. .. I:, / . ...•••• . • ..,•?..„,; • r • r 'L:,,,..)is..r....4. I • ...........sks. :\ • •-•, / 4:1,!„ dtx1 0,f;'I 'ri . -1 -,1,---' .:f• ti 1 ..,,,:,,,,,,.1 i . , ,., ,. . ,...„..,,..._.. .,. .. ..: ., ., I is( . . . -.- --‘"Z.-:"1. -.'"-4.1'PS• ‘1' k .,; ',\,-....-:------- -7-z--:-. _",. .':''''si ".r+1'-i.ti t4*1- ', 1 -.,- - 1...,,d,...?. ..... ‘-..--:.•"-^"---- ' •--.•al'-:',......, ,_ • I. -I •/..I • " ., -.". ', •••- ••••• 0 '\ .- --...-- • ks di . 24./.147e .„ , :r.L, 5., , 7 1. . ...-.-,: .,,..„ ,. - •" •• - 4.O..•. • • . ...,.,• . • ••••/ • -11, ,n, d-L4411 / .:::.--.71., ' LL . ./ Ili—. 1 If.d. .1 • .i.±.7.1 ........:. ..(n)-7-.•: :-;=-.:---il -'14:I..; '. ......(---;. . I . 0 ..),:' • A • *-I . . • 51' • © . . -'•:C......;" ''',14-•- • • 14,* 11.`4± ' I v/ % ''. '.56.roek I I ' ....-....-1 i 1 1 .....• ..--.:•?:•/. :.:.1 p.at ..'........•." • I • ';;:-:..i.:,-----"--- ' i . I, _..-' ,---77.:- ....---•7:001,...i" '. !, ..1.,v;c. ;,..' . ...% • . ._...,..4.1 --:111.,--•-•-" 41;,,,v"" L..._ r • ---.1 , : - ' 1.... . . , .. ....9..... ......"' I_ ;.,„:..,..j.. ......... ... ..... .....-. .....; A, n Z.Egglplo gal n?••?'11 I ..e'• * . 1 • . 1 . ......----.--""- •• -. 15r, i .. i:. .,4';';:iiIi,p.aliviono.,,um,1115,i:: _......„::: -..„..:.„..r.,....,i„-. !IiI,I, •. •1'44 1 . ...-:•::..- - ".--:.:. ', rt." ,..,.. • 1 .,,,, ta- N. . ....:::..:•---57..;7.:545...-.:•ite...,_....,..,......;, :,;;;tliii,,11:::: i: ;j0f41.,.1..a., 7..L. -;*. lev...,..,:z1 i... ,..F., ..:;•-..----,7 •... --,- : •- •••••.• :1,7' - -t".:g7.: P:.;;'ff.:1!: '14' .,:0;.,:e•;!.:...'r, • ....•'. ----Vp,liableth: t:.:,..?:±-:::,_-::!.. ty'fier. .1 •. t,:......___ ..T.....1.-I ....: 4, -r,-VI. :,,,.....v,-.. ., •sr.,„-: .. 47',- •? •- r .., . . - - • 1:-•1:::••••11.1'.1i4'..:,.11......:.i?.••••: •••43.i..,:;• ;:-_•:', .; . T,::::„.• . ...',-. [ • '• li.1•;..i.4.'ir.11;1•%::::;;;;•••,1 t;,:ls,-.11. :.1t.::;•••. 1•:.:'2141--; ' ;;..:11,:. ,1::{;:iiri ..3.:•:;• .',., ...,-, ,-.„.....,... ,........,....„.I“•;,..,...-,,..,,.....,,,.... • .0 . ; -•:.'-'"=•-•—•- .:-:"1";''.-•"'•,:";,%'.1.41" 1",:;:rWl.ir(.._•r":774-,,''77:. F:7.v7-.: .S.=.., ..i.!,'.c,....-,:: F.U.1 ''•,-1_.1,:::',": \*.li.1•,:'.•_. V.',.•';:•-•:1-,,<A,11:14.;;;1441.A ii:''ii •• • '1,7'..'7",1R-'J.•,r!.‘...-111 i'...:.;,'::•`Fit:w•7:41,.1.:1:3-.t. .3:...F.' Er•=-'21,'—a ._,---.-?F•1*- :';:ii-...:•-.5. k.-••7,..,'--1,.- k ,••-=1.7Ci. I--!.%.....i—Llt.Z i.";1 0 • , . . : VIL::F.,.11t.,::::ti LF..:'..:g..1.01E;.;.,.+4,....gi / it.,-..,, gii...,:17: ..4-4,P=,_R -..:,ip.,..7,1;:, r7.,......;:: %-i:-[•+:,r‘i-i•IT-9-•••;',4,-V-4; . •u v•-••-.,T.,r,:,;,,•44-••qt..t-S:),;'••?.•if: '3rtrei:.,r.irt..._14.. ..,-..-z•„-i ..z...k...,„.TI,,,,,o•-•,.A. ,,,..,,t...k, 6..)..,;;.•:...t: ,.::::14/.... ,:,...:._...1,,....4.....e: I ,, • . ' • ; . vil FY.7.1. ::4":;1*-::1.W.'-,;"4:7.'i2-44 C4•117d.4::•=a•E,':-.. ''. *-li••••• ••• 4:...i.ri.--L:.:9xi...\-,:'.114' •i:.•_,uia?...."..-::•• '',:' I t• , ..:•":',•'••-•.i.: 2.*::-.1;•:1 :1,--r.7: .:-:.1.:!..1" itt-r.M.7. ='.:1,?'"" -.7, '' - " .J.• -V._ 1-;,' A.4.. .1;<7,‘..k1.21!„ /,11.'• • • i : 11:2,1F,I; EZ,M,,..i,7.÷. .E.T.ti:g•-..E7S.:.:-... riff:- 5--.= :---Eli--. tlif'Z• 7.5.:•::f- ',-'il.t,',"'r-g„ •., _, -- p;„,. ‘,„ •,...7••7F.i'.,1---k...1: . •••••'•••;1'1 igh. ••tS7a r.:. - t4.....:..".-.Z. '•.7 N't. ...at ' ...''AIL' '.. .16;.'. • '7.14';Z.L ir4"'":-::, ''.14;:v:1-.• 1=•-im _;i-'741;.%* -..---.• ET-*:-'-'277 .,, - -1-'4-1, • , A-1174 :ri".- 4--3-4-4t -i % \•,;4t..„..,.,:,:.K.- i.,,".74.:•.f::?......, iif;...,;,"..G. . • . 1=%.,== =,:Z=i ,:.r.' , ../.14.;,:.;..,P.g... Viit: -e.i. f.•g.,,. ..,0... i •=11-...= -,-;=-.-„,.: • • i L.•':. ".:-. =,,_::".:,:= m j, .-, 1 i. •'•. i:,i;r.af..5.7..,E'tt'',-.''':E•'"''''.---':.FF._1,.n.7..,-',-1-,!• , . ;!-'.,71-.•4.•.•,,•:!,:.:?."!•,-;..:-O:; ,1 = ;? t --'. 7 .?4- '-.;•1:g-..-1i1z:23:.'.'..4.?...;•1,:'. ..-..,.'., ,i• !.4••••••• , \,.:•::2.. •',/..ir-.:•:14i ••••••!••' 1..4.: :K.- ' ,jEa.:7- : :74-71, ••.!:,::,.•,".,.., ...*-.,";•:L""::".• '''- ' : !'';'.7.1';'';'"/L ‘!'1' •;lel'.15&• ; . !'1.•;;,.1!:1,.!1 1!:7,- :".!•••.'•.',:'It,'. -• -"''-- --. • e , , . • - ' • • • • . .. ..,,. . ••.• .• 4 ..... .• . ,..., • . • • 2. ALTERNATIVES The range of potential alternatives for flood control have evolved from those considered in the reconnaissance phase: Numerous alternatives were intially evaluated based on the following criteria: • • If the alternative accomplished the project purpose of providing 100 year flood control in the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River. • If the project benefits exceeded the project costs (including environmental costs). Alternatives which did not meet both of the above criteria were eliminated from detailed economic and environmental analysis and are briefly described in Section 2.1. Projects which met both of the above criteria were evaluated in detail and are th e basis for the discussion of environmental impacts in this EIS. All alternatives evaluated in this EIS were developed with the use of a hydraulic (HEC-RAS) and sediment model (HEC-6), as described in the draft DPR. 2.1 PLANS ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 2.1.1 Upstream Sediment Control. This alternative was identified during the reconnaissance phase as a possible solution to the increased flooding at Renton. • Preliminary study during feasibility has identified a large number of sources of sediment. It would be extremely difficult and costly to armor all of the eroding banks along the river valley that are contributing to the overall sediment load. A landslide . E:. occurred at RM 3.9 [6.2 km] (behind revetment) in 1987 that contributed approximately 30,000 cy of sediment to the river. This.material has likely moved into the project reach and into Lake Washington. Simply controlling upstream sediment sources, even if accomplished, would not sufficiently reduce the existing flooding condition in Renton. The adverse environmental impacts of armoring the river banks and valley walls could be significant and would degrade or remove riparian habitat that is critical to the �.: ecological health of the river system. Levees currently existing in upstream areas have likely decreased the value of spawning areas by increasing channelization and scour of the river bottom. Land use policies to reduce erosion in the upper basin from building, farming and forestry practices are an important part of the Cedar River Basin Plan, an interagency land use document completed in 1996: Renton is working closely with King County to implement sediment control measures to reduce sediment input into the I this lower reach of the river., While certainly a worthwhile goal in its own right, alternative would not accomplish the basic project purpose of providing 100 year flood control in Renton. 2.1.2' Upstream Levee Removal. This alternative was also identified during the reconnaissance phase. Levees or other bank protection devices are present along 64% of the river on at least one side (King County, 1993). Preliminary study during feasibility'has shown that the removal or setback of levees upstream of Renton only reduces flood levels in the immediate vicinity and does not measureably reduce 11 I flooding in Renton. When the Cedar River has a major flood, most levees upstream are overtopped and the valley acreage behind those levees already stores flood waters. . is narrow and bordered by :I Further, the Cedar River floodplain, upstream of Renton, 1 steep valley walls. There is not enough storage in the floodplain to reduce flood stages in Renton. It is true that the removal of levees would have tremendous fish and wildlife benefits; however, the primary purpose of this project is flood control. King County is attempting to buy out the most flood prone homes in the upper valley with the long term goal of removing some levees. The County's general policy is to not allow new levees along the Cedar. This alternative would not accomplish the basic project purpose of —I providing 100 year flood control in Renton. 2.1.3 Widening the River Channel in the Project Reach. This alternative -' was identified during the reconnaissance phase as a possible solution to the increased flooding at Renton. The lower 1.25 miles [2 km] (project area) of the Cedar River are tightly confined between the Renton Municipal Airport and the Boeing manufacturing k plant, and other urban development upstream of Logan Avenue. The river channel could only be widened on the right bank to•150 feet [45 m] (current channel is 110 feet [33 m] wide in entire reach) from Logan Avenue down to the south Boeing bridge and to 250 feet (76 m) wide from the south Boeing bridge to the mouth. The two Boeing - bridges would not be widened and would remain at 110 foot (33 m) spans. This .. alternative would reduce flood water levels by approximately 2 feet (0.6 m) from the 1 mouth up to the south Boeing bridge and by a negligible amount above that location. Sediments would continue to accumulate in the project area reducing flood capacity - over time. This alternative would not accomplish the basic project purpose of providing 100 year flood control in Renton and would require the complete elimination of the Cedar River Trail Park, a heavily used recreation feature. 2.1.4 Modifying the Boeing Bridges to be Raised During Flood Events. This alternative was identified during the reconnaissance phase as a possible solution to the increased flooding at Renton. After modelling flood flows, Corps' staff found that the north Boeing bridge (mouth of river) does not worsen flooding, provided it is kept r .. reasonably free of debris, because it is at lake level. The south Boeing bridge is approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) above the river bottom and during flood events the bridge. traps much of the debris coming downriver and frequently overtops with flood waters. The pressure from trapped debris can cause damage to the bridge and could cause the bridge to fail entirely during a very high flow. Modifying the south Boeing bridge to be raised during high flows would eliminate the problem of debris being trapped and avoid - bridge damage during flooding. It would also reduce flood elevations in the immediate vicinity of the bridge, but would not significantly reduce flooding upstream of the bridge. This alternative, alone, would not accomplish the basic project purpose of providing 100 ,,; year flood control in Renton, but is further evaluated in combination with other project elements in section 2.2. . 2.1.5 Nonstructural Floodproofing of Buildings in the Project Area. This alternative was identified during the reconnaissance phase as a possible solution to the increased flooding at Renton,. Economic damages experienced during the 1990 flood F 12 event occurred primarily to equipment, supplies and inventory located at floor level or other low spots on the Boeing property or at the airport. Floodproofing measures could include raising the equipment inside the buildings off the ground, securing equipment above flooding levels, moving planes at risk to higher spots on the runway or flying completed planes to another airport when flood warnings are issued. These measures ' alone would not protect the south Boeing bridge, which would still experience closures and/or.damages during flood events nor would it prevent the river from eventually breaking out of the channel. This alternative would reduce the damages which occur during flood events, however; this alternative, alone, would not accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in.Renton. However, these measures may be implemented regardless of the flood control alternative chosen to reduce damages. p during floods in excess of the project's "design flood." Planes will be moved to higher ground or flown to different airports under the operating manual produced with any of the action alternatives described in section 2.2. 2.1.6 Dredging the Lower Mile To Historical Depths. This alternative was identified during the reconnaissance phase as an alternative,that has federal interest (economic benefits exceed economic costs). Historically, the lower reach of the River was dredged 8 feet (2.4 m) below the winter water level of Lake Washington. This = amount of dredging would extend lake habitat, during low and moderate flows, more than 1, mile (1600 m) upstream from the mouth of the Cedar River. Resource agency comment on this alternative, during the reconnaissance phase, was severe regarding the potential impacts on sockeye salmon spawning and sockeye fry migration into the Lake. Because this alternative would essentially move the lake backwater upstream, sediments would be deposited more rapidly.in the project reach, because of lower velocities in the area, than with the existing condition. Sediment model calculations indicate that the project area would have to be redredged every year to contain the design flood. This alternative alone would provide approximately 25 year flood control but would not accomplish the project purpose of providing 100 year flood control in Renton. However, this alternative is evaluated in combination with other elements in section 2.2. 2.1.7 Levee Placement Along the Lower Mile. This alternative would place levees on the right bank from Logan Avenue down to the mouth and on the left bank from Logan Avenue down to the airplane hangars located at approximately 1800 feet (540 m) upstream of the mouth with a low berm below that point to the mouth on the left bank (described in section 2.2 as part of all action alternatives). This alternative would still allow residual flooding of the airport downstream of the hangars. Flooding would be restricted to runway areas. This alternative would not address the continued sediment buildup in the channel and eventually the channel would fill in enough to severely reduce the level of flood protection, ultimately creating a perched channel that would render the south Boeing bridge unusable during the rainy season and potentially cause a bridge failure. This alternative would accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton.temporarily. However, it does not provide a long-term solution to the flooding problem and,would require further federal or local government 13 commitment. This alternative is evaluated in combination with other elements in section 2.2. 2.1.8 Sediment Trap. This alternative would require the dredging of a sediment trap, likely to be located in the vicinity of Logan Avenue. This trap would be dredged periodically to prevent any further accumulation of sediment in the project reach. This alternative would not address the existing flooding problem in the lower mile and is similar to the no action alternative (Section 2.2) except for preventing further accumulation of sediment. There would not be any increase in flooding above the existing condition. This alternative, alone, would not accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton. Initially, this alternative was evaluated in combination with dredging and levee elements, but was determined to not significantly delay redredging of the entire project reach: The sediment model indicates that the trap slows flow sufficiently that deposition levels increase, causing the trap to fill in during the course of one winter. This alternative is not evaluated further.. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THIS EIS. 2.2.1 No Action. This alternative, as required to be analyzed by NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, would take no action to control flooding in Renton. The sediment load from upstream sources would continue to accumulate in the project reach until all (or most) flood carrying capacity is eliminated. In less than 20 years in the future, the channel would be filled in with sediment and the River would avulse into the urban area of Renton. Economic damages would continue to accrue, with expected annual damages with future conditions (used 10 years in the future) of $11-14 million. Because current land uses adjacent to the river will continue to be industrial, it is likely that infrequent emergency dredging by the City may occur to prevent the river from completely avulsing onto the airport. 'The no action alternative would not accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton and would likely have severe environmental impacts, such as preventing upstream fish access from the lake. 2.2.2 Existing Channel Depth With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (see Figure 6) This alternative would require limited dredging (31,000 CY) to even out the channel bottom to the existing thalweg depth. Levees or floodwalls would be required along the right bank from 1-405 to the mouth and on the left bank from 1-405 to just downstream of the airport hangars, plus a low berm from the airport hangars down to the mouth. Levee/floodwall height would average about 7-8 feet (2.1-2.4 m) in height, depending on existing bank height. This particular alternative would require modifications to the bridges at.Logan, Williams and Wells Avenues and Bronson and Hauser Way in order to avoid inducing flooding upstream. As with all levees or floodwalls discussed in this and other dredging alternatives, the left bank below Logan Avenue for 400 feet (120 m) downstream would require bank protection in addition to a levee or floodwall because this bank is actively eroding. Riprap would be placed below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to protect the bank. Modifications would be made to.the.south Boeing bridge to raise the span during flooding events in 14 r 1 order to prevent debris clogging and induced flooding upstream. New concrete :7: : abutments would be placed under the bridge to support the hydraulic jacking system. The channel would require maintenance dredging of approximately 114,000 CY every three years'to maintain existing channel bottom. The total construction cost of this project is estimated to be $10.9 million. 2.2.3 Minimum Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications to South Boeing Bridge (see Figures 6,7,8 &9). This alternative would require dredging to an average.depth of four feet below the existing grade from the Cedar mouth up to Logan Avenue and then sloping up for 800 feet (240 m) upstream to meet the existing gradient, with zero dredge at the end point at Williams Avenue. Initial dredged quantity would be approximately 158,000 CY. This alternative would not require dredging of the delta for flood reduction; however, the channel directly outside (maximum of 20 feet [6 m]) the north Boeing bridge would be dredged to avoid trapping debris on the bridge. Levees or floodwalls would be placed along the right bank from Williams Avenue to the mouth and on the left bank from Williams Avenue to just downstream of the airport • hangars, plus a low berm from the airport hangars.down to the mouth. Levee/floodwall height would average about 6 feet (1.8 m) in height, depending on existing bank height. Modifications would be made to the south Boeing bridge to raise the span during flooding events in order to prevent debris clogging and induced flooding upstream. New concrete abutments would be placed under the bridge to support the hydraulic _ jacking system. The dredged channel would need maintenance dredging of approximately 171,000 CY every three years to maintain initially constructed bottom depth, on average. This alternative would accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton and the benefits exceed the costs. The total cost of this project is estimated to be $8.3 million. 2.2.4 Moderate Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (see Figure 6). This alternative would require dredging to an average depth of 6 feet below the existing grade from the Cedar mouth up to Logan Avenue and then sloping up for 1200 feet (360 m) to meet the existing gradient with zero dredge at the endpoint just upstream of Wells Avenue. Initial dredged quantity would be approximately 195,000 CY. This alternative would not require dredging the delta; however, the channel directly outside (maximum of 20 feet [6 m]) the'north Boeing bridge would be dredged to avoid trapping debris on the bridge.' Levees or floodwalls would be placed along the right and left banks as described in alternative 2.2.3 but would average about 5.5 feet (1.7 m) in height depending on existing bank height. Modifications would be made to the south Boeing bridge to raise the span during flooding events in order to prevent debris clogging and induced flooding upstream. New concrete abutments would be placed under the bridge to support the hydraulic jacking system. The dredged channel would need maintenance dredging of approximately 176,000 CY every three years, on average. This alternative would I ,3 2 The sediment model conservatively estimates the maintenance dredge frequency for all action • alternatives at every three years. Historical sedimentation rates (1986-1994) indicate maintenance dredge frequency would be on the order of every 10 years. 15 • accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton and the benefits exceed the costs. The total cost of this project is estimated to be $8.5 million. 2.2.5 Deep Dredging Combined With Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge (see Figure 6). This alternative would require dredging to a depth of 10 feet below the existing grade from the Cedar mouth up to just below Logan Avenue and then sloping up for 1200 feet (360 m) above Logan Avenue to meet the existing gradient, with zero dredge at the end point just upstream of Wells Avenue. Initial dredged quantities would be 260,000 CY. This alternative would not require dredging of the delta; however, the channel directly outside (maximum of 20 feet [6 m]) the north Boeing bridge would be dredged to avoid trapping debris on the bridge. Levees would be placed along the right and left banks as described in alternative 2.2.3 but would average about 4.5 feet (1.4 m) in height depending on the existing bank height. Modifications would be made to the south Boeing bridge to raise the span during flooding events in order to prevent debris clogging and induced flooding upstream. New concrete abutments would be placed under the bridge to support the hydraulic jacking system. The dredged channel would need maintenance dredging of approximately 185,000 CY every three years, on average. This alternative would accomplish the project purpose of providing flood control in Renton and the benefits exceed the costs. The total cost of this project is estimated to be $9.3 million. 2.2.6 Possible Dredging Methods for All Action Alternatives For all action alternatives, dredging will be required. The dredging would remove riverbed sediments at the various depths described above. In the lower portion of the river, the lake backwater provides depths sufficient to float a barge and would allow the use of barge mounted equipment as described below. In the upstream portion of the river, water depths during the summer construction season would be 1 foot (0.3 m) or less in most locations and would require another method of dredging. 2.2.6.1 Barge Mounted Clamshell Dredge or Dragline • A barge mounted clamshell dredge would likely be used for the minimal, moderate and L_ deep dredge alternatives in the lower portion of the project area (from the mouth upstream approximately 3000 feet [909 m]; 5200 feet [1575 m] for deep dredge; see Figure 10). The clamshell would remove sediments, but returning water and fine materials would be significant from the clamshell head. Alternatively, a barge mounted dragline could also be used in the lower portion of the project area. This method would drag an excavator bucket across the channel scooping up material that would be deposited onto the bank on the park side. Material from either method would be placed in a dewatering area on the park side of the river, with appropriate measures taken to control return of turbid water. This area would be lake backwater and silt curtains or bodrns could be utilized with either method to minimize the turbidity plume that would arise during dredging. • 16 �f l -Uaa C:.•:..,•: I ^:.,.•d E_-----' t s`c V.;� d. ..;4 1,...-...; !: . . . . .- .. ,...., `. .. „ Lia„iau :. .a . ..i ...,. ,., ,.....ai, 25 / w• 20 • i re" . J • q d �/7 c 2 v dr °' 5 Existing Channel z Four Foot Dredge . — „Q� = u2.1 ——— Six Foot Dredge < t 3 3 Ten Foot Dredge 10 . —ram •of W /moo • c N J W 5 • • • 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 ts1p1- I I I I II I I I I tp I I I I pM ip Q 1 1 1 o 1 O W N C) CI COC d, IS N S tO CCD CCD CDD tD CO fD h .^ N. , � O • CHANNEL DISTANCE (ft) • • • FIGURE 6 DREDGE PROFILES FOR ACTION ALTERNATIVES -1 1 - , : • • ' f.7.:-.:.-f.::::::: • • •--__' --;- __......______>..., l') , 1 -- • . : - -. . • N-------_______L___ i---- - __ _______________________ I -----,_.. - - i i : --__ 1,1-----------------________ i•if RI I1 :--------- s-. -------_ .... 1 ...,... , - --, -f'-+ v.----.28 • ---....„.:_- -' -- ---..:.-?A k--- ---__ 11111.11111111111111m -__..... ...4;.................i.............____Ea-sA3 RE-ALIGN ROAD ,. , ......15 41 ,iss.i ----4._ ., i -1:1 1' I ,:--, ti) / -1, .." • • c--------__, r i '-'• -L."' —• ......7..---,..a--......--.....=.. .."':-._.---- -------..--_-=-__ , NORTH -,.. ,.. ...•• . . ___„..,..„,.;„ ,,, ,,„"......2.______.,.. __....,, ....._ _ /11111 ...............1.1 - ''' '''.. 2. 63311-.A.,...,,,,„••••7;rrirliiiiiii.111111.1111111111: OE I NG )''';' 1--r.—TT'..7"--:-----,T-:-=-------..t.-•,=-,sm N411•1•0.1 ..,,,tt.mn....,„.... .... '."....--.4.:.... =1 L 20+00 L 15+00 LEVEE TYPE III L 10 -0 BRIDGE- 1 z i <1 • I 0 - I I-- I 5,-'? I tA; CEDAR RIVER •:..3 i FLOW • I z t . ....... -cr - • 1 1 ...-.7 I ..„......... LEVEE TYPE I LEVEE TYPE II ......._ - .... __.. . . LEVEE TYPE I • . (/) I I -.i _ -"7:--- -------":-_7---74`4'74;"' .-- ' -' ''' ''--;•- 4'' '11-'427"-11'w-;` --- --- '''''''•" -,S-i7..---• • •MP-",di AD 04ER 1 t : --- - • --`----=---_----—,,., i• 2---,7 • j,..._-uv,v P.:\....:...2,..„______„."'0___-_f_;-_•N.\-\\\.;.,N\ \\,.\\\\\\-'\\ .• \-' --.....r.,i -:---Tr-\ -r1. i '?„' itt.• IGNIIIENT i vr 1 , --„,-----..„---s-' _______-_-:-2- • 20+00 ..../- . • Ainnimmi --__ .:--.. ',•1.4.ir _.." ) .. \ \ \ \ss I s I •••. op,..L.,...„,..._-__.--iii-7-,....,A,.....i. . . : „... • -...„..... _ ,_,_, 14.1-i A , . .....im.mmi•------,,, ....„ ••••.„..) -----N- ii, .-----------%, _Nli6, /( . •________ i u , . . ,. __ ___, , ,,, , ,,,, ,.... .._,...)..._. /7 • ..,. ,W0. . .;: .-4-- MO/rta AOACVERd e r• - N --( -i•-_. f i 6 , (1 P EVEE/Atf 16NMEN• 1 _ Alm_ 4: 1-111111ni I P • '",..0.11....111 • ....s. ..:_, , - ----;••:-Vbff .......,"\ %....., ••-.*-1 •C • ' 1 1 i ! i ; I 1 1.7-‘ii i : i (1,1,4- ,..... - --------:-""--._:71V Paved ParkIng ______..„. / s ...75..,. . ..., . .,. ....*____,,' I ,..c ti 0 0. ...-,....., • . • ,... 's, f----.- -1i -,,,, / IL9---:;y1S1101iit ) ili ' Lpillk%------, ' •,:, . -- _ :_---- _.... _ i 14 I ...._ _____ ___ _________•' _I./ /1 r-i ______.-----f-, ii.,,-7 9 I WI I il• --- — --- — --------,----t%.' ------------- - ...."-t-•......4- - / fi A 1—.^••••Th — --____ - kr-F. 1 • I •tiusSie. • , . LEGEND - - 1 1- r.. I 1 - .,. i e.--7 LEVEE 1 U.; -----------..=___—— — . - ; ; . ; 100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1 , FL OODWALL • I" = IOU' : LEEEIEEDE1 1 I 1 1 i U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE ______ --r-- . CORPS_OF-ENGINEERS FIGURE 7 _ - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 t i -..g.,1-: LEVEE/FLOODWALL-FOOTPRINT FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (5 SHEETS) SHEET 1 1 6-, f• • CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON : • , • SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE B C I. I j . : 1 , DSGN: BRANDT CHX: SHEET .. ,k . 1 DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 13-MAR-I997 - 14:07 DESIGN FILE: 1:slides i gnsOcr f cOciv0c.r_clpr I.dgn SCALE: I '' = WO' 1 1 SMALL- PLANE ki AI" 1 t 1 • • ' I : •-.-I . .• -... ; r• : : ----- ---__ ..., i • :., . • 'L.) ...., I I : .•. •--........_..._..................... 1 N.. ......., ... ' •:.:.." f 1 if I : .., 1 1 Z '1 <X L, i f : : ; c...•-• NI I CI- / i -, -r-------"..--...if f ---...... .• I I . I f f . \-2---_. ......„..., 1 w 1 , PLANE ,,ANGAR 1 s.. . ,.. 1}— I I: ) A , , 1-- ,,., . E V) q i i _, v) , 1 ,--- _•1-71 0 -----------e-.-.-•---"-------------- ..,,--____--1:2--y—: "-- ' • 1 - -------- --,.. .41.-474.-:". --.---.-_—____--- ..c- '----------.4;:-.:,--7. - - ...a....pii«...-_-_,..-qii,;;2M7rwrava-- ,,--.41-_-_,.._ ____-_•-- -.- .._,..... ,..., r = 1 _ - - ----• ....,_---..f....-.3- . ., L 30+60-- LEVEE TYPE III L _kl 25+00 t-- i 1 ALL TYPE II ...._,.... -----„--, a 1 , .! < m 1 L 35+00- - 35+00 -----. 1 ! ! I 1......_ A-,ts I CEDAR RIVER FLOW FLOODWALL , I --1--- ----______________ -. CLOSURE STRUCTURE - . ... ----,-----------________ LEVEE TYPE I __,...„ ______ ei-\‘' tfp.- - --...N;;;=--• I .........--,.-s-..--z'... ..:-..- .' "r---a. ..-•••••?'"'"e".... ......... r--.7 ;.,• •........." .. --- - .....-7-------------...... ,;..• 1 0 ?- - •-• ....<diegli . .-.1----7%,...., .7........„..../ :i. .-------------, ... ; .. 1 \_ ' ..... ------.. -. -.•• %.•\ ,-4...,.... -.., ' . r ,..._..-." s. . : D.. :. •-•- .---a---Z".• s„,--!--+%------,x ....27._kzi___,.... .... . ,.........4....... •.. . ',... .----- _, -64 -S"...Iii...- -vv.-..r.. if ...," • ----...... .-, "..-• 7.- Ths;•___ , -, \ Acci 1........, t 1-::">"!"- } ousio -.--. . _____--- ---- _e:7 --,-,,.. ..-• (--'' .--N-\ . -.N'. ' ')`• '1. ? . ) - ...J.. 2.• ...... . ...----.."-..'1 "*..a". .. .......,--=------1:-----__ . •.-C . . . \ , , ., , •------<- .. -. „.___. \ NI -----_____ --...---- -r -- Illk:,:•:•:•:,.:•:4,:e; ' ----- ---. ..z,,,:,---__."7....„..„„wrzsaa' lanwi _. • ,,-- Th, ' I ,..--- --) .- 1 E dri • . ''''''... .-'......----`-'s, '‘...%.. -.'-' ._ '..\ N '' I 1.i ...... `'' '''''.... ....-...T.,:r..••••--- --""'W--.- , ! . • % ....‘ 1"7".:,:•••••7...", ' ...'" •••••• ....---.'-',..., ......"""••••••... ..*".......t...... • . . •••'? " ......e....., • . ..., N.....1.. t" .......7............7=. ....... - . . ....... • .'.. .401 111 , ' ----- . --... . .=.a.•"" ..........4.4:/ A .• I ..-----.••••-..................._._.... Is ..... •••••• ........ -.• ....;:rs, • .." I.:, - .. i g, ,-; eja ft.. 1 sf"• 1...* %.. J ---- -3,""--r- I=T--• , - •Nr ........ , , ..---- „----,... (--____: ril 1-.___.c-- cy,„______,,..: ,_ ,..f ......"' ....ij. r. „ . • 14' • .. • .. I...1.W%..t.1 i .............s............<7."........_.......---- ..•••• .......................1....„... . ..._..... ... • -i ?•-••-". . k. .J ... 1,. _ ;...." ::- x• •.. I _e,.' '--.:--...-____/.............. "--•-•.- --- - — -=-.---.„„ - ." -71--- : ‘, •••-...-r.--,---__/*•-. .- ..""•--.. -------..______.7 --."----,„• _ •_:_-..,:.-..---" ^crcl tii - e's II i e's I I .---- 1 1 .. i 1 1.2%........." ..• eil IE1 I .- 1 : : if i l• - • • : . ji, . . . . ..f. ''''..i..-!-F1 TY •:,. 1 ! 0 ! ! (Q -.. I• i i I \,....._ I f -__ -------_____ ---.."--._•z•-_______ .... _F-••••-....... ----73 1 3:••••:-..--.. ....,,, _ __ • i________________-----------__ __________:_- ... ...... ....... -......,_....... i ........ ---------...___ -__ ----...„- --,....---- --s.,,_ ,..,____, .,,_..i. ....__,21:1,.... -- - - • . 4- s...m...-- • ' % s..... ./.4...!.....L.2.... ‘....''6..•'.. —. —. —. — .— ....- — -..... ...... —. ...... — ...... —-.-------I.-'---- —.7.---..-- ---...---=..71 i -_ ....._ : '''.--..-"-••••.. ....... ..... ..- i•-••••-'----.--...........s.---"..-.....-.---.....L.... ........... ..........'4...---" -...__ ....- ' *--- *-- '"'"""." "----- .• -------1 --..—..-•-•--:-------••-•-.1 1 r— .--'.---.. ..,•.--... •----..'>'+-Z.'s.-- "•••• ,.. . ,..,....".•.-..... ".---. \i %.-i I i ..1"'••••-../ . ,-- ___.....r .---`--..---------------------- •• • r- ! ..---•• ,----> f _ -----IF...7-.,.,- .,_ ----z:ii::::„.--,......._ --„, --(.1s- i .._....,(Z,, ''.. _ 1 I . t .-,..„,..10. -- ' 1 • • t , i t I i•-'7 ` - . . ' I' • t......4 I 100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1 I" = 100' 1 H 1-11-11-i I-1 1 1 1 1 v----. 'r41 I U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE LI CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1 1 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 1 . .I FIGURE 7 (CONT.) SHEET-2 1 1 ' 1,s CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON Li • SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO. PLATE I B C1.2 1 1• DSCN: BRANDT CHK: SHEET I • 1 DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 13-MAR-1997 14:10 DESIGN FILE: I:seclesignstscr fcsociv/cr_clpr2.c1cln • SCALE: I " . 100' 1 . t • - ,r3 , 1 ...4 ird 'ace ._ . I I ..• 1 i-, , . ! ! 1",,:.;..::•;:•:',:.": . -,...:•.'7"-:;fr_-:,----..".•••s;;;;---"•--__. '''a.. ..: VI i .--. f'-- --g -E •:-..;•: • - --:::::-:.--.° ----..._ •./1 I i 1 i- ,--,-- : ------ • .--i i : ar------ . -"•-• ........,_ ........, El z ti-- --1----- i .."-------------- <7,-1.7:-;----• ' .-"" . . C:7 ii ; ii 1 i I ..............-- ..7-._zzi • -------- ------- i ., .. ---: \•••••• ••" .k•-1 -;-........ ----.E__ •.• -- if Ei Z i •-1-... ••g 1-</ i \ - ',.`..• <if --. I .° i"---- .....••", "--. i'-.....--; .... I..... E a"-- ..... .....---------i.. .......... .. _-...•••".- ---... .±: I 1.--".... 1 ••• „ ., . _..: ... .7-----g-,:-. 7— " ""----......4 .•" If i i :• : . VE :.•:s- -- i I z '---'..-:---, COMP. SS.:-POSE.----:::;•>-- < I fa_r . -------L.--- f---t--- ; -----t..---- ---.;,---:--- _ 1---- 1._ '' ----Z----:-------.1 :._ ,i g • 1 ..:. - : i I .--- . /1 t ---.--__ J ---i•---.... "-.5--.-- i::::;777---- ...--11--••••-- .' :: : I: .. CLOSURE STRUCTURE :: : :. .. .. : .,.. a 1 , ;E *--...2--.......... 0," I Z • : E s: i 0- •-•--. .- '.--..„ .....?"--f---- i '-- 1.:.--i..___. '...11 )1 ..-'• , I S E I 1 1 I • if i -....4.,.......---v i „•••• .....--.L.,-------=,„-.....,.. -AL ...(1//1 .-1.---Z.1 I:i\•:.- P 1--........."...a-a---------------r............ a"-------._....- . '''''....---"*".. •• ..--- 1 ........._.-- •,.. .. < i ‘...-----,........... i lil I •• • : i i i .? I 12 !---- -• r-, : p :. F"' 1 ..%---------•{4.) ...7 / / Z i . 1 .! i..": r••••••".......1 --------4- ..,. 11)I ----<4=-.------------..Ei.I•:•.:4:-.:--,,--------.- ----.11 . . .. .. / • • . •• - ': • 2 ." ' S - - -- L • : .......* .....- -:,....."-L-....-_— „,"------,--•-- .--a.ata--:. "---. -.. -a.a: ' ---------..........: .....-..........._...............„... V) Z.------::::-:" -4...1,:.,-(Si.,11::1" I.ZI.....!Zta:;...r.-71.4`.;;;I%-"•*;:f."-=:1 I 0 I ......._..----- , --- ; REFACTG f 0112: t . "'"RE:-..1c ..1_, . - -R0,4-07:- c ---------------_-. =---____--. . ., . - 1 — — .....- ,.....---...-______,_.--- ------„,-- • ..-- •• ---,--.._:r3_______,.....____,....___---4,--_ „:„..7„........._,......__---:-.-_:::„ v.,,,,,........,.. ;-__.--i---...-_--- .:::::.'' ---.....:_:___._---_.sr-c7---,--,....___._._:--t---1.__-,------_----:-----..--_........_-2_-:-______.2-------:------ -...____---------______._____---„_-------„,____,—_,-_-__-..,_..- - -....„ -----:-- .-,........— - .„----...,_-,..-- • --„„.....----,......._—_-_.„.....--•-: •-•:-_,:.— • _ . 1 ..• --,,,?..„.„..„,,,, ____..._..— _........,::::=___-,- - ...--, ... ...._ _• • ,..„... , ---„.......„ -,......,...........----- • L 45+001 LEVEE TYPE I L 40+00 I< 1 -H SOUTH : M• 1 6-.•1 CEDAR RIVER BOO NG I : I . I i I EVEE TYPE II R• fl 45+00 1 FLOODWALL TYPE I R 40+00 ;,-....„.. i ...-----st.,<•=1 ....=-----,.,,,=.„. ..,.„„....,,,,____ ....,_:. .,,r,„.....,„ = .,.._ ..--:_.=T-2•.=•.-4==,---:-..----........,-- ----...__:__.--- -----------,.I ,,,:-._... ... ,,,;;;,„„,,,,,,,...,44,7..,_,:.?-:-..-=•-----„.,,,i , ....--.......,....... __.. . z ....._,;,,-...,„,,,,_--••-•:::-.- -...,.._--- _____-----7,----1.9...-g-------', -,. ....:_____...--v-----------. w.- -,=-.-----/------- -------------•--,-...,----- . -....1.. „.,.. ,.._. ,n ____........ .._____ ....._.....,- :„.._,............. .. ._4... ....t....... ... . i. ...,zt.,..............., ______=___........__. :.....::::."2.............. .....7......--__ :::::•=-11...--.r" ....., ---- --C4re„CEE:::,...,-='—' -::::'-'7,_',.•"'"` .•••••‘,.,...: 1 , Ek....„). - •-----_____., r----- r •'' ...--- •-•-•—• ....Z.:. .•••••-4._--:,-.---.--.—"'• ..----^" **--.>"-----? ..---- ......,•••"--.4%. e•-•-.....*\,.............,__, _... i ''',.. ' '',.. •....... --rd- - .:...a:-...-;__. , . ....=4,-......'.. — "'".n- •••"**--.."-......4,,,z.:,,,.„ 4-44 I .... ---,... ---'---e• , - '"••••••--L,.......... — -.2%_.-.....=. - ..— -:"±--",....„-.7::::: -.-. 1...—.-...---" . 1,-_A_•..7:,.. .- ____...........__, . . , __..,--,..._____. ....z.,, ...__ ,. ._..j., . ...., ..,. ,.......,.....t.. ..-• ......, _— / ,1 ...... — ---1 -...-" -- N,,,.i. 11:7--.... -7:7'17-- \V— 7..-1,17,-; — It:."-- ---47:7'?"7"°- is-7,2-1.'"'-..-. ..,7, ,-,----:-...7—1.-..7-..-7-t --•— ----..._. '''_...... .), —.... Pj ::::•--.7---, — ----'- -:::"---77*--_,:kts--5 ?-- %-::-.4 7........4„,..% ' —-,.=-=-- -_ '''',‘• 's_s_ ...,,,_.,— —____"---_—__-- ---.Ald-'d..---....:_•••,..-------7,'"'"-- • .."-: 1 .,.. , • ••••••4."..."......1 ''' ..--•........,,..,... • ....- '.1. .... ...,/ '.. ...... .. .••••••••........._ '... ••' --.- it.........---........-.,--.....--- ,....._____4,......,..,...u.......,-.......- --.........--, , i .r...."---",-- ri,.., , I ,....., ....: .... ;,.... ,--...-:-... ,:s.1.-.=,..',............-,------,-:,,.....- I '.. Cis•-.. - : .<.:::-...---7.---------------------- -...... --"( ': r-------,•% :-...-------.. "... •••-•;."-",•':.•"*-"Nj."--.:--"-F ../ 1 `--------._-------... --------------------Z.-Z-- 1--""--',:i,..--------K.L.i.....-.::.44-1--s-•••••-,-.<14,::•---,....----,..: E: ....'"*._ ..4-.......k/f .-...... Z-r--..... i i ,,-- *-----e : •••••._, .1. •-.....-- •••. I • ,....,.. iEEEE::i iiiiinrit .-". e i •I ;1.. 10V-5 -.—,-.-. — = ------ '-, : q 1 ,. :-.....s.s.s.,.•• s•-• • -,, 1::::ZZE i. 1.-.:.:-:"--, lit i .".., ... ••• ....--------- .., 4! - " F.i ?----- .._....."--- ••••••••••-7.-1/llif iiihil',ISS ..: - •••---.7:----'%:- ......- ..". ' ; : i.„ E 1 „. ...."' ..---*----• !------"„1 i E.:F. .I /t•-\''..k".•/•,..„,:----ki---- — — ..r--- — — --- .......------'•••-„„.i. Iff.iiu i ", ..---"'•-• \ „.. "... : : . : : ,,,,1• 4.-.1.,..--..jA—•____ : i -•1 Z "-"C-.:-----......... ‘ , : : .: < ,-,-, : ?"-.....4;...........----,„..-. .-:-..,-7.-., ..... ---- --- 1 CLP.SURE STRUCTUREITh /i ....: N. ..------------.\ : , , , -:: , • !----•--- • t I ii IWN-....f-1-‘-k. --s-----4.„----,..._.::-------___-.---- -___I 1 • ----1 • .•• --. :-: E L.: , i I - • : : :: ..,,r ,, if t... Y. ,... , ....,-...... ''',..- I !Visnif ' ,k---41* ‘' . - 1 !-- // -.. ..„,- : ---... 1 I :::::: :::::: :::... sii.„„s: _• -,: : ‘. - , --_.. \''.1 : 1 / 1111:7:-'":"Ii liti-/-‘ fT . . - .• :: ..--. 1, 0 s. reig \ --... / s7",...... i ''...r...j I .-.::Z:Z‘r:-Z-,N.:;:.'X lifliM iir ..-. . ,....... •-..... -- ii i 1 --..... i : I i i;;-----1 i )7 f • • ir i i g - - - - -I / I I I ', I : • ' I Z.,17.1 .-.', az1 ' I ' I . • . - 1 . • . .. - 1 1 ..,„, • - • 1 . 1 i 100' 50' 0 100' 200' 1 I" = 100' 1 H H 1-1 H F-1 I I i Izi , 1 1 1 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE 1 _ _1 1 1 - CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 I FIGURE 7 (CONT.) . rt.., SHEET-3 1!,-• •-:. CEDAR RIVER WASHINGTON i SIZE INVITATION NO. FILE NO- icpLATE 1 B 3 1 1 DSCN: BRANDT I CHK: I • 1 I . • I SHEET I -m- DATE AND TIME PL 077ED: 13-MAR-I997 I4:12 DESIGN FILE: I:0de gnsolcr f csacivOcr_dpr 3.dgn I SCALE: I - : MO' ' . -,- . ...._...........,...._. .. .. . . . .... - ... . - .. . ... • .... .......,1. ...„....-..t - i..;.- ....,1 ...... .. . • •. . ..,"t * 1.................. ....... • :y.' :'.... 0 t/ C 11111 .... , • `19/................' ' CZ),I ...;;,,, .... ....• "4 ‹r_., //...• ":.:. ...„ ... .-.1, 1 --‘r...'11:•::....-74::•• emia // „„...........):1•4 -.',..:...- :., O ..) Alir". ••••••••--. ,.... . , ..- / i .0.0. .....oi• O ' -...I 14"..••• 7.'• ......0"••*""'"•"ar.'... . Z .s-,.,./.. "4... ,.., yet:"... ( ...1.•............ MIu>,/i.c/„)/,e,,.r 1 •$,0,-;44„,:. • .,,, /\ - .,,./- f.--.N.;../././ ft.,,,/\ ,r1\ / 1 I / • /..../..' / \\/ 4,.. \ -...... / i 1,..• , ir.,.....„.... . ..\\, \ ...) 1 .....,..7 - /....\\(::::), ..........\\„....•))) \..„, / I/ / .:: :, . . . • i//./ . i've".r... ,./ . • , • . . • • • .,(///4 .• .. ;'' "//f""/\/ l it • •.- .. rrt, • / I. /(/f (•••••• • \ \• A \ •./' / \\... ...........••••••• ••,'" N.. \.4)11°•••,,. 7.." . , /17 / \"'S'S. s...,,, IT, ......"...............................-............................. ....1) //7 *'..410 I •' • () \':,1... ". \\\ ? ' /- • O / i ••'." .N.` • (S, \ * • .. Is ..4 ..• ;...:iV:. ' 23.... i i 4, .5..;'''''.. ..1 5 i ..,, 0 • O \ /......./....fr.:.. ','......,:i....\\N„,..... •'1,,..s..1 1( ' CIPI‘\.,\4\,: '"...".."....." •••••''. 4..., A ?J.•4.......Lg i; 1::,...... 1.. ...... ••.. . gl-a . • t / / "• • 1, .,..; \\,. ),, i ..‘i.) \N.-, ... r.. O / . / ''.. .\ik Vk ‘‘).1 ' '..8. \:"" ....e... •\ .4 .4 \ \ ..4;........"., • \ ''...‘ 4 <`), ' • qi),\ \ .. '../111........"...:.' - \\ +W\ \„ ‘ . ). ..,.i.. \\.,,,\. ..k,\ i .1,, • .'i•ks\',\ '')0 ; -." ....;::,,q \N:>•••••..\\. '') \6 .i c.-, , • .., ....,,,\ ... , k I ‘‘• ?"......' ...".".\ \\ i......N\ N• e 11 Ok• 4 \ \\ Al '1* . ..." . .....',.. • ....\\ vts, ),,, ,...... ,1/4„,, ....\ r N \ \'''' i2 ........•":::.......• .. ....\, \;61., •••I 114/.. % ••,\ ..'\ ei •\‘.‘,.\ . ...5 .....,.. \,.. ....\\\,,, 1 .0. • •A ( ii.,1,... ‘• ./.... ,.0 .4 ...,....• \ 4' 1% \ el ••• ) .. IP \ \ .S....../ ...,..‹. .., .....„......3\\..: - \..... .\1) ee ...........4',.. ••\,..••• ..,. .`,,,...... \ §: • /17)., ..A,... \ ••"" .,\...r ... .... ., .."." :N":•....... ‘ Azi.... .7.... .tr, '1) ?\:;:.\-:;:'.\04 1 \ •.ti ' '' 4 ,....z...1 %. .N...,::., 1,‘•., ) .••.....A • \ , .....\......s \ ,:,•••...., . . r.- .......\-:„.. •\\.1 . ... ......., - ."-c:. .- I • \ \ ) ......... ...... , ‘.... 4•L .....::::•:. '\\' - \ \\I irlo• ..%,\ .I. \ \ ......4 ... ••• ....•••• '........, ..,,.,.. •"......* "... ............. ••••••..".',.4......)\ . .'".il •::,..:•.•' 1. i - . • ) \ .......••• i ....I\\,......., 1\\)).) .. ...',..,:.1. ' 11 ..1"1 „......:• .... ....... t., ‘i, . • r. • / 4/1 F. ......... . .\ m".,...... \ * •c• ‘. ma 1 a "..*.....7•1• Ak\\%. \ . p, ) : O . -I • CT . \:.1 .".":4 (1 • S ‘...... ...." ,.. , n . • ........ '-i' .......... ..1 ‘,. ' \ 1 • ‘11 "3 t•e."•\ .""4:::. \ \V • i \ 1)) \ \ 4MM ..( t 7:.....•• ( \„1•1 XJ'a 4 • i 1"i\ °":::. N..".1'11.1 ‘le'llk ..\\1/41 ?\:•:,:fIi::.,\k‘,.,...................... t , .2 .0 a vs vl n II 1 t Ak.. . .. m 0 • ) > — • 03 Xi X 0 /// ''.1 .:.....:.. 0. 1 . w ')) > Z 1-ri 0 ) z ... . t.t11.4...1..*14.......7.'.:......;" - 1-:7 )• • - S \I I NI I 1 i 0 — — 1 st \ i zitill --I V < -......- ................. ( t — I I : s.,. i .4 M 3 tk\ ) 1 n zc-5 . 0 4:44:.,. iiv.z............".(....,..r4::::.:::::..7..4:..":".......:...%E--.:::.•••••:..".. ..."C14 • 1.----s = .c .. 4' z P PI ., \ › .8 . . j.....-1.1:-.......:: ............. • ,\) \,, ....„. \ ,..-7--_,...„.., . .........., 2 .......7.....::"...:.::".. `:•..... \ i P Cn Di T 0 -9- • m ' , m rTI i \i •••I En> Z 7° (I' 0 a (. ) I ••••1j...1.111.1.111\ i i 44i 2 z TA ‘. 1 1\tfi \ ( 11 .k. rn 0 M 0 . • rn Z:',?-.1ti...It:V.4.. • •::,'-z4,,N."::::;•••••••:.--10.1"•-• —4 '11.;!"..... 1;7., ".‘ 1 11 , ..— it • In Z % '---0 I I li A 4,,,,.. .,•,:g.i::0 ,..,,, I it- ... i I / - 0 • e I 7777-ti .li i D " * • ‘ 1 i il "•.....4. ••:•-•;,.....i. 1. 1 . I e ...., 8. 4/ VI rn 1 I / 1 I / i 2 1, w1...f..) i g t c(1 I Ttil"/\;...1 // ' z— ( I/ fi' 1) ° 1 il ' I ki /.7".F .. (i . • 1 1 \ <, .b. m Z — — II C.. 1 .... 'AI \I ' • % . 1.— ..... —, —.CI— 1 1 • 1-11,1\ I i 1 I Li . . MATCH TO SITE PLAN 3 .. . . . • . . . .- .. -. •. .1 Z La in b 0— 01-- 6_, (-) c., z ; -±- its < o ) . al 0_ J ..... I.: Z 4 LAJ V*1 F2 im 0 w • I-•IM x •. CA Z Z vi 0 0:nt ILO ad Z 44 I . . i• -4 It) . 11.1 . tp .1 IA LU z 1.1.1 c4 T >-0 ul CO La -.1 ..... I in • i _u-- -,.. D z x u / b -L 0— z CC o W P. iliv — —. _ I- 0 , .,, • b cc > . z . < /I \.-::.,,...... /. 5 II u ( -• 1" • / 'AP . .1 .. I — V L ',..1. / .. 14,,,.."- it); k: ) , /...........„ • 0 ••••.. . • / • u .., i • 4/ N. • • k \ /// „.....\:,:,, , , .:....,.. ,,-.,.--• .6 . .....A r-/ i co tk ••:•.';:4ii.:ii:::••••••••••'................ I" . .. ii • •, , • ..y /.., - :::::,,,,..›.,.....:,. \ \ , w.. ( ... ....,‘ A) , ,1 //./' ,..\9./.• ''',.\5.1.::::1.• ,.., .,...., , L7 i L..., .-/...r,.\ .......-" ••\ \. • \ , \ ii i / • ......:''''..t.. ..), ‘...\. ‘ / \ \......\,....,"':50:'.".. . . ..././..../i............•`• \\ 'k.'..... NY \ ....."\_,./ ..„. / \\ ,.:\ s.• • , ,.... ., .... ......, -...„... • ....... .... cv y / 1 ,........ ...........,.. Is!:•./ '''" ‘..kr\ \ ••• .",....N \\ .../....... ....,. •••••............. // / l()/ .:.\ ,?'..^,;;:." ,k• ..‘ \1 ...,..,7 .: ". \ "1 48\ ) \gCl° 3 3 n ) ID V. . Ate:.•''''' iii 4........"••••...t 1 ..t..4. ••• e • / . .. ..:. _ ., N. \ \ ,> \.. •;.;.......... \'1/4) • ‘.../ ........ , . • /.171.1 ./ 28 . (...),...'•,\ cf- \ \\. .....,:l.,.. r• ...... ,... .. cr, cn ,\•••• v> ; *. f.....\\..,,, \\., 0 \ ..; \ ...\\ .. ..,....,„...„..„. . 3 3 3 ,.... i il 2 9 r;"-- .../ .....\ ,/ \ :: l„..,„:)...\ \ .• ,, P\:,, I .. • < / ‘ 7 \ \\-\ )..N • ,4. \.. \.\*.\, ...If: , ..,./ ,/...\ \\ i \\ %\c`,-\'' '''..; e• N.;'(' \. \,‘ 1...1 I.- if \.., ....,.., - o I \.....•\... O.\\ ••'‘•• C \'''\ i \ ‘,.. •10.406 .e \\X \\ 3..., ( m ;..- .21 / / • \ •.,- \ o k, •k• .,...\ u 2 , . i / \ ("'N-....?:e to x:•<\\:. ,,,.....1... • iI , ••••... 1 / \.... -..... \\ • N, \ / ,,,N). .. . . • , i ....• .„... ..„,, e ,...,.. c.) \ \ \ \.x. / „,„,/,,,.. ../ .....„... ........1. /‘......: \ \ .......... \\\• 1 ill i \\\\(.... :±: .....\-\ .,v1... i • , ) ) .......„...1 I I \ s .\.:\,N,„)• i - •\\. -'v \,,,\\?i).,/ 's?'(cAl...<1,..„.::-\\ ' I/ I 1 7----N, ,..:.:....:•1::;\ •...././..:................................................r\...,...%',...,'...,\..,.:•.\•„.\••\•........\......1\....:•\•‘....'........"‘:•:\\::(‘''‘1..:.;::;;:1:‘....":::'\:.*:%.*:‘!..(:\'(i....7".:1.7......f...'.:/:. . //:"1\1..\:"////:::<.N/1::::;:171: :i% • - - \:.! \ . \........ ....................................... .................................dif (r"4::::x7 \ " -.• \ /1,1 // \ ,,. %•••. .,:...... ,VA' /,././ \ / \t,,.../. t rol. i 1.6 7 • 9 % . ...................... 0 ....... • ... , 1 0 1110 ......... C: :IP 1 0 , LIN . • •;:„.., -•,••:,.. . , . . .....,,,, • • ',. • •-- -- Mr" ',‘ -..' l'.......- r'''.Y. ' -';"-,•-•,‘ t': • - ,'- -- - 00,• --- - . --- L.L:.. AI., , IL; 1 ;. - , "'•.• ... . f•31' ! gg , in'' __ __1 r' _ C"--1.__:-: -, 1 1 , 1 1 . I I • I E ALIGNMENT I ' I ' I L 5' 1 L 5' >>_ I • ' l I AND SEED NG OIL 1 I LEVEE EMBANKMENT I EXISTING GROUND I MATERIAL II l SURFACE 2 2 wA i I I . 1 STRIP 6' AND REMOVE 1 UNSATISFACTORY MATERIAL 1 ' LEVEE TYPE I NOT TO SCALE• • 1 I -_.i 1 t - t ALIGNMENT I • 1 4' ' 4' I.5' 1 AND MIN. SEEDIINGOIL I I' 1 3' AC PAVEMENT 1 4' GRAVEL BASE 3 LEVEE EMBANKMENT 1I 1 �"4ar MATERIAL • J t -/.`.` I STRIP 6' AND REMOVE { • - UNSATISFACTORY MATERIAL LEVEE TYPE II NOT TO SCALE I • I E ALIGNMENT J I IB' MIN. ROCK I 1 SLOPE PROTECTION RIVER SIDE I.5' 1 AND SEEDONGOIL AIRPORT SIDE . -- I 4 II LEVEE EMBANKMENT I 5' ra, 2 MATERIAL • I STRIP 6' AND REMOVE , 7 , . • UNSAT ISFACTORY.'MATERIAL • : i I . LEVEE TYPE III • NOT TO SCALE • FIGURE 8 . • TYPICAL LEVEE SECTIONS / t I / I 1 ' v--E • XISTING TREES I• I I I 1 I • E Ar!GNIIENT - 1 I I STEEL CHANNEL . \� I I I 1 1 •� -�1 I / I I�-� 1 I I 1 I I . I I I 1 1 I 1 I l 1 I EXISTING AC ROAD ;`+' I 1_ �1 j I EXISTING GROUND LINE STEEL SHEETPILE i I. I FLOODWALL TYPE NOT TO SCALE 1 E ALIGNµENT I STEEL CHANNEL 1 • U STEEL SHEETPILE 1 TOPSOIL AND SEEDING OVER RIPRAP --I • -5-1I • -- I • 1 EXISTING •••„o, GROUND LINE . WRAP SPLASH APRON 1 FLOODWALL TYPE II NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 9 , TYPICAL FLOODWALL SECTIONS - f • • -�--�:.—`� •.��-• 5yi^ `':: i-ter +s:..:.:•.•._.k+...... —• nk .. }• w:it -- 7•Y� }'fcY T�1t_i..=[YI^' } ��^ ,15. % Pn�`:�F:l«..•i.:'l1.%L�-.l.'JY•'µ rrlcl•F.' ,....1.:::_-_ /\/Al g z . : , - \ r _ ;,, ..v . ' ,. ;._. , . t. LLL. i., . : ,....tv-..... . .., . I{ t .tom- Ju .� • t _ �.. 1 •. . - •.^y ' • fi-yiy�,i::_�,.w.v'7 •�,...�• ,� • .t .••••:=. •.' r%'�f= �Tr.�sLL� •I �+.L' ,r•i• i� �' •tom.•.. L •.' ••• t_-•• ... • • • • (from Manitowoc) FIGURE 10: Barge mounted clamshell dredge. "__i. ` mac -;L -....,,,, ,.......yA;tt\ • • ;. ) ---•••-, .. '\ • • • _ H.• ,ter, . -_,„,.:-- . ..-..,-.,... ,-... . .. , • ,.. --... '- .. . -______::.,.., 70- 0'"--- :- . ....,,,,, ,,„,..-- . :.,....-.,,-...4t,„.•;;;:;.----... G. of• • y-✓ •�. •..A r r • • - n it . • • �.._. .4•-'.4 . • . -. • 5. - A - :'c r �• . -./�'4 -Liri;4:;:... _-3L&/!fat � . r ]`_ to•I,C : <-.•!- ' w FIGURE 11: Excavator. 25 1 /AFRAME q „ , . --: DISCHARGE LINE 1 API ma 1 . A 0 v ri I ....-.-gi R.SPUD - _ _ LADDER i v ' ',//q CUTTERHEAD I • FIGURE 12: Hydraulic pipeline cutterhead dredge. ' 2.2.6.2 Hydraulic Suction Dredging of Fine Materials In the lower 2000 feet (606 m) of the river, the sediment is likely small enough (silts,. . sands and small/medium gravel) to be able to use a hydraulic suction dredge to pump the material onto the park or onto a barge anchored outside of the delta (see Figure , 12). This method would likely be very rapid (several thousand cubic yards per day dredged) and would be suitable for transporting fine materials to the Elliott Bay PSDDA site, or for resale. 2.2.6.3 Divert River Flow for Removal of Dry Material This method would place fill material (likely gravel from gravel bars) in the center of the channel with a coffer dam (probably an inflatable water bag) at both the upstream and downstream portions of the dredging area to allow material to be dredged in the dry without fine materials washing into the river (see Figure 11). Actual dredging could be accomplished by an excavator. The river flow would be diverted around the dredging 9 9 area by the coffer dams. All heavy equipment would be driven on top of the gravel , berm in the center of the river, to avoid pollutants washing off the machinery in the river. Material should not need dewatering, but may be stockpiled temporarily before rehandling to trucks for transport to upland disposal site. 2.2.7 Disposal Site for Dredged Material All dredging options will likely utilize the Narco site immediately upstream of 1-405 on the left bank of the river to place dredged material (see Figure 13). This site was formerly an industrial facility and the existing site has concrete/asphalt over much of the — site with grass and other natural vegetation along the river bank. This location requires a truck haul of approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 km) from the Cedar River Trail Park entrance. This site will be available for approximately 20 years following initial construction and can be used to temporarily store material from maintenance dredging. . r 26 . The City of Renton may pursue the sale of the material to private entities, such as the Port of Seattle or other developers in the Lake Washington basin. Final disposition of } the material will,be in accordance with appropriate planning and regulatory procedures. It is possible that Renton may wish to send some of the clean, fine material to the PSDDA site in Elliott Bay because it may not be usable. If sediment is rehandled.or pumped onto a barge., the barge(s) will need access to a point close enough to the river or park to enable material to be either conveyed on a conveyor belt or by some other method. The north Boeing bridge effectively restricts access to the river and the delta is generally too shallow for barge access. Because the delta does not need to be dredged'for flood control, any dredging of the delta for other purposes would require a permit process outside of this flood control project. A barge could be moored close enough to the Boeing property without dredging, to allow a hydraulic pump, conveyor belt or temporary dock structure to be utilized to rehandle all sediment to the barge(s). All sediment will be tested for contaminants and its • suitability for either openwater or upland disposal. • • R:9 ;%1 g 27 • } • �./��. #::;i: n'!.b LI g G:}li/ it y {ylrV • .yi 1ti. >::>f»:�...:. a �' il to'. 1 i In CO 7. „.::,„,,,,,,:,.,:,,„:„...,. , : .. � - Irr1-1 (" : * 4ti::' cf rlf`k:* , G7a xxMI .11-Jul Iiiiii:MR•ie-:i. " IF/ 1131 I fi`1 ‘tk • b � ai �•,v , J11 tj 11$Ili ; g :.510-* . p ,: p.m �� ,oa —171.--...!:1,i;:i.?:1 i.iii'D.Ii:Kr• ti* Ili,* TM 11111 170111 I '1:k'cr V:ii§.-•ift:::1, 111 IffilLii _ `4"41111 wilk__ _iiilt -- , tl'a li.::51.1.1.1.6n1 MI V , -\-. e4;,, silo ........... 5,,, ni tit IS! il 1657 1 i i ill:iii V1?.;".i.U.'' ° to 128TH kw .,.....„:„.„ „.... . .....,.. ..:.: „:„./go ., ,,,...„ ... .. : . NI 1 TILLIn ..41, ..0. ..::. 4114_ _i,,,i, A4 4 i ..:,..x.•,,,.... .,,s.,:: 11 oZ--.' a ' ‘‘.061.; /,-,0 11) „........ -17 ill . 132ND ilr 2 )7 3 2 a n ti..:. Iimi .:0 .!" ..,..,@....1,# . pi i in lit 1 .,,,,,,,.,:...:..:,::.,. „di..., ,...,::::.:...., , , ..„, :,,:.:,::,„„,:::::, , .0 si ....e.o, •:.,..„,g,:„„, rn Vii ..r,.c:,i4,,;;..,;" 1 liILp 4.::,:,::.,:::„-6,:..w4,.- s: J, 1E1 i1 n _ ....\7br1'_ r_., s . -:•4*****.*:::"::::;:'. "%:,."., ..•i4 ,,, „4000,,,-, II /rrp �d RENTON VIL. � '1 / • .� Y `. I 1 4 Shill "! 4' SfinL Q % f: ;%i� ` i.i... o•:! / tl' i I ' 11, le al 1 ,q1;/,:;37;//4 V5.j'ee '';;;;.:.„,„„,., 0 Wili ' — c 1 s` > � '7 /i5;• .,-.'LDS 01994 Thomas Bros. Maps FIGURE 13: LOCATION OF NARCO SITE ..I • I_ 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEDIMENTS 3.1.1 Geology.. The Cedar River basin extends from the crest of the Cascade Mountains down to Lake Washington. The eastern portion of the basin begins in the southern Washington Cascades physiographic province, as characterized by Franklin and Dymess (1973). This bedrock of the province is primarily igneous, although some sedimentary rocks are present. The age of the bedrock is=primarily Eocene epoch'(approximately 40 million years old) or younger. Some of the • sedimentary bedrock contains significant coal deposits which were mined in the last century. Glacial activity has been extensive in the region and most of the bedrock is buried under extensive layers of glacial till, glacial outwash and glaciolacustrine '-a deposits. Geologists have hypothesized that an ancestral Cedar River flowed into the Snoqualmie River basin prior to the most recent glaciation because the Snoqualmie drainage is currently blocked from the Cedar by a glacial moraine, not bedrock (USACOE, 1979). The Cedar River flows out of the Cascades and.into the Puget Trough physiographic province. The long southeast-northwest river valleys such as the Cedar River and Green River basins were shaped by glacial lobes extending from the north. Glacial ice occupied the Puget Lowland and Cascades many times during the last million years. The most recent ice-sheet to advance occurred about 15,000 years ago; the Vashon glaciation. As the ice receded, glacial outwash was deposited in many areas. These deposits are sands and gravels over glacial till and are exposed in the _f_, valley walls along much of the main Cedar River valley. The modern Cedar River valley was scoured during the draining of the glacial Lake Russell as the ice melted, creating a steepwalled and narrow valley. The modern Cedar River has meandered back and forth through its floodplain and obliterated most remnants of the initial incision of the valley. • The existing valley and the broad flat floodplain which the City of Renton is built on consist largely of alluvial deposits from the river, and some lacustrine sediments. The lower 1.5 miles (2.4 km) of the river existed only as an overflow channel during flood events in pre-settlement times. As described in the introduction, the Cedar River formerly flowed into the Black River which was the outlet for Lake Washington and then into the Duwamish River which flows into southern Elliott Bay. Prior to development, the floodplain where the•Cityof Renton now exists was a large expanse of wetland that seasonally flooded from Lake Washington. In 1912, the channel to connect the Cedar River to Lake Washington was dredged and the Ship Canal lowered the lake by 9 feet (2.7 m). ' 3.1-.2 Soils/Topography. The soils surrounding the project area are largely fill material placed in the former wetlands of the Black River and shallow Lake 29 Washington waters. The soil is designated urban on the King County Soil Survey (USDA, 1973) and soil boring information on the Boeing property.indicates that , approximately the first 5-7 feet (1.5-2.1 m).of soil are fill material consisting of sands gip; and silts. Beneath the fill material is at least 100 feet (30 m) of interbedded fluvial and lacustrine sediments (Landau Associates, 1989). The river channel banks have been armored with various items such as gabions, wood-paneled flood walls, sand bags, ,. concrete and riprap along much of the lower mile. Many of these protective structures are eroding or otherwise in disrepair. In the project reach, the topography is generally flat, filled floodplain. The adjacent park has some higher mounds, possibly created by sidecast dredged material. Upstream of the project area, the floodplain terrace soils are riverwash gravels, Pilchuck loamy fine sands, and Puyallup fine sandy loam. The steep banks bordering , I the floodplain on most of the river are largely Alderwood and Kitsap soils with slopes • from 25 to 70 percent. These soils formed from glacial deposits under coniferous , -. forest. - 3.1.3 Sediments. The sediments in the river channel have been deposited over many years from upstream sources such as eroding banks. The overall sediment yield of the river has been estimated by King County (1993) to be greater than 65,000 tons of material per year. The finer sediments are likely carried down to the project reach and Lake Washington each season. The coarser gravels and cobbles feet (300 m) peryear. During _ move more slowly down the river on the order of 1,000 flood flows this material is transported much more quickly and may be carried through the project reach to the delta (as was observed in 1995 and 1996). NHC (1992) estimated that 8,000 tons of sediment are deposited annually in the lower 2 miles (3.2 • km) of the river. Hydraulic modelling by the Corps indicates that a range of 0.1-1.0 feet (0.03-0.30 m) of sediment accumulates in the project reach per year. The channel sediments from Logan Avenue to the south Boeing bridge are typically medium gravel with some larger pieces greater than (>) 1.5 inches (37.5 mm) in diameter. Low flows deposit fine materials in this reach during summer and fall. Sediment sampling conducted by the Corps in September 1994 (NHC, 1995) shows that at locations between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge, the sediments are >50% small to large gravel with 17-21%fines (less than 0.03 inches [<0.85mm]). Sediment in the few pools or slower water areas along the banks is typically silt. Below the south Boeing bridge, the center of the channel is mostly small to large gravel, but along the banks there are a few deeper pools under the willows and bank armoring that have mostly sand and silt substrate. From 1000 feet (300 m) above the mouth down to '- the north Boeing bridge the substrate is mostlysmall gravel and sands because of the , backwater influence of Lake Washington. During the high flood flows in November 1995 and February 1996, large gravels were.carried into this lowest reach of the river and out onto the delta. Typical low and medium flows (<2000 cfs) generally bring down _ finer sediments and cover the gravels at the river mouth with sands and silt. 30 ? ( 3.1.4 Floodplain Management. The Cedar River floodplain is narrow over most of the upper reaches below Landsburg dam. Above Maple Valley, the floodplain averages 200-500 feet (60-150 m) in width. Below Maple Valley, the "canyon"widens out and meanders through a floodplain of 1000-1500 feet (300-450 m) width and enters the City of Renton, most of which is constructed in the former floodplain and delta wetlands of the Cedar River and Lake Washington. The upper . • river has relatively sparse residential development with towns located typically on the low plateaus above the river at Cedar Grove, Maple Valley and Landsburg. Residences are located low in the floodplain in many areas of the river and are prone to serious frequent flooding. King County has been discouraging development in these areas since 1991 with.their Flood Hazard Reduction Plan. The City of Renton is subject to infrequent flooding, except in the lowest reach of the river, where the Airport floods at a 1.6 year recurrence flood. The City of Renton is moderately to heavily dense residential, commercial and industrial development. Flood protection is proposed to protect the dense urban development which already exists (and was partially protected by the previous maintenance conducted by the City of Renton).rather than causing undeveloped lands to be protected. 3.2 WATER 3.2.1 Surface Water. The Cedar River drainage basin encompasses approximately 188 square miles. Precipitation in the basin increases with elevation from a low of 42 inches/year (106 cm) in.Renton to a.high of 104 inches/year (262 cm) at Chester Morse Lake. Maritime storms from the Pacific Ocean can cause heavy. precipitation and flooding between the months of October and March. Snowmelt later ,• in the spring infrequently causes flooding if the snowpack is extensive and spring temperatures are high. In 1990, flooding was caused by rainfall on a heavy snowpack in the higher elevations. The City of Seattle operates the Masonry Dam at RM 37 (59 km) which impounds waters from approximately 78 miles2 (200 km2) of the upper basin (42% of basin). This dam is operated for water supply for the City of Seattle and is only incidentally operated to control flooding in the lower basin. The water supply diversion at Landsburg (RM 21) ,a removes on average 190 cfs throughout the year from the river flow. Seattle claims a right to divert up to a yearly average of 464 cfs, however this use has not been officially determined. The low-flow minimum for the river, set by WA Dept of Ecology is 130 cfs in normal water years and 110 cfs in "critical' water years. During the flood season _' (October-March), the service spillway gate at Masonry Dam is left fully open. In extreme high water conditions, the emergency spillway gates can be opened to protect dam stability. There has been leakage of reservoir waters into the porous glacial moraine soils near the dam, in the past In 1918, seepage into the glacially deposited north bank from raising the pool level too high caused a landslide and flood in Boxley Creek to the north of the dam in the Snoqualmie River basin. Since that time, and following several studies,.Seattle has limited the pool level in Chester Morse Lake to 1570 feet (476 m) elevation during peak flood conditions that last up to a week and less than 1565 feet (474 m) for longer durations. 31 Other water rights have been granted for domestic use and power generation. The Corps has also claimed.a right to use Cedar River water, up to the full natural flow of the river, for Lake Washington regulation. The water level in Lake Washington is 'ry ' regulated by the Corps at the Hiram Chittenden Locks. Lake level varies by 2 feet (0.6 m) between the winter flood season and the summer high locks usage period. From . October 1 through February the Lake is kept at 13.2 feet MSL (4 m), and then incrementally raised to 15.2 feet MSL (4.6 m) by May 13. The high lake level is maintained through the end of July and then incrementally lowered to 13.2 feet MSL. During low lake level, the Cedar River flows throughout the lower reach and onto the delta. During high lake level, the lower 1000 feet (300 m) of the river is lake backwater under current conditions. 3.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater resources in the Cedar River basin are largely positioned in glacial materials. Perched groundwater tables in such glacial materials frequently occur above hard packed glacial till and shallow aquifers exist where precipitation has percolated into the glacial sands and gravels. The reservoir impounded by the Masonry Dam percolates an unknown quantity of water into the glacial moraine on the north side of the dam. It is assumed that approximately.80% of this water returns through groundwater aquifers to the Cedar River further downstream (King County, 1993). Approximately 20% percolates into the Snoqualmie River basin. Many of the smaller tributaries to the Cedar downstream of Landsburg arise from seeps and springs out of the steep valley walls. The Cedar River recharges the alluvial floodplain groundwater during high flows and in many locations this water returns to the river via wetlands and groundwater fed channels. Groundwater typically moves downhill paralleling the river channel. The City of Renton has an aquifer located at very shallow depths extracted by a welifield just upstream of downtown and near.the Maplewood Golf Course (King County, 1993). This aquifer is a "sole source" and is highly protected for drinking water purposes. Because of the high permeability of alluvial deposits this aquifer could easily be contaminated by surface pollutants. 3.2.3 Contribution of Tributaries Below Landsburg The tributaries below the Landsburg diversion, at RM 21.6 (34.6 km), contribute approximately 30% (annual average) of the river flow seen at Renton.. These tributaries headwaters are located on the plateaus to the north and south of the Cedar River and are all less than 9 miles (14.4 km) in length. There are six major tributaries below ' MSL is calculated using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 1929. The level of Lake Washington is also frequently referred to as varying between 20 and 22 feet. The datum for this measurement is the Corps datum at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. 32 1 Landsburg and several unnamed smaller tributaries. Most of these tributaries, in the . • past, supported spawning populations of coho and chinook salmon, and occasionally sockeye. The City of Kent diverts an average of 6.2 cfs from a spring that feeds Rock Creek (tributary that enters Cedar at RM 18.15 [29 km]) and another diversion ditch from Rock Creek headwaters diverts approximately 5.0 cfs into the Green River basin. (King County, 1993). Kent may be authorized to divert as much as 22 cfs from Rock Creek and nearby groundwater sources. Water yield(percent of precipitation that discharges as streamflow) from the tributaries basins below Landsburg Dam varies from 48-60% of average annual precipitation. The more developed basins such as Taylor Creek and Orting Hills have higher stream flow yields that can cause higher flood flows during winter and reduced low flows during summer. King County's (1993) current and future conditions report estimates that water yield will increase with continuing future development and this will exacerbate flooding problems. 3.2.4 Water Quality Water quality in the Cedar River is considered class A4 (excellent) from Lake Washington to RM 4.1 (6.6 km) and Class AA'. (extraordinary) from that point up to Landsburg, although class A designation may be violated for high temperatures in thes. lower reach. The river above Renton is characteristically cool and well-oxygenated, low in calcium and magnesium salts with a neutral pH (METRO, 1982). There is a METRO ambient monitoring station located at RM 9.3 (14.9 km) and the Cedar River water at that point meets all water quality standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH and several metals. Fecal coliform standards are occasionally exceeded and the '= copper chronic toxicity standard was also exceeded. King County (1993) speculated that the exceedence of the copper standard could be due to a natural metal content in the soils of the basin combined with the softness of the water which allows the metal to be more available; although it is not known what the baseline copper concentration is. King County (1993) sampled several locations in the Cedar for stormwater runoff and/or sediment quality in 1990 and 1991. Four stormwater sites were sampled from 1-405 to the mouth and five sediment sites: 1) ditch between Boeing Co. and Cedar River Trail parks; 2) Logan Bridge outfall'; 3) Bronson Way bridgee; 4) 1-405 outfall1; 5) RM 0.753 (1200 m); 6) airport outfall3. The stormwater samples were taken during storm events and analyzed for pH, temperature, hardness, total suspended solids, turbidity, total phosphorus, nitrates, metals, oil/grease and fecal coliforms. • ' Class AA waters: fecal coliforms<50 colonies/100 ml;temperature< 16 C; pH= 6.5-8.5; dissolved oxygen > 9.5 mg/I; and turbidity<5 NTU. Class A waters: fecal coliforms< 100 colonies/100 ml; temperature <18 C; ph = 6.5-8.5; dissolved oxygen> 8.9 mg/I;turbidity<5 NTU. . ' 1 = stormwater sampled only I ; 2 =stormwater and sediment sampled 3=sediment sampled only 33 The Logan Avenue outfall had very high turbidity readings (6-600 NTUs) and high fecal coliforms (1680-2500 colonies/100 ml). 1-405 outfall also had high fecal coliforms (10- 4600 range). All stormwater sites in the mainstem of the river exceeded the state AA class standards for fecal coliforms (standard = 50 colonies/100 ml). The outfalls also exceeded the copper, lead and zinc chronic and acute concentrations in several samples. Once again, metal toxicity is calculated based on water hardness and hence is greater in soft water and the standards can be exceeded even with low concentrations (range for Cu = 1-69 ppm, Pb = 0.8-238 ppm, Zn = 3-484 ppm). However, these concentrations could indicate a point source, such as an auto repair facility that has runoff to the Cedar River. Comparisons to sample locations further upstream show that runoff from Renton has more pollutant exceedences than runoff from more rural areas. The Corps placed a multiparameter water quality meter at the north Boeing bridge from February to early April, 1996. Turbidity readings reached extreme concentrations during the flood event in February 1996; up to 900 NTUs (5 NTUs is considered good water quality). The temperature and dissolved oxygen varied together, with temperatures ranging from 38 °F (3.47 °C) in mid February to 55 °F (13 °C) by early April, and dissolved oxygen ranging from 1.3.11 mg/I to 8.5 mg/I in late March. Water. quality after this time period is assumed to be equal to Lake Washington. Lake Washington surface water temperatures can reach 75 °F (24° C) in the summertime. The Cedar River water is slightly cooler. 3.2.5 Wetlands .. . King County has inventoried 892 acres of wetlands within the Cedar River basin (excluding the basin above Landsburg Dam,.see Figure 14). Many of the wetlands are not associated directly with the Cedar River, although there is a large wetland area adjacent to Rock Creek, a major tributary to the Cedar. A number of wetlands (especially bogs and fens) are the headwaters of tributaries to the Cedar River. Along the mainstem Cedar River, there are many small riparian wetlands which are typically dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), willows (Salix sp.), hardhack (Spirea douglash), and other species. 3.3 HABITAT The terrestrial environment in the project area is highly urbanized and provides limited wildlife habitat. The species present are able to adapt to the human environment and survive in an urban area. There is some limited riparian habitat which provides cover for waterfowl and some mammals. Approximately 25% of the river i banks have overhanging vegetation; primarily 10-20.year old willows and alders. This habitat is limited to the right bank between Logan Avenue and the South Boeing bridge (approximately 2000 linear feet). The remaining 75% of the bank vegetation is -- • 34 1 r•I I . i , . . 1 , Legend ! ; Wetlands 1 1 • , A/ Cedar & .tribyta.ries Renton city limits •n • . • . ;t--••••• -.., , - Lakes , W , .. ............ ,,,....=,..±„,„.." -...---,-, - -1. ,..•..•-',-k,,•-A-., ,:..---' • I 1 1—..'-‘,..:_;".:44. 0: :A-riga?••.„...---, ,. . •-•''i~ ;W-17 1•"-.;: - -- :- Cedar basin '''''.7"--------. %_...- -_,..-•...',7- .1.",w.01,,Age."1.,\,,,-„,_"4.. .:c . • "1 e._ ,,„•,,w Ss"--417:Vf.tek"--:- 42T":,-,--";-•,.,...-')V •-•-± ' . ' ....1 ',.. .-•--•,,-..4... ,a,..•-v ,...,,, ..:---,.4.0, ••,.1.4ry. •L .,, -V..,, , i'1 ,,••'',. a.,,,,:rW*I''', -.:.04:,.e.rZR.1,‘*,','"&"••Z,,,,"ft,,1.-± '• i,T',,.,,,..6'.',al, , ! ....'1.. .1%-4P.e..'5., 5,...Nr4=-4• 71 :4iNif; •''''' '.'-a'.- '..-j . •-.e-A,,,..fttal4P,,,,,,,,A•-•'‘fg,''Va-0,171Z21,,N••••,:1,77.'0.:,...144; - """a?1)40t:1..i,''6•••71.,W,‘e.e.e,4-'. • :`,•--•:-...- ''. i"...7-1- -- •' ',, ..' .11'a.,•'W ic... .,,,,,411 -`,;-, -4,,,... .,,,•' l `.'. "!?41,,,'•-.14 ' ...,•,,,t..,,14.,,,0;,.•'r '••'...*-,S. '••' •,,,, ,..Z,...., ",VS,..'' ..•..•*•.;:= • ',..•,.',....,...,• '•••iit..1.,,,t, ,•• A ,,,-- ...,,43,gp„, ,...,,-,,,av.-_,„: , f:••-$tta,.y.-._„,.,-...L,,---‘,1- --V.,.. ..0..?„0.0,!:,_. ,34°„ Rattlesnake . : ----...457-01:11n• .' -- `7125-kI^,- "L::./ ,ril .-:;--;.'-'0n ?-'... o.• .t „•„.-,_,,-•-,- Lake .::.-'g,:---t----A. ...• ..4-,.;,..._ t,'-)-4*-,rA.:- A-.:::-X.0-.'-':jib _.----= .,g, -,- -,-... "•• . s -%=,,,''"--6;1 r:- '4'4,' --•c,N --;,4-4•.:',... .i.-f.,-.*-- .-*- --- . 0.14,..v&_•-• „_-_,, , 1 ':,......4.1. -..-.:•, ..,-.0;,. ,,?,,,.. .i ,• 4,-,,...--r.,-.r.:;..ros, -.0..,..0,-......er a . ...---,...-1- --..,-r....---7q.. ..,,.....,7"...".....- ; :.,, 1 :...:.:.„.,..,:._,....--. .-t,,-..... 4.4-1..., -.T4,...gz.,,,.„z,--.,.41.- -, vp.,, - A0*--,144,---44,----------4.•--1.=' ----,,,sez.o v;, k,l'-..-1, .z.--:.- r- ! : .-.,-;..);-- • -...,.%. .A.''`-' 0-.,.... •' .-7 .,t-WR 3.-%4-7...,•W ''-;•.- -a. 1",;;rs.4;;II-TP f.'4k''s.°7'-'- ,-.;-4-t,,i-4-4"-- ••1*--._%":=COr fr* L'''--L,''''.- •• •11..''''''''''=:=1:17:4'4'.' '''''' ''1..--,Z ,ZS,21r_.--,.,- I '- Desire Lake ---_,,- .2.. ..<4., --4:,vt,0„..,.,0:-.-47. i•----101/4Hobart -$3.;...z, ,,i: .-.4',;•::: -,--,,...1Ar.v.z...- 22 A.,,,,C7t, Walsh tale Jr,„!„,,-..--,.. ....,'-).•i'.07?,?2 ,1,7--,Siri- T,-A.V•'-",,,q41Z Igr ','.,33--- Zi _.*.i.•,-,,vc,w,,,, ,,,-;„,,_. ••, •,*,-----,e,,,,o--,.- -----„w...."---mv.w.g.-4.-:,,• --.-,4„..,9,... .- -t- ,:-....g.„--.6., ,,,, ‘. Spring Lake ki,,_....-,.. . :2_, :'-- 'w p.t_,--4e,:,23-, „„:„,..1.,..„04,, (0-4 --4.... --friplit .--.1-AtWitt:5--4--,',:' •• '--- -- -w--------&----- -w.-4,..---,f., . -,-.,,..--: .,..: --: ,----7.--- ilZ,••-•:--lis•I*1-EU-'.-tioL;ZW-- . ,9 7 0;.•;•,•,-R 6:--[ ,...-ax-,14--4,-7T,..::>_k~:g.„--/-k-Q.,--44?;•.,,,,--„„ .-R,/----,- -_,..,-- _-..7.A.ft447---1.1..11e0-1.,, ,„.1c-A4-,7---',-‘,-•,-.,,,-„i•,...,•-4,:=4„„,,,A-- -,a- Chester Morse ,,,,---,.. -1_,'- .,,,,---,,V---,•s',.-1-11W---,- .4„--7-1.- "' .7---4•-,r,,:. .'7=5-,,,'''.V.;43r-1"....._,',..,;‘4*.;',..diY4WA.,.'-'6;?""'"?..,.. .'-",se,,tv.1:,r,,3:-'<,.k.V -4.„. ...-_,4-.a.',:,..7t.?„_-1,4•:,;Xg-17, - :-.T4:i4 140.11.4ykyle -,4--,2.-ziel&„. •--;`,7ffilii•%1 1!,., '1'."4L"'r_-.V.Y..1..'''*,--'2:14' .--:-."%*,..-.A1.,":45- .-Oirk,:-IP-.4;1-,,,,,,-,, .`•,fr...kr,.4r-,>'0.‘,...%-4t,le, . -,4..a-..-v ,-.,,,, Lake ...-VA'at.....-4,41,;!•eikk,,, --- ---*".•:.-it,...,,v*.-,---_•vi-- __. .'%::.,,,K.-.4 ,..-'=-,- -!..---7-,,, ,:.,...vg:-,,*--z.;- Irs,*.r..;,.U....7.1.4,0 „,-1,,,-.....„_,2!, -4,--7.6.• --. 7 ,-_,t. '-w.,*'..„ ....„.*-..,,,-,-,. . __---4. .-4-i...q.,,,,,,,,A-_,-,6-;-.0 f...,,,,11', --b,. .,-..--,... ...'..i..'1'1`---- ;"' `kr-47.-r;t4V3.--W5,-_,714- 4--7<x,LA •(.:kt. ,,,,,,--1,--;=,-,,,w_- ,FAN—,...Kz-itt.• s:...,_ , t,s., ....-,_.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,- -,--_ s,,,"...., -,t,,,,,_ •:. :s>•:s...1--3-?•••;Wl.'..,,,,-.2.'" --&-d----- .. 4,-,••-•• ••-•: -.,,,c152,-;,--oz-ii- ....0;tn-04,-..,•"'.- 4,-7- 4V9---'1-.rt<11.,•,--- •,.:-----'-'--v-- .:9--- •••..<v.-Ss,"... --`4..--ii-1.,- %,.,•: •-•0%,,),„,,-4r,..,4,. .1-,,s.rg,-.-m.,,,,,e,„.,,,u';1&•:.4,.:•-irr----„,.. - - - .,-WTI.,... ..A2-,?:,~1.,,Z..og,:,,t--7.V.W.L,t•-.._.:4•'',,,, I. -Ns•.. -"te..%-0: `,, ,,Aui-,--4t,--%•. ;,-..-; -.,3•„,• _•, ''.'''',...< 44 '••••2t.N-•,..,-,-s.•44-,,,,r,,,.... ,N.F..-s ..,-.4,-.._,..s - • c','.-.\‘'"•''-"Lligg'-•'&'--.4-'-tA-<.4 -7'4a-V-t, .W.t:.:497.5LA-'44- --.7A:'.1%-s4 .-:e•cs--Z.4.- -tA4S:-?.,--40-- ---',. .-4-c.-W,-..2--,...;•-:,-04*,,_, ' .--,,,-.,?-,1-.- :tgAzii-: :-t-k-'•W";...-..,---.,-4-• :'•-•- -,-`"iz,e1 `-f-A-1..i.s-V-,7......--tc"4-7. ---"•- ke.-47i:.---1.4.--,*-"-='-'-,--, --fii:-.1-----4-•---4-'-,--,-----,--w''-A-----*---• •-•-s---,.. :''Ve---'-1-Y-i-,- '---- ,.' --,--&-`.."4-sr---'''-r-.-.-•`-- 'S.,`?.!,-4.• :.-4::--14•T<-_,...i.7:---S.---',---,• --.-s•-•m,,*:-..s.v.i*.-,4--,,-,.-.,,,-.!..,1'43, -..1..v....s;„..-...-s-&-,1v-..--.,-,-1&s-y.,,...-- •,,'",--,--1 ,'-"t•c'w",-,-.,'.. 1,1e...-t-..,--=-,--4--.!;-,'1,,_ •,,, ,,,,,,....., -,,,,,„•,-_,..-, -,,,,,,,,„_ v__,_,..,,, ,, - - ,--,avite,40,1„-,--.7..1- 4,4s.,,-.44,11...,.,0-74_,,,,, x_.,0,47,, ,. . .z.. .-,-..p. ..4...-4,1,0-._••4•Wfifi;i-SY .-•':W, ,c.kftg- ----L•liwie,*.%.'„,„w,„..,_••.:,-, ._.,.--•- . • ,A'w.-s=s._ -4-T:4'..,,,6t;:--4,*rZg .-„-.*-1.-o--xk ._L,%:q. o.:.,,:%.,z_te,„--T_:„4-..,,,,:,-04413.4tejou. -•m.;.,%„...-, e:E•,,,„_,- -_..,,,fo-,,-'.ee- t-'e,<r *74.--..„„ `-'t•t?.':&•.q..;,--r-,1-....rr,„ 0; '""?'r'a°t'`aZE- N-V4'3.ft;'''"-Z:14 ...,4A":,r... .--''C';',53*4.•-k,,Y7gV..-:-'--.--I•Tk.i_,im•,-V,;-,1:,,f4o-e.,.-,,k:;.t--36•-- ---- k.t4-:-4,.,,o:i:•- -„..-.y.e4,;r_gpa,•,,F4t,..-,o,z,, ,.,,,,„,-#L„,...T...,„..,„,f,k- ffr ,.;;I:ilir4.--0.%&7-a-,,,,,,• # . 41-Wozivit;...--;:frztint•,:.y-k_41--„ -%-_--44,-k-re.---, --J-,,W•._-q-,k7.,.4.÷----•-_- -Sciv:,,,V-kti--T. -i-vA,-e„.-.--,-144-... .,..,r,--- - •,--_..,..•-:?:,---,...7-k,'c,-..:c1,--' --•;,,,..-?'-,•.*--,f,..- -WL--Z--.X-s,,,-.:-'1•4!;-••-tigi-F --;rkii--ZA Va'.. ,,i`.... ilc.z.Lig.. ..,.,,n1r734......,„....- .,.4.ft,: :,-r4,-,-'‘'W..._'*•N:,, 'nit i--'---V, ...ZA--.,„. -4.5;,W-_,6.4,,:. ....,/K‘'" "-'' ..ca,. -V4.:.., ---„,,,,,.-2 '.".4-: -sk-w••4,----;;---,-,. - --q. ---=s---` .'-,'",-t .--•- • ,b, sz..- •s 11----e---,--,ix-,-,4.-,•.-.-.----_;V-------..--•.-4. -------,-•!•--.--=------71-.:---.A•--;--, 4;0 ---,•---,---ss--•- - .••••'-••-,-.,..?,-•,-.4..<'.,,,,-;.--.'''',,,V,'''',-,,..'r-- '-, .. ".-',E•':.--V.LAW:i.-i'''',..3"•-;:.,.... j':-''''''""-"?..‘.-:',.'5.4'''''''',4,..r. : ,,,-----raf!''''',..,g.:, ,,:". ':-‘.:-..:l1-.'-''".."‘'...:. ;a1.ft wor„wt-4,6?-0Ek..--p„,:.,-,k--41-5=A . --_-...-,-,-g. 41.4.,W,--,. .4.,--6,%---,e-y-,t,---N-w- ----_,v, 4.,. .7„,13-gtAtmwfzrz.. ..V-4Y:iri-15,are-4-V_-_!•,--•-..,i..fts'ot•laNlA-Si'L-T-v‘-7kk-,-.-w--,-,..., -,,-, -,1,4, -• ..... ,,, _ .--......,„„,....0:,.,..i...;:,,,,,-,„•-‘,,,,,,,,...,,,3 ,,:zz„,>•„-,-A ,.,. - ... ,,,-... ...-,•,-.....---,-.4-,-_,:-.-- •,4-„, -.. :,,... .,•:. ,.-:'-- 4.. .,•_,--?- _-'-w.....,..--Itm*-5- -a,-• -•',-----'- --"zo-Q. ,--'---',-A--t------- s.,‘"4----*P-----''---4-. ------- ' • •• ••• `'•". "m"-.-,'--Ir----c-4-----4--git •,--- -1,----%,- -•*•,--,--1,-v.. - - •w"*•--1 - ...*.„.-.7,---- ---,-"-T---ws,-----•‹-s'--'-- ---4;7-z-v,- - '4,- --r-_.,A„--4---•....k_%- -•--- `s'....-‘-',.,_,, ,,,c.,-• ,.,:,,,"-.v4r2govw,..- e"-.4.-*%--- -:•,•.. :••,•,:-.. . ....5„..„,_•,„-...,re,„..z.,,,,,:, „,,..,..„_.,..„,„,,,,,,,,a, :,..„.. .. t,,,,c.,•_,R.4,.._,-..9 li.„'"•...,.,.....,•74•4 ..).•.,....,., -E:r,.." . ='.••7/''' . .2', 1,.„•-4.%7;+?..M,....,.,..y.e.%,>,-...;,,,,-1,1.•-'- ...--•`..'",,,'W-4,1,,....---,-*„.f,..,,,,- -V.,-Ark... --' 7.,-.'- .T..e.f.e... -. ...e'`,,e144' ''.-"'.C.;d4'''';'",-19 .1.."4" -W`. ...;‘t'''"•4-,4 -;&-';' '-`-. ..re-'Y'S.V. --=''''';',.-14,W;t:'`J'V.V.,20'-',"'-ittWO.R. .,-, ,; . .'„:-"'LX,V,,..1,:e. r.'..!,54i1.,,=', ... P'..,,,..,,,,,-;..,‘."4-.:4,-,- -14.ar''c...!,V --',:k..,,...,- :.';'1.4%,-.A..,...15,--44WW-1,,c,'_,,,, Y.7 ,..*.,--,:...-V.:,,,n,,,::•Vp-, 1: . Lake --- icf.c.,-- „,,...,..;14. 7...'--“- Z,..t., r':,..iiaL5-•e...-f---,.>",-;-1-A',-,,,r-7.--.7,p,,, ,,,,,,, , ,N,:*,,,,,_-,-- --.11„---7.-1,---: . ... '' ,.•',14-..,,;;-',-,;,-.,e,,..A."1,1,-„M,,,,,,t,...x.i. -4,4qc.t...-,,,,,,,,-.*:-.=-4-,--,--,,,,,,:".--L-A• "q"'---.."VA.1 "-,::$. 1-4;.- ' •'".4-"'It ''''''Ut'.• --;,-1, '.....'.9-''''.2..." ."''''''.6'S'''''''''''''''*73"-.:"; '''e:41"--'"415:'--44''' '''''ZC--'''''' ''''''`k0-'-e;th"--"• ''•• -' :-.n.4-,--,_,.. ,',---.--,N. -;----",,ii:71'.t'',f.-:-•: , ',"L--0--41=-p-•-- --•;-„, ---'z----..-*,.F-,',414--, -•:-- ,i-•.- -.v.,-.?...-• ,,,-•,-,:p•-,,,.-,L-A.„:2,, -, , t:-.•.,....,-_,,,,,-,_„,—...•,,,,,_,,,-,7„ ,..----.,. .,:.,,„...e, „,„,.....e„.2...,,,,-_, c,_ ., ....4._ ,,.....,..,,,, ......^ :1,,, --.. -....., -,-C-.-, -_,,-.,-,....,-7, .h.,- ,S,„Ii. -.,-,.......7..,,,,,+sc._..,`.-.-..-12....-`,..-i;, -..•-,, . 1 1' . Retreat A;,,,,,z,-•••... .E1,.NLZ.,.•3-4.z.c.:-.. .1, "'N%--7.•-7,7,-5- 7-4°-',"01?Pg'-.=-•. --,14-• ••::.$,P'91: 4-,S., _-,•-•7-,-1,1''' .:•••;;;;;z--, V,,-1,.---, - P.1%."0Z.- 17:,7- .7.4“,?4c2'''.--1-•Z'''-`11---e-W---4_15,1-15:--,,'5X-,-- --,‘"'''6'.,*'4,-4,...'s e.,.);344%--."'3,. ..,-,1"a-?4--'-c,A '2,'. :43,4.•iL-3.1-'--31:43.r.i. W..*1,,g,r'''' •- '`KtWl.g;;R4WPAX4--- -"a07.---'C'4"1 ''' -.:i' '''''',0/7'-'-;••'.' ...'• „.„'*•'-‘v.•••.kwifte,—.,,,;-.*&-•.•,.-::- -,.2,,K.4--')Z„. _-,:$9.7-• -., `'`... A.•,,„. •,.,-,4)1,, --r...-,,,,,,,b4,w--.., ......e •S-c4,,,ii. •', 4,,, . 71:',-Y-V.;..t.-1;,-?:9••••-??..V. -2,-9•.,C-1 - • -,4?ci&-S.;4;,01-F--2-6,.=',.4... ::::; r0.,-„ta---.:',' . ' '‘',174U-f;,1- ..-..-'.- :,;••:":4,',..R` -.1.,,g-Ivet.,,,,,,t,,,,.*".4,J.,-_,,z_.,-,,,,,,,,•...„,,,,,7,-,,,,wzik,, ,. _-_-,,,,,,,,_:--- ----Vrg.-4. - -,X-•'4-.0"'',•.‹.:73C,- ;',Pinit-• ,--- -;4,,,,4,-01,,z . .0'4 '-•.?,;-.,-W..t.,,-4,1F-Wir-'- . . " : '.. ''. ...eL",:‘,..i'1;'.?).1*!i.t.:,1"';',:. .',., ... ::f., ,,e, ..:..;.. IV''br.*6?' ''.7.2 L''''':;''T,4.; 74?:.*:'1%.4:WAV:<''.A.74i.'7'.'.....;''''' re.t.:42.e:SiR,:e' '',W',f4 7,'':,,,.*.0 1:,''ir3PW4:,'fZe.'.', c.',' d 1'1 7,,..1 \ft.Ifs•-•:•0,•--4,q-,.------ . -- E.'--,--A.-_,.-.„6-7."---,------`,.--- --,,--'_-q`--,-.-/-- --/ 2.4c---.,-••-••---.1,!...•Sz,,sfr:,--,•zs_.5,,,,2.1A:„Lzt3-r4.4,..•,...,..A.v----we•-k*:.-,.--4.„ ---„„,_*-,4,,,,,....". ....--' :•,,at.1-,'"...,R7„1.----.,r-,,,,cr.f...;•4..-,. ..,..* .,.:R:,.V.2 .,15'....,44'.,,,..,..r....--_ ,JW A.:,.....Yr,-;--li.,-4,--'-0:,-,,,re..-c:-.7xn,-,.•...,;-,,i,T.-<-',. .,...,:,•;;;Ir.; ' ---'''.4'"'"V.,,r.z.''''''''--0'';' ,...SWAO V"k4`,.%. ,%''':'i''' .? A'''."-'14**9 -4',4'A',',. ;'-',?;-.*rX4•': -'e'.. I'V'P'';In15.*-te,..' ' -...,.. - -4'7.-A--",-'-e--„-L.: -',5,;(-,•-tr'ii. --..w„•,.;1-.....7---, -..5.:-.-F41,-;,:-..,5,,,,c.-c• .--t,-, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,e,-;. .e.,,,,.....42.2-..•,.-_,.;-,-, .4,-L,x--• ' . .., • •... .•• '.-',•"1---- -.--- -i-efO=.5. 41:r"'-,-s -'*,'•,7*-5.-`,V4r-t.:1WP, i•?; #,Z+,..4-...,szi..:45 ,'Z-4,?-11M-L.Pira,-1,T,.7.-twd . , - , -:',...'14.-tk!,,,,.'-•; ")s'''' '-,..4N:,,t14-'`',...--:zki-r,E- -----,'"V"-WA'Al--"*.Nkt- 7- -,„„4,k'f,„„-',-,....--1,,„..kt),-,*..._:PA, =',7•,-.,' "4-•,,. • • '•• - - Irt,'..F.:A ----4-P2,'‘,,,-*•=-' '..-,-7.0-.Y.,---,:-..;l';,:,Lit,..-40-..w•f: r4;:e_V,'.4- ''''‘'. .)‘;'''R;0-,;••,,I-.VF7.-- -•:; -'' ' • ••••• ,: ••••'''':TQWW-415.-V--•. ..0.4- -.-: A-W4v,k'&1.!,&*i . V"; ''',..11*.WV.-Z,-;,- .. AN - - , . • ' ' ".0 §1.—W,,_, 2,_ ,4"-Z.Vaite----fele,T-X-a7:-",*,APetkit:V•••• .• ''''&1,.:"*.'"'''':1. ..•,s.-.:_,:,:•,... ::::.„.47..7...4,4,0,:ato..‘11,..i.;z7:4:::.L1.;%,"w7--.4:rt•Cl.:'.4;:tic7.;.,...... . •'-''. -...'-'.-1:.-": .• '':'' r '1.7 X.* - T=- 1'.- s'-.44-• `45,. .6-,V,./=----:,iii.' • • ,,,,,,.&%---r.4,.„--A5-4-,-,4%-f4-1A-e----•_;•--- -,,,:!±‘,?.• -•.;:t - - • • •-..,••••-.-----,•-z•w-•-•._ - *-..5x,*--•*.,b-•-•-• -,-vv.=;,--`? , I ...._. __ -- 2 0 2 4 6 Miles - --- -- - 1 . • . •" ........, ........,, Sources River information obtained from Washington Rivers infomiation System (WARM) database. :. ...54 .<1..-..-.:... Wfushington Department of Wildlife (WOW) and 1994 TIGER data, US Census Bureau. q '.. ' • . Corps of Engineers .is understood that while the Corps of Engineers and informaion eupprurs have no inch:whin or reason to beieve the there are ''-'9‘ r•-•.:.• Date: 1/9/96 inaccunicies in informehan incorporated in the beeemeg.THE CORPS AND ITS FIGURE 14'. CEDAR BASIN WETLANDS City boundaries. wetlands and addrtional darn provided SUPPIJERS MAKE NO REPREf3ENTATION OF ANY KIND.INCLUDING BUT NDT LIMDF_D TO by King County. Wetland data la available WARRANTIES OF WIERCHANTABIUTY OR FfTNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE.NOR ARE ANY tor the lower basin only. Plate: Draft SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION.DATA.OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. IN Preparer: LDD -i, _ I , I i -T- dominated by non-native species such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), _ Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum Isachalinense), which provide some seasonal overhang and shading. Snag habitat is not available. The Audubon society has placed a few nesting boxes along the Cedar L River trail park for cavity dwelling birds. The aquatic habitat is also highly modified and provides poor fish and invertebrate habitat over much of the lower mile. The river is channelized with armored _ banks. Anadromous salmon use the area primarily for a transportation corridor. Corps staff surveyed the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River using the Timber, Fish & Wildlife (NWIFC< 1994) stream survey methodology in 1994 and 1995. The lower mile of the Cedar is 77% riffle and glide habitat, 2% pool habitat and 20% Lake Washington backwater (at high pool). The small amount of pool habitat has a silt 7.; substrate and is restricted to bank scour areas. Depths range from 0.3-6.6 feet (10 cm- . 2 m) over the reach, depending on gravel bar location and bank scour areas. During low flows at some transects, approximately 90% of the channel width was less than 0.66 feet (20 cm) depth. This can create difficulties for adult salmon migrating upstream. i 3.4' FISH . There are at least 22 species of fish in the Cedar River basin (see Table 1). Some of the species such as bull trout and pygmy whitefish are found only above the Masonry Dam in Chester Morse Lake. Other species, namely the torrent sculpin, are found in areas upstream of the project area in higher gradient portions of the river. �' 3.4.1 Salmon. (The following information is adapted from Groot & Margolis, 1991; Wydoski & Whitney, 1979 and other sources as noted.) As shown in Table 1, there are potentially eight different species of salmons found in the Cedar River. Bull trout is not likely in the river below Chester Morse Lake (one bull trout has been caught 4 in the project area, but it has been speculated that it strayed in though the Locks; pers comm, E. Warner, MIT). Dolly Varden trout has not recently been observed in the Cedar River and its status is not known.- Atlantic salmon have been infrequently captured in southern Lake Washington, but it is believed they are not successfully reproducing in the wild. Fl Sockeye salmon are the most numerous salmon species in the river and in the Lake --- Washington basin as a whole. From yearly spawning surveys in the Lake Washington basin, it is estimated that approximately 80% of the sockeye population spawns in the Cedar River. Escapement estimates to the Lake Washington basin since 1972 have ranged from a high of approximately 531,000 in.1988 to a low of 24;000 in 1995, and the one population increase this year in 1996 with >350,,0007. While the population has 5.i .11 .Trout are considered part of the salmon family,but in this document whitefish are considered separately even though they are officially salmonids. - ' Escapement estimates based on Locks counts. 36 , had dramatic swings in population it appears that the population overall is declining. In two of the last six years the escapement has been under 100,000. WDFWs target escapement to the Cedar River is 300,000 fish (350,000 to the entire Lake Washington basin). Table 1. Cedar River basin fishes and status, if known (from E. Warner, MIT). . Common Name Scientific Name Status Sockeye salmon/kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka declining Chinook salmon O. tshawystcha declining Coho salmon O. kisutch declining Steelhead/rainbow trout O. mykiss declining Cutthroat trout O. clarki clarki increasing Dolly Varden trout Salvelinus malma rare Bull trout S. confluentus •unknown, common in Chester Morse Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni common Pygmy whitefish P.coulteri unknown, common in Chester Morse Atlantic salmon Salmo salar non-native Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys increasing (even year class) Northern squawfish . Ptychochellus oregonensis Peamouth chub Mylocheilus caurinus Three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus abundant Largescale sucker Catastomus machrocheilus Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae Brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoni - Torrent sculpin Cottus rhotheus Prickly sculpin . Cottus asper Coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus Reticulate sculpin Cottus perplexus Yellow perch Perca flavescens non-native, increasing Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulasus non-native Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus non-native Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui non-native, healthy Because of the observed decline in population, the. Lake Washington Technical Committee was formed by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), with agency, academic, tribal and sport fish representatives to address issues surrounding sockeye salmon in the Lake Washington system. This group identified critical information which was needed before current and future management decisions are made. Based upon these needs, six studies were identified as vital to understanding the decline of sockeye salmon and became known as the Lake Washington Ecological Studies Program. Three of the six studies are expected to be completed over the next three years. There is still uncertainty over whether the sockeye and kokanee in the Lake '- • Washington basin are partially descended from native stocks present before the Lake Washington ship canal and Locks were constructed; or, if the population is entirely I 37 descended from Baker Lake stocks introduced beginning in 1937. Genetic testing of sockeye salmon in Bear Creek (Redmond, WA) indicate that particular run appears to be native. Sockeye fry and smolts have been planted from Baker and Cultus Lakes into the Lake Washington system for most years since 1937, and the Cedar River run is likely descended from those plants. The Cedar River, with 80% of the spawning sockeye population, is-a critical habitat for both adults and emerging fry. Adults enter the system from late August through December. Adults need sufficient flows to enter the river and low.temperatures (preferred range 45-58 °F or 7-14 °C)to survive to spawn. Habitats important for adults include pools to hold in and rest while moving upstream and spawning gravels with sufficient upwelling water to oxygenate the eggs. The movement of sediment bed load and deposition of fine materials can destroy spawning areas and eggs. Table 2 shows numbers of observed redds in the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of:the Cedar River for the past three spawning seasons. WDFW typically conducts live salmon surveys from Landsburg down to RM 3 (4.8 km). In 1996, surveys were conducted down to 1-405 (RM 1.5 [2.4 km]) and 56% of this year's large run was counted below RM 5 ,(8.km). Historic adult distribution was fairly uniform over the 21 miles'(34 km) of accessible • mainstem. The WDFW survey data indicates that over the past several years, the upper river spawning population has declined (R. Egan, WDFW, pers. comm.) and greater than • 50% of the run spawns in the lower 10 miles (16 km) of the river. It has been anecdotally Observed that spawning gravels upstream of RM 10 (16 km) are too large for preferred spawning and the bull of suitable gravel has moved into the lower river. Channelization and the removal of large woody debris (LWD) have likely exacerbated the scouring of smaller substrates from the channel. The estimated yearly gravel movement is only.1000 feet (300 ml),therefore it has likely taken many years to "starve" the upper miles of their gravel (King County, 1993). It is not known if sockeye in recent years moved.upstream and then returned downstream to spawn because the habitat was unsuitable, or if they never migrated upstream. Other factors may also be affecting sockeye migration, such'as a lengthened time spent in the lake due to low flows in the early spawning season, difficulty of access into the upper reaches of the river,:or delay from placement'of the WDFW weir at RM 6 (9.6 km). Malick (1977) in his study of invertebrates populations did not olserve any salmon spawning near his lowest, sampling site at RM 3.(4.8 km). At the time of his study dredging was still occurring in the lower mile and the sediment upstream to perhaps RM 3 (4.8 km) may have been destabilized as a result of headcutting (the stream bottom most likely shifted noticeably to equalize the gradients between the dredged and'undredged.areas). The emerging fry migraterapidly t icall in one night) down to Lake Washington ( yp Y under cover of darkness from late January through May. The peak of the outmigration is March and April. The fry are exposed to many.predators, including rearing coho and steelhead, during their outmigration and typically have,higher survival rates with higher flows. (Beauchamp, 1995; Martz, at al., 1996a & 1996b; Seiler,.1996) Predators can lurk in pool habitat (utilized by adult salmon in the fall) and in other backwater areas 38 Sockeye salmon spend the first year of life in Lake Washington, largely in deepwater areas. They feed primarily on-zooplankton and insects. . f. Table 2. Number of sockeye redds observed in the lower 1.25 miles (2000 m) of the Cedar River from 1994-1996. Survey Date Below 600 m - 600-1000 m 1000-1300 m 1300-1700 m 1700-2000 m 11/1/94 • . 0 0 2 23 99 11/16/94 0 0 10 119 334 12/12/94 5 21 19 66 29 10/5/95 • 0 0 1 0 3 10/18/95 0 1 11 79 69 11/3/95 0 1 25 90 182 10/2/96 0 1 3 64 245 11/1/96 3 230 430 594 854 . Naturally spawning chinook and coho salmon are present in smaller numbers in the Cedar River basin. The chinook escapement goal to the Cedar River is 2300 (1200 live count). Actual adult chinook counts in the Cedar River have ranged from 156-1752 (1993 was the lowest year on record, to date) over the past 30 years, based on live and redd counts (C. Smith, WDFW, pers. comm.). The population appears to be declining. Chinook fry emerge from the gravels from February through April and may rear for a -i short time in the river and then move into Lake Washington.. Chinook fry have been captured in Lake Washington near the mouth of the Cedar River (Martz, et al 1996a and 1996b). Puget Sound chinook stocks may be listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in the near future (WDFW, 1997). The wild coho escapement goal to the entire Lake Washington basin is 15,000. The actual escapement has varied from 30,000 in 1970 to 200 in 1994 (R. Eldrich, WDFW, • pers. comm.). The Cedar River population is based on spawner index counts in some tributaries such as Rock Creek and counts have varied from 7700 in 1987 to 128 in 1994. Pacific coast coho have been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act due to precipitous declines in many populations, including the Lake Washington population. Coho juveniles rear in stream habitats until they migrate out to • sea approximately one year after emerging. Side channels, pools and areas with large woody debris are especially preferred for resting and overwintering habitat. Coho and _ chinook juveniles feed on insects, invertebrates and small fish. Steelhead trout are present in small numbers in the Cedar basin. Adult spawning populations in the mainstem of the Cedar have ranged from. 900 in 1986 to 64 in 1994. 1994 was the lowest year on record. The Pacific Coast steelhead population (which includes the Lake Washington basin steelhead) has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act due to its precipitous decline in the last five years. Attention has been focused on the sea lions at the Locks preying on steelhead adults as they attempt to enter the fish ladder. However, the steelhead population was averaging approximately 1000 adults prior to the appearance of aggressive sea lions at the Locks. 1 39. r ' II Plants of steelhead/rainbow occurred until the 1990s. It appears that these plants did not bolster the steelhead population. A new supplementation program for steelhead is being planned by the WDFW, the Muckleshoot and Suquamish'Tribes and Trout Unlimited that will use Cedar River broodstock to plant juveniles into north:Lake Washington tributaries. Native adfluvial cutthroat trout and resident cutthroat are present in the Cedar River. 1-= Essentially nothing is known about the few searun cutthroat remaining in the Lake ' Washington basin. Small numbers of cutthroat are seen in the fish ladder at the locks, but no surveys have documented spawning locations in the basin. Supplemental cutthroat trout were first planted in the lake in 1914. The population of resident and/or adfluvial cutthroat appears to be increasing (Tabor & Chan, 1996), although exactly what factors are contributing to their increase is unknown. It has been speculated that o. cutthroat have replaced the niche formerly utilized by steelhead and possibly coho in tributary streams. Cutthroat smaller; than 10 inches (250 mm) forklength (FL) feed largely on insects and small fish fry (such as larval smelt, sockeye and whitefish fry). Larger cutthroat feed almost entirely on larger fish such as longfin smelt.and salmon smolts. Tabor & Chan (1996a) found cutthroat trout to have the highest consumption rates (highest among predator species sampled) of sockeye fry and presmolts. The population size of resident cutthroat,in the lower Cedar River does not appear to be very large (Tabor & Chan, 1996a & b), based on low catch rates. Larger numbers (>100) have been captured, in continuing predator studies, by gill nets offshore of the Cedar delta in Lake Washington E.,Warner, MIT, pers. comm.). During late spring, cutthroat spawn in the Cedar River, but would not be expected to feed significantly during that time. Rainbow trout are resident in the Lake Washington basin and in the Cedar River. Hatchery rainbow are planted even/year by the WDFW and other organizations (314,500 hatchery trout planted during spring of 1995) for sport fishing. Most of the hatchery plants do not survive more than one season in the.lake. The Cedar River appears to have a healthy naturally spawning population of rainbow trout that utilize pool habitats over much of the system. Rainbow trout juveniles feed on aquatic insects, fish eggs, and small fish fry. Larger rainbows feed mostly on small fish, aquatic invertebrates, and insects. In the lower Cedar, rainbow trout also consumed moderate numbers of sockeye fry (Tabor & Chan, 1996a). Hatchery rainbow trout released before mid-May would have the opportunity to feed on sockeye fry; however, Tabor & Chan (1996a).found most hatchery trout to have consumed crustaceans and insects. 3.4.2 Longfin Smelt (also see Technical Appendices). Longfin smelt are perhaps the most abundant pelagic fish in Lake Washington. Current population estimates place the high year population at about 10 million fish. Longfin smelt in Lake r Washington live for two years and spawn in their second year. The odd-year and even- ;• year spawning populations have grown drastically apart in size,' with the population that spawns in the winter/spring of even ,years being very large and the odd-year spawning �.L population very small. It is unclear What led to this dramatic annual population difference, first noted by Moulton (1970). • 40 i Longfin smelt were not noted as present in early surveys of Lake Washington fish •:::;:1 species. Smelt were first recorded in 1960. Edmundson & Abella (1988) have i speculated that the population was too low to be detected by early sampling methods. It is unknown if smelt were anadromous into the Cedar River prior to the diversion of the Cedar into Lake Washington, or if a freshwater population had previously existed in the Lake. An anadromous run is still present in the Duwamish River. Now the smelt population in Lake Washington is entirely freshwater dwelling, spawning in streams and rivers (adfluvial). In the 1970s, Moulton (1974) documented smelt eggs in three other streams: May Creek, Juanita Creek and Coal Creek. Martz, !(1996) found ed that greater eggs in May, Juanita, Coal and McAleer Creeks, but nonetheless than 90% of the smelt population now spawn in the Cedar River. Studies of smelt spawning in 1994, 1995 and 1996 have shown that smelt spawn in the ti_;, lower portion of.the Cedar River (Harza, 1994; Sibley & Brocksmith, 1996; Martz, et al, 1996). Sibley & Brocksmith (1996)found 99%did not find of the eggs below 900 met 5s(only 5r mouth, Martz, et al(1996) eggs found above that point). However, a significant number of eggs were captured by drift net at 900 meters, indicating that smelt do spawn further upstream but their eggs drift downstream. A few smelt larvae (5) were captured by Sibley & Brocksmith (1996) in a - drift net at 1-405, which indicates that eggs were present above that location. Martz, et. al(1996) found statistically significant negative correlations between egg abundance and substrate type, velocity and distance upstream from the mouth. Smelt appear to prefer sandy substrates in lower velocity areas not very far upstream from the mouth. Experiments conducted in aritificial stream habitats (Martz, et al, 1996) also showed smelt having a strong preference towards sandy substrates. Smelt appear to be weak swimmers and likely cannot swim very far upstream to spawn. Moulton (1970) found smelt eggs up to 1.25 miles (2000 m) above the mouth. However, at that time, the Cedar was periodically dredged to a depth of approximately 9 feet (2.7 m) below its current depth and the lake backwater extended approximately 1 mile (1600 m) upstream. Smelt fry (larvae) upon emergence are immediately carried downstream and out into Lake Washington to spend the next two years of their life in the pelagic zone. Smelt juveniles and:yearlings forage largely for zooplankton and insects. Chigbu (1993) found that longfin smelt and sockeye salmon both.prey on Daphnia sp. (a cladoceran) and may compete against one another for food. 3.4.3 Other Species. As shown in Table 1, there are 11 other species of fish that occur in portions of the Cedar-River. Species that are known.to.occur in the project area include Coastrange sculpin, prickly sculpin, torrent sculpin, reticulate sculpin. Iargescale sucker, mountain whitefish, brook lamprey, yellow perch, brown buHhead, three-spined stickleback, smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish and ncr;hern squawfish (Corps, 1995; USFWS, 1995 and 1996). It is unknown if longnose dace occurs in the lower Cedar River. Many of these species are largely lake dwelling and utilize the lower portion of the river because the habitat is similar to Lake I , 41 Washington. Yellow perch, brown bullhead, sunfish and smallrhouth bass are non- �` ;f. native species and have only been observed in small numbers in the river during the j late spring and summer when the water temperatures are relatively high. • Squawfish, suckers and whitefish spaawn in the Cedar River (as do the resident sculpins) and on beaches in Lake Washington. It is not known if yellow perch or sticklebacks spawn in the river, but they certainly do spawn on Lake Washington beaches. Stickleback and the juveniles of many of these other species forage for invertebrates, zooplankton and insects. Larger squawfish and prickly sculpin also feed on small fish. Very few squawfish were captured by Tabor & Chan (1996) with nearshore equipment (electroshocking and beach seining)i. The few that were captured, generally had empty stomachs. It appears from limited sampling, that,small cottids are the most important ' prey item for small squawfish (<250 mm). However, prickly sculpin can and do feed on _ sockeye fry as they migrate through;the lower Cedar River and may be an important cause of mortality to sockeye (Tabor & Chan, 1995, 1996). Prickly sculpin prefer slower moving water with a sand or gravel substrate and are often in the open, particularly at night. Spawning occurs in April and May in areas with rock or log cover and slow water velocities. Prickly sculpin feed on fish eggs, small fish and invertebrates. The existing lower Cedar River backwater area appears to be excellent habitat for prickly sculpin. . Three other sculpin species are found in the lower Cedar River: torrent, coastrange and reticulate sculpins (Tabor & Chan, 1996). These species are all typically found upstream of the lake backwater area. Torrent and coastrange sculpins prefer fast moving currents and gravel or cobble substrates. The young of both species are , pelagic for a short time and then settle to the bottom and develop territories. Reticulate sculpins are smaller and may compete for food with torrent or coastrange sculpins of similar size. Reticulate sculpins are more frequently found in smaller streams or along -_ : the margins of large streams. All three species feed on aquatic insects, oligochaetes, fish eggs and small fish or fry. (Wydoski & Whitney, 1979) Tabor & Chan (1996b) found that prickly sculpins ate sockeye fry and adult longfin smelt on nights with high concentrations of these fish (hatchery releases or peak spawning nights). However, __.3, when fry or smelt were less available, their diet consisted mostly of aquatic insects, oligochaetes and fish eggs. 1 Brook lamprey larvae were found during sediment saMpling'in 1994, by Corps staff. Nothing is known about their,population size or,distribution. 3.5 Aquatic Invertebrates —,t-il,',-; Aquatic invertebrates in the Cedar River include many species of aquatic a insects, worms and n molluscs. The Tower mile of the Cedar River was sampled three times in 1995 for generally surficial:invertebrates (Sibley &Brocksmith, 1996b). , -L. Families sampled included Plecopte'ira (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), IL42 • Trichoptera (caddisflies), Diptera (true flies), Coleoptera (beetles), Megaloptera (alder flies), Arachnida (spiders), Crustacea (shrimp, etc.), Mollusca (clams, snails), Annelida (segmented worms) and Nematoda (roundworms). Higher velocity areas with gravel and cobble substrate generally had greater abundances of stoneflies and mayflies which prefer highly oxygenated, cool, swiftly running water. Lower velocity areas generally had greater abundances of crustaceans, molluscs, and worms which.prefer slower moving waters and fine substrates. Dipterans (specifically Chironomidae) were found in both types of habitats. (Sibley& Brocksmith, 1996b) Previous work (Malick, 1977) in riffle areas upstream of the project area found Chironomidae to be the most dominant organisms in all sample areas, with mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies with fewer numbers, but still important. - I Chinook, coho and steelhead rear for varying periods of time in the mainstem Cedar River and its tributaries. Their diet consists mostly of Chironomids, 4 - Plecopterans, Ephemeropterans, and Trichopterans as well as terrestrial insects. These species are typically found in higher velocity waters. Near the mouth of the river, • coho and steelhead juveniles feed on fish fry and insects. 3.6 Wildlife The upper Cedar River watershed is noted for the large number of wildlife species as well as their abundances. Black bear, elk, black-tailed deer, cougar, mink, muskrat, bobcat, coyote, mountain goat, racoon, and various small mammals are all resident in the upper watershed. In the urbanized project area, however, the wildlife species are typical of parks around Lake Washington. Mammals such as Eastern gray squirrels, opossum, raccoon, muskrat, beaver, cottontail rabbits, striped skunk, Norway rats, mice and domestic dog and feral cat species commonly occur in the lower Cedar River and adjacent park'(COE, 1995). Birds and waterfowl are quite numerous in the project area, due to the good river and lake habitat. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Corps biologists have observed s' over 50 species of birds in the lower mile (1600 m) of the Cedar and on the delta and adjacent Lake Washington waters during studies in 1994-1996 (see Table 3). 3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only federally listed species that occurs in the project area. It is listed as threatened in Washington state. There are four species of fish which are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (PL ) that ' may occur in the project area: Puget Sound stocks of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch) sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), and steelhead trout (0. mykiss) are under review with chinook most likely to be listed in the near future. Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon and steelhead and sea.run cutthroat trout occur in the Cedar River as described in Section 3.4.1. The status and location of sea-run cutthroat trout in the Lake Washington basin • 43 j P is not known. Two species of concern may occur in the project area, northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) and the river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi). Table 3. Birds observed in vicinity of lower Cedar River (Stagner, 1995; Brunner, • tr- 1995) Western grebe . Horned_grebe Double-crested cormorant Canada goose Mallard' ; Scaup spp. Green-winged teal' Bufflehea'd Common merganser' _Hooded merganser' Gadwall' Northern shoveler Canvasback Commonjgoldeneye Barrow's goldeneye' Great blue heron' American' coot Bald eagle' Western sandppiper Glaucous-winged gull Killdeer California gull Ring-billed gull Herring gull ` Thayer's gull Mew gull; Rock dove Hairy woodpecker' Barn swallow • Rough-winged swallow Violet-green swallow' Cliff swallow Tree swallow' American crow' Black-capped chickadee' Chestnut-backed chickadee' - - Common bushtit' American robin' Eurasian starling' House finch' Yellow warbler' Yellow-rumped warbler' House sparrow' Dark-eyed junco' Red-winged blackbird' Rufus-sided towhee' Common yellowthroat' Song sparrow' - White-crowned sparrow' Golden-crowned sparrow' Belted kingfisher' Cooper's hawk' Wilson's warbler' Downy woodpecker' Vaux's swift Brown-headed cowbird' American goldfinch' Ruby-crowned kinglet' Bewick's'wren' 1. Frequently use or require riparian vegetation. 2. Use riparian vegetation, but prefer largeitrees or dead snags for perching and nesting. --.; Bald eagles typically migrate to wintering ranges in Washington state in late October and the nesting season extends from January through August 15. Year-round resident bald eagles are known to be in the greater Seattle.area. The nearest known nest, to the project area, is located in Seward Park, approximately 3 miles northwest. Bald ll . eagles have been observed using the woody debris at the Cedar River delta and perching on adjacent Boeing property and at Gene Coulon Park (USFWS; 1995 and 71 1996). No foraging behavior has been documented, but the eagles were likely in the area to prey on salmon carcasses or waterfowl near the delta. A survey is currently being conducted to determine if northwestern pond turtles occur in the project area. It is unlikely that any still exist in the area of Lake Washington. The V!DFW supports a captive breeding'program at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle which will attempt to reintroduce northwestern pond turtles to selected western 2 Washington locations, including Lake Washington. The only habitat expected to be suitable for northjiiestern pond turtles, in the project area, is the.logs and other debris 4 on the delta. It is unknown if river lamprey are in the:Cedar River. t 44 1 3.8 Vegetation. Riparian vegetation in the upper Cedar watershed consists of a mix of second growth deciduous and coniferous trees and a number of native shrub species. Species include black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), willows (Salix sp.), red alder (Alnus rubra), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), snowberry (Symphoricarpus alba), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Indian plum (Oemlaria cerasiformis), ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) ; cascara buckthorn (Rhamnus purshiana), salal (Gaultheria shallon), devil's club (Oplopanax horridum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa). The project reach is highly urbanized and has very few native species present. The left f'_? bank has an airport access road approximately 10 feet,(3 m).from the river bank, so has very limited room for riparian vegetation. The airport has also mowed down the vegetation along the lower 1000 feet (300 m) of the left bank because of the close - proximity of the runway and the need for a "clear zone": The only section of native vegetation along the left bank is a strip of approximately 5. cottonwood trees and scattered willows and alders located between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge for approximately 1000 feet (300 m). _- The right bank is a city park and has some native species and many ornamental or otherwise exotic species. The predominant riparian species are red alder, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense), willows and reed canary grass.(Phalaris arundinaceae). The alders and willows are in a narrow strip (one tree wide) along the upper reach of the project area for approximately 1700 feet (515 m), upstream of the south Boeing bridge. On the right bank below the south Boeing bridge there are no areas of native vegetation except for a few (<10) alders and • willows scattered along the bank. The riparian zone is dominated by blackberries and reed canary grass. Mowed lawn also occurs up to the bank edge in many locations. There are approximately 8 weeping willow trees adjacent to and downstream of the boat ramp. Aquatic vegetation is present in the lowest 1650 feet (500 m) of the river. Observations - `_ by COE staff identified the species present as waterweed (Elodea canadensis), eelgrass pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) and curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). These species are all growing in 3-6 feet (0.9-1.8 rrm) of water which is influenced by the summer,lake level and experiences very slow current velocities. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 square feet of native riparian vegetation exist along the lower 1.25 miles of the river. • 45 I 3.9 Cultural Resources The lower Cedar River/Black River/Lake Washington area was historically occupied by the Duwamish Indians. The Duwamish, and at least eight other closely related Southern Puget Sound tribal groups, belong to the Coast Salish language group. These tribes were skilled fishermen, hunters and plant collectors. People aggregated into large villages during the winter months; during the spring, groups tended to disperse into smaller units.for,exploitation of locally available resources. Salmon runs in the Duwamish, Black and Cedar Rivers were an important resource to the Duwamish Indians. The Duwamish.were party to the Treaty of Point Elliott signed in 1855,which ceded Indian lands to the United States and removed various Puget Sound tribes to established reservations in western Washington. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is the recipient of the Point Elliott treaty rights as heirs of the various tribes which moved to 2 the reservations. As partial compensation for ceding lands to the U.S. government, the 3 signing tribes were granted the right to continue to take fish at usual and accustomed fishing grounds. . On the old Black River, there are several sites associated with the Duwamish Indians. These sites have been excavated and described per previous development in the southwest portion of Renton. The first record of Euro-American settlement in the area was the establishment of a saw mill on the Black River in the early 1850s. The first post office was constructed at the junction of the Black and Cedar Rivers in 1867. The City of Renton was named for Captain William Renton who originally settled in the Puget Sound area in 1853 for the timber industry. In his search for timber, Renton located a large vein of coal near the. present City of Renton and subsequently started the Renton Coal.Company. When the town was platted in 1876, it was naHed after Renton and its first large industry. In 1877, the first railroad reached the 'City of Renton which facilitated shipment of coal to west coast cities. Expansion.of the railway system was also conducive to increased homesteading in the area throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the winter of 1910-1911 extensive flooding along the Cedar. River caused the citizens of Renton to form Waterway District No. 2 which was responsible for excavating a new channel to contain the "wild" river. This new channel project coincided conveniently '; with:the Corps' Lake Washington Ship Canal project which lowered Lake Washington by 9 feet and required a new input of fresh water to operate the locks for navigation. No historic sites are located within the project area that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 3.10 Land Use/Recreation/Public Use • The property surrounding the lower Cedar River is largely urban industrial, with the Boeing manufacturing plant on the east side of the river and.the Renton Municipal Airport on the west side: The airport's seapland launch/dock area is adjacent to and west of the airport runway. The Renton Airport is used extensivellyby small planes and 46 Boeing and is the fifth busiest airport in Washington. The airport bank overflows at approximately 2500 cfs, currently. This causes flooding of the airport perimeter road every winter. During higher flows, airport buildings and the runway are inundated with water. A significant recreational feature, the Cedar River Trail Park is alongside the right bank of the Cedar River with a narrow strip park area from the Logan Avenue bridge to the mouth, and a trail only, upstream of the Logan Avenue bridge to the Renton library. A non-motorized boat launch area is present in the park. Upstream of the Boeing plant is the Renton School District stadium and parking area. Above Logan Avenue, there are a number of municipal buildings including City Hall and the public library adjacent to the river. Fishing for salmon or steelhead is not allowed in the Cedar River. Several portions of the Cedar River Trail flood during most winter flows, with existing conditions. This creates a public safety hazard and reduces public access to the riparian area. 3.11 Transportation The lower two miles (3.2 km) of the Cedar River are crossed several times by roads within the City of Renton (see Figure 2). Immediately adjacent to the lower mile of the Cedar River is the Cedar River Trail Park (right bank) which has access through the Boeing manufacturing facility. A small non-motorized boat ramp is located within the Park. The left bank is occupied by the City of Renton Municipal Airport, with an adjacent seaplane launch in Lake Washington. Public access is allowed on a road from Logan Avenue down to the south Boeing bridge. Access is controlled beyond that point for airplane owners and airport personnel only. During most winters, the perimeter road along the left bank of the river is flooded. The two Boeing bridges are Boeing property and utilized for transporting planes across the river. Boeing transports several planes a day across their bridges for testing and other manufacturing requirements. Without these bridges, Boeing would not be able to fly its planes out of the Renton facility. Flooding has frequently caused the south Boeing bridge to accumulate large quantities of debris, which must be removed in order to prevent failure of the bridge during high flows. Cleanup and maintenance is extensive at the bridge and the surrounding areas after flooding. Other current hazards to transportation, in the project area, include the large numbers of gulls and geese that utilize the gravel bars in the river, the delta, the park and the airport runway area for resting. These birds have been struck by aircraft taking off_and landing at least several times, although the actual number is unknown. The airport typically clears the runway of birds prior to Boeing jet take-offs to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes. Tl-e City dredged the delta in 1993, primarily to eliminate habitat for 47. these birds. However, monitoring conducted after dredging (Harza, 1995) indicated - that the birds simply moved onto the runway or park rather than leaving the area. 3.12 Air/Noise/Light Air quality in the City of Renton was formerly classified as "nonattainment" for carbon. monoxide (CO) and ozone. All other parameters were within the attainment category. In 1996, most of the Puget Sound egion (including Renton) was reclassified as "attainment" because only infrequent violations of air quality standards occurred in the previous five years. (PSAPCA, pers. comm.) In the area surrounding the lower Cedar River, possible sources of pollution would be airplane fuels and exhaust and car and truck exhaust. Noise in the area surrounding the lower Cedar River is periodically quite high (88-98 dB) during full power engine testing. Boeing performs engine testing several times per day, and each test may last 40 minutes (M. Nakjiri, Boeing, pers. comm), however most of the testing period is at lower engine levels. The airport has small to large aircraft landing or taking off an average of 400-500 times per day; and two Boeing jets typically take off per day under the current manufacturing schedule. The annual average noise exposure at the Cedar River and portions of the Cedar River Trail Park is 60-65 dB (Bucher, Wills & Ratliff, 1995). 3.13 Aesthetics The lower Cedar River is surrounded by urban-industrial development and this is obvious to anyone walking along t11e Cedar River Trail. The park and trail and adjacent Cedar River create a natural aesthetic refuge from the surroundings. The existing vegetation creates a shady and protected zone. Views from the park include the Boeing facilities, airport, lower River and Lake Washington with territorial views to Seattle and Mercer Island. 3.14 Public Service/Utilities/Enemy Utility and sewer lines are present along both sides of the lower Cedar River and utility lines cross the south Boeing bridg . Boeing has internal storm drains that are currently buried beneath Cedar River sediments. Boeing is in the process of rerouting all .: stormwater drainage into one'outfall with an oil/water separator that drains into Lake Washington. The airport also has several storm drains that are currently buried beneath Cedar River sediments. 1 3.15 Public Health and Safety The public uses the Cedar River Trail parkas described in Section 3.10. Public health and safety concerns occur during normal winter flows in the Cedar River, when the trail is inundated with'water at the Logan Avenue bridge and upstream. Public health and safety are also threatened by flood flows which inundate the road along the left bank 48 (airport) and much of the Cedar River Trail park. The current flooding situation can cause the backup of sewage and other contaminants into areas of human use. The • flood fighting required to prevent loss of the south Boeing bridge during a flood is also very hazardous. The airport has several storm drains that feed into the Cedar River; these drains have become sedimented over and during flooding the drains cause internal flooding on the airport because they do not drain. , • • • . I 49 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • ElThis section describes and evaluated the environmental impacts of the five alternatives , , described in Section 2.2. The impacts from each alternative are evaluated side by side under each element of the environment. Efforts to avoid and minimize impacts which ,r.' shaped the proposed alternatives are also described under each element of the • environment. The minimal dredge alternative(4 feet) is the Corps' and local sponsor's preferred alternative based on economic and environmental considerations. However, r, 1 1 the impacts from all action alternatives have been evaluated in detail because there was interest on the part of the sponsor in pursuing the moderate dredge (6 feet) ,-, alternative.during the draft EIS phase. These impacts have been left in the final EIS to provide_additional information. 1 I i 4.1 Geology/Sediments/Soils/Floodplains i • No alternatives will have an adverse impact on geology. None of the action alternatives r . will change floodplain management plans or objectives or increase floodplain development, because the purpose of flood control is to protect the existing highly developed urban area of Renton. r.; 4.1.1 No Action.Alternative - -- '' With the no-action alternative, sediments will continue to be transported downstream by a the Cedar River and will deposit in the lower mile and delta at a rate of 0.1-1.0 foot/year . -0.3 ). C ' hycs modeling s in less ye UF. the(003 future,m/year the channel orps will filldrauli in to the point that the majoritythat of the Riverthan flow20 would in avulse onto the Renton airport. 'A more likely future scenario is that flooding would become,so intense in the City of Renton that emergency dredging would occur at some ,a point in the near future and prevent the river from completely avulsing onto the airport. , The existing and,future flooding situation can cause the deposition of greater than 5000 cubic yards Of sand and other material onto the Renton airport access road and the Cedar River Trail Park. f7 4.1.2 Existing Channel Alternative . The existing channel alternative would require a minimal amount of dredging to remove existing gravel bars in the lower mi'e to create a uniform depth across the channel equal to the existing thalweg depth. A total of 31,000 CY of material would be removed. The sediment size distribution would not be changed from the existing distribution because the underlying sediment,is similar to the exposed sediment. Immediately after dredging, the sediments should be less embedded or "armored" with fine materials because the dredging will disturb fine materials. Between maintenance 'dredge cycles, sediments would continue to be deposited in the same manner as now. In the range of 0.1-1.0 foot/year (0.p3-0.3 m/year) of sediments would be deposited. Continued maintenance dredging would be required approximately every 3 years, with 114,000 CY of material, on average, removed. The short-term maintenance dredging 1 50 impacts will be virtually identical to the short-term initial construction impacts if similar methods of dredging are used (primarily related to water quality, see Section 4.2). The lake backwater would remain in the same location, from the mouth up to - 1000 feet r=y (300 m) upstream (during high lake level). The existing channel depth alternative will not adversely affect sediments or soils in the lower Cedar River. • 4.1.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge.alternative would require dredging an average of 4 feet (1 2 m) of the existing sediments from the north Boeing bridge (mouth) up to Logan Avenue and then sloping up to meet the existing gradient approximately 800 feet (240 m) upstream of Logan Avenue at Williams Avenue. A total of 158,000 CY of material would be removed. The sediment size distribution would not be changed from the existing distribution because the underlying sediment is similar to the exposed sediment. Immediately after dredging, the sediments should be less embedded or"armored" with fine materials because the dredging will disturb fine materials. Between maintenance '- dredge cycles, sediments would continue to be deposited in a similar manner as now, except the lake backwater would extend from the mouth up to approximately 3300 feet (1000 m) upstream of the mouth; an increase of 2300 linear feet (700 m) (increase of 253,000 ft2 [5.8 acres or 23,230 m2]). The area influenced by the lake backwater would tend to accumulate fine sediments such as sands and silts during low-moderate flows. These finer sediments are found as layers on top of gravel which is deposited during high flows. The minimal dredge alternative will increase the area of gravel embedded with fine sediments (during the summer high lake level) by approximately 253,000 ft2 (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2), and concomitantly decrease the area of clean small to large gravel by an equal amount. Continued maintenance dredging would be required, conservatively, every 3 years, with 170,000 CY of material, on average, removed. The short-term maintenance dredging impacts will be virtually identical to the short-term initial construction impacts if similar methods of dredging are used (primarily related to water quality, see Section 4.2). 4.1.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative '. The moderate dredge alternative would require dredging an average of six feet of existing sediments from the mouth up'to Logan Avenue and then sloping up to meet the existing gradient approximately 1200 feet (360 m) upstream at Wells Avenue. A total of 195,000 CY of material would be removed initially. The sediment size distribution would not be changed from the existing distribution because the underlying sediment is similar to the exposed sediment. Immediately after dredging, the sediments should be less embedded or "armored" with fine materials because the dredging will disturb fine materials. Between maintenance dredge cycles, sediments would continue to be fi deposited in a similar manner as now, except the lake backwater would extend from the mouth up to approximately 4200 feet (1300 m) upstream; an increase of 3200 linear feet (1000 m) (an increase of 352,000 ft2 [8 acres or 32,320 m2]). The area influenced by the lake backwater would tend to accumulate fine sediments such as sands and silts during low-moderate flows. These finer sediments are found as layers on top of.gravel 51 f 1 - which is deposited during high flows. The moderate dredge alternative will increase the area of fine sediments (during the summer high lake level) by approximately 352,000 ft2 r"3 (8 acres or 32,320 m2), and concomitantly decrease the area of small/large gravel by an equal amount. Continued maintenance dredging would be required, conservatively, every 3 years, with 176,000 CY of Material, on average, removed. The short-term r maintenance dredging impacts will be.virtually identical to the short-term initial construction impacts if similar methods of dredging are used (primarily related to water quality, see Section 4.2). 4.1.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative would require dredging an average of ten feet of existing sediments from the mouth up to 4900 feet (1700 m) upstream and then sloping up to s.:. meet the existing gradient approximately 1200 feet (360 m) upstream of Logan Avenue at Wells Avenue. A total of 260,000 CY of material would be removed initially. The sediment size distribution would not be changed from the existing distribution because the underlying sediment is similar to the exposed sediment. Immediately after dredging, the sediments should be less embedded or "armored" with fine materials because the dredging will disturb fine materials. Between maintenance dredge cycles, sediments would continue to be deposited in a similar manner as now, except the lake backwater would extend from the mouth up to approximately 5600 feet (1700 m) f" upstream; an increase of 4600 linear feet (1400 m) (an increase of 506,000 ft2 [11.6 acres or 46,460 m2]). The area influenced by the lake backwater would tend to accumulate fine sediments such as sands and silts during low-moderate flows. These finer sediments are found as layerslon top of gravel which is deposited during high flows. The deep dredge alternative;will increase the area of fine sediments (during the summer high lake level) by approximately 506,000 ft2 (11.6 acres or 46,460 m2), and concomitantly decrease the area of small to large gravel by an equal amount. Continued maintenance dredging would be required approximately every 3 years, with " 185,000 CY of material, on.average, removed. The short-term maintenance dredging impacts will be virtually identical to the short-term initial construction impacts if similar methods of dredging are used (primarily related to water quality, see Section 4.2). 4.2 Water and Water Quality For all dredging alternatives, during construction and maintenance, there will be an short-term increase in turbidity. All practicable best management practices will be utilized to minimize turbidity. The lowest 3000 feet (900'm) will be dredged by a barge mounted clamshell, dragline or hydraulic suction dredge. Silt curtains will be employed in this area of lake backwater to contain turbidity during dredging. Return water will flow out of the dredged sediments either on the park (where best management practices such as the use of hay bales will reduce turbidity) or from a barge. The upstream area which cannot be dredged by barge will be dredged by one of the methods described in Section 2.2. Dredging by a crane mounted clamshell will have significant turbidity increases because fine materials will wash out of the clamshell with 52 • the water. Silt curtains would not be feasible in this reach of the river because of the velocities and potential for trapping fish. Dredging by front-end loader (river diverted by use of coffer dams) would not cause any significant turbidity because the river would be rM1: diverted away from the immediate dredging area. Even during rain events, the dredging area for a front-end loader will be isolated from the river by coffer dams and there should not be any significant increase in turbidity because the stormwater will percolate into the sediments. Additionally, for all action alternatives, four supports to hydraulically jack the south Boeing bridge will be constructed partially in the channel. The steel jacking structure will be placed down in the sediments by a crane-mounted augering device. The auger will be incased in a steel pipe to contain all sediments excavated during augering and these sediments will be removed to the upland. A concrete retaining wall will be constructed around each of the steel supports to prevent water contact except during high flows. During construction of these retaining walls, coffer dams,will be placed around the area to prevent contact of water with uncured concrete. Any water which seeps into the coffer dammed area will be pumped out and removed from the site. 4.2.1 No Action Alternative In the short term, the no action alternative will not significantly change existing water or water quality. The current water quality is endangered whenever flood flows go-across the urbanized areas of Renton and wash pollutants into the Cedar River and Lake Washington. As the sediment aggrades in the channel, in less than 20 years in the future, the main river flow will likely avulse onto the Renton airport. Prior to avulsion, velocities would likely increase as the channel became higher than the lake level. When the channel did avulse, velocities would be reduced as the water spreads out over the unconfined runway. This would worsen the effects on water quality as oils and grease on the roads and runway were dissolved or suspended in the river flow. Utility lines such as natural gas or sewage would be in danger of breaking from overbank. flooding and erosion. Other existing water quality problems, such as high temperatures in the summertime would not change or may become worse as the channel filled in and the river spread out shallowly over a greater area. 4.2.2 Existing Channel Alternative Construction effects on water and water quality are described above. After construction, the existing channel alternative will not affect water or water quality. Velocities will remain similar to now. The thalweg, which currently meanders somewhat between gravel bars will be in-the center of the-channel. Water quality will not be changed from the existing condition except for short-term turbidity effects during construction and maintenance dredging. I I 53 } i 4.2.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Construction effects on water and water quality are described above. After, construction, the minimal dredge alternative will not adversely affect water quality. Velocities will be reduced in the area of increased lake backwater. The dredged channel will be V-shaped and tend to concentrate river flow in a narrower area than exists now. The river flow during.low flow periods (June-September) may be deeper • , than the existing condition with slightly increased velocities. 4.2.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative Construction effects on water and water quality are described above. After. construction,-the moderate dredge alternative will not adversely affect water quality. ��,: Velocities will be reduced in the area of increased lake backwater. The dredged channel will be V-shaped and tend to concentrate river flow in a narrower area than exists now. The river flow during low flow periods (June-September) may be deeper than the existing condition with slightly increased velocities. 4.2.5. Deep Dredge Alternative 4 , Construction effects on water and water quality are described above. After construction, the moderate dredge alternative will not adversely affect water quality. r ;:- Velocities will be reduced in the area of increased lake backwater. The dredged channel will be V-shaped and tend to concentrate river flow in a narrower area than exists now; however, the lake backwater will extend to Logan Avenue and velocities will still be much reduced over the entire length of the lower mile. I 4.3 Fish . '' Because most of the work proposed for this project involves some level of dredging, f with continued maintenance, potential impacts on fish and fish habitat were considered to be very important during scoping. Efforts to minimize negative impacts on fish, from the dredging alternatives, include: (1) construction and maintenance will only occur from June 15 - August 3.1 (a reduction from the usual work window of June 15- September 15) when salmon species are not typically present in the project-area. Smelt spawning and fry emergence occurs prior to June 15. (2) The actual time period of construction and maintenance dredging will be compressed within the work window, ., if feasible, to avoid prolonged disturbance to resident fish such as sculpin and trout. 1 4.3.1 Sockeye Salmon ' 4.3.1.1 No Action Alternative c+, The no action alternative will not immediately change the existing conditions for L?; sockeye salmon. As the channel sedimentf aggrades, the reach below the south Boeing bridge would likely experience slightly increased water velocities as the channel bottom u ' 54 becomes higher above the lake level and reduces the lake backwater effects. Once the channel became nearly filled in and the river flow spreads out into the adjacent park and airport, the effects on sockeye salmon would be very negative. It would be very . ;, difficult for adult sockeye to transit into the lower portion of the river because depths `a would be dramatically reduced and river temperatures would increase. During flooding ' the potential for stranding both adults and juveniles on the airport and other areas - would be increased. Likewise, juvenile salmon would more easily be washed out onto the airport during high winter and spring flows experiencing stranding or contact with pollutants. The no action alternative is likely to have significant negative impacts on sockeye salmon in the future. 4.3.1.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing ' existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths. The reduced water depths may make it more difficult for adult sockeye salmon to ascend the lower Cedar River during low flows (-200 cfs). The existing depths at low flows already may hinder access by adult salmon. Conditions for juvenile sockeye salmon would not be significantly different from the existing situation. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM for approximately 400 feet (120 m). This may provide new habitat for predator species such as cutthroat and rainbow trout or rearing , juvenile salmon of other species such as coho or steelhead (reference Tabor & Chan, 1996a and 1996b; Beauchamp, 1995; which indicates that coho and steelhead juveniles prey on sockeye fry in the lower Cedar River). The riprap may also provide some additional holding areas for adult sockeye salmon during their ascent in higher flows. Spawning substrate will not be affected because the removal of gravel bars will not remove below water gravel spawning areas; however, water depths and velocities , may be slightly reduced. Overall, the existing channel alternative will slightly hinder access for adult sockeye salmon during low flows and will slightly increase habitat for predator species that prey on sockeye fry. ,:. 4.3.1.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from the mouth up to 3300 feet (1000 m) upstream. Access for adult sockeye salmon will be enhanced slightly during low flows over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM for approximately 400 linear feet , , (120 m). This may provide new habitat for predator species such as cutthroat and s rainbow trout or rearing juvenile salmon of other species such as coho or steelhead (reference Tabor & Chan, 1996a and 1996b; Beauchamp, 1995; which indicates that coho and steelhead juveniles prey on sockeye fry in the lower Cedar River). The riprap may also provide holding areas for adult sockeye salmon during their ascent in higher flows. The lake backwater area will be increased by 253,000 feet' (5.8 acres or 23,230 . 55 1 i m2) and will provide additional habitat for potential predator species that prefer a lake- like environment, such as northern squawfish, yellow perch, largemouth bass and trout j species. As described in Section 3.4, these species are not typically present during the I sockeye fry outmigration period and are not expected to substantially reduce sockeye fry survival in the lower Cedar River, even though their habitat may be increased during late spring and summer. Prickly sculpin habitat will be increased and they may be more significant predators on sockeye salmon fry than other lake dwelling species. It is expected that prickly sculpin populations will be periodically reduced due to maintenance dredging. So'ckeye spawning habitat will be somewhat reduced. A maximum of 235 redds have been observed below 1000 meters (0.15%of the run). This habitat will become lake backwater and will be unsuitable for spawning, however, ' the gravel substrate above`3300 feet (1000 m) will remain similar to the existing condition after dredging, with slightly changed depths. r_. Overall, adult transport and spawning in the project reach will be reduced. Sockeye fry survival will likely be reduced by the i increase of predator habitat. 4.3.1.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly,upstream of --, the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from the mouth up to, :. 'F"' approximately 4200 feet (1300 m) upstream. Access for adult sockeye salmon will be enhanced slightly during low flows over the existing conditions: The levees and ' floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM for approximately 400 linear feet (120 m). This may provide new habitat for predator species such as cutthroat and rainbow trout or rearing juvenile salmon of other species such as coho or steelhead (referenice Tabor & Chan, 1996a and 1996b; Beauchamp, 1995; which indicates that coho and steelhead juveniles prey on sockeye fry in the lower Cedar River). The riprap may also provide holding areas for adult sockeye F, salmon during their ascent in higher flows. The lake backwater area will be increased by 352,000 feet' (8 acres or 32,320 m2) and will provide additional habitat for potential predator species that prefer a lake dike environment, such as northern squawfish, y-; yellow perch, largemouth bass and1 possibly trout species. As described in Section 3.4, these species are not typically present during the sockeye fry outmigration period and are not expected to substantially affect sockeye fry survival in the lower Cedar River, , ,Y, even though their habitat may be increased during late spring and summer. Prickly j sculpin habitat will be increased and they may be more significant predators on sockeye salmon fry than other lake dwelling species. It is expected that prickly sculpin populations will be reduced by periodic 'maintenance dredging. Sockeye spawning habitat will be reduced. A maximum of 665 redds have been observed below 4200 feet (1300 m) upstream of the mouth (0.44% of the run). This area will become lake s backwater and will be unsuitable for salmon spawning. However, the gravel substrate above 4200 feet (1300 m) will remain similar to the existing condition after dredging, with slightly altered depths and velocities. l G ` 56 o I. Overall, adult transport and spawning in the project reach will be reduced. Sockeye fry survival will also be reduced by the increase of predator habitat. 4.3.1.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths from the mouth up to Logan Avenue. Velocities __ i. will be reduced in this reach because the lake backwater will extend up to approximately 5600 feet (1700 m)from the mouth. This will cause the lower mile of the river to be essentially part of Lake Washington during high pool levels (spring and , summer). Access for adult sockeye salmon may be slightly enhanced, during low _ flows, over the existing condition. The lake backwater area will be increased by 506,000 feet2=(11.6 acres or 46,460 m2) and will provide additional habitat for potential predator species that prefer a lake-like environment, such as northern squawfish, yellow perch, largemouth bass and possibly trout species. Prickly sculpin that currently ,.. utilize the lake backwater habitat will have significantly more habitat. Prickly sculpin . may be the most significant predator on sockeye fry (Tabor & Chan, 1996). It is expected that prickly sculpin populations will be periodically reduced by maintenance dredging, but with such a large increase of available habitat their populations will likely 9 9. 9 i -! increase significantly. The riprap protection for the levees and floodwalls will be in the lake backwater and habitat for other predators would not likely be increased above that caused by the backwater effect. A maximum of 1259 redds have been observed in the area from 5600 feet (1700 m) down to the mouth (0.8%.of the run). The spawning habitat ranges from poor to good, it is not known what the overall survival of eggs or fry , is in this area, but the lower mile is approximately 4% of the total mainstem area. Overall, sockeye spawning habitat may be reduced by as much as 4%. Sculpin and other predator habitat will be increased significantly with the increased lake backwater area and will likely significantly reduce sockeye fry survival. 4.3.2 Chinook Salmon ' _ 4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not immediately change the existing conditions for chinook salmon. As the channel sediment aggrades, the reach below the south Boeing bridge would likely experience slightly increased water velocities as the channel bottom becomes higher above the lake level. Once the channel became nearly filled in and the , river flow spreads out into the adjacent park and airport, the effects on chinook salmon would likely be very negative. Adult chinook would have a more difficult time ascending the lower portion of the river because depths would be dramatically reduced and during higher flows the potential for stranding of adults or juveniles on the airport and other t areas would be increased. Likewise, juvenile salmon would more easily be washed out onto the airport during high winter and spring flows experiencing stranding or contact - , with pollutants. The no action alternative is likely to have significant negative impacts on chinook salmon in the future. 57 -`. 1 4.3.2.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing existing gravel bars and deep holesi This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths. ,The reduced,water depths may make it more difficult for adult chinook salmon to ascend the lower Cedar River during low flows (-200 cfs). The existing depths and high temperatures at low flows already likely delay access or create additional stress for adult salmon. Spawning habitat for adult chinook would not be changed from the existing condition. Only sporadic spawning occurs in the project area. Chinook would be more affected by water depths than other species because their run timing is typically earlier, during low flow periods. No significant holding habitat exists in the lower river for adults migrating further upstream. Some --, chinook fry appear to migrate to Lake Washington within a month of emerging (captured by Martz, et al, 1996a and 1996b). Their migration to the lake would not be affected by the existing channel alternative. Other chinook fry likely rear in upstream - areas, side channels, pools and/or tributaries. Transport of juvenile chinook through __ the project area prior to migrating out the ship canal would not be affected. Habitat for. predators; such as rainbow and cutthroat trout will not increase, so chinook fry survival would not be affected by the existing channel alternative. 4.3.2.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) _i The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge.. The lake backwater will extend from 3300 feet (1000,m) to the mouth. Access for adult chinook salmon may be enhanced slightly during low flows over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described { in Section'2.2 with riprap below the OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult chinook would not likely be reduced because it is currently negligible. Only infrequent spawning - occurs in the project area. Predator habitat may be increased by 253,000.feet' (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2), as described in Section 4.3.1.3. The increase in predator habitat may reduce the survival of chinook fry and juveniles migrating through the lower Cedar - River. 4.3.2.4. Moderate Dredge Alternative '_ The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge: The lake backwater will extend from 4200 feet (1300 m)to the mouth. Access for adult chinook salmon will be enhanced slightly during low flows over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below th reduced because it is e OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult chinook would not be currently negligible. .Only infrequent spawning occurs in • the project area: Predator habitat may be increased by 352,000 feet' (8 acres or 32,320 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. The increase in predator habitat will likely i I . 58 • reduce the survival of chinook fry and juveniles migrating through the lower Cedar River. , 4.3.2.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths over most of the project area. The lake backwater will extend from 5600 feet (1700 m)to the mouth. Access for adult chinook salmon will be enhanced slightly, during low flows, over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the , OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult chinook would not be reduced because it is currently negligible. Only infrequent spawning occurs in the project area. Predator. habitat may be increased by 506,000 feet' (11.6 acres or 46,460 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. The increase in predator habitat may significantly reduce the survival - of chinook fry and juveniles migrating through the lower Cedar River.9 4.3.3 -Coho Salmon -. 4.3.3.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not immediately change the existing conditions for coho - salmon. As the channel sediment aggrades, the reach below the south Boeing bridge V would likely experience slightly increased water velocities as the channel bottom becomes higher above the lake level. Once the channel became nearly filled in and the river flow spreads out into the adjacent park and airport, the effects on coho salmon could be very negative. Adult coho would have a more difficult time ascending the lower portion of the river because depths would be dramatically reduced and the . potential for stranding on the airport and other areas would be increased, especially ' ` because coho ascend the river in the,fall and winter. Likewise, juvenile salmon would more easily be washed,out onto the airport during high winter and spring flows experiencing stranding or contact with pollutants. The no action alternative is likely to have significant negative impacts on coho salmon in the future. 4.3.3.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths. The reduced water depths will make it more difficult for adult coho salmon to ascend the lower Cedar River during low flows (-200 cfs). The existing depths at low flows already likely delay access by adult salmon. Spawning habitat for adult coho would not be changed from the existing condition. Only infrequent spawning occurs in the project area. Coho fry rear in upstream areas, side channels, pools and/or tributaries. Transport of juvenile coho through the project area prior to migrating out the ship canal would not be affected. . .59 e e 4.3.3.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 3300 feet (1300'm) to the mouth. Access for adult coho salmon will be enhanced slightly during low flows over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult coho would not be changed from the existing condition.' Only infrequent spawning occurs in the project area. Predator habitat may be increased by 253,000 feet2 (23,230 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. However, the increase in predator habitat will not likely reduce the survival of coho juveniles migrating through the lower Cedar River because they are ' much larger than other salmonid juveniles. Rearing habitat for coho may be increased _.-- because they often prey on sockeye fry and other small fish in the lower river (Tabor& Chan, 1996a and 1996b; Beauchamp, 1995). 4.3.3.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative r . The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of . the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 4200 feet (1300 m) to ..« the mouth. Access for adult coho salmon will be enhanced slightly during low flows F over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult coho would not be significantly changed from the existing condition. Only infrequent spawning occurs ri in the project area. Predator habitat may be increased by 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. The increase in predator habitat will not likely reduce the r survival of coho juvenilesmigrating 9 mi ratin through the lower Cedar River and may increase .: rearing habitat for larger juveniles because there will be additional habitat to prey on sockeye fry and other small fish. 4.3.3.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths over most of the project area. The lake backwater will extend from 5600 feet (1700 m) to the mouth. Access for adult coho E salmon will be generally unchanged, during low flows, over the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the • OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult coho may be reduced from the existing condition. It is not known to what extent spawning occurs in the area that would.be affected by this alternative. Predator habitat may be increased by 506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. The increase in predator habitat will not likely reduce the 173. - survival of coho juveniles migrating through the lower Cedar River and may increase rearing habitat for larger coho juveniles because of the additional opportunities to prey on sockeye fry and other small fish. I 60 4.3.4 Steelhead Trout For all dredging alternatives, during the actual construction and maintenance time periods, there is a slight chance that juvenile steelhead may be present in the river until early July. To minimize any impact to steelhead, the water will be diverted (in the reach above 3300 feet [1000 m] from the mouth) in a manner that will maintain a viable transportation corridor for steelhead during dredging. 4.3.4.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not immediately change the existing conditions for steelhead trout. As the channel sediment aggrades, the reach below the south Boeing bridge would likely experience slightly increased water velocities as the channel bottom becomes higher above the lake level. Once the channel became nearly filled in and the - river flow spreads out into the adjacent park and airport, the effects on steelhead trout could be very negative. Adult steelhead, returning in the winter, would have a more difficult time ascending the lower portion of the river because depths would be dramatically reduced and the potential for stranding on the airport and other areas would be increased. Likewise, juvenile steelhead would more easily be washed out onto the airport during high winter and spring flows experiencing stranding or contact with pollutants. The no action alternative is likely to have significant negative impacts on steelhead trout in the future. 4.3.4.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by-removing existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths, during low flows. During high flow periods, when adult steelhead ascend the river, the loss of scour pool habitat may make it more difficult for steelhead to ascend against high currents. Spawning habitat for adult steelhead would not be changed from the existing condition. No known spawning occurs in the project area. Steelhead juveniles rear in upstream areas, side channels, pools and/or tributaries. Steelhead smolts may feed in the lower Cedar River on their way out to the locks. Transport of steelhead smolts through the project area prior to migrating out the ship canal would not be affected after project construction. 4.3.4.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 3300 feet (1300 m)to the {{ ` mouth. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with f !� riprap below the OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult steelhead would not be changed from the existing condition. No known spawning occurs in the project area. Backwater habitat will be increased by 253,000 feet' (23,230 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. 61 I I This may increase foraging habitat for steelhead smolts during their transit through this reach. • n 4.3.4.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative .-- The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of ,R 1 the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 4200 feet (1300 m) to r the mouth. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap below the OHWM. Spawning.habitat for adult steelhead would not be changed c_, from the existing condition. No known spawning occurs in the project area. Backwater habitat will be increased by 352,0001feet2 (32,320 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3. This may increase foraging habitat for steelhead smolts during their transit through this reach. 4.3.4.5 Deep Dredge Alternative . The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths and decrease velocities over most of the project area. The lake backwater will extend from 5600 feet (1500 m) to the mouth. Access for adult steelhead salmon will be generally unchanged from the existing conditions. The levees and floodwalls will be protected as described in Section 2.2 with riprap . below the OHWM. Spawning habitat for adult steelhead would not be changed from the existing condition. No known spawning occurs in the project area. Backwater habitat will be increased by 506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2) as described in Section 4.3.1.3.• f This may increase foraging habitat for steelhead smolts during their transit through this reach. t_. 4.3.5 Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout I E< It is unknown if sea-run cutthroat trout are present in the Cedar River: If they do exist in the river, their habitat needs and run timing is similar to steelhead trout. Impacts would be nearly identical to those identified in Section 4.3.4 for steelhead. 4.3.6 Resident Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout r. 4.3.6.1 No Action Alternative j ' The no action alternative will not change the existing habitat for resident cutthroat or rainbow trout in the short term. As the sediment continues to aggrade, the channel bottom will get closer to the airport level and resident trout may be washed onto the airport or park in moderate-high flows. Likewise,.juvenile trout would more easily be washed out onto the airport during high winter and spring flows experiencing stranding or contact with pollutants. The trout could move upstream farther to find suitable ( habitat, but it is likely that upstream habitats are already occupied by resident cutthroat Q. .i or rainbow trout. Trout may also be displaced into Lake Washington. The no action 62 I alternative is likely to have negative impacts on resident cutthroat or rainbow trout in the project area. • 1 4.3.6.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing -- existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across.the channel which may reduce water depths, during low flows and will also eliminate bank scour holes which resident trout prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees water which will and floodwalls may create nooks with quieterreplace the habitat lost from dredging. It is likely that overall, resident trout will not be significantly affected by the existing channel alternative. . 4.3.6.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the i v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which _ resident trout prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 3300 feet (1300 m), an increase of 253,000 feet2 (23,230 m2). This may increase foraging habitat for cutthroat trout in the lake-like area . (feed on sculpins, fish eggs, etc.), but both rainbow and cutthroat appear to prefer to ` reside in pools further upstream. It is likely that overall, resident trout will not be c significantly affected by the minimal dredge alternative. 4.3.6.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of 1 - the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which resident trout prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 4200 feet (1300 m), an increase of 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2). This may increase foraging habitat for cutthroat trout in the lake-like area (feed on sculpins, fish eggs, etc.). Overall, habitat may be increased for resident trout in the project area. 4.3.6.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- -R shape) and will increase water depths. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which resident trout prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The Ike backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase of 506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2). This will nearly replace the existing bank scour pool habitat 63 with lake backwater. It is likely that cutthroat trout will utilize the lake backwater habitat for foraging, but both trout species may use smaller pools further upstream for resting and hiding. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create _ nooks which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. Overall, habitat (especially foraging habitat) will.be increased for resident trout in the project area. • • 4.3.7 Longfin Smelt . 4.3.7.1 No Action Alternative • The no action alternative will not have significant impacts on longfin smelt in the short term. Longfin smelt only use the Cedar River for spawning and egg development. As sediment continues to aggrade, the bottom sediments will likely,become dominated by gravel and cobbles and less sandy in the lower reach, which may be less preferred by smelt for spawning. Velocities will likely increase until the flows spread onto the airport . and this will reduce the distance upstream that smelt are able to reach from Lake. Washington. As flows spread out onto the airport and park, smelt may experience stranding and come into contact with pollutants, or they may not be able to enter the river at all. The no action alternative is likely to have significant negative impacts on f ` longfin smelt spawning in the future. 4.3.7.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing willcreate a uniform depth across the deep holes) This gravel bars andP existing t-: P channel which may reduce water depths, during low flows and will also eliminate bank scour holes which smelt rest and/or spawn in. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will partially replace .the habitat lost from dredging. Overall, it is not likely that the existing channel alternative will significantly affect longfin smelt. 4.3.7.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Altemative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which smelt F rest and/or spawn in. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will partially replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 3300 feet (1300 m), an increase of 253,000 feet2 (23,230.m2). This will,increase the preferred lower velocity, finer substrate habitat and will likely positively benefit longfin smelt. Overall, it appears that Iongfin smelt spawning may be slightly enhanced by the minimal dredge alternative. 64 6 4.3.7.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of . the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of 1 the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which smelt rest and/or spawn in. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which may partially replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend, up to 4200 feet (1300 m), an increase of 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2). This will increase preferred lower velocity, finer substrate area and will likely positively benefit longfin smelt. Overall, it appears that longfin smelt spawning may be enhanced by the moderate dredge alternative. . 4.3.7.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deepdredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom•(because of the v- 9 E. shape) and will increase water depths. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which rest and/or spawn in. The placement of armoring to protect levees and • - floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which may partially replace the,habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase of 506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2). This will nearly replace the existing bank scour pool habitat with lake backwater. This will dramatically increase preferred lower velocity, finer substrate area and will positively benefit longfin smelt. Overall, it appears _ that longfin smelt spawning may be significantly enhanced by the deep dredge alternative. 4.3.8 Sculpins 4.3.8.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not likely affect sculpins or their habitat during the short it is likely As sediment continues to aggrade, that habitat for coastrange, torrent and reticulate sculpin will increase as the lower river builds up larger sediment with . higher velocities. Prickly sculpin habitat will concomitantly decrease. As the river flows spread out onto the airport and park areas, sculpins may be stranded or come into pollutants. Overall, prickly sculpin habitat will likely be reduced and habitat contact with for the other species will likely increase, but winter flows will likely displace sculpins from the river each year. - 4.3.8.2 Existing Channel Alternative i. The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing r -c existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths,, during low flows and will also eliminate bank scour holes which prickly and reticulate sculpin prefer. The placement of armoring to protect the floodwall may create nooks with quieter water which will partially replace the habitat lost from dredging. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will ' 65 ^ I affect sculpins because they are resident in the river during the construction window. - Sculpin will be displaced upstreami,or into the lake and there will likely be some mortality associated with dredging. The frequency of dredging (maximum of every 3 years) will provide a periodic disturbance to sculpins and their habitat, although recolonization will rapidly occur after each dredge cycle. Overall, sculpin habitat is not " likely to be significantly,changed. 4.3.8.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which prickly and reticulate sculpin prefer. The 'placement of armoring to protect levees and G:� floodwalls may create.nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will lextend up to 3300 feet (1300 m), an increase of 253,000 feet2 (23,230 m2). This will increase habitat preferred by prickly sculpin and - reduce habitat preferred by coastrange and torrent sculpin: The actual construction . 1 and maintenance dredging will affect sculpins because they are resident in the river_ during the construction window. Sculpin willbe displaced upstream or into the lake and. there will likely be extensive mortality associated with dredging. The frequency of dredging (maximum of every 3 years) will provide a periodic disturbance to sculpins sue. and their habitat, although recolonization will likely occur within one year following each `' dredge cycle. Overall, while habitat for prickly sculpin will be increased, populations of - sculpin will likely only slightly increase as a result of periodic maintenance dredging.: ' `; 4.3.8.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative . The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of ,° the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which. r prickly and reticulate sculpin prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will;extend up to 4200 feet (1300 m), an increase of 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2). This will increase habitat'preferred by'prickly sculpin and reduce habitat preferred by coastrange and torrent sculpin. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect sculpins because they are resident in the river -, during the construction window. Sculpin will be displaced upstream or into the lake and i b there will likely be extensive mortality associated with dredging. The frequency of dredging (maximum of every 3 years) will provide'a periodic disturbance to sculpins and their habitat, although recolonization will likely occur within one year following each dredge cycle. Overall, while habitat for prickly sculpin will be significantly increased, populations of sculpin will likely only moderately increase over time as a result of ,_r7 periodic maintenance dredging. .z y n I' i 66 4.3.8.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which rest and/or spawn in. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase of 506,000 feet' (46,460 m2) This will replace most of the existing higher velocity riffle and This will nea rly eliminate habi tat for habitat with lake backwater. bank scour pool • coastrange, torrent and reticulate sculpin,,in the project area, and replace it with habitat for prickly sculpin. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect sculpins because they are resident in the;river during the construction window. Sculpin will be displaced upstream or into the lake and there will likely be some mortality associated with dredging. Overall, the deep dredge alternative will likely eliminate most of the habitat for Coastrange, torrent and reticulate sculpins in the project area. Habitat for prickly sculpin will be'dramatically increased, and the population will likely significantly increase even with periodic dredging impacts. 4.3.9 Other Native Fish Species The other native species discussed in this section are: mountain whitefish, northern squawfish, largescale sucker, peamouth chub, and three-spine stickleback. Brook lamprey larvae have been collected during sediment sampling in the lower Cedar River, however no other information is known about brook lamprey use of the area. Longnose dace has not been observed in the project area, although they prefer riffle habitat, such as is found above 4000 feet (1200 m) upstream of the mouth. Northern squawfish, peamouth chub and three-spine stickleback are only occasionally found in the lower Cedar River, probably only straying from their primary habitat in the lake. 4.3.9.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not likely affect any of the above species or their habitat during the short term. Mountain whitefish and largescale suckers are the only species found year-round in the lower Cedar-River. Northern squawfish, peamouth chub and three-spine stickleback are found only from late spring through early fall, when the water temperatures are fairly high. As the sediment continues to aggrade, velocities will increase near the mouth of the river, and squawfish, peamouth and stickleback would likely be displaced back into the lake (they prefer quiet waters). Whitefish and suckers would likely remain in bank scour holes, but could be washed onto the airport or park during high flows. They would likely experience stranding or come into contact with pollutants. Overall, the no action alternative is likely to have negative impacts on these other native species in the future. • 67 f 4.3.9.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths, during low flows and will also eliminate bank scour holes which whitefish and suckers prefer. The placement of armoring to protect _ levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat t lost from dredging. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect i whitefish and suckers because they are resident in the river during the construction window. Also, squawfish may spawn during the early portion of the construction window. All of these species would likely be displaced into the lake during construction: Overall, the existing}channel alternative would not significantly impact any of the above { native species. Brook lamprey larvae will be killed or displaced during construction and f- maintenance dredging. Overall, their populations may decline as a result of the existing i channel alternative. ,. - 4.3.9.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The.v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which whitefish and suckers prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 3300 feet (1000 m), an increase of 253,000 feet2 (23,230 m2). This increase in lake-like habitat will likely increase.habitat available for northern squawfish, pamouth, largescale suckers and three-spine stickleback. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect whitefish and __ suckers because they are resident in the river during the construction window. Also, squawfish may spawn during the early portion of the construction window. All of these species would likely be displaced into the lake during construction. Overall, the minimal dredge alternative may enhance habitat for the most of the above native species. Brook lamprey larvae will be killed Or displaced during construction and maintenance dredging. Overall, their populations will likely decline as a result of the minimal dredge alternative. 4.3.9.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of 1 the south Boeing bridge. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which whitefish and suckers prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 4200 feet (1300 m), an increase of 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2). This increase in lake-like habitat will likely increase habitat available for northern squawfish, peamouth, largescale suckers and three-spine stickleback. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect whitefish and m 1 68 suckers because they are resident in the river during the construction window. Also, squawfish may spawn during the early portion of the construction window. All of these species would likely be displaced into the lake during construction. Overall,the moderate dredge alternative will likely enhance habitat for the most of the above native species. Brook lamprey larvae will be killed or displaced during construction and maintenance dredging. Overall, their populations will likely decline as a result of the moderate dredge alternative. 4.3.9.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths. The v-shape will tend to eliminate bank scour holes which whitefish and suckers prefer. The placement of armoring to protect levees and floodwalls may create nooks with quieter water which will replace the habitat lost from dredging. The lake backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase of 506,000 feet' (46,460 m2). This will nearly replace the existing higher velocity riffle and bank scour pool habitat with lake backwater. This will dramatically increase the habitat utilized by squawfish, peamouth, suckers and three-spine stickleback. Mountain whitefish will also likely utilize the lake-like environment or move upstream. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will affect whitefish and suckers because they are resident in the river during the construction window. Also, squawfish may spawn during the early portion of the construction window. All of these species would likely be displaced into the lake during construction. Overall, the deep dredge alternative may greatly enhance habitat for the most of the above native species. Brook lamprey larvae will be killed or displaced during construction and maintenance dredging. Overall, their populations will likely decline as a result of the deep dredge alternative. 4.3.10 Non-Native Fish Species Non-native fish species found in the project area include yellow perch, smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish and brown bullhead. These species are only occasionally present during late spring and summer, when the water temperatures are high and are typically found only in the lowest portion of the river which is lake-like. Their primary habitat is in Lake Washington. 4.3.10.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will have no effect on non-native species in the short term. As sediment continues to aggrade, it is likely the lowest portion of the river, which they currently utilize will become too fast-flowing and these species will be displaced into . Lake Washington. Overall, the no action alternative will slightly decrease the amount of e habitat available for these non-native species. 69 4.3.10.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative Will modify the channel cross-section by removing existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths upstream of the lake-like area, during low flows and will also eliminate bankscour holes. However, these species typically only utilize the lake-like lower river which will remain essentially the same after project construction. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will likely displace non-native species into the lake because that is the time of year they are present in the river. Overall, the existing channel alternative will have negligible effect on non-native species. 4.3.10.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the = v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 3300 feet (1000 m) to the mouth, an increase of 253,000 feet' (23,230 m2). This will increase habitat.utilized by non-native species. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will likely displace non-native species into the lake because that is the time of year they are, present in the river. Overall, the minimal dredge alternative may slightly enhance habitat for non-native species. j 4.3.10.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 4200 feet (1300 m)to z , the mouth, an increase of 352,000 feet2 (32,320 m2). This will increase habitat utilized by non-native species. The actual construction'and maintenance dredging will likely displace non-native species into the lake because that is the time of year they are present in the river. Overall, the moderate dredge alternative may slightly enhance habitat for non-native species. . 4.3.10.5 Deep Dredge Alternative The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- y shape) and will increase water depths. The lake backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase.of.506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2). This will nearly replace the existing higher velocity riffle and bank scour pool habitat with lake backwater. This will dramatically increase the_habitat utilized by non-native species. The actual construction and maintenance dredging will likely displace non-native species into the lake because that is the time of year they are present in the river. Overall, the deep dredge alternative will increase habitat for non-native species. I � 70 4.4 Aquatic Invertebrates ;- 4.4.1 No Action Alternative F The no action alternative will not have any effect on aquatic invertebrates in the short. term. The existing invertebrates will continue to have sediments deposited on top of them during moderate-high flows and will recolonize each spring. As sediment continues to aggrade, it is likely that habitat for organisms which prefer higher velocity - gravel riffles will increase as the lake-like habitat is reduced. This would likely mean an increase in populations of Plecopterans and Ephemeropterans which are preferred prey items for juvenile salmonids. Overall, the no action alternative will not likely affect overall abundance of invertebrates, but may replace slow velocity species with high velocity species. However, the likely increased input of pollutants as the river flows onto the airport and Boeing may decrease invertebrate populations. 4.4.2 Existing Channel Alternative The existing channel alternative will modify the channel cross-section by removing existing gravel bars and deep holes. This will create a uniform depth across the channel which may reduce water depths upstream of the lake-like area, during low flows and will also eliminate bank scour holes. This will tend to make all of the project area above 1000 feet (300 m) a higher velocity riffle area. This will provide a slightly increased amount of habitat for Plecopterans and Ephemeropterans. However, the - abundance and diversity of aquatic invertebrates is not expected to change - significantly. The existing invertebrates will continue to have sediments deposited on top of them during moderate-high flows and will recolonize each spring. However, because construction and maintenance dredging will occur periodically during the season of maximal invertebrate growth and abundance, populations of invertebrates may decline over time. Overall, the existing channel alternative may cause a slight decline of invertebrate populations in the future due to frequent maintenance dredging. 4.4.3 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The minimal dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the -- south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 3300 feet (1000 m)to the mouth, an increase of 253,000 feet' (23,230 m2). Upstream of 3300 feet (1000 m), higher velocity habitat for Plecopterans and Ephemeropterans may be slightly increased. From 3300 feet (1000 m) to the mouth, organisms which prefer low velocities and finer substrates will have increased habitat. Such organisms include c Megalopterans, Dipterans, Trichopterans and some species of Chironomidae. The ~MI existing invertebrates will continue to have sediments deposited on top of them during moderate-high flows and will recolonize each spring. However, because construction __- and maintenance_dredging will occur periodically during the season of maximal invertebrate growth and abundance, populations of invertebrates may decline over - time. Overall, the minimal dredge alternative may cause a decline of invertebrate 71 j^ populations in the future, and will reduce invertebrate species that are preferred prey items for juvenile salmonids. 4.4.4 Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v-shape) and will likely increase water depths and velocities slightly, upstream of the south Boeing bridge. The lake backwater will extend from 4200 feet (1300 m) to the mouth, an increase of 352,000 feet (32,320 m2). Upstream of 4200 feet (1300 m), higher velocity habitat for Plecopterans and Ephemeropterans may be slightly increased. From 4200 feet (1300 m) to the mouth, organisms which prefer low 7r velocities and finer substrates will have increased habitat. Such organisms include Megalopterans, Dipterans, Trichopterans and some species of Chironomidae. The existing invertebrates will continue to have sediments deposited on top of them during { moderate-high flows and will recolonize each spring. However, because construction and maintenance dredging will occur periodically during the season of maximal invertebrate growth and abundance, populations of invertebrates may decline over time. Overall, the moderate dredge alternative may cause a decline of invertebrate populations in the future, and will reduce invertebrate species that are preferred prey items for juvenile salmonids. 4.4.5 Deep Dredge Alternative • • The deep dredge alternative will narrow the existing channel bottom (because of the v- shape) and will increase water depths. The lake backwater will extend up to 5600 feet (1700 m), an increase of 506,000 feet2 (46,460 m2). This will nearly replace the existing higher velocity riffle and bank scour pool habitat with lake backwater. Most of the existing habitat for organisms which prefer higher velocities and gravel substrate will be replaced with lake backwater and fine substrates. This may dramatically reduce the - ; overall abundance and diversity of 'aquatic invertebrates in the project area. The existing invertebrates will continue to have sediments deposited on top of them during moderate-high flows and will recolonize each spring. However, because construction and maintenance dredging will occur periodically during the season of maximal invertebrate growth and abundance, populations of invertebrates may decline over time. Overall, it is likely that the deep dredge alternative would have significant impacts on invertebrate diversity and population abundance in the future, and would significantly reduce invertebrate species that are preferred prey items for juvenile salmonids. 4.5 Wildlife 4.5.1 No Action Alternative `r The no action alternative will not change the existing riverine and adjacent park habitat _ in the short term.and will have no effect oh mammal or bird species. As sediment continues to aggrade, bird species'such as gulls which rest on gravel bars will have 72 increased habitat. If fish populations are reduced from continued sediment deposition, birds which prey on fish may move to other locations. Overall, the no action alternative is not likely to significantly affect bird and wildlife species. x- 4.5.2 All Dredging Alternatives All of the dredging alternatives will require the construction of levees and/or floodwalls along both banks of the river. This will cause the removal of all existing vegetation on the left bank (which consists of approximately 5 large cottonwood trees and a few scattered willows and alders) and some vegetation on the right bank (likely fewer than 10 trees or shrubs). Revegetation will occur, but on the left bank, large cottonwood ._ trees will be replaced with smaller shrubby willows or other smaller trees. This will cause an impact for 3-5 years on wildlife species that primarily utilize the existing amount of mature wooded habitat. After that time, the vegetation will likely grow to a sufficient height and density to replace or even improve the existing habitat. r _ i During construction, the noise and equipment will likely cause most mammal and bird species to move from the area, at least during working hours. The dredging activities will not likely affect most mammal species. However, bird species which utilize gravel bars (gulls, geese) in the river currently for resting or feeding will be displaced. Some of these birds could utilize the delta area, but others will likely move onto the airport or park areas for better habitat. Revegetation of the right bank with more tree and shrub gulls, coots and Canada geese. -- a b y g , species will tend to reduce the use of the park are However, several other bird species will benefit from the increase in riparian vegetation including green-winged teal, hooded mergansers, hairy woodpecker, violet-green swallow, American crow, common bushtit, etc. (see Table in Section 3.6). The City of Renton considers the presence of large numbers of gulls to be a safety hazard at the airport and a reduction of gravel bar/resting habitat may reduce their _ numbers. However, as was observed (Harza, 1995) after dredging the delta in 1993, birds which formerly utilized the delta gravel bar and woody debris moved onto the airport or park following the removal of the gravel bar. This project is expected to reduce gull and geese populations in the area by removing both gravel bars and ' riparian grassed areas which are prime habitat for these birds. The removal of gravel bars and riparian grassed areas will reduce habitat for these birds by approximately -. 50%. ' Overall, mammal habitat will likely be reduced in the short term following construction, but after 5 years when the vegetation regrows the habitat may be improved for mammals. Gravel bar habitat will-be eliminated in the lower river for birds (mainly gulls). Smaller species which utilize riparian habitat will have more nesting and hiding [ 1 habitat after 5 years. 73 r 4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.6.1 Bald Eagle 4.6.1.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not affect bald eagles in the short term. If fish populations are reduced as the sediment continues to aggrade, then foraging would be reduced for jr bald eagles. Other elements of habitat, such as perching areas will remain similar to • the existing condition. Overall, the no action alternative may have slight negative effects on bald eagles if their prey base is reduced. 4.6.1.2 All Dredging Alternatives During construction and maintenance, the noise and equipment will likely disturb any bald eagles perching in the area. However, there are no known nests within 3 miles - (4.8 km), so nesting activities would not likely be disrupted. After construction, there: will be no gravel bar habitat, except on the delta. The delta (and its woody debris) is • currently the only site within the project area that is frequently utilized by bald eagles. The delta and its woody debris would_not be removed for any dredging alternatives. - Increased riparian vegetation, afteri3-5 years will likely improve eagle perching habitat. - Overall, the dredging,alternatives are not likely to have a significant impact on bald eagles. 4.6.2 Candidate Salmon Species The impacts likely to candidate salmon species are described in Sections 4.3.2-4.3.5. 4.6.3 Species of Concern: Northwestern Pond Turtles Northwestern pond turtles have not been observed, to date, in the project area. The only likely suitable habitat in the project area would be the delta and its associated woody debris. The action alternatives will not affect the delta (or debris) and will not likely adversely affect northwestern pond turtles. 4.7 Vegetation 4.7.1 No Action Alternative I The no action alternative will have no effect on terrestrial vegetation in the project area. The parks department will continue to maintain the riparian zone similar to the existing condition. As the sediment continues to aggrade, sediment will likely build up in the riparian zone, burying small shrubs. Non-native species will likely continue to dominate much of the riparian zone. Aquatic vegetation in the lower river may be reduced as sediment accumulates and creates a higher velocity, coarser substrate environment. 74 4.7.2 All Dredging Alternatives All dredging alternatives will require the removal of riparian vegetation along the left bank to accommodate construction of levees and/or floodwalls (approximately 5 large cottonwoods and a few scattered willows and alders). The levees along the right bank will be set back from the river's edge but may require minimal removal of vegetation during construction. The riparian zone will be revegetated to the maximum extent possible with willows, and other native species such as Oregon ash, mock orange, Indian plum, and Oregon grape. It is expected that within 3-5 years after construction the riparian zone will be more extensive than presently exists. Non-native.species will be replaced with native species. Overall, for 3-5 years after construction vegetation will be slightly reduced, but after that time period, vegetation diversity and abundance be increased. Aquatic vegetation in the lower river will be removed during construction and `. maintenance activities. However, this area of the river is currently covered with sediment each winter and it is likely that aquatic vegetation will recolonize backwater areas. Aquatic vegetation will be increased for the minimal, moderate and deep dredge alternatives over the existing condition. It is a concern that Eurasian watermilfoil could become established in any increased lake backwater habitat; it is a widespread problem in Lake Washington. Currently, the lower river does not have any Eurasian watermilfoil, perhaps due to the sediment load coming down the river. This sediment will continue to accumulate between maintenance dredging cycles and may prevent watermilfoil introduction. 4.8 Cultural Resources There are no known cultural or historic resources sites in the project area. The State Historic Preservation Office has been coordinated with and concurs with the Corps assessment of existing conditions. During construction of any of the dredging alternatives, a Corps' archaeologist would be available should any artifacts be discovered. There are no expected impacts on cultural or historic resources from any r of the alternatives. 4.9 Land Use/Recreation/Public Use 4.9.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will continue and increase the existing damages and/or closures that occur during high water. -Future average annual damages are estimated • to be S14 million. Recreation and public use of the Cedar River Trail is restricted during "C much of the winter (flows >1500 cfs). This situation would continue to worsen under the no action alternative. Flooding impacts to adjacent properties, airport and Boeing would also continue to worsen, and sediment would continue to accumulate upstream of Logan Avenue and would cause increased flooding in other areas of Renton. Overall, the no action alternative would have significant negative flooding impacts on 75 land use, recreation and public use of the project area and is the reason why a flood control project has been proposed. s I 4.9.2 All Dredging Alternatives All dredging alternatives will containOlooding up to the 100 year flood in Renton. The construction of levees and floodwalls will reduce public viewing of the river from the left bank, although public access is minimal from this side currently. The right bank levees will require the modification of.existing park facilities including the trail, boat ramp, . basketball court and some picnic facilities. The trail will be relocated, likely on top of - i_-- the levee, which will increase views';of the river and lake. The boat ramp will be retained, but will likely allow access'by hand carried vessels only (i.e. canoes, kayaks). The basketball court and picnic facilities will be relocated within the park. During construction, the park will likely be closed for the duration. Dredge material from the lower river will likely be dewatered near the boat ramp and then will be hauled by truck to the upland disposal site. Levee construction will relocate many park features as described above. During maintenance dredging, Renton will seek to avoid all impacts on the park by placing dredged material on barges or using the airport road at night for truck hauling of dredged material. 4.10 Transportation 4.10.1 No Action Alternative ' y The no action alternative would have impacts to transportation elements during flooding season. Logan Avenue bridge wasclosed during the 1995-1996 flooding because of instability. The Boeing bridges were also closed due to excessive debris buildup and high water. These impacts would occur more frequently, and to more bridges upstream, in the future as the channel bed continues to accumulate sediment. It is likely that the south Boeing bridge could sustain severe damages or fail altogether in a large flood event. The airport is also closed during flooding due to water on or near the runway and the deposition of debris;. If no action were taken, the river would eventually avulse onto the airport and would likely close most uses of the airport, except during . the low water summer season. 4.10.2 All Dredging Alternatives During construction there will be significant impacts on local transportation: Heavy equipment and trucks will be present on both sides of the channel. Airport operations may need to be scheduled during specific time periods of the day to accommodate dredging at the mouth and placement of low levees along the left bank. If this is required, the aviation public will be notified prior to construction. The proposed haul -° route for dredged.material is shown, in Figure 15. The proposed haul route seeks to minimize traffic problems by avoiding roads with heavy traffic such as Rainier Avenue 76 that currently have significant rush-hour difficulties. However, it is expected that there will be some road damage from the heavy truck traffic. The mitigation proposed in Section 5 includes planting the riparian zone on the right bank from the south Boeing bridge to the mouth. Also willows would be planted on the left bank.• These plantings will eliminate several areas of grassed riparian zone which currently exist. It is expected that the removal of grassy areas and gravel bars in the channel will reduce habitat for potentially hazardous birds(gulls, geese) by approximately 50%. This is expected to have a beneficial effect on aircraft safety by reducing the populations of these potentially hazardous birds in the area. 4.10.2.1 Existing Channel Alternative Approximately 31,000 CY of material will be removed with the existing channel alternative. All of this material will be downstream of Logan Avenue. This volume of material will require 1,550 truck loads of material to be hauled up to the disposal site. This dredging could likely be accomplished in 30 days, with approximately 4 truck-loads • per hour traveling to the disposal site and back. 4.10.2.2 Minimal Dredge Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Approximately 158,000 CY of material will be removed with the minimal dredge • alternative. Most of this material will be removed downstream of Logan Avenue, with some material removed between Logan Avenue and Williams Avenue. This volume of material will require 7,900 truck loads of material to be hauled up to the disposal site. This dredging could likely be accomplished in 75 days, with approximately 9 truck-loads - per hour traveling to the disposal site and back. 4.10.2.3 Moderate Dredge Alternative Approximately 195,000 CY of material will be removed with the moderate dredge alternative. Most of this material will be removed downstream of Logan Avenue, with some material removed between Logan Avenue and Wells Avenue. This volume of material will require 9,750 truck loads of material to be hauled up to the disposal site. This dredging could likely be accomplished in 60 -75 days, with approximately 11 truck-loads per hour traveling to the disposal site and back. 4.10.2.4 Deep Dredge Alternative Approximately 260,000 CY of material will be removed with the moderate dredge �. alternative. Most of this material will be removed downstream of Logan Avenue, with ; t1 some material removed between Logan Avenue and Wells Avenue. This volume of material will require 13,000 truck loads of material to be hauled up to the disposal site. This dredging could likely be accomplished in 75 - 90 days, with approximately 12 truck-loads per hour traveling to the disposal site and back. 77. 4.11 Air/Noise/Light 4.11.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not change the existing air quality, noise and lighting characteristics of the area. 4.11.2 All Dredging Alternatives All dredging alternatives will slightly increase air pollutants, noise and light in the area during initial construction and future maintenance activities. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (J. Pade, pers. comm.) does not consider air quality impacts from construction equipment and trucks to significantly increase pollutants over the existing condition. Noise from the airport and Boeing currently is high, so construction I should not significantly increase noise in the area. Lights will only be used if dredging operations occur at night. However, there are currently many lights surrounding Boeing and the airport, and construction operations should not significantly affect the existing condition. 4.12 Aesthetics 4.12.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will not change aesthetic conditions in the area. During flood events, sediments will continue to accumulate in many areas of the park and airport, which could be considered unattractive. As the channel fills in, the park would be inundated considerably more frequently. 4.12.2 All Dredging Alternatives All dredging alternatives will require the placement of floodwalls and levees along both banks; Levee/floodwall height will range from 1-8 feet (0.3-2.4 m). Views of the river will be restricted on the left bank (airport side) due to the floodwalls. However, there will be room in most locations, along the left bank, to plant willows or other riparian i '3 species on the river side of the floodwalls/levees. Riparian vegetation planted along the right bank will enhance the "natural" aesthetic of the river corridor and provide shading during warm summer months. The highly maintained appearance of the existing park will be reduced due to riparian plantings and construction of levees. Relocation of the trail on top of, or adjacent to, the levee will allow enhanced viewing of the river and Lake Washington. 78 4.13 Public Services/Utilities/Energy 4.13.1 No Action Alternative Public and private utilities would likely be disrupted in the future by the no action alternative. Existing power and water lines could be flooded or damaged by debris during flooding events. The south Boeing bridge has several utility lines running across it, which have already been subject to damage from debris. 4.13.2 All Dredging Alternatives Any public or private utilities that may be affected by this proposed project will be relocated underground behind the levees/floodwalls during initial construction. Utilities that are currently.underground will either be relocated behind the levees/floodwalls or protected from erosion. 4.14. Public Health and Safety 4.14.1 No Action Alternative Public health and safety will continue to be threatened during flooding events with the no action alternative. This will occur more frequently as the channel bottom continues to accumulate sediment. 4.14.2 All Dredging Alternatives • All dredging alternatives will alleviate public health and safety concerns from flooding and sediment accumulation in the project vicinity. 4.15 Likely Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.15.1 No Action Alternative The no action alternative will have no irretrievable commitment of resources. The no action alternative will continue to cause damage to resources which have already been committed, such as municipal and industrial-facilities. 4.15.2 All Dredging Alternatives Construction and maintenance of this project will require significant uses of non- renewable energy sources, such as gasoline/diesel to fuel the heavy equipment and trucks. However, in light of the significant flooding problem, this appears to be a minor commitment of resources to solve the flooding problem. 79 1 I 4.16. Aquatic Ecosystem Interactions 4.16.1 No Action Alternative As described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, salmon populations may be reduced as a result of the no action alternative due to reduced access and more frequent flooding and scouring of the river channel. Smelt populations will also likely be reduced due to reduced access. This may have a negative effect on the Lake Washington aquatic ecosystem because small pelagic fish populations will be reduced, thus reducing prey resources for larger fish such as cutthroat and rainbow trout, and squawfish. Aquatic invertebrate populations would likely increase as a result of this scenario and may affect water clarity and other factors. 4.16.2 Dredging Alternatives As described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, sockeye and chinook fry survival will likely be reduced due to increased predator populations. Invertebrate diversity and abundance will also be reduced with species that prefer slower water velocites predominating. Longfin smelt populations are not likely to be adversely affected. Any reduction of sockeye fry populations may benefit smelt populations because of reduced competition for the same zooplankton resources in the lake., However, the increased predator population may focus more effort on longfin smelt. It is not known to what extent the sockeye and longfin smelt interactions may affect their population size. The preferred alternative would likely maintain they existing interactions (especially with mitigation). . This should reduce the likelihood of unforeseen negative impacts occurring to the aquatic ecosystem. 'It is not expected that the aquatic ecosystem will be negatively affected as a result of the preferred alternative. 4.16 Cumulative Impacts 4.16.1 No Action Alternative Cumulative impacts that have occurred in the project vicinity include the initial channelization of the lower Cedar River into Lake Washington; the lowering of Lake Washington by approximately 9 feet (2.7 m) due to the construction of the ship canal; extensive filling and urban development that has occurred in the floodplain; construction of the dams at Chester Morse and Landsburg; the dramatic loss of riparian ' vegetation and habitat due to development and bank protection measures; and, the increased frequency and amplitude) of flooding due to development and channel narrowing. All of these cumulative impacts have severely reduced the viability of fish and wildlife populations in the Cedar River basin. The no action alternative will not change any of the cumulative impacts that have occurred already in the area, but may. exacerbate impacts to fish, wildlife and people from increased flooding in the future. 80 4.16.2 All Dredging Alternatives As described above, many cumulative impacts have already occurred in the project ;. vicinity. A project that involves dredging, levee/floodwalls, and modifications to the south Boeing bridge will continue the existing channelization of the river while reducing flooding effects to the human environment. Fish and wildlife populations do not significantly utilize the immediate project area. This preferred alternative will help alleviate negative impacts that have already occurred such as stormwater runoff of pollutants from Boeing and the Renton Airport, and is not expected to add a significant adverse impact above and beyond the cumulative impacts that exist. This project will assure continued access for anadromous fish into and from the upstream river areas and will reduce the likelihood of stranding during flooding in Renton. • fi ! i 81 _ Table 4. Summary of Impacts • Element of the No Action Existing Minimal Moderate Deep Short-term; - Environment Channel Dredge Dredge Dredge Constr. & Maint. Geology/Soils/Sedim NC NC - - -- ents Water/Water Quality - 'NC - - -- Sockeye Salmon . -- NC - -- --- NA _ Chinook Salmon -- NC NC NC NA Coho Salmon -- INC NC NC NC NA Steelhead Trout -- NC NC NC • - NC '; : Resident Trout NC INC NC NC NC - Longfin Smelt - INC + + + NA- : Prickly Sculpin - NC + + ++ - Coastrange &Torrent + NC -- -- --- Sculpins Mountain Whitefish NC NC NC + + NC Northern Squawfish - NC NC + + NC :- Largescale Suckers - NC NC + + NC Peamouth Chub - NC NC + + NC Three-spine - NC NC + +t.,, Stickleback - - Brook Lamprey NC - - NC Non-Native Fish - NC + + + - a==- Aquatic Invertebrate + NC - -- -- Diversity&Abund. Wildlife . NC ; + + + + - Riparian Oriented NC + + + + NC Birds - - NC Open Water/Ground NC - - Birds %:.z., NC NC Bald Eagles NC NC NC NC + NC Riparian Vegetation NC + + +Aquatic Vegetation - NC + + ++ - `" Cultural Resources. NC NC NC NC NC NC Land Use/Recreation - NC NC NC NC - R`; Transportation - + + + + -_ Air/Noise/Light NC NC NC NC NC - Aesthetics - NC NC NC NC Public Services -- NC + + + - Public Health & -- NC + + + NC Safety - slight negative impact or change from existing condition— moderate negative impact or change from existing condition ' — large negative impact or change from existing condition , ,, + slight positive impact ++ moderate positive impact NC no change or negligible change NA not applicable EtZt vr; 82 , • , . . . . . . • 1 . ) . ) .. ,m1Er03 NE I 23rd I --•••4rorturi on 7 n ...- • I • OtIr 2Ist SI 4. • . _ I MIIIIII: 3` _r•-• WNW. ----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - NE 20th St .' NE 20th •‘*4° : - . _ -------- -—-—--------------- _ 1 -4.••• . .e.1 NE lat , Li r _____ _____________ ---- _-_ _-_____: :_ ..., _ ________ ___ 3 NE 17M _ 4 , 1 _ _ _ t Lal .0.c.. FNI7h 1 ..,jillil . -----.------ ------....---- ... ---------- -.---------.-- 5 . --------.--- ---.----.----. i ---------- --_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 3 V) ! ! --------------------- -L.-- =. -_-_-_-_-_-_- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ .G 1 1 1 NE 14 1 11 --------—-._ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ a -_-_-_- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_- - _ 'g i sl -_-_-_-_-___ _-_-_-_-_-_- _ ___ 1.3 In,S Q 0 I --_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -_- NE 12$St , ---—--—-- - : .• -------_-_-_-_-_- --------------—- /illN I @ 119 I Cf4r4V MO Elli . 14-1:1 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- g / , 1 . i.--, i% - 011119L71,1 4i.4,65 s4 4N 'NE Tc:ht) : 11 1PM 1.; _1,..6_1hi:=1. ,I N 6.:s.it. .11. N:t. .:.°".". I. \ 3"i t1242 ii I _...esf.'PI' • . I •1i Fall —111 11971;891thh:t.. e .,. N ..i. ._ S Mel ,. NE 8th St. Ith SI. i 3 • Lill M LIM 1113E NM St ." fai E. -:.. am ,. 5th SI 3 6 I g 11 I=• so? 4, ,,, .......c seiL,. VIIiiiiif SOUTH ' BOEING . / 1 I' - if i i t I N INs St. Ai #111A111 r."*Itir : 151 : I KE 4th i en5 ki . NE 4th St • )111111.k\isl . - pirli z Z . • NE 3rd PI Ntl'a 51 . I I Airport WO ' 1 I Ili 11,11 li II if t , .' NE 2nd St lk I IS tobn stirr IIIN %l ,Iff II!' ., • + 1 k 1 • - tx • . 5.----3: 7 I;Fqd s t_. . „ I 1 1 0 I 1'OA'''. 4. L I i ! Irni MN MrO . . , ,-...„. • . ..„ illt _,•::: lig , . ..„..„ ill!!:41ID ed • SE 5Ih St ".--Eir- .. . •' ,. , • NARCO -...„ 4 4.04 ___ .------- -I II II II) -7 N i==. SITE Al ----.-N't-N7491p e.; -.....__ ... r'i ,.. L. __. t. r , r ,-- ; . S Renton 4411or th l j . ' 4 9 1'1\1 .• It'. "4"'si. ./ t•Ad•, • t 1 . 1"=2000 2000 - FIGURE 15: PROPOSED HAUL (. , . . ROUTE- FOR DREDGED MATERIAL ,;t.;,..1.-4,-,1•13t, ti , ,,. .. : ( I N FEET ) .1 k.L. . t. . z. • , . : rp,1 . . . . • w • . i • 5. MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN • The Corps has selected the minimal dredging alternative (4 feet) as the preferred alternative and the proposed mitigation and monitoring plan reflect the impacts identified for this alternative. However, the local sponsor previously expressed an interest in pursuing the moderate dredge alternative, possibly after initial construction if the sedimentation rate in the channel requires more frequent dredging than is anticipated. Therefore, after discussing mitigation for the preferred alternative, Section 5.7 was included in the draft EIS and discusses likely additional mitigation that would be required for the moderate dredge (6 foot) alternative. This section has been retained in the final EIS to show the differences between the alternatives. 5.1 Avoidance of Adverse Impacts For the preferred alternative, impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable while still accomplishing the project purpose of 100 year flood control along the lower Cedar River in Renton. The delta will not be dredged as a part of initial construction because it does not affect flood control levels and may provide significant environmental values to fish and wildlife species.. The vegetation along the right bank between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge will be left intact because of the riparian benefits it provides. Headcutting will be avoided or significantly reduced by the , additional dredging upstream of Logan Avenue to bring the dredged slope up to the existing grade. This will prevent rapid sediment movement upstream of Logan Avenue - • following construction and maintenance dredging and avoid impacts to spawning salmon and their eggs. 5.2 Minimization of Adverse Impacts The preferred alternative minimizes dredging induced impacts to the maximum extent feasible. It provides a balance between dredge depth and levee height to maximize flood control while reducing the extent of lake backwater by minimizing dredge depth to a to 4 feet (1.2 m). Possible adverse impacts from the placement of riprap along the left bank for 400 feet (120 m) between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge have been minimized by placing riprap only below the OHWM and during construction the rock will be staggered, rather than creating a smooth rock face, to create holding areas for adult salmon. The construction and maintenance work window (for in-water work) has been voluntarily reduced to June 15 - August 31, rather than the usual June 15 - September 15 window because of the early sockeye and chinook adult migrants that enter the river in early September. 5.3 Rectification of Adverse Impacts Adverse impacts that can be rectified during and after construction include impacts to riparian vegetation from the construction of levees. Existing vegetation along the left • bank will be removed during construction of the sheet-pile floodwall and rock toe to 1 protect this bank. This impact will be rectified by replanting vegetation along the bank; 84 above the rock revetment. However, a temporal loss of vegetation will still occur because the existing trees along the left bank are more than 20 years old. Vegetation along the left bank will be salvaged, and replanted in other locations near the river bank, to the maximum extent practicable to rectify adverse impacts from the loss of this vegetation. 5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after avoidance, minimization and rectification of adverse impacts are the following for the 4 foot (1.2 m) dredge: 1) Loss of poor to moderate quality adult salmon (sockeye, chinook, coho and/or steelhead) spawning habitat,between 1000 feet (300 m) and 3300 feet (1000 m) upstream of the mouth, which will likely become embedded with sands and finer sediments due to the lake backwater area increase. A maximum of 235 redds have been observed in this area during the salmon spawning season, so effective loss of habitat is estimated to be 2560-3840 ft2 (235-352 m2). 2) Periodic loss of approximately 45,000 feet2 (4100 m2) of bank scour _ holding areas for adult salmon, juvenile salmon/trout and resident trout. This habitat will be lost immediately after periodic maintenance dredging due to the trapezoidal shape of the dredged channel. It is expected that during the first winter season after dredging, the channel will readjust itself and create bank scour pool habitat. The 253,000 ft2 (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2) of increased lake backwater will provide additional lower velocity holding habitat below 3300 feet (1000 m) from the mouth, but will not provide any effective holding habitat upstream. 3) Loss of 253,000 feet2 (5.8 acres or 23,230 m2)of possible coastrange and torrent sculpin habitat due to lake backwater increase; this habitat will now be suitable for prickly sculpin and will increase prickly sculpin habitat by an equal amount. An increase in prickly sculpin habitat and population will likely cause a decrease in sockeye and chinook fry survival in the lower river. 4) Probable decline of brook lamprey populations due to periodic maintenance dredging operations. 5) Probable decline in aquatic invertebrate diversity and abundance due to periodic maintenance dredging which will remove invertebrates during their maximum growth period. Also, the increase in lake backwater will reduce habitat for organisms that prefer higher velocities while increasing habitat for organisms that prefer lower velocities. Therefore, diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates are expected to decrease. f'a 85 - 5.5 Compensatory Mitigation for Unavoidable Impacts -, To compensate for unavoidable impacts, the Corps proposes to: (see Figures 16,17&18) . , . 1) Plant riparian vegetation along both banks.. Along the right'bank from the / south Boeing bridge down to the mouth, in approximately a 10-15 feet(3-4.5 m) wide. This will replace predominantly non-native vegetation and lawn with approximately 52,000 square feet (4,821 m2) of native riparian vegetation. On the right bank, this vegetation will include willows, Oregon ash, mock orange, snowberry, salmonberry, currants, salal and other species. These plantings will have several public access - openings to allow park users to view and access the river, if desired. On the left bank, willows will be planted riverwardof the floodwall from Logan Avenue down to approximately 2000 feet (600 m) from the mouth, in approximately a 5-10 feet (1.5-3 m) , wide strip. These plantings will temporally replace vegetation lost on the,left bank during construction and also contribute insects and detrital material to the river to compensate for possibly,reduced aquatic invertebrate production.' Additionally this riparian vegetation because of its robts and downed limbs/trees will likely create scour pools for additional.adult salmon holding habitat. On the right bank the trees will be planted on 20 foot centers, and the shrubs will be grouped with the trees; approximately 6 shrubs per tree. Groundcover will be planted on 3 foot centers. This planting scheme will provide a total of approximately 200 trees, _. 1200 shrubs, and 3500 groundcovers of various types. The openings for public access and viewing will be approximately 30 feet wide, with a minimum of 4 access locations provided. 2) Create a groundwaterfed pool and side channel at an upstream floodplain location with groundwater near the surface (upper Elliot levee site, see Figures 17&18). This pool and side channel will be connected at the downstream end to the Cedar River to allow use of the channel by both adult salmon for spawning habitat and juvenile salmon for winter refuge and rearing. The channel will be , approximately 9000.ft2 (826 m2)7 in size with additional pond habitat. It is expected that this channel will replace the poor to moderate quality spawning habitat lost due to the i project and will additionally increase survival for the eggs in the gravel, over existing conditions, and will compensate for,probable increased predation in the lower river. i 7 Survival of the eggs will be increased because the channel will have moderate velocity . i 3 flows except during flows >6300 cfs and will not be scoured as easily as mainstem areas. Native trees and shrubs will be planted (or left in place) in two acres surrounding the side channel and pond. " ' ' 'The groundwater.fed channel will be oversized to allow for less than complete spawning coverage. It is ° .. expected that only 50%of the channel willlactually be used for.spawning. This will adequately compensate for lost spawning habitat,as well as providing additional area for increased production of fry. 86 Studies are currently going on at the upstream mitigation site to determine the depth to groundwater and the flow during summer. Preliminary investigations indicate that the groundwater ranges from 3-8 feet (0.9-2.4 m) below the surface in the area of the proposed channel. The site is in approximately the 10 year floodplain and would begin receiving water at flows above 6300 cfs. All measures to protect the site from flood scouring or deposition will be investigated. The channel will be designed to ensure that it functions as a moderate velocity channel during most river flows and to avoid the need for continued maintenance to keep the channel functioning. 3) Provide mainstem rearing habitat for chinook fry by either of the following: a) Place LWD in the mainstem Cedar (for approximately 500 linear feet) adjacent to the upstream groundwater fed channel site for chinook rearing. Chinook fry survival will be reduced and this habitat improvement will create an area of reduced velocity for feeding and cover for chinook fry as they rear in the mainstem river. Or b) Revegetate and place LWD at the levee at the Maplewood Golf Course to provide cover and rearing habitat for chinook. • 5.6 Monitoring Plan In order to confirm the extent of impacts on key species and determine if the mitigation plan is successful, monitoring will be conducted for a period of five years. Monitoring of the mitigation elements will include: 1) In years 1,2 and 5 after construction, the riparian vegetation plantings will be evaluated for percent cover, canopy cover over the river and percent survival. Percent cover must be in the range of 40-60% inyear 1, 75% in year 2 and 80-90% in 9 year five. Shrub and some tree canopy cover by year five should be within 5% of the cover found upstream of the south Boeing bridge where riparian vegetation already exists. Percent survival should remain steady at 90-95%. If excessive mortality occurs in year 1, the contractor will be responsible for replacing plants. It is assumed that the contractor will provide supplemental.watering during year 1. After year 1, the City of Renton will be responsible for supplementing.if the plants continue to die. Monitoring will occur during the August-September timeframe to encompass the maximum growth of each season. Photos and a brief report will summarize each year's findings. In connection,with the vegetation monitoring, bird use of the project area will be. monitored. Specifically, bird species and numbers will be monitored on the delta, park and riparian zone at varying times of day (early morning, mid-day, evening times. monitored each month) in years 1 and 2 after construction. Effort will be focused on the lower 3900 feet (1200 m) of the river (below the south Boeing bridge), to specifically determine changes that may affect airport operations. I s 2) In years 1,2 and 5 after construction, the side channel will be evaluated to determine: if excessive sediment embedding has occurred, if access is sufficient to allow adult salmon utilization and the canopy cover from riparian plantings. The channel will be constructed with a gravel substrate. The sediment will be monitored to • 87 ;►; determine if sediment accumulation has occurred, to what depth and what size of substrate. 18% or more embedding fine material (sands and silt) is unacceptable and egg survival is significantly reduced in such areas . The channel will also be periodically monitored to determine use by adult salmon for holding or spawning (redd counts, live fish counts). Canopy cover will be measured during August-September timeframe to encompass the maximum growth of each season. By year 2, canopy cover should be in the range of 50-60%, by year 5, canopy cover should be 70-80%. Photos and a brief report will summarize each year's findings. If during the five year monitoring period, it is determined that any of the mitigation elements are not successful; for example, the riparian vegetation is not growing/surviving or the side channel has filled with sediment, then a contingency plan will be implemented. Contingency actions have not yet been determined, but will be determined during the permitting process, with the appropriate state and federal resource agencies and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. It is expected that additional plantings to replace dead plants, or'an alternate mitigation site for salmon spawning would need to be accomplished as a contingency measure. The evaluation of impacts in the planning process and this EIS indicates, based on three years of data, that longfin smelt spawning will not be significantly affected by the construction of a flood control project. In order to confirm and document that this is the case, longfin smelt spawning will be monitored. Eggs will be collected for longfin smelt in years 1,2 and 4 following construction (one low year and two high spawning population years, 1999, 2000, and 2002). Eggs will be sampled at 300 meter intervals similar to the study conducted in 1996. Three samples will be collected at each transect up to 1800 meters from the mouth on a monthly basis from late January to May. Egg abundance and distribution will be compared to the pre- . dredging studies. In order to ensure that the mitigation measures are adequate, sockeye redd counts will be conducted yearly for five years from Wells Street to the mouth. These counts will occur once monthly in October, November and December (if possible). Spawning distribution will be compared to counts prior to construction. The side channel will also be observed for spawning as described above. 5.7 Impacts and Mitigation for Moderate Dredge Alternative The moderate dredge alternative would not avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the 3 extent that the preferred alternative (minimum dredge alternative) does. The same and additional unavoidable adverse impacts would likely occur compared to the preferred alternative; primarily due to the increased area of lack backwater that would result from a deeper dredge depth. Expected additional unavoidable adverse impacts are: 1) Loss of poor to good quality adult salmon (sockeye, chinook, coho and/or steelhead) spawning habitat between 1000 feet (300 m) and 4200 feet (1300 m) t 88 p.J upstream of the mouth, which will become embedded with sands and finer sediments due to the lake backwater area increase. A maximum of 435 redds have been • observed in this area during the salmon spawning season, so effective loss of habitat is estimated to be 4740 -7100 ft2 (435-650 m2). '• 2) Loss of 352,000 ft2 (8 acres or 32,320 m2) of probable coastrange and torrent sculpin habitat due to lake backwater increase; this habitat will now be suitable for prickly sculpin and will increase prickly sculpin habitat by an equal amount. An increase in prickly sculpin habitat and population will likely cause a decrease in sockeye fry survival in the lower river. Other unavoidable adverse impacts would be similar to that described for the preferred alternative in Section 5.4. • In order to adequately mitigate for these additional impacts, it is expected that increasing the size of the proposed groundwater fed pond and channel (Section 5.5) would suffice. Increasing the size of the pond/channel to 18,000-20,000 ft2 (1652-1840 m2) and increasing plantings to three acres surrounding the pond/channel should adequately mitigate for the increase in lake backwater area due to additional dredging depth. Additional rearing habitat for chinook would also need to be created to compensate for reduced survival due to predation in the lower river. • • 89 r --- •---- 1 !... 1 _, , TA 3.11.. ---,r-!,•-- - i--- rr.,' -- ••-"-, _. _-711_ - • ' -- .• - ,••• ::.; ,...::,...:,i -- ;....., ,i- ,..,.,.• ., y,!..3 .f!!• , ,..,i_:.,„ ,...•.•,..: ,...,,,„:4 ,, 'd DATE AND TIME PLOTTED& 04-FE8-1997 1526 DESIGN ,.:•'•• . , h"71"-1111:11.....';"\ • . ' : A • ' 0 W lir • . , ' • '............. o .. o t i .• :• ..„ ...... %.4,.. , , . . ..„. k....„.„ • .„..,..........\ ,,.. • s\ • . ,\ . .......,, ; / ...... ....... , lin > • k „.•••• , /(...\. . .''' 1/0• „„ a \ i \ \`74. \ ,•• • .• .• ,11110.:„. \ • /2 ..\\ \ /---\C-21\. 27....../,'.,. '.....,.. , / ......._ • / . . • C f ..:•::, I , .43' % 1,...,„„.............:,:•.,.....::::,::•::::::...I, • , II:I?, ) '"............• . -- £ LI G £ . .. M . • ,....%V.. 4 gl.. \ \ • .... S' 9 Z , NA \ '.......' / \''"%:::%:•.'N.. . . . ... ••• . • • • CI) ' ),... . EN /i%.,.. ••••................ 1/./..\\*4..:.;s.•,. .` :•k%••. ''.0, . V\ (''' .....• ..............i c:3 r L.z........... .\"...... \ • A \ 11.\ \ , 0/ ___ , 173 . • 9' 8Z , 5 6' .....3 \\\ \ .CA \ ' Veil, i . ,. . k:•., \ \ \ '0\ I . • I •... i 9' 9 z •••\•,\ c\ N 1). .\\'‘ . 1 . . ..... "....."...„ 1 / \\, ... si i .........../ 0 If \ \ \......., e., *.• \ \'\ ' 0 :0. \ i 0 \CI \ ..) ...... .., „.../i 6' b £' 6Z/ ( I ' Z' LE , I•9z \\, \I:k 0 ....;,• l‘ t ED / 1 i - --(;3 =-1 .. ' .........// .\ z• s 3 /i ik >j< / / i i E;j 8' Z a . .. .•. , l' 9• ,\\\‘''‘. / r 1 !\ , w ti)\ ... A----- N \I\ 5 . L• ec,7 .•• — — 7" ) ,i, z \ ,011-1..''''‘........,...././:.................................E................'....8......................9.........Z. I .1'.1..................E'.....''....'% .•.'l• ..• • L. 1 a/ • /k / / II— 1 \ \\ \W / / ........... • . . . \ 1 VI I .." 1 : . .4 I ( ....., I t :\ " * \ ......../ ... . 5 i I. I •£' 8 Z I 1 \ .0. 1.2! k............. . ., me ..,,,/ I b 1 11,1... 6") I: > I I / / 0 1, \ \ i"*.‘ P 1 ...\.: 1 0 / \ \ L I / / \ .‘ \ 0, v \\ -6 : Z _ ..., ....--. _.--- Z A -•\ i II \ 11, ,........ • .... "V / 0. LZ e Ck ........... r- \ ....... .„. • b ra-S4-\-1 ."..."\ • \ '......" * z .....„..... .., \ .4 /....., ..., ............... ............ .A 3 ...-. ................, £' 9 Z / ,.............. 0. le 1 ....--..... 1 .-............ 0 • in, 0 .... —10 . • .• • '0 t . --- ,..;:.,,, ,.\.... .....?.<... .... _ „..••••„..... .„......:..:..........1 i ,. \ ........... 1 .... rn ‘.. ..., ... !•.: . Le ;\ • CI .••• C-1 \ \t i • ‘' ., ./.. 1 • ‘ . • (..... I' oz 9. .... ..... •••...., )............................. e40k:-F•r§i0."&:.•?:iP0'm,-cnrI:.m,1 %•-•,I ...'..) ..'•.s..•.-..-.,,0,,,,,.',..r.g....Z...s........"."............ £,.......5...................•......\ )4,\ \ . 1 1 1 I • ."..,'•-•••••....../01 i' , Z ...fr....•...,s/e \ Y\\ ;e01 1 E- .a. 8k1 •1 .......... \ \ 1 i Cn. • ' D.2 ••,‘ \\ \ . 2.;,:•, . ...":c'9Z 4 A 4 4 \ \ J \) t::2, 9' hZ eile A i.... ..„ a •z \ . a. A 0 G ricc . 4 '11 • lum.02•0";ii ! • •> \‘.. .•••••••.....•"••• ' \ 4 %.4 0, 9'aZ t•>.,,:,.. %. r .,... a • . .• " . : , •''Nk 0 to . . .,•) \ \ /. / ‘ k% • \ \. ...,..."---„\\ I O . 01 40 \ 1 Z',9j -." 1 S .'‘. '''%, 9' 9 Z a 'ks,\ c 9' h \ (4k! £Z (1 0 * I i 7 v ,„ ., . ..... et 4 OD ( ?I ..... • 1 k•. 8' 9Z ........„.... .‘,1 ...I ii. 1, 1 , -....„. . •:. L ',.)!/ \ ‘Fiti ).4 oa . • . . , . . .. ... l• . —_, ....................... . ............../ - .• <::... 1%./ 0 6, .•. O. ,,. ., ,4 , •.... • . . 9' 9Z 11 vi,• • •••••...... ..- ......••.'"*. ctio .:.: 00 rn ? . 9' S Z .,• •• '. 00 Ai . _ ..... .....• 0 i to ......ID .,.. . ' - .......... 1, LI-- ---T fr• 17 Z 9 to —x-,==x—x—x----x- ...,,.." 7 : \ e• 8 * 0 E ..................... ....,..:,. .... .• • IZt ; ° Piti \ £' 8 0 > 0 ,,,x„---x--)4---- --4,--x—x---xx-->c—x—>c . ""' °es *e • * - '.% x r, 11,10 V 1 "--.. ‘ r.,,.,•• 1 \ 1\ •t1 el ' F 0 c .....„„........., \ / 23 ‘\ 4 6. • I 23 , . 17\ \ L•03 . : ri.. P tea li 1 r0 I I/1 17 6 I ( 0 NA V.1 7( W oit 0 i £' 6 I II z ei 4 47 t 1 2 i o• z iil • — ••, ...• , 0 N t g / CO In 1 n $^ ) / • • to' • oyez A m 0 g MATCH LINE TO PLATE C-2' ‘ 0131 • t * 0 ? :7.' r m 8 i --•.\ - ...,...J.., i — 1-- — — A d al m •0 0 ,,:l d vi Z • X > = g00 m d • -11 2 • m 0 P ,mm -.4 Z 8 y,z,x . m V 3q2 n -4m4 _ F. ; n 0 • r m . . › • 0 . E m 1 . „ 0 •• z , I .... I _-- _�.:.._t _ ..,. .. a 1 , ,.. 71 L��.:�': . . —,.„:2 , _ �: ",7 _ ' __ DATE AND TIME PLOTTEDi II-LIAR-I99T I4i22 DESIGN i i11deaIgneocrfctiarchocrfcco0c.dgn • 0 0 CO I , • ✓v ( MATCH LINE TO PLATE C-I 1 oii �.m 9'6 1 p�yy I�+ i' 9' I Z �. Z' I,Z En Z 110 ;o` 1 li C M (per 1 6`�8 I —� UU� % V. 9' 8I t Z 6 •......-.r� \t"----------t VI I Z a i 1' 1 x w ?� I 5 • I OZ Ch \ 1 and �, J. 1 le • p 9'0 Z £' = I q' O . \ 1 �' L'O Z 0 8' , 3, , . 0 1.11 .\ 1' cot \/ 1 1 ► O o O Z'61 x 1 '�^ 9.00 6' I x 1 ` L•OZ ''u g ° 0 0'OZ 1 - X�X 1X 1 • `01 0 1 — x \ \ % x1 '• 3 v S'61 I r�"' ` 1X O 8'� m •It\ 9..1 Z S'`6 I x ..--- \ L'0. I 1 I O W ` 6'6 �00V L LX� W • �1 . 1Z �• ° I c, 01 �i i„ 4,' M ��� I ;, of • 61 \I pti .. • ?\111 L'0 Z i 1 p .OoZ`'6 i b' ZZI ° gip. ) 1 r\ a a G} i €g 0 it4. u e' LI 0 L\\ I F. m r t►•U _'a 1 N \\\\ amlN r0�Gs. Ng $ x nq� 9'61i >ga 6 ;1Z\ \ .` ',it I' I S * 1 '\ 6' 81 S S N o t� r, : \ \ \ IL 7 . l'il , t • , b"L�1 I .1 x1,,, O ,`z t :i'i: 1 i ..„, v .: .__, 11. \ lig ' \•o: • • r vri t ° ':� b' I Z \ \ Q z, 9'6I •4 N 16 6' B I Xt it' F " 61 Z' 8 1 x x x .... b'0 Z t 1 2c l -----9'L I ~� in F °E -Is 0fir:. I xi S N D �" cZ • ni Z P f m O, L $ A v. o + . z I • , �z il :��A:- L ;�a� ti' S& .,tiOn G05:.,y • uay r,�_.r.- Mitigation site, Elliott Levee ,.tz Mitigation Site Section 22, Range 5 E, Township 23 N :.nto n +29 acre site; +5 acres required for spawning channel and access. Site diagram not to scale. • Falrw••• I I:::::: :: ar arorif N11t.... le. .Ii: re • e a a r A V r . 10 „::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::, ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .......................................... • • sihr Legend M$ 9en dc� coA/ Streets N Cedar N er M tigationVSite Maple Valley y ;€ Golf Course 'ghWay Ci V" Source Information Lake boundary Information obtained from Washington Rivers Information System (WARTS) database, Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). City boundaries, streets, park and river information obtained from King County. FIGURE 17: Upstream Mitigation Site N II is understood that, while the Corps of Engineers and information US Army Corps of Engineers suppliers no Indication or reason to believe that them we 300 0 300 600 Feet SUPPLIERS Ininaccuracies Information NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY rated In the wNDH INCLUDING E CORPS ND ITS BUT NOT LIMITED 70 r©� ; Date: 6I6/97 —.ate WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE, NOR ARE ANY Preparers LDD SUCH WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, DATA, OR SERVICE FURNISHED HEREIN. r3 /777-.-- 4 - i ---� • 1 r'., ...... - ,i,..44100111NNI...0 Jam_ ---- fi _ _ _ - - - - -- TYPICAL PLANTING SCHEME FOR RIPARIAN VEGETATION litz•illgt4,029. f-,..1.., , ----, . , ,7 - ... .4firr V- . ...-4,747W116 zs-µc:. t-. ,, 1 , _ f , : ‘, c., . *4 t - i • JAVrastili?'..P FA' 0'3- OA IV% .1•° ./..1,111. 111- I. r , I, iows: 3 0- let.r: . ‘,21.,,r," ...,,...........,,,, ... ,... ,......!, . _ . ,_ , , .y.-----:-/oL.am :b 0. Aefro == _.....4 arip..r_,,,vii _ , 0,1,----akraili 411)---" --:— ---- ,... ..,u_ „ fts•-• kt•Ok1111 ' _....-- - •,..jw4, . 2,!... .....\ 1-1111111141kkilib . IP° -0 ei° eilk .,:41.41‘ .... .... ..Vitakiik.. ..N..,.....7....„ \ ."r4 OS ' . . e '' oe.F.S • CHANNEL CONNECTS AT DOWNSTREAM END TO RIVER .N..\._____,.. -i N . ....... E --vZ`- . \ �i , • GROUNDWATER P• p J, \ ~' • - 1GURE-18- . '-- : SIDE CHANNEL PLAN PREVIOUSLY USED AT ELLIOT LEVEE (FROM KING COUNTY) 6. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Throughout the planning process, coordination with representatives from federal, state and local agencies, and the Muckle;shoot Indian Tribe has been conducted. Table 5, below, summarizes the status of compliance with various applicable laws and regulations. This proposed project will be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Policy act (SEPA) as a result of this EIS process • and the serious consideration of comments received. The public review of the draft EIS : revealed that there was no significant controversy about the proposed project and preferred alternative. In general, most agencies and individuals support the project (see Appendix A). There were concerns about impacts to'chinook salmon, especially in lj light of their potential listing as an endangered species. There were also requests for more information about the proposed mitigation site. In several sections, information i has been added to clarify confusion which some commentors had about statements - made in the draft EIS. Interested parties and agencies will continue to be involved in the final designs of the project and;mitigation. This proposed project will be in corpliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) per consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). The Corps has submitted a biological assessment (BA) of potential effects of the project on threatened or endangered species and the FWS has concurred with that assessment. The FWS has prepared a draft and final FWCA i . Report and the final report is enclosed as Appendix B to this final EIS. Responses of the Corps to the comments and recommendations within the final FWCA Report are included in Appendix B. The Corps has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on the possible effects on cultural or historic resources. The SHPO has concurred that no effects are expected (enclosed with DPR). The Corps is conducting an evaluation and review of compliance with Section 404 of I the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. ` The local sponsor is required to obtain the following permits prior to construction of the proposed project: Water Quality Certification and Water Quality Modification Hydraulic Project Approval ' , : r City of Renton Shoreline Sdbstantial Development Permit City of Renton Grading Permit [IL 9 4 Table 5. Summary of Consistency of the Preferred Alternative with Applicable Laws and Regulations. Laws & Regulations Relating to Issues Addressed Consistency of Preferred the Proposed Alternatives Alternative National Environmental Policy Act Requires all federal agencies to Consistent (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. consider the environmental effects of their actions and to seek to minimize negative impacts State Environmental Policy Act Requires state agencies to consider the Consistent (SEPA) RCW 43.21 environmental effects of their actions _and actions of permit applicants. Clean Water Acts (CWA) 33 U.S.C. Requires federal agencies to protect Will be consistent per 1251 et seq.; Section 404 waters of the United States. Disallows 404(b)(1) Evaluation the placement of dredged or fill material into waters (and excavation) unless it can be demonstrated there are no reasonable alternatives. Clean Water Act Section 401 Requires federal agencies to comply Will be consistent with permit with state water qualitystandards. _ requirements Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 Requires federal agencies to consult Consistent U.S.C. 661 et seq. with the US Fish & Wildlife Service on any activity that could affect fish or wildlife. • Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. Requires federal agencies to protect Consistent 1531 et seq.; listed species and consult with US Fish & Wildlife or NMFS regarding the nroaosed action. National Historic Preservation Act 16 Requires federal agencies to identify Consistent U.S.C. 461; and protect cultural and historic resources. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Requires federal agencies to consider Consistent Management, 24 May 1977 how their activities may encourage future development in floodplains. Executive Order 11990, Protection of ^Requires federal agencies to protect Consistent Wetlands wetland habitats. _ • i ' Laws & Regulations Relating to Issues Addressed Consistency of Preferred the Proposed Alternatives _ Alternative Shoreline Management Act (SMA) State law implementing the Coastal Consistent and Shoreline Management Program Zone Mgmt Act requiring local (SMP) RCW 90.58, WAC 173-14 jurisdictions to plan and protect _shorelines. _ _ Coastal Zone Management Act Requires federal agencies to comply Consistent (CZMA) 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 with state and local plans to protect and CFR 923 _enhance coastal zones and shorelines. Washington Hydraulic Code Requires proponents of developments, Will be consistent with permit etc to protect state waters, wetlands requirements _and fish life. . _ _ Indian Treaty Rights Protect Indian tribes' property, water Will be consistent per public rights and usual and accustomed review process fishing areas. _ _ Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Interagency basin plan that encourages Consistent Pollution Action Plan reduction of flooding, water quality enhancement and fish and wildlife protection.. REFERENCES ' Beauchamp, D.A. 1995. Riverine predation on sockeye salmon fry migrating to Lake Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15: 358-365. • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff. 1995. Renton municipal airport master plan update. Prepared • for the City of Renton. Franklin, J.F. & C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW78. Portland, OR. Groot, C. & L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. 564 pp. Harza Northwest. 1994. Distribution of longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) eggs in the Cedar River, Washington. Report to the City of Renton. King County Surface Water Management. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. Seattle, Washington. Malick, J.G. 1977. Ecology of benthic insects of the Cedar River, Washington. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, School of Fisheries. 188 pp. Martz, M., F. Goetz, J. Dillon & T. Shaw. 1996a. Lake Washington ecological studies, study element II: early lake life history of sockeye. salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake Washington, year 1, 1994, final report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Martz, M., J. Dillon, T. Shaw & F. Goetz. 1996b. Lake Washington ecological studies, study element II: early lake life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake Washington, year 2, 1995, final report (supplement to year 1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Moulton, L.L. 1970. The 1970 longfin smelt spawning run in Lake Washington with notes on egg development and changes in the population since 1964. Master's thesis, University of Washington, School of Fisheries. 84 pp. Moulton, L.L. 1974. Abundance, growth and spawning of the longfin smelt in Lake Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 103(1): 46-52. Sibley, T. & R. Brocksmith. 1996a. Lower Cedar River Section 205 longfin smelt study, Final Report. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. University of Washington, School of Fisheries. 97 Sibley, T. & R. Brocksmith. 199613. Lower Cedar River Section 205 Study aquatic invertebrate study, final report. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. University of Washington, School of Fisheries. Tabor, R. & J. Chan. 1996a. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Western Washington fishery resource office, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA. Tabor, R. &J. Chan. 1996b. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by cottids and other predatory fishes in the lower Cedar River, 1996. Western Washington fishery resource office, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA. • Wydoski, R.S. & R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 220 pp. 98 GLOSSARY . • anadromous- species of fish that mature in ocean waters but return. as adults to spawn in freshwater lakes and rivers; includes salmon and trout species among others. Young fish spend a varying amount of time in freshwater before migrating to the ocean. adfluvial- species of fish that mature in freshwater lakes but spawn as adults in rivers and streams; includes Iongfin smelt in Lake Washington, resident cutthroat trout, kokanee and other species. Eocene epoch- time period approximately 40.million years ago in the Tertiary period. Characterized typically by warm water/climatic species often found in sedimentary layers from freshwater and seawater deposits. igneous- rocks formed by volcanic and magmatic processes; can be formed by volcanic flows/explosions (extrusive) or magma intruding into other crustal materials (intrusive) large woody debris (LWD)- logs or rootwads from trees, typically larger than 10 cm in diameter and 2 meters in length. LWD substantially contributes to habitat forming processes and is the largest contributor to forming pools and preventing movement of spawning gravel limnetic- the openwater zone in lakes or oceans away from shore, characterized by water deeper than 10 feet. littoral- the nearshore shallow water areas on the edges of lakes or oceans. is ordinary high water mark (OHWM)- the elevation of a normal yearly occuring high water in rivers or lakes, typically defined by limit of vegetation on banks pelagic- species of fish, mammals or invertebrates that inhabit the surface to mid-depth t waters of a lake or ocean. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA)- a process that defines standards ( for dredged material analysis and limit of contaminants allowed in material that will be dumped at designated openwater sites in Puget Sound. Implemented by the Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources, the Environmental 111 Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. redds - the "nest" a female salmon excavates in stream or lake substrate to lay her eggs. Redds are excavated with the tail and typically have successive layers of gravel that are cleaned and washed across the egg laying area. Fl 99 sedimentary- rocks formed by sedimentary deposits which could have been placed by lakes, rivers, oceans, glaciers, wind, oceanic oozes, evaporation, etc. metamorphic- rocks formed when parent material is subjected to heating or pressure, or chemically active fluids within the solid state. "sole source"aquifer- a groundwater source used for drinking water by a municipality or other facility that is the only drinking water supply for that municipality, etc. i• --I 100 I APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIS L=. WITH RESPONSES FROM THE CORPS 4,3 • • I • • • A t n ;a w. i - , - - .. - _—.—_. .Cl- .--:�rye. [1'_.'_..._-.� .:"-_ • --..o .oa 6a rti" ..199'...;a-va :» oJ,tl 0.JliO: The Do-Ong Company Pe.Box 37177 Serb VrA-9fl12472Q7 Cedar River Seclinn 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study May 5, 1997 Responses to Speecrlic. Comments Received on the draft EIS: Ms.Unda Smith,Study Manager 1. Issue is act.tr•`c"`d n1 the Detailed Project Report (DPR)which was reviewed by Chill Projects Hoeing:also avait.ru!.` !VIM Lavin Smith.Corp,nl Engineers. (206) 764.6721. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Carps has never guaranteed that Boeing will be provided uninterrupted use of their P.O.Box 3755 bridges during all inclement weather events alter construction of the project. Boeing Seattle,WA 98124 currently experiences significant closure periods during and following flood events. •2. Several comnrentnrs asked about whether delta dredging is required for Subject: D Draftda River Dredging EIS .9'O,F/NG Detail Project Report placement of dredged material on a barge,or d maintenance dredging may require (Jolla dredging,or 11 the delta would continue to grow and may reduce flood control in the luture. The Corps and the City of Renton have determined that the"Narco"upland . Dear Ms.Smith, • disposal site is suitable and available for at least 20 years following construction. Dredging the delta is not necessary when using a hydraulic suction dredge operation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comment rag ing The Corps has assumed that it the City of Renton,in the luture,wishes to dredge the the Cedar River Dredging EIS,Draft Detail Project Report. Also, hank delta for barge access, that they will apply for a separate permit to complete that action, you for your past consideration of comments Boeing made regar ing Dredging the della is not considered necessary for the federal project. The Corps plantings of the Delta area. recommends that the City pursue a long-term dredged material management plan with First,Boeing would like to share our support for the diligent work done by the natural resources agencies.that may include designating a disposal site in Lake the Corps,the City of Renton and other stakeholders of the Ceda-.River Washington. The delta is expected to continue to receive significant amounts of .Dredging'205'Project. sediment which will deposit out in Lake Washington. The outer edge of the delta drops off rapidly into water depths of 50 feel or more. It is not expected that the della will • While,Boeing enthusiastically supports the recommended and preferred significantly affect flood control at any point in the future. Alternative C-Minimum Dredge of four feet.additional informati•r1 from the Corps is required to provide assurances that this alternative Ill 3. Engineering design details will be addressed duringtheplans and specifications provide a level of flood management that protects Boeing's abil' to have 9 9 9 P 1 uninterrupted production after construction of the project. There bre, we phase of the project. The Federal Government's level of acceptable risk may differ would like for the Corps to provide us with modeling estimates of the from Boeing's. bridge closure duration occurring under each alternative,for the 0,20, . 50 and 100 year recurrent event In order that we may better und-rstand 4. Issue is addressed in the DPR,see number 1,above. the risks associated with each alternative and potential Impacts t• production for planning purposes. . Boeing continues to believe the Delta could require periodic dreeging for 2 containment purposes and we would like the opportunity to cont tie to discuss how rt would be addressed if that became evident. IBoeing aleo believes the issue of channel maintenance should .e addressed and resolved during the plans and epecification phas' of the 3 1 project to include information regarding acceptable levels of risk to Boeing and the airport's operation. Another important part of Boeing's ability to deliver planes to ou 4 customers is the preservation and protection of the Compass Ro'e. The • preferred alternative will need to protect end assure that no met-I objects • • A-1 ci„y. .crn,. nt7/T. [rFa1PS TO 1 706 764 6676 1997.06-06 13164 U749 P.O2/O7 • (I.e.metal in levies or a wall)are located within 150 feet of the Co•pass Rose. Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment of this project. B.,oing continues to support the efforts of the Corps to date and looks fo ..rd to working with the many stakeholders of the Cedar River Dredging '205' Project. Sincerely, • 6 7Ef,V0 • Elizabeth J.Warman Manager,Local Government Affairs-Puget Sound • cc: Merl Martz Ron Stratka,City of Renton Ross Hathaway,City of Renton Project Manager Mary Armstrong Tony Lewis Mehdi Nakhjiri Paul Crane Gerry Bresslour • • • • • • • CITY O c�• �_r Z' 12,:...' ION Planning/Building/Public` ., partmcnt 5. This is_ addressed in the DPR,see number I,above. It is not expected k.,�r.,nnrr.naa)•nr Cre t:-7'immernati-., minislralor ;hal any line tuning of levee length versus floodwall length will change any effect on the environment. The use of levees on the left bank immediately downstream of Logan Avenue could crate access difficulties to some businesses located adjacent to the •urport. The use of 1nvens or lloniJwalls will be designed to minimize any safety concerns. May 9,1997 II. During plans and specifications•all engineering elements will be designed to Linda Smith,1'rojcct Manager comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not affect the evaluation of U.S.Corps of Engineers,Seattle District project impacts on the environment. P.O.Box 3755 Seattle,WA 98124-2255 7. Park design issues will be coordinated with the City to replace any public amenities damaged or relocated as a result of the project. SUII.IF.CT: CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONAIENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(DEIS)REVIEW COMMENTS Dear Linda: • Please find herewith the official comments from the City of Renton on the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). These comments include those from the Municipal Airport.Parks Department.Surface Water Utility,and all other Departments in the Cily's Design Team. Several of these comments arc very similar to those suhntined for the Draft Detailed Project Report. 'thank you for the opportunity to review the document and give official comment. GENERAL COMMENTS: We are very pleased with the Drag EIS,and would like to restate our appreciation to-the Amy Corps for their hard work and patience. We fully encourage you to proceed to finalize the EIS as soon as possible. In this perspective,we intend that none of our comments are to slow the process, or unduly raise concerns. Please do not hesitate to call us if you need any clarification or want to • discuss any of these issues. • I) Sheet Pile Floodwall: a) The amount of sheetpile floodwall in the project will be minimized as much as possible, both due to cost issues and its unsightliness. Much of the alignment presently shown as floodwall will be investigated to be replaced with type I levee, or type I levee cored 5 roadway topped levee with steeper sides and guard rails.•The exact segments of floodwalls to be actually constructed as levee will be worked out in the plans and specifications • depending on allowable flexibility of configuration and the space available at specific locations. In discussions with the City of Renton Municipal Airport Manager, several segments have been identified as candidates for levees rather than floodwall including adjacent to the compass rose on the Icll bank and upstream of the South Boeing Bridge. 6 2) Issues impacting the Parks Department: y a) All ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)requirements must be met, including access Rom the parking areas to the trail system. b) The plans reflect loss of a large open turfed area south of and adjacent to the picnic pavilion/play amenities that is currently utilized for touch football, Frisbee throwing, etc. This is an important component of the park which needs to he accommodated as much as 7 b-g possible. - c) The cltildren's play area has been eliminated and needs to be reconstructed at another location in close proximity to the picnic pavilion and rest rooms. 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton,Washington 98055 • ®nrh P.P.,cw...50%...RYA nw.Mi.20%po.ifmumr A-3 RESPONSES: Linda Smith.l.t.S.Corps of Engineers Cedar River2_U5 Project Draft Detail-Review Comments Pace 2 it ?,UI Odtu n rh'c,,:n W,ll h,',:nnr.lUCted with the co.t nrOlion of the City. 1 L)wever, it e'u'•I be reCn(1niln'l trial current park plant materials downstream of the south Honing Linage provide lira handat values IOr fish or wildlife and have a negative effect on fish II) It is unclear what the impacts will be if the trail is raised at a location where an existing habitat becauSo they provede no shading,nutrient input or habitat forming material ornamental water feature is constructed as part of the Senior Center. (woody debris) The mitigation design will lake into account the need to provide e) The proposed design elements for the Closure Structure and the physical location of the effective replacement lnr lost habitat features as well as providing continued access for proposed structure arc not aesthetically pleasing and create an opportunity for"creative" public use of the river frontage. • play where the potential for injury is increased. Further details and alternatives need to be investigated during plans and specifications. 9. The City has had flooding problems on the trail beside the River for many years. f) We recommend the trail system be designed so that it is not constructed at one elevation at 1 here is not a Federal interest in dredging to deeper depths to further reduce the risk of the top of the levee throughout the park system. The trail should wind around,and vary in the frail flooding. The, Corps recommends That the City individually pursue constructing vertical elevation,as it does now in the existing park. It would be aesthetically desirable to a small levee or pumping station to alleviate flooding under the Logan Avenue bridge. have the final elevations of the beams(levees)vary in height(s)as do the existing beans throughout the park. This undulating effect is more natural and creates visual interest. In addition.the actual width of the banns need to vary because this is more natural looking in appearance and is visually appealing. A better example of the effect of what Parks is trying • to describe and what the Corps needs to achieve,world be to take a cross section or"slice" of the park from Logan Street Bridge to the mouth of the river and raise that"slice"up to • the required elevations for flood control purposes. We would like the future park to resemble what is currently in place now. We believe levees and berms are compatible and this effect can be achieved. g) Those levees inside the park that are to he covered with grass and will require mowing shall have 41I:I V side slopes. As stated in previous documents, the maximum slope for the berms(levees)within the park area should be 4:1. This is the maximum slope upon which turf equipment can maneuver. Sleeper slopes will be vegetated with shrubs and/or groundcover that do not need mowing,but will require more costly maintenance.operation as the arca will have to be raked,weeded,barked,etc. The exact locations of 4:1,3:1 or 2:1 slopes within the park arca needs to be dealt with in plans and specifications. As much of the levee as possible should have 4:1 slopes. h) Suggested native plant materials for the compensatory mitigation need to be coordinated with Pinks. -For example,willows have an invasive root system which can impact utility systems and arc also shallow rooted making it difficult to mow. It should also be noted that the City currently does not remove invasive.species such as blackberries along the riverbank. The recommendation that the City remove these invasive species in addition to our routine park maintenance, constitutes an increase in workload and increase in maintenance costs. An environmental.mitigation related.justification for control of non- native species needs to be provided. This should address the reasoning for any continuation .8 11,1 of these controls after planted species becomes firmly established,particularly as it is offset by any negative impacts of this control program. i) The location and quantity of native plant materials also needs to he coordinated with Parks. Certain areas are-better suited for more natural plantings. It is also very important that the public not only have physical but visual access to the river. In addition,intensely planted vegetation increases the lime and associated costs of maintenance requirements due to the additional leaf drop and shade in the turf areas. j) In previous meetings with City staff,the recommendation for dredging further up-stream of Logan Street[fridge was discussed. Parks continues to recommend dredging up to Wells in • 9 i,k order to reduce the flooding impacts on the park/trail system and most importantly,to better address imminent life safety issues. If it is possible,please include a short discussion of this option,and the required mitigation for it. • • ,., l--zol, k ..., E. -,.,ii - w1 {C .m . - 'SPONSES: 1inch`mith ll S Cocps till inccrs cedar River 205 Project Draft Detail•Review Continents 10. Cont,. i he Corps is coordinating with the City of flenton to ensure that the proposed mitigation site conforms to the Master Plan and will not endanger either the . 'xrsting spawnuto channel or the golf course. These issues will be addressed in detail kl The Paiks Department has expressed a concern that this project does not presently propose during Plans and Specifications. to correct flooding of the riverside trail under Logan Avenue on the right bank of die river . (Renton Senior Activity Center side). lit the design,the current and existing problem of the 11. Historic sotlimenlation rates indicate that the river will lilt in slower than the trail underpass being under water at Logan between six to seven months of the year may not model predicted. I however,the river will still experience increased lake backwater change significantly. This underpass is critical to the trail user as the only other way to effects over most of the reach identified in this EIS. The increased lake backwater area approach the trail on the north side of Logan is to cross a five(5)lane highway located on a will reduce spawning habitat and change the invertebrate community. The proposed curve. In addition,this access point is a mid-block crossing creating additional hazards. (It mitigation is warranted for the expected effects. should also be noted that the Renton Senior Activity Center is located on the Cedar River Trail on the south side of the Logan Street underpass. The Senior population is an avid user of this system and crossing a 5 lane road,on a curve,at mid-block is not recommended). We recommend the option of providing some measure of protection for this underpass be identified in the document. I) The City's primary choice of the recommended mitigation sites is known as the Cedar River Regional Park site (a few hundred feet upstream of the existing Elliott Levee spawning channel);and is also owned by the City of Renton. Additional title searches need to be completed along the river's edge to verify ownership of the entire parcel. An adopted Master Plan is already in place for the future active and passive development of this.15 acre . park site. Phase I construction will commence this year. m) The proposed mitigation elements must be coordinated with the adopted Master Plan and 10 I-n requirements as outlined in the Transfer of Title and associated funding sources - — - (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and Forward"Thntst Funds). - Very preliminary investigations indicate that a salmon spawning channel can be constructed on this site,if soft surface trails and interpretive signage arc included as part of this project. A soft-surface trail system is consistent with the Master Plan,provides maintenance access, and is cost effective to maintain. We believe the proposed spawning channel in this • location is an excellent opportunity for education and interpretation. ' n) The Elliott Levee Site referenced in this document is located directly behind the City of Renton's Maplewood Golf Course. A spawning channel was developed approximately 2 years ago with additional improvements completed in the fall of 1996 due to storm damage in late 1995 and early 1996. These channel improvements were limited to the area as developed (distance from the north fence line of the golf course). These additional improvements were expected to reduce the overall flood elevation and velocity through this • reacts,leading to a reduction in the frequency and severity of levee failure for the facility ' (Maplewood Golf Course). Any additional modifications in this specific area must not compromise the integrity attic golf course and the existing spawning channel. 3) Army Corps fIEC•6 analysis,dredge cycle profiles,mitigation level: a) Per our more detailed continents submitted on the Draft Detailed Project Report(DDPR), the sedimentation analysis has an extremely conservative annual computational hydrograph ' which generates very large sediment loads. The modeled computational hydrograph introduces a short period at the 500-year event flow annually. This results in a modeled 11 sediment load that will require rcdredging once every three years. Historic indications arc that the channel will return to river-like condition in a fairly short period, then slowly shallow over time. This would indicate that whatever mitigation was based on a dominantly lake-like condition for the lower channel, and a three year dredge cycle, may he significantly excessive, These include mitigation for the impacts to invertebrate density and some of the loss of spawning habitat. Since it may he difficult to withdraw much of the proposed mitigation,it maybe warranted to phase the mitigation in or establish mitigation A-5 RESPONSES: I.inrla Smith,tl.s.Corps of Engineers t serial River 205 Project Draft Detail•Review Comments rage.1 1 2 I h•'('id:"; P, •w !r!Ito.vrr'.at;ouq Wl:dn Itr. tdella will not bn.ullnct•,1 in WV way by!::n',or ...•,1;+r,:ph:1. Ilse dISCusSrnn r•I thrndlenntl and endanrp,r r•,1 •:1'0<:,'?•; ....1st include a"v•"• •'r .r•Itrr:n,ihen about theso snocri'to the project area Iia1U credits for the mitigation done based on monitoring. Another method would be to relax •'doles have;+'•+.t .•'1•.+,1 porr:hrnq on the wn,t!y r;rhrrS on the delta. some of the requirements to maintain riparian corridor vegetation along the project reach. •t) Delta Impacts: 11 the Cort••,'I ca :'•'',S wall this viewpoint 1he[unposed riparian plantings along t co+dh Boeing bridge are tin a) Some additional detail should be added to the discussion of expected project impacts to the me nghl bank t",taw u", g g { posed for several reasons: I)Ihis vegetation will erinl,or5,rin for the expected loss of vegetation along the tell bank; 2) see delta. This would include continued transport of a large portion of the sediment through the this vegetation will contribute nutrients in the form of detritus to compensate for an .2 project reach to the delta. A projection of delta growth with or without the project should expected loss of invertebrates due Io dredging activities; 3)this vegetation will he provided,impacts caused by delta growth to recreation, navigation and airplane safety compensate for lost holding and hiding habitat for selmonids by creating a shaded should be discussed and an explanation as to why the delta is not included in the project. riparian edge as welt as providing the opportunity for the creation of bank scour pools h) While project impacts I4 the delta and the surrounding area should be discussed in the EIS; associated with the vegetation;and, 4)the plantings of trees and shrubs are expected 12 the discussion of the value of woody materials on the delta should not be included in the to reduce the use of the, park area by gulls,geese and other nuisance birds. Overall, EIS. The delta. and its woody material, is specifically not part of the project, and the placement of native riparian vegetation along the river corridor is expected to assessment of the environmental value of this material is separate concern and an issue to he contribute in a positive way to the fish and wildlife use of the Cedar River. It would be . addressed in a different forum. extremely difficult and costly to monitor the change in resident fish population due 5) Mitigation Vegetation along Lower Channel: solely to the placement of native riparian vegetation along the lower 3000 feet of the a) The proposal to place more vegetation alongthe lower channel than is presently there,may river versus benefits to salmon species which also may occur due to this vegetation. P IgP yy serve to disproportionately benefit salmon predator species; some of which will already 14. Riparian plantings will likely provide similar habitat for woodland birds and some benefit from dredging. During monitoring the net impacts. and mechanisms of this duck species as occurs upstream of the south Boeing bridge along the right bank. Bird measure,need to be quantified,and the mitigation measure objectively analyzed. use of this area has been observed and the typical species utilizing this habitat aro: 13 The main function of the trees is to provide more habitat for invertebrates(both aquatic and woodpeckers,chickadees,warblers,wrens,finches.etc. Currently,the park and the terrestrial). Since this will provide a more or less constant supply of food,the resident fish gravel bars in the river are heavily utilized by gulls,geese and other potentially of the lower channel may increase in population dire to the increase in carrying capacity. If hazardous birds. After the project,the gravel bars will be absent and the park will be the lower channel will have an extended lake backwater condition, this will provide an less attractive to these potentially hazardous birds. The delta will still be attractive to increased constant food supply for the slow water velocity species, many of which arc these birds as will the airport runway. It is unclear if the City of Renton wishes the predator species on salnronid. Invertebrates are likely the primary food supply for many of Corps to leave these areas as prime habitat for nuisance birds. The Corps has these species. These species will have already benefited front the dredging;increasing the recommended that the City explore options for bird control,such as the use of netting constant food supply may increase their population even further, thereby potentially increasing their impact on the pulses of transient prey species such as sockeye fry. All too prime ae birds from using the airportrdrunway. The Corps to reducebelieduc theht the removal of eventual understanding of the net impacts to the important species using the lower Cedar two prime areas of potentially hazardous bird use will tend to overall River would he helpful; this would, at some point, ideally, be used to optimize some populations of these birds in the general area. preferred balance. 15. Specific editorial changes have been made as appropriate. The in-water work 14 b) Increasing bird habitat adjacent a runway may not be helpful to these species. We need to window has not been changed after consultation with the Washington State Department be very careful not to increase the gull and waterfowl populations adjacent the airport. o1 Fish and Wildlife. The work window will end August 31 because the later portion of c) for the above reasons,we recommend taking a moderate approach to the plantings along the window can be during the earliest portion of the sockeye and chinook upstream the river. More openings(titan arc shown on the plans)from both the park side and airport migration. II during Plans and Specs,the Corps determines that the work window is would provide a diverse habitat,as well as making the plantings more visually pleasing and insufficient to complete dredging,the Corps will consult with the appropriate agencies to minimizing any potential negative impact on the salmon fry. determine a more acceptable work window that will not significantly affect migratory 15 sr Ecine EDITS: salmon. r Page ii,last paragraph,second sentence((also page 3 paragraph 4) . Replace:"2500 cis" With:"220t)cis" . 7) Page iii,second paragraph,second sentence Replace:" in this EIS because it was not possible to the clearly " • • . ( Linda Smith.,U.S.Corps of"Iaigh ccrs Cedar River 205 Project Draft Detail-Review Comments " Page 5 with:" nu this EIS because it was not possible to identify a clearly " Ill Page iv,global change Replace:" Cedar mouth " With:" Cedar River mouth " 9) Page vi,paragraph 2,second sentence(and global change) Replace:"Carko" \Vith:"Carco" 10) Page vii,Table A. 1 his does not match Table 4 on page 79,we believe"Table A"to be the more recent version. Also. please clarify if this is with,or without,mitigation. • "t-I-"should be included in legend No action impact to water quality should be"--"or"moderate negative impact". No action itiipact to all anadromous speciei should he"..."or"large negative impact". Transportation, Public Services and Public iicaltlt/Safety should probably he"H-" for all dredge alternatives and"i"for existing channel alternative. 11) Page 1,paragraph 3,fifth sentence After "with numerous bank revetments or levees" - - Add:"which now cause the sediment to be transported down channel into the project reach." 12) Global change in document(one day may be important and this is the window that had been discussed) Change:"limited to June 15-August 31" To:"limited to June 15-September I" 13) Figure 1:Vicinity Map(and all maps using this base including Figure 2) Check the river network closely. There are several dead end drainages and networks that may not he correct. 14) Figure 4 Why are no anadromous fish shown above the confluence with on Rock Crcck with no blockage shown? - 15) Page 14,third paragraph,first sentence Replace:"(31,00 CV)" With:"(31,000 CY)" 16) Page 14,third paragraph,third sentence Compare the Icvec/(loodwall heights between the four alternatives. Minimum height of ranges may • have a problem. Existing,Minimum,Moderate and Deep dredge alternatives minimum of ranges arc shown as 0.58,0.08, 1.36 and 0.63 respectively;but all are listed as starting at Williams. Are these correct? • • • A-7 Linda Smith.U.S.Corps of Engineers Cedar River 205 Project Draft Detail-Review Comments I'attc G - 17) Page 16,last paragraph,last sentcnce Replace:"that may not he suitable for resale,to the Eltoitt Ray PSDDA site." With:"to the Elloit flay PSDDA site or for sale." - IA) figure The dredge tapers for the various alternatives are shown all ending at the sante location. Please correct as required. It would also he helpful to show the location of the bridges, a grid, and eliminate the shading. 19) Page 26,first paragraph,sixth sentence After"This site" Insert:",or an alternative." • 20) Page 26,first paragraph,seventh sentence Replace:"because there arc areas of fine sediment that may have no resale value." With:"or barge it to another location." 21) Page 29,first paragraph,third sentence+ Replace: "This province is primarily characterized by ...(through the end of the paragraph) extensively in the last century." With: "The bedrock of the region is primarily igneous, although some sedimentary rocks are present. The age of the bedrock is primarily Eocene epoch(approximately 40 million years old)or younger. Some the sedimentary bedrock contains significant coal deposits which were mined in the last century. Glacial activity has been extensive in the region and most of the bedrock is buried Under extensive layers of glacial till,glacial outwash and glaciolacustrian deposits. 22) Page 29,second paragraph,last sentence Replace: "formed" • With: "shaped" 23) Page 30,first paragraph,first sentence' Replace: "Rlack River and shallow Lake Washington waters." With: "[thick River and bottom of Lake Washington." 24) Page 31,first paragraph,fifth sentence Replace: "most are prone to serious frequent flooding." • With: "some are prate to serious frequent flooding",or"many arc prone to serious frequent flooding." 25) Page 31,third paragraph,fourth sentence Replace: "Seattle has claims a right " With: "Seattle claims a right " 1 ' a . A-8 :;; • L g8d1 t15!!1 ac.,; si i • Linda Smith.I I.S.Corps of Engineers ;aL, (•edar River 205 Project Draft Detail-Review Comments Page 7 26) Page 32,second paragraph,fifth sentence(and global change where it occurs) Replace: "MSI;" With: "(COE)" At end of sentence add:"(COE=Anny Corps of Engineers Jan I, 1919 vertical datum;COE-6.82 NGVD'29)" 27) Page 33,paragraphs 4&5,page 34 paragraph 1 Is including Renton's outran water quality germane to the EIS for this project? 23) Page 38,Table 2 • It may be helpful to normalize these numbers to rcdds per 100 feet. 29) Page 42,first paragraph,third sentence • Arc the food sources for Prickly Sculpin listed in order of percent diet? It may be helpful to list percentages or order significance. 30) Page 44,second and third paragraph Sec"General Comments"above for references to woody debris,logs,and other debris on the delta. 31) Page 46,first paragraph _The Renton Airport's seaplane launching and docking area is located on the lake shore on the west side of the runway. The seaplane facility is a public use,transportation facility,which serves nearly 10,000 passengers annually. This facility is being impacted by the spreading of the delta to the west A recognition of this impact should be placed in this section. These impacts should be discussed in the review of impacts of delta growth,to the extent they are contributed from the project. 32) Page 46,fourth,paragraph A recognition of any project impacts to the Renton Airport's seaplane launching and docking area should be placed in this section. The safety of passengers and aircraft should be addressed. 33) Page 53,second paragraph,second sentence Change: "August 31" • To: "September I" Please make this a global change,it is about 1%of the project time and we arc already going to he light. 34) Page 58,first paragraph Copy the last sentence from the first paragraph to the last sentence in the second paragraph. 35) Page 59,third paragraph,Inst sentence • Strike: "slightly"to remain consistent• - 36) Page 71,second paragraph,fifth sentence Please justify why the backwater may dramatically reduce overall abundance and diversity of invertebrates when this is largely blamed on frequency of dredging in the remainder of the document. • • A-9 RESPONSES' Linda Smith.U.S.Corps of Engineers Cedar River 205 Project Draft Detail•Review Comments Page$ 16. This is an issue the Oily of Renton should pursue during the permitting process with the Slate nl Washington. 37) Page 72,last and page 73 third paragraph See"General Comments"on woody debris on the delta 33) Page 75,second paragraph • Please include a mention of the expected project impact due to haul traffic on the light duty asphalt roadway surfaces of the East Perimeter Road and in the park access road. • 39) Page 77,first paragraph,second sentence Please add at the end of the sentence:";the amount of Iloodwall will be limited to the minimum possible." 40) Page 79,Tattle 4 Please update to match the updated Table A on page vii. • 41) Figure IS:proposed Haul Route for Dredge Material. • Please revise the route front: N 6th St.•Garden Ave.N-Aronson Way N. To: N 6th St.•EadtAlYt:.l`(-Aronson Way N. 42) Page 84,third paragraph Add at end: "If the actual dredging frequency is significantly less than that anticipated for the 16 mitigation(once every three years),and the mitigation is determined to be significantly more than was needed;future compensatory credit and relaxation of some requirements will be investigated." Please call the at(425)277-6205 if you have any questions. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Gs"Ross I lathaway,Project Manager Surface Water Utility n:I) CS:97•Io7:Rutps . CC: Jay Covington. City dilution.Eaeeutive Assistant (keg Zimmerman, City of Renton.Planning,Ruilding,Puhlle works Administrator Sam Chastain. City of Renton,Community Services Administrator Ron Olsen, City of Renton,Utility Systems Oi,eelnr Lane • iktlach, • City of Renton.Parks hlehdl Nakhjid. Hoeing Airplane Company Elizabeth Wanton fncing Airplane Company Gail Reed. City of Renton.Alrtnrt Ronald Straka, City of Renton,Surf cc Water • • • A-) r. - _ i ::.b PC:' Corn .,wever. lloodplain gravel deposits are frequently protected by levees `�illl' ell f Seattle l y � or other bank protection and have become vegetated and unavailable for river movement and deposition. Norman U.Rice.Mayor Seattle Public Utilities Diana Gale.Director May 9, 1997 Ms.Mfcrri Martz Department of the Army Seattle District,Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 Seattle WA 98124-2255 Dear Ms.Martz Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle Public Utilities(SPU) supports the"minimum dredge"preferred alternative presented in the Draft EIS. We believe that SPU and other appropriate jurisdiction have been kept informed of the Section - 205 Flow Damage Reduction Study and offered sufficient opportunity for comment. We believe that,in general,the environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. Please note that we would like to oiler the following suggestions for improving the Draft LEIS. Page I,Section 1.1: SPU staff conducted extensive steelhead spawning surveys during the spring of 1996 and again this spring. Surveyors have noted that most gravel bars currently present in the river channel show evidence of significant scouring and deposition. It is true that relatively few 17 gravel bars remain in the river,due largely to its confined nature and enhanced ability to Transport sediments into a relatively few deposition zones,including the proposed project arca. However,in contrast to your statement in the second paragraph of this section,our observations indicate the remaining gravel bars arc quite barren of vegetation and likely to be remobilized during winter high water events. Dexter Horton Building, 10th floor 710 Second Avenue, Seattle WA 98104 Tel:(206)684.5851,TTY/TDD(206)233.7241,FAX:(206)684-4631 An rqualemployment opportunity,affirmative action employer.Accommodations for people with disabilities provided on re, CJ • • A-11 RESPONSES: nn.titerri nlanz Seattle District.Corps of Engineers 1a. Ptidonal Chnnur•s nt.tl^In r oure 4. 19. This recrnttmnndation would not accomplish the protect purpose of providing 100 ,.+ar flood control ut Boonton. there are many opportunities tor restoration of fish and Nitdlde habitat in the muddle and upper Cedar River that would provide significant t•i'neiit:however.these issues are not directly relevant to the proposed flood control Figure 4: Project. 20. The estimated maintenance dredge volumes are an average of predicted There arc several errors in this figure as listed below sediment accumulations in the project area during the life of the project. This takes into account the possibility of extremely large sediment accumulations which have not been • The Landsburg diversion dam currently forms an impassable barrier to upstream observed in recent years. It is estimated That the actual maintenance dredge volume migrating fish. will be similar or less than the construction dredge volumes,but the calculated volume 18 is shown as a maximum amount that may need dredging. • Lower Cedar Falls at river mile 34.2, 1.5 miles below Masonry Dam,forms an impassable falls blocking upstream fish migration. • • Masonry Dam at the west end of Masonry Pool forms art impassable dam. • The overflow dike separating Masonry Pool and Chester Morse Lake is a passable dam. Page 11,section 2.1.2 It is true that,during severe flooding,many levecs.are overtopped and water is stored in former flood plain areas behind these levees. However,during moderate floods,most levees function effectively to confine flows. Confined flows in these areas are more able to scour and transport sediments damaging incubating salmon and steelhead and perhaps 19 increasing the rate of sediment deposition in the proposed project area. We recognize that levee removal may only provide minor reductions in downstream water levels during future storm events. Nevertheless,this option could provide significant benefit for fisheries resources,help restore the natural structure and function of the river and reduce the rate of sediment deposition in the proposed project area. Page 15,section 2.2.3 Here and in subsequent descriptions of dredging alternatives,estimated initial dredge 20 volumes arc less than subsequent maintenance dredge volumes. Please explain why this is the case. Page 26,section 2.2.7 • see Is it reasonable to assume that,without dredging,a barge can be located close enough to 2 the Boeing property to allow an acceptable method of sediment rehandling? If dredging is required,will it be necessary to analyze the potential environmental impacts? • c:\97.205.doc Page 2 May 9,1997 • • A-1^ . bts.btcrri�tanx`._._.... ...:.v ' Seattle District,Corps of Engineers • 2-1. No similes have-been-conducted-on-this-topic:however,visual ,xrservalion of tow flow conditions by Corps and other agency staff, and later fish migrations have indicated that adult salmon ascend the lower River with difficulty during :tin lowest flow time hennds(late August). Additionally,the Washington Dept of Fish& Wildian has Iurth.tr inhumation on actual run liming for the past several decnihss. 22. Concur. See section 3.4. Page 36,section 3.3 23. The source of this information is Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife We arc not familiar with any studies or analyses to indicating that a barrier to adult salmon steelhead escapement figures. Steelhead populations have remained steadily low 21 migration may presently exist in the proposed project area or downstream delta. If you since the early 1980s despite supplementation efforts. There are several reasons for have information indicating that this is the case,please reference. this,including predation at the Hiram Chitlenden Locks. Page 38,section 3.4 24. USGS Gauge No. 121 19000(Cedar River at Renton)is located at RM 1.6(2.6 km),which is upstream of the proposed project by approximately 0.35 miles(.56 km). It • Removal of large woody debris is cited as a factor that has exacerbated scouring of smaller is not anticipated that the project will affect this gauge. 22 substrates suitable for spawning. It is likely that levees and other sources of channel confinement are an equally important factor contributing to the scour of smaller substrates in the channel. Page 39,section 3.4 • The third paragraph states that hatchery plants of steelhead up until the early 1990s were 23 unlikely to have bolstered steelhead populations. Please reference the source of this information. Page 43,section 3.7 Although all salmonid species mentioned here arc under various stages of review for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act,not all are formally considered"candidate" species. While it may not be necessary for the purpose of this document,the National Marine Fisheries Service should be able to provide a more precise definition for the listing status of each species. • Page 47,section 3.14 No mention is made of the permanent impact to the USGS stream gauging station no. 121 19000(Cedar River at Renton). This station is of regional importance as a long term 24 measuring point for Cedar River hydrology. Please explain what measures will be taken to maintain high quality streamflow measurements through the construction period and beyond,as the channel geometry will likely be unstable as a result of the dredging. • c:197-205.doc Page 3 May 9,1997 • A-13 • RESPONSES: Ms.Meal Manz Seattle District,Corps or Engineers 5 1110 f?roJ'r:l eras't".iil7ru'rt to minimize heart cutting to the maximum extent ;,'lr:trcable,by sloping the dredge profile up 10 zero dredge between Logan and ::'nwrns Avenues h,tu,.)r rnstat:rlization of the channel in the dredged area is expected . '.r )ccur;however,this is o.t:ar,ted to be negligible compared to the volume of coital-lent which will move Through and deposit in the mood reach from natural ;1QCeSSes. Page 49,section 4.1 26. It is expected that(Ur"rlgmg will entrain and kill significant numbers of prickly sculpin during construction and maintenance. It is unknown how quickly sculpin will There is no mention of the potential environment effects of head cutting as the longitudinal recolonize an area alter dredging.bul invertebrate species typically completely 25 profile of the reestablishes itself after the dredging project is complete. Is this because the rnolonize a disturbed substrate alter 10-12 months(Rees, 1959). Based on sampling degree of head cutting is not expected to be significant? conducted on sculpin in the lower Cedar River(Tabor.pers.comm.)we would expect prickly sculpin to completely recolonize the lower Cedar River in 1 10 2 years after Page 54,section 4.3.1.1 dredging. If maintenance dredging occurs every 3 years,it would be anticipated that • approximately 1 year out of 3 would have higher prickly sculpin populations than exists Here an in the subsequent dredging options,the documents claims that prickly sculpting under current conditions,while I to 2 years out of 3 would have lower prickly sculpin mortality during periodic maintenance dredging will be sufficient prevent an increase in the populations. If maintenance dredging occurs less frequently than every 3 years, it • . 26 population size. What evidence might be presented that periodic dredging will have a would be likely that prickly sculpin populations would increase compared to the existing sufficient effect on the prickly sculpting to ensure that the population does not increase in conditions. Hence,the Corps has assumed there will be an increase in predation on response to the expanded habitat created by the dredging project? sockeye and chinook fry. Likely from the increased prickly sculpin population and possible increased trout populations. , Page 57,scction 4.3.2.4 27. Concur. The final EIS reflects a recognition of the likelihood of increased No evidence is presented here to demonstrate that the increase in predator habitat will not predation on chinook fry as well as sockeye fry. See sections 3.4.2 and 5.for additional • have a significant effect on outmigrating Chinook salmon,nor that Chinook salmon are less information on impacts to chinook and proposed mitigation. • 27 susceptible to predation than sockeye salmon. We arc not aware of any infomiation on the size,timing or condition ofjuvenile Chinook entering the project area. 28. It is unclear if predation on coho juveniles will increase as a result of this project. Coho juveniles are significantly larger than sockeye or chinook fry. Coho juveniles are Page 59,section 4.3.3.3 typically 120 mm or larger. Larger predators that may feed on coho juveniles do not appear to be present in significant numbers,nor are the populations expected to Even though coho might be less susceptible than other juvenile salmonids,predation of increase. It is not expected that coho will be adversely affected by the proposed 28 juvenile coho in the project area under all dredging scenarios is likely to increase. It seems project. However,coho do feed on sockeye and chinook fry and longfin smelt. Coho unclear whether or not this increase will be significant. may have an Increase in rearing area due to the lake backwater conditions during their transit through the lower river. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely--.. c„.,,, ,, -- • - • George H.Schneider,P.E. Water Resource Manager • i c;197.203.doc Page 4 May 9,1997 • A-1 _ fit: — ) 1 j'L-'1 _ _ ' _ _ 9 1 r, 79 (;onc:. ,I tinn,al mfnrmahon included in Sections 3 11 and 4.10. King Cnlrnly 30. Coordination is •:urrnntly occurring between the Corps,the City of Renton. Wnalrwnlcr Trcnrmcnl UIvIalon finning and King County to rnsnlve construction scheduling. D•pnnn,rnrnrNnn,raJRrv,nrrr• in 1 trrnn.l Awn. rani..WA 011101.IT0A May 8, 1997 • Ms. Merri Martz Environmental Resources Section • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 • ATTN: Cedar River EIS C.ederiiiveLaC_ctlon 205 Flood Damage Re_dystinn Study Draft FIS Dear Ms. Martz: . King County's Wastewater Treatment Division would like to submit the following comments regarding the Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Study DEIS. ILansportation Document should provide more detail on the existing transportation 29 system and identify potential adverse project effects upon the roadways and traffic circulation. What mitigation measures are anticipated? i Eubliq Services/Utilities Note that King County owns and operates the Bryn Mawr Siphon and Trunk within the project corridor. See attached figure. • Submit construction drawings for the proposed project to the King County Wastewater Treatment Division for review during design development so King County facility staff can assess the project's impacts. For additional information contact Eric Davison of the Wastewater Treatment Division at 684-1707. 30 • Contact Ed Cox of King County's Wastewater Treatment Division at 684.1292 a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing construction in order to allow staff time to arrange having a King County inspector on site during construction. • King County has a permanent easement for the siphon and trunk sewer line within the proposed project corridor. Before this project is undertaken, King County must he assured the right to maintain and repair its facilities. In the event that facilities must be relocated, a new permanent easement must bo provided. Contact Larry Ellington at 296-7816 regarding this matter. • CLEAN WATER—A SOUND INVESTMENT A-15 Cedar River Flood Damage Reduction Study May B. 1997 • Page Two • King County intends to undertake improvements to the Bryn Mawr Siphon and Trunk. A third barrel to the existing siphon would bo added, and the 27-inch • diameter trunk line would be replaced with a 36-inch diameter pipe. Construction would occur in phases. Phase I begins in October 1997. Phase II begins in May 1998. Contact Rick Andrews, Bryn Mawr Project Manager at 684-1306 for more information. Mitigation-antLMDnicoring Plea A monitoring plan should be prepared prior to project permit application. • Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, • Tim Goon. Senior Environmental Planner King County Wastewater Treatment Division attachment cc: R. Andrews E. Cox • E. Davison - • • • - - A-' • y ` thr 1<I1,y Cnun,Y Wau•r anti Laud Itrsnnrrrs UA•Isinn I.•ivulntrnl nl Na,.,ral Pr..nnrr• TM 111nt.Wr .Sotto.22I I crate,%A.t 1141.114 12n1112n11-1:51e April 18, 1997 1211a)2116-111112 r.0 Merri Martz Department of the Army . Seattle District.Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 • Seattle,WA 98124-2255 ' Dear Ms.Manz: The Cedar River Council has reviewed the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement for consistency with the recommendations in the Cedar River Basin and Nanpoint Pollution Action Plan. We found the preferred alternative—the'minimum dredge'—to he consistent with the Basin Plan,and we support it. Please see our more detailed comments(enclosed)which we ask that you address as part of the Environmental Impact Statement review process: _ We appreciated having Linda Smith from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers come brief us on the alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement and thank you for the opportunity to comment. . Sinccr arar nk Ural. c Steve Linder To) 1 i ' d Taylor Creek Representative• o Randy Rogers Tim Schlitzer Mainstem 3 Representative Councilmember,City of enton Alayne R.Blickle David O. Fields . King Conservation District for Creek Representative Jeff Neuner Donald Nettleton ' Maiustent 2 Representative j Plum Creek Timber Mira Warman udith Fillips Boeing Company Mains e Repr la ive % Steve Moddenmeyer try Ph' tps Seattle Public Utilities King County Councilmemher r • A-17 Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study Draft EIS Frank Urabcek,Jean White Summary of Preferred Alternative-"Minimum Dredge":An average of 4 feet of sediment would be dredged from the channel from the mouth of the Cedar River up to Logan Avenue and then sloping the dredged depth up to zero to meet the existing gradient at Williams Avenue. Levees and/or floodwalls would be placed along the right bank from Williams Avenue to the mouth and on the left bank from Williams Avenue 1000•fcct upstream down to the mouth. Bank protection(rock)would be placed below ordinary high water on the left bank below Logan Avenue for approximately 400 linear • feet. The south Boeing bridge would be modified to be hydraulically jacked above the 100 year flood level during flood events and the levee openings at the bridge would be • closed using rigid moveable structures. Mitigation would include: Native riparian vegetation would be planted along both banks of the Renton Reach. A groundwater fed • pool and side channel at an upstream floodplain location with groundwater near the surface(either Elliot levee site or lower Summcrfield site)would be constructed to create salmon spawning,winter refuge and rearing habitat. - • Other alternatives•evaluated in the Draft EIS: No Action;Existing Channel Depth , with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge;Moderate Dredging(6 foot) with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge;and Deep Dredging with Levees and Modifications to the South Boeing Bridge. In reviewing this Draft EIS,we asked four questions: I. Is tltc preferred option consistent with the Cedar River Basin Plan? Yes. The Basin Plan supports any flood damage reduction program in the Renton Reach that: • Establishes and maintains channel capacity at the 100-year discharge; . • Minimizes the frequency at which channel maintenance must recur;and • Minimizes the area of aquatic habitat that is disrupted or otherwise impacted by • sediment removal. 2. .Was there adequate treatment of alternatives? Yes. 3. Was there adequate coordination with the appropriate jurisdictions/agencies and adequate opportunity for public comment? Answer yes on both points. 4. Was the environmental Impact analysis adequately addressed? Yes. One question that might be raised during the EIS process is whether or not the 4 foot "minimal"dredge is preferable to the 6 foot"moderate"dredge.The 4 foot dredge is more consistent with the Cedar River Basin Plan's goal,of minimizing the area of aquatic habitat that is disrupted or otherwise impacted by sediment removal. • - - • _ • 1 • r..:._...� _- RESPONSES: )' 'COMMENTS: TS: 31. Flooub.y o the lower Cedar River first occurs on the left bank just upstream of According to the Draft EIS,the 4 foot dredge alternative is expected to cause me loss— the south Boeing bridge,even at flows as low as 2200 cfs. During high flows(>8000 • of 2560-3840 square feet of poor and moderate quality adult salmon spawning area. cfs),flooding occurs in several areas upstream of 1-405 as well as along both banks of A maximum of 235 redds have been observed in this area during the spawning the lower Cedar River. Floodlighting efforts consist primarily of sandbagging low spots season. The 6 foot dredge alternative would cause the loss of poor to good quality and removing debris from bridges to reduce bridge damage. spawning habitat is estimated to be 4740-7100 square feet. A maximum of 435 rcdds have been observed in this area. , • 32. The Masonry Dam is operated by the Seattle Water Department,primarily for - water supply. See additional information in Section 2.1. Frank Urabcck makes the following recommendations for improving the Draft EIS: 33. The benefit/cost ratios are added to Section 2.2. A detailed description of the Expand the description of flood conditions to include when and where flooding first Corps economic analysis is in the DPR,see comment 1. 31 occurs and what flood fighting measures now occur during significant flood events. 34. Concur. See Section 2.2.6 for added information. • • Should add a paragraph describing the operation of Masonry Darn,the Masonry Dam 35. Additional investigation work is currently being conducted on the proposed 32 Flood Study and what assumptions were made about how the results of the Masonry Darn mitigation site. See additional information in Section 5. • Study will impact the flood protection provided by the dredging alternatives. 36 and 37 Editorial changes made as appropriate. Reference particular section. • 33 Should provide a benefit/cost analysis for each final alternative so readers can review the Corps of Engineer's decision process.' Should describe the level of flood protection immediately after dredging and the trigger ---—_-_ 34 for re-dredging. Should explain when the re-dredging decision will be made- i.e.will the decision be made in the spring,after winter flooding,so the channel can be rc-dredged that summer and full 100 year flood protection is in place for next flood season? 3 J Describe what hydrogeologic work has been done to show that a groundwater-fed habitat channel will work on the site downstream of the Elliot project p. 2,paragraph 1.3-Recheck records on the ship canal history.The decision to reroute the Cedar River was made for land reclamation for the City of Renton,although the ' 36 digging•of the ship canal may have been anticipated. It was fortuitous that the Cedar River was rerouted,allowing enough water for the navigation of the Ballard Locks. . Figure 6-Label Logan St.and Williams St.bridges on Channel Distance axis;the distance aim the mouth of the Cedar on figure 6 doesn't correlate with the stationing on • Figure 7,sheets 1-5; should show water surface profile at maximum and minimum Lake Washington levels,so readers can better understand the context 37 • • 1 Figure 7(Sheets 1-5)-Should show dredging limits. Add figure showing typical cross- scction before and after dredging. • • p. 50,paragraph 4.13-Add more explanation of what will trigger re-dredging or • maintenance dredging-i.e.will re-dredging be triggered when channel is filled to • ' A.-h n • current condition? Recommend that re-dredging be triggered when less than 50 year flood protection exists. p. 54,paragraph 4.1.3.3-Add figure showing a typical cross-section of the existing channel under current conditions and the channel conditions when maintenance dredging would be triggered. This alternative should be compared to the no action alternative. Should be an improvement to sockeye and other fish over no action alternative. p. 79,table 4-Evaluation should have been against the no action alternative,this is the • • existing condition. p. 81,paragraph 5.1-What happened to the existing delta dredging issue? The City of see Renton and Boeing have been concerned about birds gathering on the delta, 2 threatening the safe operation of the airport. Has this issue gone away? Sediment • buildup on the delta will continue to occur from fine sill deposition. p. 83,paragraph 5.5-Add the Elliot levee and Sumrnerftcld sites to Figure 17 and make reference to them here in the text. Figure 17-Show location of side-channel(figure only shows property where side channel might be considered). Figure 18-Show existing Elliot side-channel on map or better label it;label how far it is from the proposed mitigation channel and show the cross-section of the mitigation channel. --- - • r' ... ,•....,,�' Ji. tLAKE WASHINGTON / CEDA R RIVER WATE7::' ED FORD Co•chair,Chuck Mosher,Bellevue City Council Co-chair,Margaret Pagcler,Seattle City Council \ Coordinator,John Lombard ` 700 Sill Avenue,Suite 2200 Seattle,Washington 98101 'IN. --: `", 206 296.8051 • 206 296.0192 fax Participating May 9, 1997 Jurisdictions: Beane Arts Ms.Mcrri Martz BellevueEnvironmental Resources Section U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Bothell Post Office Box 3755 Seattle,Washington 98124-3755 Clyde Rill RE: aupport for Preferred Alternative in c dar River DENS Ilunn Point Dear Ms.Martz: Kent . - We are-elected officials fromlocal governmentsparticipating in the Lake Washington/ Cedar River Watershed Forum. We are writing in support of the preferred alternative for King County the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project("Minimum Dredging Combined with Levees and Modifications to the South Doting Bridge"),as described in the project's Draft Kirkland Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)and its Draft Detailed Project Report. Lake forest Park This alternative is not only the least expensive means of providing protection against a 100 • Year flood on the final mile of the Cedar River,it can also be argued for on environmental Medina• grounds,since it makes some ecological improvements to the lower river and provides mitigation for the minor,unavoidable impacts that arc anticipated. It provides a good Mercer Island; i balance between the depth of dredging and the height of new or raised levees and • floodwalls,and it does not create an undue burden on the operation of Boeing's 737/757 • `l`� c plant at the mouth of the Cedar River. Newcatle�. Redmond • See We would request,however,that the Final Environmental Impact Statement discuss the 27 potential impacts of this alternative on Chinook salmon in more detail,in light of the Renton . potential listing of Puget Sound Chinook under the Endangered Species Act. Sort • ' Last July,many of us wrote to the state's congressional delegation in support of line-item ;, funding in the FY 1997 budget for the federal share of this project,recognizing its cii• " :"' . importance to the Lake Washington ecosystem and to the regional economy,because of •i Shorellni':-:.:. :,,,.:.:;,:•.... ; ; i tltc location of Boeing's plant. Though the preferred alternative is the least expensive Woodinville • Yarrow Point Labe Washington/Cedar River Weterthed forum►tini on " -• To Develop and coordinate regional actions by lout governments in;Protect and rnhano the nrnnrdinary ralmon and trout pneniclm., , 1 ale Wr hinglon warrnhed;Protect the rnraordinary water quality of ihr lab,:and n,4orr rrq un ply rigniflr am flood d,maq•on i.•'• r A-21 Ms.Mcrri Martz May 9, 1997 Page Two • action identified in the DEIS,at an estimated$7.9 million it is still more than 53 million more expensive than the estimate from the Corps'original reconnaissance report,which was used as the basis for the FY97 federal line-item appropriation. The projcct may, • therefore,require a further appropriation in the FY98 federal budget to ensure construction remains on schedule for summer 1998. The Corps has estimated the cost for maintenance dredging at S2.4 million,which in the "Worst case"could be incurred as often as every three years(assuming heavy,frequent sedimentation from high river flows). The federal government would not be responsible for this cost;under federal law,maintenance costs would be entirely the responsibility of the City of Renton,which must already pay at least 35%of the construction cost of the project. This is a very heavy burden for one suburban city. Renton has asked the region to consider sharing maintenance costs for the project out of new regional funding that may be developed to address major river flooding hazards. We agree that this project would be worthy of serious consideration for any such funding-- though the mechanism,contributing entities and project criteria for such possible funding arc all unclear at this time. The low-gradient,artificial river channel that was built early in the century by a private waterway district,redirecting the Cedar River into Lake Washington,cannot transport the river's natural load of sediment. Without dredging,the Cedar would eventually spill onto the runway of the Renton Municipal Airport,blocking salmon passage,harming the lake's water quality,closing the airport(the sixth busiest in the state and used by Boeing to deliver airplanes to its customers)and probably forcing the closure of the Boeing plant. whose annual production of airplanes is worth approximately$14 billion. This obviously • would be unacceptable not just to Renton,but to the entire region. • The region may have an interest in using the clean gravel and sediments from project dredging to help cap some of the areas in the Lake Washington system with polluted sediment,such as the shores off of Gasworks Park or some of the historic outfalls of combined sewer overflow facilities. We intend to explore these possibilities with the City of Renton. • tr3:ii: • - Ms.Merri Martz May 9. 1997 Page Three Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cedar River Flood Control DEIS. If you have questions about our comments,please do not hesitate to contact us through John Lombard,Watershed Coordinator for the Lake Washington/Cedar River Watershed,at 296-8051. Sincerely,• n� -1 Chuck Mosher Diana Gale r Margaret gcler Councilmcmbcr,City of Bellevue Councilmcmbcr,City of Seattle Forum Co-Chair Forum Co-Chair • Larry Phil P Maggi Fimia -7a. Metropolitan King County Councilmcmbcr Metropolitan King County Councilmember Lucite Eadc Linda Jackman Mayor,Town of I fonts Point 'Deputy Mayor,City of Mercer Island Pat flaw ins Stuart Liddlc Councilmcmbcr,Town of Clyde I fill Councilmcmbcr,City of Newcastle cc: Colonel Donald Wynn.District Engineer,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Mayor Jesse Tanner.City of Renton Elizabeth Warman,Manager,Local Government Affairs,The Boeing Company • A-23 tw to • iND nil • MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE i• FISHERIES DEPARTMENT INDI TR1B6 TRIBE rt • May 11,1997 Merri Martz Department of the Army • Seattle District,Corps of Engineers Post Office l3ox C-3755 Seattle,Washington 98124-2255 RE: Cedar River 205 Flood Control Feasibility Study: DEIS Dear Ms.Martz, I and my colleagues at the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe appreciate the opportunity to review the draft EIS(or the Cedar River 205 Project. This project has the potential to impact the ecological stability of both Lake Washington and the Cedar River, and the salmon runs that depend on them. The DEIS is well written and comprehensive. Although the Tribe disagrees on some points, we are confident that these points can be adequately addressed in a scientific manner in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)„ Our main points are presented below. More technical comments on the Draft EIS are included as an appendix to this letter. We support the preferred alternative of a minimum dredge,but only under duress. The Cedar River reach in question is artificial, should arguably never have been built, was poorly designed over an inadequate gradient and has to be repeatedly dredged. Dredging Impacts the fish runs that have managed to utilize this reach. But because of development constraints, the river can never again be allowed to come to its own equilibrium state;it must be constantly re-engineered. 39015 172nd Avonue S.E.•Auburn.Washington 90092•(205)93I-QGS7•"1Ax(206)931-0752 i:a. .V ... -1 ♦ C,. Il ,-,1 ___-"- - -,1 `1:1.:4. 14:.11-:,v,r-. :111U .d, o,.'t aaa.nl.L5111lut RESPONSES: COMMENTS:• 38. Mitigation is appropriate to the current level of spawning which occurs in the project reach. However,it could be an important benefit to replace lost upstream The DEIS does not include sufficient detail on the potential impacts to smelt, gravels. The Corps encourages the Muckleshoot Tribe and other interested parties to sockeye, and chinook salmon. The Final EIS should include discussion of the pursue using some of the dredged material for habitat enhancement purposes. following points:. Sini:l1 Most of the smelt in the Cake Washington Basin spawn in the study reach These fish are the predominant pelagic fish in the lake and serve as the prey base for squawfish, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, prickly sculpins and other fish predators. The potential smelt impacts (and benefits) presented are largely theoretical. If smelt are impacted by this project, sockeye will become the main pelagic prey item and the sockeye run could be decimated. Dredging the bed of the Cedar River four feet deeper than it is presently is still within the range of river conditions that we know historically supported smelt spawning. A six foot dredge or deeper is beyond the bounds of the historical smelt data. It should be noted that there is currently no reliable way to mitigate for smelt. So little is known about smelt spawning behavior and requirements that engineered spawning habitat cannot guarantee fish use. Smelt cannot be artificially propagated. If the smelt spawning area is eliminated there is no way to replace these fish. Consideration of smelt impacts should therefore be very seriously considered. • • The sockeye spawning concentrations appear to be moving downstream over time, coincident perhaps with the movement of bedload. Although a relatively small 38 percent of sockeye spawn in the study reach now, the future percentage will increase. Mitigation for dredging should include restoring gravel to the upper • anadromous reaches of the Cedar. Since much of the dredge spoils will be high • quality gravel.originating from upstream, putting the gravel back will be excellent mitigation. We would be happy to discuss placement of these gravels in more depth. Chinook Chinook salmon arc expected to be added to the Endangered Species list, with the listing process starting in December. in 1993 only 156 naturally spawning chinook returned to the Cedar River. In 1995 an estimated 18,000 smolts survived to pass the fry trap in the lower river on their way out to sea. The unique genetic identity of Cedar River chinook, coupled with the low survival seen in past years make this species very susceptible to dredge impacts. Deeper water will be more likely to harbor predators on chinook and sockeye. The US Fish and Wildlife reports show that prickly sculpins arc the most numerous predator on sockeye fry in the study reach, and cutthroat have the highest 2 • A-25 • RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 39. Predator studies,conducted to date,have estimated consumption rates of prickly sculpin at 2,457 fry per hatchery release during low(lows(<13 m3/s,467 cfs). (Tabor& consumption rate. At present these fish are clustered in the deeper,increase this Chan, 1996b) It has been observed the predation rates are higher during hatchery type of habitat an estimated 5.8 acres(or even the minimum dredge. Rickard, in his releases when there are large numbers of fish moving through the lower river in a short period of time. During higher flows and for naturally produced fish,the predation rate see thesis on prickly sculpins calculated an average of 2.5 fish per square meter for the would be much lower. So,the actual expected loss of sockeye fry due to increased 27 lake r the of Wash Masters thesis, 1980). A backwater increase of ckl acres would, predation is not precisely known. See Section 5 for proposed mitigation and reasoning. under the same densities, result in approximately 60,000 more prickly sculpins in this confined area, with more sculpins likely to come in from the lake opportunistically. If even a fraction of these sculpin consumed sockeye or chinook 40. The Corps agrees that plantings on the delta would likely provide a safe fry,impacts could be substantial. It should be noted that sculpins above a certain transportation or resting area for sockeye and chinook fry entering Lake Washington. size transition from eating small sockeye fry to eating larger fish such as smelt. However,due to numerous concerns including: 1)the plantings may cause additional Chinook fry are a transition-sized fish. debris blockages and may increase flood surface elevations:2)the concern that delta planting has only a minimal chance of success due to the high sedimentation rate;and, 3)the unknown changes that might occur in bird distributions,the Corps has determined that the proposed mitigation will adequately compensate for adverse iloth the elimination of spawning habitat and the increased predation due to impacts to sockeye and chinook fry from the likely increased predation in the lower dredging are assumed to be mitigated for by the creation of a small spawning river. 39 channel near the Elliott levee. This'trade'needs to be documented in greater detail. The FEIS should include estimates of fry produced by this channel compared to fry lost to additional predators in the backwater area. For chinook especially there is a net loss since chinook are mainstem spawners and would not utilize a slough. Additional mitigation should Include planting the delta to decrease predation on fry entering the lake. Currently the lights from industrial Renton allow birds and fish 40 to forage on fry throughout the night. By extending the river through this delta and creating cover,the impacts of these lights may be decreased,thus saving some fish. The vegetation will have the added benefit of keeping flat-footed birds (ducks, geese, gulls)from landing on the delta and creating an aircraft hazard. Thank you. If you have any questions or need any assistance please contact me at 931-0652,ext.125 or Karen Walter at ext.116. Sincerely Eric Warner Fisheries Mitigation Specialist • 3 • • • , t • , • RESPONSES: • • 41. Concur. See page iii. APPENDIX. Additional Comments 42. The City of Renton can obtain federal flood insurance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency if flood protection is at or exceeding 100 year Laecutivs_.S.ummarx protection. During economic analysis,conducted as part of the feasibility study, it was page iii,paragraph 1- determined that the greatest federal interest was in providing greater than 100 year protection,even up to 200 year protection. However,the local sponsor indicated that It seems unlikely that pollutants from the Renton Airport and Boeing facilities 100 year protection would be their preferred level of protection. Approximately 50 year 41 enter the Cedar River and Lake Washington only during flood events since these protection could be most cost effectively achieved by dredging,without the addition of facilities were built before the 1990 storm water requirements. It would be more accurate to state that there could be an increase in and more frequent loading of levees. This is what the City did in the past. pollutants if the Cedar River is allowed to continue to fill its channel and flood into 43. The costs of each alternative have been updated,see p.iv and section 2. The these areas. existing channel alternative would require additional levees up to 1-405 and extensive page iii,paragraph 2-Alternatives modifications to all of the bridges in downtown Renton in order to avoid induced The DEIS does not t justify why the 100 year event is the chosen flood control event. flooding upstream of the project area. 42 The FEIS.should make this justification and evaluate why a smaller event was not considered as an alternative,such as the 50year event. A smaller design event 44. The summary table does distinguish between impacts that will generally occur g over the long-term as a result of the different alternatives and then a special column for would likely result in a smaller impacted area,thus reduced project impacts. short-term impacts from construction and maintenance dredging. The summary table page iv,paragraphs 1 and 2- has been relabeled to provide more clarification. it is unclear as to why the minimum dredge will be less expensive than the existing 45. Partially concur. The impacts of both habitat loss and likely increased predation 43 channel alternative, especially if the minimum dredge will be removing more material at each maintenance cycle(171,000 cubic yards compared to 114,000 cubic on sockeye and chinook try-havebeen evaluated and used in the design of the yards). proposed mitigation. The summary table necessarily provides a summary without the - - - - - - - - -- - -- — - detail of information provided in section 4.3. Water velocities were measured during - page vi,paragraph 2 the time period that smelt eggs were being deposited and during the incubation period. Sockeye,chinook,and coho salmon and steelhead trout in the Cedar are an Lake backwater effects,while not as significant during the winter and early spring, international resource that has major regional and local value. The FEIS should be nevertheless will increase with the proposed project. updated accordingly. Table A,page vii • a. The summary table should be modified in the FEIS to distinguish between short and long term impacts. For example,in general,dredging the channel will cause at 44 least short term increases in water turbidity which may adversely affect water • quality,salmonids,and salmonid habitat. Therefore,it is doubtful that the existing channel dredging alternative will have no change or negligible change in the short term. b.The ru regarding impacts to the affected species of salmonids in the summary tableconclusio are not substantiated. For example,the table does not reflect that there will be a loss of existing salmonid habitat through channel simplification and 45 that predator species such as prickly sculpin will likely benefit from the Increased backwater habitat created as part of the dredge. Thus,salmonids will experience at least two impacts;one from a loss of habitat,the other from a likely increase in predation. In particular,we disagree with the impacts(or benefits)attributed to chinook and smelt;these are theoretical and arbitrary at best. Chinook arc likely to 4 • A-27 RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 46. Concur. See sections 3.8 and 4.7. have increased predation as well as the loss of some spawning and rearing habitat. The benefits ascribed to smelt are largely the result of smelt studies that failed to test 47. See tt44 above. sufficient water velocities,coupled with backwater effects that do not occur until later in the season when the smelt are gone. 48. Other than the 400 linear feet of riprap on the left bank immediately below Logan Avenue,no new protective material will be placed on the banks. Plants will be placed The summary of impacts identified in this table are also not consistent with the along the banks as described in section 5. Surveys,conducted in several years since statements made on page viii,paragraph 2. 1986,have indicated that the channel cross-section Is significantly altered from year to c.The DEIS does not contain enough information to support the conclusion that year. The trapezoidal dredging prism will not last beyond the first winter after dredging. there will be positive impacts to aquatic and riparian vegetation. The FEIS should It cannot be predicted where bank scour pools will develop,but it is likely one or more 46 have a table that documents the existing vegetation conditions including species, such scour areas will be produced during the first winter after dredging. Moderate flows size.and proximity to the Cedar River compared to the proposed vegetation from 2000-3000 cfs appear to deposit the most material while higher flows tend to mitigation,also including species,size,and proximity to the River. cause scouring of the river channel. 47 In conclusion,this summary table should be modified by separating out short and 49. The site of the proposed groundwater fed channel is located in approximately long term impacts(including the long term effect of perpetual maintenance the 10 year floodplain,or slightly higher. This area would start being inundated by dredging)as well as synergistic impacts that will occur as a result of the project. overflow from the main channel at flows greater than 6300 cfs. The site is heavily page viii,paragraph 3- vegetated and will be protected by large woody debris. The proposed mitigation will be The DE1S does not contain any data or analysis to support the last statement in this designed to function as a moderate velocity habitat area during flows less than 10,000 paragraph.The HIS should be updated accordingly by documenting the flood event cfs. 48 necessary to create such habitat,the likelihood of such an event occurring, and the potential for the river to move the material including any new material introduced 50. See section 2.2.1 for percentage of river bank protected. to flooilproof the. banks. 51. The original permit that allowed the diversion of the Cedar River into Lake page ix,paragraph 2- Washington and the dredging of the channel permitted the dredging to a depth of 8 feet 49 The FEIS should indicated the size of the flood event that would render the side below the former Lake Washington low level(approximately 9 feet higher than current channel proposed as mitigation unusable as a moderate velocity habitat area. level). When the Locks lowered Lake Washington,all future maintenance of the channel permitted varying dredge depths from 8-12 feet below the current low lake page 1,paragraph 3- level. 50 The FEIS should document how much of the existing Cedar River is affected by revetments and levees in linear feet for each bank. 52. Editorial changes have been made as appropriate. page 2,paragraph 2. It is unclear from the description whether the original dredge 51 permit allowed the Cedar to be dredged 8 feet below present low lake level or historic low lake level. The implication is that when the lake was dropped 8 feet this would affect water depth in the river reach in question. Figure 1:Vicinity Map The map is incorrect. The City of Kent should he mapped in almost a straight line between Renton and Auburn. The Kent watershed is shown within the Cedar 52 River watershed. Figure 2:Cedar River Basin Map This figure is misleading since most lower river tributaries are not labeled. For example,the Cedar has two Rock Creeks,but only the lesser known of the two is labeled. C.andsburg dam is shown as passable which it is not. There are many • : t • RESPONSES: 3..,3.., COMMENTS: • - 53. There is currently no information on the exact(or approximate)volumes of impassable culverts which are not shown; the WDFW database upon which this sediment from any of the upstream sources. King County studied the issue in the map is based is incomplete. Current and Future Conditions report(1993). The Corps has assumed that efforts to control sediment as recommended in the Cedar River Basin Plan will only have a page I1,paragraph 5- beneficial impact on the federal project. If the dredging frequency is extended beyond The plan referred to in this document is actually the Cedar River Basin Plan. A 3 years,the environmental and financial impacts will be much less significant. Master Plan is generally a term used for a large scale development. 54. There has been no quantification of floodplain storage area in the upper portion page 11,paragraph 5- of the Cedar River. However,there are no levees in the middle and upper reaches that The DF..IS analysis regarding the potential upstream sediment control alternative is provide 100 year protection. In all flows greater than 20 years(7900 cfs), significant 53 incomplete. The FEIS should evaluate the impact of upstream sediment control . portions of the upper and middle river floodplain already stores water. The removal of both as a potential significant adverse impact that may result in more frequent these levees would not provide an increase in storage volume. dredging and as a potential avoidance action that causes less frequent dredging. 55. See section 2.2. As described,all action alternatives will require a combination page 11,paragraph 6- of levees and floodwalls along both banks of the river from RM 1.25(2 km)down to the The DEIS analysis regarding upstream levee removal and compensatory flood mouth of the river(a low berm will extend for the lowest 3000 feet on the left bank). storage alternative is incomplete. The PETS should antify the amount of flood 54 storage that would be available if the Cedar River floodplain upstream of Renton 56. Noted. was restored and compare this value to the amount of storage that is needed to contain the 100 year flood in Renton. 57. Gravel recruitment is a function of erosion of the unprotected banks and movement ofmaterials from the floodplain. There is little information on this subject: page 15,paragraphs 2 3,and page 16,paragraph 1- King County(1993)has the most comprehensive information available. This issue is 55 The FEIS should indicate the potential length of the proposed levees and floodwalls that are associated with all of the alternatives. peripheral to the EIS. - page 36,table- - --- 58. Noted. The table is attributed to me but is several years old and has since been updated. Non-native status should be attributed to Atlantic salmon and brown bullhead. Stickleback are abundant but variable. Smelt are increasing only in the even year lass. - 56 page 37,paragraph 2- It should be noted that the sockeye escapement numbers are based on index locks counts and not spawning ground counts. t page 38,paragraph 2- Gravel movement is one way that a river could become "starved". The potential for 57 gravel recruitment should also be considered. The EMS should also document the potential gravel recruitment. pages 38 bottom,39 top- The FEIS should include the data sources/literature to support the statements in this section. Predators in the Renton reach of the Cedar are present more in riprap 58 than they arc in pool habitat and near woody debris. . page 39,paragraphs 2,3- I 5 A-29 RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 59. Noted. See section 3. The FEIS should replace the word"wild"throughout this page with the word "natural". The Lake Washington watershed is essentially a mixed system with 60. There is little to rely on in the literature concerning cutthroat trout populations, hatchery fish outplanted in areas where natural spawning occurs,thus there is likely Tabor&Chan(1996a)admit the limitations of the estimate quoted in the DEIS, hatchery produced fish that return to the hatchery to spawn or spawn naturally in however it is expected that the lower Cedar River population is quite Small. It is likely the Cedar River and its tributaries. The chinook escapement goal for the Cedar is that there is a reasonable amount of movement of cutthroat between the lake and the 1200 fish(based on live counts)which extrapolates to 2300 fish total. Are the other lower river. However,there is little to no evidence to suggest that cutthroat are 59 numbers based on the index or the absolute? significantly reducing sockeye fry populations as they transit through the lower river. The FEIS should also have a section on hatchery fish since they too may be adversely affected by the various dredging alternatives. 61. The DEIS did not intend state that all rainbow trout in southern Lake Washington are hatchery trout. Further information has been added to section 3.4.1 to clarify the page 39,paragraph 4- intent of the document. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Suquamish Indian Tribe are also planning partners in the steelhead broodstock program. 62. See section 3.9 for added information. page 40,paragraph 1- 63. This section evaluates the impacts to geology/sediments/soils/floodplains from There is evidence that suggests that cutthroat trout are also replacing the niche the existing channel alternative. The existing channel alternative will maintain the formerly utilized by coho in several tributaries within Lake Washington. The FEIS channel bottom at approximately the existing level. Even if more material is dredged 60 should be updated. The population estimate given for cutthroat is not true. A mark during maintenance,the channel bottom and sediments will remain approximately in recapture study of some Lake Washington cutthroat shows that they can traverse their current condition with similar water velocities. the length of Lake Washington in several days. Later studies show large numbers of cutthroat In the south end. page 40,paragraph 2- The rainbow trout found in the south end of the lake are not all hatchery fish as 61 stated. The hatchery fish are very distinct and of a uniform size. Almost all of the larger rainbows caught appear to be natural. The population size stated is too small. Lake resident rainbows have different diets than the stream residents discussed. page 45,paragraph 2- The section on the Duwamish Indians is misleading. While the Duwamish Indians were signatories to the Treaty of Point Elliott,it is the Muckleshoot Tribe that is the 62 recognized as the living descendants of the treaty signers. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is the tribe that is granted the right to continue to take fish at usual and accustomed fishing grounds in the Lake Washington watershed. page 49,paragraph 4- II is unclear as to how the maintenance dredging impacts will be virtually identical 63 to the initial construction impacts if more material is removed during the maintenance dredging than the initial dredging(114000 cubic yards versus 31,000 cubic yards). page 51,paragraph 3- • RESPONSES: _ COMMENTS: 64. See section 4.2 for further clarification. The DEIS does not consider the potential adverse turbidity impacts that may occur as 64 a result of storm events occurring when the front-end loader is dredging the river 65. Refer to section 3.2 which describes the existing water quality conditions. bottom. page 52,paragraphs 2,3,4- 66. The intent of this section is to indicate that the fish window is one method for minimizing adverse effects on anadromous fish,not that there is no impact. 65 The FEIS should document the existing water quality in the affected reach to support the statements in the water quality section. 67. This section states that sockeye fry survival is likely to be reduced due to the page 53,paragraph 2- increase of predator habitat. Coho and steelhead juveniles currently feed for short periods of time in the lower Cedar River while transiting out into the lake. Riprap may Although there is a Washington Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife fish window provide some backwater habitat upstream of the lake backwater area which coho and 66 adequate for accomplishing this work,it should be noted that this does not imply no steelhead juveniles could use for brief feeding periods. The riprap will not be replacing impact. The Cedar River sockeye have one of the most extended spawning periods riparian vegetation other than blackberries. on record. In 1996 fish had already spawned at the headworks 20 miles upstream of the mouth by August 23rd. And some steelhead kelts may not leave the river until June or even July. 68. Coho juveniles currently feed for short periods of time in the lower Cedar River . while transiting out into the lake. They appear to feed primarily on sockeye fry,smelt page 54,paragraphs 1 and 2;page 55,paragraph 3- eggs,other small fish and insects(Tabor&Chan, 1996a, 1996b). Coho feeding could It is unclear the basis for the statements made in this paragraph regarding riprap be enhanced by the increase in lake backwater area as well asthe riparian plantings creating habitat for rearing juvenile salmon upstream of 2000 feet. The FEIS should which would increase insect and nutrient input to the lower riveve r. compare the existing habitat conditions compared to the proposed riprap conditions. The dismissal of effects of increased predator habitat because of bulkheads presently 69. The lake backwater effect is less significant during winter and early spring. 67 on site ignores the backwater effect. Dredging may not remove prickly sculpins for however it will still extend beyond the current condition.-The lake level is raised starting very long because of quick recruitment from the lake. If the existing habitat in late February,during the smelt run. - - conditions include overgrown leveesor vegetation banks that could become • functional riparian habitat,then the riprap will be displacing this habitat and-cause— an adverse Impact. See also page 71,paragraph 4 where the DEIS dearly documents that large cottonwood trees will be replaced with smaller shrubby willows or smaller trees. page 57,paragraph 2- see The statement that chinook fry are not as susceptible as sockeye is undocumented. • 27 Chinook fry are larger,but may rear in the area, thus increasing their predation risk. page 59,paragraph 1- 68 It is unclear as to how the Army Corps determined that coho rearing habitat may be increased as a result of the minimal dredge alternative. ' page 63,paragraph 3- G9 The backwater effect which supposedly helps smelt occurs after the smelt have spawned and died. page 65,paragraph 2- see Juvenile coho could also be adversely affected by the actual construction and 28 maintenance dredging if they are rearing in the project reach. b A-31 RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 70. While the proposed mitigation addresses invertebrate populations specifically,it page 70,paragraph 2- was with regard to their importance to the overall river food web(including salmon)that The DE IS fails to consider the potential adverse impacts to salmonids that may occur the impact was considered significant. The riparian plantings are specifically planned to 70 compensate for the likely decline in invertebrate diversity and abundance by providing as a results of invertebrate populations. an increased source of nutrients as well as insects for an alternate prey base. page 71,paragraph 4- 71. See section 3.8 and 4.7 for additional information. The PLUS should document the number,size,species,and location of existing riparian vegetation,document the number,size,species, and location of vegetation 72. The avoidance,minimization,rectification and mitigation for identified adverse that is proposed for removal,and the number,size,species,and location of impacts will adequately compensate for any adverse impacts. While it is true that every 71 vegetation to be replaced as mitigation. change,other than restoration,will likely incrementally add to the cumulative impacts in page 73,paragraph 5- an area;this project will reduce existing adverse environmental impacts,such as pollution from Boeing and Renton during flooding. It is not expected that this project will The DEIS does not dearly document the information to support the statement that the riparian zone will be more extensive after construction than it currently is. contribute a significant adverse cumulative Impact. • page 78,paragraph 4- 73. It is true that juvenile anadromous fish do not significantly utilize the project area. It is unclear as to how the Army Corps could conclude that all dredging alternatives However,during flooding,it is likely that fish are washed downstream from areas will not add a significant adverse impact above and beyond the cumulative impacts upstream of the project. This project will reduce the chance of either adult or juvenile 72 that exist when maintenance dredging is proposed to occur every three years in lish stranding on the airport and park. • perpetuity. 74. It is true that sockeye clean the gravel during spawning. However, this reach of Also the statement regarding the reduction of fish stranding as a result of the project the river still accumulates fine materials and larger sediments during the incubation assumes that anadromous fish are using the lower section of the Cedar River during period of sockeye. It is not documented what the survival rate of sockeye eggs to fry is flood events. The FEIS should produce some data/literature to support this for the various reaches of the river. The lower river appears to be disproportionately 73 statement. The statement may only apply to adult spawning salmonids in the affected by sediment movement and accumulation due to the unnatural gradient. project reach. It could be argued that juvenile anadromous are not likely to be within the project reach because there is little if any reduced velocity habitat 75. Additional information is provided in section 3.8,4.7 and 5. The contingency available In this area. plan will be worked out in detail during Renton's permitting process with the state page 81,paragraph 4- agencies. The statements regarding the rectification of adverse impacts to riparian vegetation see are unsubstantiated without documentation to support that riparian functions will 71 be increased post construction compared to the existing riparian vegetation. page 82,paragraph 2- • The designation of the spawning habitat as poor to moderate is undocumented. 74 True,this area becomes impacted with fines,but if the sockeye spawn in the • numbers attributed to this area,the fish themselves clean the gravel. • page 83,paragraph 2- The FEIS should document the spacing and size of vegetation that will occur as 75 mitigation as well as the proposed contingency plan in the event that the vegetation does not survive. • • i 9 • • rry ` — RESPONSES: :} United States Animal-and Animal_Dtmage ?'• ...only St..NW 4.7 a � Nonunion;a1 Plant Health Control —c.. .pia,—WA-90502___ 76. Concur. This issue is addressed in somewhat more detail in sections 4.5, ", Agriculture Inspection ram—and 5. Service • May 9,1997 Mari Martz Environmental Resources Section U.S.Army Corps of Engineers P.O.Box 3755 Seattle.WA 98124-2255 Dear Mary, • • Our agency(U.S.Department of-Agriculture,Animal Damage Control)has had an opportunity to review a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study. While we understand the importance and need of the project as it relates to the prevention of future flooding,we do lave some comments that we feel should be addressed. Most of our initial concerns were allayed following discussion at the public workshop in Renton on 29 April 1997. Our concern regarding the environmental impacts of the Cedar River Project is that it could cause an increase in bird strike hazards on the adjacent airfield. Our interest in this issue stems Isom our agency's role in alleviating bird hazards at airports nntinnwide. Ilirrl strikes -- - - _ are a concern because they cost the United Stales air traffic industry millions of dollars annually in repair expenses - and lost tevemte,and they sometimes result in human fatalities(e.g.An aircraft crashed alter colliding with Canada geese at Elntnndorf Air Force Base,Alaska in September 1995,killing all-24 passengers).-Our agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Aviation Authority(FAA) "...to provide technical and operational assistance needed to reduce wildlife hazards to aviation on and near airports". It has been our experience that preventing bird-strike hazards in the early stages of new project development through proper planning greatly simplifies bird hazard reduction in subsequent years. It is our understanding that the Cedar River project will result in substantial landscape and vegetative renovations along the lower mile of the river to enhance the aesthetics for the park and to provide refugia for spawning fish. these are worthwhile objectives,but we suggest that prior to initiation,all revegctation projects he given serious • consideration as to potential attractants they may offer to hazardous bird species. Although collisions with small. 76 solitary birds can result in damaging strikes to aircraft,generally small passerine birds(e.g.kinglets.sparrow's, finches,juncos,gnlditnches,etc.)that are typical of wooded areas do not pose a significant threat because they tend to stay close to the forest edge. Because of their size,behavior,and propensity to flock,gulls,shorebirds,starlings. blackbirds,and waterfowl(e.g.Canada geese,mallards,widgeons,teal,etc.)open present veritable hazards to aircraft. In addition,birds of prey such as hawks and owls are prone to collide with aircraft due to their snaring and foraging behaviors. Vegetation should be selected that-will discnurage heavily utilization by these more hazardous tin terms of bird strike potential)species,and it should not attract new species that arc presently absent. In addition to vegetation management,there area number of other methods that can he used to discourage birds from rising the airfield. On page 72 of the EIS,second paragraph,it was noted that dredging of the delta in 1993 resulted in a higher use of the airfield by displaced birds,presumably gulls. As we understand it,the current project does not propose to dredge the delta itself,but the river entrance to the dells. While the birds in the delta may not be displaced by a \r Arius•r,nt,nfnq A,n.,lcan AO,rr.,arw. • A-33 RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 77, Concur. See sections 4.5,4.14. direct loss of habitat(e.g.gravel bar),they may be displaced by disturbance and this should be monitored.and if necessary,mitigated. • It was noted in your document that the issue of bird hazards was beyond the scope of this EIS,and was therefore, not addressed. If bird hazards on the Renton Municipal Airport are increased for either a short term due to birds being displaced by human disturbance,or for a longer period due to habitat loss or enhancement,this constitutes an environmental impact brought on by the direct actions of the project and should be addressed. It may turn out that birds abandon the area altogether,in which case the strike hazard is improved and adverse environmental impacts 7 7 arc avoided. We suggest analysis of this lassie and that as a mitigation measure,a monitoring program be established to identify potential increases in avian use of the airfield. If there is an increase in the use of the airfield • by birds,a hazing operation or other steps should be initiated as the situation dictates until the airport environment is • brought to an acceptable level of safety in terms of bird hazards. If you have arty questions,please contact me or J,Gary Oldenburg at(360)753.9354. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. • Sincerely, - Michael A.l.inucll Wildlife Biologist USDA-Animal Damage Control,WA,AK cc: Ilarold Ilandke,FAA Gary Oldenburg,USDA-ADC State Director • • — • • ,> — --- J •. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEPITAI.PROTECTTON-AGENCY REGION 10 'a,•roM1``� 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98101 May 21, 1997 Rcply To • Rcf:95.13G-COE Min of: ECO-08S Mcrri Martz Environmental Resources Section U.S.Army Corps of Engineers P.O.I3ox 3755 Seattle,Washington 98124-2255 Dear Ms.Martz: The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has reviewed the Draft Environmental • Impact Statement(draft EIS)for the proposed Cedar River Section 205 Flood Dnmage Reduction Study in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental • - Policy Act(NEPA)and§309 of the Clean Air Act. The draft EIS analyzes four action alternatives and a no action alternative to provide 100 year flood control along the lower 125 - - - - - - _ miles of the Cedar River in Renton,Washington. The draft EIS identifies the minimum di edging alternative as the preferred alternative. Based on our review,we have assigned a rating of LO(Lack of Objections)to the preferred alternative. This rating and a summary of our comments will be published in the Federal Register. We have enclosed a summary of the rating system we have used in our review for your reference. We note that the detailed project report(DPR) and EIS focus on the initial construction volumes and actions with regard to dredged material disposal,-although noting that maintenance dredging of approximately 171,000 cubic yards will occur about every 3 years. The documents • reviewed do not address the disposal of these future anticipated volumes. EPA understands that this see is because the federal governments' primary involvement with this project under Section 205 2 authority will be with the initial construction. Responsibility for the future project maintenance will • belong to the City of Renton(the local sponsor): To the extent that future maintenance dredging and • disposal continues to utilize the"Norco"site,future federal action would likely not be needed. Use of other disposal sites(e.g.,PSDDA,or especially nearshore sites involving"waters of the United States")would likely require specific permitting. In those cases,while the dredging itself would be • regarded by EPA as a maintenance action covered by these documents(hence,no further mitigation would be requested),mitigation of disposal effects would need to be assessed at that time as part of the regulatory review. To minimize future conflicts,we encourage the local sponsor to consider development of a long-term dredged material management plan,similar to what is required for Corps dredging projects. • Punta m n.Crco-..r A-35 2 Additionally,should the local sponsor fail to maintain this project,as occurred in the past and . described in the DPR and EIS,and flooding reoccur,EPA again would consider the project to have been abandoned and would consider any subsequent dredging to be "new" work rather than "maintenance." Thank you for the opportunity to review this drall EIS. Should you have any questions, please feel to contact John Malek of-our Sediment Management Program at(206)553-1286. Sincerely, • ichard I3.Parkin,Manager er Geograpliic Implementation Unit o. o. l - U.S. Neelrnn..n tot ernt•etlnn Aq•.ey r.tlny ay•t.o for oe.It tnvlro.m.ntol impact ac.tm.nte Definition• end Col lme.up cotton• • Mul cplultatAllpamc_211ht_hatioD .In - • Lack of objection. The Envlron.•nta l Proc,O,lon Ag•ney IEPAI review hat not Identl(Itd any patentlel envi ron.,ntel Ie1•ct. requiring gub.t.,live changer to the propotot. The reel...may hove dl.cle.ed oppertunitier for a-Pllration of nitlgatlen...sore. Chat could be accompliehed etch no nor. then.lnOr change. to lb. proMS+l. KC • • rnvlron.•ot•l Cannon. Th. (PA review ha. I4.nelll•d .nvlrnn••ntn1 Ielnet. that .hnuld be .vnle•d in order to fully protect th..nviron.ene. Corrective meeeutee say.require change. to [he pr•frrr•d.lternoelve or application of mitigation....utn• that can reduce thee, Imp... to • • env(rnn..ntat objection. Th.IPA r+vl.a hat {den 1lfl.4 pigniticane ,nvlroneont•t impact. Chet •hnuld be avoided In Order En provide •d.•p.ate protection for lb..nviron.ent. Cerr•ntIv.orator,.soy en,.Ire .ub.tant I. Chong.• to the pr.f.rred elt•rnative or con.id.ratlon of some other project•lternative (Including the no.atclnn alternative or•n.v apeen.eiv.l. CPA intend. to work with the lead ag.ney to feeble, Chet• I.pcts. m . • nevi eon..nc•lll po••11.(•ctory Th. ErA Cool..hog Identified odes..envtron.•nr•al Impact.that gr.of .ufflcle..c.agntc0d0 th.c they aro r ••tl.f.Ceory from,hn .tandpolnt of puhlIc he•1th or voila.,or.nvitorvental qu•ticy. Rea intend.. to work vlth the teed.g•ncy co .,due. lb... l.paeee. if the potential un r•tl.tteenry Impact. • not corrected of RA" fln.l R1.0.tag•. Chit propo.•1 will be ..commended for referral co ch. Co'ncli on Cnvlron.•ntal Quality icro). - - - - _ Ad.gv L_at7_OLL AJ.ttn._0ORCp.0C C•t.gory I • • cd.qu.t. - - - - - - - - - CPA hollevrr [he draft EIS edequat•ly.ete forth the •nvirnnvntal lmpartlel of the pr.f.rr.d - --- - altornetive and Eh...of Om Alternatives reamnably...light. to the project or•colon. no further an.Iy.la 0( dot•collection 1.n.e.•.ary, but the rrvie..,may ...ggeee lb.addition of tier lfying language or ln( inn. C•t.gnry 1 • • in.ufflal•nt Information The droll EIS do. not contain•ufficlont inrnroaclon for EPA to fully• melee tot Import. the[ should he avoided In order to fully prob ee th.environment. or the CPA reviewer Ma tdenclf1.d new r,a•nn.hy•vellahle alternative• that are within the ep.ntrn.of •1[•rnet iv.. an•Iye.d In tb.droll EIS, which could due. eh. envirnneentel Impact..of the action. The Identified addltlonol information. deco. avaly.ee or .11•eu inn•houid he included In tb. final E1S. C•t-gory 1 • • 1n..equa to _ EPA Moot not hellono that the droll tIS ad..p,ot•ly pnt•ntl.ily •Ignl(lcent .nvi rnnmentel • • I.pecc. of the...tic.. or the EPA...viewer h.• identified new, r.•onabil ereii.hle alternativt the, or. . nocgide of tht .peotrum of •1 Iv. analysed In the draft EIS. which .houid b, nalyred in nrd.r to r•dot• th. pot.ntiolly.tlgniflcool cnvlrnnw.ncal Impact.. CPA believe. that the 14•ntlfied edditionel Inr.r..+tlon, doe.. •n•lyeo. or Aleeu..ton• art of ouch a..gniludg chat they ohould haw full public reel ea at a d eft • .cog.. CPA do.• not hell... that the droll EIS Iv adequate for lb. purpo••. of the Motional Envlronm•ncol Poliry Oct end or Section 101 revive, end thug .houid tee !orally r.vl.-d and...de 0v11•b1a for public an errant In• 'In se.ntal or ev{a.d deft RI.. On the basis of the p,t-nelel •Ignlltc•nt tepee" invnlvd, thl. proposal could h.a c.ndidst• for rrfmrrtt to the Cto. • Prom SPA tlanuallLig._Penes_tnd_LcocututtElquttP_Agxf,m of r.deral..AtLlpnalmcacLing_Cht..l.'ultpnocnr.• '..nary. f141. A-37 • t't1` United States Department of the Interior 2 OFFICE OF THE.Gf•,CRETARY rrnrr of Emmnn,nrmJ Pnif v vat tnrtIrli.ner 4Mt NF.LlulmmwA cn.n.Sour fun �C„ I'nuhnd,Q,.gm:ttf7.to14 w•fnr•fn•m • May 9, 1997 ER 97/0194 Colonel Donald T.Wynn District Engineer Seattle District,Corps of Engineers F.O. Box C-3755 Seattle,Washington 98124 • Dear Colonel Wynn: The Department of the Interior(Department)has reviewed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study,King County,Washington. • The following comments arc provided for your information and use when preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). GENERAL COMMENTS The Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS),the local Tribes,and other resource agencies have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers(COE)during the feasibility phase of this project. We arc pleased to see many of the suggestions developed by these resource agencies have been incorporated into the preferred alternative. Several studies completed by the COE or their consultants have helped to clarify project impacts. The Department supports the preferred alternative as described in the DEIS as long as the proposed mitigation is fully implemented. Any changes from the preferred alternative or the proposed mitigation should be discussed with the FWS,and other resource agencies. The preferred alternative,the Minimum Dredging Combined with Levees and Modifications to the South hoeing Bridge alternative,includes dredging the Cedar River to a depth of 4 feet front the mouth to Logan Avenue. From Logan Avenue upstream another 800 feet,the dredging depth would gradually slope up to the present streambed elevation. Levees or berms would be constructed front Williams Avenue downstream to contain flood waters. The South Boeing Bridge would be fitted with hydraulic jacks to allow the bridge to be lifted during high flow periods to prevent debris jams. The Department prefers this alternative because it would provide a good combination of flood control measures and fish and wildlife resource protection. The Existing Channel Depth with Levees and Modifications to South Boeing Bridge alternative called for only dredging to maintain the existing channel depth and levee construction. Even though it may have slightly less impact on the aquatic resources,the constant disturhance•lo the stream by • P I a ix.n- .: V - - RESPONSES: COMMENTS: 78. Editorial changes made as appropriate. Colonel Donald'T. Wynn, District Engineer 2 79. Concur. See additional detail in section 4.3. • dredging every three years would mask any significant difference in impacts. However,the 80. The WDFW sockeye fry trap is recalibrated every year currently due to a highly disturbance to the riparian zone seems to be greater in this alternative,thus,this alternative would variable sediment input/scour in the lower river. The Corps is planning to move the fry have a greater impact on terrestrial animals. trap to a location selected by WDFW during construction,however recalibration does not need to occur 2-3 years in advance of construction. • SPECIFIC COMMENTS 81. Tall native tree species will be incorporated as feasible. There are safety C.ov_er Page-The cover pages of both the DEIS and the technical appendices should be dated March concerns within the park regarding the use of cottonwoods and some other large trees. 1997 instead of March 1996. 78 Eage.LS._Eigure 6 Section 2.2-Addition of grid lines for each elevation would clarify Figure 6. Eaees_51-GZ S.ecllort -This section provides a discussion of the direct effects of the project on • 79 specific fish species. This discussion should include the interaction between the species due to changes in populations. For example,some concern about the interaction exists between long-finned smelt and sockeye fry since both of these species feed on lake plankton. This impact and other inter- specific impacts should be filly discussed in the impacts section. eagcs_aLJ .SCctiotLS-The mitigation plan adequately compensates the project impacts. However,the Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife(WDFW) fish trap may be jeopardized by 80 this project,and we suggest relocating it to a site mutually agreed upon by the COE and the WOFW. This should be done two to three years in advance of actual construction to allow collection of baseline data and development of a comparative curve. L'at �81.Seclion.5.5 Parngraphl-The tree species used to revegetate the disturbed riparian areas 81 should include several tall native species,such as conifers and big leaf maple to increase the spatial heterogeneity within the limited riparian zone. • Cage.11._S.ectiani6-The Monitoring Plan section should be numbered 5.6 instead of 5.5. • P.age..133.-Section.5.6-Tho monitoring plan is the key to the success of the project.The monitoring section of the mitigation plan seems adequate for the project. Any changes to the monitoring plans or its safeguards to insure revegetation and any monitoring results should be provided to the FWS in a timely manner. The FWS would remain involved with this project through its construction and monitoring phases. Eage 91..Refetence_Section-Several references in the DEIS were not cited in the References Section. Their citations should be included in the FEIS. We thank you (or this opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, \\ Preston Slceger Acting Regional Environmental Officer • A-39 u5 Deportment s..rtl.A Irpo,I,DI.I,icl Dllic. 01 L0nspcytolon ,60,Ural Ar.nu.•S w. federal Aviation n.n,sn.VIA 9an55•,ns0 Adminlflro lion May 30,1997 Merri Mara Environmental Resources Section U.S.Army Corps of Engineers P.O.fox 5755 Seattle,Washington 98124.2255 Dear Ms.Martz: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Study as well as the teller from Mr.Michael A.Linnell of USDA Animal Damage See Control. While we arc supportive of the effort to address the flooding problems adjacent to the Renton 77 Municipal Airport,we do concur with Mr.Linnell's comments regarding the potential for bird strikes. As noted In his letter,we do look to USDA Animal Damage Control for technical and operational assistance to reduce wildlife hazards to aviation. In an effort to ensure the safety of aircraft operations at the Renton Airport,we support the recommendation to analyze the bird hazard issue as a part of the EIS and provide mitigation measures in the event that a potential hazard is created by the project. Attached please find our recently finalized Advisory Circular on this issue. If you wish to discuss this further,please do not hesitate to contact me at (425)227-2653. Sincerely. C yla . grin At rt ptannerfEnvironmental Specialist • cc: Michael A.Linnet).USDA•Animal Damage Control,WA,AK Gail Reed.Renton Municipal Airport • • • - -- USACE-Hartz Page 2 Hay 5, 1997 WDFW concurs that a groundwater Eed spawning channel would be an appropriate means of mitigating project impacts on sockeye salmon spawning, though it I don't know whether there would be adequate . room at the Elliot Levee site to construct another groundwater see fed channel. WDFW suggests using the Timber, Fisher, and 3 5 wildlife protocol (which, I believe, is 11% or 12%) for acceptable threshold levels of fine sediments in spawning substrates. Monitoring and maintenance of the channel should occur for as long as maintenance dredging occurs in the lower river. The channel needs to be effective to mitigate ongoing impacts of maintenance dredging. If there are any questions regarding this letter, I can be contacted at (425) 392-9159. WDFW appreciates your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of. Washington. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Habitat Management Program - • - - - - - if • cc: WDFW, Muller • WDFW, Banyard • HIT Fisheries, Malcom USFWS, Stagner • KCWLRD, Lucchetti • - .r • 11r;• trrt43>v "j RESPONSES: }- : • • 82. During Plans and Specifications.the Corps will evaluate the feasibility of " dredging within the work window. if it is possible to reduce dredging time,it will be State of Washington accomplished. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDUFE Mailing Address:600 Capild Way N•Olympia.WA 90501.1001•(360)902.2200.TOO(36n)902.2207 Main Office Location:Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia.WA Hay 5, 1997 Merri Hartz Environmental Resources Section ATTN: Cedar River EIS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 • SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY, Cedar River, Tributary to Lake Washington, King County, WRIA 08.0299 Dear Ms. Hartz: • The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced document and submit, the following comments. WDFW appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the document and the significant and thorough effort the Corps has made to produce it. The Corps appears to have done a very fine job of addressing the issues, which promotes the confidence of WDFW that the project can be conducted in a manner to sufficently protect fish and wildlife resources. WDFW concurs with the Corps' selection of the minimal dredge alternative as the preferred alternative. This alternative appears to make the most sense, when combined with improvement of the levees within the project reach, to avoid and minimize Impacts while achieving the project objectives. The projected .I rates of resedimentation seem to indicate that dredging more than minimally would not result in significantly greater flood hazard reduction, though impacts to fish resources would increase substantially. The minimal dredge alternative appears likely to produce lesser impacts to water quality than the moderate dredge alternative, due to greater ability to successfully implement water quality U11P's during minimal dredging. I recommend a preferred work window for the Cedar River of July 1 through August 31, due to use of the habitat by steelhead, lake 82 run, and resident trout prior to July 1 and by adult salmon after • . August 31. • A-41 - Ea *APPENDIX B U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT WITH RESPONSES BY THE CORPS r TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT • €x I s. . P. ,o 1'1 is -11 CEDAR RIVER SEC TIO DAMAGE N 205 FLOOD i REDUCTION STUDY I • • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report • :zs :%:: :: t v.=- G • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service w ""` N ;. North Pacific Coast Ecoregion ..",—;,.::it...... . .;: 3 .y,. ./ • Western Washington Office 1 Olympia, Washington :``: .^mm:.,� = > I. I • • February 1997 I {. I 1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report ti CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE • REDUCTION STUDY Prepared for U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers • Seattle District Prepared by Gene Stagner, Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Pacific Coast Ecoregion Western Washington Office Olympia, Washington 1 v'? February, 1997 • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 AUTHORITY AND DOCUMENTATION 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2 Location 2 Project Alternatives Descriptions 5 FISH AND WILDLflh RESOURCES 6 Wildlife Resources 6 Fish Resources 9 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 17 STUDY RESULTS 18 Wildlife Study 18 Predator Study 19 Longfin Smelt Study 20 Habitat Study/Survey 21 • R Sockeye Salmon Spawning Survey 22 Fish Utilization Studies 22 Aquatic Invertebrate Study 22 FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROJECT 23 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLI.11h RESOURCES 24 Impacts to Wildlife 24 Impacts to Aquatic Resources 25 No Action 25 Alternative 1 • 25 Alternative 2 26 Alternative 3 - 27 Alternative 4 27 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 Mitigation for Wildlife Impacts 29 Proposed Mitigation for Aquatic Resource Impacts 30 LITERATURE CITED 33 1 1 LIST OF TABLES .::,,,...;• i . Table 1 • I • 7 1 Birds observed in the vicinity of the lower Cedar River Table 2 • 10 .. Resident and anadrornous fish species utilizing the Cedar River i . 1 , Table 3 1 11 ? 1 Sockeye Salmon rerlds observed in the lower Cedar River, 1994 and 1995 - , 1 Table 4 I • 16 Smelt egg distribution in Lake Washington tributaries - : • LIST OF FIGURES P1 Figure 1 3 Lower Cedar River Section 205 Project Vicinity Map, City of Renton, King County, Washington Figure 2 • 4 Lower Cedar River Section 205 Project Location • .,. I Figure 3 11 , Cedar River Salmon and Steelhead Periodicity Chart L Figure 4 13 Cedar River Sockeye Escapement .C..1:'. I-.I Figure 5 . . .. I 15' Anadromous Fish Returns to the Lake Washington Basin and Cedar River S . : i 1 . . i._a. . 1 ! 0 • a1ii . - I I • . Frt . i I - I .; . ... . Z • A ..) - . 1 INTRODUCTION w This is the final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report a. This is project. It fulfills (FWCAR) for the _:� fills the Scope of Work SO Lower Cedar River (Service) feasibility-level activities as described in the Army the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's i (Service) Interdepartmental purchase Agreement Y Corps of Engineers (Corps)Military 1 Section 2(b) (MIl'R)#E-86- 97-3035. It has been prepared pursuant to of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16. et seq.) and supersedes our draft FWCAR of October, 1996. U.S.C. 661 After reviewing all of the pertinent inforinatio we in a later section as alternative 2 , n' support the shallow dredge alternative (discussed with this alternative. The flood c ). The impacts to fish and wildlife resource seem to be antral objective of the project should also be accomplished vvnth tS alternative. This report is being sent to the Corps, several state and Tribe. Thelocal entities,Serviceplans and the , , on being involved throughMuckit. We Indian available to support the Corps during the development ofthe mitigationt ofation this it rin project. We will be and monitoring plans. AUTHORITY AND DOCUMENTATION Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control -Act as amended ed allows s the projects not specifically authorized by Congress. Each project is limited to construct Federal cost flood not more than$5 million including studies, design, of costs for both the preliminaryon plans, specifications, and construction costs. The The City of Renton (the local sponsor)will Beareand the feasibility stage are cost shared with a local sponsor. , ; maintenance costs for the project. This report is based on project plans and information provided by the Corps thr , 1996. It uses results from studies conducted by the Co s ough January 29 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) � ' Private contractors, the Service, the Project Impact and Mitigation portions ofthis report ar �d Muckieshoot Tribal biologists. The on consultation with the above entities as well as comments from agency and public meetings. As a result of the initial appraisal, the Corps has determined that participating in flood damage reduction measures along the lower Cedar River in the urban/industrial r al interest al area in the City of Renton,King County,Washington Average annual urbor the ri lower one mile of the Cedar River have been estimated at $670,000, flood damages for the � -- area reached the highest level recorded at Renton since I945 and caused an estimatedember 1990, $8flooding inthis damages to the Renton airport and Boeing manufacturing plant. The 1995/1996 floods million in si�niticant damage to City and privateproperty. _ oods also caused �'- .` benefits exceed costs for a structural solution and has Corps has indicatediclevel that flood reduction �_ traced feasibility study. 1 Historically, the lower Cedar River was dredged periodically to a depth of>10 feet. This was _ expensive and created a need to dredge the delta area. The delta created the control level for water "� flow into the lake and therefore limited flow if it was not dredged to an equal depth as the channel. Due to the recent flooding along the lower Cedar and the significant damage incurred,•alternative methods for flood control are being investigated by the City of Renton and the Corps of Engineers. An interagency scoping meeting was conducted on June 12, 1996,to discuss the latest flood control alternatives and solicit agency issues. These issues should be addressed in the Environmental Impact i- Statement (EIS) and in the design report: The discussions focused on fish and wildlife.resource studies, and impacts of the projects on these;resources. Sediment traps and transport were discussed • and five(5)alternatives were presented. The no action alternative will be evaluated in context during the EIS. Consequent phone discussions with the Corps indicated that the sediment traps would not j � significantly delay the frequency of lower channel dredging so that alternative will likely be dropped from future consideration. The remaining alternatives with various permutations are discussed below. I PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION LOCATION. r" . This proposed project involves the Cedar River from the mouth at Lake Washington upstream approximately one mile. It is entirely within the city limits of Renton. The Cedar River watershed is located about 16 miles southeast of Seattle entirely within King County (See Figure 1). The headwaters begin within the boundaries of the Mt.Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest. The drainage basin is about 50 miles long and encompasses an area of approximately 186 square miles."The Cedar River cuts a canyon through steep mountain terrain from its source to Chester Morse Lake at about • r ;: rivermile (RM) 37.2. This relatively small reservoir angles west about 1.5 miles to Masonry Dam (RM 35.9). From Masonry Dam, flow is diverted through penstocks to Seattle's Cedar Falls Power d; Plant located about 3.5 miles west. At this point,the entire flow returns to the main Cedar River • channel. Downstream to Landsburg,the river channel initially occupies a steep,well-defined channel that gradually widens and moderates in steepness. Y` At Landsburg,water is diverted into a pipeline which transports it to Lake Young Reservoir southeast of Renton. The diversion dam at Landsburg(RM 21.8)blocks anadromous fish runs from using the -, upper basin. A Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)is currently being negotiated for lands owned by the City of Seattle in the upper Cedar River. If this plan is implemented, Seattle has agreed to fund fish passage around the Landsburg dam for chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. , 1 Sockeye salmon will not be allowed passage above the dam due to a concern for water quality given the larger number of adult fish. Steelhead trout were hauled around the dam historically but this has • not happened in the last few years. 2 • The Cedar River from Landsburg to Maple Valley (RM 14.7) flows through a relatively shallow, narrow valley with moderately steep hillsides. Stream gradient in the upper 2 miles o.f this section ; _ 1 is moderately steep with fast rifles and large rock and boulders. Downstream,the gradient decreases and is moderate-for the remainder of this section.•-Several- -gravel banks border the stream ct • throughout the upper 5 miles. Erosion from these contributes fine sediment as well as vital spawning ' material to the river below. ' wiiiwiiiitEerr. t.. -. ,. : ::: .. OciaiM4AINII 101.4 . . t . ; ?airs' s:,go:>. .. ';�1..:::a ..���((( :tom��•� :it�Y�Xi�!'ix iA.:d'':: lXy'inr.j. ;: tOglii.r �,,I�ju���o i �,•:��::,: � ear Creek Thornton Cr. F; ,;: „�:'::Vim::? 5:�i[y'.: ,. ;;:,jaxy e 4 ...;.„F.. ..1 Evans Creek Ni ii j"klyl.1714 !.fi . r.sF x K .+..E! • K:.K.:• :i'l:!.:. ;. P,. Lake a ; *r ;yip xj .fir:. _. .: ,.. - !,!:.a, Coal Cr. a :;<; yw: :win ' yr r d ggrt ,4 : May Creek •• c �vv. t`i4 . :.:i.. ::;. :, _: Project • s. rye • : .*yg Area i '} • ;, Lake Youngs • ;art:. Seattle Water ,. ;` Diversion Pipeline '°'hi ^,:4::^ Landsburg Dam Figure 1 Lower Cedar River Section 205 Project Vicinity Map 5: rom Maple Valley, downstream to Renton,the Cedar River winds through a broad,flat valley with i incrcasingo rural and commercial development. The river maintains a moderate to gentle gradient in 3 , • 1 i i this section with a few channel splits and bends with sand and gravel bars. Rural areas exist on both sides ofthe river valley floor with higher urban densities nearer the population center of Renton. In this section, river banks have received extensive bank protection work, primarily riprapping. The lower 3 miles of the river flow through a heavily industrialized area of Renton. The last 1.25 i s miles of the river flow through a channelized segment before emptying into Lake Washington (See Figure 2). The effects of development in the lower Cedar River are most apparent from the increased . rates and volume of storm water discharge caused by the extensive impervious surface areas of . : buildings, highways, and parking lots. This has resulted in substantial bank erosion, increased siltation, and frequent floods in the vicinity of Renton. Water quality and fish habitat have deteriorated as a result. 11 ti Br n'Ma'wr �_ I I I y' I . J .i ` N.' a 6d E . --'- - lilt ' Cedar River .{ LA ‘ \ pia Boeing IC. Company IRenton ' . -,... \ ...., Municipal ~--- Airport ' �' . i . l .�.. l .�. t N. 6th S' I , r --- South Boeing Bridge i i, 0 , , \, ,._, -r. Do,wito loll/I / Renton sy i) lir Logan Ave) $Pilla Will f• 1E111 'irate. tA Fii-.....\ P' i . „pAiDi ( Wells Ave. V h -"ftwalifist-- ( , j i 61 Figure 2 Lower Cedar River Section 205 Project Location (Not to Scale) x� 4 9 A � I I i Oceanic storms, usually lasting from 1-3 days, cause major floods on the Cedar River. Warming are sufficient to melt a significant amount of the sno ack. temperatures from these storms gnl wP ... : - Successive storms can cause a series of floods which most commonly occur from October through June during those periods of intenserainfall or rapid snowmelt. . r The Cedar River supplies 54 percent of Lake Washington's water supply, which is important to the operation of the Hiram Chittenden Locks for commerce,for ship passage, and control of salt water intrusion. Lake levels of Lake Washington are maintained at+20 foot M.S.L. during winter and increased to 22 feet for summer operation of the locks and fish ladder when precipitation and other - Lake Washington inflows are low. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS The Corps has considered several preliminary alternatives to control flood damage in the lower one mile of the Cedar River. During feasibility stage planning,four action alternatives are being evaluated by the Corps to establish which is the most cost effective and most environmentally acceptable. All of the following alternatives include the addition of a hydraulic jack to the south Boeing bridge. The latest action alternatives include: 1. Constructing levees along the right bank from Logan Avenue to the mouth and on the left bank from Logan Avenue to a point 2,000 feet above the mouth. There would be maintenance dredging every three years to maintain the existing channel bottom.- 2. Dredging the lower mile of river a moderate amount (4 feet) to the Logan Avenue bridge. From the Logan Avenue bridge the dredging would slope upstream for 400 yards to meet the present gradient. This alternative will include constructing a levee/floodwall along the bank. The height would range from,.58 - 6.92 feet, depending on the existing bank height. Maintenance dredging of 171,000 yds3 would be required every three years. 3. Dred g i the lower mile of river a deeper amount(6 feet) to the Logan Avenue bridge. �g From the Logan Avenue bridge the dredging would slope upstream for 700 yards to meet the present gradient. This alternative will include constructing a levee/floodwall along the bank. The height would range from 1.36-5.83 feet, depending on the existing bank height. Maintenance dredging of 176,000 yds3 would be required every three years. 4. Dredging the lower mile of river up to 10 feet deep to the Logan Avenue bridge. From the Logan Avenue bridge the dredging would slope upstream for 700 yards to meet the present gradient. This alternative will include constructing a levee/floodwall along the bank. The height would range from .63 - 5.43 feet, depending on the existing bank height. Maintenance dredging of 185,000 yds3 would be required every three years. 5 The proposed levees would consist of filling!in between the existing mounds on the right bank. The levees would not encroach on the river and would be set back from the river's edge to allow for r, riparian zone planting. On the left bank (the airport side), sheet piling combined with raising the 1 roadway to form a berm would be used to protect theairport. ' The south Boeing bridge creates a debris trap during floods and would require higher levees upstream of the bridge to accommodate the backwater effect caused by debris blockage. The proposed solution to this is to construct hydraulic jacks under the bridge and jack the bridge up during flood • events to reduce the potential for debris blockages. This feature is included with each alternative. Two dredging methods have been proposed for this project. A barge mounted clamshell dredge could be used since the water depth is adequate to float the barge. In conjunction with the clamshell • a barge mounted dragline could be used in the lower portion of the project area. The other method considered is to divert the water by coffer dams and remove the gravel from the contained area by excavator. • FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES WILDLLI E RESOURCES Terrestrial wildlife species and wildlife habitat in the study area are limited due to the amount of industrial• development.and commercial develo ment. However, many different wildlife species can adapt to these environments. In fact,the diversity of bird species in the project area is significant. A narrow band of riparian vegetation occurs discontinuously at the water's edge. Bird species are the most prevalent wildlife using these areas.•The lower Cedar River is used by several groups of bird species such as songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, gulls, hawks, and eagles. Gulls are probably the most abundant group of birds in the area. One of the reasons for dredging the Cedar River delta in 1994 was to reduce the risk of aircraft and bird collisions at the Renton airport. The shallow gravel bar areas attract many birds, primarily gulls. These birds were presumed to increase the risk of collision with aircraft landing or taking off at the airport(COE 1993). Sixty-four different bird species were recorded during surveys completed by Service, Corps and Harza Northwest biologists (Table 4 These surveys were completed between March, 1992 and September, 1995. Many of these birds were using the project area for breeding and rearing. Smaller birds breeding in the area included bushtits, swallows,red-winged blackbirds and hairy woodpeckers. A male woodpecker, accompanied by a female, was observed excavating a hole in one of the few alder snags in the area. The number of broods and young of the year observed indicated that-this area is getting substantial use for nesting and/or rearing. Juvenile gulls, mallards, common mergansers, and Canada geese were observed in the project during most of the spring and summer. Bushtits, hairy 6 sy i 06 ' I woodpeckers, barn and rough-winged swallows, house sparrows, and red-winged blackbirds were observed either nesting or with young of the year. 1 Riparian zone areas are extremely valuable to wildlife.--Their value is due to their shape and proximity• 73-t to water. They provide large edge-to-area ratios from their linear nature and varying soil moisture ' that support a greater diversity of plant species. Of the 480 species of wildlife in Washington, 291 - are found in wooded riparian habitats. Of these, 68 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and __ reptiles require riparian areas to satisfy vital life requirements for all or part of the year. • 1 i Table 1. Birds observed in the vicinity of the lower Cedar River. ' (Brunner 1995) (USFWS 1995) ' - (Harza 1993) (Harza 1996) . Species Scientific Name Species Scientific Name Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens J Western grebe Aechmophorus Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus • Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus .,I. Great blue heron Ardea herodias Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor I Green heron Butorides virescens Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Canada goose Branta canadensis N. Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Green-winged teal Anas crecca Cliff swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Barn swallow Hirundo rustics Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 Gadwall Anas strepera Northwest crow Corvus caurinus • Canvasback Aythya valisineria Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus Redhead Aythya americana Chestnut-backed chickadee. Parus-rufescens • ,- Lesser Scaup Aythya ajfinis Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii : Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes , Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus American robin Turdus migratorius Common merganser Mergus merganser European starling Sturnus vulgaris Domestic ducks Spp. ? Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yellow-nunped warbler Dendroica coronata Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Common yellow throat. Geothlypis trichas --`� American coot Fulica americana Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla j Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Western sandpiper Calidris mauri Song sparrow Melospiza melodia - Mew gull Larus canus Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla 1 Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys California gull Larus californicus Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Herring gull Larus argentatus Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Thayer's gull Larus thayeri House finch Carpodacus mexicanus ..: Glaucous-winged gull Larus glaucescens House sparrow Passer domesticus i Rock dove Columba livia Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi 7 I i , • Riparian areas also maintain the health of the stream by providing large woody debris to the stream, creating storage for overbank flood flows,trapping sediments and pollutants, moderating temperature "=' extremes, and providing organic material.' Even small areas of riparian zone habitat are important • j to a stream's-health..•This important habitat has been greatly reduced:on many of the Lake J Washington basin rivers as the area becomes more.urban. Pressure will continue to be exerted on riparian zone habitat as the Cedar River basin is developed. Since the riparian zone in the project area is greatly reduced from its historical extent,the remaining riparian zone is even more valuable. Riparian vegetation in the project area is very limited on the west or left bank, especially adjacent . to the airport. Willows, a few short alders,!and a mix of non-native weedy species, mainly blackberry, account for most of the vegetation. ^' 'i The east or right bank is more diverse with scattered overstory tree species such as alder,willow, and cottonwood. Cultivated trees such as oaks, maples, and conifers have been planted along the trail system. These trees provide perching,nesting and foraging habitat for birds. Many bird species were observed foraging in the trees and shrubs near the river. A few areas contained a mix of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. These areas provide the greatest wildlife habitat value in the area. Overhanging vegetation is limited, but furnishes a small amount of cover for duck broods and aquatic furbearers. Grazing habitat is provided to ducks and geese in the form of cultivated and mowed grass associated with the trail/park system. ' neotropics, like = : I Neotropical migrants are land birds that breed in Washington yet migrate to the '] • Mexico and Greater Antilles, during the winter. Over one half of our breeding birds are neotropical migrants (Morton and Greenberg 1989). Passerines (perching or songbirds) make up the largest group of these birds and include birds like flycatchers,thrushes, sparrows, waxwings, and warblers. Many of these birds rely on the riparian areas by the river for breeding. Fifty-three percent of all neotropical migrants are associated with these riparian areas and 67 percent of the species with known declines use these habitats. A recent review of Washington's neotropical migrants by Andelman and Stock (1993), supports the f-: 1 i need to concentrate our efforts on preserving or restoring habitats for these birds. Riparian habitats were identified as a priority habitat for species with known population declines. Sixty-eight of the 120 bird species breeding in Washington use riparian areas. Thirty-one percent of these species are habitat specialists and depend on only one or two habitats for breeding. j Andelman and Stock(1993)found severe long-term population declines in several of these riparian species that include the gray catbird; the Wilson's, yellow, and orange-crowned warblers; eastern kingbird; solitary vireo; rufous hummingbird;barn swallow; and song sparrow. They.also identified several species that are habitat specialists(i.e.,use two or fewer habitats) and have localized breeding populations. The species that use the riparian zone heavily include Vaux's swift and MacGillivray's warbler. Andelman and Stock (1993)identified riparian zone habitat as one of the highest priority a habitats to protect. 1 8 1 Many of the plant species present are on the State noxious weed list or are extremely invasive. These include Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, reed canary grass, and morning glory. This vegetation provides brushy areas that are the preferred habitat for some species. However,the nature of these species dictates that aggressive control is needed to avoid displacement of native species that are more valuable to wildlife. Snag habitat is almost non existent which severely limits primary excavators (woodpeckers) and the dependent cavity nesters. The downy woodpecker and hairy woodpeckers seen during the survey were utilizing one alder snag located in the park. During the spring of 1995, nesting bird boxes were installed on posts along the riparian zone by the local Audubon Society. These will help provide cavity nesting habitat but are a poor substitute for actual snags. Mammal species were not as prevalent nor as obvious. This type of habitat in other areas has supported mammals such as raccoons, skunks, opossum, mice, rats, eastern gray squirrels, and river otter. • FISH RESOURCES • At least 20 species of resident and anadromous fish species utilize the Cedar River including chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. The Cedar River contributes an estimated 40 percent of the wild fall chinook salmon,to the Lake Washington Basin, 12 to 25 percent of the wild coho, �. and 25 percent of the wild winter-run steelhead trout. The largest sockeye salmon run in the lower 48 states spawns in the Cedar River, including the majority(80 - 90 percent) of Lake Washington sockeye. One of only two landlocked longfin smelt populations in North America utilizes Lake Washington and the Cedar River(Hart 1973). Sculpins,mountain whitefish, western brook lamprey; speckled dace, and three-spine stickleback are also found (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). • have identified 30 species offish using Recent studies bythe Service and Corps biologistsp g the,south end of Lake Washington,the delta or project area of the Cedar River. Fish species observed during _ the studies associated with the Cedar River 205 project are shown on Table 2. These fish may be residents in the Cedar River or may reside in Lake Washington and periodically use the project.reach. Sockeye salmon are the most valuable commercial species in the Cedar. Coho and chinook salmon have become less predominant commercial species.in the Cedar due to their limited numbers in • comparison to the size of the sockeye run. Steelhead trout is a highly valued game fish in the system. Currently, the fisheries of the Cedar River basin are managed for natural production of salmonids. • i_ Table 2. Resident and anadromous fish species utilizing the Cedar River or south end of Lake Washington as observed by Service and Corp biologist in 1994 and 1995 studies .: Mountain whitefish' Yellow perch ' Bull trout Longfin smelt ' W •Dolly Varden I Largescale sucker ' Sockeye salmon' Northern squawfish Kokanee Longnose dace ' _ Coastal Cutthroat trout ' Torrent sculpin ' Steelhead trout ' Coast range sculpin ' Rainbow trout ' Reticulated sculpin' 1 Coho salmon Prickly sculpin Chinook salmon' I Bluegill y` Peamouth chub Brown bullhead ' ` Smallmouth bass ' Brook lamprey ' Largemouth bass ' Atlantic salmon ' Pumpkinseed ' Tench Three-seined stickleback' 1 Warmouth 'These species were actually found in the Cedar River during studies for this Sec.205 project. Sockeye salmon spend one year in Lake Washington as pre-smolts before migrating through the _ .�.:... Y P j a • _ Ballard Locks to the ocean. They spend two years in the ocean and then return as adults to spawn. The adults enter Lake Washington as early as July and may begin spawning as early as August. Most ^`, spawners, however, enter the Cedar beginning in early September and continue through mid- December with peak spawning occurring in mid-October. A few fish may be found spawning as late as February (See Figure 3). Escapement levels to the Cedar River have ranged from 107,000 to. . 383,000 adults, with an average of 226,827 between 1964 and 1989. Stober and Graybill (1974) showed that the heaviest spawning activity on the river occurs in the E" higher quality habitat of the upper; and middle river reaches above RM 5.3. The largest ? concentrations of spawners were consistently observed above RM 11.5. The lower reach below RM 5.3 was the least utilized section of the river. Stober(1975)found no spawners below RM 5.3 during spawner counts of the same study area. • ., Stober and Graybill(1974)also discovered that the early spawners used the upper accessible reaches of the Cedar while the later spawners used the middle and then the lower reach toward the end of the • spawning period. This trend seems to be apparent during the December 1994 spawning survey in which twenty-eight (28) redds were located below the south Boeing bridge(See Table 3). , i I J iJII 10 , I 3 i . Sockeye Spawning •h.>Y; gorN :r•:<•t'•;?'S:}'•;'t::::?:r::.ac;::::•:.'t.:;:.:'t%::R%.;: :\::::s.'::::;:;;;a?�i;};::; }dv+:k�}^��.M1•.�.:;tt:.;r ti:r:•l:.:;:?r•'t•'.::?:•::r y}G<.-S ;S:{%?; :%fin Incubation Incubation. v� ��::�::��:}•vv�;?:; >. �:v;:>:.:.:. �:v:�r. _.><yA:Y:�};�:}:$}}}:>::.,« r< <> : Emergence �, ...,; , : «; :< f • ••}�rO,:;,v,.t}v,. i.;f.;w: ••}nY'.C:4%f.�.;ti:.., �}k:}•:Yirlrr}%?i:ti Fall Chinook : , Spawning �:����k Spring Chinook • - Holding •::,. • Spawning M 4 kK "' Coho i s;f}':h:v ':vr{' i,`:n'f.+•MN Spawning :':{:;�}:::: :>:} .:«. r t.::><v:.tr?}:: Winter Steelhead Spawning :« .r.<.,.';::. .. HoldingkINUt e.f Summer Steelhead ,.'S. Tf.���;�•:r:;:w•::;.;::?g:{•q,�•'•r,�x:: ?�`w� ?�:i:4t;cy`ci;W :�3:r�tiji<:r»`,YiF:;rii .Holding :?°"'trr �' 4 .;t r .> : M. .t{ Y� • Spawning EN M..::}fiyw:«.} OCT NOV DEC JAN HJ3 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ::><;;;::> Peak Shoulder ::;;::<: «:;�.,}: • Figure 3 Cedar River Salmon and Steelhead Periodicity •Chart(from Cedar River IFIM, Seattle Water Department October 1991) Table 3.• Sockeye salmon redds observed in the lower Cedar River, 1994 and 1995 • Segment Nov. 1 Nov. 16 Dec. 12 Nov. 3 1994 1994 1994 1995 Wells Avenue bridge to William Avenue bridge 53 100 NS* 53 (RP 18) William Avenue bridge to RP 16 (just below Logan 99 285 61 133 Avenue bridge) ::{+:v:•::}::+}:...:::r,'::r......:::n;.}ii>'F•$.:•.:..is t 7.':4:n?-:•v :4� ttii?... } OMM •:.+Y.•r•.-:::v:?v:+:4}: RP 16 to RP 14 ...:......:.....:r.,:::::»:.;}'..::....:...:... ..... .............. .......... . ......... Reference marker 14 to S.Boeiubi e: << : r: . n . gging:a MaigagiUMESEN S. Boeing bridge to the mouthiitCrc'laatver:.:,:•<l:<:>ai Total redds for surveys area 158 461 151 267 ...... ..... • Total redds wrthm proJect.unpact>zone;:>:::>::>:;?;;::::{;::;:::>:::<::>: :6::> ;::::::<:::>::>::>;:. :.:.:...:..... ... :,:.: n:�Q.:::r:::.�:.::::::: .:::..::: :::....... * Not Surveyed Sockeye spawning surveys were completed by the Corps biologists in 1994 and 1995 from the mouth of the Cedar River up to Wells Avenue. The highest single survey count for 1994 was the four 11 hundred thirty-two (432) redds located on November 16, 1994. Most of these redds were located between the Wells Avenue bridge and just below the Logan Avenue bridge. Seventy six (76) of these redds were located in the proposed project section below reference point (RP) 16 near the Logan Avenue Bridge: Redds observed downstream of the-Logan Avenue bridge were confined to the riffle-like areas along the left bank. Only one survey was completed in 1995 (November 3), due to ,. high water and poor observation conditions. In the 1995 survey, eighty-one(81) redds were within the proposed dredging area located downstream of RP 16. The results of these two years indicate a significant usage of the lower Cedar by sockeye salmon. A more extensive discussion of the spawning surveys can be found under the Habitat Survey/Studies section. The lower section,from RP 14 to the mouth,is characterized by deeper water and slower velocities. • This type of habitat was not being used by sockeye salmon for spawning. Upstream in the area where spawning was concentrated,the water is faster and more shallow. Observations during the spawning survey indicated that redds were being constructed in less than 2 feet of water with obvious velocity. This corresponds to documented preferred spawning habitat for sockeye.in streams. Reiser and Bjornn, (1979)report sockeye salmon preferences for spawning velocities of 4-21 feet per second (fps) and depths of z6 inches. Velocities and depths in this range were measured over redds by Chambers et al. (1955. cited in Reiser.and Bjornn 1979). These measurements indicated a velocity of 11 fps over each redd with depths from 12 - 18 inches. These values fall within the depth and velocity preference curves developed by the Cedar River Committee Curve Report (Seattle Water Department 1991). In recent years there has been a significant downward trend of the sockeye salmon population. In 1988,the total run size to the Lake Washington/Cedar River basin was the largest on record with an • estimated 640,000 adult fish. About 376,000 adults escaped to spawn in the Cedar River that year. Since 1988, escapement to the Cedar has declined dramatically with escapement estimates in the range of 38 percent to 44 percent of the pre-1989 26-year historic average, and with no indications that this trend will change. The 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (WDFW 1992) listed this population as "depressed". The escapement for 1996 was an exception to this downward trend and was large enough to support a Lake Washington fishing season for sockeye(See Figure 4): Approximately 500,000,adult sockeye returned to the Lake Washington basin during the summer of 1996. A combination of a high fiy count entering the lake and excellent ocean feeding conditions is credited with this record run. Over s '= 28 million fry entered the lake from this year class. Whether this is an upward trend is very much open for conjecture. With the exception of this year class,the overall trend is still downward. The 26,000 sockeye escapement in 1995 was the lowest since at least 1970. It is most likely that the 1996 escapement is an aberration common to anadromous fish populations. The escapement goal for the Cedar River is 350,000 adult spawners. Iti 12 I . Cedar River Sockeye Escapments 500000 ' . . . Ilt _ . . . 400000 '" Y ii:300000 . apeme t Goal _ . Eillickeye mscapem= -200000 ' ir' 100000 0iiiiiriiiimil 1990 1991 1992 1993 i994 1995 1996 Year Figure 4 r. For the last several years;there have been emergency efforts to ensure that the sockeye salmon run of the Cedar will not drop to critical levels. The emergency measures involve collecting sockeye __ salmon eggs from captured brood stock in the fall,incubating the eggs to the emergent fry stage, and releasing the newly emerged fry back to the Cedar River in the spring during the normal out- migration period. Research to identify the cause of the sockeye decline has recently begun. In 1994, the first of several multi-year studies of Lake Washington was initiated to test various hypotheses for , the decline.. These studies are focused on Lake Washington because the smolt population that rears in the lake has experienced dramatic declines. . The Lake Washington basin study program involves financial and/or other resource commitments from many entities such as state and federal agencies, local and county governments, Lake Washington municipalities, tribes, industry, and the University of Washington. Approximately $1.6 million will be spent to support this effort. P There are resident cutthroat trout populations in many of the tributaries of the Cedar as well as an adfluvial (migratory lake population) spawning run. Although little is known about anadromous k. cutthroat trout and Dolly Vanden, these species probably use the project area for transportation to higher quality spawning habitat upstream. Juvenile rearing may occur in the project reach, but is very limited. Pfeifer(1993)indicated that there has been a marked increase in spawning cutthroat in Cedar River tributaries in the past few years. With the exception of wild cutthroat trout however, all species , of wild anadromous salmonids returning to the entire Lake Washington basin have experienced record low escapement levels since 1989 (Figure 5). Adult chinook enter Lake Washington in June and continue entering through October (See Figure L4 3). Spawning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-December. Intragravel i g development extends into early March. Chinook rear in the Cedar until fingerling size and out ' .r migrate from May through July. No known chinook spawning occurs in or near the project area. 13 1 I project area is primarilyfor transportation with some possible, although limited, Utilization of the p � , P rearing for juveniles. Coho spawning occurs predominantly-in the-small tributaries of the Cedar River, although some probably occurs in the mainstem,from mid-October through February. Coho rear in the Cedar River one year before migrating out from March through June. Similar to chinook, use of the project area is largely for transportation and limited rearing. The wild winter run of adult steelhead enters Lake Washington between mid-December and mid-May - with a peak during late January through early February. Peak spawning in the river can vary from year to year,but generally begins in mid-March and continues into mid-June with a peak during mid- April to mid-May. Spawning of most wild isteelhead in the Cedar occurs from RM 1.6 to 21.8 with spawning densities being relatively uniform from RM 5.2 to 21.8. The project area is used by steelhead primarily for transportation, although some limited rearing may occur. A stream-side "- steelhead culture program using captured'wild brood stock provides 40,000 to 80,000 fry that are planted in the Cedar annually. Predation by California sea lions has caused an estimated 50 percent mortality on the returning winter run of Lake Washington bound wild steelhead. { : Healthy populations of bull trout, a federally listed candidate species, are known to occur in the upper Cedar River watershed above Masonry Dam(RM 35.9). It is unknown whether bull trout reside in the reach between Landsburg Dam(RM 21.8) and Masonry Dam (RM 35.9). A char was recently caught off of the mouth of the Cedar in Lake Washington. This may have been a Dolly Varden or .,_: a bull trout. Fluvial populations of bull trout are not uncommon in adjacent drainages. It is possible that bull trout could use the project reach during their spawning migration. However, poor water quality and habitat conditions in the lower river make it unlikely that the project reach is used extensively by bull trout. 1 Longfin smelt are a key species in the Lake Washington fish community and the species which is likely to be affected to the greatest extent by the proposed project. They may compete with juvenile sockeye for the same food resources in the lake (Chigbu and Sibley 1992). This may have contributed to the decline of the sockeye population. Other information shows a concurrent --1 population expansion of longfin smelt and sockeye during the mid 1960s (Edmondson and Abella f_3 1988). This would indicate that at most, the competition causes an indirect effect on population. However, Longfin smelt may also serve to buffer predator effects on juvenile sockeye. , c Longfin smelt have played an important role in the increase in water clarity in the lake(Edmondson c and Abella 1988). Daphnia, a small crustacean, eat small particles that make the water cloudy. The ;p major predator on Daphnia was another small crustacean, Neomysis. Neomysis is a major prey species for longfin smelt. When smelt started to increase in abundance, the Daphnia population increased. This caused a corresponding decrease in the particles that caused turbidity in the lake. 14 • E. 9 rjC ro Sockeye Escapement Chinook Escapement c7 = v, •TI • Lake Washington Lake Washington r > 400000 16000 • C1' TU 14000 rhlnnnk wR. a 35000D . 12000 '"�— Fscapemrnt scat 5,9nn O .e 300000 w N R u• 250000 u. 10000 O ° B000 C ° 200000 r0 y • • CD ttj 8 150000 E MOO 10000D Sockeye z 4D00 `--• : K 50000 Escapement Goal 350,000 iit ill I . 2000 �/; \V/ . 0 iii1972 I 1976 I 1880 1984 1988 I 1982 I I 0 1972 I 1976 I 19801 I 1984 I 1988 I 1992 I I v ft �' 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1970 1874 1978 1882 1986 1990 ' 1994 0 Return Year Return Year • .-I- co = c9 . r • . L o0 0 o • a = Steelhead Escapement Coho Escapement Ccro Cedar River • Lake Washington i coO 1400 30000 Steelhead • 0 t Cohoj 1200 • re _ u 1000 _K_ Esoapomenl Goal 257 E1E!E 0 SC? Z 200 }t K K K K K K K KK ° • 't 5000 • .O-r .<.t 0 I 1984' I I I 1888 I • I I 1992 l I 0 iiii 1972 I 1976 I 1980 IiiiI •II I I I I I I I I I I .I 1 . 1982 . 1986 1990 Return Year 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 'Z Return Year [z. 120 h • W O. • • K, ` : _ , Approximately 98 percent(Sibley and Brocksmith 1996a),of Cedar River longfin smelt spawn within 0.6 kilometers(fan) of the mouth of the Cedar River. This is completely within the proposed project reach. The Sibley study found smelt beginning to spawn as early as January 13 in 1993 and as late as May 18 in 1994.---Distribution of smelt in the entire Lake Washington basin indicates that the Cedar-River is used as the main spawning area. Surveys for smelt in other Lake Washington ,_ , tributaries were completed in 1970(Moulton 1970), 1995 (Sibley and Brocksmith 1996a), and 1996 c (Martz et al 1996). Results are shown in Table 4. . Table 4. Smelt egg distribution in Lake Washington tributaries. Year of May Coal • Juanita Denny Swamp Lyon McAleer Thornton -., Survey Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek 1970, + ± ± — _ — _ — r� . 1995 " + -{- — — — — — — 1996 + + + — . — — + — . f +indicates presence of eggs, -indicates absence ! Moulton(1974)observed that these fish exhibited a 2-year life cycle with even-numbered year classes being more abundant and showing a lower growth rate than the odd. He also reported that the Cedar ``' River was the major spawning area and that the larger adults of the odd year-class spawn earlier in the year than the smaller adults of the even year-class. Spawning by longfin smelt takes place in freshwater over sandy-gravel substrates;rocks, and aquatic plants. Most longfin smelt die after s, spawning but a few live to spawn a second year (McGinnis 1984). The accumulated substrate materials of sand and gravel and relatively wide,weedy, shallow areas of the dredged channel in the lower 1.6 miles of the Cedar River have created good spawning habitat for smelt. - Nishimoto (1973) reported that small numbers of peamouth chub spawn in Lake Washington tributaries, although he found no direct evidence of peamouth spawning in the lower Cedar River. Spawning likely occurs from late March through June when mature fish begin to migrate inshore during spring. Spawning peamouth show greater preference for sandy or gravelly substrates. This r substrate constitutes most of the bottom materials in the project area. In June and July, Tabor(1996- ; personal communication) caught numerous peamouth in the lower river during studies in_1995. Presumably these fish were spawning at that time. Largescale suckers also feed or spawn within or near the project reach. They have been observed congregating and spawning upstream of the Logan Avenue bridge. These fish usually move upstream from lakes or impoundments into streams where they seek out gravel riffles with a strong current. Sucker fry and fingerlings serve as important forage for many game fishes. On the other hand, the dense populations of suckers characteristic of many impoundments can be detrimental to the -' production of some salmonids. Largescale suckers have been observed in the project reach by - 1 Service and Corps biologists. 16 ' j Tabor (1996 personal communication) also observed several brook lamprey in the lower Cedar on May 18, 19.95. Two pair of these lampreys appeared to be actively spawning. - • THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES yl E Bald eagles are known to occur in the vicinity of the project area. Prior to the 1994 dredging, they used the Cedar River delta for foraging(primarily on waterfowl and possibly salmon carcasses). The occurrence of three adult and two julienne bald eagles during mid-winter surveys WDFW reported the of the Cedar River in 1989. A bald eagle was observed in the Gene Coulan Park area in the southeastern corner of Lake Washington in March of 1992. During October and November in 1991 and 1992, Service biologists observed an occasional bald eagle along the Cedar. In addition, over several weeks of brood stock collection of adult sockeye.during October and November in 1991 and 1992, Service biologists observed an occasional bald eagle along the Cedar. An adult bald eagle was observed on September 19, 1995 flying upstream from the mouth of the Cedar River. The nearest known nesting pair of bald eagles occurs about 3 miles from the project at Seward Park on the west shoreline of Lake Washington. The latest species list(USFWS 1996)obtained from the Service for this project was in August 1996. As of that date no listed or proposed species occurred within the project area on a permanent basis. Candidate species that may occur within the project area include the bull trout and the spotted frog. Species of concern include three bat species(long-eared,long-legged, and Pacific western big-eared), Northwestern pond turtles, olive-sided flycatchers and river lamprey. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to consult with the Service when a federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. This is to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. . A biological assessment was written by the Corps on November 13, 1996. The determination was -. that this project as proposed is "not likely to adversely affect" any listed species. The Service wrote a letter of concurrence with that determination on December 11, 1996 through the informal consultation process. If the project or conditions at the site change significantly,the Corps should re-initiate Section 7 consultation through this office. The northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata, is a federal species of concern and has been found in Lake Washington historically. It is also listed as endangered by the State of Washington. The WDFW has contracted with a private consultant to survey Lake Washington for northwestern pond turtles (Slavin 1996). To date no northwestern pond turtles have been located. rr However, only one small area of Lake Washington has been surveyed. The surveyed area is at the Lakewood Marina and is several miles from the Cedar River. The turtles that have been found have been exotics, probably dumped into the lake by pet owners. Surveys-during future years may 17 • • i v, focused on the Cedar River and south Lake Washington. This will provide additional information about the turtle population of the lake. -z Service biologists,-working on the-predator study, observed turtles on several occasions in the project reach of the river. They captured and photographed one of these turtles and tentatively identified it• as a red-eared slider, a non-native species that was probably a discarded pet. However, all of the observed turtles were not identified to species. It is possible that.there may have been northwestern -- pond turtles in the project area. ' . • STUDY RESULTS • Due to the significant fish and wildlife resources at risk, and the gaps in the information on how these resources utilize the project reach,the Service recommended several studies to determine baseline . conditions of fish and wildlife resources, evaluate potential impacts, and identify potential mitigation ' r, opportunities. In the following section, we will summarize the results of each study. ' The concerns that were identified during the early scoping for this project primarily focused on the potential impacts on the fishery resources of the Cedar River. The main concern was the potential impacts of the project on spawning habitat and distribution of both sockeye and longfin smelt. Other ,, concerns included predation on sockeye salmon fry,migration delay due to slower water velocity, and effects on macro invertebrates within the project reach. The results in each of these studies are based on very limited data. The Service believes the studies were not extended over a sufficient time span to yield definitive results. At most,three years of data i is available and in most cases only two years of data is available. Because of poor weather conditions; problems with equipment, and problems with methods several of the important studies i were not completed as designed. The results and conclusions should.therefore be used with caution. r:?' WILDLIFE STUDY - The effect of the project on bird species was the main focus for wildlife studies. Bird surveys were - discussed above in the general section on Fish and Wildlife Resources. On February 1, 1996, Corps ' biologists (Brunner 1996) completed a night avian predator study from the fry trap on the lower Cedar River down to mouth and out into the lake just past the delta. The objective was to provide some quantitative estimate of piscivorous birds that may be drawn to the area due to the emigration of sockeye fry. This date was chosen to coincide with an earlier release of hatchery sockeye fry Ii which should have been reaching the delta at about the same time period as the surveys. Mallards, coots, and gulls were roosting on the logs at the delta and grebes were widely scattered around the lake when the survey began at 1915 hours. Grebes abruptly flew to the mouth just after 2000 hours 17 and were all actively feeding by 2005 hours. This was about 1 hour after the peak fry migration past s,., the fry trap 'which is.about '/8 mile upstream from the mouth. By about 2030 the grebes began { 18 1 dispersing to other parts of the lake. It would be hard not to make some type of connection between the out migrating sockeye fry and the abrupt feeding behavior of the western grebes. Although predation on sockeye smelt is a normal part of the grebes feeding pattern,the migration to the mouth during the out-planting of•sockeye-fiy-may have a-significant impact-on sockeye.populations.: Additional surveys of this type, coincident with fry releases, should be considered to determine what effects if any western grebes may have on sockeye releases. Other bird species that were feeding in the area, including great blue heron and mergansers, did not alter behavior in any noticeable way during this same time period. Herons were feeding on the delta entire timeperiod and were assumed to be feedingon lon n smelt. Mergansers were through this � g in the area and were observed actively feeding during this period. Artificial light had been previously assumed to be much greater than normal due to the Boeing plant and the Renton airport,thus providing predators better light conditions for hunting. Although there did seem to be brighter conditions than normal along the river, the light dimmed beyond approximately 100 feet from shore in the lake. This additional light did not seem to be influencing where the birds were feeding. Western grebes have been observed feeding in situations with less light . than in the project area. • PREDATOR STUDY . e Potential impacts to sockeye salmon that were identified were mostly focused on increased predation. . on sockeye fry during their downstream migration and a loss of spawning habitat within the project reach. The first year of predator studies was completed by Service biologists and published in May 1996. The last year of this study was published in November 1996. The 1995 data indicated that the highest density of piscivorous fish and the highest predation rates occur in the lower 600 meters of the Cedar River(Tabor and Chan 1996a). Additional data from 1996 indicated that the vast majority of predation was occurring in the lower 440 meters (Tabor and Chan 1996b). This section is generally backwater from Lake Washington. The only other location where predation of fry was detected was in a backwater eddy near the south Boeing bridge. Prickly sculpin appeared to be the most important predator of sockeye salmon fry because of their abundance, their high consumption rate of fry, and their larger size. Torrent sculpin also had relatively high consumption rates of fry but were less abundant than prickly sculpin. Prickly sculpin have a strong preference for the areas of least velocity and greatest average depth.• Several studies (Tabor and Chan 1996b) confirm this preference for lower velocity and deeper water. This type of habitat corresponds significantly with the post project habitat conditions anticipated by the dredging alternatives. . . In 1995, cutthroat trout seemed to be significant predators as indicated by the highest number of salmonid fry recovered from stomach samples (Tabor and Chan 1996a). Rainbow trout, steelhead smolts, coho salmon,and prickly sculpin also appear to be major predators of salmonid fry in the 19 -- lower Cedar River. The abundance of predators was relatively small until after the peak fry emigration period. Predation in the littoral zone of southern Lake Washington was low. Cutthroat once again exhibited the highest predation rate. In addition to the predators in the river, smallmouth bass showed up as predators.in the lake. In 1996,.the salmonid populations in the lower river were • significantly lower than the previous year(Tabor and Chan 1996b). This was thought to be due to the flooding earlier in the year. Lonzarich and Quinn(1995, cited in Tabor and Chan 1996a)found that water depth seemed to be more important than structure in determining the distribution of large age 1+cutthroat and steelhead trout while structure and depth were important for coho salmon smolt distribution. Since cutthroat trout are the main predators in the river,the increase in depth by dredging would seem to favor an increase in cutthroat. Obviously, other factors besides depth enter into the potential for predation. Channel configuration, for example, might increase or decrease predator populations. Information is not available to make this determination. Predation rates appeared to be related to discharge levels. Low predation rates were observed at> 17m3s. Seiler and Kishimoto (1996, cited in Tabor and Chan 1996b) found that survival rates of hatchery sockeye salmon fiy were positively correlated with discharge. Survival rates for a discharge of 10m3s would be predicted at around 23 percent,whereas a 17m3s discharge would show a survival rate of around 44 percent. This correlation may be tied to the increased turbidity found during higher discharges. Difficulty with weather, equipment availability and performance limited the population estimates somewhat. However, based on the 1995 data, there did not seem to be obvious movement by predators to the mouth of the Cedar River during the sockeye fry emigration. The number of piscivorous fish did seem to increase after the peak emigration season(May-June). This trend was also seen in the data collected in 1996 (Tabor and Chan 1996b). Therefore any impacts would be concentrated on the late-emerging part of the sockeye population. • LONGFIN SMELT STUDY Smelt seem to occupy a"keystone"position in Lake Washington. The population size of the longfin smelt and their interaction with other river and lake species seems to be implicated in water clarity, zooplankton species diversity, competition with sockeye salmon for food resources, and as a prey base for fish predators. Several investigators have looked at the feeding habits and interactions of longfin smelt and sockeye salmon in Lake Washington (Chigbu and Sibley 1992) (Dryfoos 1965) (Edmondson and Abella 1988) (Moulton 1970) (Moulton 1974). Concerns about possible effects to smelt populations include changes in spawning substrate, changes to food sources, and increases or decreases in actual populations. The smelt food base is also a concern as it is related to possible competition with sockeye salmon. An abbreviated study was conducted on Lake Washington for two years that included one high population year and one low population year. Year one of a two year study was completed by Sibley 20 and Brocksmith in April of 1996. The first year study seemed to verify previous reports that indicate that the even year classes are an order of magnitude larger than the odd year classes. Preferred substrate experiments were conducted in artificial streams at the Fisheries Research Institute and Seward Park hatchery:--There seemed-to-be-a slight.correlation with sand sized.particles but the - results in this test may have been biased due to the experimental design. Results from field testing showed no apparent correlation with substrate size,water depth or water velocity. Harza(1994) also showed no correlation between particle size, water depth or water velocity. These results are not supported by other studies involving baitfish and substrate preference. Other smelt species have a definite preference for a sand/gravel substrate (Fresh 1996)., Longfin smelt in California use a sand/gravel substrate in weedy areas for spawning. Longfin smelt are poor swimmers and seem to avoid high velocities. This may be one of the reasons smelt are found in diminishing numbers above the south Boeing bridge. There also seems to be an inverse correlation to spawning smelt and distance from the mouth of the river. This could be explained by one of several avoidance mechanisms. Larger substrate size, shallower water and higher velocities are found in the reach above Logan Avenue. Smelt may be avoiding any one of or a combination of these habitat components. Another explanation for the decrease in upstream numbers could simply be distance from the lake. Harza(1994)implied this relationship in their report to the Corps. • The second year of the two year study was completed by Corps personnel (Martz et al 1996). This study showed a significant negative correlation between egg abundance and substrate size. It also confirmed the negative correlations between egg abundance and velocity and distance upstream found in previous studies. Earlier reports indicated that the"majority" of smelt spawned.in the lower Cedar River. Sibley and Brocksmith(1996a) sampled 9 other tributaries in addition to-the Cedar River to determine if smelt eggs were present. Eggs were found in May Creek and Coal Creek in very small numbers (See Table 4). The Corps (raw data 1996) found eggs in these two tributaries and additionally in Juanita and McAleer Creeks. Overall 98 percent of the eggs found in the Cedar were in the lower 600 meters (Sibley and Brocksmith 1996a). HABITAT STUDY/SURVEY • The second year of a habitat inventory to determine the quantity and quality of salmonid habitat within the project reach has been completed using the State's Timber, Fish and Wildlife methodology (Martz 1996). The percentage of riffle habitat in the lower one mile of Cedar River is quite high, as expected. Around 77 percent is riffle, 2 percent is pool habitat and 20 percent is lake backwater. Pools are largely bank scour pools along the banks near Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge. Fine sediment is dominant along the bank areas. Gravel and cobble comprise most of the main channel. This grades into small gravels towards the mouth with deposition of sand and silt during low flow Armoring occurs during the spring and summer, making many sections of the main channel 21 • 4- too hard for sockeye spawning. Overhanging-vegetation is found on only 25 percent of the banks, with several 15-20 year old cottonwoods and alders on each side above the south Boeing bridge. Low flow water depth is shallow(<6 inches)in much of the reach between Logan Avenue and the south Boeing bridge. -This often causes the water to heat-up significantly with estimates of water temperature > 21° C. Warmer water and shallow depths may delay the upstream migration of sockeye adults until the release of flows from the dam in early September. SOCKEYE SALMON SPAWNING SURVEY Two years of spawning surveys have been completed by Corps biologists. Service personnel assisted in two of the surveys during the 1994 and 1995 spawning seasons. Results are summarized in Table 3 for 1994 and 1995. The high water and associated turbidity prevented complete surveys on several days of both seasons but the remaining surveys were completed from the just above the Wells Avenue bridge to the mouth. Combinations of visual,wading surveys and snorkel surveys were used to gather data over this entire reach. The majority of the redds were above reference point 15 (1,500 meters) and concentrated along the bank edges. With exception of the December 12, 1995 survey,there were never more than 4 redds downstream of the south Boeing bridge during any survey. Assuming that all redds observed were distinct (with no double-counting between surveys) and had been spawned in, a maximum of 1 percent of the overall sockeye run spawns in the project reach. FISH UTILIZATION STUDIES • Daytime and night time snorkeling surveys were conducted to assess fish use of the project reach and related side channels. Corps biologists completed several snorkel surveys from July to September 1995. In the lower mile of the river the only fish observed were rainbow and cutthroat trout, large- scale suckers, mountain whitefish, sculpins, and yellow perch. By the last survey in September, adult sockeye and chinook salmon were appearing in the river. Sculpin and mountain whitefish were the t_. most common. Yellow perch were only observed in the lake backwater and only in small numbers - (<10). Crayfish were also observed during the snorkee surveys. An assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on downstream juvenile migration was recommended by the Service. This assessment has not been initiated due to difficulty correlating 4 flows from upstream dams with the City of Seattle. This type of information is still needed to compare the pre- and post-project migration rate for sockeye salmon. Impacts due to increased migration times can not adequately be assessed without this type of information. This should be considered in the mitigation planning for this project. A Q UATI C INVERTEBRATE STUDY Th:s study(Sibley and Brocksmith 1996b)was completed in 1996 from field work done in 1995. For the most part, the aquatic invertebrate populations were found in the expected velocity and substrate 22 � I 1 type. There were some exceptions but these could be explained by sampling size, sampling design, or seasonal variation. Chironomids where the most abundant taxa at all sites during all seasons. They did seem to show less abundance at the lower sites but were still more abundant than other taxa. Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,.and Tricoptera overall were more abundant in the upper reaches in higher. velocity water as would be expected. Oligochaetes were more common in the lower reaches in lower* velocity water. There did seem to be a positive correlation between water velocity and both-taxa richness and taxa diversity although this correlation was not consistent. This is generally the situation found in other studies. . The discussion of effects on the aquatic invertebrates concluded that dredging of the project area would have an extensive effect. A similar project but with a:shallower dredge showed that up to 92 percent of the bottom organisms were removed in the dredged area(Rees 1959 cited in Sibley and Brocksmith 1996b). Recovery of all types of insects originally present occurred within 10 months. Macro invertebrate population size may take much longer to rebound. In the Cedar River,the effect due to a deeper proposed dredging will be greater but recolonization should still be fairly rapid. The total impact to the food web in the Cedar River should be minimal due to the 14 miles of assessable anadromous fish habitat above the project area. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROJECT • Based on sediment transport modeling completed by the Corps,the lower Cedar River is aggrading at about 0.2 feet per year measured at the south Boeing bridge. This rate of deposition will fill the channel within 20 years to such an extent that most winter flows will flood the Renton airport and other low lying areas. This deposition of sediment will create a wide very shallow stream with minimal habitat value for fish. Longfin smelt spawning habitat will most likely be severely reduced compared to current conditions. . Sockeye spawning habitat may increase in the short term as the higher velocity shallow habitat moves downstream. The quality of this habitat and its length of availability depends on the resultant depth of water and the velocity over the gravel. Armoring of the substrate is likely to occur which would cause any potential spawning gravels to be cemented and too compacted to be usable. Due to the heavy urbanization and industrial base along the project reach,flooding on a yearly basis would cause significant economic hardship. If the Corps would decide not to pursue this project it is likely that other concerned entities would look into alternative solutions to the flooding problem. As the local sponsor for this proposed project,the city of Renton would most likely be involved in other alternatives. I 1_ 23 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES Under the proposed alternatives, direct project effects on.fish and wildlife species and their habitats . may be both short-term and long-term. Short term impacts may be on the order of one or two seasons and primarily the result of construction activities. An increase in turbidity and sediment will occur during the actual dredging work. The actual dredging will be limited to between June 15 and August 15. This will minimize the impact on sockeye salmon and other anadromous fish. Depending on the severity of the sediment increase,fish and other aquatic dependent species could be displaced from the project area. Disturbances to the spawning gravels above Logan Avenue could cause scouring of redds during the first winter storms. It could also cause deposition of sediment on top of these redds. Any impacts on the fish populations in the project reach could cause a-ripple effect within the food chain by The sloping on others species within the basin. p g decreasing the food source or by increased predationp • _. of the gradient above Logan Avenue should minimize this effect. But, there may be a significant adjustment of the stream channel during the first winter high flows. I These changes may also cause impacts over an extended period. Effects to fish and wildlife resources would vary in magnitude, primarily according to the sensitivity of the species impacted and how important a role it serves in the function of the lake and lower river ecology. Shifts in species distribution and use patterns may be expected from direct habitat modifications, which could cause immediate or long-term ecological changes in the lower river. Long term impacts may result due to permanent habitat losses or degradation. Depending on which alternative is chosen these effects will vary in significance. I Each of the"dredge" alternatives and the"no-dredge" alternative have levees associated with them. Short term impacts will be related to sediment from surface erosion on the newly constructed levees and berms. Intensive revegetation should restrict this impact to one season. Long-term aquatic effects from the levees should be minimal as long as best management practices are followed to 1 prevent sedimentation and other disturbances of the stream course. IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE i Direct impacts to terrestrial wildlife species and habitats will be largely related to the loss of riparian . zone habitat and associated shallow water habitats along both shorelines. Loss of shallow water habitats would directly affect foraging for wading birds such as great blue herons, and feeding dabbling ducks such as mallards. Various gulls may also be displaced as well as fish-eating birds like 1 belted kingfishers, which generally forage in water that is less than 24 inches deep. {` I he loss of existing vegetation could also preclude duck nesting and rearing of duck broods, ;, ;:,:ula lv for mallards and common mergansers,which currently utilize herbaceous and overhanging 24 vegetation for nesting and cover, resp ectively. The current alternatives minimize streambank � + disturbance. Plant materials will be salvaged from the left bank and;reused as much as possible. This will reduce the impact to the shrub layer but it will still take several years for a dense herbaceous layer to develop. • River otter and raccoons are species that often forage among the stream side vegetation or along the irregular and diverse shorelines of streams and creeks. These species could be displaced permanently if riparian vegetation is eliminated or if the project results in decreased diversity in shoreline . configuration or a decrease in total edge habitat. With a change to a predominantly silt bottom in the project,reach, there will be fewer niches for prey species such as invertebrates and small fish. A change in the prey base may indirectly affect small mammals. The impacts to many of the neotropical bird species may be significant in all of the alternatives due to the construction of levees on the river banks. These levees may eliminate much of the overstory and shrub habitat currently being used for nesting•and foraging by birds in the area. This riparian . zone habitat can be partially restored over time, but even with immediate revegetation, it will be several decades before the overstory canopy is reestablished. Replanting by using a diverse mix of native species should increase the habitat diversity of the area. A long-term benefit to terrestrial . . wildlife should be reli7ed due to the increased width of native vegetation along the stream: Removal and control of the non-native invasive plant species adjacent to the river course should enhance this benefit to native wildlife species. IMPACTS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES • No Action There is no dredging in this alternative and it should not change sockeye or longfin smelt spawning habitat in the near term. However,with the continual deposition of sediment in this reach, spawning may be precluded due to a lack of suitable habitat in the future. Sediment modeling done by the Corps indicates that within 20 years, the lower reach will be so aggraded that most winter flows will flood adjacent low-lying land. Within the Cedar River channel this may create more spawning habitat for sockeye salmon if depths and velocities',are within the preferred parameters. Longfin smelt habitat may be reduced if preferred habitat parameters are lost. Alternative 1 -Levee construction,and maintenance dredging only. There is minimal dredging with this alternative. Dredging will be only to create a uniform channel to the depth of the present thalweg. Sockeye or longfin smelt spawning habitat should not be significantly changed except for some minor channel adjustment which could degrade habitat . somewhat. Predation on sockeye fry should not increase significantly with this alternative: Also the impacts on aquatic invertebrates should be minor. 25 i i Alternative 2 - Shallow Dredging( . 4')The Service's preferred alternative. We believe that this alternative best protects fish and wildlife resources while still providing flood i protection forthe lower Cedar River corridor. The known impacts have been avoided or mitigated , as much as possible. Detailed mitigation plans have yet to be finalized but the Corps seems willing I to work cooperatively with the resource agencies to reach final resolution. The dredging will slope the bottom gradient to meet the present gradient about 400 yards above In this alternative,thepotential spawning area for at least 90 pairs of sockeye salmon , Logan Avenue. P . g will be disturbed(see Table 3). Most of this spawning habitat should be available after the dredging " . but may be affected due to the adjustment of the stream channel during the first winter high flows. . With less depth to the dredging the gravel deposition in the lower reach should begin providing some minimal sockeye spawning after the first major winter storm. -, Other concerns within the dredged area include the potential for increased predation on sockeye fry as they migrate downstream to the lake. The slower velocities resulting from this shallow dredging will increase the time needed for the fry to move through the project area and will make them more vulnerable to predation. Tabor and Chan (1996) documented several fish species that preyed on sockeye fry during the outmigration period. Assuming that longfin smelt actually have a preference for lower velocity as implied in the smelt studies, then this alternative should increase available smelt spawning habitat. The first year after dredging the habitat may have reduced value for smelt spawning due to channel readjustment. The a. y actual impact of this is unknown. Also it is expected that finer sediment may settle out below Logan Avenue and create a sand and mud substrate. Winter flows should flush this finer material out but with the increased depth of the channel,velocity will be slower. This may prevent this flushing action and reduce the success of smelt spawning. Aquatic invertebrates make up one of the major food sources for fish within the project reach. This shallow dredge option will change the velocity and substrate that largely determine the invertebrate i populations. The dredging process will displace or kill most of the resident invertebrates and will cause a zone depauperate of aquatic invertebrates for several weeks to months depending on the species and the specific rate of recolonization. Species which prefer faster, more turbulent water such as mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies will be eliminated or greatly reduced. Recolonization by these _, species may be delayed until velocity and substrate within the project reach return to pre-disturbance level. In order to maintain flood control under this alternative, dredging will be more frequent and it is unlikely that habitat for these macro invertebrates will be replaced to the same extent as present. - On the other hand, species that prefer slow velocity and fine substrate material, such as oligochaets and most chironomids, should increase due to the increase in available habitat. Initially this group of invertebrates will also be eliminated or reduced because of the dredging operation. Recolonization f E should occur, assuming that these species exist upstream of the project area. 26 a d Alternative 3 -Moderate Dredging (6'). The moderate dredging depths proposed in alternative 3 may significantly change habitat values. The impacts will be similar.to-those-in alternative 2 but will vary in severity depending on the'species group under discussion. The moderate dredging up to the south Boeing bridge will create the potential for greater movement of the channel after the first major winter storm events. This may reduce habitat values for sockeye ce, in the project reach.Deeper water will reduce velocities and subsequently the substrate size. This will i reduce the suitability of the habitat for sockeye spawning. The effect on sockeye spawning will be • greater and will last longer: Gravel movement into the area will be gradual (depending on yearly high flows) and will take several years to approach pre-project levels. The even slower velocities expected with this alternative will increase the time the sockeye fry are exposed to predation in the lower river and may decrease the number entering the lake compared to pre-project levels. • ` This alternative may create habitat more suitable for longfin smelt. The backwater, low velocity areas __ preferred by the smelt for spawning should increase under this alternative. Effects to aquatic invertebrates will be much like those in alternative 2. The recolonization of the area by mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies ,'will take longer. Oligochaets and most chironomids should increase due to the increase in available habitat. Alternative 4 l The deep dredging with this alternative has the potential for significant impacts to all species and could affect habitat values even outside the immediate project area. The Corps' assessment of this alternative indicates that the deep dredging would increase the rate of deposition and could cause dredging to be necessary even more frequently than in alternatives 2 and 3. Edmondson and Abella(198S) suggested that the increase in the longfin smelt population might have --, been related to the cessation of dredging in the Cedar River. This was based on historic deep ': dredging that exceeded 10 feet in depth, in contrast to alternatives 2 and 3, which would dredge to a more moderate depth. Since the majority of the Lake Washington longfin smelt population spawn within the project reach, the change in spawning habitat conditions caused by dredging may be so ' ` profound that it could eliminate longfin smelt from any further spawning within the reach. Spawning and egg incubation habitat could degrade significantly because the reach would change from a relatively shallow bed profile to a lake backwater. Substrate material would change from i predominantly gravels and cobbles-to primarily silts. Channel configuration and surface area would become more uniform. Water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels would decrease and flows ..__'�_ within the reach would.decrease in mean velocities. i low longfin smelt would respond to these changes is unknown. They may compensate by moving .i!rtlier upstream in the Cedar into better spawning habitat, if available, or expand to other Lake 27 4 • Washington tributaries. It is also possible that smelt may increase beach spawning to a greater degree than now exists. Nevertheless, the smelt population is considered a key, and perhaps the most important,fish species in the Lake Washington ecosystem. Should this population decline or expand dramatically,the cascading effects on the dynamics of the Lake Washington fish community and lake . ecology could be highly disruptive. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS During coordination with other resource agencies,there have been concerns raised about constructing . .this project at this time, given the current sensitivity of the Lake Washington/Cedar River system. Significant efforts are underway to understand why the changes in the ecosystem are occurring. Serious declines in sockeye salmon and steelhead are being observed in the Lake Washington ecosystem. This project,which may have significant effects on the fish community, could be untimely ,1 and damaging. The newest alternatives being considered have much less impact on fish and wildlife resources than the historic deep dredging projects. In discussions with the Corps, we have been encouraged by their . willingness to protect and mitigate for potential fishery habitat loss with this project. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Corps and the local sponsor to plan the mitigation and any • enhancement projects connected with the lower Cedar River flood control project. The mitigation measures recommended by the Service for wildlife have been accepted and incorporated into the latest alternatives. Mitigation will be required for natural resource losses resulting from project implementation. Opportunities to enhance the values of the existing habitat beyond those that currently exist should also be identified pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Mitigation involves a series of , 1 actions (National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C., 4321 et. seq.). These include the following: 1. Avoiding the effect all together; 2. Minimizing the effect; 3. Rectifying the effect; 4. Reducing or eliminating the effect over time; and, • 5. Compensating for the effect. The availability, extent, loca tion, and uniqueness of a habitat dictates its value to its constituent fish ' 1 i` and wildlife populations. The goal of mitigation ranges from no Ioss of in-kind habitat values to min.--,l loss of habitat value. 28 f Habitat for terrestrial species has been severely reduced due to the heavy industrialization of the area, ' parking lots, and manicured parks. Some species, however, can maintain populations in these -- conditions. There are currently many bird species using the area for breeding and rearing young. The aquatic habitat has also been significantly altered by human activity. The existing habitat within the project reach provides spawning for, a significant number of sockeye salmon and a substantial portion of the longfin smelt population of Lake Washington. The Service has determined that the project could result in adverse effects on existing habitat values. The degree of impact would depend on the alternative that is selected. ! The Service offers the following recommendations to help the Corps in project planning and to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources in the project vicinity. These recommendations are based on current project alternatives as furnished by the Corps. The Corps should develop a comprehensive mitigation plan in conjunction with State and Federal agencies and the Tribes. This plan should include actions that avoid or minimize potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources. It should include elements to address longfin smelt, sockeye salmon, Imo', and wildlife species. Short-term and long-term monitoring of these resource should also be included. i A contingency plan should be developed and implemented if the results of the monitoring show unacceptable impacts. The Corps could provide appropriate funding and participate in the on-going Lake Washington basin studies that deal with sockeye and longfin smelt. MITIGATION FOR WILDLWE IMPACTS . 1. Due to the high value of the riparian zone we recommend that this type of habitat be replaced. Most bird species'were observed using the narrow strip of shrub and tree vegetation on the right bank.'Tree and shrub planting for overstory cover should be pursued. Plant large sized trees and shrubs to reduce recovery time. Retain all native tree species along the bank where possible and only remove non-native invasive shrub vegetation. Fast growing trees such as native black cottonwood and alders are recommended for the bulk of the plantings. Native conifers such as Douglas fir,western red cedar and hemlock should'also be planted to help block light from Boeing at night and to provide a long term vertical habitat component for bird species. • 2. The levees, as proposed, will incorporate existing"islands" of higher elevation ground and tie into these areas to create a continuous levee. Using these high points in the park as part of the levee designs may increase the riparian zone diversity.and width along the lower river. We highly endorse this concept as well as leaving all trees along the banks and only removing non-native shrubs. 1 1 L 3 Revegetation of disturbed areas should be completed immediately after construction. A 9 plan should be developed to monitor the success of these efforts. Creation of a terrace \ ; or shelf associated with the new shoreline to provide shallow water habitat for fish and _r wildlife.should be investigated.' Planting of native emergent submergent marsh plants in ' ' 29 1 the newly created shallow water habitat should be explored. Care should be taken to avoid the invasion of Eurasian watermilfoil, particularly during construction. It is vital to identify new colonies early in order to eradicate it. We recommend an extended monitoring program in the area following. construction to ensure watermilfoil is ... controlled. 4. Due to the sighting of turtles in the project reach, we recommend that turtle surveys be conducted to determine species. Species identification is important because one of the two native turtle species that may occur in this location, the northwestern pond turtle, is a species of concern to the Service. PROPOSED MITIGATION FOR AQUATIC RESOURCE IMPACTS 1. If a dredging alternative is chosen, a monitoring program should be developed to test the assumptions concerning habitat. Smelt could be monitored by looking at the resulting substrate composition during the spawning run,looking at actual use in the dredged area for spawning and by checking egg viability. Sockeye could be monitored by marking a representative number of redds above the test site and looking at depositional rates, or - scour depth at each redd site. Potential head-cutting and channel configuration changes should also be monitored after several significant storm events. 2. If this monitoring produces unacceptable results, we recommend that the Corps -� reconsider the proposed three year dredging cycle. The Service believes that the " precarious situation of salmon and steelhead resources in the Lake Washington/Cedar '. River basin and the potential of the proposed project to adversely affect these resources - warrants a cautious approach. Close monitoring as described above could provide early detection of potential fish resource problems and possibly avoid catastrophic results to the fish community in this system. • 3. Before dredging, sediments should be tested for contaminants and a determination of whether disturbance of any contaminants found could be toxic to fish and wildlife resources. We are concerned about the possible presence of contaminants due-to the close proximity of two major industrial sites, and the heavy use of fuel, oil, solvents, and other chemicals. Contaminated sediments should be isolated and,stored away from water,particularly rivers, creeks, and lakes. All new concrete structures should be sealed during construction to contain runoff from the construction site until the concrete is fully cured. Runoff should be collected and pumped to a settling basin or other treatment area- to remove contaminants before discharge into the Cedar River or other surface water course. Fuels, oils, solvents, and other potentially toxic chemicals should be properly stored and protected from accidental release into the river or lake. 4 Construction activities should take place between mid-June and mid-August. This timing is necessary to miss most of the major fish migrations and minimize project impacts on this part'of the life cycle. 30 5. We recommend that gravel removal be accomplished by dewatering the stream as much as possible and constructingcoffer dams to exclude water flow. The actual removal can then be completed in an area isolated froth flowing water and should reduce the entry of mo' . fine sediment and.additional.turbidity.into. Cedar River and downstream into Lake • Washington. The actual method could be dragline or front end loader: We recommend using the method that creates the least disturbance to the terrestrial habitat while still protecting the stream. 6. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan should be developed to protect water quality in the project area during and following construction. All steps should be taken to minimize turbidity and fine sediments from entering the river and lake. Sediment y Y retention structures, settling ponds, silt fences, Or other measures to protect water quality should be employed as needed during construction. I" 7. At the spoil disposal site,we'recommend that a catch basin be constructed to contain all runoff and prevent sediment from moving downslope into nearby rivers, or other water bodies. The spoils should be covered during the rainy season to reduce erosion and additional downstream sedimentation. Revegetation should be started as soon as r_ practical to provide long term erosion and sediment control. 8. Gravel and cobble removed from the lower river could be cleaned and stored for future fish enhancement projects. These substrate materials may be appropriate in some cases for restoration offish habitat in upstream areas. This possibility should be investigated. I 9. We recommend the Corps investigate onsite mitigation measures for fish impacts. Development of off-channel or side-channel habitat for longfin smelt spawning or salmonid spawning and rearing habitat within the project reach may be possible. Because the existing channel is narrowly confined by development, the opportunities to widen the channel or add additional fish habitat features appear to be limited mostly to the lower river. Any fish habitat features developed for mitigation should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. 10. We recommend the Corps explore the potential for off-site fish mitigation measures similar to an investigation of on-site mitigation opportunities. There may be potential fish mitigation/enhancement projects upstream of the project that are feasible to pursue. , s We recommend that the Corps coordinate with King County Surface Water Management F Division who may have identified potential fish habitat restoration projects in the lower • Cedar River basin. A combination of on-site and off site mitigation projects may adequately serve to offset fish habitat losses. • I I. The WDFW presently operates a fry trap near the mouth of the Cedar River. This project as proposed would make this trap unusable and would jeopardize several years y of data in a long term study involving the Cedar River. For this reason we recommend ° '' 31 that a new location for a fry trap be found in cooperation with WDFW. This trap will need to be installed at least two years in advance of the implementation of this project. This will allow both traps to be fished for two years and a calibration curve to be established. . -. . . . . . ... . The Service will remain involved in this project and will be available for advice and support as needed. We intend to assist the Corps in the development of the mitigation and monitoring plans for this project and expect that other appropriate resource agencies and the Muckleshoot Tribe will also be involved. • • • I _ • 32 • _a '11 • LITERATURE CITED • Andelman S. and A. Stock. 1993. Management, Research and Monitoring Priorities for the' gni Conservation ofNeotropical Mgratory Birds that Breed in Washington. Preliminary Assessment- t and Working Document.• Washington Natural Heritage Program. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia,WA. 25 pp. • Brunner, K. 1995. Memorandum for the Record. Corps of Engineers. Seattle District Seattle Washington. 3 pp. • Brunner, K. 1996. Memorandum for the Record. Corps of Engineers. Seattle District Seattle Imo: Washington. 5 pp. • Chambers, J.S. G.H. Allen, and R.T. Pressey. 1955. Research Relating to Study of Spawning 1 Grounds in Natural Areas. Unpublished report. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, WA Chigbu, P. and T. H. Sibley. 1992. ,Diet of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) following changes in the zooplankton composition in Lake Washington. University of • Washington. Seattle. (WH-10). unpublished Dryfoos,RL. 1965. The Life History and Ecology of the Longfin Smelt in Lake Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. 229 pp. Edmondson, W.T. and S.B. Abella. 1988. Unplanned Biomanipulation in Lake Washington. Limologica 19(1) 73-79. Fresh,K. 1996. Personal Communication. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia WA Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 180, Ottawa. 740 pp. • • Harza Northwest Inc. 1993. Cedar River Delta Bird Surveys. Report to City of Renton. 23 pp. Harza Northwest Inc. 1994. Distribution of Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)Eggs in the Cedar River, Washington. Report to City of Renton. 11 pp. Harza Northwest Inc. 1996. Cedar River Delta Project, Final Bird Survey Report. Report to City of Renton. 16 pp. King County. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. King County Department of Public Works and Cedar River Watershed Management Committee. Seattle, WA. April. • 33 . IN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY Detailed Project Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement. .... . USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (February 1997) Recommendation as ;r Disposition. -- - - USFWS Recommendations: M M �»._MCorps Responses: __ ii 1. Due to the high value of the riparian zone w Partially concur. The riparian zone will not be mi we recommend that this type of habitat be disturbed except as absolutely necessary for replaced. Most bird species were observed construction of floodwalls on the left bank. J using the narrow strip of shrub and tree This vegetation will be salvaged, as feasible, vegetation on the right bank[upstream of the and replanted on the right bank. The south Boeing bridge]. Tree and shrub mitigation section describes how the lower planting for overstory cover should be portion of the right bank will be vegetated with • pursued. Plant large sized trees and shrubs native plants, including several tree species. r:> to reduce recovery time. Retain all native tree The local sponsor has concerns about the ,i_ species along the bank where possible and safety of using cottonwood trees in the park, i only remove non-native invasive shrub so it is likely Oregon ash and alders will be vegetation. Fast growing trees such as native used instead. Conifers will be used. . - black cottonwood and alders are 4 recommended for the bulk of the plantings. Native conifers such as Douglas fir, western red cedar and hemlock should also be planted to help block light from Boeing at night and to provide a long term vertical habitat component ^I for bird species. - 2. The levees, as proposed, will incorporate Concur. This recommendation will be existing "islands" of higher elevation ground followed to the maximum extent feasible. i and tie into these areas to create a .tial continuous levee. Using these high points in —, the park as part of the levee designs may increase the riparian zone diversity and width -' along the lower river. We highly endorse this : concept as well as leaving all trees along the -. banks and only removing non-native shrubs. NO 3. Revegetation of disturbed areas should be Partially concur. Disturbed areas will be completed immediately after construction. A revegetated in the fall season immediately `' plan should be developed to monitor the after all construction is complete. The IRj success of these efforts. Creation of a terrace creation of a shallow water terrace will not be ^l or shelf associated with the new shoreline to possible without placing significant quantities provide shallow water habitat for fish and of riprap in the channel to maintain the isi wildlife should be investigated. Planting of terrace. Sediment is eroded or deposited F. native emergent submergent marsh plants in from the project reach in such large quantities the newly created shallow water habitat that a terrace would be extremely difficult to should be explored. Care should be taken to maintain. Monitoring will be conducted to avoid the invasion of Eurasian watermilfoil, assess terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, fl particularly during construction. It is vital to particularly Eurasian watermilfoil: .) identify new colonies early in order to _ eradicate them. We recommend an extended .iiJ f t , monitoring program in the area following -`: construction to ensure watermilfoil is coed. • 4 nDue to the sightingof turtles in th project _ Y � I ''�"�"««��� a � Concur.-A turtle surve .is currently being reach, we recommend that turtle surveys be conducted. To date, no northwestern pond conducted to determine species. Species turtles have been observed. The final EIS - identification is important because one of,the addresses pond turtles and the Corps has . _ two native turtle species that may occur in this determined that the proposed project will not location,the northwestern pond turtle, is a affect pond turtles, even if they do occur in the s ecies of concern to the Service. _ project area. 5. If a dredging alternative is chosen, a «« Partially concur. Monitoring for the preferred monitoring program should be developed to alternative is described in the final EIS. Smelt test the assumptions concerning habitat. spawning habitat will be monitored, as will Smelt could be monitored by looking at the sockeye spawning in the project area and - ; resulting substrate composition during the mitigation site to ensure that all assumptions _,. spawning run, looking at actual use in the made prior to construction are indeed valid. dredged area for spawning and by checking Surveys will be conducted each year, which egg viability. Sockeye could be monitored by will show if head-cutting is occurring. -Future marking a representative number of redds maintenance dredging will be designed to, above the test site and looking at depositional avoid head-cutting based on survey results. 1 rates, or scour depth at each redd site. 1 v Potential head-cutting and channel configuration changes should also be monitored after several significant storm events. 6. If this monitoring produces unacceptable Partially concur. The Corps will monitor the - ' results, we recommend that the Corps project to ensure that all anticipated impacts reconsider the proposed three year dredging are adequately mitigated for, as well as to cycle. The Service believes that the ensure that no unforeseen impacts are precarious situation of salmon and steelhead occurring. If monitoring shows unacceptable resources in the Lake Washington/Cedar results, the Corps will engage in contingency River basin and the potential of the proposed actions which may involve new mitigation or a project to adversely affect these resources reduced frequency of dredging. However, the warrants a cautious approach. Close purpose of the project is to provide 100 year monitoring as described above could provide flood protection in Renton. Any reduced early detection of potential fish resource frequency of dredging must ensure that problems and possibly avoid catastrophic Renton is fully protected from flooding. results to the fish community in this system 7. Before dredging, sediments should be Concur. The sediments will be tested before ' i tested for contaminants and a determination construction to ensure they are clean and fit of whether disturbance of any contaminants for upland or in-water disposal. Based on found could be toxic to fish and wildlife past testing (and the significant presence of C ` resources. We are concerned about the sand and gravels), there is no reason to possible presence of contaminants due to the , believe the sediment is contaminated. During -;?, close proximity of two major industrial sites, construction, the new concrete pier structures and the heavy use of fuel, oil, solvents, and for the south Boeing bridge will be isolated other chemicals. Contaminated sediments from th'e river with coffer dams and any water should be isolated-and stored away from that percolates inside the coffers dams will be i, water, particularly rivers, creeks, and lakes. pumped to a holding,area. I All new concrete structures should be sealed during construction to contain runoff from the = construction site until the concrete is fully cured. Runoff should be collected and • pumped to a settling basin or other treatment area to remove contaminants before discharge into the Cedar River or other surface water course. Fuels, oils, solvents, and other potentially toxic chemicals should be properly stored and protected from accidental release into the river or lake. 8. Construction activities should take place Concur. The in-water construction window will between mid-June and mid-August. This - be June 15-August 31. timing is necessary to miss most of the major fish migrations and minimize project impacts " on this part of the life cycle. 9. We recommend that gravel removal be Partially concur. In areas upstream of the accomplished by dewatering the stream as south Boeing bridge, coffer dams will be used • - much as possible and constructing coffer to divert the river away from the dredging site dams to exclude water flow. The actual to prevent turbidity increases in the river and removal can then be completed in an area lake. Below the south Boeing bridge this will isolated from flowing water and should reduce not be possible due to the lake backwater that the entry of fine sediment and additional backs up water up to 8 feet deep across the " turbidity into the Cedar River and downstream entire channel. In this area, a clamshell, _ . into Lake Washington. The actual method dragline or hydraulic suction dredge may be could be dragline or front end loader. We used. . recommend using the method that creates the . least disturbance to the terrestrial habitat while still protecting the stream. 10. A detailed sediment and erosion control Concur. The Corps and the City of Renton plan should be developed to protect water will develop an erosion control plan during quality in the project area during and following plans and specifications, and during • construction. All steps should b.e taken to coordination with the Department of Ecology r_• minimize turbidity and fine sediments from for the Water Quality Certification. entering the river and lake. Sediment ' retention structures, settling ponds, silt fences, or other measure to protect water quality should be employed as needed during construction. 11. At the spoil disposal site, we recommend Concur. During plans and specifications, the that a catch basin be constructed to contain dredged material disposal plans will contain all runoff and prevent sediment from moving these and other best management practices downslope into nearby rivers, or other water to avoid returning turbid (or otherwise bodies. The spoils should be covered during contaminated water) to the river and lake. the rainy season to reduce erosion and. additional downstream sedimentation. Revegetation should be started as soon as I :` practical to provide long term erosion and sediment control - ' 12. Gravel and cobble removed from the Partially concur. The local sponsor will be lower river could be cleaned and stored for responsible for disposal and storage of the • future fish enhancement projects. These dredged material. The Corps has • substrate materials may be appropriate in recommended that interested agencies and some cases for restoration of fish habitat in tribes request the use of some of the material upstream areas. This possibility should be for fish enhancement projects upstream. investigated. 13. We recommend the Corps investigate Do not concur. The Corps investigated the onsite mitigation measures for fish impacts. potential for on-site mitigation for this Development of off-channel or side-channel proposed project. The high sedimentation habitat for longfin smelt spawning or salmonid rate and limited space appear to make an on- ,- • spawning and rearing habitat within the site channel or side-channel ineffective. The project reach may be possible. Because the Corps has proposed an off-site mitigation site existing channel is narrowly confined',by for spawning and rearing habitat. On-site, development, the opportunities to widen the riparian plantings will be provided for channel or add additional fish habitat features compensation for impacts to aquatic appear to be limited mostly to the lower river. invertebrates and salmon holding and rearing. Any fish habitat features developed for mitigation should be monitored to determine their effectiveness. 14. We recommend the Corps explore the Concur. See response above to potential for off-site fish mitigation measures recommendation#13. similar to an investigation of on-site mitigation opportunities. There may be potential fish mitigation/enhancement projects upstream to the project that are feasible to pursue. We recommend that the Corps coordinate with King County Surface Water Management Division who may have identified potential fish c,': habitat restoration projects in the lower Cedar River basin. A combination of on-site and off- site mitigation projects may adequately serve • to offset fish habitat losses. 15. The WDFW presently operates a fry trap Partially concur. The Corps is coordinating near the mouth of the Cedar River. This with WDFW to determine a new location for C' project as proposed would make this trap, the fry trap, as well as to determine when unusable and would jeopardize several years WDFW would like the trap moved. To date, of data in a long term study involving the the WDFW has requested that the fry trap be i Cedar River. For this reason we recommend moved just prior to construction to a location that a new location for a fry trap be found in upstream of 1-405 (site not yet determined). cooperation with WDFW. This trap will need Because the sediment load is so significant in + to be installed at least two years in advance of the lower river each year, WDFW recalibrates the implementation of this project. This will their trap every year. Therefore, it is not allow both traps to be fished for two years and necessary to provide a new trap two years a calibration curve to be established. prior to construction. , -4 APPENDIX C: _ . DISTRIBUTION FOR DRAFT EIS Adam Smith Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. House of Representatives Office of Program Review & Education 3600 Port of Tacoma Road, E.,-Suite 308 .--1.100 Pennsylvania-Ave., NW, #803 Tacoma, WA 98424 Washington, DC 20004 1 Allan Newbill American Legion #19 Town of Hunt's Point 1308 Beacon Way, S. 3000 Hunts Point Road Renton, WA 98055 Hunts Point, WA 98004 Anmarco Ann Grinolds 9125 10th Avenue, S. 324 Cedar Avenue, S. Seattle, WA 98108 Renton, WA 98057 August Tonell Baldwin & Dana Vischer 20916 Military Road, S. 260 Ridge Drive Seattle, WA 98188 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Belmondo Family Limited Partnership Ben Meyer 5415 Pleasure Point Lane National Marine Fisheries Service Bellevue, WA 98006 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97232-2737 Bertha Miller Bill Sikonia �# 1307 N 32nd USGS Water Resources Division Renton, WA 98056 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 , _E . . .ggins Bob Frietag --.118-3 Water Resources Division Federal Emergency Mgmt Agency 2011 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600 • . -140 228th SW (acoma, WA 98402 Bothell, WA 98021-9796 3ob Winter Bonnie Shorin NA pept of Transportation P.O.A Dept of Ecology --P.O. Box 330310 600 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Bradley & Renita Gullstrand Burlington Northern RR 51 Logan Avenue, S. Honeywell Center, Suite 290 rRen1ton, WA 98055 373 Inverness Drive, S • Englewood, CO 80112-5831 Caesar Tasca Carol Dobson -:-221 N Williams Street P.o. Box 59 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Cherry Knight-Larson Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch 687 34th Avenue, NW US Environmental Protection Agency r Seattle, WA 98117 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1931 -`Chjck Phillips City of Tukwila WDF&W, Interim Regional Director ATTN: Mayor 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Seattle, WA 98188 � 'i Craig & Margaret Simpson Crescent Family Partnership 111 Wells Avenue, N. 7510 Eastside Drive, NE Renton, WA 98055 . • • - . . . --Tacoma, WA 98422-. . - Curt Beardslee Dale Mesecher Washington Trout 913 N 2nd Street P.O. Box 402 Renton, WA 98055 Duvall, WA 98019-0402 , Danilo & Gloria Delmundo David Mason 16546 SE 19th St 231 Williams Avenue, N. Bellevue, WA 98008 ,Renton, WA 98055 • David Swanson Dean Bitney 4616 S 124th 2727 Mt. View Avenue, N. Seattle, WA 98178 Renton, WA 98056 Dennis Ossenkop Dino Patas FAA, Airport Division 1815 Rolling Hills Avenue, SE 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055-4056 Director Director US Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species National Marine Fisheries Service 3704 Griffin Lane, SE, Suite 102 7600 Sand Point Way, NE Olympia, WA 98501-2192 Seattle, WA 98115 • { I )r Director, Environmental Review Section .At r-ion Society WA Dept of Ecology ;Vestern Regional Office . . - . .. .P.O..Box.47703 Jlympia, WA 98507-0462 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 `)on Morrison Donald & Margaret Schumsky 4601 SE 173rd 2019 Jones Avenue, NE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 _.Douglas & Claudia Buck Edward Gonzalez )04 N Riverside Drive 11015 142nd Avenue, SE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 • Edward S. Syrjala Eric Warner P.O.. Box 149 I Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. ;.;enterville, MA 02632 40405 Auburn-Enumclaw Road Auburn, WA 98002 Erik Hansen • Esell Corporation WA Dept of Transportation 126 Wells Avenue, S. —P.O. Box 330310 Renton, WA 98055 ,Seattle, WA 98133-9710 ugerne A & Christine Frasier Executive Director 78 Ashley Court NW Indian Fisheries Commission Buckley, WA 98321 6730 Martin Way - Olympia, WA 98506-5540 J { I111�"' Finn Hansen First Federal Savings & Loan 835 North 1st Street P.O. Box 358 Renton, WA 98055 - -- ---Renton, WA -98055 - Frank Urabeck Gary & Pamela Dime 2409 SW 317th Street 2425 127th Avenue, NE Federal Way, WA 98023 Bellevue, WA 98005 Gary Engman Gary Sund WA Dept of Fish &Wildlife City of Kirkland 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. 123 5th Avenue Mill Creek, WA 98012 Kirkland, WA 98033-6189 Gene Stagner George Schneider US Fish & Wildlife Service Seattle Water Dept, Dexter Horton Bldg. 3704 Griffin Lane, SE • 710 Second Avenue, MS 15101 Olympia, WA 98501-2192 Seattle, WA 98104 • Gino Lucchetti Glenn Boettcher King County Surface.Water Mgmt City of Mercer Island 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2200 9611 SE 36th Street Seattle, WA 98104 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Glenn Boettcher Glenn Reynolds City of Mercer Island 55 Logan Avenue !q 9611 SE 36th Street Renton, WA 98055 Mercer Island, WA 98040 • 1- ( :.:.-..;Storwick & John Giuliani • Greg & Deborah Devereaux i=_?: -i3ox 78327 909 North 1st Street ' Seattle, WA 98178 ---Renton, WA.. 98055 H. Paul Friesema 1Hadi Fakharzadeh Northwestern Univ., Center for Urban Affairs 11226 Auburn Avenue, S. -2040 Sheridan Road Seattle, WA 98178 I • Evanston, IL 60208-4100 ,ThHighline Times Holly Coccolli 1ATTN: News Editor . 1 Muckleshoot Fisheries Dept. P.OL Box 518 39015 SE 172nd Avenue Burien, WA 98166 Auburn, WA 98002 Hon1orable Gary Locke Housing Authority ;OffiTe of the Governor City of Renton - Leg'slative Building, AS-13 . . 1 200 Mill Avenue, S., City Hall Olympia, WA 98504 Renton, WA 98055 Jaek Davis James &Theresa Zimmerman King County Conservation District 813 North 1st Street '; 935 Powell Avenue, SW - Renton, WA 98055 1iRenton, WA 98055 1James Kirkman Jean Shabro - 1002 North 35th Ido Nancy Oertel Renton, WA 98055 1418 El Nido Way Sacramento, CA 95864 I', 1 Jean White John A. & Carol M. Veness : . King County Land & Water Mgmt. 36 Logan Avenue, S. 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2200 .. - .. —Renton, WA.98055 .. Seattle, WA 98104 John Burkhalter John Gould 803 North 1st Street 806 N 2nd Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 John Hargrove John Lombard 105 Wells Avenue, N. King County Surface Water Mgmt.. Renton, WA 98055 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104 John Malek John Sparrow US Environmental Protection Agency 908 N Riverside Drive 1200 6th Avenue, WD-128 . Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101-3188 Jonathan Frodge Joseph Marchetti King County METRO 801 North 2nd Street 821 2nd Avenue, MS-81 • Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98104 Josephine Morrison Journal-American 112 Wells Avenue, N. ATTN: News Editor Renton, WA 98055 P.O. Box 90130 Bellevue, WA 98009 • J : . . .)olen June Evans 1 . 2nd #C I 817 North 1st Street Renton, WA 98055 - . . -.Renton,.WA .98055. ... . :athy Minsch Kenneth King Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 350 Sunset Blvd., N -).0. Box 40900, MS PV-15 Renton, WA 98055 )lympia, WA 98504-0900 'Kenneth Shellan Kevin & Eugenia Beckstrom i91 N Patencio Road 206 Wells Avenue, N. P Im Springs, CA 92262 Renton, WA 98055 Kevin & Kathy Bruce Kit Paulsen �21 North 1st Street Bellevue Utilities Department nton, WA 98055 • P.O. Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 :Curt Fresh Larry Fisher V_ IA Dept of Fish & Wildlife WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife -` 3.0. Box 43149 22516 SE 64th Place, Bldg. E, Suite 240 ympia, WA 98504 Issaquah, WA 98027 6. avina Kessler Lee York 0 Pelly Avenue, N. 2200 Aberdeen Avenue, NE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Leonard Leathley, Jr. Louis Peretti 809 N 2nd Street 1102 Bronson Way A..j Renton, WA 98055 - . ..Renton,.WA 98055 Lynn Childers Marion Lauck US Fish & Wildlife Service 904 North 1st Street. 3704 Griffin Lane, SE Renton, WA 98055 Olympia, WA 98501-2192 Marjorie Bellando Mary Ann Leggitt P.O. Box 70217 375 Union Avenue, SE, #115 Bellevue, WA 98007 Renton; WA 98059 Mary Barrett Mary Moroni WA Dept of Natural Resources 202 Burnett Avenue, N. P.O. Box 47027 Renton, WA 98055 Olympia, WA 98504-7027 Mary Patricia Ryan McLendon Hardware, Inc. P.O. Box 336 710 2nd Avenue Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055 , • Mehdi Nakhjiri Mike Linnel Boeing Commercial Airplane Group U.S. Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 3707, MS 63-01 720 O'Leary Street, NW Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Olympia, WA 98502 f 1 l � I rshoot Indian Tribe Nancy Davidson Council ! Seattle Water Department 9015 172nd Avenue, SE . _ . . __710.Second Ave., MS 15101 . . Auburn, WA 98002 Seattle, WA 98104 deal Jensen Norman & Marian Schultz P.O. Box 353 7634 Sunnycrest Road Tentn, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98178 - 'forth American Refractories Paul Szewczykowski 300 Halle Building I 26226 187th Place, SE 1228 Euclid Avenue Kent, WA 98042 Cleveland, OH 44115 Peter Soverel Peter& Nancy Forras -ederation of Fly Fishermen 2030 Rolling Hills Avenue, SE 116430 72nd Avenue, W. • Renton, WA 98055 Edmonds, WA 98026-4908 1 ?roteam Marketing Puget Sound Power & Light Co. 514 Auburn Way, N. Property Tax Dept. \uburn, WA 98002 P.O. Box 90868 Bellevue; WA 98009 ]alph Storey Rand Little • at 012 N Riverside Drive Seattle Water Department Renton, WA 98055 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 CtJ I Randall Reeves Randy Aliment 7050 150th Avenue, NE 310 Renton Avenue, S Redmond, WA 98052 - - ---Renton, WA 98055 - - '``� Raymond Barry Regional Director 1625 Jones Drive, SE NOAA Renton, WA 98055 7600 Sand Point Way, NE Seattle, WA 98115 Ren Four, Inc. Rena McMillan P.O. Box 59 121 Wells Avenue, N. Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renato & Paz Santos Renton Local 1797 1815 Lake Youngs Way, SE Brotherhood Carpenters & Joiners Renton, WA 98058 • 231 Burnett N. Renton, WA 98055 Renton School District 403 Representative Dawn Mason 435 Main Avenue, S. 324 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. Renton, WA 98055 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Representative Eileen Cody Representative Ida BallasiatesY< 304 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. 431 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 ntative Jack Cairnes Representative Jennifer Dunn L. O'Brien Office Bldg. 50 116th Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-0600 . -.. -. Bellevue, WA 98004 -Representative Kip Tokuda Representative Suzette Cooke 3 3 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. 429 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. —.Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 epresentative Velma Veloria Richard & Daphne Storwick ..303 John L. O'Brien Office Bldg. P.O. Box 78327 Olympia, WA 98504-0600 Seattle, WA 98178 oeert & Geraldine Hyler Roger Davis 127 Pelly Avenue, N. P.O. Box 452 Renton, WA 98055 • Renton, WA 98055 . RogerI = Tabor Ronald & Colleen Nelson yS Fish & Wildlife Service, FRO 17221 163rd Place, SE 625 Parkmont Lane, SW, Bldg B Renton, WA 98058 _'- biympia, WA 98502 gRonald & Jacqueline Forte Ruby Heitman P.O. Box 816 50 Logan Avenue, S. Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055 „ 1 � I �Y Z. III I . Rudolph & Beverly Starkovich . Russell E. Storwick 810 N Riverside Drive P.O. Box 1083 Renton, WA 98055 . . - - -- Renton,WA .98057 S.L. Routley Sally Abella 918 Riverside Drive University of Washington Renton, WA 98055 Dept of Zoology, NJ-15 Seattle, WA 98195 Sally Fisher Sarah Humphries 854 Redmond Avenue, NE Northwest Rivers Council Renton, WA 98056 1731 Westlake Avenue, N, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98109-3043 Seattle Shorelines Coalition Seattle Times ATTN: Chairperson ATTN: News Editor 4207 Bagley Avenue, N. P.O. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98103 Seattle, WA 98111 Senator Patty Murray Simon & Hanna Young Jackson Federal Office Bldg 6531 83rd Place, SE , - 915 2nd Avenue Mercer Island, WA 98040 ,,, Seattle, WA 98174 Slade Gorton Slapshot, Inc. United States Senator 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600 10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2110 Seattle, WA 98104 Bellevue, WA 98004-5841 • 1 i G:. & Karen Sorenson State Senator Jim Horn Ci <,;.1orth 1st Street 407 Legislative Office Bldg. R nton, WA 98055 - -- Olympia; WA 98504-0460 State Senator Margarita Prentice State Senator Stephen Johnson 419 John Cherberg Office Bldg. 401C Legislative Office Bldg. ` -C ympia, WA 98504-0482 Olympia, WA 98504-0460 Tennessee Group Tennessee Group 7110 S. Second Street 11316 85th Avenue, S. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Terrence Callahan The Boeing Company 2110 Burnett Avenue, N. P.O Box 3707, MS LF-09 -Renton, WA 98055 • Seattle, WA 98124 Thomas Barr & Sophie McHardie Tim Goon 802 High Avenue, S. King County METRO • Renton, WA 98055 821 Second Avenue, MS-120 Seattle, WA 98104 om Luster Tom Sibley A Dept of Ecology University of Washington r-,fr.O. Box 47703 School of Fisheries, WH-10 ;Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Seattle, WA 98195 U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Dept of Commerce Natural Resources Conservation Service NMFS, Environmental Technical Services 6128 Capitol Blvd., S. _525 NE Oregon, Suite 500 ; `"` Olympia, WA 98501-5271 Portland, OR 97232 U.S. Dept of Commerce/NOAA U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development Regional Director Community Development & Planning 7600 Sand Point Way, NE 1st Ave, Suite 200, MS 10C 909 Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle, WA 98104 U.S. Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs US Dept of the Interior ATTN: Fish Officer Bureau of Land Mgmt., State Director 3006 Colby Avenue P.O. Box 2965 Everett, WA 98201 Portland, OR 97208 i W.E. Bennett WA Dept of Commercial Development City of Renton Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation . 200 Mill Avenue, S. • P.O. Box 48343 Renton, WA 98055 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 i WA Dept of Ecology Walter Austin & R. McCrimmon Sediment Management 2588 Pacific Hwy, E. P.O. Box 47703 Tacoma, WA 98424 Lacey, WA 98503 Warin Gross Wesley,& Lori Holman v ;. 829 North 1st Street 129 Wells Avenue, N. g Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 t: .;; Repp William & Diana Kodad :1 ; o SE 235th Place 19212 SE May Valley Road Cent, WA 98031 -. . .-.Issaquah, WA 98027. Wiliam D. Allingham Wyman Dobson P.O. Box 48117 821 North 1st Street -Seal tle, WA 98148 Renton, WA 98055 try AGENDA `�-' PUBLIC WORKSHOP CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • 6:30 PM Sign-In 6:45 PM Introduction, Purpose of Workshop 6:55 PM City of Renton Intro, Need for Study 7:00 PM Review of'Draft EIS Format Alternatives Evaluated Impacts Identified Mitigation Proposed 7:45 - 8:30 PM Question and Answers, Comment Period • • • C± !S 0 CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY PUBLIC MEETING APRIL 29, 1997 SIGN-IN SHEET . , ME n ADDRESS ovt Rd el •,/JOJ AIA-kw.)IR ) P 130< 31t1 p *, Gf 1Z K vt, 4lJ2d 1/179;.s /azso acer 62. a.;,dr;o5P f/co no • 3 / pla4.> 14_1-6,, fip ‘1/5424 1/1:2N 45:k kenh:1 97am, , e30-6c4G e 3 5Ags.e-fe r AvE .FeOkeoivo 910C --0 • ro7 3 ( ‘) /604,/,( • \\ -160 2./AX r•>1v,)r, CeTA.. el SI1CM ORC301<5 2917 5 r3t sr' scAME- WA F7Z DkVI 4 1 ‹u le,I I)it AI' Al S4m f--1' pkaw• r-K 17pt) H-qci 56/‘73 • : CA Tell-4 ,-; • I • -7 1 • 771 CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY PUBLIC. MEETING . APRIL 29, 1997 SIGN-IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS Dav san 2z 1 !,); /I;0_0, a vIll frrets,p,,w pNil L 0 L Ic N l7Gt�uJc��TL�tf� it� �ar�I-P Il),cl !`"--� j ke Umel( ,'720 D"Leary S7L Any. (,04 9dco2 Nl K K. y Ovnk3 quo 0'4E71.4 S/- nlW C .4,v. ,d..S. L. Fa . ox 3-7 7 /rc 63-olu- fr Yr12¢- 4 1,(A ti 1 S&Lhr\I AJ Lk . 61�-�- • • r 4/30/97 MFR: Cedar River Section 205 Study,Public Meeting on Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS), 4/29/97 L A public meeting was held as art of the EIS process the evening of 29 April 1997 at the Renton Community Center,Renton,WA. Merri Martz,ERS,presided over the meeting. Also attending were Linda Smith, CP and Ron Straka and Ross Hathaway from the City of Renton. An agenda,sign in list,and copies of overheads are enclosed (enclosures). The 45 day public comment period for the DEIS ends 9 May 1997. 2. Following a presentation by Merri of the alternatives evaluated for the project,the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation,the meeting was opened for public comment and questions. The comments are summarized as follows: a) Delta. There were a number of questions concerning whether the delta on the Cedar affected flooding, and whether it should be dredged to reduce the number of birds in the area,a potential flight hazard for the Renton airport. We explained that our hydraulic analysis indicates for the preferred alternative,minimal dredging (4'),the delta does not impact flooding,land delta dredging cannot be justified with our flood control study. Under Section 205 authority we cannot dredge for aviation related purposes. Renton dredged the delta in 1993. The delta refilled within one-two years. • Immediately after dredging,a bird study commissioned by Renton indicated that the birds merely moved to the river, park and airport tarmac. We did discuss plantings for mitigation along the right bank of the channel, and how we are designing these to discourage the presence of geese and gulls,two species of concern for bird strikes. We will coordinate further with the Department of Agriculture on this issue (they have bird hazard experts). b) Dredging. Several citizens testified to the rapid fill rate in the channel area,based on their observations of the refill rate when Renton previously dredged to 8-10 feet in the study area (occurred until 1980's). There was some concern whether our project could handle the rapid sedimentation in the area. We responded that our { sedimentation studies show that if the channel is regularly maintained every 3-10 years (based on observed refill rates and actual hydraulic/hydrologic conditions) the project will provide at least 100 year flood protection in the project area; in combination with our proposed levee system and modifications to the south Boeing bridge. c) Erosion. Questions were raised whether the current erosion/deposition rate in the basin is worse than it was prior to the 1980s. The historical data for sedimentation in the Cedar is anecdotal and there,are no records of what quantities of material was removed from the channel and delta. Early development and logging likely caused !_ erosion, but at the same time they Cedar was being mined (by Stoneway) for gravel near the project area. The Cedar Basin Plan is attempting to limit increased erosion ! from development in the future, but it is anticipated that erosion will continue to be a 1 problem. The Cedar is in a narrow, steep valley, and does not have the ability to drop much of its bedload until it reaches the artificial channel in the study area. Overall, parts of the upper Cedar may actually be gravel starved. '? d) Disposal of Dredged Materials. Several citizens wondered if the dredged gravels can be sold. We responded that Renton has a storage site available near the project (Narco site)where gravels can be stockpiled temporarily. Renton noted they plan to • either sell the material and/or use it for public projects (i.e. park development). e) Chester Morse Dam. Seattle was complemented by attendees for its ability to reduce flooding impacts since 1990 with their operation of Chester Morse Dam. John Lombard,King County,noted that the County,Renton, and Seattle have jointly sponsored a study to evaluate modifications in the operation of the dam to improve flood control in the future. 3. Additional copies of the DEIS and Draft Detailed Project Report were provided to interested attendees. Comments from the meeting will be addressed in the FEIS. Linda Smith Ends (as) cc w/encls. Smith CP Martz ERS ' ED-PL File • • y i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY e / �.M SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS w y P.O. BOX 3755 4A SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 3 f0 tf'e REPLY TO 17 STATES Uf' ATTENTION OF CENWS-EN-PL • Mr. Ron Straka • Renton Public Works Municipal Bldg., 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 {fcA Dear r. Straka: You and the partnership we have developed are important to us. As a customer, you deserve quality products and services in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. You also can provide a unique perspective on how well your needs are being met. - working to The Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is continually w g improve its services, and would appreciate your taking a few moments to fill out the enclosed Customer Satisfaction Survey for our Civil Works Programs. Please return the survey to us by July 30, 1997. A pre-stamped envelope is provided, or you may FAX your completed survey form to our office at(206) 764-6715, ATTN: Phyllis Nicholas. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (206) 764-3600. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. All responses will be analyzed and used by us to improve our services and products to you. We want to assure that in the future we continue to be your District of choice. Sincerely, • J. Steven Foster,P.E. Chief,Planning Branch ru ', Approved, OMB No. 0710-0010 Expires: 12/31/97 � I ' Public reporting burden for this collection of information Is estimated to average 15 minutes per response,including time for reviewing instructions,searching e lsting data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this •urden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,Including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, 4reciorate of Information Operations and Reports,1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,Suite 1204,Arlington,VA 22202-4302,and to the Office of Management and Budget,Paperwork Reduction Project(0710-0010),Washington,DC.20503. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO EITHER OF THESE 1 ADDRESSES. RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE FROM WHOM YOU RECEVED IT. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Civil Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers We at the Seattle District are committed tol improving service to our customers and would like to know how well we have been doing. Please rate your Level of Satisfaction with our performance over the past year for activities in the primary service area noted;below. Please mark Not Applicable(N/A)for any questions that do not apply to your organization. Your straightforward answers will help us to identify the areas needing improvement. For assistance of any type; please call Phyllis Nicholas, (206)764-3659; FAX number(206) 764-6715. Thank you for your time and comments. Primary Service Area: Water Resource Projects and Flood Control (i.e.—Navigation, Flood Damage Mitigation,Shore Damage Reduction, Environmental Restoration/Enhancement,etc.) Phase of Project: General Coordination.and Feasibility/Construction (i.e.—Reconnaissance/Feasibility, Preconstruction Engineering and Design, Construction,Operations,etc.) Please mark your LEVEL of Satisfaction. The Seattle District: Satisfaction Low. High N/A • 1. Seeks Your Requirements, Priorities, and Expectations and Incorporates Them 1 2 3 5 N/A Into Our Service 2. Manages Your Projects/Programs Effectively 1 ( 3 4 5 N/A 3. Treats You as an Important Member of the Team 1 2 3 a 5 N/A 4. Solicits, Listens to, and Resolves Your Concerns 1 2 3 i 5 N/A 5. Provides Timely Services • 1 3 4 5 N/A 6. Delivers Quality Products and Services 1 2 (3) 4 5 N/A 7. Delivers Products and Services at Reasonable Cost 1 2 3 0 5 N/A 8. Displays Flexibility in Responding to Your Needs 1 2 0) 4 5 . N/A 9. Keeps You Informed • 1 2 3 5 N/A 10. Would Be Your Choice for Future Projects/Services 1 2 (3) 4 5 N/A 11. Your OVERALL Level of Customer Satisfaction. 1 2 3 0 5 N/A PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY'ON THE NEXT PAGE BY GIVING US ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW WE CAN IMPROVE. NOTE: Data from this questionnaire will be used by the District to improve Service.. Also,the information will be tabulated by Service Area for National Statistical purposes. Respondents will not be identified by name or organization in the USACE statistical reports. 4 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY (continued) USACE - Civil Works Page 2 Questions Continued Please mark your choice:. :; Satisfaction ? 7 The Seattle District: Low , • High N/k '+ 12. Regards you as a rightful partnership member. 1 2 3 4 NU; 13. Treats you fairly and respectfully. 1 2 3 0 5 NIP � I COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS: • I I • • • INFORMATION ABOUT YOU: Project/Program Name: ec 7a,y D y.d -4 f't 2 FI stCaunz . ?,t4)t.c-t PEL Ron Straka, Renton Public Works `}S t b` it ki Your Name and Title: Your Office Telephone No.: ( ) 271- SS -u Would you like us to contact you? Yes No Please fold this form and drop it in the mail using the pre-stamped envelope, or FAX it to(206)764-6715,Attn: Phyllis; Nicholas. Thanks. USACE Customer Survey,ATTN: Phyllis Nicholas Seattle District(CENWS-RM) S P.O. Box 3755 Seattle,WA, 98124-3755 • ti- • We would like to strongly commend the efforts and professionalism of Linda Smith, Seattle District project manager for the Cedar River 205 project, as well as her entire project team. The following are a few recommendations to further improve the process; many of these are Corps' policy issues beyond the Seattle Branch's control: 1. Eliminate H.Q. review process if possible. 2. Base the entire review process decision tree on initial cost estimates and design. This would serve to better keep the tasks on-schedule, and allow for much more accurate planning for funding and staffing. Keeping the projects funded and on schedule is paramount. 3. Regular project team meetings, including the Local Sponsor, with very abbreviated project updates, schedule checks, and problem identification/action items. 4. An overseer to the team at the team meetings who has been through the 205 process several times before and has decision authority for agenda items. 5. A clear check list and decision tree of all 205 project requirements, estimated time/critical paths and examples of the required products. The Corps process is too complex for their own staff to understand. 6. The project manager needs more control over/involvement with all members of the Corps team, particularly the financial planning people. Continued motivation and positive perspective helps ' keep members working towards the goal and allows them to not worry about their egos and get the job done. 7. Increased funding commitments and flexibility to retroactively pay for a portion of non-pre- approved tasks. 8. More Local Sponsor control, particularly as a team member and in longer periods to provide and review products. It is inevitable that a sense of loss of control occurs when ever the Federal Government steps in. More Local Sponsor input is always helpful at minimizing this. 9. When the ACOE signs an agreement to work on a project for a local sponsor, the required ACOE staff resources need to be assigned and guaranteed to work on the project to keep the project on the agreed upon schedule. : H:DOCS:97-631:RDH:ps bi