HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 23.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
This section of the DE IS describes the existing environmental health-related conditions on the
Quendall Terminals site and provides a summary of the site remediation and cleanup process.
Potential environmental health-related impacts associated with redevelopment .under theEIS
alternatives and mitigation measures to address potential impacts are identified. This section is
based on the Hazardous Substances section of the Technical Report: Geology, Groundwater,
and Soils (November 2010) prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (see Appendix D to
this DE IS).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Site History
In 1916, early homesteaders sold the Quendall Terminals Main Property to Peter Reilly, who
began the operation of Republic Creosoting in 1917. The property was used for creosote
manufacturing for more than 50 years, until 1969. Operations on the property primarily included
the distillation of coal and oil-gas tar residues (coal tar) that were obtained from local coal
gasification plants. Tar feedstock was typically transported to the facility onsite from Lake Union
and unloaded from tankers or barges at a t-dock that extended out into Lake Washington or at a
shorter, near-shore pier. The feed stock was unloaded into two two-million gallon, above-ground
storage tanks. Above-ground pipes transferred the feedstock from the tanks to the
manufacturing facilities. Once distilled, several fractions were stored in tanks (light distillates
and creosote) or below-grade pitch bays (heavy distillates) prior to being transported offsite for
various uses. Light distillates were used for chemical manufacturing feedstock, middle distillates
(creosote) were used for wood preservation and heavy (bottom) distillates (pitch) were used for
applications such as roofing tar. At the peak of its productivity, the Republic Creosoting facility
produced approximately 500,000 gallons of tar per month. Wastes produced by the
manufacturing processes were disposed of onsite; solid wastes were placed near the shoreline
and liquid wastes were discharged to two sumps. In addition to site-produced wastes, foundry
slag from PACCAR was reportedly used as fill at the site.
In 1971, Quendall Terminals purchased the site and leased the above-ground tanks that
remained from the creosote facility for the storage of waste oil, diesel, and lard. From 1975 until
2009, Quendall Terminals used the Main Property for log storage and sorting.
The Quendall Terminals Isolated Property is comprised of existing trees and vegetation
associated with two wetlands. There have been no historic industrial uses on the Isolated
Property site and no associated site contamination or hazardous substance issues.
Both the Quendall Terminals Main Property and Isolated Property are currently vacant and
essentially unused.
Site Remediation and Cleanup Process
As stated above, from about 1916 to 2008, various industrial activities, including creosote
manufacturing, petroleum product storage, and log sorting/storage, have occurred on the
Quendall Terminals Main Property, and have resulted in the release of various contaminants to
the soil and groundwater at the property. From the 1980s through 2005, the Washington State
Quendall Terminals Draft E/S
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 00}2695-O00004
3.3-1 Environmental Health
Department of Ecology (Ecology) provided oversight for the remediation/cleanup of the site
under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). Under Ecology's guidance, a Remedial
Investigation report was completed in 1997 and a draft Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study was
completed in 2004.
In 2005, Ecology requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
assume responsibility for directing and overseeing the remediation of the Quendall Terminals
Main Property and the property was subsequently added to EPA's Superfund National Priorities
List (NPL) in 2006. In September 2006, the property owners (Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter
and Company) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA that required
them to complete a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS). The RI/FS is intended
to comprehensively evaluate environmental conditions at the site and review various
remediation options from which EPA will chose a preferred cleanup remedy; a final cleanup
remedy will be selected following a public comment period. Remediation activities will be
conducted as part of a separate action and are not a part of the AOC requirements or the
environmental review for the proposed Quendall Terminals redevelopment.
The property owners and EPA are currently completing a draft RI and risk assessment report,
and are in the process of preparing a draft FS report. It is anticipated that the Proposed Plan
proposing a cleanup approach will be provided for public review and comment in spring 2013. A
summary of the preliminary draft RI and an outline of the FS process is provided below. The site
will undergo cleanup/remediation under its status as a superfund site by EPA, pursuant to the
final cleanup plans defined by EPA. Following public comment, EPA is expected to select the
final site remedy that will be documented in the Record of Decision in fall 2014.
Preliminary Draft Remedial Investigation (RI) Results
The draft RI report for the Quendall Terminals Main Property will include a summary of the
history of the property and past industrial activities; a summary of past site characterization
data; identification of data gaps; identification of contaminants of interest; and, documentation of
the extent of contamination in all the media (soil, groundwater and sediment). The preliminary
draft RI report available at the time this DEIS was prepared identifies hazardous chemicals
associated with past site use that could potentially pose a risk to human health and the
environment. Chemicals of potential concern are listed in Table 2 of Appendix D and include
arsenic, benzene and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), among others.
Extent of Contamination
Most of the contamination that is present on the Quendall Terminals Main Property is isolated
and contained within the property. Contamination on the Main Property consists of chemicals of
potential concern that are adhered to soil particles, dissolved into water or concentrated as
dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the subsurface. The DNAPL represents actual
liquid product that has leaked into the ground. Since DNAPL has a higher density than water, it
will tend to sink below the water table to accumulate in the higher permeability portions of the
subsurface soils (see Figure 11 in Appendix D for the approximate locations of DNAPL in the
subsurface of the site).
Large areas of soil contamination are located on the east side of the Main Property, near the
former manufacturing facility and railroad auxiliary track, and at the east end of the former T-
dock pier. Along the southern and eastern boundaries of the property, fill soils range from about
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft E/S
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 0032695.{)00004
3.3-2 Environmental Health
1 to 2 feet thick, while in other areas the fill is more than 10 feet thick (see Figures 12 and 13 in
Appendix D for the approximate extent of soil contamination).
Groundwater contamination in the Shallow Aquifer beneath the site underlies a majority of the
Quendall Terminals Main Property. Contamination in the Deep Aquifer mostly occurs under the
western portion of the Main Property, generally centered along the shoreline of Lake
Washington (see Figures 14 and 15 in Appendix D for the approximate extent of groundwater
contamination).
Sediment contamination is generally centered around the former T -dock pier and west east of
the Quendall Terminals Main Property boundary (see Figures 16 and 17 in Appendix D for the
approximate extent of contamination in the sediments underlying Lake Washington).
Feasibility Study (FS) Process
The purpose of the FS is to evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives and select a preferred
remediation alternative for the Quendall Terminals site. Various remedial alternatives have been
evaluated as part of the Draft Focused FS conducted under Ecology's oversight, and these
evaluations will be updated and modified as appropriate to address EPA's requirements for a
cleanup at the Quendall site. EPA's preferred remediation alternative will consist of actions
such that the post-cleanup conditions at Quendall will be protective of human health and the
environment in addition to satisfying all pertinent health and environmental regulations. The
preferred remediation alternative will be documented in the Quendall Record of Decision (ROD)
following a public comment period.
Development of Quendall Pre-ROD DEIS Baseline
This DEIS assumes an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup (that is, the condition
of the site after cleanup has been accomplished). The baseline condition for this DEIS was
developed considering potential cleanup actions, any necessary wetland mitigation as needed
to compensate for environmental impacts resulting from those cleanup actions (based on the
1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of the DE IS) and shoreline
restoration associated with any potential settlement to address alleged natural resource
damage. The cleanup for Quendall will not be determined until the ROD is issued and,
accordingly, the specifications for wetland mitigation cannot be finalized until the ROD has been
approved specifying the requirements for cleanup. Also, for Quendall, potential settlement of
any alleged natural resource damages would probably occur after the ROD has been issued.
Even though EPA has not selected the final remedy, the Agency was consulted in developing
this baseline condition, which will be used solely for evaluation of potential impacts associated
with redevelopment. In the event the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA in the ROD is
significantly different from the assumptions described in this EIS, the City will determine whether
such changes warrant submittal of a supplemental EIS or other documentation. Moreover, the
Applicant will be required to comply with any requirements that may be imposed by EPA as a
part of cleanup, even if those requirements are not articulated in this EIS.
The following remediation and restoration elements form the baseline condition for purposes of
this DE IS:
• Clean surface soil will be present when the remedy is complete. Areas of the site that
require remediation will be remediated. Potential remedial actions include but are not
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 0032695-000004
3.3-3 Environmental Health
limited to soil removal and replacement with clean fill and capping. Overall, the resulting
remediation will be protective of human health and the environment in addition to
satisfying all pertinent health and environmental regulations.
• Existing on-site wetlands will be filled and a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be
implemented, including re-establishing and expanding wetlands, and
recreating/enhancing riparian habitat for mitigation and/or as part of a potential natural
resource damages settlement as described in more detail in Section 3.2. While the
specific shoreline plan will not be finalized until the ROD and/or a potential natural
resource damages settlement, this EIS assumes a post-remediation condition that would
allow the greatest area for redevelopment based on 1983 Renton Shoreline
Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS. As part of the remedy, EPA may
require additional mitigation that will reduce the site area available for redevelopment
and if this results in baseline conditions significantly different than those assumed in this
EIS, the City will determine whether the difference would warrant submittal of a
supplemental EIS or other documentation as appropriate.
• Implementation of institutional controls to prevent alteration of any of the caps or
other components of the EPA remedy and wetland and habitat restoration during
redevelopment without prior EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site
groundwater for any purpose. For example, in areas that are capped, institutional
controls may prevent digging without prior EPA approval.
• Implementation of an Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) that
would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility
installations or other site disturbances are proposed after implementation of the final
remedial action.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
OWT 18418592v3 0032695·000004
3.3-4 En vironmental Health
Impacts
Redevelopment under Altematives 1 and 2 would include mixed-use development with a variety
of densities and building heights; however, construction activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 are
anticipated to be similar and would require a similar amount of grading and cut/fill as part of
redevelopment. Therefore, it is anticipated that potential environmental health-related impacts
associated with redevelopment would be similar under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternatives 1 and 2
Prior to redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Quendall Terminals Main Property will
undergo cleanup and remediation under the oversight of the EPA, as described in the previous
section. The primary elements of this cleanup/remediation assumed in this EIS are listed
above. It is assumed that the surface of the Main Property will be covered with clean soil or
other capping material, which will prevent exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater that
pose a risk to humans and the environment during and following construction. Redevelopment
of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted
consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA,
and with any associated institutional controls.
The majority of the upland portion of the Main Property, outside of the shoreline setback area,
would be developed with new buildings and paved areas under Alternatives 1 and 2. Due to the
soft and loose nature of the existing subsurface soils, construction of these features could result
in settlement of the site as a result of the potential loads imposed by foundations, utilities and
traffic (see Section 3.1, Earth, and Appendix 0 for details). It is assumed that Alternatives 1
and 2 would not include any below-grade excavations for parking or basements if some
contamination is left in place; however, it is likely that the construction of new buildings onsite
would require deep foundation supports (such as piles) due to the nature of existing soils on the
site. The construction of deep foundations for each building could generate contaminated soil or
groundwater to which workers would be exposed. As necessary, personal protection equipment
for workers would be used and special handling and disposal measures followed during
construction activities to prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances, and no
significant impacts would be anticipated. Personal protection measures and special training
could also be provided for City of Renton staff that provides inspection during construction and
maintenance following construction in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils
or groundwater. Alternatively, buried utilities and public roads serving the site could be placed
in clean fill material. The clean fill material should be of sufficient width and depth (3 to 4 feet
below the invert of the utility) to allow for maintenance of utilities without human exposure to
contaminated soils. In order to prevent future contamination of clean fill material a barrier to
prevent recontamination of the fill material could be provided.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the main utility corridors for the proposed development could be
installed during the proposed remedial action onsite. Additional utility excavations could also be
required to connect specific buildings to the main utility corridor with redevelopment. Additional
excavations during redevelopment could generate contaminated soil or groundwater that would
require additional personal protection measures for workers and special handling and disposal
measures.
In addition to potential impacts from utility and deep foundation excavations, there is also the
potential for volatile contaminants in the subsurface to generate vapors that could intrude into
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 0032695-000004
3.3-5 Environmental Health
utility trenches and above-grade structures if some contamination is left in place beneath the
site. If not addressed by the development design, these vapors could pose a potential risk to
human health. Separation of living/working areas from the contaminants by some type of cap
and under-building garage, as well as implementation of potential institutional control measures
would ensure that future building inhabitants would not be exposed to unacceptable vapors
accumulating within buildings or utility corridors from contaminated soils and groundwater, and
no significant impacts would be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no redevelopment and its potential environmental health-
related impacts would occur on the Quendall Terminals site at this time. However, a Shoreline
Restoration Plan will be implemented in conjunction with site cleanup/remediation and/or to
resolve potential natural resource damages claims. These remediation features would prevent
direct contact with contaminants at the ground surface, and address the potential for
contaminants to enter Lake Washington via groundwater.
3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process,
and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy
selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that
unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater or vapors would not occur.
• Institutional controls would be followed and would likely include prohibitions on any
alteration of the remedial elements without EPA approval and on the use of on-site
groundwater for any purpose.
• An Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the
excavation of soils, installation of utilities or other Site disturbances without prior EPA
approval.
• As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent
contact with hazardous materials and substances.
• Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater
contaminants by under-building above ground garages; institutional controls would also
be implemented to prevent exposure of residents/employees to unacceptable vapors
and/or other contaminated materials.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 0032695-000004
3.3-6 Environmental Health
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the
planned remedial action so that disturbance of the remedial elements (e.g., caps) and
underlying contaminated sOils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to the
remedial action.
• Personal protection measures and special training should be provided for City of Renton
staff that provides inspection during construction and maintenance following construction
in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater.
• Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development should be placed in clean
fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet
below the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent
recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination
and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines.
3.3.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts would be anticipated.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18418592v3 0032695-000004
3.3-7 Environmental Health
WETLAND ASSESSMENT, STANDARD LAKE
STUDY, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND
CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN /1
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Prepared for
Altino Properties, Inc.
and J.H. Baxter & Company
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
1423 Third Avenue720 Olive Way. Suite d001900
Seattle, Washington 98101
Ne't'ember aOOg
July 2011
{)lrElqllM~?I)IW69:;,f}f}I)f!!!1DOCPRQPEJ?TYPocX1)or;IP.PMS4!1telJYovenIManilge.FOI711at~~<LIB?>
«NYM»Y-;5VIJR?~«C:L.T»,«MIR».PRfSER.VELQc;ATfOlf.J.·MlfJ?(l1[EQRMAT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Review of Existing Information ...................................................................................... 2
2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... .4
2.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................... .4
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................. .5
2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types ........................................................................... 6
3 WETLAND DELINEATION .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods ........................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.4 Other Data Sources ................................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 Wetland Classifications ............................................................................................ 11
3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System ................................................................................. 12
3.1.7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ....................... 13
3.1.7.1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ........................................ 13
3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment ............................................................................... 16
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results ......................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.3 Wetland C ................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
~~D ................................................................................................................. W
Wetland E ................................................................................................................. 22
Wetland F ................................................................................................................. 23
Wetland G ................................................................................................................. 24
Wetland H ................................................................................................................ 26
Wetland I .................................................................................................................. 27
Wetland J .................................................................................................................. 28
Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, and Habitat Data Report NfWemeeT 2{){}9Jq1xlQJ1
Quendall Tenninals i 06()()59-OJ
f}iJ'TI£IIS6}LLflfWi9H)IJ!)!)fY
DQCfRQfERTY DocXDoc1D_DMS4nrerwovenlIl1anageJopI1at~~</"Ili':.>.«fVJ.!l11':>;v«yER>>
«(:LT»:«M7'R.».fRESF:R.J7F:L;.QC1.Tl.QN[·II1EflGEFQRMAT
3.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................. 29
3.3.1 USFWS Classification ............................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores ......................... 30
3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance ................................................... 33
3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary .................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Water Quality Functions ......................................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions ............................................................................................... 35
3.4.3 Habitat Functions ..................................................................................................... 36
3.5 Exempt Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 37
3.6 Constructed Stormwater Features ................................................................................. 37
3.6.1 Excavated Features from the 1970s ......................................................................... 37
3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006 ............................................. 38
3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status ................................................................................. 38
3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations .............................................................. 39
4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELINEATION AND LAKE STUDY ............................. .40
4.1 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods ....................................................... .40
4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results .......................................................... .41
4.3 Lake Study ..................................................................................................................... .41
4.3.1 Fish Species Presence ............................................................................................... 42
5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN ................................................................................... .43
5.1 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................. .43
5.2 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 44
5.3 Elements of the Plan ..................................................................................................... .45
5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat ........................................................................................... .45
5.3.2 Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................... .47
6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ .50
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals jj
f!l¥J:djI4i86lMd!il1J.2J~Oililil1
Hal emhe: 2{}{}9July2011
06()(}59-0l
OOCPR9PERT'L DocXDQcID DMS411te0'{CJveI1IJl,fal1age Fqilll/;t~<dl1]».«IYJ.JM>2v«VER>.> .
«CL1'>.c.,Sc/'rlTR>c' .. PRESERYELOCATlONJ'MERGEFQRMAT
List of Tables
Table I
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions ................................................................. 10
City of Renton Wetland Regulations ................................................................. 16
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water .............. 30
Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands
Rating System ....................................................................................................... 31
Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores ............................. 32
City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance ...................... 33
Riparian Buffer Plant List ................................................................................... 47
Wetland Plant List .............................................................................................. 49
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Vicinity Map
Project Site and Aerial Photo
Site Topography
Soil Series
NWI Mapped Wetlands
Vegetative Cover
Wetlands and OHWM Delineation Results
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
List of Appendices
Appendix A Plan View and Cross Sections of Wetlands A through H
Ordinary High Water Mark Flag Locations
Sample Plot Summary Data
Field Data Sheets
Ecology Wetland Rating Forms
Site Photographs
Appendix B
AppendixC
Appendix D
AppendixE
AppendixF
Appendix G
Appendix H
Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Qp.endall and Baxter Propetties
1990 Aerial Photograph
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals iii
J)W'F-I1!1d8'V' 1003269. 000001
A'el'efflbe:: 2{)@/uiy2011
060059-01
DOCPROPERTYPQc}(1JocIDDMs=JgrmvqyenJII1image [OI'JJlat;c«LJB:». «NUM»y«VEli»
</ .. (;LT»c«MTR»PRESER.VELQC&TIQj'>{J'MEl1CgfQf<M4T
Introduction
1 INTROQUC+IONintroduqion
lLnd~th~direCJj91LQLthe lJ~jted States JinvjIgnIDentalJ'rotection4~n_c:;y-LEP A.,Lth~
!2uendall Terminals ownersJMtino ProJlerties. r~ andJ.R Baxter & Cmnpany) are
concurrentlys~nd~ll£ting£.remedial investigation (RO andfeasibility study (FS}<i! tilt'
Ouendall Terminals Site (Site) in Renton, Washiru:ton.~ The work h beiqgconducted under an
AdministratiyeSettlement A,greement and Order on ConsenhJl,,-amended(A.Qc:»~thcEP A
under the Co l1l prehensive EnvironmentatResponse. Compens;ttion. and Liability,AcJ:
LCERCLA: i.e" "Superfu!J>il_ Detail~d infprm;ltion onexistinglake~and1.lplall(IcCLnditiom;
will beindudec:!inJ~UFS report. estil11a!e.c:!to be released by EPA in late -2013. CE.RCLA
Q~allll..D actiQ!!s along the shoreline :-vinwwtiallx, include remediatiQnofhazardolls
sllj)st~Ilcesin lake ~~imentsandLorinthe upland portions of the Site. as well as
impleI}1entation of the Shoreline Res.tOIs-tion Plan required as part of the cleanup! remediation
andLortoresplve potential natural r.=ce damages ("NRD") claiml!.
From April te JURe 2QQ9,This report was prepared to facilitate the redevelqp.ment process that
is underway at this time and is not intendt'9tOdreplacelheEPAINRD process. R~L Anchor
QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) performed wetland delineation, lake ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) delineation, and habitat assessments of the approximately 21-acre Quendall
Terminals Site (Site) iR RemeR, \VasfiiRgteR (Parcel No. 2924059002; Township 24 North,
Range 5 East, Section 29). to inform development of an Environmental h:np.a£tSta!ement
LEIS) for theSite. While specifications for shoreline mitigation and restorationwillnotbe
finalized until the RODandLpcllLPotentialNRD settlement. this report is intended to identify a
post-remediation condition reft'TrefLW.Jl.sa_baseline. Redevelopment iillRacts are assessedand
measured against the baselille that. exists precdevelopment. but post-cleanup.
For this report and the DEIS, a baseline can be assumed using environmentalmitigation ratiQ£,
lmffers and setbs-cksfrom the 1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Managementl'la!lJl.nd
£WJ2endix E ofJhe DEIS.Such a baseline. as presented in. this DEIS,wouldreflect the
maximum development foomrintoJimpact that could occur at Ouendall.
A similar analysis may be requiredasjJartOfthe EPALNRD process and may result in
delineations<lnc:!.ratings different than those included in this rep()rt .A.sP-'lrt of EPA's cleanup
decision, the Agency will require any:_w~.c.eS,Si!!}'cF~tland mitigation!shoreline restoration, as
determined j)y l?revailing environmental standards, as neededto COillRensate for
environmental impacts resultingfor cleanup-actions such as filling existing wetlands to
provide a clean soil surface at Ouendall.
Wetland and .ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 1
O}fIJ/i5M6EI ,'9QJ.1~9JfII!(I2Qi
Ne''emeeF2(}(}9Juiy2QU
060059-01
l2.Q(;,I'BOPER TrDQcXDos:ID IJA1S=lnteill'.oy,~n!MljlJag(!Eq!]11ar"C~.~LlB»_<;·,NUM»v~~V§B»
~~(;'LT,?,s<J)1.T&>.I'RESERVEL.oQ!TIQNl·MEBqE'f.oRA1AT
Introduction
These en'Lironmentalstandards l11 aychange in the future beca\l~e more strin,gent regulatoQi
standardscoulq be established. Futurelt is EPA'spo.sition thatfutureenvir(l}lill.entalstandarc!s
for environmental mitig,atiol1 /restoration may I!'es.ulti111arger llli!igation ratios, buffers and/or
setbacks resulting in larger gr higher ill!ality wetlands and shoreline restoration. Th~ result
would be a.sIIlan~J: redevelopment footprint/impact and the City may decide a new or
supplementalEISis n~tl1ec:essalY" Final wetland mitigationlshoreline restoration.
requirements will be established)n.EJ'A's Record of Decision for the Ouendall cleanu£
A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1, and a recent aerial photograph ofthe project area is
provided on Figure 2. The survey included an approximately l.IS-acre adjoining ponion on
the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 2).+hls As dis.£ussed above, this repon is
inteflded te surpertsuppons City of Renton (City) entitlement processing for Master Siteplan
Approval, Shoreline Substantial Development, Environmental Review, and a Binding
Siteplan, for the Quendall Terminals propeny. The redevelepmeRt preject anticipates
submittal ef a checklist with the inteRt of securiag a Mitigated DetermiRatieR ef
NeR SignificaRce (MDNS) uRder the State EHVireRmental Pelicy Act (SEPA). The proposed
project includes a mix of S-story residential units above two levels of above-grade parking and
at-grade surface street parking along with retaiVrestaurant space. The redevelopment project
anticipates entitlement of approximately 800 residential units, 260,000± square feet of office
space, and 30,000± square feet (sf) ofretaiVrestaurant space with associated parking.
URder the dircctieR ef the -United-States ERviroRmeRtal ProtectieR Ageflcy (EPA),--the
QueRdall TermiRals eV;'fleFS (AltiRe Properties, IRc., aRd J.H. Baxter & CempaHy}are
cORcurreRtly cenduc-tiHg a remedial iRvestigatieR (RI) ,IRd feasibility study (FS) at the Site.
The werk is BeiRg ceRducted uRder aR AdmiRistrative Settlement AgreemeRt and-Groo"ffil
CeRseRt, as ameRded (AGC), with EPf, uRder the CempreheflSive Ewtireflmental RespeRse,
CemreRsatiefl, aRd Liaaility Act (CERCLA; i.e., "SuperfuRd"). Detailed iRfermatieR eR
existiRg lake aRd uplaRd ceRditieRs vtill Be iRduded ifl-the-RI, afltieipated te Be eemrleted ifl
summer 20 HI. CERCLA e1eBHUfl actieRS BloRg the sherelifle vtilHikeIy iflclude remediatiefl ef
hB"ardeus sUBstafices ifllake sedimeflts 8f1E!,1er ifl the uplaRd pertieRs ef the Site.
While this repon was prepared in accordance with City criteria, as defined in the City of
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 (City of Renton 2009), some elements
required by the code will not be available until selection of a cleanup remedy for the Site by
EPA, which is currently anticipated in early 2011.2013. As required by CERCLA, all
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 2
Ne,",mocr 2(){)9juJylI211
060059-01
DWTI81l:£6.)2"I.f}(}!2e9J f)fJ(}(}(}{
DOCPROPERTYDocXI2()cJPl.JMS~lnter<yovenIManagr;/foJ:lllaf'C~,,<;lJB;>~_<;"NJJM2>v«T!ljR»
«CLT>.:".«MTR» PRESERVELOCATlON \" MERGEFORMAT
Introduction
substantive provisions of City regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy
selected by EPA.
Land use within the study area is currently zoned for commercial use and consists of
abandoned log storage facilities, modified dirt roads, and fragmented patches of forest and
shrub habitat. Ten wetlands (Wetlands A through J) were identified within the study area.
This report describes the methods used in the field investigation and Anchor QEA's findings.
A description of the study area is included in Section 2. Summaries of the findings of the
wetland delineation are included in Section 3. Summaries of the findings of the lake OHWM
delineation are included in Section 4. Drawings showing plan view and cross sections of each
wetland are provided in Appendix A. Flag locations from the OHWM survey are provided in
drawings in Appendix B. A summary of data collected at each sample plot during the wetland
delineation is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wetland rating forms are included in
Appendix E. Site photographs are provided in Appendix F. Previous wetland delineations
performed in 1997 are included in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum provided in
Appendix G. A 1990 aerial photograph of the site is provided in Appendix H.
1.1 Review of Existing Information
As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area, Anchor
QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field observations:
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009)
• Soil Survey of King County, Washington (USDA 1973)
• Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington (USDA 2001)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map Information (USFWS 2009)
• RMC (City of Renton 2009)
• Aerial photographs
• Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) Maps (WDFW 2009)
• WDFS Non-game Data System Special Animal Species, as identified in Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-011
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 3
fJWT 181}!!J#2 /(}j}]JI;f&I!!W!1!1
Nel """h"" 2{}{}9fuly2011
06(}()59-0l
aQr;:;PBOPERTYPflf2{[2Q£lPPN.SclIJ(ICrwoyeIJIMaIJagef'"911P.a£""ssLiB2 5.5NIfM?2x<<"VlfR>?
<"<"Q.I?>c«N.TB»FRJjSERVELQ(::4TIQNJ'MERGEFORMAT
Study Area Description
2 STUQY .t\REi.t\ QEiiCRIPTIONstudy area descripJiQn
The study area consists of one parcel with two parts. The larger portion is rectangular-shaped
and is approximately 20.08 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington. The smaller portion is
located just across Lake Washington Boulevard and is approximately 1.15 acres. The study
area is located in the City of Renton, King County Washington (Township 24 North, Range 5
East, Section 29; see Figures 1 and 2).
Shortly after the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 to construct the Lake Washington Ship
Canal, the Site, including newly exposed portions ofthe former May Creek delta, was
developed into a creosote manufacturing facility. Up until 1969, creosote was manufactured
on the Site by refining and processing coal tar and oil-gas tar residues. From 1969 to
approximately 1977, some ofthe aboveground tanks at the Site were used intermittently for
crude oil, waste oil, and diesel storage. From 1977 to 2008, the Site was used primarily for log
sorting and storage, with tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation associated with upland,
wetland, and riparian habitats. The Site is currently vacant. Aquatic lands adjacent to the'
facility managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were
historically leased for log rafting and vessel storage uses, but those leases terminated in the
1990s.
Immediately adjacent properties include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill
property) and Port Quendall CompanylFootball Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter
property). Lake Washington borders the western boundary of the study area. BNSF railroad
and Lake Washington Boulevard separate the two portions of the parcel, with Interstate 405
(I-405) located along the east side of the eastern portion. May Creek currently discharges into
Lake Washington approximately 400 yards south of the Site, just south of the Conner Homes
development. An aerial photograph of the study area shortly after redevelopment of the Port
Quendall CompanylFootball Northwest property, but prior to more recent redevelopment of
the Conner Homes property, is depicted on Figure 2.
2.1 Topography
Overall, the topography of the Site is relatively level with a gradual slope west down to Lake
Washington (Figure 3). Site topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
QuendaII Terminals 4
ftWTI1I4l86UIi ~Q1:W}§ 000001
Nel'emhe:2{}(}9/u/x.7QI1
060059-01
[JOCPROPERTYDocX])g.t;lD])l'.fS4n{~[l:VoveJJ.1M.JJ.i1geformat~s<LJB:>.:>._«~:>.v«VER»
<"i'9L.T:>.?,.c<.5!yfT&:>.PRESERVELOCAT1QN .I"MERGEEQBMAT
Study Area Description
and grading activities. Site elevations are based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988
(NA VD 88) and range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20
feet at the lake shore. The exposed Site soils are relatively fine-grained, which slows
infiltration during rainy periods causing ponding in many areas.
The Site has been heavily manipulated through the placement of fill, which is found across the
entire Site. Fill thickness ranges from 1 to 2 feet along the southern and eastern boundaries up
to 6 and 10 feet in northern portions. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt, sand, and gravel
with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log sorting operations are typical in the
upper few feet. Where creosote and pitch-like material has been encountered, it generally
occurred at depths greater than 2 feet below ground surface.
The surface of the Site is currently covered by either wood debris or by a 0.25-to I-foot-thick
layer of rock and organic muck generated from imported gravel and wood debris mixed
together by operation of log sorting equipment in wet areas. There is also a network of roads
at the Site that were previously used for log sorting and storage, resulting in relatively
compacted soil on much of the Site.
Additionally, several stormwater features have been constructed on the Site that appear to
have historically collected and conveyed much of the site's stormwater into Lake Washington.
During the rainy season, most runoff flows into storrnwater collection ponds on the west side
of the Site or a drainage ditch along the southern property boundary (Figure 3). Stormwater
also accumulates in low-lying areas. During field surveys it was apparent that these features
still function by conveying and storing seasonal stormwater. Several features were excavated,
constructed, or improved in 2006 to limit stormwater runoff into Lake Washington (Phoinix
2006). These areas have developed wetland characteristics supporting riparian tree species
like willows (Salixsp.) and black cottonwoods (Populus balsamifera).
2.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies two soil series in the location of the study
area: "Norma sandy loam (No)" and "Bellingham silt loam (Bh)." The Norma sandy loam series
is mapped within the majority of the study area, and the Bellingham silt loam series is mapped
along the northern portion. Figure 4 shows soil series in the study area.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Nel'emhe.-2()()9!uly2011
Quendall Terminals 5 060059-01
llWI--181lEftllylJlf)J}~rJ __ fl()'l~_~ 1
P()(;PRQPERTLDof:XDQc1DDM~lnteTJJ!QvenIManage_Eorm<lt~<;<;I}Jl» ""NUM>?I~<j/E1i»
.5sC,I,T??,<:'5.MTR.?i': .. l'.R.Es'ER..Y.EI,QQJ'[lQN.l'MER.QE£QRMdT
Study Area Description
Both soil series identified in the study area are described as having poorly drained soils that
formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass, conifers, and hardwoods. The Norma series are in
basins on the glaciated uplands and in areas along the stream bottoms. The Bellingham series
are nearly level and are mostly in depressions on the upland glacial till plain (USDA 1973).
According to the Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington, both the Norma sandy loam
and Bellingham series are classified as hydric soils (USDA 2009). Sample plot soil profiles are
described in Section 3.2. A summary of soils data collected at each sample plot is presented in
tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D.
2.3 Hydrology
The study area is located in the Lake Washington/Sammamish River Basin Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (Ecology 2009a). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are
influenced by regional groundwater, direct precipitation, surface water runoff, and Lake
Washington. The OHWM of Lake Washington was delineated as part of this investigation
and is described in Section 4 of this report.
Sample plot hydrology is described in Section 3.2. A summary of hydrology data collected at
each sample plot is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix
D.
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types
The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NTVI Map Information identifies palustrine scrub-shrub
(PSS) habitat on the western border of the study area adjoining Lake Washington (USFWS
2009; Figure 5). Wetland vegetation community types identified during the delineation
include palustrine and lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM), palustrine and lacustrine scrub
shrub (PSS and LSS), palustrine and lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO), and palustrine open
water (POW) wetland systems. Vegetation within the study area includes tree, shrub, grass,
and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat associated with
Lake Washington and the constructed stormwater features. Vegetative cover by community
(forested, scrub/shrub, and herbaceous/disturbed) and trees more than 10 inches in diameter
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 6
Df.VEl81~622· L003.2elij .. 9'J.{J(}(l1
Ne"emher2{){)9July]/lU
060059-01
DOCPROPERTY DocXDocIDDMS=lnte.rw.a.y.enlManageFormat=«LIB». «M/M»y<d'ER>;>
<.<.(.LT.~~,<dt1TR»PR$S.ERY.$L.QClll'lQNJ:M.$HG$f.QHM.4T.
Study Area Description
at breast height (dbh) within 100 feet ofthe shoreline are shown on Figure 6. Wetland and
upland vegetation in the study area is described in Section 3.2. A summary of vegetation data
collected in the study area and at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and
in the field data forms in Appendix D.
The WDFW PHS database does not identify any priority habitats within the study area
(WDFW 2009). Priority wetland habitat occurs approximately 0.2S-mile south and east of the
study area and consists of scrub-shrub, forested, and emergent marsh wetlands along May
Creek, its tributaries, and Lake Boren. Priority fish presence documented in May Creek
includes coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarla), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka), and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Priority fish presence within the study
area includes species documented in Lake Washington, including coho salmon, fall Chinook,
resident cutthroat, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and Dolly Vardenlbull trout (Salvelinus
conDuentus).
Wedand and GrclinaI}' High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 7
li!!!"Ll£tJM5L.-J;9QH§91,fJ!!I!!!M
Ne''<'HIiJe:2{)()9[Wy2{)U
060059-01
!2QCPRQPlfRTX Docl(.[)qc!DDMS=]/){en'Y.()VenIMapage EQJ:lllar,,< ~LlIJ» <dYllM>2Y< < VER»
<~r;LT?>,«MTR2.PRlf$§RYlfI,QC4TlQN1:MERGlffQRMAT
Wetland Delineation
3 WETLAND DELINEATION
On April 23 and 30, May 6, and June 192009, Anchor QEA ecologists performed wetland
delineations and a wetland ratings analysis of wetland habitats in the study area. Ten
wetlands, Wetlands A and J, were found in the study area. Complete descriptions of Wetlands
A through J are provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown on
Figure 6 -Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results. A summary of vegetation, soils, and
hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and in
the field data forms in Appendix D. Site photographs are provided in Appendix F.
A similaUinalysis may bere'1ujLedo<l~paJ1Qftl1e EPALNRD process and may resultin
delineations andrattngs different than those included in this re,pl1rt. This report assumes
re,gt!latOIY interpretatiml,>-that will result in a post-remediation, <::Qndition that would allow
the greatest area for r.f:Qey~lopment based on the 1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Management
Plan and Aopendix E of the DEIS
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods
This section describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, including
the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are
consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as well as local jurisdiction
requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer
widths.
As specified by the RMC (City of Renton 2009), this wetland delineation was conducted
according to the methods defined in the us. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
(Corps 2008), and Ecology's Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual (Ecology 1997). Soil colors were classified by their numerical description, as
identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps; Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA; Ecology 2009b), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA; Access
Washington 2007), and the RMC all define wetlands as: "Areas that are inundated or
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 8
NfJl'l?mhe: 2(){}91uly,l.Qll
060059-01
J;lWT 1.8H8.,<£,L~9J;"954}1}1)!)4
DOCPROPER,TYDO(:XDQcI[)DMS~lnte=oY(:nIManageForI11i1t~«UB».«NJ!Mc;>ys<YJi&>
",<,CLT»,«MTR»PR~IIRJI]{Wr::::41'.lQNl:MIIR(i;IIFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas."
The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is "the
macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or
soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to
exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." Hydric soils are "formed under
conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Wetland hydrology "encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the
surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). Data collection
methods for each of these parameters are described below.
A total of 21 data plots were sampled at the approximately 21.23-acre study area. Sample plots
are identified numerically as wetland or upland plots (for example, SPIWet, SP2Wet, SP3Up,
etc). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each ofthe plots,
recorded on field data sheets, and photographed. Locations of wetland delineation boundary
flags and data plots are provided in Appendix A. A summary of sample plot data is presented
in Appendix C. The field data sheets are provided in Appendix D. Site photographs are
provided in Appendix F. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon sample plot data
and visual observations of each wetland. Wetland locations and boundaries were flagged and
subsequently surveyed by a professional surveyor to establish and verify the location and size.
3.1.1 Vegetation
Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data sheets, one data sheet per plot
(Appendix D). Percent cover was estimated in the plot for each plant species and dominant
species were determined. At each plot, trees within a 3D-foot radius, shrubs within a 15-foot
radius, and emergents within a 3-foot radius from the center of the plot were identified and
recorded on a data sheet. A plant indicator status, designated by the USFWS (Reed 1988 and
Wetland and .ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 9
Ne"eJBbeF2{){)91uiy2al1
060059-01
I)J¥r.I84I{!{i2J~U}9g4~H!f}I}fIfJ.I
POCPROPERTYDocXDocIDDM£~Il)terw1JyenIMal)ageEort11at~<;<;LlB» <;<NUM»v«VER;.>
<;,Cl...T»-«MTR» .. fRI1$ER.VEl..OQtTION.I·.MERGI1E.o1W4T
Wetland Delineation
1993), was assigned to each species and a determination was made as to whether the
vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter, more than 50
percent of the dominant species, with 20 percent or greater cover, must have an indicator of
obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC or FAC+). Table 1
shows the wetland indicator status categories.
Table 1
Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions
Indicator Status Description
Obligate wetland (OBl) Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
Facultative wetland Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67
(FACW) percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
Facultative (FAC) Plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
(estimated probability 34 percent to 66 percent).
Facultative upland Plant species usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability
(FACU) 67 percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate upland (UPl) Plant species occur almost always in non-wetlands (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
3.1.2 Soils
Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were dug to a
depth of 16 inches or greater, and all profiles were photographed. Hydric soil indicators
include low soil matrix chroma, gleying, and redoximorphic features (such as mottles), and are
formed predominantly by the accumulation or loss of iron, manganese, sulfur, or carbon
compounds in a saturated and anaerobic environment. Mottles are spots of contrasting color
occurring within the soil matrix (the predominant soil color). Gleyed soils are predominantly
bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. For example, a depleted dark soil surface (F7), a matrix
value of 3 or less, a chroma of 2 or less, and 20 percent or more redox depletions are positive
indicators of hydric soils (Corps 2008).
Due to the presence of known soil and groundwater contamination at the Site, soil pits were
not excavated at many wetland sample plots located in the upland area. This includes the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 10
Ne', embe.-2(}{)9!ulyIQU
060059-01
flfYfJWMN ,J ~J}1ifi,fJ> OQQQQ1
DOCPJ?QPERTypo<;XDocIPfJMS~/nte~ovenIM~l)ageFoTl1)at~<<:LIB»<:<:NIJM>:>K<YER»
<:<:CLT:»c<:<:MTR:»PRESERVELOCATIONJ·MERGEFORMA.T
Wetland Delineation
constructed stormwater features located throughout the project site and most upland plot
locations.
3.1.3 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it "encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the
surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). The mesic
growing season in western Washington is generally March through October. Field
observations of saturation and inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such as
water-stained leaves and drainage patterns in wetlands, were recorded.
3.1.4 Other Data Sources
Reviews of existing information were conducted to identify potential wetlands or site
characteristics indicative of wetlands in the study area. The sources of information reviewed
to support field observations are identified in Section 1.1.
3.1.5 Wetland Classifications
Wetland community types are discussed below according to the USFWS classification
developed by Cowardin, et al. (1979). This system, published in 1979 by a team ofUSFWS
scientists led by L.M. Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on their physical
characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees, shrubs, grass, etc.)
and prevalence and location of water in the wetland. The Cowardin classification system
provides a classification for every known wetland type that occurs throughout the United
States, and, under this system, a wetland can be classified as having one or more wetland
classification types. The community types found during this investigation were:
• Palustrine and Lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO) -These wetlands have at least 30
percent cover of woody vegetation that is more than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine and Lacustrine scrub-shrub (PSS and LSS) -These wetlands have at least 30
percent cover of woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine and Lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM) -These wetlands have erect,
rooted, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season in most years.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 11
f21¥!.L¥cJ!}}]l.} ,---~Q}}~5 ___ Q(J~W~J
}V''''emhe:2{){)91"lxlPU
(}6{](}59-01
QQ(;,PlJQPEBTYD()c}7}pcIIJJ2M$=!Tlter'YoveTlIMaTlage.Formilt=c<;:<LJB;.> .«NI!M;>>.v«VER:>:>
«CLT;'>c«MTR;.>. PRESERVELOCATlONL· MERGEEORMAT
Wetland Delineation
• Palustrine open water (POW) -These wetlands are characterized by open water, such
as ponds.
3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System
At the state level, wetlands are categorized by applying the most current version of the rating
system developed by Ecology: Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western
Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004), and Washington State Wetland Rating Form -Western
Washington, version 2 (Ecology 2006). Ecology developed this system to differentiate
wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their
rarity, the ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide to society.
To determine an accurate assessment of a wetland's rating and functional values, function
scores were calculated based on entire wetland systems, not just the delineated portion of
wetlands within the study area. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect specific
information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. As part of the rating system, the
hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland was determined and three major functions
were analyzed: flood and erosion control, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat.
Each hydrogeomorphic wetland class has specific rating criteria for water quality and
hydrologic functions. Habitat functions rating criteria were the same for each of the
hydrogeomorphic wetland classes. Ratings were based on a point system where points are
given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland's potential and opportunity to
provide certain benefits. If a wetland provides the opportunity to improve water quality or
hydrologic functions, a multiplier of two was applied to the points for the wetland's potential
functions. If a wetland does not provide the opportunity to improve water quality or
hydrologic functions, a multiplier of one was applied. Per Ecology's rating system, wetlands
were categorized according to the following criteria and on points given:
• Category I wetlands (70 to 100 points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or are
more sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological
attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime.
• Category II wetlands (51 to 69 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace,
and provide high levels of some functions.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 12
,'le, oemhe.-2{){}9/uiylQl1
060059-01
IJOCPl?Qf'ERTYDocXD(JcIDIJMS~InteTlY(JvenLManagefSJnnaf~«LI13>>_«IVUM,,:>X«VEJi»
«CLT»,«MTR» PRESER.VELOCATlON.i'MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
• Category III (30 to 50 points) wetlands have a moderate level of function. They have
been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other
natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
• Category IV wetlands (0 to 29 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are often
heavily disturbed.
3.1.7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements
Wetlands in the study area were also rated according to the City of Renton Critical Area
Regulations that establish local regulatory requirements for wetlands and their associated
buffers (City of Renton 2009). Wetlands in the study area were assigned a local rating
category based on the applicable City and King County (County) critical areas regulations and
the associated regulatory wetland buffer widths.
Section 3.3.3 provides wetland information contained in the RMC (City of Renton 2009). The
full text of the city's critical areas regulations was consulted during this analysis.
3.1.7.1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements
Category 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Contain species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or
the presence of essential habitat for those species
• Have 40 to 60 percent permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with
two or more vegetation classes
• Are equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and have three or more vegetation classes,
one of which is open water
• Contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographical limits of
their occurrence
Category 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Are wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands
• Have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 13
l'k",em&er2(}(}i)!uly lQll
060059-01
f)wr 381 '8G2)" I ~QJ269X e~~f;!gf
DOC;PRQPIIRTYj)(J£X;[}gcll}PMS=ll1t~Tlv(JVf!I1!Mal1"geF'OIInat=«Ll13»5<NJ!lv[»v-S< vr:;li>~
«CLT»c«MTR»PRESERVELOCATlONL'MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
• Are wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland
with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel,
but are not Category I wetlands
• Have minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking,
ditching, or channelization
Category 3 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Are severely disturbed wetlands; severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands that meet
the following criteria:
Are characterized py hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations
such as diking, ditching, channelization, andlor outlet modification
Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal andlor compaction of
soil
May have altered vegetation
• Are newly emerging wetlands; newly emerging wetlands are wetlands occurring on
top of fill materials, and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species
richness, and used minimally by wildlife.
• Include all other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2, such as smaller, high
quality wetlands.
According to the RMC, Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 sf in area are exempt from the
regulations if they meet the following exemption criteria[ 4-3-050 C5(f)]:
• Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts, i.e., approximately 12 inches to 18
inches in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding
amphibians
• Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the
presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present
• Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions; for
example, stormwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation
• A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria
of the exemption are met
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 14
Ne, ·"",be.-2{){}9!qly2QU
060059-01
DQ{;PRPPERTYDo£](DgcJD12MS4nterwoyenIManage.Format~<LIB?>s.<NIlM>?Y«Y.ERx>
<<:CLT>.?c.<d,1TR?>PRESERVEl.OCATIONJ'..MERGEFQRMA.T
Wetland Delineation
According to the RMC Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5, wetland buffers are measured from the
wetland edge as delineated in the field and are sized depending on the wetland category.
Building or activity setback from a critical area or buffer may be required to ensure adequate
protection of the critical arealbuffer during construction and ongoing maintenance of the
activity. Section 5 also states that alterations to wetlands shall be mitigated through creation,
restoration, and/or enhancement. Mitigation actions must re-create as nearly as possible the
wetland being replaced, and result in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function. Table 2
provides a summary of the City's wetland buffer requirements.
Wetland and Ordin;uy High Water Mark Delineation Repon
Quendall Terminals 15
Hal embe£2{)(}9!wylPU
060059-01
l)!¥,£f£4{MN·,l·I)()Jd{iJ}~
lJOc:.PRQPl£RTy[Jo[Xl&£l12[JM$=ll'teworenIAfanaseB)l'TQat~«L[13»~<NJJM:>:>v«VER»
ssQ.,T»,,,sMTR2PRl£$l£RYELOCA TION \"MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
Table 2
City of Renton Wetland Regulations
Wetland
Classification Buffer Requirement
Category 1 100 feet
Category 2 50 feet
Category 3 25 feet
3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment
The functional values of wetlands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating
System -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form -Western
Washington, Version 2 (Ecology 2006). Using Ecology's system, wetlands were rated based on
a point system where points are awarded to three functional value categories: water quality,
hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating forms, is
provided in Appendix E.
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results
Ten wetlands, Wetlands A though J, were found in the study area. A complete description of
each wetland is provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown on
Figure 5 and for each individual wetland in Appendix A. A summary of vegetation, soils, and
hydrology data collected at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and in
the field data forms in Appendix D.
3.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is a O.OB-acre (3,433-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS, and
LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland A was delineated
within the study area. Wetland A is located in the southwest corner of the study area and is
associated with Lake Washington (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix F). A compacted dirt
access road abuts the eastern edge.
Wetland A vegetation is dominated primarily by young (less than 10 inches dbh) red alder
(Alnus rubra) , red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), and black twinberry (Lonicera
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 16
i)}VT ISUS.)], 'O(IJZ(i9'. 90000<
Nel'emher2(}{)9!uly2011
(l6()()59-OJ
PCX;fIiOPERTYDQ£Xl)ocID.DMS=lnterwoyenIMaJJageF:orllle('C5<LIP>;;?~IYI!M??JC~<YER:»
«CLT»,«MTR» .. FRE.$,f!R..VEL.Q{:..1.llQIY1·i'1.EIiG.ffEQlJM4T
Wetland Delineation
involucrata) (Photograph 2 in Appendix F). The dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A is
also young red alder with some Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) and dense Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) where the vegetated buffer transitions into a compacted soil
road. Much (75 percent) of the buffer is disturbed compacted soils with sparse native and
non-native invasive plants. The northwest perimeter of Wetland A is Lake Washington with
extensive open and deep water habitats.
Wildlife use of the wetland and its buffer was evident through several physical indicators such
as woodpecker cavities, forage snags, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the dense
vegetation. There was evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on the partially submerged woody
debris at the edge of the wetland bordering the lake. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its
buffer includes black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna). The
transition from an open water habitat to wetland to maintained upland offers both soft and
hard edges between habitats. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the lake or
from the lake to the wetland appears healthy and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and
breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The
transition from the upland buffer habitats to the wetland habitat offers a more abrupt
transition to wildlife. Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a less beneficial
habitat for others. Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be
limited for many species.
Soils in the wetland plot included very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) to very dark grayish-brown
(lOYR 3/2) clay loam to 18 inches deep. Below about 18 inches, very dark gray (25Y 3/1) clay
loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soils in the
upland plot were very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) to 18+ inches with brown (lOYR 4/3) mottles
observed around 8+ inches.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland A and the upland plot, with
free-standing water in the sample plots within about 10 inches of the surface.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland A: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A
and B). SPI Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 17
Nel'emoo.-2[){}9/Qly7PU
06()(}59-OJ
J]Q(PIl9PJiRTYpgc}(IloclDPMS=1nterwovenlMoJ1ilgeEormat=«LlJJ.?? <dYUM.?<Y8,YElk.:>;
5SCLT??c«.MIlk?fRJisJiRJ(JJLQ{;..1TI9lYJ'M.JiIlGJif.9l1M.4T
Wetland Delineation
hydric soils. The upland plot, SPlUp, had indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils,
but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty flags were used to identify the Wetland A
boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.2 Wetland 8
Wetland B is an approximately 0.14-acre (6,OSI-sf) depressional wetland and is one of the
largest constructed stormwater features in the study area displaying wetland characteristics
(Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland B was excavated in the 1970s as a retention pond to control
tar from flowing into the lake (King County Metro 1972). The wetland is triangle-shaped and
representative ofa settling pond with standing water observed during the survey. The eastern
boundary of Wetland B narrows to a ditch-like feature that possibly used to convey water
west from Wetland G during large rain events through either a culvert or a shallow ditch (now
abandoned). Wetland B is positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet below
Wetland C. Wetland B contains PSS and POW habitats (Photograph 2 in Appendix F). As
part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from entering Lake Washington in 2006, an
outfall was excavated along the north side of Wetland B to create a stable outlet for
stormwater into Lake Washington.
Wetland vegetation is dominated by Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Pacific
willow (Salix lasiandra), soft rush (funcus eflUsus), and purple-leaved willowherb (Epilobium
cilia tum). Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland B includes monotypic stands of Japanese
knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. Most (90 percent) of the buffer apparently was
maintained until recently. These maintained areas have now become fully vegetated, with
Japanese knotweed dominating the western buffer and Himalayan blackberry dominating the
eastern buffer. The remaining buffer (10 percent) on the north and south ends of the wetland
has a few large native trees (greater than 16 inches dbh), but the understory is a shrub layer
dominated by non-native invasive plants. The western buffer extends to Lake Washington
with extensive open and deep water habitats.
Wildlife use of Wetland B and its buffer was not very evident, but there were a few physical
indicators such as a beaver slide to the west from the wetland toward the lake, and other small
mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was evidence of turtle use on the partially
submerged woody debris within the standing water of the wetland. No aquatic organisms
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 18
No. emk.-2(}{)9Mxl.QU
060059-01
1iL'fTJ-8jd*,-6,J} J;J/;R}l1~'MJ!);l1~q I
m9PBPl'/fBrf:P"c}{Ppc/pDMS=lnteT\VoxenlJ,faJ1i/gcEormat=-«LlE:e:e<:<1YJ.JM:>:,.v«VER:»
«.9LT»:«MIB».pRESERYELOCATIONi·MEeGE.foRM4T
Wetland Delineation
were seen in the water other than the purple-leaved willowherb. Wildlife observed in the
wetland and its buffer includes spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), song sparrow, and
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). The open water habitat within the wetland quickly
transitions to a scrub-shrub buffer habitat. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to
the buffer or from the buffer to the wetland appears to offer migration, forage, shelter, and
breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals.
Similarly, the transition from the wetland to the buffer to the lake offers a greater migration
route with the dense shrub cover between the two open water habitats. Wetland B (denoted
as Quendall Pond in the CERCLA RIIFS documents) is known to contain relatively high
concentrations of contaminants in soil and groundwater, which limit the quality, use, and
function of these habitats and corridors.
Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland B.
Wetland B is the largest of the constructed stormwater features in the study area. As
described above, during large rain events, Wetland G may convey stormwater through a relic
connection or by surface flow. The depth of water in Wetland B was not
discernablediscemihle because of opaque water coloration and the presence of contamination
preventing further investigation; however, the volume and depth did appear to exceed several
feet.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland B: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation. Eleven flags were used to identify the Wetland B boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.3 WetlandC
Wetland C is an approximately 0.03-acre (1,200 sf) depressional wetland and is another
constructed stormwater feature in the study area displaying wetland characteristics (Figure 7;
Appendix A). The wetland is located in the center of the parcel with the western boundary
approximately 38 feet from Lake Washington. Like Wetland B, the wetland is representative
of a stormwater pond with standing water observed during the survey. Wetland C is
Wetland and OrdinaIY High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 19
Qf4,;T 1.H l8~2? .. U)(}HM~J (}()()(H-N
Na''embe£2{){}9!uJy2011
060059-01
PQCjJRQfERTY DgcfDQclD DMSoJnterwovenlAfallage foa:aa.tC'.~~LJJ32. 5<:l'fJ.!M?2.~5"J!F:R>~
5<:CLT»,<<:MTR»PRESERVE'LQ(dI'[!QN!:.AfF:l?GF:fQl?AfA.T
Wetland Delineation
positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet above Wetland B. The entirety of
Wetland C was constructed in 2006 as part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from
entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was constructed along the
southwest edge of Wetlands Band C, and check dams were installed to control turbid water
and floating debris. Wetland C likely flows directly into Wetland B during high flow events
via sheetflow (Figure 7; Photograph 3 in Appendix F). Wetland C was constructed in an
upland area that did not contain wetland indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was not
identified during a wetland delineation conducted by David Evans and Associates in 1997
(Appendix G).
Wetland C contains PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats. At the time of the survey, Pacific
willow and black cottonwood saplings were the only vegetation observed in Wetland Band
distributed along the wetland's edge. The saplings were all 3 to 5 feet in height with a dbh of
approximately 1 to 3 inches. Because of the recent construction and maintenance of this
feature, the wetland habitat and buffer habitat are heavily degraded and offer little or no
opportunity for wildlife use.
Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland C.
The wetland is oval-shaped and, as described above, resembles a small settling pond. The
wetland primarily receives stormwater runoff from the study area and direct precipitation.
During the survey, based only on visual approximations, the depth of standing water was
about 10 to 12 inches in the deepest parts.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland C: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation. Soil pits were not excavated. Ten flags were used to identify the Wetland C
boundary (Appendix A).
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 20
QU{IJH_m22cLgiIB1~cOg2(}(}1
NOl'embe£-2()()9july:zQl]
060059-0l
roCPRQPIIBTr: PCZcXI)ocJPDMS4I1teI1Ycz~epIMani1gefCZrII1at",,«LIB> ~,,<lYl!N> > ~,,<YIIB>?
5<CLT>.>.c.<5MTR»PRESERVELQCATIONJ'MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
3.2.4 WetlandD
Wetland D is a 0.38-acre (16,686-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS, and
LEM habitats (Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland D is associated with Lake Washington
(Photograph 4 in Appendix F) and extends approximately 170 feet into the study area.
Wetland D is the only wetland in the study area included in the USFWS Wetlands Mapper for
NlVI Map Information (Figure 5), which identifies this as PSS habitat. Wetland vegetation is
dominated by large black cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, and red-osier dogwood. The
dominant buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood and Himalayan blackberry and is the
most diverse in vegetative strata layers (canopy, sub-canopy, scrub-shrub, and herbaceous)
and the most intact of all the project site wetland buffers. Approximately 40 percent of the
wetland buffer is Lake Washington to the northwest.
Wildlife use of Wetland D is very similar to but more diverse than Wetland A. Several
physical wildlife indicators within the wetland and the buffer were observed: woodpecker
cavities, stick nests, basket nests, mole mounds, soil burrows, forage snags, beaver forage
marks, matted vegetation, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was also
evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on partially submerged woody debris and vegetative mats
at the edge ofthe lake and within the wetland. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer
includes Black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, bushtit, spotted towhee, downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), brown creeper (Certhia americana), American robin (Turdus
migratrious), and northwest crow (Corvus caurinus). The transition from the open water
habitat to the wetland to an intact upland buffer offers soft edges between all habitats.
Movement of wildlife from the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy
migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians,
waterfowl, and mammals. This wetland, along with its buffer, appears to offer the best habitat
opportunity for the most species due to its size, vegetative structure, hydrology regimes, and
position in the landscape.
Three soil pits were excavated in Wetland D (Appendix A); one near the lake's edge (SPIWet),
one in the upland (SPIUp), and one in the uppermost extent of the wetland (SP2Wet). The
soils in SPIWet included very dark grayish-brown (10YR 312) sandy loam to 6 inches deep
and then gray (lOYR 5/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles through 18+
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 21
f!}fU81J8&;d'Lf!.0}:;£9JJ)O~QO I
Ne. eme.::2(}{}9IWx;;'QU
060059-01
JJcx::PRQPERTypo~XP(}cI]) JJiI1S4n.IertvOl'enI,Nanage FQm1at=.«LIB~>. «NI!M1'1'ys<J7ER»
<;<CLTx'.c.«MTR»PRESERVELOCATIONj"M$1i<i;lj'EQ1JM4T
Wetland Delineation
inches. Soils in SP2Wet included black (lOYR 2/1) loamy sand through 10 inches and then
dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loamy sand through 18+ inches. At approximately 10 to 12 inches, a
narrow band of dark gray (2.5YR 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles
was observed with interspersed coarse angular rock. SPI Up included grayish brown (2.5Y
5/2) loamy clay through 18+ inches.
Soil saturation was observed at the surface in the majority of Wetland D with standing water
near the lake's edge. The primary hydrologic indicator in the upper extent of Wetland D
included sparsely vegetated concave surface and water-stained leaves. In the upland plot,
saturation was observed at the surface.
Three sample plots were established as part of Wetland D: SPIWet, SP2Wet, and SPIUp
(Appendices A, D, and D). SPIWet and SP2Wet contained indicators ofhydrophytic
vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot, SPI Up, had indicators of
wetland hydrology and hydric soils, but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty-two flags
were used to identify the Wetland D boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.5 Wetland E
Wetland E is a D.ll-acre (4,556-sf) depressional wetland that contains PFO and PSS habitat
located in the southwest corner of the study area (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like Wetlands B, C,
and G, Wetland E is a constructed stormwater feature in the study area, but it contains a more
developed and mature forested component than the others (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix
F). Wetland vegetation is dominated by young black cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder,
and red-osier dogwood. Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed and
Himalayan blackberry, and a few mature black cottonwoods and young red alders
(Photograph 5 in Appendix F). The entire wetland buffer apparently was maintained as
transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log storage) up until the facility closed in the
past few years. These areas, other than the roads, have now become overgrown with upland
invasive species, such as Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry. The dirt
roads remain and are heavily compacted, supporting very little vegetation ..
Wildlife use of Wetland E and its buffer was not evident other than a few stick and leaf nests.
There were some physical indicators of beaver foraging, but the teeth marks were very old and
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 22
[) W7CJII4IS612~1.1)Q]2ft¥H!!J@fM
1'!e,'ember 2(}{)9lwxl.Qll
060059-01
DOCPROPERTYDoc}(DocJD.DMS4I)(erwoy.en[MlllJilge . .foan.iJtC'5.<LlB?;:> .. <:dYlfM?;?1'«.VER>2
s5Cl,.T>?;.'.<:<M.1Jl.??£R/i$./iRYE?QQJ][QNJ:M/iRIi./ifQFN4T
Wetland Delineation
not very common. There was no evidence of aquatic organisms within the standing water of
the wetland other than plants. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes
spotted towhee, Anna's hummingbird, northwest crow, American robin, song sparrow, and
Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata). The open water habitat within the wetland quickly
transitions to a scrub-shrub, young forest buffer habitat. This transition of an open water
habitat to a wetland to a disturbed upland offers both soft and hard edges between habitats.
Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the upland or from the upland to the
wetland appears healthy and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities
for some species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The transition from the disturbed
maintained upland habitats to the wetland habitat offers a more abrupt transition to wildlife.
Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a less beneficial habitat for others.
Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many
species. Contaminated soil and sediments in this wetland may limit the quality, use, and
function of these habitats and corridors.
Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland E. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation
data.
The majority of Wetland E had standing water at the surface with some areas appearing in
excess of 2-feet deep. A staff gaugegage was installed in 1995 to monitor water levels in 1995
and 1996 (Aspect 2009). At the time of the survey, the water level was around 0 foot;
however, there were indications that the high water line on the gauge~ exceeded 3.5 feet.
It is not known if this device was installed relative to any fixed position, but it does provide
details on the storage capacity of the wetland. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the
upland plot.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland E: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland plot lacked any indications of hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology.
Nineteen flags were used to identify the Wetland E boundary (Appendix A).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
QuendalI Terminals 23
Ne\'i3fflM 2009!u1y2Qll
060059-01
OlIT 11Y.M.6ZhtI00.l1M'H!f)OQIJ I
PQt;P.R.QPliRTYDocXDoeIDDMS=InterwovenIManageFormat"O<"LJB»«NUM>;, v«fER>"
<<.t;i,T»".-cNTRc>!'.Rli$.lil?VliL.QQl.TlQN.I·"MF:..l?CiF:.EQl?M4r
Wetland Delineation
3.2.6 Wetland F
Wetland F is a small O.ll-acre (546-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LSS and
LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland F was delineated
within the study area. Wetland F is associated with Lake Washington (Photographs 1 and 2 in
Appendix F) and is located in the center of the study area, immediately west of Wetland C.
Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow, soft rush, and reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea). Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed and
Himalayan blackberry (Photograph 3 in Appendix F).
Although Wetland F is a very small wetland, wildlife use in the wetland and buffer was
evident through several physical indicators such as shell and crustacean middens, forage snags,
waterfowl droppings, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation.
There was also evidence of recent turtle use (wet log) of a partially submerged log at the edge
of the wetland bordering the lake. No wildlife was observed in the wetland or its buffer
during field investigations. Half of the wetland perimeter is along Lake Washington, offering
a transition from an open water habitat to a wetland to a vegetated upland. Movement of
wildlife from the upland habitat to the wetland to the lake appears unobstructed and may
offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians,
waterfowl, and mammals. The actual wetland is so small that habitat function associated with
the wetland may be reduced as an area for migration, forage, shelter, and breeding.
Soils in the wetland plot included dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 412) sand with yellowish brown
(lOYR 5/6) mottles to 6 inches deep (Appendix D). Below about 6 inches, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1)
sand with dark yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soil pits in
the upland plot were not excavated in Wetland F because of the presence of contamination.
Wetland hydrology was evident with free-standing water in the sample plot within about 10
inches of the surface. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the upland plot.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland F: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
hydric soils. The upland plot lacked hydrophytic vegetation and any indication of wetland
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Deh"neation Report
Quendall Terminals 24
1'kJl'emhe:2{){}9!lJ1y 2.911
060059-01
£jWT 184H!~~J2rlJll!R6'fYJ()(){}f)4
DOCPROPERTYDorXDQcl12.PM~[l}te[}yQ1(e{1[ManalJeFgrIAat=OS5LJlJ»S<NI!M""v<;5VERx>
<;.<CL.T)o)o~,.<<.MTR.)o)op.R.J[$ER.VJ[LQQ!TlQNI:MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
hydrology. Soils were not examined in the upland plot. Four flags were used to identify the
Wetland F boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.7 WetlandG
Wetland G is a small, approximately O.OS-acre (2, 198-sf) depressional wetland (Figure 7;
Appendix A). It is thought that Wetland G was excavated as part of construction of berms to
direct tar on the site into Wetland B (Aspect 2009). The wetland is narrow and ditch-like and
at one time conveyed stormwater to Wetland B, but has since been separated by a compacted
dirt road separating the two (no culverts were found) (Figure 7). During prolonged rain
events, Wetland G likely fills to capacity and sheetflows into Wetland B. Wetland G is
positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the study area.
Wetland G contains PSS and PFO habitat. Wetland vegetation is dominated by black
cottonwood, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry, with an isolated patch of emergent
vegetation. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood, black twinberry,
and Himalayan blackberry (Figure 4; Photographs 7 and 8 in Appendix F). Based on aerial
photography, it appears that more than half of the current areas adjacent to Wetland G are or
have been maintained as transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log storage). Appendix
H provides a historic aerial photo from 1990 that shows log storage and roads present in the
current location of Wetland G. These areas, aside from one existing road to the west, have
now become overgrown with upland invasive plants such as Scot's broom, Japanese knotweed,
and Himalayan blackberry.
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland G was limited possibly due to the wetland's long
and narrow shape. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes northwest crow,
song sparrow, and black-capped chickadee. The narrow scrub-shrub habitat and small
patches of young forest buffer habitat offer wildlife a possible corridor of cover/shelter along
or through the wetland. This wetland and buffer habitat extends further east than any other
wetland at the project site and overlaps with the buffer from Wetland B, creating a corridor to
Lake Washington. Due to the narrow shape ofthe wetland, migration, forage, shelter, and
breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Contaminated soil and
sediments in this wetland may limit the quality, use, and function of these habitats and
corridors.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 25
Mwember-2{J{}9july2011
060059-01
fJlf!IJM1&i}l, / ~OH~
PQC;fRQl)liRrL1}J2cXl2p£l1}I2M~411t~!Jyox#JJLMlJjNgf{fqlJJ!~tcs_sl,I.1!~~ .. scJYl.!M~~~~.YI}l?~
<,;(;I,T>?c«!J.1TR»PRESERVELQCA.TfQNJ· llf%RCiEfQRllfAT
Wetland Delineation
Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland G. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation
data.
Wetland G is a narrow, ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the
study area and direct precipitation. Standing water was present in much of the wetland. The
upland plot did not display any wetland hydrology indicators.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland G: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation but lacked wetland
hydrology. Eighteen flags were used to identify the Wetland G boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.8 WetlandH
Wetland H is an approximately O.OI-acre (SII-sf) slope and depressional wetland located on
the southern edge of the study area along the property boundary (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like
many of the other features described in this report, Wetland H was constructed as a
stormwater feature to control stormwater. Work was conducted in January 2006 to control
silt and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Wetland H was excavated in
January 2006 to clean out the ditch along the southern portion of the site. Four rock check
dams were placed in the cleared ditch at approximately 2S-foot intervals to allow for sediment
and wood debris control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is located in an
area that was excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and into Lake
Washington.
Wetland H is positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the study
area and contains PFO, PSS, and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photographs 9 and 10 in Appendix
F). It is adjacent to a IS-foot-tall engineered concrete block wall, which is the boundary line
between the project site and the newly developed parcel to the south. The low area extends
along the concrete block wall and develops more ditch-like characteristics near Wetland H
and Lake Washington. Wetland vegetation is dominated by mature black cottonwood, red
alder, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 26
PWTI3.1l8ftHfic!i1H2f&5c!i!!f)f)fM
Net '&Bhe.-2{}(}911J/x2o.U
060059-01
D.oCPROPERTY DQcXDocIDDMS.4l!teDYOX~<;l!l.M'Mlagf#FOIJn.af~<;.,U.1}»«JIIl!M»v«YEli»
<,CL.r>;>;,.,<l,1T&>;£lil{$l{li~L.QQJ.r!QN.I .. ·.MERG§fQRMAT
Wetland Delineation
includes reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Effectively, the wetland only has
two-thirds of its buffer.
Wildlife use of Wetland H and its buffer may be increased by the presence of an adjacent
concrete wall south of the wetland. Species traveling south or north may follow the wall until
they reach the shoreline, effectively routing them through Wetland H or its buffer. Several
physical indicators of wildlife presence within the wetland and the buffer were observed:
woodpecker cavities, stick nests, forage snags, and beaver forage marks. Wildlife observed in
the wetland and its buffer includes black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, spotted towhee,
Downy woodpecker, and northwest crow. The entire area from the open water habitat of
Lake Washington to the west, through the wetland, to the upland buffer is fully vegetated and
may provide good shelter as well as a migration path for wildlife. Movement of wildlife from
the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy migration, forage, shelter, and
breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals.
A single soil pit in the wetland was excavated and photographed in Wetland H; however,
because of the presence of contamination in the study area, the soils were not handled and no
information was recorded. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology
and vegetation data.
Wetland H is a narrow ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the
study area and direct precipitation. Adjacent to the wetland is another, smaller constructed
stormwater feature that also collects stormwater from portions ofthe site. This feature sits at a
higher elevation than Wetland H and conveys stormwater from an adjacent ditch through a
culvert to the eastern extent of the wetland. Flowing water was present during the survey.
The upland plot did not display indications of wetland hydrology.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland H: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SP 1 Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 27
fii!1'l)§4I*"llyjQfJ32f>2HJ!)IJf)M
Ne"ember2{){)91qIyIPU
060059-01
QQC;PRQpERTY DocXDocIDDMS4IlternrOVeilIMiJJ1agt; FOJlIl.a{"C5.,;:LJE»_,,<lYUM»y«YER»
<;:CJ,r~?.,;:;:MTl???PRl[SERYEJ.Q(:A,TfQN!:.MERGE!:PRM4r
Wetland Delineation
3.2.9 Wetland I
Wetland I is an approximately a.05-acre (2,358-sf) depressional wetland located on the small
portion of the property across Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like
many of the other features described in this report, Wetland I is a result of land surface
manipulation and road construction. Wetland I is positioned in the landscape between 1-405
and Lake Washington Boulevard where it receives storm water runoff from adjacent
impervious surfaces. The wetland contains PSS and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 15 in
Appendix F) and all habitats are dominated by Japanese knotweed. Wetland vegetation is
either stunted or dying adjacent to or under the thick canopy of Japanese knotweed.
Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry and Pacific willow.
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland I was limited possibly because of its location
between 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard or because there is a Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way fence bordering the wetland to the
east. Also, the wetland is dominated by Japanese knotweed, which has created a monoculture
habitat with no herbaceous layer and limited species diversity. Due to the narrow shape of the
wetland, the presence of the fence and roads, and the abundance of Japanese knotweed,
migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species.
Soils in the wetland plot included very dark brown loam (lOYR 311) in the top 6 inches
(Appendix D). Between 6 and 12 inches, a dark gray (lOYR 3/2) loam with brownish-red
(2.5YR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Below 12 inches was a dark red (5YR 4/2)
sandy loam matrix with two distinct mottles (10YR 6/9 and 2.5y 4/2). Soil pits in the upland
plot were dark brown silty loam (lOYR 3/3) to 8 inches. From 8 to 18 inches, the same matrix
(IOYR 3/3) was present with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles.
Wetland I is a narrow ditch -like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the
adjacent roads and direct precipitation. The western edge of the wetland appears to undergo
seasonal mowing or cutting to maintain the roadway and clearance for overhead
pewedinesppwer lines. A WSDOT fence bisects the southeastern edge of the wetland so the
full extent of the wetland is unknown, but it appears that the only a small portion remained
undelineated.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 28
Na''eHlhe:2{)(}9july20fl
060059-01
!!JfE{~1l8iilLQfJ-lliJ?Lf}o9!!9.~!
DQt;;PlJOE;ElJnrPQ'XPQc.;lfJI2lyrdd1JJ~fJypX~n1M~I1i1g~/i"glJ1li!tc;~~L.ll!G>. idjJ.!M2c~<<cJ(JJ82>
«CLT»c«MTR» E;RESE.lJ VELQc;A.TIQi'lI·ME/l.C;iI£Q/l.MA T
Wetland Delineation
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland I: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A, C,
and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, soils, and
hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation, soils, and
hydrology.
3.2.10 Wetland)
The full size of Wetland J is undetermined but may be approximately 0.05 acre (Figure 7;
Appendix A). The wetland is a slope and depressional wetland located on the eastern edge of
the portion of the study area on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Only a small
portion of the wetland extends onto the parcel, with the majority of the wetland extending off
the parcel into the WSDOT 1-405 right-of-way. Like many ofthe other features described in
this report, Wetland J was partially constructed and manipulated to convey stormwater from a
WSDOT stormwater pond to another waterbody (Gypsy Creek). Wetland J is positioned in
the landscape running north to south along the parcel boundary. The wetland contains PSS
and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 14 in Appendix F). Wetland vegetation is dominated
by red alder, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant wetland buffer
vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry.
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland J was limited possibly because its proximity to
1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and a WSDOT right-of-way fence bordering the wetland
on most of its eastern boundary. Like Wetland I, Wetland J is dominated by two invasive
plant species, Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, which have created a monoculture
habitat with no native herbaceous layer and no possibility for tree saplings to grow. Because
of the proximity of the fence and roads, as well as dense invasive plants, migration, forage,
shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited.
Soils in the wetland plot have a dense 3-inch-thick layer of root mat from reed canarygrass.
Below the root mat to 18 inches is a very dark silty loam (10YR 3/1). The upland soil plot was
similarly consistent with a dark brownish-red (10YR 4/2) silty loam.
Wetland J has both slope and depressional characteristics throughout. The wetland primarily
receives stormwater runoff from the WSDOT right-of-way. Approximately 50 feet to the
north of the delineated portion of the wetland is Gypsy Creek.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 29
fJlfHJ1EW"Lf!!!lli2l02flf!!H
Because of recent stream
Nm-emM"2{)(}9!uly201l
060059-01
PQ(;£RQpERIXJ]gc;}(f)Of;lJ:2IZM$=lIJJel1YJ!}{e.n.l1:rf.~ll~ge fPJIlJ.fi.fs<<LlB>?<sNJ!JI.1».Jr5<VER»
«c;LT»,«JI.1TR»PRE$F:RV§].Qc;ATIQj\fJ'jl,fERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
improvements and culverts on Gypsy Creek, Wetland J does not appear to receive any flood
waters from Gypsy Creek.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland J: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A, C,
and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
3.3 Regulatory Framework
As stated above, this report assumes regJ.!latoryiIlt~rpretations that will result in a
p()st remediation conditionthatwould allow the greatest area for redevelopment baseggnttLe
1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Management PlarllilldAppendix E of the DEIS. Guidance from
USFWS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland classifications. Information
and excerpts from the specific guidance language are provided below.
3.3.1 USFWS ClaSSification
The wetlands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. Table 3 lists the USFWS classifications for the
wetlands and their connections to surface waters.
Table 3
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water
Wetland USFWS Classification
A LFO, LSS, & LEM
B PSS, POW, PEM, and PFO
C PSS & POW
D LFO, LSS, & LEM
E PSS & PFO
F LSS & LEM
G PSS & POW
H PFO, PSS, & PEM
I PSS
J PSS & PEM
Notes:
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 30
~H5F 'Sf ','M220-2(+'P(t95 {)(.J{)(.JIH-
Connection to Surface Water
Associated with Lake Washington
Not associated to surface water
Not associated to surface water
Associated with Lake Washington
Not associated to surface water
Associated with Lake Washington
Not associated to surface water
Associated with Lake Washington
Not associated to surface water
Flows to adjacent stream
N",'emBer2{){}9[uIy2Pl]
060059-01
DQC;ERQPEl?TrJJf)cXD()~IDJJMS4nt"rwoyenIManage Format",,<;<;LIB»<;dYJJM>~y<;<;YIIl?»
<;<;CLT»,<;<;MTR»PRESERVELOGIITION,I·MERCi.11.FQRMAT
PFO -Palustrine forested
PSS -Palustrine scrub-shrub
PEM -Palustrine emergent
POW -Palustrine open water
LFO -Lacustrine forested
LSS -Lacustrine scrub-shrub
LEM -Lacustrine emergent
Wetland Delineation
3,3,2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores
The wetlands identified in the study area have been rated using Ecology's Washington State
Wetland Rating System -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating
Form -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2006). As part of the rating process, an
examination of the soil is required for depressional wetlands to determine if "2 inches below
the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic." Although soil plots were not collected in all
upland depressional wetlands (constructed stormwater features) due to the presence of
contamination, observations from other soil plots throughout the site and soil series maps
suggest no soils were clay or organic. Table 4 lists the wetland ratings and classifications.
Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values are shown in Table 5. A summary of
the wetland rating scores and the Ecology Wetland Rating forms are included in Appendix E.
Table 4
Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System
Hydrogeomorphic
Wetland Area (acres) Classification
Wetland A 0.08 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland B 0.14 Depressional
Wetland C 0.03 Depressional
Wetland D 0.38 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland E 0.11 Depressional
Wetland F 0.01 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland G 0.05 Depressional
Wetland H 0.01 Slope
Wetland I 0.05 Depressional
Wetland J 0.05' Depressional/Slope
Note:
'Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing.
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 31
State Rating
(Ecology)
III
III
IV
II
III
III
III
IV
III
III
Mwemher-2{}{}9Ju1y2911
060059-01
!I:-WE;:~U~_~l:b} f)()32695 ()()(}-'}f}1
PQC;PROPlfRTrD9£XJ:}9f[!'2,12M$dl}telJY9l(ePL¥~p~ge[PTIJl~f~'i5LIIJ.?:>dC5t:{J,!Mi;"J''isYlIli>2
,,<CLT»,«MTE»PRE$ERVELQQlTlQNI'jl1§EClEfQE¥AT
Wetland Delineation -------------------------------------
Table 5
Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores
Water
Quality Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat Total
Functions Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Functio
Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity ns
Wetland Score (Yes/No) Score (Yes/No) Score Score Score!
Total No= 1 No= 1
Maximum 16 16 18 18 72
Score Yes =2 Yes =2
A 6 2 4 2 9 11 40
B 2 2 12 2 6 8 42
C 2 2 8 2 0 6 26
D 9 2 6 2 12 12 54
E 7 2 12 2 7 5 50
F 6 2 4 2 6 9 35
G 9 2 8 2 4 7 45
H 3 2 3 2 7 6 25
I 9 2 8 2 3 6 43
J 7 2 5 2 8 6 38
Note:
1-Calculated as (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic
Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential
Score plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 32
BIf':r '.8{ f8G21~}--,}eJJ~9J: (}J)OJ)f)4
11'01 emhe:2{J(}9jqly;?Pll
060059-01
QCX;:Pl?OF'ERTYDocXDoclD DMS;4IJ!e!JYot;enI¥i!llage .F<}TI11at~5<LIB>? .,c.5NI!M;»JC<:<XER:e>
<.<CLT»c<.,cMTR:e> .. F'1?$S$RV$.(:.QQi.T1QNI']y[ERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
3.3.3 City 0/ Renton Wetland Classification Guidance
Wetlands were also rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the RMC (City of Renton
2009). The City classifies wetlands into three categories (Category 1, Category 2, and Category
3) based on the City critical areas regulations.
Appropriate wetland buffers have been identified according to the current RMC (City of
Renton 2009). City ratings and buffer widths are provided in Table 6.
Table 6
City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance
Study Area Size State Rating Local Rating Buffer Width
Wetlands (acres) (Ecology) (City of Renton) (feet)
Wetland A 0.08 III 2 50 feet
Wetland B 0.14 III 1 100 feet
Wetland C 0.03 IV 3 25 feet
Wetland D 0.38 II 2 50 feet
Wetland E 0.11 III 1 100 feet
Wetland F 0.01 III 2 50 feet
Wetland G 0.05 III 3 25 feet '
Wetland H 0.01 IV 3 25 feet
Wetland I 0.05 III 3 25 feet
Wetland J 0.05' III 3 25 feet
Total 0.89
Notes:
1-Wetland G is exempt from City of Renton critical area requirements based on the criteria in RMC 4-3-050 C5(f),
as discussed in Section 3.5.
2 -Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing.
3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary
In general, wetlands in the study area provide many functions including water quality
improvements, floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. The wetlands
in the study area can be divided into two categories: wetlands that are constructed stormwater
features and wetlands that are naturally occurring. The constructed stormwater features
generally display a higher opportunity to provide hydrologic function than naturally
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 33
fJWTJ*1i£'?i;'I_QQ}.2~2J _000001
Nel'ffBhe.-2O{)f}ju)y2Ql1
06()()59-OJ
DCX:;PRQPERTYPot;:XDoc]D [JMS:JnJer>yov""Ili{anage.Format:_<.<.LIB» .«NUM»v«EER:»
«CLT>C>c<<.MTR»PRESERYELOCATlONL'ME!i.GEf.ORM4T
Wetland Delineation
occurring wetlands, given their storage capacities to control flow during large storm events.
However, the constructed stormwater features also display generally low to moderate
opportunity and potential to provide habitat value and opportunity to provide water quality
value. The naturally occurring wetlands on the main parcel (Wetlands A, D, and F) are all
slope and lake-fringe wetlands and provide moderate potential and opportunity to provide
habitat function; however, given the nature oflake-fringe wetlands, they provide only low to
moderate potential to provide water quality and hydrologic functions.
The functional values of wetlands in the study area were rated according to the most current
version of the Ecology Washington State Wedands Rating System -Western Washington:
Revised (Ecology 2004). Based on the rating scores, the overall functions of each of the three
wetland rating categories of water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat are rated as low
(less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score), moderate (34 percent to 67 percent of
the maximum possible score), or high (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible
score). Overall, the majority of wetlands in the study area have low to moderate water
quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat function scores. Few of the wetlands have high
hydrologic function scores and none of the wetlands have high water quality or habitat
function scores. Of the ten wetlands in the study area, six were identified as depressional
wetlands, three were identified as lake fringe wetlands, and one was identified as a slope
wetland. Ecology wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the
wetland classes and functions and values rating scores is provided in Table 5.
Wetland acreage also affects function. No wetland in the study area is larger than 1 acre.
Because large wetlands have more capacity for capturing stormwater flows, improving water
quality, and providing a variety of habitats for wildlife, they are more likely to provide
beneficial functions than smaller wetlands. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional
values for wetlands in the study area are described below. For each function category, the
wetlands' opportunity to provide that function is described first and the wetlands' potential to
provide that function is described thereafter.
Wetland buffers are areas of land surrounding a wetland boundary that protect wetlands from
the effects of adjacent land use. Buffers help wetlands function by filtering storm runoff from
surrounding developments, trapping sediment, absorbing nutrients, attenuating high flows,
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Terminals 34
DJ¥H84lB.6J2l LJH!J2~9J OO(}O()4
Na. emheF 2{}{)9Juiy20J]
060059-01
DOC PROPERTY DOC]([)PcP2 [)M$=inc"[1Voj'enLManJ!g" .• f'PITJJl!t"C>sL 1lh>. <:.<;NJJM?>y,c", VER>;.
5<.CLT>2c5<.MTR» PRESERVELOCA.T10NL:]'v[EB(lF,"FORMAT
Wetland Delineation
and providing wildlife habitat. Buffers also physically separate wetlands from developed areas
in order to lessen noise, light, chemical pollution, and other associated human-related
disturbances. Most of the wetlands in the study area are adjacent to some disturbed habitat,
roadway, or compacted dirt roads. With the exception of the three lake-fringe wetlands in the
study area, wetland buffer habitat is generally of low quality and typically includes compacted
dirt and roads, and is nearly devoid of vegetation. The buffers associated with each wetland,
per local codes, are detailed in Table 6.
3.4.1 Water Quality Functions
All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to improve water quality, to
varying degrees, primarily because their location in an urban environment allows the
opportunity for water quality improvement. Three of the ten wetlands in the study area have
a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve water quality.
This low score was observed in three of the five constructed stormwater features, which have
characteristics of intermittent flowing or highly constricted surface outlets, and contain
permanently ponded water, precluding cyclic changes between oxic and anoxic conditions.
The remaining seven wetlands have moderate potential (34 to 67 percent of the maximum
possible score) to improve water quality. None of the wetlands has a high potential to improve
water quality (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Additionally, the
moderate score is also due to the nature of lake-fringe wetlands rN etlands A, D, F), which
have a maximum score of only 12 for water quality function instead of the maximum of 16
that other wetland types have. This is because lake-fringe wetlands typically do not improve
water quality to the same extent that riverine or depressional wetlands do, because of lower
denitrification rates, and because of the fact that any pollutants taken up in plant material will
be more easily released into the water column when the plants die off (Ecology 2006).
Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as organic soils, a
high proportion of wetland area with seasonal ponding, or dense vegetation to restrict flow
through the wetland.
3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions
All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to reduce flooding and erosion to
varying degrees. Four of the ten wetlands in the study area have a low potential (less than 34
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 35
fLWI-l1i:tl862-21! JJ(}J3~?J __ W}fH)04
Nel'emee 2Of)9/!lly 2011
1J6O(]59-OJ
DOCPROPERTYDoc}(f2ocIIJJ)Mfi~Jnt"rlYc>v~J!I}';fanage .. Fc>nnat~.«L!Jj>>.s,/V1.l1J4~>r<-[Y/£B~
<.<.G.L1::>':>'c,<}';fTR:>.:>.PRESERVELOGiITlON I'MERGEFORMAT
Wetland Delineation
percent of the maximum possible score) to reduce flooding and erosion. The low scores for
potential hydrologic functions are due to a lack of natural surface water outlets, poneling
features, and the types of vegetation necessary to reduce surface flows. Four of the wetlands
have moderate potential (34 percent to 67 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve
hydrologic functions. The remaining two wetlands, Wetlands C and E, have high potential to
improve hydrologic functions (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score).
Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as a highly
constricted outlets or significant water storage depths during wet periods.
3.4.3 Habitat Functions
Habitat function of the study area wetlands is further defined by their Cowardin
classifications (forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and aquatic bed). Two wetlands are classified
as scrub-shrub and open water system; one wetland includes scrub-shrub and forested
systems; two wetlands include scrub-shrub and emergent systems; three wetlands include
forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent systems (see Table 2); and three wetlands include
forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water systems (see Table 3). Wetlands with mixed
classifications are generally of higher value than wetlands with a single classification.
Three of the ten wetlands have a low opportunity (less than 34 percent of the maximum
possible score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat opportunity is
due to the characteristics of the wetland buffers and the overall lack of quality habitat
conditions near or adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining seven wetlands have a moderate
score (34 to 67 percent of the maximum possible score), and none of the wetlands has a high
score (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Wetlands with moderate or
high scores typically have characteristics such as a several Cowardin vegetation classes, several
hydroperiods, high habitat interspersion, or the presence of special habitat features.
Six of the ten wetlands have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible
score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat functions is due to the
general lack of vegetative structure, hydroperiods, plant richness, habitat diversity, and special
habitat features, especially characteristic of Wetland C, which received a score of O. The.
remaining four wetlands have a moderate potential score (34 to 67 percent of the maximum
possible score).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 36
Nel'em8er 2f}{)9!lI.lylOn
060059-01
~WT 1841842)"I.OOJlMH!f}f)f)IH
I2oc;PliQPEB.TY1)ocXJ)OclD.l)M&JnteIJV.ove!J.JMallageF'pIJPilL~54J]3.» .«NUM»v«VER??
<:<CI,'1}"-<5MT.lJ.?"PlJ.E$ElJ.VEI,QQ!,IXQNrNElJ.9.EfPfJNA.!
Wetland Delineation
3.5 Exempt Wetlands
Wetland G is exempt from any activity affecting these wetlands, as described in RMC 4-3-050
C5(f), It is a hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland smaller than 2,200 sf. Standing water
does not appear to be present in sufficient amounts to support breeding amphibians (i.e., less
than approximately 12 inches in water depth from approximately December through May).
No species are listed by federal or state government agencies as endangered or threatened, and
the presence of essential habitat for those species is not present. Any impacts to Wetland G for
cleanup activities will be mitigated for hydrologic and water quality functions. As shown in
Table 5, hydrologic and water quality function is provided at a moderate level for Wetland G.
Although Wetlands C, F, and H are smaller than 2,200 sf, they do not meet the exemption
criteria in RMC. Wetlands F and H are not hydrologically isolated due to their proximity to
Lake Washington. Wetland C has sufficient water depths in the winter to potentially provide
amphibian breeding habitat, but the presence of contamination in Wetland C limits the
habitat quality. However, Wetland C was constructed for stormwater treatment in 2006, as
described in Section 3.6.1, and is not expected to be regulated by the City of Renton.
3.6 Constructed Stormwater Features
Five wetlands in the study area were apparently constructed as part of historic site activities in
an attempt to control stormwater on the site during large storm events, and to avoid
disruption to the log storage operation that has since been abandoned. Based on recent aerial
photographs (Appendix H), site history, and other references, Wetlands B, C, G, and H were
constructed to manage stormwater or control spills associated with site activities. Historic
construction of each of these features influences the regulatory status as determined by the
City and EPA. Wetland E is thought to have developed from changes to recent stormwater
drainage on the site based on the fact that it did not qualify as a wetland during the 1997 David
Evans and Associates wetland delineation conducted on the site (Appendix G).
3.6.1 Excavated Features from the 1970s
Wetland B was excavated in the early 1970s as a retention pond to control tar from flowing
into the lake (King County Metro 1972). It is thought that Wetland G was also excavated at
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 37
It-1¥I 18~U86.f2J)JJJ}}2_@1_J}J}()(}f);j
Nel'{:m8er 2(}(}9july2(jll
060059-01
PQr;;'f'BOPlfRTY pq_~XDQ(;.1P DM$-4nteIV.',!venlManageEomULt~«LlH>" .<·dYIlM""y« VER""
«CLT"":«!l![TR""J'RESlfHVELQQ!TIONJ'MERGE£QliN4T
Wetland Delineation
the same time as part of construction of berms to direct tar on the site into Wetland B (Aspect
2009). Wetland B continues to provide stormwater retention for the Site.
3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006
Work was conducted in January 2006 to implement best management practices to control silt
and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Work was conducted in the ditch along
the southern property boundary (Wetland H) and in the area of Wetlands Band C. The work
was conducted as recommended by Ecology to control potential sources of contamination
from entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006).
The entirety of Wetland C was constructed in January 2006 to prevent stormwater from
flowing into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was also constructed along
the southern portion of Wetland C. Check dams were installed to control turbid water and
floating debris. Wetland C was constructed in an upland area that did not contain wetland
indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was not identified during a wetland delineation
conducted by David Evans and Associates in 1997 (Appendix G).
Work was also completed on Wetland B to improve stormwater flow conditions in 2006.
Along the north side of Wetland B, an outfall was excavated to create a stable outlet for
stormwater into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006).
Wetland H was excavated in January 2006 as part of best management practices to clean out
the ditch along the southern portion ofthe site. Four rock check dams were placed in the
cleared ditch at approximately 25-foot intervals to allow for sediment and wood debris
control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is located in an area that was
excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and into Lake Washington.
Wetland H also was not identified during the 1997 wetland delineation (Appendix G).
3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status
Wetlands B, C, G, and H may not be subject to City of Renton Critical Area regulations based
on the history of their construction. According to RMC 4-11-230, "wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation,
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 38
,Ve. emba 2{}{19!u1x.2QU
060059-01
fJWT)81Mf#2 IJI!JJ~5,J!2I!I!M
DQC;flJ.OPl£RTY-P9(;J(Dp"lPPM$'C/PteI]YoY,ml!1{.pagefO[[1Jat'C«Lll!?> .. ~<:NUM><y«J!ER>2
«C;L.T»,«MTR.»fRE$F;RV.ff.40id4.TIQNt:.M.ff.RClKfPRM4T
Wetland Delineation
including, but not limited to ... drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities." Wetlands B, C, G, and H all were excavated from
upland areas to manage spills or stormwater runoff. Excavation of Wetlands Band G occurred
in the 197,Os. Excavation and construction of Wetlands C and H occurred in 2006. At that
time, nearly the entire Site was being used for log storage and associated activities, as
documented in the 1990 aerial photo (Appendix H). In addition, Wetland G is exempt from
City of Renton Critical Area regulations, provided that mitigation for hydrologic and water
quality functions is provided for any impacts to the wetland.
EPA may not choose to regulate Wetlands B, C, E, G, H, I, and Jas waters of the U.S. based on
their proximity to known waters of the U.S. (e.g., Lake Washington or Gypsy Creek). They
may be determined to be isolated from waters of the U.S. and therefore not regulated, pending
EPA's evaluation. Although wetland jurisdictional determinations are generally conducted by
the Corps, impacts to these wetlands will occur as a result of a cleanup action under Superfund
and are therefore regulated by EPA. Other wetlands along the shoreline, including Wetlands
A, F, and D, are expected to be regulated as waters of the U.S. because they abut Lake
Washington.
3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations
Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often
occur between trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing
concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency.
Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in
hydrology or land use. In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a
physical change occurs in the basin or 5 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken,
another wetland survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein
represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the information available. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 39
N'>l'emee..-2{)@/uJ.x2.QU
060059-01
mFl-18 tl~221l ~H32ff9J. Q(}OQ_~_~
DQ!;F'I1QPI£RTYDocJ{D(JcJDPMS4nrerworenlMiiJlageFOIJPfl{~<l-I!J??S"JI{I..!Af»v«VFR»
«(;LT».c<.<NTR» PRESERVELOC4TlQNj~Nl£l1GI£.f.Qf?N!! T
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study
4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELINEATION AND LAKE STUDY
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of
Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and
south. Habitat features of these two channels are described in the following sections. The
result of the OHWM delineation is shown on Figure 7 and in Appendix B.
401 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods
To document the Lake Washington OHWM within the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists
reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1), performed an aerial photograph
analysis, and conducted site visits on April 23 and 30, and May 6,2009. The OHWM
delineation was completed by walking the lake shoreline beginning at the south end of the
study area and moving north. Photographs were also taken to document OHWM conditions
(Photographs 11, 12, and 13 in Appendix F).
During the site visits, the OHWM of the entire length within the study area was identified and
flagged. The OHWM boundary was marked with pin flags and later surveyed by a
professional surveyor.
Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream OHWM boundary consistent with Chapter 90.58
of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 of the WAC. The WAC
defines the OHWM as:
"'Ordinary high water line' means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action
of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark
upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland:
Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found the
ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high
water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation of
the mean annual flood."
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 40
l'l",,,,mhe: 2{)(}9J'!./Y1P!.l
060059-01
fJWTM m~JhliJ!!J}~9c5 9f)!i~OI
QOCPJiOPl£liTrlJpcXI2gcIlJJ)M$cJlJtem'ovelJIM~l1ageEg£lJl¥t"55UlJ>.>.5dYJJM2>V55VE&>
55CL.T?2-<.5MTR:>i:..?R!i.$ER.V!i.L.Oc:.(!.TIQl'i..l.o . .M!i.RG!i.fORMAT
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study
4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of
Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and
south. This included the placement of 43 pin flags installed at all meandering locations of the
shoreline. Additionally. the OHWM was coincident with Wetlands A, D, and F and formed
the western boundary of each of those wetlands. The OHWM is shown on Figure 7. Detailed
flag locations are shown on drawings in Appendix B.
Overall, the southern half of the study area contained an OHWM that was clearly defined by
an armored shoreline consisting oflarge boulders. The northern half was not as clearly
defined, with a gradual transition from the upland to the water as well as former pier
structures and large floating logs along the lake's edge. This half of the property was
delineated using the investigators' best professional judgment and based on parameters set
forth in Chapter 90.58 of the RCW and Chapter 173-22 ofthe WAC (Photographs 12 through
14 in Appendix F). Water depth during the investigation adjacent to the OHWM ranged from
about 4 inches to more than 3 feet deep.
4.3 Lake Study
According to RMC 4-3-090, and consistent with Washington State Administrative Code
(WAC 173-26-251 and RCW 90.58.030(2)(e))j, Lake Washington is classified as a Shoreline of
Statewide Significance, meaning "lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof,
with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water
mark," and thus subject to the local jurisdiction's SMA. The SMA governs the use and
development of shorelines in Washington State for responsible shoreline development with
environmental protection and public access.
Subsequent activities along the shoreline will include remediation of hazardous substances in
lake sediments and/or in the upland portions of the Site, as directed by EPA. The sediment
and upland cleanup is being performed under Superfund. All substantive provisions of City
regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Additional
information on the existing lake conditions will be included in the RI. Details on each of the
remedial alternatives considered will be included in the FS. Previous information on the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 41
N,,, -ember 2(){)91Wx.7QU
060059-01
EWT L8:JM6]2', I-{}(E)!i2-5:-Jlf)1}fl()4
DOC£RO£El?TYj)ocX1)Qc1PJ}M&lnt~{!!;'OYi"JlIMan-"geF()pnat~«LIJ3;o.> «Nl.lM»v<<:VER:e>
55.CL1}>cS5MT.R.;>;o..Fl?fSEl?YELQQ.TIQNI'.MERGEFORMAT
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study ----~--~-----.~-
aquatic habitat conditions is included in Appendix G. A summary of known fish species
present is described below.
4,3,1 Fish Species Presence
During the surveys, no fish were observed along the lakeshore of the study area; however, the
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for WRIA 8 identifies five salmonid
species that use Lake Washington, and could reasonably be expected to occur along the
property: sockeye, coho, Chinook, coastal cutthroat, and rainbow/steelhead trout (Kerwin
2001). Anadromous forms of each of these species are present, so individuals are present in the
lake both as adults during migrations to spawning grounds and as juveniles. Sockeye are
known to spawn along some beaches ofthe lake while there are unconfirmed reports of
Chinook spawning in littoral areas of the lake. Non~anadromous forms of winter steelhead
(rainbow trout), sockeye (kokanee), and cutthroat also occur in the lake. Resident rainbow
trout spend their entire life in Lake Washington. Non~anadromous coastal cutthroat trout also
occur in Lake Washington and are much more abundant than the anadromous form (Nowak
2000).
Other non~anadromous species expected to occur near the study area include: longfin smelt
(Spinnchus thaleichthys), sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.), and dace (Leuciscus spp.).
Non~native freshwater species known to occur in Lake Washington, and likely found near the
study area include: black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrocheilus),
common carp (Cypnnus carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pumpkinseed
sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieUI), tench (Tinea tinea),
and yellow perch (Perea flaveseens).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 42
Nlwemhe: 2f){)9!u.ly2QU
06()()59-0l
H!IT 181_:8(i]2.~1 {)Ql2u(il)J (}{)()JlJH
DQCPROPERTYDocXDoclDDMS,lI;l.tl!m'py€p,!M,~nageFofT11ar:5<LIJ3»«NJ!N>.>.y«YlIR»
«CLT>.>c«MTR?> .. PSlls$Sv:noC4,[IoiY.I'MJiRC;EFPRMAT
Shoreline Restoration Plan
5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
This rel)Prt RJovides a concept:llaLshorelinexeslQJ::atiQn_plaJLfor purnoses of the
redevelopmentprocess. A shoreline restoration plan will be developed aspan of the
EP A/NRD p~ss and may be different than the conceptual restoration plan developed in this
~()rL J:'his repQrLassumeUegulflWryintgrpretationsthatwill result in a post-remediation
condition that would allow the greatest area for redevelopment based on the 1983 City of
Renton's Shoreline ManagementPlanalldAppendix fof the DEIS.
5.1 Introduction and Purpose
This section presents a conceptual shoreline restoration plan to create significant net
ecological functional improvement to the Lake Washington shoreline, riparian buffer, and
wetlands and associated buffers. SHBjeet to EPA aj9j9roval HReler their CERCLA aHtflorities,
the j9laR wOHleiThis conceptual-plan is intended to offset impacts resulting from prospective
Site remediation efforts (e.g., soil removal and replacement with clean fill and/or capping)
related to hazardous substances as may be present in lake sediments and in the upland portions
of the Site. The goal ofthis plan is to identify post-remediation conditions that would allow
thegreatestarea for redevelopmentbased onthe 19113City ofR,enton's Shoreline
Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS. All wetland impacts at the Site are anticipated
to occur as a result of CERCLA remediation. Because the sediment and upland cleanup is
being performed under CERCLA, all substantive provisions of City regulatory requirements
will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Altflololgh sjgeeifieSpecific details on
remedial alternatives have Rot yet BeeR elevelojgeel, they willfll1ctresllltiDg
mitigation/restoration be included in the FS followiHg aelelitioRal testiHg aREI eliseHssioRS with
EP&ReJ;on:t()f Decision anticipated to b e}'e!!"aseg_12yJ;:p/\ j!L2QlA,
Once Site remediation is completed under CERCLA, the remaining wetlands will not be
impacted by the planned redevelopment. This conceptual shoreline restoration plan provides
the City with information on the wetlands to be impacted as part of the cleanup and/or the
potentiaLnatural resource damages settlement, and provides some general information on the
types of mitigation that will occur, all subject to EPA "J'lj9FOvaldeveIQPment of the final
remedial alternative and mitigation/restoration plan developed as part ofthe ROD and any
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Terminals 43
Na.'tHB8e,·2{){)9!uly2011
06{)()59-0l
1;).'4'1:'. '-81l~.fPrl! g(}J1695 {)(J{)()O.~
DOCPROPERTYPo~XPQcJ12pM$dnteDVOV"-I}JMaI}agefQrma{C'«LlB2 <slVl.!M»v~<YER»
s,CL'f'C>c<<(Mr&?PRESERYELQg.T1QN.l·MERClJJFQ1?}'t1AT
Shoreline Restoration Plan
NRPsettlement. There are no anticipated wetland impacts from the planned redevelopment
and therefore no mitigation is required as part of Site redevelopment.
ltF~LPJHposeof this report. it is geHeraUy assumed that any cleanup decision by EPA will
result in impacts to Wetlands B, C, E, F, and G, and portions of Wetlands A and D. In general,
projects with wetland impacts can only occur after it can be demonstrated that impacts to
wetlands cannot be avoided, that impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible,
and finally after adequate mitigation is provided. However, the cleanup will likely be ordered
by EPA to address hazardous substance contamination on the Site that will result in
unavoidable wetland impacts. BasedEoll!l!P9g;softhis report and based on existing
information on Site contamination, Wetlands H, I, and J. and portions of Wetlands A and D
are not anticipated to be impacted by remediation actions.
This conceptual shoreline restoration plan is intended to update the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum completed for the Quendall and Baxter properties in 2000 (AESI 2000). That
memorandum was prepared to address cleanup-related impacts to wetlands and the lake
shoreline when investigation and cleanup of the site were being conducted under
Washington's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). That document was prepared for the City
of Renton and Vulcan Northwest, and was developed with input from WDFW, Ecology,
WDNR, the Corps, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, among others. Mitigation as a result of
cleanup and development activities was completed on the Baxter site (located immediately
north of the Quendall site) in 2007 according to the requirements in the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum.
5,2 Goals and Objectives
The conceptual shoreline restoration plan would provide significant ecological functional
gains for the Lake Washington shoreline including wetlands, buffers, and lake riparian areas.
The conceptual plan would provide compensation necessary to mitigate impacts resulting
from the prospective cleanup action (to be selected by EPA). Following cleanup, it is
anticipated that the property would be redeveloped. A conceptual development plan is
presented in Figure 8 to show how wetland creation/restoration ratios and buffer widths could
potentially be applied to the site, subject to EPA's cleaHHf' aecisioHS. EPA has also iHeiHaea
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 44
N81 emhff 2{){)9lylyll.J.ll
06(}(}59-0l
mIT j$4ll!(i~J'tfll!H69HJIJ!I!!fi1
l)QCl'RQl'lfR'[rJ)QcXJ)Q':lIlj.)i}fSdnSeI}foyeljIManageFoI111~t~~<ldB;».«l'/I.JM>~v<eVER>?
«C!.'[??:.«MTB??.l'RlfSlfRVELOr;.4TIQNJ'MlfRGEFORMAT
Shoreline Restoration Plan
tfie reseurce agencies in its precess and tfiese agencies may be iH'fel'led in furore mitigation
dismssiens, including cfianges to JQIc.sulLinthcgreatestareafor redevelQRment. _ EPA and
Lhe NRD trustees will develQP the final plan in cQnsultatiQn with .other resQurce agencies and
the ultimate Site shoreline areas toplan max further improve eCQIQgical functiQns (see Figure
8).
Subject to EPA appro'lalFQr 12urPQses .of this repQrt, impacts to wetlands willlikelyare assumed
tQ be mitigated at a 1.5: 1 replacement ratiQ tQ .offset functiQnallQsses resulting from Site
remediatiQn. This ratiQ will result in the greatest area for redevelQpment andis cQnsistent
with the MitigatiQn Analysis Memorandum (AESI 2000). Because Wetland G ismay be
exempt from critical area regulatiQns, tbi~Ie.P9rtj!~~J!W_e§it will likely be mitigated at a 1: 1
ratiQ. If additienal impacted wetlands are net regulated by the City and EPA (as discussed in
Section d.e), the total wetland restoration area may be smaller than what is presented in
Figure 8.
The cQnceptual shQreline restoratiQn plan CQuid alsQ improve habitat for aquatic species
within Lake Washington such as migrating juvenile salmQn. Subject to EPA appre'lalFQr
exru:Ilple, shoreline habitat and cQmplexity CQuid be restored with appropriate habitat mix
gravel, large WQQdy debris, and .overhanging vegetatiQn. The large WQQdy debris CQuid be
collected and stQckpiled during remediation activities and reused along the shoreline to the
extent practicable.
The conceptual shoreline restoration plan depicted in Figure 8 includes a 100-foot average
width riparian buffer from the lake OHWM. This buffer will result in the greatru.m:.~
redeye]oPIDe.ItUmd is consistent with the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AESI 2000).
The proposed riparian area could also provide a buffer for existing wetlands, and prospective
wetland expansions in addition to providing a shoreline buffer. The new development
adjacent to the shoreline following cleanup could provide a IOO-foot average setback. The
setback may fluctuate in width, depending on the proposed development plan. This setback is
significantly greater than the 50-foot minimum setback required by the City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 45
DWLL&4l£62MflfM26S.'i.l)(}f}{}(l.1
]1'81-emhe:2{){)9!uly2Q11.
060059-01
DOCPROPERTYDocXDQcIDDMS4nterwor:enlMan<lge Eorm.at:«UB»«NL1M>2y«VER»
~<C:LT>_>_,«MTE.»_PRESERVELQC4TIQN._I:MERG]£.fQRM4T
Shoreline Restoration Plan
S.3 Elements of the Plan
5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat
Sul3jeet to EPA appro'fal,F'orp:urposes of thisrep0rt,it isassumed the lOO-foot average width
riparian buffer would revegetate the area adjacent to Lake Washington (see Figure 8). The
revegetation wouldcould focus on species diversity, species density allowing for varied light
penetration, and the creation of different successional stages along the lake. A preliminary
plant list for riparian buffer enhancement is presented in Table 7. Willow and water-tolerant
shrub vegetation along the shoreline wouldcould provide shade for aquatic species.
Deciduous-dominated forests v/oltldcruili\ include open areas where sunlight can penetrate to
the forest floor. Coniferous-dominated forests w'OUldcould provide important habitat for
upland species.
Long-term function of riparian areas wouldcould provide detritus inputs, insect drop, and
woody debris inputs for aquatic species to support prey resources and provide cover for
juvenile salmon. In addition, woody debris and substrate enhancement of the shoreline
wouldcould support these aquatic ecological functions in the short term.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 46
l'l8vemhe.-2{){)9JuiylQU
060059-01
f)~wrM1LM?l> LQI)J}~2> 090001
DCKPRQPERTYDor;XD()cfJ)J)M$=ln[er<yoven£AfgI1aRt;~Fognat=<;<L[j3»<.<NUM>2v«VJJR>~
«CLT»c«MTR» PRESERYELOCATlONJ'.MEB.GEFQRMAT
Shoreline Restoration Plan
Table 7
Riparian Buffer Plant List
Common Name Scientific Name
Groundcovers
Lady Fern Athyrium fi/ix-femina
Salal Gaultheria shal/on
Sword Fern Polystichum munitum
Willows/Shrubs
Vine Maple Acer b·lFG.ifUltl:JFRcircinatum
Red-osier Dogwood Comus sericea
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrata
Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa
Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana
Hooker's Willow Salix hookeriana
Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana
Sitka Willow Salix sitchensis
Douglas Spirea Spiraea douglasii
Snawberry Sympharicarpos olbus
Trees
Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyl/um
Pacific Dogwood Comus nuttalii
Red Alder Alnus rubra
Hazelnut Corylus cornuta
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia
Sitka Spruce Piceo sitchensis
Douglas Fir Psuedotsugo menziesii
Black Cottonwood Populus tremuloides
Western Crabapple Pyrusfusco
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophyl/a
5.3.2 Wetland Restoration
Subject to EPA approvalFQLll11rp9g~~~qfJ;hi~~nmgrt, it is aHticipated thatassumed wetland
creation/restoration along the Lake Washington shoreline would expand existing Wetlands A,
D, and J (see Figure 8)_ Impacts to existing lakeshore wetlands from cleanup activities
(Wetlands A, D, and F) could be mitigated along the lakeshore, adjacent to Wetlands A and D_
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 47
]lkwemhe:2{}(}9/u/y2.QU
060059-01
f) wE'1sm11>i (}2}l6210Q!)f}01
DQ(:PR9PE8Tr[JocXDgr;II2PMS~Int~JYVov",nIMan!,ge.for!l!.at"C'i.5Ulh.>. ... <;<lY1!M~.>.v~VEilc.~
<;<CL.T:>.>.c«MTR?>PRESERVELOCATIQNL·ME.RGE.fQ8M.j,T
Shoreline Restoration Plan
Impacts to existing wetlands that are not connected to the lakeshore (Wetlands B, C, E, and G)
could be mitigated adjacent to Wetland J.
In all areas, the creation/restoration wouldcould diversify the existing range of wetland
habitat and willcould include emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitat areas. This includes
restoration adjacent to Wetlands A and D for impacts to LFO, LSS, and LEM components of
lakeshore Wetlands A, D, and F. In addition, the prospective wetland creation/restoration
area adjacent to Wetland A could include a low swale (see Figure 8). This swale vlouldcould
connect to Lake Washington and diversify the marsh habitat by adding open water and
emergent habitat. The creation of this swale could also offset impacts to POW habitats in
Wetlands Band C. The swale could be designed to encourage seasonal use by juvenile
salmonids with the placement of large woody debris (L WD). L WD provides habitat
complexity and areas for cover for juvenile salmonids. Water quality and hydrologic
functional improvements vrouldcould also result from improved stormwater retention and
capability to trap sediments through wetland, riparian, and associated buffer replanting. A
preliminary plant list for wetland creation/restoration is presented in Table 8.
Restoration adjacent to Wetland J wouldcould offset impacts to PSS, PEM, and PFO
components of Wetlands B, C, E, and G. POW habitat 'Nouldqmld be replaced as part of
restoration adjacent to Wetland A. The restorationlcreation would~.!.!ld replace current
wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent
to Wetland J wouldcould provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function
from that provided by existing wetlands, which are compromised by the presence of soil and
water contamination. Habitat function wouldcould also benefit from improved structure and
diversity. Wetlands B, C, E, and G currently provide a moderate level of water quality and
hydrologic function through stormwater retention. These wetlands currently have a higher
opportunity to provide these functions due to the presence of contaminated stormwater on
the site. Water quality and hydrologic functions provided by existing Wetlands B, C, E, and G
wouldcould be replaced with improved on-site stormwater control and treatment as well as an
increased ability to trap sediments as part of riparian and shoreline wetland buffer
improvements.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 48
NfH'e-mhe.-2{)(}9!u1y20U
060059-01
£Jug:JMI862h Ic!!I}3Z695 __
I)Qr:;EB9J>'{!iiTYDocXJ)QcJ12DMS~Inte=oveJ)lMaJ)age.£Qrmat~«LlfJ»_~,,1VlJM»V<,,-VE&>
«CLT»-«}.fTR?;?;PR'{!S'{!Rv.F;I-Or:::dTlOtfL:ME/J.(i'{!£ORMAT
TableS
Wetland Plant List
Common Name Scientific Name
Emergents
Slough Sedge Carex obnupta
Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus
Small-fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus
Willows/Shrubs
Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea
Black Hawthorne Crataegus douglasii
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrate
Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus
Hooker's Willow Salix hookeriana
Pacific Willow Salix lasiandra
Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana
Douglas Spirea Spiraea douglasii
Trees
Red Alder Alnus rubra
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 49
Shoreline Restoration Plan
~July7Ql1
060059-01
1i!}1'L18H§ftJl1L~F}1JA9lJJ£1f!fl~ 1
DQQ)RQf'ER.T.YPQ~XI2"c!l212M:i=lJ]tf']JroK~1I1l4i!!1"g<:fgIJ1lar~5<j,JB'2~~Nl/1J{;;?Ko<SYIJ&?
5<(;II?.?-.«MTR?? PRE.S§RVIJLOCATfQNI'MiIRriP!QRMAT
References
6 REFERENCES
AESI. 2000. Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Quendall and Baxter Properties, Renton,
Washington. Prepared for Vulcan Northwest and City of Renton. February 17.
Access Washington. 2009. Washington State Growth Management Act. Accessed online at
http://www.gmhb. wa.govigmaiindex.htmlhttp"LL>vww,gmhb,wa.gov/gmalindex.html
on February 23,2009.
Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect). 2009. Personal communication with Jeremy Porter
regarding current understanding of historic property use and excavation of Wetland G.
August 27.
City of Renton. 1992. Renton's Critical Areas Inventory. Prepared by Jones and Stokes.
Ciry of Renton. 2009. Renton Municipal Code. Accessed online at
http:,4!vnrw.€odepliblishing.€om/wa/rentDno'P-ttp:Uwww.codepublishing.comLwa/rent
QnL on June 11, 2009.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.e. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
D.e.
Ecology. See Washington State Department of Ecology.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kerwin. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the CEDAR-
SAMMAMISH BASIN (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation
Commission. Olympia, W A.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 50
{)iITL£IM6ZhIWJ~
Nel'embe.-2{)(}9/uiy 2011
060059-01
DOCPROPERTYDoJ:XDocII)DMS=}nte!Yvp.,.~tJlMal1i}gt;?lqrJ1JI!r~S51cllJys.:'CJI!J!M?>V5.:<VfRo;>
s<.Clc.T>;?,.<'5MTR>;>E.R.ESfRJ!flc094.'flON.l·MfR.G.fFOR.MAT
References
King County Metro. Memorandum from Larry Peterson to Glen D. Harris regarding Quendall
Terminals Co. Industrial Waste. March 29, 1972.
Munsell. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Chans. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Nowak, G.M. 2000. Movement patterns and feeding ecology of cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Lake Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Phoinix. 2006. Memorandum to Mr. John J. Tortorelli, Western Wood Lumber Company,
regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Project. January 19.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National
Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9).
Reed, P., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region, ed J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
u.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed online at
http:,~lvA'Iw.wa.Br€s.llsEia.ge'nite€hBi€abiseils/€ellBty hyEirie lists.htmlhllp:llwww.wa.
nrcs.usda.gov/technicallsoils/county hydric lists.html on May 8, 2009.
USDA. 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed
online at
Wetland and Ordinal)' High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 51
flEE 18!!§HbJq~1l~2JjJJ~f!f!1
Nevembe.-2t){}9!u1y2011
06()()59-01
DQr;P8QPEBTrpo,l{.l)QflPPM$=oI"reDYoveJJ!~"ag~E(JI71lat=-«LIB> > .<_</VYN »~«Vf:8»
«CLT»,.«/!4TR»P.8ESl£RVEL.CX::.!JTlQN I'NERGEEORMAT
References
http:Nsoils.usda.gov/use/hydricmsts!state.htmlhttp:/L~Qils.tlsda.gov/llselhydrk/listsista
te.html on June 11, 2009.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for
National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at
http://wetlaHdsfws.er.usgs.goyhttp:Uwetiandsfws.er.usgs.gov on May 8, 2009
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) Maps in the Vicinity of T24, ROSE, Section 29. Report Date August 28 2009.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western Washington: Revised.
Publication No. 04-06-15. Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, version 2.
Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2009a. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 9 DuwamishiGreen Basin.
Accessed online at
http·llnm~ .. eey ma go"/serviees/gisimaps 'mria/HUmher/n'ria9 htmhtt·n·jllwww ecv wa .Jlnn'iif. . ~. 1r. r r K'F fn. ~ :r~~,,--"-'.---------'-----l!':J-'~____'__'_="_
.gov(~ervices(gis(maps(wria(numberlwria9.htm on February 23, 2009
Ecology. 2009b. Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Accessed online at
http:Nwww.eey.wa.goviprogramsiseaisma,Qa>.¥s FlliesiiHdClLhtmlhttp:Uwww.ecy.wa.g
9cyiNQgrams/seaismallaws rules/indc2d1tlJ11 on September 5,2009.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 52
Na.'t!meer 2{)(}9july2.01l
060059-01
fJWT-l£118ii22, / ~9J.M9J90.~Q01
f.29r:;l;'lJ.QP]ilJorf.12g('Xl.2QcllJj2MSdIJ!eIJYg"eJJIA;f~lJi'SK!"g{IJ1#b7c~d.113~>.:,dYYMi:?Y5cSXliB>2
«r:;LT>.>c«A;fTR»FREHRV'F;LQQJ.TlQIYI'MERGEFORMAT
FIGURES
[)J4l,[}Ml¥>n,L!!!H~6\\l. 90ooQ4DOC£RO£ERTYDocXDoclDDMS=o[nteIWovenlMilllageFQnnatO'""UB22
"sNJ.!M~?v5s'i.ER~.> .. 55(L7}2'.55MIR?:> .. '£'Rli.SII.liYELQ.C4Tl.Ql'f . .I.:MEliG.EF.QiiMJ'l'
APPENDIX A
PLAN VIEW AND CROSS SECTIONS OF
WETLANDS A THROUGH H
lJwr,)~"I86Jl",l..q0J2~9J"QQQQQ11JQC:PROPERITPpcXPpdD DMS=JnterwQyenIMaJ1ageFonnat~.«LIB»
«M.!M»,Y<~YER»«CLT">c<c<M1'l?,,?,!,/]jl$ERYE4,0G1'[!OIY.I:MERaEl'Q!YJr1A,,[
APPENDIX B
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK FLAG
LOCATIONS
PO'] '84'8r;J],· 'eQJ]'''500QQQJDQC;PBQPEBITDocXD()(:JDPM!i~Lnr''IlY9v''111ManMeL(JTJl1"r~«PJ3x>
<,NI!M»y«VER».«c:LT:»c«MIR»PRESERVELOC4TJQNI'MERGEFORMAT
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE PLOT SUMMARY DATA
f)WT.l8Il862] ... I.QQ}2'S", w()I}()4DQCP1?QPERIT Do<:XJ)oclDDMS~=lnterwoyenIManage.Eonna.r'Sss.LlB.;?
ssMlJlb;>y,-.,-YER;>;>.ssCL.T;>:>cssl,II.R:>;>£BESEBKEl.QCA.TlON.i.:.MF:.BG1JEOBMAT
APPENDIX D
FIELD DATA SHEETS
f)WL!1illfiE>',gqF!~,9f;J}PQqgtJ:!QCf£QfJIBTYJ2ll(.KJLO£ll)DMS=1nreIJ¥Q=lMJll)-'lge1Q1J1!#!~<~L[J3»
S,<;lYJlM»y<;<VER»,<<;CL]},,;,<<MTJ?»l'EI£SJfRygI,QC4T[QIYI:MI£BGI£EQRMt1T
APPENDIX E
ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS
l)WT.18118.11 ... L~OJ1.!"' .. OfloooIDOCPRQPERTYDQcXDoclDDMS=ll1rcm()x.el1IM<!l1qge.Ewmar""5S1.J/J.?;;;:
$~NJJM.??Y"".VE&?~.~CLl}?,.<~MI&?PR!i.Se.RYELQC471QN .. I .. :.MERGEfQRM4.T
APPENDIX F
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
£)"'1'18,1,1.8.", I OW1.'L5,OgOOolfJQC::PEQfliliTYP9J;XI:JPs!P!2.M~=lIJJeZ;}¥P!CmIMi!l)ag~F'PI111"t"",<,<LlB;»
<,<NUM»y,«VER:»,,<.<.(;LT>,>c,<.<.MIE»f'Eli$EEV,liLQg,T,fQlY,I,~MliE9lif'QEl'44,!
APPENDIX G
MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM,
QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES
!lWEI.&11.8~n ,j .o.~>I'H'>.Qe9QQIf2Qf;J>RQJ>gR1X.P.p,XPqf!I!I!ll{.$,ll1t~!JYC<JK~l1lMi!JJ<Jg~):,qpJlil~~~LlIl.2
«NJJM»I'«YER»«(;f]»,«A1T'R?>Pl?iI$ERYEl.-Q(A.TIQlYtMIlRGiIFQRMA T
APPENDIX H
1990 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
i)W'Tol84/f36U"QiW69,ci!i!f)f}MDQCPROPERTYDQcXl20c1DDMS=InterwovenIManagc1'PfllliKe," "LIE??
sdYJJM?2xssYER??s.sCL,[?,:,ssM[&?!'B.Es'EI1J'/lLQQ1,[lQNJ:MER/:iEEQiY'44r
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11'53'52 AM ..... -_. ... _. __ .
Ilnn"t'
IDocument1 10 i. . venSi1e.;/Idwldgcs/DWT/1 §41862211
Qe~!<[ipti()Q 1#18418622v1<DWT> -Wetland Report [dean]
DQ.~ument 2 ID ,/I I "A,
~ .. , QA' d?<DWT>
I set Istandard
Statistig;;
Co.un.t
loser:tiQos H
DeletiQos H
MQved from Q
MQlled tQ Q
SMe!::baoge Q
EQllIIal!::bang ed Q
Total !::banges 28.
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11'56'32 AM
Input:
Document 1 10 file://C:\Users\paks\Desktop\DEIS\ 10-13-11 \Quendall
Wetland Report 07-14-11 redline (old 1 ),doc
Description Quendall Wetland Report 07-14-11 redline (old 1)
Document 2 10 interwovenSite://dwtdocsIDWT/184197 4 7 /1
Description #18419747v1<DWT> -Wetland Report CMP
Rendering set standard
Legend:
lns~r!lon
bleletieH
Mo'iea !fem
Mov~d to
Styl~ change
F orrnat change
M&ved-OOlelHm
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 140
Deletions 72
Moved from 5
Moved to 5
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 222
WETLAND ASSESSMENT, STANDARD LAKE
STUDY, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND
CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN
QUENDALL TERMINALS
Prepared for
Altino Propenies, Inc.
and J.H. Baxter & Company
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
720 Olive Way, Suite 1900
Seattle, Washington 98101
July 2011
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Review of Existing Information ...................................................................................... 3
2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 4
2.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................... .4
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................................. .5
2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types ........................................................................... 6
3 WETLAND DELINEATION ................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods ........................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.4 Other Data Sources ................................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 Wetland Classifications ............................................................................................ 11
3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System ................................................................................. 12
3.1.7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ....................... 13
3.1. 7 .1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ........................................ 13
3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment ............................................................................... 16
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results ......................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.3 Wetland C ................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Wetland D ................................................................................................................ .20
3.2.5 Wetland E ................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.6 Wetland F ................................................................................................................. 23
3.2.7 Wetland G ................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.8 Wetland H ................................................................................................................ 26
3.2.9 Wetland I .................................................................................................................. 27
3.2.10 Wetland J .................................................................................................................. 28
3.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................. 29
3.3.1 USFWS Classification ............................................................................................... 30
Wedand Assessment, Standard Lake Study, and Habitat Data Report
Quendall Terminals i
DWT 18418622,] 0032695·000004
/uly2011
060059-01
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores ......................... 30
3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance ................................................... 33
3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary .................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Water Quality Functions ......................................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions ............................................................................................... 35
3.4.3 Habitat Functions ..................................................................................................... 36
3.5 Exempt Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 37
3.6 Constructed Stormwater Features ................................................................................. 37
3.6.1 Excavated Features from the 1970s ......................................................................... 37
3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006 ............................................. 38
3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status ................................................................................. 38
3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations .............................................................. 39
4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELINEATION AND LAKE STUDY ........................... .40
4.l Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods ....................................................... .40
4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results .......................................................... .41
4.3 Lake Study ..................................................................................................................... .41
4.3.1 Fish Species Presence .............................................................................................. .42
5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................................... .43
5.1 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................. .43
5.2 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... .44
5.3 Elements of the Plan .................................................................................................... ..45
5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat .......................................................................................... ..45
5.3.2 Wetland Restoration ............................................................................................... .47
6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 50
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals II
DWT J84J8622v3 0032695·000004
July 2011
060059·01
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions ................................................................. 10
City of Renton Wetland Regulations ................................................................. 16
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water .............. 30
Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands
Rating System ....................................................................................................... 31
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores ............................. 32
City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance ...................... 33
Riparian Buffer Plant List. .................................................................................. 47
Wetland Plant List .............................................................................................. 49
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Vicinity Map
Project Site and Aerial Photo
Site Topography
Soil Series
NWI Mapped Wetlands
Vegetative Cover
Wetlands and OHWM Delineation Results
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
List of Appendices
Appendix A Plan View and Cross Sections of Wetlands A through H
Appendix B Ordinary High Water Mark Flag Locations
Appendix C Sample Plot Summary Data
Appendix D Field Data Sheets
Appendix E Ecology Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix F Site Photographs
Appendix G Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Quendall and Baxter Properties
Appendix H 1990 Aerial Photograph
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals iii
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
/uly2011
060059-01
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
Under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Quendall Terminals owners (Altino Properties, Inc., and r.H. Baxter & Company) are
concurrently conducting a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the
Quendall Terminals Site (Site) in Renton, Washington. The work is being conducted under
an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, as amended (AOC), with
EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA; i.e., "Superfund"). Detailed information on existing lake and upland conditions
will be included in the RIffS report, estimated to be released by EPA in late -2013. CERCLA
cleanup actions along the shoreline will potentially include remediation of hazardous
substances in lake sediments and/or in the upland portions of the Site, as well as
implementation of the Shoreline Restoration Plan required as part of the cleanup!
remediation and/or to resolve potential natural resource damages ("NRD") claims.
This report was prepared to facilitate the redevelopment process that is underway at this
time and is not intended to replace the EPAlNRD process. Rather, Anchor QEA, LLC
(Anchor QEA) performed wetland delineation, lake ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
delineation, and habitat assessments ofthe approximately 21-acre Quendall Terminals Site
(Parcel No. 2924059002; Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 29) to inform
development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Site. While specifications
for shoreline mitigation and restoration will not be finalized until the ROD and/or a
potential NRD settlement, this report is intended to identify a post-remediation condition
referred to as a baseline. Redevelopment impacts are assessed and measured against the
baseline that exists pre-development, but post-cleanup.
For this report and the DEIS, a baseline can be assumed using environmental mitigation
ratios, buffers and setbacks from the 1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Management Plan and
Appendix E ofthe DEIS. Such a baseline, as presented in this DEIS, would reflect the
maximum development footprint or impact that could occur at Quendall.
A similar analysis may be required as part of the EP AlNRD process and may result in
delineations and ratings different than those included in this report. As part of EPA's
cleanup decision, the Agency will require any necessary wetland mitigation/shoreline
restoration, as determined by prevailing environmental standards, as needed to compensate
for environmental impacts resulting for cleanup actions such as filling existing wetlands to
provide a clean soil surface at ~endall.
Wetland and Ordinal)' High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 1
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Introduction
These environmental standards may change in the future because more stringent regulatory
standards could be established. It is EPA's position that future environmental standards for
environmental mitigation/restoration may result in larger mitigation ratios, buffers and/or
setbacks resulting in larger or higher quality wetlands and shoreline restoration. The result
would be a smaller redevelopment footprint/impact and the City may decide a new or
supplemental EIS is not necessary. Final wetland mitigation/shoreline restoration,
requirements will be established in EPA's Record of Decision for the QIendall cleanup.
A vicinity map is provided on Figure I, and a recent aerial photograph of the project area is
provided on Figure 2. The survey included an approximately l.IS-acre adjoining portion on
the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 2). As discussed above, this report
supports City of Renton (City) entitlement processing for Master Siteplan Approval,
Shoreline Substantial Development, Environmental Review, and a Binding Siteplan, for the
Quendall Terminals property. The proposed project includes a mix of S-story residential
units above two levels of above-grade parking and at-grade surface street parking along with
retaiVrestaurant space. The redevelopment project anticipates entitlement of approximately
800 residential units, 260,000± square feet of office space, and 30,000± square feet (sf) of
retaiVrestaurant space with associated parking.
While this report was prepared in accordance with City criteria, as defined in the City of
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 (City of Renton 2009), some elements
required by the code will not be available until selection of a cleanup remedy for the Site by
EPA, which is currently anticipated in 2013. As required by CERCLA, all substantive
provisions of City regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by
EPA.
Land use within the study area is currently zoned for commercial use and consists of
abandoned log storage facilities, modified dirt roads, and fragmented patches of forest and
shrub habitat. Ten wetlands (Wetlands A through J) were identified within the study area.
This report describes the methods used in the field investigation and Anchor QEA's findings.
A description of the study area is included in Section 2. Summaries of the findings of the
wetland delineation are included in Section 3. Summaries of the findings of the lake OHWM
delineation are included in Section 4. Drawings showing plan view and cross sections of
each wetland are provided in Appendix A. Flag locations from the OHWM survey are
provided in drawings in Appendix B. A summary of data collected at each sample plot
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qf.1endall Terminals 2
DW1' 18418622d 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Introduction
during the wetland delineation is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data
forms in Appendix D. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wetland rating
forms are included in Appendix E. Site photographs are provided in Appendix F. Previous
wetland delineations performed in 1997 are included in the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum provided in Appendix G. A 1990 aerial photograph of the site is provided in
Appendix H.
1.1 Review of Existing Information
As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area,
Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field
observations:
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009)
• Soil Survey of King County, Washington (USDA 1973)
• Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington (USDA 2001)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map Information (USFWS 2009)
• RMC (City of Renton 2009)
• Aerial photographs
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) Maps (WDFW 2009)
• WDFS Non-game Data System Special Animal Species, as identified in Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-011
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Terminals 3
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-0(}(}(}04
July 2011
060059-01
Study Area Description
2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area consists of one parcel with two parts. The larger portion is rectangular-
shaped and is approximately 20.08 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington. The smaller
portion is located just across Lake Washington Boulevard and is approximately 1.15 acres.
The study area is located in the City of Renton, King County Washington (Township 24
North, Range 5 East, Section 29; see Figures 1 and 2).
Shortly after the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 to construct the Lake Washington
Ship Canal, the Site, including newly exposed portions of the former May Creek delta, was
developed into a creosote manufacturing facility. Up until 1969, creosote was manufactured
on the Site by refining and processing coal tar and oil-gas tar residues. From 1969 to
approximately 1977, some of the aboveground tanks at the Site were used intermittently for
crude oil, waste oil, and diesel storage. From 1977 to 2008, the Site was used primarily for
log sorting and storage, with tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation associated with upland,
wetland, and riparian habitats. The Site is currently vacant. Aquatic lands adjacent to the
facility managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were
historically leased for log rafting and vessel storage uses, but those leases terminated in the
1990s.
Immediately adjacent properties include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill
property) and Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter
property). Lake Washington borders the western boundary ofthe study area. BNSF railroad
and Lake Washington Boulevard separate the two portions of the parcel, with Interstate 405
(I -405) located along the east side of the eastern portion. May Creek currently discharges
into Lake Washington approximately 400 yards south ofthe Site, just south ofthe Conner
Homes development. An aerial photograph of the study area shortly after redevelopment of
the Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest property, but prior to more recent
redevelopment of the Conner Homes property, is depicted on Figure 2.
2.1 Topography
Overall, the topography ofthe Site is relatively level with a gradual slope west down to Lake
Washington (Figure 3). Site topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling
and grading activities. Site elevations are based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 4
DWT 1841862],30032695-0011004
July 2011
060059-01
Study Area Description
(NA VD 88) and range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20
feet at the lake shore. The exposed Site soils are relatively fine-grained, which slows
infiltration during rainy periods causing ponding in many areas.
The Site has been heavily manipulated through the placement of fill, which is found across
the entire Site. Fill thickness ranges from I to 2 feet along the southern and eastern
boundaries up to 6 and 10 feet in northern portions. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt,
sand, and gravel with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log sorting operations are
typical in the upper few feet. Where creosote and pitch-like material has been encountered,
it generally occurred at depths greater than 2 feet below ground surface.
The surface of the Site is currently covered by either wood debris or by a 0.25-to I-foot-
thick layer of rock and organic muck generated from imported gravel and wood debris mixed
together by operation of log sorting equipment in wet areas. There is also a network of roads
at the Site that were previously used for log sorting and storage, resulting in relatively
compacted soil on much ofthe Site.
Additionally, several storm water features have been constructed on the Site that appear to
have historically collected and conveyed much of the site's stormwater into Lake
Washington. During the rainy season, most runoff flows into stormwater collection ponds
on the west side of the Site or a drainage ditch along the southern property boundary (Figure
3). Stormwater also accumulates in low-lying areas. During field surveys it was apparent
that these features still function by conveying and storing seasonal stormwater. Several
features were excavated, constructed, or improved in 2006 to limit stormwater runoff into
Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). These areas have developed wetland characteristics
supporting riparian tree species like willows (Salixsp.) and black cottonwoods (Populus
balsamifera).
2.2 Soils
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies two soil series in the location ofthe
study area: "Norma sandy loam (No)" and "Bellingham silt loam (Bh)." The Norma sandy
loam series is mapped within the majority of the study area, and the Bellingham silt loam
series is mapped along the northern portion. Figure 4 shows soil series in the study area.
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 5
DWT 18418622,] 0032695-000004
Juiy2011
06()()59-01
Study Area Description
Both soil series identified in the study area are described as having poorly drained soils that
formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass, conifers, and hardwoods. The Norma series are in
basins on the glaciated uplands and in areas along the stream bottoms. The Bellingham series
are nearly level and are mostly in depressions on the upland glacial till plain (USDA 1973).
According to the Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington, both the Norma sandy loam
and Bellingham series are classified as hydric soils (USDA 2009). Sample plot soil profiles are
described in Section 3.2. A summary of soils data collected at each sample plot is presented
in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D.
2.3 Hydrology
The study area is located in the Lake WashingtoniSammamish River Basin Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (Ecology 2009a). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are
influenced by regional groundwater, direct precipitation, surface water runoff, and Lake
Washington. The OHWM of Lake Washington was delineated as part ofthis investigation
and is described in Section 4 of this report.
Sample plot hydrology is described in Section 3.2. A summary of hydrology data collected at
each sample plot is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix
D.
2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types
The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NlVI Map Information identifies palustrine scrub-shrub
(PSS) habitat on the western border of the study area adjoining Lake Washington (USFWS
2009; Figure 5). Wetland vegetation community types identified during the delineation
include palustrine and lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM), palustrine and lacustrine scrub
shrub (PSS and LSS), palustrine and lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO), and palustrine open
water (POW) wetland systems. Vegetation within the study area includes tree, shrub, grass,
and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat associated with
Lake Washington and the constructed stormwater features. Vegetative cover by community
(forested, scrub/shrub, and herbaceous/disturbed) and trees more than 10 inches in diameter
at breast height (dbh) within 100 feet of the shoreline are shown on Figure 6. Wetland and
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 6
DWT 1841862h3 ()IJ32695·000004
/uly2011
060059-01
Study Area Description
upland vegetation in the study area is described in Section 3.2. A summary of vegetation
data collected in the study area and at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix
C and in the field data forms in Appendix D.
The WDFW PHS database does not identify any priority habitats within the study area
(WDFW 2009). Priority wetland habitat occurs approximately 0.2S-mile south and east of
the study area and consists of scrub-shrub, forested, and emergent marsh wetlands along May
Creek, its tributaries, and Lake Boren. Priority fish presence documented in May Creek
includes coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus ciarla), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka), and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus my kiss). Priority fish presence within the
study area includes species documented in Lake Washington, including coho salmon, fall
Chinook, resident cutthroat, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and Dolly Vardenlbull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
~ffi~llTffmm~ 7
DWT 18418621d 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
3 WETLAND DELINEATION
On April 23 and 30, May 6, and June 192009, Anchor QEA ecologists performed wetland
delineations and a wetland ratings analysis of wetland habitats in the study area. Ten
wetlands, Wetlands A and J, were found in the study area. Complete descriptions of
Wetlands A through J are provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results
are shown on Figure 6 -Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results. A summary of
vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in the tables
in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. Site photographs are provided in
AppendixF.
A similar analysis may be required as part of the EP NNRD process and may result in
delineations and ratings different than those included in this report. This report assumes
regulatory interpretations that will result in a post-remediation condition that would allow
the greatest area for redevelopment based on the 1983 City of Renton's Shoreline
Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS.
3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods
This section describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, including
the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are
consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as well as local jurisdiction
requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer
widths.
As specified by the RMC (City of Renton 2009), this wetland delineation was conducted
according to the methods defined in the US. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Westem Mountains, VaJJeys, and Coast Region
(Corps 2008), and Ecology's Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual (Ecology 1997). Soil colors were classified by their numerical description, as
identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps; Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA; Ecology 2009b), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA; Access
Washington 2007), and the RMC all define wetlands as: "Areas that are inundated or
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 8
DWT 18418622\/3 Q()32695-000004
July2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas."
The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is "the
macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation
or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to
exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." Hydric soils are "formed under
conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Wetland hydrology "encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to
the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). Data
collection methods for each ofthese parameters are described below.
A total of 21 data plots were sampled at the approximately 21.23~acre study area. Sample
plots are identified numerically as wetland or upland plots (for example, SPIWet, SP2Wet,
SP3Up, etc). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each of the
plots, recorded on field data sheets, and photographed. Locations of wetland delineation
boundary flags and data plots are provided in Appendix A. A summary of sample plot data is
presented in Appendix C. The field data sheets are provided in Appendix D. Site
photographs are provided in Appendix F. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon
sample plot data and visual observations of each wetland. Wetland locations and boundaries
were flagged and subsequently surveyed by a professional surveyor to establish and verify
the location and size.
3.1.1 Vegetation
Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data sheets, one data sheet per
plot (Appendix D). Percent cover was estimated in the plot for each plant species and
dominant species were determined. At each plot, trees within a 30~foot radius, shrubs
within a IS-foot radius, and emergents within a 3~foot radius from the center of the plot
were identified and recorded on a data sheet. A plant indicator status, designated by the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
~ffi~llTffmm~ 9
DWT 18418622d 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
USFWS (Reed 1988 and 1993), was assigned to each species and a determination was made as
to whether the vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter,
more than 50 percent of the dominant species, with 20 percent or greater cover, must have
an indicator of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC or
FAC+). Table 1 shows the wetland indicator status categories.
Table 1
Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions
Indicator Status Deseri ption
Obligate wetland (OBL) Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
Facultative wetland Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67
(FACW) percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
Facultative (FAC) Plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
(estimated probability 34 percent to 66 percent).
Facultative upland Plant species usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability
(FACU) 67 percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate upland (UPL) Plant species occur almost always in non-wetlands (estimated
probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions.
3.1.2 Soils
Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were dug to
a depth of 16 inches or greater, and all profiles were photographed. Hydric soil indicators
include low soil matrix chroma, gleying,and redoximorphic features (such as mottles), and
are formed predominantly by the accumulation or loss of iron, manganese, sulfur, or carbon
compounds in a saturated and anaerobic environment. Mottles are spots of contrasting color
occurring within the soil matrix (the predominant soil color). Gleyed soils are
predominantly bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. For example, a depleted dark soil surface
(F7), a matrix value of 3 or less, a chroma of 2 or less, and 20 percent or more redox
depletions are positive indicators of hydric soils (Corps 2008).
Due to the presence of known soil and groundwater contamination at the Site, soil pits were
not excavated at many wetland sample plots located in the upland area. This includes the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Terminals 10
DWT 18418622,] 0032695·000004
luly 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
constructed stormwater features located throughout the project site and most upland plot
locations.
3.1.3 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it "encompasses all
hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to
the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). The mesic
growing season in western Washington is generally March through October. Field
observations of saturation and inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such
as water-stained leaves and drainage patterns in wetlands, were recorded.
3.1.4 Other Data Sources
Reviews of existing information were conducted to identify potential wetlands or site
characteristics indicative of wetlands in the study area. The sources of information reviewed
to support field observations are identified in Section 1.1.
3.1.5 Wetland Classifications
Wetland community types are discussed below according to the USFWS classification
developed by Cowardin, et al. (1979). This system, published in 1979 by a team ofUSFWS
scientists led by L.M. Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on their physical
characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees, shrubs, grass,
etc.) and prevalence and location of water in the wetland. The Cowardin classification
system provides a classification for every known wetland type that occurs throughout the
United States, and, under this system, a wetland can be classified as having one or more
wetland classification types. The community types found during this investigation were:
• Palustrine and Lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO) -These wetlands have at least 30
percent cover of woody vegetation that is more than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine and Lacustrine scrub-shrub (PSS and LSS) -These wetlands have at least 30
percent cover of woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet high.
• Palustrine and Lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM) -These wetlands have erect,
rooted, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season in most years.
• Palustrine open water (POW) -These wetlands are characterized by open water, such
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 11
DWT 18418622v3 ()()32695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
as ponds.
3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System
At the state level, wetlands are categorized by applying the most current version of the rating
system developed by Ecology: Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western
Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004), and Washington State Wetland Rating Form-
Western Washington, version 2 (Ecology 2006). Ecology developed this system to
differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance in the
watershed, their rarity, the ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide
to society.
To determine an accurate assessment of a wetland's rating and functional values, function
scores were calculated based on entire wetland systems, not just the delineated portion of
wetlands within the study area. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect
specific information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. As part of the rating
system, the hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland was determined and three major
functions were analyzed: flood and erosion control, water quality improvement, and wildlife
habitat. Each hydrogeomorphic wetland class has specific rating criteria for water quality
and hydrologic functions. Habitat functions rating criteria were the same for each of the
hydrogeomorphic wetland classes. Ratings were based on a point system where points are
given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland's potential and opportunity to
provide certain benefits. If a wetland provides the opportunity to improve water quality or
hydrologic functions, a multiplier of two was applied to the points for the wetland's potential
functions. If a wetland does not provide the opportunity to improve water quality or
hydrologic functions, a multiplier of one was applied. Per Ecology's rating system, wetlands
were categorized according to the following criteria and on points given:
• Category I wetlands (70 to 100 points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or are
more sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological
attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime.
• Category II wetlands (51 to 69 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace,
and provide high levels of some functions.
• Category III (30 to 50 points) wetlands have a moderate level of function. They have
been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 12
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-0000(}4
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
• Category IV wetlands (0 to 29 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are
often heavily disturbed.
3.1.7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements
Wetlands in the study area were also rated according to the City of Renton Critical Area
Regulations that establish local regulatory requirements for wetlands and their associated
buffers (City of Renton 2009). Wetlands in the study area were assigned a local rating
category based on the applicable City and King County (County) critical areas regulations
and the associated regulatory wetland buffer widths.
Section 3.3.3 provides wetland information contained in the RMC (City of Renton 2009).
The full text of the city's critical areas regulations was consulted during this analysis.
3.1.7.1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements
Category 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Contain species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or
the presence of essential habitat for those species
• Have 40 to 60 percent permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with
two or more vegetation classes
• Are equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and have three or more vegetation classes,
one of which is open water
• Contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographical limits of
their occurrence
Category 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Are wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands
• Have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands
• Are wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland
with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel,
but are not Category 1 wetlands
• Have minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking,
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 13
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
ditching, or channelization
Category 3 wetlands meet any of the following criteria:
• Are severely disturbed wetlands; severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands that meet
the following criteria:
Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations
such as diking, ditching, channelization, and/or outlet modification
Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction
of soil
May have altered vegetation
• Are newly emerging wetlands; newly emerging wetlands are wetlands occurring on
top of fill materials, and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species
richness, and used minimally by wildlife.
• Include all other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2, such as smaller, high
quality wetlands.
According to the RMC, Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 sf in area are exempt from the
regulations if they meet the following exemption criteria[ 4-3-050 C5(f)]:
• Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts, Le., approximately 12 inches to
18 inches in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding
amphibians
• Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the
presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present
• Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions; for
example, stormwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation
• A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the
criteria of the exemption are met
According to the RMC Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5, wetland buffers are measured from the
wetland edge as delineated in the field and are sized depending on the wetland category.
Building or activity setback from a critical area or buffer may be required to ensure adequate
protection of the critical arealbuffer during construction and ongoing maintenance of the
activity. Section 5 also states that alterations to wetlands shall be mitigated through creation,
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report July 201 1
Quendall Terminals 14 060059-01
DWT 1841B622v3 0032695·000004
Wetland Delineation
restoration, and/or enhancement. Mitigation actions must re-create as nearly as possible the
wetland being replaced, and result in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function. Table 2
provides a summary of the City's wetland buffer requirements.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 15
DWl' 18418622v3 0032695-000004
july2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
Table 2
City of Renton Wetland Regulations
Wetland
Classification Buffer Requirement
Category 1 100 feet
Category 2 50 feet
Category 3 25 feet
3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment
The functional values of wetlands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating
System -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form -Western
Washington, Version 2 (Ecology 2006). Using Ecology's system, wetlands were rated based
on a point system where points are awarded to three functional value categories: water
quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating
forms, is provided in Appendix E.
3.2 Wetland Delineation Results
Ten wetlands, Wetlands A though J, were found in the study area. A complete description of
each wetland is provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown
on Figure 5 and for each individual wetland in Appendix A. A summary of vegetation, soils,
and hydrology data collected at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and
in the field data forms in Appendix D.
3.2.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is a 0.08-acre (3,433-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS, and
LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland A was delineated
within the study area. Wetland A is located in the southwest corner of the study area and is
associated with Lake Washington (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix F). A compacted din
access road abuts the eastern edge.
Wetland A vegetation is dominated primarily by young (less than 10 inches dbh) red alder
(Alnus rubra) , red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), and black twinberry (Lonicera
involucrata) (Photograph 2 in Appendix F). The dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A is
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Tenninals 16
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
also young red alder with some Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) and dense Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) where the vegetated buffer transitions into a compacted soil
road. Much (75 percent) of the buffer is disturbed compacted soils with sparse native and
non-native invasive plants. The northwest perimeter of Wetland A is Lake Washington with
extensive open and deep water habitats.
Wildlife use of the wetland and its buffer was evident through several physical indicators
such as woodpecker cavities, forage snags, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the
dense vegetation. There was evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on the partially
submerged woody debris at the edge of the wetland bordering the lake. Wildlife observed in
the wetland and its buffer includes black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and Anna's hummingbird
(Calypte anna). The transition from an open water habitat to wetland to maintained upland
offers both soft and hard edges between habitats. Movement of wildlife from the wetland
habitat to the lake or from the lake to the wetland appears healthy and may offer migration,
forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and
mammals. The transition from the upland buffer habitats to the wetland habitat offers a
more abrupt transition to wildlife. Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a
less beneficial habitat for others. Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these
areas may be limited for many species.
Soils in the wetland plot included very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) to very dark grayish-brown
(lOYR 3/2) clay loam to 18 inches deep. Below about 18 inches, very dark gray (2.5Y 311)
clay loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soils
in the upland plot were very dark gray (lOYR 311) to 18+ inches with brown (IOYR 4/3)
mottles observed around 8+ inches.
Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland A and the upland plot, with
free-standing water in the sample plots within about 10 inches of the surface.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland A: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A
and B). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
hydric soils. The upland plot, SPI Up, had indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils,
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninais 17
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-()O()004
juiy2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty flags were used to identify the Wetland A
boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.2 Wetland B
Wetland B is an approximately 0.14-acre (6,OSI-sf) depressional wetland and is one of the
largest constructed stormwater features in the study area displaying wetland characteristics
(Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland B was excavated in the 1970s as a retention pond to control
tar from flowing into the lake (King County Metro 1972). The wetland is triangle-shaped
and representative of a settling pond with standing water observed during the survey. The
eastern boundary of Wetland B narrows to a ditch-like feature that possibly used to convey
water west from Wetland G during large rain events through either a culvert or a shallow
ditch (now abandoned). Wetland B is positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet
below Wetland C. Wetland B contains PSS and POW habitats (Photograph 2 in Appendix
F). As part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from entering Lake Washington in
2006, an outfall was excavated along the north side of Wetland B to create a stable outlet for
stormwater into Lake Washington.
Wetland vegetation is dominated by Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidawm), Pacific
willow (Salix lasiandra), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and purple-leaved willowherb (Epilobium
ciliawm). Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland B includes monotypic stands ofJapanese
knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. Most (90 percent) of the buffer apparently was
maintained until recently. These maintained areas have now become fully vegetated, with
Japanese knotweed dominating the western buffer and Himalayan blackberry dominating
the eastern buffer. The remaining buffer (10 percent) on the north and south ends of the
wetland has a few large native trees (greater than 16 inches dbh), but the understory is a
shrub layer dominated by non-native invasive plants. The western buffer extends to Lake
Washington with extensive open and deep water habitats.
Wildlife use of Wetland B and its buffer was not very evident, but there were a few physical
indicators such as a beaver slide to the west from the wetland toward the lake, and other
small mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was evidence of turtle use on the
partially submerged woody debris within the standing water ofthe wetland. No aquatic
organisms were seen in the water other than the purple-leaved willowherb. Wildlife
observed in the wetland and its buffer includes spotted towhee (Pipilo maculaws), song
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report July 2011
Quendall Terminals 18 060059-01
DWT 18418622>3 00326Y5-000004
Wetland Delineation
sparrow, and American goldfinch (Carduelis triseis). The open water habitat within the
wetland quickly transitions to a scrub-shrub buffer habitat. Movement of wildlife from the
wetland habitat to the buffer or from the buffer to the wetland appears to offer migration,
forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and
mammals. Similarly, the transition from the wetland to the buffer to the lake offers a greater
migration route with the dense shrub cover between the two open water habitats. Wetland
B (denoted as Quendall Pond in the CERCLA RIIFS documents) is known to contain
relatively high concentrations of contaminants in soil and groundwater, which limit the
quality, use, and function of these habitats and corridors.
Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland B.
Wetland B is the largest of the constructed stormwater features in the study area. As
described above, during large rain events, Wetland G may convey stormwater through a relic
connection or by surface flow. The depth of water in Wetland B was not discernible because
of opaque water coloration and the presence of contamination preventing further
investigation; however, the volume and depth did appear to exceed several feet.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland B: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation. Eleven flags were used to identify the Wetland B boundaty (Appendix A).
3.2.3 WetlandC
Wetland C is an approximately 0.03-acre (1,200 sf) depressional wetland and is another
constructed stormwater feature in the study area displaying wetland characteristics (Figure 7;
Appendix A). The wetland is located in the center of the parcel with the western boundary
approximately 38 feet from Lake Washington. Like Wetland B, the wetland is representative
of a stormwater pond with standing water observed during the survey. Wetland C is
positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet above Wetland B. The entirety of
Wetland C was constructed in 2006 as part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from
entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was constructed along the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 19
DWT 18418622>-30032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
southwest edge of Wetlands Band C, and check dams were installed to control turbid water
and floating debris. Wetland C likely flows directly into Wetland B during high flow events
via sheetflow (Figure 7; Photograph 3 in Appendix F). Wetland C was constructed in an
upland area that did not contain wetland indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was
not identified during a wetland delineation conducted by David Evans and Associates in
1997 (Appendix G).
Wetland C contains PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats. At the time of the survey, Pacific
willow and black cottonwood saplings were the only vegetation observed in Wetland Band
distributed along the wetland's edge. The saplings were all 3 to 5 feet in height with a dbh of
approximately 1 to 3 inches. Because of the recent construction and maintenance ofthis
feature, the wetland habitat and buffer habitat are heavily degraded and offer little or no
opportunity for wildlife use.
Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland C.
The wetland is oval-shaped and, as described above, resembles a small settling pond. The
wetland primarily receives stormwater runoff from the study area and direct precipitation.
During the survey, based only on visual approximations, the depth of standing water was
about 10 to 12 inches in the deepest parts.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland C: SP1Wet and SP1Up (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation. Soil pits were not excavated. Ten flags were used to identify the Wetland C
boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.4 WetlandD
Wetland D is a 0.38-acre (16,686-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS,
and LEM habitats (Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland D is associated with Lake Washington
(Photograph 4 in Appendix F) and extends approximately 170 feet into the study area.
Wetland D is the only wetland in the study area included in the USFWS Wetlands Mapper
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 20
DWT 1841862],30032695·000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
for NWI Map Information (Figure 5), which identifies this as PSS habitat. Wetland
vegetation is dominated by large black cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, and red-osier
dogwood. The dominant buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood and Himalayan
blackberry and is the most diverse in vegetative strata layers (canopy, sub-canopy, scrub-
shrub, and herbaceous) and the most intact of all the project site wetland buffers.
Approximately 40 percent of the wetland buffer is Lake Washington to the northwest.
Wildlife use of Wetland D is very similar to but more diverse than Wetland A. Several
physical wildlife indicators within the wetland and the buffer were observed: woodpecker
cavities, stick nests, basket nests, mole mounds, soil burrows, forage snags, beaver forage
marks, matted vegetation, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was also
evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on partially submerged woody debris and vegetative
mats at the edge of the lake and within the wetland. Wildlife observed in the wetland and
its buffer includes Black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, bushtit, spotted towhee, downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), brown creeper (Certhia americana), American robin
(Turdus migratrious), and northwest crow (Corvus caurinus). The transition from the open
water habitat to the wetland to an intact upland buffer offers soft edges between all habitats.
Movement of wildlife from the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy
migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians,
waterfowl, and mammals. This wetland, along with its buffer, appears to offer the best
habitat opportunity for the most species due to its size, vegetative structure, hydrology
regimes, and position in the landscape.
Three soil pits were excavated in Wetland D (Appendix A); one near the lake's edge
(SP1Wet), one in the upland (SPIUp), and one in the uppermost extent of the wetland
(SP2Wet). The soils in SPIWet included very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) sandy loam to
6 inches deep and then gray (lOYR 5/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6)
mottles through 18+ inches. Soils in SP2Wet included black (lOYR 2/1) loamy sand through
10 inches and then dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) loamy sand through 18+ inches. At approximately
10 to 12 inches, a narrow band of dark gray (2.5YR 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish-brown
(lOYR 4/6) mottles was observed with interspersed coarse angular rock. SPIUp included
grayish brown (2.5Y 512) loamy clay through 18+ inches.
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 21
DWT 18418622v3 003261J5-U00004
July2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
Soil saturation was observed at the surface in the majority of Wetland D with standing water
near the lake's edge. The primary hydrologic indicator in the upper extent of Wetland D
included sparsely vegetated concave surface and water-stained leaves. In the upland plot,
saturation was observed at the surface.
Three sample plots were established as part of Wetland D: SPI Wet, SP2Wet, and SPI Up
(Appendices A, D, and D). SPIWet and SP2Wet contained indicators ofhydrophytic
vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot, SPI Up, had indicators of
wetland hydrology and hydric soils, but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty-two flags
were used to identify the Wetland D boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.5 WetlandE
Wetland E is a D.ll-acre (4,556-sf) depressional wetland that contains PFO and PSS habitat
located in the southwest corner of the study area (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like Wetlands B,
C, and G, Wetland E is a constructed stormwater feature in the study area, but it contains a
more developed and mature forested component than the others (Photographs I and 2 in
Appendix F). Wetland vegetation is dominated by young black cottonwood, Pacific willow,
red alder, and red-osier dogwood. Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed
and Himalayan blackberry, and a few mature black cottonwoods and young red alders
(Photograph 5 in Appendix F). The entire wetland buffer apparently was maintained as
transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log storage) up until the facility closed in the
past few years. These areas, other than the roads, have now become overgrown with upland
invasive species, such as Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) and Himalayan blackberry. The
dirt roads remain and are heavily compacted, supporting very little vegetation.
Wildlife use of Wetland E and its buffer was not evident other than a few stick and leaf
nests. There were some physical indicators of beaver foraging, but the teeth marks were
very old and not very common. There was no evidence of aquatic organisms within the
standing water of the wetland other than plants. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its
buffer includes spotted towhee, Anna's hummingbird, northwest crow, American robin, song
sparrow, and Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata). The open water habitat within the wetland
quickly transitions to a scrub-shrub, young forest buffer habitat. This transition of an open
water habitat to awetland to a disturbed upland offers both soft and hard edges between
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 22
DWT 18418612v3 0032695-()00004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
habitats. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the upland or from the upland to
the wetland appears healthy and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding
opportunities for some species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The transition from
the disturbed maintained upland habitats to the wetland habitat offers a more abrupt
transition to wildlife. Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a less beneficial
habitat for others. Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be
limited for many species. Contaminated soil and sediments in this wetland may limit the
quality, use, and function of these habitats and corridors.
Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland E. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation
data.
The majority of Wetland E had standing water at the surface with some areas appearing in
excess of 2-feet deep. A staff gage was installed in 1995 to monitor water levels in 1995 and
1996 (Aspect 2009). At the time of the survey, the water level was around 0 foot; however,
there were indications that the high water line on the gage exceeded 3.5 feet. It is not
known if this device was installed relative to any fixed position, but it does provide details on
the storage capacity ofthe wetland. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the upland plot.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland E: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland plot lacked any indications of hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology.
Nineteen flags were used to identify the Wetland E boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.6 Wetland F
Wetland F is a small 0.1 I-acre (546-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LSS and
LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland F was delineated
within the study area. Wetland F is associated with Lake Washington (Photographs I and 2
in Appendix F) and is located in the center of the study area, immediately west of Wetland
C. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow, soft rush, and reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed
and Himalayan blackberry (Photograph 3 in Appendix F).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 23
DWT 18418622v3 00326Y5-000004
july20J]
06()(}59-0l
Wetland Delineation
Although Wetland F is a very small wetland, wildlife use in the wetland and buffer was
evident through several physical indicators such as shell and crustacean middens, forage
snags, waterfowl droppings, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the dense
vegetation. There was also evidence ofrecent turtle use (wet log) of a partially submerged
log at the edge of the wetland bordering the lake. No wildlife was observed in the wetland
or its buffer during field investigations. Half of the wetland perimeter is along Lake
Washington, offering a transition from an open water habitat to a wetland to a vegetated
upland. Movement of wildlife from the upland habitat to the wetland to the lake appears
unobstructed and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific
species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The actual wetland is so small that habitat
function associated with the wetland may be reduced as an area for migration, forage,
shelter, and breeding.
Soils in the wetland plot included dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) sand with yellowish brown
(lOYR S/6) mottles to 6 inches deep (Appendix D). Below about 6 inches, dark gray (2.5Y
411) sand with dark yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soil
pits in the upland plot were not excavated in Wetland F because ofthe presence of
contamination.
Wetland hydrology was evident with free-standing water in the sample plot within about 10
inches of the surface. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the upland plot.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland F: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
hydric soils. The upland plot lacked hydrophytic vegetation and any indication of wetland
hydrology. Soils were not examined in the upland plot. Four flags were used to identifY the
Wetland F boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.7 WetlandG
Wetland G is a small, approximately O.OS-acre (2,198-sf) depressional wetland (Figure 7;
Appendix A). It is thought that Wetland G was excavated as part of construction of berms to
direct tar on the site into Wetland B (Aspect 2009). The wetland is narrow and ditch-like
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Tenninals 24
DWT 18418621v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
and at one time conveyed stormwater to Wetland B, but has since been separated by a
compacted dirt road separating the two (no culverts were found) (Figure 7). During
prolonged rain events, Wetland G likely fills to capacity and sheetflows into Wetland B.
Wetland G is positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the
study area. Wetland G contains PSS and PFO habitat. Wetland vegetation is dominated by
black cottonwood, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry, with an isolated patch of
emergent vegetation. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood, black
twinberry, and Himalayan blackberry (Figure 4; Photographs 7 and 8 in Appendix F). Based
on aerial photography, it appears that more than half of the current areas adjacent to
Wetland G are or have been maintained as transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log
storage). Appendix H provides a historic aerial photo from 1990 that shows log storage and
roads present in the current location of Wetland G. These areas, aside from one existing road
to the west, have now become overgrown with upland invasive plants such as Scot's broom,
Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan blackberry.
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland G was limited possibly due to the wetland's
long and narrow shape. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes northwest
crow, song sparrow, and black-capped chickadee. The narrow scrub-shrub habitat and small
patches of young forest buffer habitat offer wildlife a possible corridor of cover/shelter along
or through the wetland. This wetland and buffer habitat extends further east than any other
wetland at the project site and overlaps with the buffer from Wetland B, creating a corridor
to Lake Washington. Due to the narrow shape of the wetland, migration, forage, shelter, and
breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Contaminated soil and
sediments in this wetland may limit the quality, use, and function of these habitats and
corridors.
Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in
Wetland G. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and
vegetation data.
Wetland G is a narrow, ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from
the study area and direct precipitation. Standing water was present in much ofthe wetland.
The upland plot did not display any wetland hydrology indicators.
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 25
DWT 1841862h3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland G: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation but lacked wetland
hydrology. Eighteen flags were used to identify the Wetland G boundary (Appendix A).
3.2.8 WetlandH
Wetland H is an approximately O.OI-acre (Sll-sf) slope and depressional wetland located on
the southern edge of the study area along the property boundary (Figure 7; Appendix A).
Like many of the other features described in this report, Wetland H was constructed as a
stormwater feature to control stormwater. Work was conducted in January 2006 to control
silt and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Wetland H was excavated in
January 2006 to clean out the ditch along the southern portion of the site. Four rock check
dams were placed in the cleared ditch at approximately 2S-foot intervals to allow for
sediment and wood debris control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is
located in an area that was excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and
into Lake Washington.
Wetland H is positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the
study area and contains PFO, PSS, and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photographs 9 and 10 in
Appendix F). It is adjacent to a IS-foot-tall engineered concrete block wall, which is the
boundary line between the project site and the newly developed parcel to the south. The
low area extends along the concrete block wall and develops more ditch -like characteristics
near Wetland H and Lake Washington. Wetland vegetation is dominated by mature black
cottonwood, red alder, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant wetland buffer
vegetation includes reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Effectively, the wetland
only has two-thirds of its buffer.
Wildlife use of Wetland H and its buffer may be increased by the presence of an adjacent
concrete wall south of the wetland. Species traveling south or north may follow the wall
until they reach the shoreline, effectively routing them through Wetland H or its buffer.
Several physical indicators of wildlife presence within the wetland and the buffer were
observed: woodpecker cavities, stick nests, forage snags, and beaver forage marks. Wildlife
observed in the wetland and its buffer includes black-capped chickadee, song sparrow,
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Te17I1inals 26
DWT 1841862],30032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
spotted towhee, Downy woodpecker, and northwest crow. The entire area from the open
water habitat of Lake Washington to the west, through the wetland, to the upland buffer is
fully vegetated and may provide good shelter as well as a migration path for wildlife.
Movement of wildlife from the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy
migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians,
waterfowl, and mammals.
A single soil pit in the wetland was excavated and photographed in Wetland H; however,
because of the presence of contamination in the study area, the soils were not handled and
no information was recorded. The wetland determination for each plot was based on
hydrology and vegetation data.
Wetland H is a narroW ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from
the study area and direct precipitation. Adjacent to the wetland is another, smaller
constructed stormwater feature that also collects stormwater from portions ofthe site. This
feature sits at a higher elevation than Wetland H and conveys stormwater from an adjacent
ditch through a culvert to the eastern extent of the wetland. Flowing water was present
during the survey. The upland plot did not display indications of wetland hydrology.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland H: SPlWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology.
The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
3.2.9 Wetland I
Wetland 1 is an approximately 0.D5-acre (2,358-sf) depressional wetland located on the small
portion of the property across Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like
many of the other features described in this report, Wetland I is a result of land surface
manipulation and road construction. Wetland 1 is positioned in the landscape between 1-405
and Lake Washington Boulevard where it receives stormwater runoff from adjacent
impervious surfaces. The wetland contains PSS and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 15
in Appendix F) and all habitats are dominated by Japanese knotweed. Wetland vegetation is
either stunted or dying adjacent to or under the thick canopy of Japanese knorweed.
Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry and Pacific willow.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 27
DWT 1841861],30032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland I was limited possibly because of its location
between 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard or because there is a Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way fence bordering the wetland to the
east. Also, the wetland is dominated by Japanese knotweed, which has created a
monoculture habitat with no herbaceous layer and limited species diversity. Due to the
narrow shape of the wetland, the presence of the fence and roads, and the abundance of
Japanese knotweed, migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be
limited for many species.
Soils in the wetland plot included very dark brown loam (lOYR 3/1) in the top 6 inches
(Appendix D). Between 6 and 12 inches, a dark gray (lOYR 3/2) loam with brownish-red
(2.5YR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Below 12 inches was a dark red (5YR 4/2)
sandy loam matrix with two distinct mottles (lOYR 6/9 and 2.5y 4/2). Soil pits in the upland
plot were dark brown silty loam (lOYR 3/3) to 8 inches. From 8 to 18 inches, the same
matrix (lOYR 3/3) was present with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles .
. Wetland I is a narrow ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the
adjacent roads and direct precipitation. The western edge of the wetland appears to undergo
seasonal mowing or cutting to maintain the roadway and clearance for overhead power lines.
A WSDOT fence bisects the southeastern edge of the wetland so the full extent of the
wetland is unknown, but it appears that the only a small portion remained undelineated.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland I: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, soils, and
hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation, soils, and
hydrology.
3.2.10 Wetland)
The full size of Wetland J is undetermined but may be approximately 0.05 acre (Figure 7;
Appendix A). The wetland is a slope and depressional wetland located on the eastern edge of
the portion of the study area on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Only a small
portion of the wetland extends onto the parcel, with the majority of the wetland extending
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 28
Dwr 18418622,] 0032695-000004
ju/y2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
off the parcel into the WSDOT 1-405 right-of-way. Like many of the other features
described in this report, Wetland J was partially constructed and manipulated to convey
stormwater from a WSDOT stormwater pond to another waterbody (Gypsy Creek). Wetland
J is positioned in the landscape running north to south along the parcel boundary. The
wetland contains PSS and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 14 in Appendix F). Wetland
vegetation is dominated by red alder, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry.
Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry.
Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland J was limited possibly because its proximity to
1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and a WSDOT right-of-way fence bordering the wetland
on most of its eastern boundary. Like Wetland I, Wetland J is dominated by two invasive
plant species, Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, which have created a
monoculture habitat with no native herbaceous layer and no possibility for tree saplings to
grow. Because of the proximity of the fence and roads, as well as dense invasive plants,
migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited.
Soils in the wetland plot have a dense 3-inch-thick layer of root mat from reed canarygrass.
Below the root mat to 18 inches is a very dark silty loam (lOYR 3/1). The upland soil plot
was similarly consistent with a dark brownish-red (lOYR 4/2) silty loam.
Wetland J has both slope and depressional characteristics throughout. The wetland
primarily receives stormwater runoff from the WSDOT right-of-way. Approximately 50 feet
to the north of the delineated portion of the wetland is Gypsy Creek. Because of recent
stream improvements and culverts on Gypsy Creek, Wetland J does not appear to receive any
flood waters from Gypsy Creek.
Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland J: SPIWet and SPIUp (Appendices A,
C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
3.3 Regulatory Framework
As stated above, this report assumes regulatory interpretations that will result in a post-
remediation condition that would allow the greatest area for redevelopment based on the
Wetland and Ordinazy High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 29
DWT 18418622\'3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS. Guidance
from USFWS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland classifications.
Information and excerpts from the specific guidance language are provided below.
3.3.1 USFWS Classification
The wetlands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the N\VI. Table 3 lists the USFWS classifications for the
wetlands and their connections to surface waters.
Table 3
USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water
Wetland
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Notes:
PFO -Palustrine forested
PSS -Palustrine scrub-shrub
PEM -Palustrine emergent
POW -Palustrine open water
USFWS Classification Connection to Surface Water
LFO, LSS, & LEM Associated with Lake Washington
PSS, POW, PEM, and PFO Not associated to surface water
PSS& POW Not associated to surface water
LFO, LSS, & LEM Associated with Lake Washington
PSS & PFO Not associated to surface water
LSS & LEM Associated with Lake Washington
PSS& POW Not associated to surface water
PFO, PSS, & PEM Associated with Lake Washington
PSS Not associated to surface water
PSS & PEM Flows to adjacent stream
LFO -Lacustrine forested
LSS -Lacustrine scrub-shrub
LEM -Lacustrine emergent
3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores
The wetlands identified in the study area have been rated using Ecology's Washington State
Wetland Rating System -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating
Form -Western Washington: Rensed(Ecology 2006). As pan ofthe rating process, an
examination of the soil is required for depressional wetlands to determine if "2 inches below
the surface (or dufflayer) is clay or organic." Although soil plots were not collected in all
upland depressional wetlands (constructed stormwater features) due to the presence of
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
QuendalJ Terminals 30
DWT 18418622,] 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
contamination, observations from other soil plots throughout the site and soil series maps
suggest no soils were clay or organic. Table 4 lists the wetland ratings and classifications.
Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values are shown in Table 5. A summary
of the wetland rating scores and the Ecology Wetland Rating forms are included in Appendix
E.
Table 4
Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System
Hydrogeomorphic
Wetland Area (acres) Classification
Wetland A 0.08 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland B 0.14 Depressional
Wetland C 0.03 Depressional
Wetland D 0.38 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland E 0.11 Depressional
Wetland F 0.01 Slope/Lake Fringe
Wetland G 0.05 Depressional
Wetland H 0.01 Slope
Wetland I 0.05 Depressional
Wetland J 0.05' Depressiona I/Slope
Note:
'Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
QJ1endall Terminals 31
DWT 18418622>3 0032695-000004
State Rati ng
(Ecology)
III
III
IV
II
III
III
III
IV
III
III
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
Table S
Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores
Water
Quality Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat
Functions Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Total
Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Functions
Wetland Score (Yes/No) Score (Yes/No) Score Score Score 1
Total No= 1 No= 1
Maximum 16 16 18 18 72
Score Yes = 2 Yes =2
A 6 2 4 2 9 11 40
B 2 2 12 2 6 8 42
C 2 2 8 2 a 6 26
D 9 2 6 2 12 12 54
E 7 2 12 2 7 5 50
F 6 2 4 2 6 9 35
G 9 2 8 2 4 7 45
H 3 2 3 2 7 6 25
I 9 2 8 2 3 6 43
J 7 2 5 2 8 6 38
Note:
1-Calculated as (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic
Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential
Score plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 32
DWT 18418622v3 O()32695-00()()04
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance
Wetlands were also rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the RMC (City of
Renton 2009). The City classifies wetlands into three categories (Category 1, Category 2, and
Category 3) based on the City critical areas regulations.
Appropriate wetland buffers have been identified according to the current RMC (City of
Renton 2009). City ratings and buffer widths are provided in Table 6.
Table 6
City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance
Study Area Size State Rating Local Rating Buffer Width
Wetlands (acres) (Ecology) (City of Renton) (feet)
Wetland A 0.08 III 2 SO feet
Wetland B 0.14 III 1 100 feet
Wetland ( 0.03 IV 3 25 feet
Wetland D 0.38 II 2 50 feet
Wetland E 0.11 III 1 100 feet
Wetland F 0.01 III 2 50 feet
Wetland G 0.05 III 3 25 feet'
Wetland H 0.01 IV 3 25 feet
Wetland I 0.05 III 3 25 feet
Wetland J 0.05' III 3 25 feet
Total 0.89
Notes:
1-Wetland G is exempt from City of Renton critical area requirements based on the criteria in RMC 4-3-050 (Slf),
as discussed in Section 3.5.
2 -Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing.
3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary
In general, wetlands in the study area provide many functions including water quality
improvements, floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. The
wetlands in the study area can be divided into two categories: wetlands that are constructed
stormwater features and wetlands that are naturally occurring. The constructed stormwater
features generally display a higher opportunity to provide hydrologic function than naturally
occurring wetlands, given their storage capacities to control flow during large storm events.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 33
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
However, the constructed storm water features also display generally low to moderate
opportunity and potential to provide habitat value and opportunity to provide water quality
value. The naturally occurring wetlands on the main parcel (Wetlands A, D, and F) are all
slope and lake-fringe wetlands and provide moderate potential and opportunity to provide
habitat function; however, given the nature of lake-fringe wetlands, they provide only low
to moderate potential to provide water quality and hydrologic functions.
The functional values of wetlands in the study area were rated according to the most current
version of the Ecology Washington State Wedands Rating System -Western Washington:
Revised (Ecology 2004). Based on the rating scores, the overall functions of each ofthe three
wetland rating categories of water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat are rated as low
(less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score), moderate (34 percent to 67 percent of
the maximum possible score), or high (greater than 68 percent ofthe maximum possible
score). Overall, the majority of wetlands in the study area have low to moderate water
quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat function scores. Few ofthe wetlands have high
hydrologic function scores and none of the wetlands have high water quality or habitat
function scores. Of the ten wetlands in the study area, six were identified as depressional
wetlands, three were identified as lake fringe wetlands, and one was identified as a slope
wetland. Ecology wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the
wetland classes and functions and values rating scores is provided in Table 5.
Wetland acreage also affects function. No wetland in the study area is larger than 1 acre.
Because large wetlands have more capacity for capturing storm water flows, improving water
quality, and providing a variety of habitats for wildlife, they are more likely to provide
beneficial functions than smaller wetlands. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat
functional values for wetlands in the study area are described below. For each function
category, the wetlands' opportunity to provide that function is described first and the
wetlands' potential to provide that function is described thereafter.
Wetland buffers are areas of land surrounding a wetland boundary that protect wetlands
from the effects of adjacent land use. Buffers help wetlands function by filtering storm
runoff from surrounding developments, trapping sediment, absorbing nutrients, attenuating
high flows, and providing wildlife habitat. Buffers also physically separate wetlands from
developed areas in order to lessen noise, light, chemical pollution, and other associated
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 34
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
human-related disturbances. Most of the wetlands in the study area are adjacent to some
disturbed habitat, roadway, or compacted dirt roads. With the exception ofthe three lake-
fringe wetlands in the study area, wetland buffer habitat is generally of low quality and
typically includes compacted dirt and roads, and is nearly devoid of vegetation. The buffers
associated with each wetland, per local codes, are detailed in Table 6.
3.4.1 Water Quality Functions
All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to improve water quality, to
varying degrees, primarily because their location in an urban environment allows the
opportunity for water quality improvement. Three of the ten wetlands in the study area
have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve water
quality. This low score was observed in three of the five constructed stormwater features,
which have characteristics of intermittent flowing or highly constricted surface outlets, and
contain permanently ponded water, precluding cyclic changes between oxic and anoxic
conditions. The remaining seven wetlands have moderate potential (34 to 67 percent ofthe
maximum possible score) to improve water quality. None of the wetlands has a high
potential to improve water quality (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score).
Additionally, the moderate score is also due to the nature oflake-fringe wetlands (Wetlands
A, D, F), which have a maximum score of only 12 for water quality function instead of the
maximum of 16 that other wetland types have. This is because lake-fringe wetlands typically
do not improve water quality to the same extent that riverine or depressional wetlands do,
because of lower denitrification rates, and because of the fact that any pollutants taken up in
plant material will be more easily released into the water column when the plants die off
(Ecology 2006). Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as
organic soils, a high proportion of wetland area with seasonal ponding, or dense vegetation to
restrict flow through the wetland.
3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions
All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to reduce flooding and erosion to
varying degrees. Four of the ten wetlands in the study area have a low potential (less than 34
percent of the maximum possible score) to reduce flooding and erosion. The low scores for
potential hydrologic functions are due to a lack of natural surface water outlets, ponding
features, and the types of vegetation necessary to reduce surface flows. Four of the wetlands
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 35
DWT J8418621v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
have moderate potential (34 percent to 67 percent of the maximum possible score) to
improve hydrologic functions. The remaining two wetlands, Wetlands C and E, have high
potential to improve hydrologic functions (greater than 68 percent ofthe maximum possible
score). Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as a highly
constricted outlets or significant water storage depths during wet periods.
3.4.3 Habitat Functions
Habitat function of the study area wetlands is further defined by their Cowardin
classifications (forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and aquatic bed). Two wetlands are
classified as scrub-shrub and open water system; one wetland includes scrub-shrub and
forested systems; two wetlands include scrub-shrub and emergent systems; three wetlands
include forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent systems (see Table 2); and three wetlands
include forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water systems (see Table 3). Wetlands
with mixed classifications are generally of higher value than wetlands with a single
classification.
Three of the ten wetlands have a low opportunity (less than 34 percent of the maximum
possible score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat opportunity is
due to the characteristics of the wetland buffers and the overall lack of quality habitat
conditions near or adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining seven wetlands have a moderate
score (34 to 67 percent of the maximum possible score), and none of the wetlands has a high
score (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Wetlands with moderate or
high scores typically have characteristics such as a several Cowardin vegetation classes,
several hydroperiods, high habitat interspersion, or the presence of special habitat features.
Six of the ten wetlands have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible
score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat functions is due to the
general lack of vegetative structure, hydroperiods, plant richness, habitat diversity, and
special habitat features, especially characteristic of Wetland C, which received a score of O.
The remaining four wetlands have a moderate potential score (34 to 67 percent of the
maximum possible score).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
QiIendali Terminals 36
DWT 1841862],30032695-000004
/uly2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
3.5 Exempt Wetlands
Wetland G is exempt from any activity affecting these wetlands. as described in RMC 4-3-
050 C5(f). It is a hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland smaller than 2.200 sf. Standing
water does not appear to be present in sufficient amounts to support breeding amphibians
(i.e .• less than approximately 12 inches in water depth from approximately December
through May). No species are listed by federal or state government agencies as endangered
or threatened. and the presence of essential habitat for those species is not present. Any
impacts to Wetland G for cleanup activities will be mitigated for hydrologic and water
quality functions. As shown in Table 5. hydrologic and water quality function is provided at
a moderate level for Wetland G.
Although Wetlands C. F. and H are smaller than 2.200 sf. they do not meet the exemption
criteria in RMC. Wetlands F and H are not hydrologically isolated due to their proximity to
Lake Washington. Wetland C has sufficient water depths in the winter to potentially
provide amphibian breeding habitat. but the presence of contamination in Wetland C limits
the habitat quality. However. Wetland C was constructed for stormwater treatment in 2006.
as described in Section 3.6.1, and is not expected to be regulated by the City of Renton.
3.6 Constructed Storm water Features
Five wetlands in the study area were apparently constructed as part of historic site activities
in an attempt to control storm water on the site during large storm events. and to avoid
disruption to the log storage operation that has since been abandoned. Based on recent aerial
photographs (Appendix H), site history, and other references. Wetlands B. C, G. and H were
constructed to manage stormwater or control spills associated with site activities. Historic
construction of each of these features influences the regulatory status as determined by the
City and EPA. Wetland E is thought to have developed from changes to recent stormwater
drainage on the site based on the fact that it did not qualify as a wetland during the 1997
David Evans and Associates wetland delineation conducted on the site (Appendix G).
3.6.1 Excavated Features from the 19705
Wetland B was excavated in the early 1970s as a retention pond to control tar from flowing
into the lake (King County Metro 1972). It is thought that Wetland G was also excavated at
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 37
DWT 184!8622d 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
the same time as part of construction of berms to direct tar on the site into Wetland B
(Aspect 2009). Wetland B continues to provide stormwater retention for the Site.
3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006
Work was conducted in January 2006 to implement best management practices to control silt
and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Work was conducted in the ditch
along the southern property boundary (Wetland H) and in the area of Wetlands Band C.
The work was conducted as recommended by Ecology to control potential sources of
contamination from entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006).
The entirety of Wetland C was constructed in January 2006 to prevent stormwater from
flowing into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was also constructed along
the southern portion of Wetland C. Check dams were installed to control turbid water and
floating debris. Wetland C was constructed in an upland area that did not contain wetland
indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was not identified during a wetland delineation
conducted by David Evans and Associates in 1997 (Appendix G).
Work was also completed on Wetland B to improve stormwater flow conditions in 2006.
Along the north side of Wetland B, an outfall was excavated to create a stable outlet for
stormwater into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006).
Wetland H was excavated in January 2006 as part of best management practices to clean out
the ditch along the southern portion of the site. Four rock check dams were placed in the
cleared ditch at approximately 25-foot intervals to allow for sediment and wood debris
control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is located in an area that was
excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and into Lake Washington.
Wetland H also was not identified during the 1997 wetland delineation (Appendix G).
3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status
Wetlands B, C, G, and H may not be subject to City of Renton Critical Area regulations based
on the history of their construction. According to RMC 4-11-230, "wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation,
including, but not limited to ... drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 38
DWT 18418622,] 0032695·000004
July 2011
060059-01
Wetland Delineation
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities." Wetlands B, C, G, and H all were excavated from
upland areas to manage spills or stormwater runoff. Excavation of Wetlands Band G
occurred in the 1970s. Excavation and construction of Wetlands C and H occurred in 2006.
At that time, nearly the entire Site was being used for log storage and associated activities, as
documented in the 1990 aerial photo (Appendix H). In addition, Wetland G is exempt from
City of Renton Critical Area regulations, provided that mitigation for hydrologic and water
quality functions is provided for any impacts to the wetland.
EPA may not choose to regulate Wetlands B, C, E, G, H, I, and J as waters of the U.S. based
on their proximiry to known waters of the U.S. (e.g., Lake Washington or Gypsy Creek).
They may be determined to be isolated from waters of the U.S. and therefore not regulated,
pending EPA's evaluation. Although wetland jurisdictional determinations are generally
conducted by the Corps, impacts to these wetlands will occur as a result of a cleanup action
under Superfund and are therefore regulated by EPA. Other wetlands along the shoreline,
including Wetlands A, F, and D, are expected to be regulated as waters of the U.S. because
they abut Lake Washington.
3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations
Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often
occur berween trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing
concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency.
Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in
hydrology or land use. In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a
physical change occurs in the basin or 5 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken,
another wetland survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein
represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the information available. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 39
DWT /84/8622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study
4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELINEATION AND LAKE STUDY
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of
Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and
south. Habitat features of these two channels are described in the following sections. The
result of the OHWM delineation is shown on Figure 7 and in Appendix B.
4.1 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods
To document the Lake Washington OHWM within the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists
reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1), performed an aerial photograph
analysis, and conducted site visits on April 23 and 30, and May 6, 2009. The OHWM
delineation was completed by walking the lake shoreline beginning at the south end of the
study area and moving north. Photographs were also taken to document OHWM conditions
(Photographs 11, 12, and 13 in Appendix F).
During the site visits, the OHWM of the entire length within the study area was identified
and flagged. The OHWM boundary was marked with pin flags and later surveyed by a
professional surveyor.
Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream OHWM boundary consistent with Chapter
90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 ofthe WAC. The
WAC defines the OHWM as:
'''Ordinary high water line' means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be
found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and
action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as
to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland: Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be
found the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean
higher high water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the
elevation ofthe mean annual flood."
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 40
DW]' 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
06()(}59-OJ
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study
4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results
Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of
Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and
south. This included the placement of 43 pin flags installed at all meandering locations of
the shoreline. Additionally, the OHWM was coincident with Wetlands A, D, and F and
formed the western boundary of each of those wetlands. The OHWM is shown on Figure 7.
Detailed flag locations are shown on drawings in Appendix B.
Overall, the southern half of the study area contained an OHWM that was clearly defined by
an armored shoreline consisting of large boulders. The northern half was not as clearly
defined, with a gradual transition from the upland to the water as well as former pier
structures and large floating logs along the lake's edge. This half of the property was
delineated using the investigators' best professional judgment and based on parameters set
forth in Chapter 90.58 of the RCW and Chapter 173-22 of the WAC (Photographs 12
through 14 in Appendix F). Water depth during the investigation adjacent to the OHWM
ranged from about 4 inches to more than 3 feet deep.
4.3 Lake Study
According to RMC 4-3-090, and consistent with Washington State Administrative Code
(WAC 173-26-251 and RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)), Lake Washington is classified as a Shoreline of
Statewide Significance, meaning "lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof,
with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water
mark," and thus subject to the local jurisdiction's SMA. The SMA governs the use and
development of shorelines in Washington State for responsible shoreline development with
environmental protection and public access.
Subsequent activities along the shoreline will include remediation of hazardous substances in
lake sediments and/or in the upland portions of the Site, as directed by EPA. The sediment
and upland cleanup is being performed under Superfund. All substantive provisions of City
regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Additional
information on the existing lake conditions will be included in the RI. Details on each of the
remedial alternatives considered will be included in the FS. Previous information on the
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 41
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study
aquatic habitat conditions is included in Appendix G. A summary of known fish species
present is described below.
4.3.1 Fish Species Presence
During the surveys, no fish were observed along the lakeshore of the study area; however,
the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Repon for WRIA 8 identifies five
salmonid species that use Lake Washington, and could reasonably be expected to occur along
the propeny: sockeye, coho, Chinook, coastal cutthroat, and rainbow/steelhead trout
(Kerwin 2001). Anadromous forms of each of these species are present, so individuals are
present in the lake both as adults during migrations to spawning grounds and as juveniles.
Sockeye are known to spawn along some beaches of the lake while there are unconfirmed
repons of Chinook spawning in littoral areas of the lake. Non-anadromous forms of winter
steelhead (rainbow trout), sockeye (kokanee), and cutthroat also occur in the lake. Resident
rainbow trout spend their entire life in Lake Washington. Non-anadromous coastal
cutthroat trout also occur in Lake Washington and are much more abundant than the
anadromous form (Nowak 2000).
Other non-anadromous species expected to occur near the study area include: longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys), sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.), and dace (Leuciscus spp.). Non-
native freshwater species known to occur in Lake Washington, and likely found near the
study area include: black crappie (Pomoxis mgromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrocheilus),
common carp (Cyprinus carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pumpkinseed
sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieUl), tench (Tinca tinca),
and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qpendall Terminals 42
OWl' 18418621v3 ()032695-0()O()04
July 2011
060059-0]
Shoreline Restoration Plan
5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
This report provides a conceptual shoreline restoration plan for purposes of the
redevelopment process. A shoreline restoration plan will be developed as part of the
EPAlNRD process and may be different than the conceptual restoration plan developed in
this report. This report assumes regulatory interpretations that will result in a post-
remediation condition that would allow the greatest area for redevelopment based on the
1983 City of Renton's Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS.
5.1 Introduction and Purpose
This section presents a conceptual shoreline restoration plan to create significant net
ecological functional improvement to the Lake Washington shoreline, riparian buffer, and
wetlands and associated buffers. This conceptual plan is intended to offset impacts resulting
from prospective Site remediation efforts (e.g., soil removal and replacement with clean fill
and/or capping) related to hazardous substances as may be present in lake sediments and in
the upland portions of the Site. The goal of this plan is to identify post-remediation
conditions that would allow the greatest area for redevelopment based on the 1983 City of
Renton's Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E ofthe DEIS. All wetland impacts at
the Site are anticipated to occur as a result of CERCLA remediation. Because the sediment
and upland cleanup is being performed under CERCLA, all substantive provisions of City
regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Specific details
on remedial alternatives and resulting mitigation/restoration be included in the Record of
Decision anticipated to be released by EPA in 2014.
Once Site remediation is completed under CERCLA, the remaining wetlands will not be
impacted by the planned redevelopment. This conceptual shoreline restoration plan
provides the City with information on the wetlands to be impacted as part of the cleanup
and/or the potential natural resource damages settlement, and provides some general
information on the types of mitigation that will occur, all subject to development of the final
remedial alternative and mitigation/restoration plan developed as part of the ROD and any
NRD settlement. There are no anticipated wetland impacts from the planned redevelopment
and therefore no mitigation is required as part of Site redevelopment.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 43
DWT 18418622v3 0032695·000004
July 2011
06(}(}59-01
Shoreline Restoration Plan
For purpose of this report, it is assumed that any cleanup decision by EPA will result in
impacts to Wetlands B, C, E, F, and G, and portions of Wetlands A and D. In general,
projects with wetland impacts can only occur after it can be demonstrated that impacts to
wetlands cannot be avoided, that impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent
possible, and finally after adequate mitigation is provided. However, the cleanup will likely
be ordered by EPA to address hazardous substance contamination on the Site that will result .
in unavoidable wetland impacts. For purposes of this report and based on existing
information on Site contamination, Wetlands H, I, and J, and portions of Wetlands A and D
are not anticipated to be impacted by remediation actions.
This conceptual shoreline restoration plan is intended to update the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum completed for the Quendall and Baxter properties in 2000 (AESI 2000). That
memorandum was prepared to address cleanup-related impacts to wetlands and the lake
shoreline when investigation and cleanup of the site were being conducted under
Washington's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). That document was prepared for the City
of Renton and Vulcan Northwest, and was developed with input from WDFW, Ecology,
WDNR, the Corps, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, among others. Mitigation as a result
of cleanup and development activities was completed on the Baxter site (located immediately
north of the Quendall site) in 2007 according to the requirements in the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum.
S.2 Goals and Objectives
The conceptual shoreline restoration plan would provide significant ecological functional
gains for the Lake Washington shoreline including wetlands, buffers, and lake riparian areas.
The conceptual plan would provide compensation necessary to mitigate impacts resulting
from the prospective cleanup action (to be selected by EPA). Following cleanup, it is
anticipated that the property would be redeveloped. A conceptual development plan is
presented in Figure 8 to show how wetland creation/restoration ratios and buffer widths
could potentially be applied to the site to result in the greatest area for redevelopment. EPA
and the NRD trustees will develop the final plan in consultation with other resource agencies
and the ultimate Site shoreline plan may further improve ecological functions (see Figure 8).
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 44
DWT 18418621v3 0032695·000004
fuly2011
060059-01
Shoreline Restoration Plan -----------------------------------------------------
For purposes ofthis report, impacts to wetlands are assumed to be mitigated at a 1.5: 1
replacement ratio to offset functional losses resulting from Site remediation. This ratio will
result in the greatest area for redevelopment and is consistent with the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum (AESI 2000). Because Wetland G may be exempt from critical area
regulations, this report assumes it will be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio.
The conceptual shoreline restoration plan could also improve habitat for aquatic species
within Lake Washington such as migrating juvenile salmon. For example, shoreline habitat
and complexity could be restored with appropriate habitat mix gravel, large woody debris,
and overhanging vegetation. The large woody debris could be collected and stockpiled
during remediation activities and reused along the shoreline to the extent practicable.
The conceptual shoreline restoration plan depicted in Figure 8 includes a 100-foot average
width riparian buffer from the lake OHWM. This buffer will result in the greatest area for
redevelopment and is consistent with the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AESI 2000).
The proposed riparian area could also provide a buffer for existing wetlands, and prospective
wetland expansions in addition to providing a shoreline buffer. The new development
adjacent to the shoreline following cleanup could provide a 100-foot average setback. The
setback may fluctuate in width, depending on the proposed development plan. This setback
is significantly greater than the 50-foot minimum setback required by the City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090).
5.3 Elements of the Plan
5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat
For purposes of this report, it is assumed the 100-foot average width riparian buffer would
revegetate the area adjacent to Lake Washington (see Figure 8). The revegetation could
focus on species diverSity, species density allowing for varied light penetration, and the
creation of different successional stages along the lake. A preliminary plant list for riparian
buffer enhancement is presented in Table 7. Willow and water-tolerant shrub vegetation
along the shoreline could provide shade for aquatic species. Deciduous-dominated forests
could include open areas where sunlight can penetrate to the forest floor. Coniferous-
dominated forests could provide important habitat for upland species.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 45
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
July 2011
060059-01
Shoreline Restoration Plan
Long-term function of riparian areas could provide detritus inputs, insect drop, and woody
debris inputs for aquatic species to support prey resources and provide cover for juvenile
salmon. In addition, woody debris and substrate enhancement of the shoreline could support
these aquatic ecological functions in the short term.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 46
DWT 18418612,] 0032695-(}{)0004
fuly2011
060059-01
Shoreline Restoration Plan
Table 7
Riparian Buffer Plant List
Common Name Scientific Name
Groundcovers
Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina
Salal Gaultheria shal/on
Sword Fern Polystichum munitum
Willows/Shrubs
Vine Maple Acer circinatum
Red-osier Dogwood Comus sericea
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrata
Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa
Nootka Rose Rasa nutkana
Hooker's Willow Salix haokeriana
Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana I
Sitka Willow Salix sitchensis
Douglas Spirea Spiraea douglasii
Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus
Trees
Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyl/um
Pacific Dogwood Comus nuttalii
Red Alder Alnus rubra
Hazelnut Corylus cornuta
Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis
Douglas Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii
Black Cottonwood Populus tremuloides
Western Crabapple pyrusfusca
Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophyl/a
5.3.2 Wetland Restoration
For purposes of this report, it is assumed wetland creation/restoration along the Lake
Washington shoreline would expand existing Wetlands A, D, and J (see Figure 8). Impacts to
existing lakeshore wetlands from cleanup activities (Wetlands A, D, and F) could be
mitigated along the lakeshore, adjacent to Wetlands A and D. Impacts to existing wetlands
Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendal! Terminals 47
DWT 18418622v3 0032695·0UlJO04
July2011
060059-01
Shoreline Restoration Plan
that are not connected to the lakeshore (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) could be mitigated
adjacent to Wetland J.
In all areas, the creation/restoration couId diversify the existing range of wetland habitat and
could include emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitat areas. This includes restoration
adjacent to Wetlands A and D for impacts to LFO, LSS, and LEM components of lakeshore
Wetlands A, D, and F. In addition, the prospective wetland creation/restoration area
adjacent to Wetland A could include a low swale (see Figure 8). This swale could connect to
Lake Washington and diversify the marsh habitat by adding open water and emergent
habitat. The creation of this swale couId also offset impacts to POW habitats in Wetlands B
and C. The swale could be designed to encourage seasonal use by juvenile salmonids with
the placement of large woody debris (LWD). L WD provides habitat complexity and areas for
cover for juvenile salmonids. Water quality and hydrologic functional improvements could
also result from improved stormwater retention and capability to trap sediments through
wetland, riparian, and associated buffer replanting. A preliminary plant list for wetland
creation/restoration is presented in Table 8.
Restoration adjacent to Wetland J could offset impacts to PSS, PEM, and PFO components of
Wetlands B, C, E, and G. POW habitat could be replaced as part of restoration adjacent to
Wetland A. The restoration/creation could replace current wetland areas with a wider range
of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J could provide an
improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing
wetlands, which are compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat
function could also benefit from improved structure and diversity. Wetlands B, C, E, and G
currently provide a moderate level of water quality and hydrologic function through
stormwater retention. These wetlands currently have a higher opportunity to provide these
functions due to the presence of contaminated stormwater on the site. Water quality and
hydrologic functions provided by existing Wetlands B, C, E, and G couId be replaced with
improved on-site stormwater control and treatment as well as an increased ability to trap
sediments as part of riparian and shoreline wetland buffer improvements.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Tenninals 48
DWT 184J8622v3 0032695-000004
fuly20J]
060059-01
Table 8
Wetland Plant List
Common Name Scientific Name
Emergents
Slough Sedge Carex obnupta
Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus
Small-fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus
Willows/Shrubs
Red-osier Dogwood Comus sericeo
Black Hawthorne Crotaegus doug/asii
Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrate
Pacific Ninebark Physocorpus copitatus
Hooker's Willow Solix hookeriana
Pacific Willow Salix lasiandro
Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana
Douglas Spirea Spiroea doug/asii
Trees
Red Alder Alnus rubro
Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Qp.endall Terminals 49
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
Shoreline Restoration Plan
July 2011
(}6(}(}59-0l
References
6 REFERENCES
AESI. 2000. Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Quendall and Baxter Properties, Renton,
Washington. Prepared for Vulcan Northwest and City of Renton. February 17.
Access Washington. 2009 . Washington State Growth Management Act. Accessed online at
http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gmaiindex.htmlon February 23, 2009.
Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect). 2009. Personal communication with Jeremy Porter
regarding current understanding of historic property use and excavation of Wetland
G. August 27.
City of Renton. 1992. Renton's Critical Areas Inventory. Prepared by Jones and Stokes.
City of Renton. 2009. Renton Municipal Code. Accessed online at
http://www.codepublishing.com!wa/renton/ on June 11,2009.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.e. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
D.C.
Ecology. See Washington State Department of Ecology.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kerwin. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the CEDAR-
SAMMAMISH BASIN (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington
Conservation Commission. Olympia, W A.
King County Metro. Memorandum from Larry Peterson to Glen D. Harris regarding
Quendall Terminals Co. Industrial Waste. March 29,1972.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 50
DItT 18418622>-30032695·000004
/uly2011
060059-01
References
Munsell. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Nowak, G.M. 2000. Movement patterns and feeding ecology of cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Lake Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Phoinix. 2006. Memorandum to Mr. John J. Tortorelli, Western Wood Lumber Company,
regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Project. January 19.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National
Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9).
Reed, P., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88
(26.9).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region, ed J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington.
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Accessed online at
http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils!county_hydric_lists.htmlon May 8,
2009.
USDA. 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed
online at http://soils.usda.gov/uselhydricllists/state.htmlon June 11,2009.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 51
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000(){)4
July 2011
06()()59-01
References
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for
National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov on May 8, 2009
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Priority Habitats and Species
(PHS) Maps in the Vicinity ofT24, ROSE, Section 29. Report Date August 28 2009.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia,
Washington.
Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western Washington: Revised.
Publication No. 04-06-15. Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, version 2.
Olympia, Washington.
Ecology. 2009a. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 9 DuwamishiGreen Basin.
Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/number/wria9.htm
on February 23,2009
Ecology. 2009b. Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Accessed online at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/lawsJules/index.html on September 5,
2009.
Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report
Quendall Terminals 52
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
/uly2011
06(}{)59-OJ
FIGURES
DWT 18418612v3 0032695-000004
APPENDIX A
PLAN VIEW AND CROSS SECTIONS OF
WETLANDS A THROUGH H
DWT 1841862],30032695-000004
APPENDIX B
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK FLAG
LOCATIONS
DWT 18418622v3 0032695-000004
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE PLOT SUMMARY DATA
DWT J84J8622,] 0032695-000004
APPENDIX D
FIELD DATA SHEETS
DWT 1841862b3 0032695-000004
APPENDIX E
ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS
DWT 1841862],30032695-000004
APPENDIX F
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DWT 18418622»30032695-000004
APPENDIX G
MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM,
QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES
DWT 184186221,13 0032695-000004
APPENDIX H
1990 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DWT 18418612v3 0032695-000004
PROJECT TITLE
PROPONENT/APPLICANT
LOCATIO,!\(
"'.
,". '
, 'I
EIS ALTERNATIVES
FACT SHEET
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project
Century Pacific, L.P.
The approximately 21,5-acre Ouendall Terminals
site is located in the northern portion of the City of
Renton, within the Southwest Y. of Section 29,
Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County.
The site includes an approximately 20,3-acre Main
Property along Lake Washington, and an
approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the
northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered
by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seattle
Sea hawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad
right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and
Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential
development to the south and Lake Washington to
the west. The Isolated Property is generally
bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and the
southbound 1-405 off-ramp to the east and south.
The Ouendall Terminals site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo
cleanup/remediation prior to reaevelopment, under
the oversight of It!e----EPA ,Rrior to redevelopment.
Potential impacts to the environment associated
with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed
through the separate EPA process. The impact
analyses in this DEIS~l!jgb-.SQjely addresses
impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup
commercial redevelopment of the Ouendall
Terminals site.. assume an existing/baseline
condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation----flAal
is, the Gonaition of the site after remeaiation has
tJeen aGGomplishea).
The Ouendall Terminals site has received a Superfund deSignation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation (the use of
the term cleanup is meant to refer to actions directed at contaminated media only:
whereas the term remediation is meant to also include CE~LA mitigation actions) under
the oversight of EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the envir.Q[1llliLm
~§sQQ[al~SL"'1ith_~I~<!J1UP~21ivllies will be addressed through the separate EPA process. It
is also possible restoration actions will occur as P<!r:lQt~Jl.Qt.!1.ntlal natural resource
damage (NRDl settlement process but before site redevelopment.
The impact analyses in this DEIS, which solely addresses impacts that rnaY.QlX:ur due to
post-remediation/post-NRD restoration commercial redevelopment of Ouendall assume
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18423122vl 0032695.fJ00004
Fact Sheet
i
an existing/baseline condition subsequent to remediation/NRD restoration.
Redevelopment impacts are assessed and measured against the baseline that exists
pre-development but post remediation/post-NRD restoration.
Ihl1.l.:tgst-remediation/post-NRD restoration baseline condition at Quendall is uncertain
until the cleanup has been approved by EPA. However a baseline can be assumed
using environmerlli!1 mitigation raUQs,. buffers aru:Lse.tbaQks frQm the..1.9.83,.City Qf RentQn's
~H1Ql\1.1in\1. Management Plan and other relevant information as desQribed in Appendix E of
this DE IS, Such a baseline as presented in this DEIS would reflect the maximum
develQpment fQQtprint or impact that QQuid QQQur at Quendall.
As part Qf EPA's cleanup/remediation decision and any potential NRD settlement EPA
and the NRD trustees will require any neQessarv wetland mitigation/shoreline restoration
as needed tQ cQmpensate for environmental impacts resulting from cleanup aQtiQns, such
as filling existing wetlands tQ provide a clean soil surfaQe. at Quendall, Qr assQQiated with
any alleged natural resource damage, For such mitigation/restoration. it is EPA's position
that it will apply environmental regulations in place at the time that EPA issues its ReQord
Qf DeQisiQn fQr Quendall Temrinals.
Environmental standards may Qhange in the future because mQre stringent regulatQry
stanQar.dl:Lc'Quld be established. It is EPA's PQsition that future environmental standards
fQr environmental mitigation/restoration may result in larger mitigatiQn ratiQs. buffers
and/or setbaQks resulting in larger Qr higher quality wetlands and shoreline restoration
The result WQuid be a smaller redevelQpment fQQtprinVimpact and the City may decide a
!1~~~PRLemenlal EIS is not necessary. Final wetland mitigation/shoreline restoration.
requirements will be established in EPA's Record Qf Decision for the Quendall cleanup.
This DEIS analyzes two redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1 -the subject of the
November 2009 application and Alternative 2 -a lower density alternative), as well as the
No Action Alternative. These alternatives are briefly described below:
Alternative 1 -Application
Mixed-use development under Alternative 1 would include 800 multifamily residential
units, 245,000 sq. ft. of office space, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space and 9,000 sq. ft. of
restaurant space on the Main Property. Parking for 2,171 vehicles would be provided
within the proposed buildings and in one surface parking area. New public roadways and
private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site and would include
sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. A publically accessible trail would provide pedestrian
access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed on the
Isolated Property under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 -Lower-Density Alternative
Mixed-use development under Alternative 2 would include 708 multifamily residential
units, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space on the Main
Property; no office uses would be provided under this alternative. Parking for 1,364
vehicles would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18423122vl 0032695'()00004
Fact Sheet
ii
and two deck parking areas. New public roadways and private driveways would provide
vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.
A publically accessible trail would also provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington
shoreline. No new development is proposed on the Isolated Property under Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the
Quendall Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities ass9Giates witR tRe
site's statlols as a SIJFlerflJns siterequired by EPA will still occur. A Shoreline Restoration
Plan will also be implemented in conjunction with site cleanuplremediation.-arni[QLJQ
~v@ potential rlatural re.sQUI.Qll damages claims. Since the cleanuplremediation
remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the site, if no redevelopment occurs
under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition (post-remediation) would likely be
somewhat different than the baseline conditions assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2 (h-&.-fle
sR9reline trail \\'91J1s Be G9nstrIJGtes ans an interime.g the stormwater control system
would Be installesnot be integrated into a rede.l&!opment plan).
LEAD AGENCY (SEPA) City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
Dept. of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
EIS CONTACT PERSON Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Dept. of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7314
FINAL ACTION Approvals/permits by the City of Renton to authorize
development, construction and operation of the
Quendall Terminals mixed-use development, as well
as infrastructure improvements to serve the
development.
PERMITS AND APPROVALS Preliminary investigation indicates that the following
permits and/or approvals could be required or
requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional
permits/approvals may be identified during the
review process associated with specific
development projects.
Agencies with Jurisdiction
Quendal/ Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT [8423[22v[ 0032695'{)00004
• Federal
Fact Sheet
iii
DRAFT EIS AUTHORS AND
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18423122vl 0032695'{)00004
-CERCLA Remediation (for site
cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment)
• State of Washington
-Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater
General Permit
-Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater
Discharge Permit
-Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project
Approval
• City of Renton
-Master Site Plan Approval
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Construction Permits
Building Permits
Development Permits
Binding Site Plan
Site Plan Review
-Development Agreement (possible)
-Utility Approvals
-Property Permits & Licenses
The Quenda// Terminals Draft Environmental Impact
Statement has been prepared under the direction of
the City of Renton and analyses were provided by
the following consulting firms:
DEIS Project Manager, Primary Author, Energy
and GHG Emissions Land and Shoreline Use,
Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies and
Regulations, AestheticsNiews and Parks and
Recreation.
EA I Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
Earth
AESI
911 5th Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
Critical Areas
Raedeke Associates
5711 Northeast 63cd Street
Seattle, WA 98115
Visual Analysis (Simulations)
The Portico Group
iv
Fact Sheet
LOCATION OF BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
DATE OF DRAFT EIS
ISSUANCE
DATE DRAFT EIS
COMMENTS ARE DUE
DATE OF DE IS PUBLIC
MEETING
AVAILABILITY OF THE
DRAFT EIS
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT t8423t22vt 0032695-{)00004
1500 4th Avenue -3rd Floor
Seattle, Washington 98101
Transportation/Traffic
Transportation, Engineering Northwest, LLC
816 6th Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
Background material and supporting documents are
located at the office of:
EA I Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
City of Renton
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic
Development, Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
December 10, 2010
January 10, 2011
In addition to the opportunity to provide written
comments by January 10, 2011, a DEIS public
meeting will be held on Thursday, January 4, 2011,
to provide agencies, organizations, tribes and the
general public with an opportunity to provide
comments on the DEIS.
The public meeting will commence at 6 PM and will
be held at:
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
7'h Floor, Council Chambers
Renton, WA 09057
This DEIS has been distributed to agencies,
organizations and individuals noted on the
Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this
document Copies of the DE IS are also available for
review at the following King County Library System
Renton public libraries:
Fact Sheet
v
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18423122v1 0032695·000004
Renton Main Library
100 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98057
Renton Highlands Library
2902 N E 12'h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Copies of this DEIS may be purchased at the City of
Renton's Finance Department (1 st Floor of City Hall)
for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus tax and
postage (if mailed).
Fact Sheet
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACT SHEET ..................................... , ........................................................................... i
Chapter 1 -SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Proposed Actions ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Impacts ....................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......... 1-16
Chapter 2 -DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) and ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Background ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Environmental Review Process and Purpose ............................................. 2-6
2.4 Applicant's Objectives ................................................................................. 2-8
2.5 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 Description of Proposed Action(s) ............................................................. 2-10
2.7 Description of Alternatives ............................................................ ' ........... 2-10
2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Project Implementation ............. 2-29
Chapter 3 -AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION
MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1 Earth ....................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2 Critical Areas ................................................... " ...................................... 3.2-1
3.3 Environmental Health .............................................................................. 3.3-1
3.4 Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Land and Shoreline Use ......................................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations ...................................... 3.6-1
3.7 AestheticsNiews ..................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.8 Parks and Recreation .............................................................................. 3.8-1
3.9 TransportationiTraffic ............................................................................... 3.9-1
Chapter 4 -REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A. Draft EIS Distribution List
B. EIS Scoping Summary
C. Road Cross-Sections
D. Technical Report: Geology, Ground Water and Soils
E. Critical Areas Report
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheets
G. Site Area Breakdowns
H. Transportation Technical Report
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 1 8423 122vl 0032695-j)00004
vii
Fact Sheet
Table
1-1
2-1
2-2
3.4-1
3.7-1
3.8-1
3.8-2
3.8-3
3.8-4
3.9-1
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.9-4
3.9-5
Figure
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
3.5-1
3.5-2
3.7-1
3.7-2
3.7-3
3.7-4
3.7-5
3.7-6
3.7-7
3.7-8
3.7-9
3.7-10
LIST OF TABLES
Impacts Matrix ............................................................................................ 1-3
Summary of Redevelopment -Alternatives 1 & 2 ...................................... 2-11
Site Area Breakdown -Alternatives 1 & 2 ................................................. 2-12
Quendall Terminals Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions -
Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................. 3.4-5
Viewpoint Location .................•................................................................. 3.7-1
Kennydale Community Planning Area: Existing Parks ............................. 3.8-1
Parks and Recreation Facilities Level of Service (LOS) .......................... 3.8-4
Park and Recreation Impacts -Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................ 3.8-8
On-site Open Space and Related Areas -Alternatives 1 and 2 ............... 3.8-9
Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ................... 3.9-5
2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with Alterative 1 (without
1-405 Improvements) ................................................................................ 3.9-9
2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with Alterative 1 (with
1-405 Improvements) .............................................................................. 3.9-12
2015 Queues Without 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 .................... 3.9-15
2015 Queues With 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 ......................... 3.9-16
LIST OF FIGURES
Regional Map .......................................................................................... 2-2
Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. 2-3
Existing Site Conditions ........................................................................... 2-4
Site Plan -Alternative 1 ......................................................................... 2-14
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1 ................................ 2-17
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 1 ...................... 2-18
Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2 ...................... 2-19
Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1 ........................................... 2-20
Site Plan -Alternative 2 ......................................................................... 2-23
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 2 ................................ 2-25
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 2 ...................... 2-26
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative ......... 2-28
Existing Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................... 3.5-4
Existing Zoning Classifications .............................................................. 3.5-7
Viewpoint Location Map ........................................................................ 3.7-2
Viewpoint 1 ........................................................................................... 3.7-9
Viewpoint 2 ......................................................................................... 3.7-11
Viewpoint 3 ......................................................................................... 3.7-12
Viewpoint 4 ......................................................................................... 3.7-14
Viewpoint 5 ......................................................................................... 3.7-15
Viewpoint 6 ......................................................................................... 3.7-17
Viewpoint 7 ......................................................................................... 3.7-18
Viewpoint 8 ......................................................................................... 3.7-20
Viewpoint 9 ......................................................................................... 3.7 -21
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS viii
Fact Sheet
DWT 18423122vl 0032695-000004
3.7-11
3.9-1
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.9-4
3.9-5
3.9-6
Viewpoint 10 ....................................................................................... 3.7 -23
Study Intersection Locations ................................................................. 3.9-2
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 3.9-3
2015 Baseline/ Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-10
2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements)
........................................................................................................... 3.9-11
2015 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-13
2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-14
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS ix
Fact Sheet
DWT 18423122vl 0032695·000004
[)9PJ.!m~nt~comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday>c-Qctober 24. 2011
4:10:57 PM
7v2<DWT> ~ Fact Sheet [clean!
..o.
n_I,';, .. , ,,-
I to
Style
, chanQe
.. , .A A~1.
~cell
I cell .. , ~~
~cell
cell
r.n.ml
~
~ ... 1 from ~
Ito ~
Stvle chance Q
Q
Total chances 11
DWT 18423122v1 0032695-000004
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
4-17-18 PM
Input:
Document 1 10 interwovenSite:lldwtdocslDWT/18419549/1
Description #18419549v1 <DWT> -Fact Sheet [Original]
Document 2 10 interwovenSite:lldwtdocslDWT/18422866/1
1#18422866v1 < DWT> -
Description WSComparison_#18417517v1<DWT> -Fact Sheet
[clean]-#18417517v2<DWT> -Fact Sheet [clean]
Rendering set standard
Legend:
Insertion
geletiefl
Me'lea tfeffi
M_oved to
Style change
Fonnat change
1\4ev€<:l-JdelKm
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 56
Deletions 6
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 62
DWT 18423122vl 0032695-000004
PROJECT TITLE
PROPONENT/APPLICANT
LOCATION
-'-.
EIS ALTERNATIVES
FACT SHEET
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project
Century Pacific, L.P.
The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals
site is located in the northern portion of the City of
Renton, within the Southwest y.; of Section 29,
Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County.
The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main
Property along Lake Washington, and an
approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the
northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered
by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the
Seattle Sea hawks Training Facility to the north, the
Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard
and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill
residential development to the south and Lake
Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is
generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west,
and the southbound 1-405 off-ramp to the east and
south.
The Quendall Terminals site has received a
Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo
cleanup/remediation under the oversight of EPA
prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the
environment associated with cleanup/remediation
activities will be addressed through the separate
EPA process. The impact analyses in this DEIS,
which solely addresses impacts that may occur due
to post-cleanup commercial redevelopment of the
Quendall Terminals site, assume an
existing/baseline condition subsequent to
cleanup/remediation.
The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation (the use
of the term cleanup is meant to refer to actions directed at contaminated media only;
whereas the term remediation is meant to also include CERCLA mitigation actions)
under the oversight of EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the
environment associated with cleanup activities will be addressed through the separate
EPA process. It is also possible restoration actions will occur as part of a potential
natural resource damage (NRD) settlement process but before site redevelopment.
The impact analyses in this DEIS, which solely addresses impacts that may occur due to
post-remediation/post-NRD restoration commercial redevelopment of Quendall, assume
an existing/baseline condition subsequent to remediation/NRD restoration.
Quendal/ Terminals
Draft Eis
D'WT 18417517v3 0032695"()00004
Fact Sheet
i
Redevelopment impacts are assessed and measured against the baseline that exists
pre-development, but post remediation/post-NRD restoration.
The post-remediation/post-NRD restoration baseline condition at Quendall is uncertain
until the cleanup has been approved by EPA. However, a baseline can be assumed
using environmental mitigation ratios, buffers and setbacks from the 1983 City of
Renton's Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant information as described in
Appendix E of this DEIS. Such a baseline, as presented in this DEIS, would reflect the
maximum development footprint or impact that could occur at Quendall.
As part of EPA's cleanup/remediation decision and any potential NRD settlement, EPA
and the NRD trustees will require any necessary wetland mitigation/shoreline
restoration, as needed to compensate for environmental impacts resulting from cleanup
actions, such as filling existing wetlands to provide a clean soil surface at Quendall, or
associated with any alleged natural resource damage. For such mitigation/restoration, it
is EPA's position that it will apply environmental regulations in place at the time that EPA
issues its Record of Decision for Quendall Terminals.
Environmental standards may change in the future because more stringent regulatory
standards could be established. It is EPA's position that future environmental standards
for environmental mitigation/restoration may result in larger mitigation ratios, buffers
and/or setbacks resulting in larger or higher quality wetlands and shoreline restoration.
The result would be a smaller redevelopment footprinVimpact and the City may decide a
new or supplemental EIS is not necessary. Final wetland mitigation/shoreline
restoration, requirements will be established in EPA's Record of Decision for the
Quendall cleanup.
This DE IS analyzes two redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1 -the subject of the
November 2009 application and Alternative 2 - a lower density alternative), as well as
the No Action Alternative. These alternatives are briefly described below:
Alternative 1 -Application
Mixed-use development under Alternative 1 would include 800 multifamily residential
units, 245,000 sq. ft. of office space, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space and 9,000 sq. ft. of
restaurant space on the Main Property. Parking for 2,171 vehicles would be provided
within the proposed buildings and in one surface parking area. New public roadways
and private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site and would include
sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. A publically accessible trail would provide
pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed
on the Isolated Property under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 -Lower-Density Alternative
Mixed-use development under Alternative 2 would include 708 multifamily residential
units, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space on the Main
Property; no office uses would be provided under this alternative. Parking for 1,364
vehicles would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas
Quendal/ Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18417517v3 0032695-000004
Fact Sheet
ii
and two deck parking areas. New public roadways and private driveways would provide
vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.
A publically accessible trail would also provide pedestrian access to the Lake
Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed on the Isolated Property under
Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the
Ouendall Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities required by EPA will
still occur. A Shoreline Restoration Plan will also be implemented in conjunction with
site cleanup/remediation and/or to resolve potential natural resource damages claims.
Since the cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the
site, if no redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition
(post-remediation) would likely be somewhat different than the baseline conditions
assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., the stormwater control system would not be
integrated into a redevelopment plan).
LEAD AGENCY (SEPAl City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
Dept. of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
EIS CONTACT PERSON Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Dept. of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7314
FINAL ACTION Approvals/permits by the City of Renton to
authorize development, construction and operation
of the Ouendall Terminals mixed-use development,
as well as infrastructure improvements to serve the
development.
PERMITS AND APPROVALS Preliminary investigation indicates that the following
permits and/or approvals could be required or
requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional
permits/approvals may be identified during the
review process associated with specific
development projects.
Agencies with Jurisdiction
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 184175 17v3 0032695-000004
• Federal
Fact Sheet
iii
DRAFT EIS AUTHORS AND
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
Quendal/ Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18417517v3 0032695-{)(){)004
-CERCLA Remediation (for site
cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment)
• State of Washington
-Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater
General Permit
-Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater
Discharge Permit
-Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project
Approval
• City of Renton
-Master Site Plan Approval
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Construction Permits
Building Permits
Development Permits
Binding Site Plan
Site Plan Review
-Development Agreement (possible)
-Utility Approvals
-Property Permits & Licenses
The Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental
Impact Statement has been prepared under the
direction of the City of Renton and analyses were
provided by the following consulting firms:
DEIS Project Manager, Primary Author, Energy
and GHG Emissions Land and Shoreline Use,
Relationship to Existing Plans, Policies and
Regulations, AestheticsNiews and Parks and
Recreation.
EA I Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
Earth
AESI
911 5th Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
Critical Areas
Raedeke Associates
5711 Northeast 63rd Street
Seattle, WA 98115
Visual Analysis (Simulations)
The Portico Group
iv
Fact Sheet
LOCATION OF BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
DATE OF DRAFT EIS
ISSUANCE
DATE DRAFT EIS
COMMENTS ARE DUE
DATE OF DEIS PUBLIC
MEETING
AVAILABILITY OF THE
DRAFT EIS
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18417517v3 0032695-{)00004
1500 4th Avenue -3rd Floor
Seattle, Washington 98101
TransportationlTraffic
Transportation, Engineering Northwest, LLC
816 6th Street S
Kirkland, WA 98033
Background material and supporting documents
are located at the office of:
EAI Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
City of Renton
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic
Development, Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
December 10, 2010
January 10, 2011
In addition to the opportunity to provide written
comments by January 10, 2011, a DEIS public
meeting will be held on Thursday, January 4, 2011,
to provide agencies, organizations, tribes and the
general public with an opportunity to provide
comments on the DEIS.
The public meeting will commence at 6 PM and will
be held at:
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
7th Floor, Council Chambers
Renton, WA 09057
This DE IS has been distributed to agencies,
organizations and individuals noted on the
Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this
document. Copies of the DEIS are also available
for review at the following King County Library
System Renton public libraries:
Fact Sheet
v
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18417517v3 0032695·000004
Renton Main Library
100 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98057
Renton Highlands Library
2902 NE 12'h Street
Renton, WA 98056
Copies of this DEIS may be purchased at the City
of Renton's Finance Department (1 st Floor of City
Hall) for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus
tax and postage (if mailed).
Fact Sheet
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACT SHEET ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i
Chapter 1 -SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Proposed Actions ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Impacts ....................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......... 1-16
Chapter 2 -DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) and ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Background ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Environmental Review Process and Purpose ............................................. 2-6
2.4 Applicant's Objectives ................................................................................. 2-8
2.5 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 Description of Proposed Action(s) ............................................................. 2-10
2.7 Description of Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-10
2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Project Implementation ............. 2-29
Chapter 3 -AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION
MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1 Earth ........................................................................................................ 3.1-1
3.2 Critical Areas .......................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.3 Environmental Health .............................................................................. 3.3-1
3.4 Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Land and Shoreline Use .......................................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations ...................................... 3.6-1
3.7 AestheticsNiews ..................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.8 Parks and Recreation .............................................................................. 3.8-1
3.9 Transportationrrraffic ............................................................................... 3.9-1
Chapter 4 -REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A. Draft EIS Distribution List
B. EIS Scoping Summary
C. Road Cross-Sections
D. Technical Report: Geology, Ground Water and Soils
E. Critical Areas Report
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheets
G. Site Area Breakdowns
H. Transportation Technical Report
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS
DWT 18417517v) 00)2695-000004
vii
Fact Sheet
Table
1-1
2-1
2-2
3.4-1
3.7-1
3.8-1
3.8-2
3.8-3
3.8-4
3.9-1
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.9-4
3.9-5
Figure
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
3.5-1
3.5-2
3.7-1
3.7-2
3.7-3
3.7-4
3.7-5
3.7-6
3.7-7
3.7-8
3.7-9
LIST OF TABLES
Impacts Matrix ............................................................................................ 1-3
Summary of Redevelopment -Alternatives 1 & 2 ...................................... 2-11
Site Area Breakdown -Alternatives 1 & 2 ............................................... 2-12
Quendall Terminals Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions -
Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................. 3.4-5
Viewpoint Location .................................................................................. 3.7-1
Kennydale Community Planning Area: Existing Parks ............................. 3.8-1
Parks and Recreation Facilities Level of Service (LOS) .......................... 3.8-4
Park and Recreation Impacts -Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................ 3.8-8
On-site Open Space and Related Areas -Alternatives 1 and 2 ............... 3.8-9
Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ................... 3.9-5
2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with Alterative 1 (without
1-405 Improvements) ................................................................................ 3.9-9
2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with Alterative 1 (with
1-405 Improvements) .............................................................................. 3.9-12
2015 Queues Without 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 .................... 3.9-15
2015 Queues With 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 ......................... 3.9-16
LIST OF FIGURES
Regional Map .......................................................................................... 2-2
Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. 2-3
Existing Site Conditions ........................................................................... 2-4
Site Plan -Alternative 1 ......................................................................... 2-14
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1 ................................ 2-17
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 1 ...................... 2-18
Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2 ....................... 2-1 9
Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1 ........................................... 2-20
Site Plan -Alternative 2 ......................................................................... 2-23
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 2 ................................ 2-25
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 2 ...................... 2-26
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative ......... 2-28
Existing Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................... 3.5-4
Existing Zoning Classifications .............................................................. 3.5-7
Viewpoint Location Map ........................................................................ 3.7-2
Viewpoint 1 ........................................................................................... 3.7-9
Viewpoint 2 ......................................................................................... 3.7-11
Viewpoint 3 ......................................................................................... 3.7-12
Viewpoint 4 ......................................................................................... 3.7-14
Viewpoint 5 ......................................................................................... 3.7-15
Viewpoint 6 ......................................................................................... 3.7-17
Viewpoint 7 ......................................................................................... 3.7-18
Viewpoint 8 ......................................................................................... 3.7-20
Quendall Terminals
Draft EIS viii
Fact Sheet
DWT 18417517v3 0032695-000004
3.7-10
3.7-11
3.9-1
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.9-4
3.9-5
3.9-6
Viewpoint 9 ......................................................................................... 3.7-21
Viewpoint 10 ....................................................................................... 3.7-23
Study Intersection Locations ................................................................. 3.9-2
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 3.9-3
2015 Baseline/ Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-10
2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-11
2015 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-13
2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405
Improvements) .................................................................................... 3.9-14
Quendal/ Terminals
Draft EIS ix
Fact Sheet
DWT 18417517v3 0032695-<)00004
1.1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
This chapter provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. It briefly describes the Application (Alternative 1),
Lower Density Alternative (Alternative 2) and No Action Alternative, and contains a
comprehensive overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives.
Please see Chapter 2 of this DEIS for a more detailed description of the alternatives, and Chapter
3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of the alternatives,
mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
The Ouendall Terminals site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake
Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The site has
received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will
undergo cleanup/remediation prior to resevelopment, under the oversight of EPA prior to
redevelopment. The Ouendall Terminals owners and EPA are currently conducting a remedial
investigation and feasibility study at the site. This work is being conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e.,
Superfund). CERCLA cleanup actions ~specified in a final cleanup remedy are assumed to
include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the uplans
portionsMRl&rui~ of the site (Main Property), inclusin€! placernent of a soil cap across the entire
Main Preperty ans shoreline restoration. The post-remediation/post-NRD restoration conditio!]!:!
assumed in this DE IS were developed using the 1983 Renton.Sh.Qreline Management Plan and
other relevant infQrmalign as described in Appendix E of the DEIS. However as part of EPA's
Q[eaQ!J~.l;t~J,;isjgn and any potential NRD settlement. EPA and the NRD trustees will require any
necessary wetland mitigation/shoreline restoration, as determined by environmenta,L1::~illIJ.a!jQ!}s.,.
It is EPA's positiOD...1l:!at.1!1itig!l-A9D.Iequirements, needed to compensate fQr environmental
imJ;lacts resulting from cleanup actio!}s, such as filling existing wetlands to provide a clean soil
surface will be based on environmental regulations in place at the time thaI EPA issues its
Record of Decision for Ouendall Terminals estima!ed.l0 ... oC.c.IJLin 2014 NRD trustees will identify
wetlandlshQfelin!Ues\oIatoo parameters, needed to settle past environmental damages as part
of a potential natural resource damage INRDl settlement process. Both mitigation and restoration
decisions will be made and probably implemented before site redevelopment.
Therefore, the .ba.s.eJine in this DE IS represents the reasonable maximum of development-related
impacts.
In the event the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA and/or any potential NRD Lestor?\ion
action will result in conditignsJ,ignifLcantly different from the baseline conditions described in this
DEIS, the City will determine whether such changes warrant submittal of a supplemental EIS or
other documentation as appropriate (see Chapter 2 for a complete list of the
oleanupiremediation/NRD restoratio!} assumptions used to establish the baseline condition).
Potential impacts associated with cleanuplremediation[NRD ..re.storation activities will be
addressed through the separate EPA process/NRD processes. The DEIS impacts analyses
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWTJMHl"9M ggno9jH@Q9g
1-1 Chapter 1
assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediationlDtRJ:;Lfes1Qrat~n (that
is the condition of the site after remediation/NRD restoration has been accomplished).
1.2 Proposed Actions
The Proposed Actions for the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Possible Development Agreement between the City and the applicant;
• Other local, state and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
1.3 Alternatives
In order to disclose environmental information relevant to the Ouendall Terminals redevelopment
and in compliance with SEPA, this DEIS evaluates two redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1
-the subject of the November 2009 application, and Alternative 2 - a lower density alternative),
as well as the No Action Alternative. Through further evaluation by the City and the applicant and
based on public input, either the Alternative 1 redevelopment plan, the Alternative 2
redeveloprnent plan, a modification of either plan or a combination of the two plans could be
carried forward for possible approval by the City.
Alternative 1 -Application
Mixed-use development under Alternative 1 would include 800 multifamily residential units,
245,000 square feet of office space, 21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of
restaurant space on the Main Property. Parking for 2,171 vehicles would be provided within the
proposed buildings, in one surface parking area and along the main east/west roadway onsite.
New public roadways and private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site and
would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities; private driveways would also provide
additional access to the buildings at the north and south ends of the site. A proposed trail would
provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed
on the Isolated Property under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative
Mixed-use development under Alternative 2 would include 708 multifamily residential units,
21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the Main
Property; no office uses would be provided under this alternative. Parking for 1,364 vehicles
would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas, two deck parking
areas and along the main east/west roadway. New public roadways and private driveways would
provide vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities.
A proposed trail would also provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new
development is proposed on the Isolated Property under Alternative 2.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!1WTI.~1J7'9',JQQJ,l(t1~
1·2 Chapter 1
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the Quendall
Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities assooiates with the site's status as a
:;;u~erfuns siterequired by EPA would still occur. A Shoreline Restoration Plan would also be
implemented in conjunction with site cleanup/remediation and/or to resoille potential natural
resource damagliS,.o«LaiIm;. Since the cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential
redevelopment of the site, if no redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the
baseline condition (post-remediation) would likely be somewhat different than the baseline
conditions assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2 (i.e. no shoreline trail 'Houls be oonstruotes ans an
interirne.g., the stormwater control system would be installesnot be integrated into a
redevelopment plan).
1.4 Impacts
Table 1-1 highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this
DEIS. This summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each
element that is contained in Chapter 3.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
PWT 18417S9;'.I.~Q.l.2.62t.22l1ll!l4
1-3 Chapter 1
Earth
Table 1·1
SUMMARY MATRIX
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Application) (Lower Density Alternative)
• A minimal amount of clearing and grading • Same as Alternative 1. • Clearing and grading would not be required.
(approximately 53,000 -133,000 CY of fill),
primarily in the upland portion of the Main
Property would be required for
redevelopment.
• Grading activities could impact the integrity • Same as Alternative 1. • Grading and potential disturbance of the soil
of the soil caps th"trTl~ be installed during caps installed during site cleanup/remediation
site cleanup/remediation. Implementation would not be required.
of institutional controls to be defined in the
final remediation plans would ensure that
the caps would remain intact during
excavation.
• Site disturbance during construction. Same as Alternative 1. • Site disturbance and increased potential for
activities could result in increased potential erosion and sedimentation would not occur.
for erosion and sedimentation of on·site
wetlands and Lake Washington. Significant
impacts would not be expected with
im plementation of the tem porary erosion
and sedimentation control plan (TESCP)
required by the City.
• A deep building foundation system (i.e. • Same as Alternative 1 • Installation of deep foundations and utilities
piles) and/or ground improvements would would not be required, and there would be no
likely be required for structural support. potential to impact on·site soil caps and
Installation of piles, as well as excavation transmit contamination.
for utilities, could impact the integrity of the
soil caps that may be installed during site
remediation and could transmit
contamination to site areas that are not
contaminated. Siqnificant impacts would
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
T"\\lrr 1 <;;III 1 " ... 0 .... 1 l'l1'o1").;.no;: (){\f\{){\11 _' __ "CT __ ' '''' ',_'T' vv ..... v""' vvvvv' -----------------------
1·4 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
not be expected with implementation of
institutional controls defined in the final
remediation plans.
• Differential settlement could occur between
structures that would be pile-supported and
underground utilities serving the structures,
causing damage to utility lines. Significant
impacts would not be expected with
im pie mentation of institutional controls
defined in the final remediation plans.
• With redevelopment, the amount of
impervious surface area onsite and
associated runoff rates would increase and
could result in erosion hazards at
stormwater outfalls at the lake. Significant
impacts would not be expected with
installation of a permanent stormwater
control system, as required by the City,
including energy dissipation measures at
the outfalls.
• Potential impacts to site structures could
occur during seismic events due to ground
motion, liquefaction and lateral spreading
hazards. All proposed structures would be
built to the most current IBC code to
address potential effects of seismic events
and buildings would likely be supported on
piles to reduce these hazards.
• Groundwater could be encountered during
construction activities. Significant impacts
would not be expected with dewatering and
other construction techniques.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWLl84l"1L9£ftllWZG9, g00004
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1. • Installation of piles and underground utilities
would not be required and associated potential
for settlement would not result.
,
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and
im pervious surfaces, stormwater runoff and
potential for erosion would not increase.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and associated potential for
seismic impacts to structures would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Construction activities and potential to
encounter groundwater would not occur.
1-5 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
• With redevelopment, impervious surfaces
would increase and potential for infiltration
of rainfall to underlying aquifers would
decrease. However the majority of the
recharge to the aquifers originates from
off-site sources to the east, and significant
impacts would not be expected.
Critical Areas
• The entirePortions of the Main Property
wetMCQI.!)Q be capped with soil during site
cleanupiremediation, resulting in the fill ef
all ef the wetlanas ana eliminatien Fi~aFian
habitat en this ~m~erty. Wetlanas will be
Fe establishea,lex~anaeafillingof . some
existing on-site wetlands. HQwever a
greater area~ddillim.al we.t!and.s and
riparian habitat will be FesFeatealenhansea
witAwQul<LJ:!e_!;U;la.ted qS~~<lo~e~ult_QLsite
cleanup/remediatiQn and implementation of
the Shoreline Restoration Plan r~uired...as
Qad of the cleanuQ/remediation and/or to
resolve [.!otential natural resource d<lmagll§
c!.aims.
• Proposed construction and redevelopment
could cause indirect impacts to oo-site
wetlands, riparian habitat and lake habitat
relateGcreated during the
cleanUf.!/remediatiQn and/or Qotential
natural resource damages restoration.
These imQacts could relate to hydrologic
conditions (in the case of the wetlands) and
potential for erosion and sediment
deposition (particularly during construction).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Redevelopment and associated potential to
impact underlying aquifers would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, no additional
riparian habitat restoration area is assumed to
be established during site remediation/cleanup
that would connect Wetlands A and D.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact on-site wetlands, riparian habitat, and
lake habitat would not occur.
1-6 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Significant impacts, including to salmonid
fish in the lake, would not be expected with
implementation of a temporary erosion and
sedimentation control plan (TESCP) during
construction and installation of a permanent
storm water control system, as required by
the City.
• With proposed redevelopment, no direct
impacts would occur to the
retaiReElle*paAEleEl ' .... ellaAEls (l,Il,lellaAEls I
a~R IRe IsslaleEl PF9pefly, SF IRe
r-e-establisheGle*paAEleEl wellaAEls
(WeIlaAde;..A,O-aAd-H) SA IRe MaiA PF9pefly
wetlands remaining afier
cleanuQlremediation and/or golential
n<llJ.![al resources resloratiorL.
• With proposed redevelopment, under the
gl.m as submitted and without furthElr
modification or m iligalion a portion of the
weiland buffer~ on Wetl<lnd D-wGUkl)
QQU]d be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet;
bowever other portions of the buffer
WGUklcoul2 be expanded to provide
com pensatory areas, as allowed by the
buffer averaging provisions of the City of
Renton Municipal Code._. _It is __ .EE!,\'s
OOsition that it mal/impose addlti!m,,[
conditions lhal affect th!l.Mltl,md .. bl,lffe";.
• PF9psseEl etlilEliA!lslA a!lElilieA Ie aR~
5ffillaek FestliFsmsAls im9ssea evEPA,
DroflOseG llwilaiAgsBuildings would be
setback a minimum of 50 feet from the
shoreline, as required by the City of Renton
Shoreline Master ProQram.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!)'liT '8tll.59I,I.Q()J21>9;.900QQ4
It is EPA's
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
,
!
• Sam e as Alternative 1 . • Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact wetlands would not occur.
• S<lme as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact wetland buffers would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • No buildings would be built and no
encroachment into the shoreline setback would
occur.
1-7 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
RDsition~b<1t. it .. can im~Qse additiooal
setback requiremel1ls...
• Three storm water outfalls would be
constructed within the shoreline areas.
These outfalls would be located to avoid
direct impacts to wetlands aOOremaining
after cleanup/remediatimLaod/OL potential
natumi resources restoratiQn. Th~QI.ltfaJJs
would be designed to prevent
erosions/siltation during construction and
operation. Therefore, no significant impacts
to wetlands and the lake would be
expected.
• With proposed redevelopment, the
Shoreline Restoration Area would largely
remain intact. A publically accessible trail
with interpretive viewpoints WGHlGl:QlI]d be
included in the shoreline area. The upland
portion of the Main Property would be
covered in buildings, paved areas and
landscaping, providing habitat for certain
wildlife species adapted to urban
environments.
Environmental Health
• +he entirePortiQns of the Main Property
WGHlGcould be capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, limiting the potential
for exposure to underlying contaminants.
T-o-the greatest extent ~essi9Ie, this cap
wooltilnstituliQnal CQntrQls \Q be defined in
the. finaLr!rn:!.ediatiQn plans l!\!Q!Jld ensure
that-.eaps remain intact with
redevelopment.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWL~m9'\'1 gg3269Ul92!l1l4
proposed
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1. • No storm water outfalls would be constructed
and no impacts to wetlands and the lake would
occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and no;
shoreline trail would be constructed.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1, except that no
redevelopment would occur at this time and no
potential to disturb the soil cap would occur.
1-8 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
• The installation of deep foundations (i.e.,
piles) and utilities could generate
contaminated soil and/or groundwater to
which workers and City staff inspectors
could be exposed. City staff that maintain
utilities could also be exposed to
contaminated soils/groundwater. With
proper protection equipment, training and
handling and disposal of contaminants, no
significant impacts would be anticipated.
• Volatile contaminants in the subsurface
could generate vapors that could intrude
into utility trenches and above-grade
structures. With separation of
living/working areas from contam inants
(!;l,9,,_by tIle--soil GaIl~ and
under-building parking}, as well as
implementation of institutional controls
specified during site remediation, no
significant impacts would be anticipated.
Enerav -Greenhouse Gases
• Proposed redevelopment would result in
and an increase in Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions relative to existing conditions due
to the increase in building density and site
population. Development would result in an
estimated 1,297,536.8 MTCO,e in lifespan
GHG emissions.
• New development would utilize energy in
the form of electricity for heating, cooling,
lighting and other energy demands, and
natural gas for heating and cooking.
Quenda/l Terminals Draft EIS
December 20/0
D\!IT18~ 11;.1';"1_0032,9; 00000)
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1. • Installation of deep foundations and utilities
would not be required, and workers/City staff
would not be exposed to contaminants.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur, and there
would be no potential for exposure of residents
and employees to volatile contaminants.
• Similar to Alternative 1 , however GHG • Redevelopment would not occur and GHG
emissions would be less due to less building emissions would not increase.
density and site population. Development
would result in an estimated 860,434.8
MTCO,e in lifespan GHG emissions
• Sim ilar to Alternative 1; however, energy • Redevelopment would not occur and energy
usage would be lower due to lower density usage would not increase.
development on the site.
/-9 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Land and Shoreline Use
• Under the proposal, the site would be
subdivided into seven lots, four of which
would contain mixed-use development, and
three of which would contain the Shoreline
Restoration Area.
• Redevelopment would occur in nine
buildings on the Main Property, and would
include:
-800 residential units
-Approx. 245,000 sq. ft. of offices uses
-Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses
-Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant
uses
-2,171 parking spaces
No development would occur on the
Isolated Property.
• Site preparation and construction of
buildings and infrastructure would result in
temporary construction-related impacts to
adjacent land uses over the buildout period
(i.e.. air emission, noise and increased
traffic). Due to the temporary nature of
construction and required compliance with
City of Renton construction code
regulations, no significant impacts would be
expected.
• Redevelopment would convert the site from
its current vacant, partially vegetated state to
a mixed-use development, and would restore
a Superfund site to a productive use.
• Redevelopment would result in increased
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
Il\VT 1811];9; 1_09-3269; 9Q2001
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur. The site would
remain in the post-remediation condition,
including the Shoreline Restoration Area.
,
• Redevelopment would occur in nine • No redevelopment would occur at this time.
buildings on the Main Property, and would
include:
-708 residential units
-No offices uses
-Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses
-Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses
- 1 ,364 parking spaces
No development would occur on the Isolated
Property.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Site preparation and construction would not
occur, and no temporary construction-related
impacts on adjacent land uses would result.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Redevelopment would not occur and the site
would remain in its current vacant, partially
vegetated state. The Superfund site would not
be restored to a productive use.
• Sim ilar to Alternative 1; however, activity • Redevelopment would not occur and no
1-10 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
activity levels onsite (i.e., noise, traffic, etc.).
In general, these activity levels would be
greater than the adjacent residential uses to
the south (Barbee Mill), but similar to the
commercial uses to the north (Sea hawks
Training 'Facility) and the existing and
planned commercial and hotel uses to the
east (proposed Hawk's Landing hotel and
commercial uses east of 1-405). Activity
levels would be consistent with the existing
urban character of the area and no
significant impacts would be expected.
• Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 80
feet high, and from approximately 94,600 to
209,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed height
and bulk would be consistent with the type
and size of development contemplated in
the COR land use/zoning classification and
the Urban shoreline environment.
• Proposed buildings would be greater in
height and bulk than the adjacent residential
buildings to the south; however, they would
generally be similar to the surrounding
commercial and planned hotel buildings to
the north and east. Existing off-site features
(i.e. roadways and the PSE easement) and
proposed on-site features (i.e. setbacks,
driveways, parking areas and landscaping)
would provide buffers between proposed
buildings and adjacent uses. Architectural
features would be included that are
intended to enhance the compatibility of the
proposed development with surrounding
uses. Overall, no significant land use
com~tibility impacts would be expected.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
QlVT .18117~' .1.903269) 000904
Alternative 2
(Lower Density Alternative)
levels onsite and their associated potential to
impact adjacent land uses would be less due
to lower density development onsite.
• Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 67
feet in height, and from approximately
77,000 to 112,800 sq. ft. in size. The
proposed height and bulk would be
consistent with the type and size of
development contem plated in the COR land
use/zoning classification and the Urban
shoreline environment.
• Similar to Alternative 1; however building
height and bulk would be less.
I-II
No Action Alternative
increases in activity levels would result.
• No buildings would be built onsite at this time.
• No buildings would be built onsite at this time,
and no land use compatibility impacts would
result.
Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Relationshi!! to Plans, Policies and
Reaulations
• The proposed project would generally be
consistent with applicable plans, policies
and regulations, However, it is unclear at
this time whether proposed redevelopment
would be consistent with all of the COR land
use/zoning classification goals and
requirements, particularly regarding the
design of the project. Possible mitigation
measures could be implemented to
enhance the design of the project and
achieve consistency with these goals and
requirements.
Aesthetics Light and Glare
• Proposed redevelopment would change the
aesthetic character of the site to a new
mixed-use development with nine buildings,
roadways, parking areas, and open
space/landscaping. Buildings would be
seven stories and would range from 94,600
square feet to 209,000 square feet.
• Proposed buildings would be greater in
height and bulk than the adjacent Barbee
Mill development to the south and would be
generally similar in height and bulk to the
Seahawks Headquarters and Training
Facility to the north,
• Views toward the site would change
substantially to reflect a seven-story
mixed-use development. Architectural
features and landscaping would be
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
n\lIT 10..1 17<::llC •• l fl()"'~.<;nc (\f\f\(\flA
..,._!~_.----'--~_. __ , '?J""-LL~_"''''' __ '_,..r-vyv"""",,
--~------------------------
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
I
I
• Same as Alternative 1, • This alternative would not convert a Superfund'
site to a productive use, and help the City reach
its targets to provide housing and employment.
City policies that encourage the provision of
access to the shoreline would also not be met,
as no publically accessible trail along the
shoreline would be provided,
• Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed • This alternative would not change the aesthetic
buildings would be six stories and would character of the site.
range from 77,000 square feet to 112,800
square feet,
• Similar to Alternative 1, although proposed • No building would be built onsite at this time and
buildings would be slightly lower in height and no compatibility impacts would result.
bulk.
• Similar to Alternative 1; however proposed • Views toward the site would not change under
buildings would be six stories. this alternative.
1-12 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
provided to enhance the project's visual
appeal. Possible mitigation measure could
be implemented to further enhance the
aesthetic character of the development and
maintain views of the lake.
o View corridors are proposed along the main
easUwest public roadway (Street "B") and
along the private driveways at the north and
south ends of the site to provide views
across the site towards Lake Washington.
Views toward the lake would be blocked or
partially blocked from certain public view
points. Possible mitigation measures could
be implemented to enhance views across
the site.
o Proposed redevelopment would add new
sources of light and glare, and would
produce shadows at the site. New light
sources would be similar to existing sources
at the Barbee Mill development and
Sea hawks Headquarters and Training
Facility; however, the general lighting levels
on the site would be higher. Noise levels
would be typical of an urban development.
Shadows from the project would not impact
off-site uses, but would extend onto certain
on-site outdoor areas.
Transportation
o The proposed redevelopment would
generate approximately 9,000 daily
vehicular trips at full buildout, including
approximately 865 AM peak hour trips and
950 PM peak hour trips.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 1010
!)1\rTI811">9-S"l::2Qn69;~cOOO04
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
I (Lower Density Alternative)
o Similar to Alternative 1. o Views towards the lake would not change under
this alternative.
o Similar to Alternative 1, except that lighting o No new sources of light, glare or shadows would
levels would be lower due to lower building be provided under this alternative.
density.
o Proposed redevelopment would generate o This alternative would not generate any new
approximately 5,800 daily vehicular trips at vehicular trips.
full build out, including approximately 445 AM
peak hour trips and 540 PM peak hour trips.
1-13 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
o With proposed redevelopment, four
intersections would operate at LOS ElF at
full buildout without the WSDOT 1-405
Improvement project at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange.
One intersection would operate at LOS ElF
at full buildout with the 1-405 Improvements.
o Excessive southbound queues (between
700-800 feet) would be anticipated at the
Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane N
intersection without 1-405 Improvements.
Excessive southbound queues at the Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane N
intersection, as well as along Lake
Washington Boulevard and adjacent
intersections, would also be anticipated with
1-405 Improvements.
o Without 1-405 Improvements, the site
access at Ripley Lane N is anticipated to
operate at LOS F and the site access at NE
43'· Street is anticipated to operate at LOS
C/D.
With 1-405 Improvements, site access at
Ripley Lane is anticipated to operate at LOS
CID and site access at NE 43'" Street is
expected to operate at LOS D.
o Given the site location, it is anticipated that
the proposed redevelopment would be
occupied by residents and employees who
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
Q}YJcJMHf1"~Y~~
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
o Similar to Alternative 1. o Redevelopment would not occur and no
associated changes to LOS operations would
result.
o Similar to Alternative 1. o Redevelopment would not occur and no queuing
impacts would result.
o Similar to Alternative 1. o Redevelopment would not occur and no
changes to site access points would result.
o Similar to Alternative 1 o No impacts to public transportation are
anticipated under this alternative.
1-14 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
primarily rely on personal automobiles and
no significant impacts to public
transportation would be anticipated.
• Increases in population onsite would result
in associated increased need for
non-motorized facilities. Curbs, gutters and
sidewalks would be provided on site, as well
as along the west side of Lake Washington
Boulevard and Ripley Lane N. A publically
accessible trail is also proposed along the
shoreline.
• 2,153 parking stalls would be required
based on the City of Renton MuniCipal Code
standards; 2,171 parking spaces would be
provided onsite.
Parking demand is estimated to be
approximately 2,107 stalls on a weekday
and 1,251 stalls on weekend day. Demand
could be reduced by 20 percent on
weekdays and 55 percent on weekend days
through the implementation of shared
parking between residential and
commercial uses.
Bicycle parking would be provided in
accordance with City of Renton standards.
Parks and Recreation
• Approximately 11.7 acres of open space
and related areas would be provided onsite,
including: paved plazas, natural areas,
landscaped areas, unpaved trails and
sidewalks. These areas mayor may not
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!<WIIUlmS"'LO~J~6~
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
I (Lower Density Alternative)
I
• Similar to Alternative 1. • No impacts to non-motorized transportation
facilities would occur under this alternative.
• 1,362 parking stalls would be required under • No new parking would be provided onsite under
this alternative; 1,364 parking spaces this alternative.
would be provided onsite.
Similar parking demand relationships would
occur under Alternative 2.
• Similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly • No redevelopment would occur and the site
more open space and related areas would be would remain as an open area. No publically
provided onsite (11.8 acres). accessible shoreline trail would be provided in
conjunction with site cleanup/remediation.
1-15 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
meet the City's standards, regulations and
procedures for open space. Approximately
3.4 acres of the on-site open space and
related areas would be visually and andin
some are§s. to the extent consistent with
the ROD and/or any NRD selliemeI1l,
physically accessible to the general public
(i.e. tRe Aat~Fal 6R9FeliAe aFea aAd!Wj.. the
shoreline trail, F8speGti'lely) .
• Increases in the on-site residential
population (1,300 reSidents), as well as
on-site employees (1,050 employees)
would increase demands on neighborhood
and regional parks, open space, trails and
recreation facilities. Parks/recreational
facilities most likely to receive increased
demand would include facilities near the
site, such as: May Creek Greenway,
Kennydale Beach Park, and Gene Coulon
Memorial Park. The latter two parks are
already at or exceeding capacity on warm
days; the proposal would contribute to these
capacity issues. Additional parks and
recreational facilities could be needed in the
City, based on the increased on-site
population.
Certain on-site facilities (i.e., the shoreline
trail) would provide opportunities for passive
recreation. Areas for active recreation
could be provided onsite as well. Parks
mitigation/impact fees would be paid to help
offset the impacts of the project on City
parks and recreational facilities.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
g\\'JJ&117l:9j,}LO.Qg'9S ... Q.rrQOO4
Alternative 2
(Lower Density AlternativElL
• Similar to Alternative 1, except that there
would be slightly less residents on the site
(1,132 reSidents) and fewer employees (50
employees); demands on neighborhood and
regional parks, ope~s space, trails and
recreation facilities would be reduced
accordingly.
1-16
No Action Alternative
• Redevelopment would not occur and there
would be no additional demand for parks, open
space, trails or recreation facilities.
Chapter 1
1.5 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
The following list presents the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts
that would potentially result from the redevelopment alternatives analyzed in this DEIS.
Required/proposed mitigation measures are those actions to which the applicant has committed
and/or are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations. Possible mitigation
measures are actions that could be undertaken, but are not necessary to mitigate significant
impacts, and are above and beyond those proposed by the applicant.
Earth
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented, per the 2009 KCSWD adopted by the City of Renton. This plan would
include the following measures:
All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff would be
directed into tightlined systems that would discharge to an approved stormwater
facility.
Soils to be reused at the site during construction would be stockpiled or stored in
such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures could
include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile
perimeters.
During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, would be
placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake Washington
and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment discharge into these
waters. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during
construction.
Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities would be installed to provide
erosion and sediment transport control during construction.
• A geotechnical engineer would review the grading and TESCP plans prior to final plan
design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards are addressed during and
following construction. As necessary, additional erosion mitigation measures could be
required in response to specific design plans.
• Site preparation for roadways, utilities and structures, and the placement and compaction
of structural fill would be based upon the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
\>" 'I!.i.'.! 7j9'H.~W}269;gg900 ,
1-18 Chapter 1
• Temporary excavation dewatering would be conducted if groundwater is encountered
during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities would be
conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement.
• Structural fill would be placed to control the potential for settlement of adjacent areas;
adjacent structures/areas would be monitored to verify that no significant settlement
occurs.
• Deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) would be installed and/or
ground improvements would be made to minimize potential damage from soil settlement,
consolidation, spreading and liquefaction.
• If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support
structures, the following measures would be implemented:
Measures would be employed to ensure that the soil cap would not be affected and
that installation of the piles/piers would not mobilize contamination that is currently
contained by the cap. Such measures could include: installation of surface casing
through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of impermeable
materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement methods; the use
of pointed tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination; and, the use of ground
improvement technologies, such as in-place densification or compaction grouting.
- A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring would be conducted during pile
installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur.
-Suitable pile and pile hammer types would be matched to the subsurface conditions
to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce potential vibration.
Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe piles, driven closed-end
steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles. Potential hammer types could
include percussion hammers or vibratory hammers.
Suitable hammer and pile cushion types would be used for the specific conditions to
reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact
hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane.
Pile installation would occur during regulated construction hours.
• Fill soils would be properly placed and cuts would be utilized to reduce the potential for
landslide impacts during (and after) construction.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health, for details).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
PWTlgj 17>9,"JOQJ2'2'oQgo24
1-19 Chapter 1
Following Construction
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by City of Renton.
• Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater control
system would be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to prevent
erosion of the lake bottom.
• All buildings would be designed in accordance with the 2009 IBC (or the applicable design
codes that are in effect at the time of construction) to address the potential for seismic
impacts.
• The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces following
redevelopment. Permanent landscaping would also be provided to reduce the potential
for erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Flexible utility connections could be employed to minimize the risk of damage to the lines
due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington
adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without the
proposed redevelopment. No significant unavoidable earth-related impacts would be anticipated.
Critical Areas
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented during construction, per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth, and Appendix
D for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent or limit impacts to the lake and
shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Following Construction
• Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the
retainse!rs sstatJlishse!sxpanese wstlanes onsiteonsite wetlands remaining after
cleanup/remediation and/or potential natural resources res19J8.ikln.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
P'.''IlS.ll};!l,.IOO1WHlIJOOQ4
1-20 Chapter 1
• Re established/expanded weliands\IVetiands remaining after cleanup/remediation and/or
potential natural resources r~JQ[<;jtion would be retained in an open space tract that
includes required buffers and a riparian habitat enhancement area.
• Wetland In addition to any conditions imposed by EPA. wetland buffer areas would meet or
exceed the minimum City-required buffers for 'Nellands lI, D and 1=1 (the Wetland D
lwffeFunder the applicgg]e Critical Areas Ordinance or would meet the City's requirement
through buffer averaging). Wetland I and J wOlolld als9 be provided with blolffers that rreet
or exseed City reqlolirerrents.
• Proposedln addition to any conditions imposed by EPA, propOl1~g buildings would be
setback a minimum of 50 feet from the OHWM, as reqlolired by in compliance with the City
of Renton's 1983 Shoreline Master Program, which requires a minimum setback of 50 feet
for commercial uses and :25 feet for residential uses for Categorv 2 wetlands (see Section
;liQLadditional details).
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton. The system would
collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system. Water
quality treatment would be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to
prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands.
• Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area
on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
• Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in the
vicinity for wildlife.
• A publicly accessible, unpaved trail would be provided through the shoreline area that
would include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading
associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated
areas.
• Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site
remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas would be antiCipated.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
P"'T 18417,9, I Q01'R.~I.OOO.001
1-21 Chapter 1
Environmental Health
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process, and
would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected
and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanuplremediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that
unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater or vapors would not occur.
• Institutional controls would be followed to prevent the alteration of theensure the long-term
integrity and protectiveness of any soil Gap l'Iithollt EPA approval~, and to prevent the
use of on-site groundwater for any purpose.
• An Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the
excavation of any buried contaminated soils,--.O.[ installation of utilities or other site
disturbances in contaminated soil areas without prior EPA approval.
• As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent contact
with hazardous materials and substances.
• Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater
contaminants by under-building garages; institutional controls would also be implemented
to prevent exposure to unacceptable vapors.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the
planned remedial action so that disturbance of-the soil Gafl~ and underlying
contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to capping of the
Main Property.
• Personal protection measures and special training shollidcouid be provided for City of
Renton staff that provide inspection during construction and maintenance following
construction in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
9~!.T .. !.~j . .I.l.~9.! .' .!.QQJ269!.QQQOo.1
1-22 Chapter 1
• Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development shouldCQJJ.[d be placed in
clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet
below the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination
of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future
maintenance of the road or utility lines.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts would be anticipated.
Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measures
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Development could incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of
proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount of
GHG emissions. Such features have not been identified at this time, but could include
architectural design features; sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient
products; natural drainage/green roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or,
other design features.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy
and an increase in GHG emissions. However, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions
and energy use under Alternative 1 and 2 would not be considered significant. Determining
whether the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions and energy use from development of the
Quendall Terminals site is significant or not significant implies the ability to measure incremental
effects of global climate change. The body of research and law necessary to connect individual
land uses, development projects, operational activities, etc. with the broader issue of global
warming remains weak. Scientific research and analysis tools sufficient to determine a numerical
threshold of significance are not available at this time and any conclusions would be speculative.
Further information on the potential cumulative impacts of GHG emissions is not considered
essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives in this DEIS.
Land and Shoreline Use
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas and proposed building setback areas
would provide a buffer between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWTJHII>9l,J991.695OQOOO'
1-23 Chapter 1
• Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main
Property, would provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent
uses (see Figure 2-7, Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1).
• Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, fao;:ade modulation, building materials, etc.) would
be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses (see
Figures 2-5 and 2-9 for representative architectural elevations and Section 3.7,
AestheticsNiews, for further information on the building and site design).
• A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of
building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's emergency
services.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in the conversion of the
approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a new
mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels. No
significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts would be anticipated.
Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed redevelopment would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies and
regulations. However, it is unclear at this time whether the project would be consisted with all of
the COR land use/zoning classification goals and requirements, particularly regarding project
design.
AestheticsNiews
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Building design would include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create
a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and fao;:ade, such as
horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating fao;:ade materials
and details.
• Street-level, under-building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets
by retail and offices uses along certain fao;:ades. Where this parking extends to the exterior
of the building, elements, such as architectural fayade components, trellises, berms and
landscaping, would be used for screening.
• Public view corridors toward Lake Washington are proposed provided along the main
east/west roadway onsite (Street "B") and along the private driveways at the north and
south ends of the site. Public views of the lake would also be possible from the publically
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
gWT 1.*.1J.Z;9; .. ,.' .. QQ.~~2; .. QqqQqJ
1-24 Chapter 1
accessible trail in the shoreline restoration area in the western portion of the Main
Property. Additional views of the lake would be provided for project residents from
semi-private landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite.
• New landscaping would be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is
intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping would include new
trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
• A landscaped edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would provide a
buffer and partial visual screen between new development on the site and adjacent
properties.
• The natural vegetation in shoreline restoration areas on the Main Property and on the
Isolated Property would be retained with proposed site development.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• The amount of required parking could be reduced, relocated or redesigned (i.e. though
implementation of transportation demand management measures or other means) so that
additional areas of the street-level, under-building parking could be setback from the
exterior of the building, particularly along Streets "A", "C" and the lake side of the
development. This would allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial and
residential uses, and plaza areas to occupy these areas and potentially enhance the
aesthetic character at the ground level.
• Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting and pedestrian lighting could be directed
downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to
adjacent uses.
• Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be
considered as part of the fac;:ade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to
surrounding uses.
• Building modulation or design treatments such as tiering/tapering or stepping the building
back as the height increases and/or building setbacks could be provided, particularly
along the shoreline, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views
of Lake Washington.
• Building heights along the shoreline could be reduced to maintain views of Lake
Washington.
• The surface parking located adjacent to the shoreline under Alternative 2 and the parking
at the terminus of Street "B" could be relocated on the site to enhance the aesthetic
character of development, particularly from the shoreline trail.
• Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open
space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, or
prominent architectural features could be provided as part of development to further
enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
.RurT..1.84)}~9'··19QH.9'"9OO9g~
1-25 Chapter I
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Quendall Terminals site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the site
from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The
proposed development would represent a continuation of urban development along the Lake
Washington shoreline. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to
surrounding uses (i.e. the Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned Hawk's
Landing Hotel) and greater than other uses in the area (i.e. the Barbee Mill residential
development). Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would
be obstructed with the proposed development; however, view corridors towards Lake Washington
and Mercer Island would be established and new viewing areas along the lake would also be
provided.
No significant light, glare, or shadow impacts would be anticipated.
Parks and Recreation
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
Public Open Space and Related Areas/Fees 1
• A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed
development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the
project on City parks and recreation facilities.
• 3.4 acres (Alternative1 )/3.5 acres (Alternative 2) of public open space and related areas
would be provided on the site-#!at--: wetland and restoration areas would be visually
afl€iaccessible to the public and to the eK\eoo allowed in the ROD or any NRD settlem§!Jt,
may be physically accessible 10 IAe fJubliG, inGlu9in~~'oL~!2illl the shoreline trail-arul
nalural ofJen sfJace areas alon~ IAe sAereline.J
• Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, would be provided along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks could
connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities in
the area.
• Public parking for the shoreline trail would likely be provided in the same general area as
the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant would specifically identify this parking prior to
site plan approval.
• Signage, detours and safety measures would be put in place to detour bicyclist utilizing
the Lake Washington Loop trail at time of construction.
1 Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 1-26 Chapter 1
l)urTI8117>95··I.@n'95~og9B1
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the parking garages would be provided as
shared open space for residents of the site. These areas would help to meet the demand
for passive recreation facilities from project residents.
• Street level landscaping, plazas and sidewalks would be provided. These areas would
help meet the project's demand for passive recreation facilities.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
Public Open Space and Related Areas 2
• The hours of use of the shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset, consistent
with other City of Renton parks, in order to meet the requirements for public access.
• The connection between the shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard could be
enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 12-foot wide) that are part of public
rights-of-way.
• Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball,
etc.).
• A crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to connect to
the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard.
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Shared roof gardens and indoor amenity space (i.e. gyms, common rooms, etc.) could be
provided as part of the project.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities,
including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or
exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from, project residents would contribute to the
existing capacity issues at these parks.
Transportation
Mitigation Measures
2 Ibid.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 1010
.!1W.TJ.~.1.lt!9;.,.J.·.~.q.l .. !~·ggg9g1
1-17 Chapter 1
Based upon the results of the transportation analysis of future intersection operations, general
key findings include:
• There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic
that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline
projects.
• The existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate Alternatives 1 and 2 at full buildout in 2015, with the additional
required/proposed transportation improvements (listed below)
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
Level of Service / Queuing
With 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
The following improvements (in addition to the planned 1-405 Improvements) would be necessary
under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 to mitigate off-site impacts:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (between Barbee Mill Access (N 43'd Street) and Ripley
Lane N. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by WSDOT
beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This would result in two through
lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the 1-405 interchange past the
Barbee Mill access (NE 43'd Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best
configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange
design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private
development.
• Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/ Lake Washington Boulevard. Construct a
southbound left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an 1-405
Improvement).
Without 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
Without the planned 1-405 Improvements, the following improvements would be necessary under
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 to mitigate off-site impacts:
• Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the 1-405 NB and SB
ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington
Boulevard.
• Intersection #1 -1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and
northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is
provided on both legs of the intersection.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
1)'/'TliII1,9;"'lijijJ.o95H@Qij4
1-28 Chapter 1
• Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/ Lake Washington Boulevard. Widen the westbound
approach to include a separate right turn-only lane.
• Lake Washington Boulevard (between Barbee Mill Access (N 43'd Street) and 1-405
SB Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill
access and the 1-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound lanes
could be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals
required at the SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard. Ultimately,
the City of Renton will detenmine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with
WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail
right-of-way) and adjacent private development.
See Appendix H for detailed level of service worksheets for the mitigation measures outlined
above to meet the City of Renton and WSDOT standards.
Non-Motorized Transportation
• Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters and sidewalks,
as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the west side of Lake
Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe
pedestrian circulation could encourage future transit usage when planned public transit
becomes available.
• A pedestrian trail would be provided onsite along the shoreline that would be accessible to
the public and would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal sidewalk
system.
City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees
• In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic
mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building
permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways.
Parking
• The proposed parking supply under Alternatives 1 and 2 would meet the minimum
off-street parking requirements of the City of Renton.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
Level of Service/Queuing
• Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures could reduce
the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing
impacts at study intersections.
Public Transportation
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
1)'I'T .. IBll7'2'yl@J.o2'H99QQ1
1-29 Chapter 1
• In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Ouendall
Terminals site could include site amenities (i.e. planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and
access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the
future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit
on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange).
Non-Motorized Transportation
• A paved bicycle lane could be provided along the east side of Ripley Lane to mitigate
potential conflicts between bicycles and the Ouendall Terminals site access point on
Ripley Lane.
Parking
• Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation
demand management (TDM) measures for proposed office and residential uses could be
implemented to potentially reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing
the necessary parking supply.
Fire Apparatus Access
• Fire access would be provided per Renton Municipal Code, or City approved alternative
fire protection measures could be proposed by the applicant.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
Decemher 2010
J;lv'TI8 4I ml, I003'·"'.OoqQQ~
1-30 Chapter 1
]:L~lJ[llenLc~mparison by Workshare Compare on Monday. October 24. 2011
Legend:
Insertion .
peletiea
MeveafFem
I'ormatchange
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
SpliUMeroed cell
Padding cell
Statjstjg; ;
CQunt
Illser::tiQ!Jli 2
DeleliQlls 2
MQved from Q
MQved to Q
SMe cballge Q
EQ[mal cba Ilged Q
Tola I cballges 12
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11 -40·00 AM
Input:
Document 1 ID file:/IC:\Users\paks\Desktop\DEIS\1 0-13-11\Chapter 1
[Original].docx
Description Chapter 1 [Original]
Document 2 ID interwovenSite:/IdwtdocslDWT/18419568/1
Description #18419568v1<DWT> -Chapter 1 CMP
Rendering set standard
Legend:
Insertion
geietisfl
Ms\'ea ffSffi
MQvedJo
Style change
Fonnat change
Mtwea.em4tw
I nserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 117
Deletions 48
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 165
1.1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
This chapter provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. It briefly describes the Application (Alternative 1),
Lower Density Alternative (Alternative 2) and No Action Alternative, and contains a
comprehensive overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives.
Please see Chapter 2 of this DEIS for a more detailed description of the alternatives, and
Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of the
alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
The Quendall Terminals site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake
Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The site has
received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversight of EPA prior to redevelopment. The
Quendall Terminals owners and EPA are currently conducting a remedial investigation and
feasibility study at the site. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e., Superfund).
CERCLA cleanup actions to be specified in a final cleanup remedy are assumed to include
remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and uplands of the site (Main Property).
The post-remediation/post-NRD restoration conditions assumed in this DEIS were developed
using the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant information as described
in Appendix E of the DEIS. However, as part of EPA's cleanup decision and any potential NRD
settlement, EPA and the NRD trustees will require any necessary wetland mitigation/shoreline
restoration, as determined by environmental regulations. It is EPA's position that mitigation
requirements, needed to compensate for environmental impacts resulting from cleanup actions,
such as filling existing wetlands to provide a clean soil surface, will be based on environmental
regulations in place at the time that EPA issues its Record of Decision for Quendall Terminals
estimated to occur in 2014, NRD trustees will identify wetland/shoreline restoration parameters,
needed to settle past environmental damages, as part of a potential natural resource damage
(NRD) settlement process. Both mitigation and restoration decisions will be made and probably
implemented before site redevelopment.
Therefore, the baseline in this DE IS represents the reasonable maximum of development-
related impacts.
In the event the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA and/or any potential NRD restoration
action will result in conditions significantly different from the baseline conditions described in this
DEIS, the City will determine whether such changes warrant submittal of a supplemental EIS or
other documentation as appropriate (see Chapter 2 for a complete list of the remediation/NRD
restoration assumptions used to establish the baseline condition).
Potential impacts associated with remediation/NRD restoration activities will be addressed
through the separate EPAlNRD processes. The DEIS impacts analyses assume an
existing/baseline condition subsequent to remediation/NRD restoration (that is the condition of
the site after remediation/NRD restoration has been accomplished).
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-1 Chapter 1
1.2 Proposed Actions
The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Possible Development Agreement between the City and the applicant;
• Other local, state and federal pemrit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
1.3 Alternatives
In order to disclose environmental information relevant to the Quendall Terminals
redevelopment and in compliance with SEPA, this DEIS evaluates two redevelopment
alternatives (Alternative 1 -the subject of the November 2009 application, and Alternative 2 - a
lower density alternative), as well as the No Action Alternative. Through further evaluation by
the City and the applicant and based on public input, either the Alternative 1 redevelopment
plan, the Alternative 2 redevelopment plan, a modification of either plan or a combination of the
two plans could be carried forward for possible approval by the City.
Alternative 1 -Application
Mixed-use development under Alternative 1 would include 800 multifamily residential units,
245,000 square feet of office space, 21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of
restaurant space on the Main Property. Parking for 2,171 vehicles would be provided within the
proposed buildings, in one surface parking area and along the main east/west roadway onsite.
New public roadways and private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site
and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities; private driveways would also provide
additional access to the buildings at the north and south ends of the site. A proposed trail would
provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed
on the Isolated Property under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative
Mixed-use development under Alternative 2 would include 708 multifamily residential units,
21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the Main
Property; no office uses would be provided under this alternative. Parking for 1,364 vehicles
would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas, two deck parking
areas and along the main east/west roadway. New public roadways and private driveways
would provide vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian
amenities. A proposed trail would also provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington
shoreline. No new development is proposed on the Isolated Property under Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the Quendall
Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities required by EPA would still occur. A
Shoreline Restoration Plan would also be implemented in conjunction with site
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184 1 7595v3 0032695-000004
1-2 Chapter 1
cleanup/remediation and/or to resolve potential natural resource damages claims. Since the
cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the site, if no
redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition (post-
remediation) would likely be somewhat different than the baseline conditions assumed for
Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., the stormwater control system would not be integrated into a
redevelopment plan).
1.4 Impacts
Table 1-1 highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in
this DEIS. This summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of
each element that is contained in Chapter 3.
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695'{)00004
1-3 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Earth
• A minimal amount of clearing and grading
(approximately 53,000 -133,000 CY of fill),
primarily in the upland portion of the Main
Property would be required for
redevelopment.
• Grading activities could impact the integrity
of the soil caps that may be installed during
site cleanup/remediation. Implementation
of institutional controls to be defined in the
final remediation plans would ensure that
the caps would remain intact during
excavation.
• Site disturbance during construction
activities could result in increased potential
for erosion and sedimentation of on·site
wetlands and Lake Washington.
Significant impacts would not be expected
with implementation of the temporary
erosion and sedimentation control plan
(TESCP) required by the City.
• A deep building foundation system (i.e.
piles) and/or ground improvements would
likely be required for structural support.
Installation of piles, as well as excavation
for utilities, could impact the integrity of the
soil caps that may be installed during site
remediation and could transmit
contamination to site areas that are not
contaminated. Significant impacts would
not be expected with implementation of
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695·000004
Table 1·1
SUMMARY MATRIX
Alternative 2
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1.
• Same as Alternative 1 .
• Same as Alternative 1 .
• Same as Alternative 1
1·4
No Action Alternative
• Clearing and grading would not be required.
• Grading and potential disturbance of the soil
caps installed during site cleanup/remediation
would not be required.
• Site disturbance and increased potential for
erosion and sedimentation would not occur.
• Installation of deep foundations and utilities
would not be required, and there would be no
potential to impact on-site soil caps and
transmit contamination.
Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
institutional controls defined in the final
remediation plans.
• Differential settlement could occur between
structures that would be pile-supported
and underground utilities serving the
structures, causing damage to utility lines.
Significant impacts would not be expected
with implementation of institutional controls
defined in the final remediation plans.
• With redevelopment, the amount of
impervious surface area onsite and
associated runoff rates would increase and
could result in erosion hazards at
storm water outfalls at the lake. Significant
impacts would not be expected with
installation of a permanent storm water
control system, as required by the City,
including energy dissipation measures at
the outfalls.
• Potential impacts to site structures could
occur during seismic events due to ground
motion, liquefaction and lateral spreading
hazards. All proposed structures would be
built to the most current IBC code to
address potential effects of seismic events
and buildings would likely be supported on
piles to reduce these hazards.
• Groundwater could be encountered during
construction activities. Significant impacts
would not be expected with dewatering and
other construction techniques.
• With redevelopment, impervious surfaces
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695.()00004
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Installation of piles and underground utilities
would not be required and associated
potential for settlement would not result.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and
impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff and
potential for erosion would not increase.
,
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Redevelopment and associated potential for
seismic impacts to structures would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Construction activities and potential to
encounter groundwater would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and associated IJotential to
1-5 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
would increase and potential for infiltration
of rainfall to underlying aquifers would
decrease. However the majority of the
recharge to the aquifers originates from 011-
site sources to the east, and significant
impacts would not be expected.
Criticat Areas
o Portions of the Main Property could be
capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, resulting in filling of
some existing on-site wetlands. However,
a greater area of additional wetlands and
riparian habitat would be created as a
result of site cleanup/remediation and
implementation of the Shoreline
Restoration Plan required as part of the
cleanup/remediation and/or to resolve
potential natural resource damages claims.
o Proposed construction and redevelopment
could cause indirect impacts to wetlands,
riparian habitat and lake habitat created
during the cleanup/remediation and/or
potential natural resource damages
restoration. These impacts could relate to
hydrologic conditions (in the case of the
wetlands) and potential for erosion and
sediment deposition (particularly during
construction). Significant impacts,
including to salmonid fish in the lake, would
not be expected with implementation of a
temporary erosion and sedimentation
control plan (TESCP) during construction
and installation of a permanent stormwater
control system, as required by the City.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-{]00004
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
impact underlying aquifers would not occur.
o Same as Alternative 1. o Similar to Alternative 1; however, no additional
riparian habitat restoration area is assumed to
be established during site remediation/cleanup
that would connect Wetlands A and D.
o Same as Alternative 1. o Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact on-site wetlands, riparian habitat, and
lake habitat would not occur.
-
1-6 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
• With proposed redevelopment, no direct
impacts would occur to the wetlands
remaining after cleanup/remediation and/or
potential natural resources restoration ..
• With proposed redevelopment, under the
plan as submitted and without further
modification or mitigation, a portion of the
wetland buffer (e.g., on Wetland D) could
be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet;
however, other portions of the buffer
could be expanded to provide
com pensatory areas, as allowed by the
buffer averaging provisions of the City of
Renton Municipal Code. It is EPA's
position that it may impose additional
conditions that affect the wetland buffers.
• Buildings would be setback a minimum of
50 feet from the shoreline, as required by
the City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program. It is EPA's position that it can
impose additional setback requirements.
• Three storm water outfalls would be
constructed within the shoreline areas.
These outfalls would be located to avoid
direct impacts to wetlands remaining after
cleanup/remediation and/or potential
natural resources restoration. The outfalls
would be designed to prevent
erosions/siltation during construction and
operation. Therefore, no significant
impacts to wetlands and the lake would be
expected.
• With proposed redevelopment,
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695'()00004
the
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact wetlands would not occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment and its associated potential to
impact wetland buffers would not occur.
!
• Same as Alternative 1 . • No buildings would be built and no
encroachment into the shoreline setback would
occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • No storm water outfalls would be constructed
and no impacts to wetlands and the lake would
occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and no
1-7 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Shoreline Restoration Area would largely
remain intact. A publically accessible trail
with interpretive viewpoints could be
included in the shoreline area. The upland
portion of the Main Property would be
covered in buildings, paved areas and
landscaping, providing habitat for certain
wildlife species adapted to urban
environments.
Environmental Health
• Portions of the Main Property could be
capped with soil during site
cleanup/remediation, limiting the potential
for exposure to underlying contaminants.
Institutional controls to be defined in the
final remediation plans would ensure that
caps remain intact with proposed
redevelopm en!.
• The installation of deep foundations (i.e.,
piles) and utilities could generate
contaminated soil and/or groundwater to
which workers and City staff inspectors
could be exposed. City staff that maintain
utilities could also be exposed to
contaminated soils/groundwater. With
proper protection equipment, training and
handling and disposal of contaminants, no
significant impacts would be anticipated.
• Volatile contaminants in the subsurface
could generate vapors that could intrude
into utility trenches and above-grade
structures. With separation of
living/working areas from
(e.g., by soil caps and
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v) 0032695-000004
contaminants
under-building
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower OensityAlternative)
shoreline trail would be constructed.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Same as Alternative 1 , except that no
redevelopment would occur at this time and no I
potential to disturb the soil cap would occur.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Installation of deep foundations and utilities
would not be required, and workers/City staff
would not be exposed to contaminants.
• Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur, and there
would be no potential for exposure of residents
and employees to volatile contaminants.
1-8 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
parking), as well as implementation of
institutional controls specified during site
remediation, no significant impacts would
be anticipated.
Enerav -Greenhouse Gases
• Proposed redevelopment would result in
and an increase in Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions relative to existing
conditions due to the increase in building
denSity and site population. Development
would result in an estimated 1,297,536.8
MTC02e in lifespan GHG emissions.
• New development would utilize energy in
the form of electricity for heating, cooling,
lighting and other energy demands, and
natural gas for heating and cooking.
Land and Shoreline Use
• Under the proposal, the site would be
subdivided into seven lots, four of which
would contain mixed-use development, and
three of which would contain the Shoreline
Restoration Area.
• Redevelopment would occur in nine
buildings on the Main Property, and would
include:
-800 residential units
-Approx. 245,000 sq. ft. of offices
uses
-Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses
-Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant
uses
-2,171 parking spaces
No development would occur
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-<)00004
on the
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Similar to Alternative 1, however GHG • Redevelopment would not occur and GHG
emissions would be less due to less building emissions would not increase.
density and site population. Development
would result in an estimated 860,434.8
MTC02 e in lifespan GHG emissions
• Similar to Alternative 1: however, energy • Redevelopment would not occur and energy
usage would be lower due to lower density usage would not increase.
development on the site.
• Same as Alternative 1 . • Redevelopment would not occur. The site
would remain in the post-remediation condition,
including the Shoreline Restoration Area.
• Redevelopment would occur in nine • No redevelopment would occur at this time.
buildings on the Main Property, and would
include:
-708 residential units
-No offices uses
-Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses
-Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant
uses
-1,364 parking spaces
No development would occur on the Isolated
1-9 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Isolated Property.
• Site preparation and construction of
buildings and infrastructure would result in
temporary construction-related impacts to
adjacent land uses over the build out period
(i.e" air emission, noise and increased
traffic), Due to the tem porary nature of
construction and required compliance with
City of Renton construction code
regulations, no significant impacts would
be expected,
• Redevelopment would convert the site from
its current vacant, partially vegetated state
to a mixed-use development, and would
restore a Superfund site to a productive use,
• Redevelopment would result in increased
activity levels onsite (i.e., noise, traffic,
etc.). In general, these activity levels
would be greater than the adjacent
residential uses to the south (Barbee Mill),
but similar to the commercial uses to the
north (Seahawks Training Facility) and the
existing and planned commercial and hotel
uses to the east (proposed Hawk's Landing
hotel and commercial uses east of 1-405).
Activity levels would be consistent with the
existing urban character of the area and no
significant impacts would be expected.
• Proposed buildings onsite would be up to
80 feet high, and from approximately
94,600 to 209,000 sq. ft, in size, The
proposed height and bulk would be
consistent with the type and size of
development contemplated in the COR
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
Property.
• Same as Alternative 1, • Site preparation and construction would not
occur, and no temporary construction-related
impacts on adjacent land uses would result.
• Same as Alternative 1, • Redevelopment would not occur and the site
would remain in its current vacant, partially
vegetated state, The Superfund site would not
be restored to a productive use,
• Similar to Alternative 1; however, activity • Redevelopment would not occur and no
levels on site and their associated potential increases in activity levels would result.
to impact adjacent land uses would be less
due to lower density development onsite,
• Proposed buildings onsite would be up to • No buildings would be built onsite at this time.
67 feet in height, and from approximately
77,000 to 112,800 sq, ft. in size, The
proposed height and bulk would be
consistent with the type and size of
development contemplated in the COR land
1-10 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
land use/zoning classification and the
Urban shoreline environment
• Proposed buildings would be greater in
height and bulk than the adjacent
residential buildings to the south; however,
they would generally be similar to the
surrounding commercial and planned hotel
buildings to the north and east Existing
off-site features (Le. roadways and the
PSE easement) and proposed on-site
features (Le. setbacks, driveways, parking
areas and landscaping) would provide
buffers between proposed buildings and
adjacent uses. Arch itectu ral features
would be included that are intended to
enhance the compatibility of the proposed
development with surrounding uses.
Overall, no significant land use
compatibility impacts would be expected.
Relationshie to Plans, Policies and
Reaulations
• The proposed project would generally be
consistent with applicable plans, policies
and regulations. However, it is unclear at
this time whether proposed redevelopment
would be consistent with all of the COR
land use/zoning classification goals and
requirements, particularly regarding the
design of the project Possible mitigation
measures could be implemented to
enhance the design of the project and
achieve consistency with these goals and
requirements.
Aesthetics Light and Glare
Quenda/l Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-{)00004
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
use/zoning classification and the Urban
shoreline environment
• Similar to Alternative 1; however building • No buildings would be built onsite at this time,
height and bulk would be less. and no land use compatibility impacts would
result
• Same as Alternative 1 . • This alternative would not convert a Superfund
site to a productive use, and help the City reach
its targets to provide housing and employment
City policies that encourage the provision of
access to the shoreline would also not be met,
as no publically accessible trail along the
shoreline would be provided.
1-11 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
o Proposed redevelopment would change
the aesthetic character of the site to a new
mixed-use development with nine
buildings, roadways, parking areas, and
open spacellandscaping. Buildings would
be seven stories and would range from
94,600 square feet to 209,000 square feet.
o Proposed buildings would be greater in
height and bulk than the adjacent Barbee
Mill development to the south and would be
generally similar in height and bulk to the
Seahawks Headquarters and Training
Facility to the north.
o Views toward the site would change
substantially to reflect a seven-story mixed-
use development. Architectural features
and landscaping would be provided to
enhance the project's visual appeal.
Possible mitigation measure could be
implemented to further enhance the
aesthetic character of the development and
maintain views of the lake.
o View corridors are proposed along the
main east/west public roadway (Street "B")
and along the private driveways at the
north and south ends of the site to provide
views across the site towards Lake
Washington. Views toward the lake would
be blocked or partially blocked from certain
public view points. Possible mitigation
measures could be implemented to
enhance views across the site.
o Proposed redevelopment would add new
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
Alternative 2 . No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
o Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed o This alternative would not change the aesthetic
buildings would be six stories and would character of the site.
range from 77,000 square feet to 112,800
square feet,
o Similar to Alternative 1, although proposed o No building would be built onsite at this time
buildings would be slightly lower in height and no compatibility impacts would result.
and bulk.
o Similar to Alternative 1; however proposed o Views toward the site would not change under
buildings would be six stories. this alternative.
,
o Similar to Alternative 1. o Views towards the lake would not change under
this alternative.
o Similar to Alternative 1, except that lighting o No new sources of light, glare or shadows
1·12 Chapter 1
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Application) (Lower Density Alternative)
sources of light and glare, and would levels would be lower due to lower building would be provided under this alternative.
produce shadows at the site. New light density.
sources would be similar to existing
sources at the Barbee Mill development
and Seahawks Headquarters and Training
Facility; however, the general lighting
levels on the site would be higher. Noise
levels would be typical of an urban
development. Shadows from the project
would not impact off-site uses, but would
extend onto certain on-site outdoor areas.
Transportation
• The proposed redevelopment would • Proposed redevelopment would generate • This alternative would not generate any new
generate approximately 9,000 daily approximately 5,800 daily vehicular trips at vehicular trips.
vehicular trips at full build out, including full build out, including approximately 445 AM
approximately 865 AM peak hour trips and peak hour trips and 540 PM peak hour trips.
950 PM peak hour trips.
• With proposed redevelopment, four. Similar to Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and no
intersections would operate at LOS E/F at associated changes to LOS operations would
full buildout without the WSDOT 1-405 result.
Improvement project at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange.
One intersection would operate at LOS E/F
at full buildout with the 1-405
1m provem ents.
• Excessive southbound queues (between • Similar to Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and no
700-800 feet) would be anticipated at the queuing impacts would result.
Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane N
intersection without 1-405 Improvements.
Excessive southbound queues at the Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane N
intersection, as well as along Lake
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v) OO)2695'{)00004
1-13 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
Washington Boulevard and adjacent
intersections, would also be anticipated
with 1-405 Improvements.
• Without 1-405 Improvements, the site
access at Ripley Lane N is anticipated to
operate at LOS F and the site access at
NE 43'" Street is anticipated to operate at
LOS C/O.
With 1-405 Improvements, site access at
Ripley Lane is anticipated to operate at
LOS C/O and site access at NE 43'" Street
is expected to operate at LOS D.
• Given the site location, it is anticipated that
the proposed redevelopment would be
occupied by residents and employees who
primarily rely on personal automobiles and
no significant impacts to public
transportation would be anticipated.
• Increases in population onsite would result
in associated increased need for non-
motorized facilities. Curbs, gutters and
sidewalks would be provided onsite, as
well as along the west side of Lake
Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N.
A publically accessible trail is also
proposed along the shoreline.
• 2,153 parking stalls would be required
based on the City of Renton Municipal
Code standards; 2,171 parking spaces
would be provided onsite.
Parking demand is estimated
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
to be
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
• Similar to Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would not occur and no
changes to site access points would result.
• Similar to Alternative 1 • No impacts to public transportation are
anticipated under this alternative.
• Similar to Alternative 1. • No im pacts to non-motorized transportation
facilities would occur under this alternative.
• 1,362 parking stalls would be required under • No new parking would be provided onsite under
this alternative; 1,364 parking spaces this alternative.
would be provided onsite.
Similar parking demand relationships would
1-14 Chapter 1
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Application) (Lower Density Alternative)
approximately 2,107 stalls on a weekday occur under Alternative 2.
and 1,251 stalls on weekend day. Demand
could be reduced by 20 percent on
weekdays and 55 percent on weekend
days through the implementation of shared
parking between residential and
commercial uses.
Bicycle parking would be provided' in
accordance with City of Renton standards.
Parks and Recreation
• Approximately 11.7 acres of open space • Similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly • No redevelopment would occur and the site
and related areas would be provided more open space and related areas would would remain as an open area. No publically
onsite, including: paved plazas, natural be provided onsite (11.8 acres). accessible shoreline trail would be provided in
areas, landscaped areas, unpaved trails conjunction with site cleanup/remediation.
and sidewalks. These areas mayor may
not meet the City's standards, regulations
and procedures for open space.
Approximately 3.4 acres of the on-site
open space and related areas would be
visually and and in some areas, to the
extent consistent with the ROD and/or any
NRD settlement, physically accessible to
the general public (e.g .. the shoreline trail.
• Increases in the on-site residential • Similar to Alternative 1, except that there • Redevelopment would not occur and there
population (1,300 residents), as well as on-would be slightly less residents on the site would be no additional demand for parks,
site employees (1,050 employees) would (1,132 residents) and fewer employees (50 open space, trails or recreation facilities.
increase demands on neighborhood and employees); demands on neighborhood and
regional parks, open space, trails and regional parks, opens space, trails and
recreation facilities. Parks/recreational recreation facilities would be reduced
facilities most likely to receive increased accordingly.
demand would include facilities near the
site, such as: May Creek Greenway,
Kennydale Beach Park, and Gene Coulon
Memorial Park. The latter two parks are
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT t8417595v3 0032695-000004
1-15 Chapter 1
Alternative 1
(Application)
already at or exceeding capacity on warm
days; the proposal would contribute to
these capacity issues. Additional parks and
recreational facilities could be needed in
the City, based on the increased on-site
population.
Certain on-site facilities (Le., the shoreline
trail) would provide opportunities for
passive recreation. Areas for active
recreation could be provided onsite as well.
Parks mitigationlimpact fees would be paid
to help offset the impacts of the project on
City parks and recreational facilities_
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
----
Alternative 2 No Action Alternative
(Lower Density Alternative)
---
1-16 Chapter 1
1.5 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts
The following list presents the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts
that would potentially result from the redevelopment alternatives analyzed in this DEIS.
Required/proposed mitigation measures are those actions to which the applicant has committed
and/or are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations. Possible mitigation
measures are actions that could be undertaken, but are not necessary to mitigate significant
impacts, and are above and beyond those proposed by the applicant.
Earth
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented, per the 2009 KCSWD adopted by the City of Renton. This plan would
include the following measures:
All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff would
be directed into tightlined systems that would discharge to an approved stormwater
facility.
Soils to be reused at the site during construction would be stockpiled or stored in
such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures could
include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile
perimeters.
During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, would be
placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake Washington
and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment discharge into these
waters. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during
construction.
Temporary sedimentation traps or detention faCilities would be installed to provide
erosion and sediment transport control during construction.
• A geotechnical engineer would review the grading and TESCP plans prior to final plan
design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards are addressed during and
following construction. As necessary, additional erosion mitigation measures could be
required in response to specific design plans.
• Site preparation for roadways, utilities and structures, and the placement and
compaction of structural fill would be based upon the recommendations of a
geotechnical engineer.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
oWT 18417595v3 0032695-()00004
1-17 Chapter 1
• Temporary excavation dewatering would be conducted if groundwater is encountered
during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities would be
conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement.
• Structural fill would be placed to control the potential for settlement of adjacent areas;
adjacent structures/areas would be monitored to verify that no significant settlement
occurs.
• Deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) would be installed and/or
ground improvements would be made to minimize potential damage from soil settlement,
consolidation, spreading and liquefaction.
• If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support
structures, the following measures would be implemented:
Measures would be employed to ensure that the soil cap would not be affected and
that installation of the piles/piers would not mobilize contamination that is currently
contained by the cap. Such measures could include: installation of surface casing
through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of impermeable
materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement methods; the
use of pointed tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination; and, the use of
ground improvement technologies, such as in-place densification or compaction
grouting.
- A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring would be conducted during pile
installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur.
-Suitable pile and pile hammer types would be matched to the subsurface
conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce
potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe
piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles.
Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory hammers.
-Suitable hammer and pile cushion types would be used for the specific conditions
to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact
hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane.
Pile installation would occur during regulated construction hours.
• Fill soils would be properly placed and cuts would be utilized to reduce the potential for
landslide impacts during (and after) construction.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health, for details).
Quendall Terminals Draft E/S
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695'{)00004
1-18 Chapter 1
Following Construction
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by City of Renton.
• Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater
control system would be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to
prevent erosion of the lake bottom.
• All buildings would be designed in accordance with the 2009 IBC (or the applicable
design codes that are in effect at the time of construction) to address the potential for
seismic impacts.
• The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces following
redevelopment. Permanent landscaping would also be provided to reduce the potential
for erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Flexible utility connections could be employed to minimize the risk of damage to the lines
due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington
adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without
the proposed redevelopment. No significant unavoidable earth-related impacts would be
anticipated.
Critical Areas
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented during construction, per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth, and
Appendix D for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent impacts to the lake
and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Following Construction
• Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the onsite wetlands remaining
after cleanup/remediation and/or potential natural resources restoration.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT I 8417595v3 0032695'()00004
1-19 Chapter 1
• Wetlands remaining after cleanup/remediation and/or potential natural resources
restoration would be retained in an open space tract that includes required buffers and a
riparian habitat enhancement area.
• In addition to any conditions imposed by EPA, wetland buffer areas would meet or
exceed the minimum City-required buffers under the applicable Critical Areas Ordinance
or would meet the City's requirement through buffer averaging.
• In addition to any conditions imposed by EPA, proposed buildings would be setback a
minimum of 50 feet from the OHWM in compliance with the City of Renton's 1983
Shoreline Master Program, which requires a minimum setback of 50 feet for commercial
uses and 25 feet for residential uses for Category 2 wetlands (see Section 3 for
additional details).
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton. The system would
collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system.
Water quality treatment would be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces
to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands.
• Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland
area on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
• Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats. on site and in
the vicinity for wildlife.
• A publicly accessible, unpaved trail would be provided through the shoreline area that
would include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading
associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated
areas.
• Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site
remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas would be anticipated.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-20 Chapter 1
Environmental Health
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process,
and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy
selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that
unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater or vapors would not occur.
• Institutional controls would be followed to ensure the long-term integrity and
protectiveness of any soil caps, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any
purpose.
• An Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the
excavation of any buried contaminated soils or installation of utilities or other site
disturbances in contaminated soil areas without prior EPA approval.
• As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent
contact with hazardous materials and substances.
• Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater
contaminants by under-building garages; institutional controls would also be
implemented to prevent exposure to unacceptable vapors.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the
planned remedial action so that disturbance of soil caps and underlying contaminated
soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to capping of the Main Property.
• Personal protection measures and special training could be provided for City of Renton
staff that provide inspection during construction and maintenance following construction
in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater.
• Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development could be placed in clean fill
material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below
the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of
the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future
maintenance of the road or utility lines.
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
OWT 18417595v3 0032695'{)00004
1-21 Chapter 1
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts would be anticipated.
Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measures
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Development could incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of
proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount
of GHG emissions. Such features have not been identified at this time, but could include
architectural design features; sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient
products; natural drainage/green roof features; use of native plants in landscaping;
and/or, other design features.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy
and an increase in GHG emissions. However, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions
and energy use under Alternative 1 and 2 would not be considered significant. Determining
whether the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions and energy use from development of the
Quendall Terminals site is significant or not significant implies the ability to measure incremental
effects of global climate change. The body of research and law necessary to connect individual
land uses, development projects, operational activities, etc. with the broader issue of global
warming remains weak. Scientific research and analysis tools sufficient to determine a
numerical threshold of significance are not available at this time and any conclusions would be
speculative. Further information on the potential cumulative impacts of GHG emissions is not
considered essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives in this DEIS.
Land and Shoreline Use
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas and proposed building setback
areas would provide a buffer between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses.
• Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main
Property, would provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent
uses (see Figure 2-7, Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1).
• Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, factade modulation, building materials, etc.) would
be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses (see
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
QWT 18417595v3 0032695'{)00004
1-22 Chapter 1
Figures 2-5 and 2-9 for representative architectural elevations and Section 3.7,
AestheticsNiews, for further information on the building and site design).
• A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of
building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's emergency
services.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in the conversion of the
approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a
new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels.
No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts would be antiCipated.
Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed redevelopment would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies and
regulations. However, it is unclear at this time whether the project would be consisted with all of
the COR land use/zoning classification goals and requirements, particularly regarding project
design.
AestheticsNiews
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Building design would include a variety of details and materials that are intended to
create a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and fagade, such as
horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating fagade materials
and details.
• Street-level, under-building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and
streets by retail and offices uses along certain fagades. Where this parking extends to
the exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural fagade components, trellises,
berms and landscaping, would be used for screening.
• Public view corridors toward Lake Washington are proposed provided along the main
easUwest roadway onsite (Street "B") and along the private driveways at the north and
south ends of the site. Public views of the lake would also be possible from the
publically accessible trail in the shoreline restoration area in the western portion of the
Main Property. Additional views of the lake would be provided for project residents from
semi-private landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite.
• New landscaping would be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is
intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping would include new
trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-23 Chapter 1
• A landscaped edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would provide a
buffer and partial visual screen between new development on the site and adjacent
properties.
• The natural vegetation in shoreline restoration areas on the Main Property and on the
Isolated Property would be retained with proposed site development.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• The amount of required parking could be reduced, relocated or redesigned (i.e. though
implementation of transportation demand management measures or other means) so
that additional areas of the street-level, under-building parking could be setback from the
exterior of the building, particularly along Streets "A", "C" and the lake side of the
development. This would allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial and
residential uses, and plaza areas to occupy these areas and potentially enhance the
aesthetic character at the ground level.
• Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting and pedestrian lighting could be directed
downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts
to adjacent uses.
• Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be
considered as part of the fagade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts
to surrounding uses.
• Building modulation or design treatments such as tiering/tapering or stepping the
building back as the height increases and/or building setbacks could be provided,
particularly along the shoreline, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and
retain views of Lake Washington.
• Building heights along the shoreline could be reduced to maintain views of Lake
Washington.
• The surface parking located adjacent to the shoreline under Alternative 2 and the
parking at the terminus of Street "B" could be relocated on the site to enhance the
aesthetic character of development, particularly from the shoreline trail.
• Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open
space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, or
prominent architectural features could be provided as part of development to further
enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Quendall Terminals site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the site
from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The
proposed development would represent a continuation of urban development along the Lake
Washington shoreline. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to
surrounding uses (i.e. the Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned
Hawk's Landing Hotel) and greater than other uses in the area (i.e. the Barbee Mill residential
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-24 Chapter 1
development). Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would
be obstructed with the proposed development; however, view corridors towards Lake
Washington and Mercer Island would be established and new viewing areas along the lake
would also be provided.
No significant light, glare, or shadow impacts would be anticipated.
Parks and Recreation
Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
Public Open Space and Related AreasfFees 1
• A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed
development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the
project on City parks and recreation facilities.
• 3.4 acres (Alternative 1 )/3.5 acres (Alternative 2) of public open space and related areas
would be provided on the site; wetland and restoration areas would be visually
accessible to the public and to the extend allowed in the ROD or any NRD settlement,
may be physically accessible (e.g., along the shoreline trail.)
• Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, would be provided along the west side of
Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks could
connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities
in the area.
• Public parking for the shoreline trail would likely be provided in the same general area as
the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant would specifically identify this parking prior to
site plan approval.
• Signage, detours and safety measures would be put in place to detour bicyclist utilizing
the Lake Washington Loop trail at time of construction.
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the parking garages would be provided as
shared open space for residents of the site. These areas would help to meet the
demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents.
• Street level landscaping, plazas and sidewalks would be provided. These areas would
help meet the project's demand for passive recreation facilities.
1 Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 1-25 Chapter 1
DWT 18417595v3 0032695'()00004
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
Public Open Space and Related Areas2
• The hours of use of the shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset, consistent
with other City of Renton parks, in order to meet the requirements for public access.
• The connection between the shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard could be
enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 12-foot wide) that are part of public rights-of-
way.
• Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball,
etc.).
• A crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to connect to
the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard.
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Shared roof gardens and indoor amenity space (i.e. gyms, common rooms, etc.) could
be provided as part of the project.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities,
including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or
exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from, project residents would contribute to the
existing capacity issues at these parks.
Transportation
Mitigation Measures
Based upon the results of the transportation analysis of future intersection operations, general
key findings include:
• There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic
that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline
projects.
• The existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate Alternatives 1 and 2 at full buildout in 2015, with the
additional required/proposed transportation improvements (listed below)
2 Ibid.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-{J00004
1-26 Chapter 1
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
Level of Service t Queuing
With 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
The following improvements (in addition to the planned 1-405 Improvements) would be
necessary under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 to mitigate off-site impacts:
• Lake Washington Boulevard (between Barbee Mill Access (N 43,d Street) and
Ripley Lane N. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by
WSDOT beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This would result in
two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the 1-405
interchange past the Barbee Mill access (NE 43'd Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton
will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the
adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way),
and adjacent private development.
• Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane Nt Lake Washington Boulevard. Construct a
southbound left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an 1-405
Improvement).
Without 1-405 Improvements -Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
Without the planned 1-405 Improvements, the following improvements would be necessary
under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 to mitigate off-site impacts:
• Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the 1-405 NB and SB
ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington
Boulevard.
• Intersection #1 -1-405 NB RampstNE 44'h Street. Widen the southbound and
northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane
is provided on both legs of the intersection.
• Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane Nt Lake Washington Boulevard. Widen the westbound
approach to include a separate right turn-only lane.
• Lake Washington Boulevard (between Barbee Mill Access (N 43'd Street) and 1-405
SB Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill
access and the 1-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound
lanes could be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic
signals required at the SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard.
Ultimately. the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing
coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner
of the vicinity rail right-of-way) and adjacent private development.
See Appendix H for detailed level of service worksheets for the mitigation measures outlined
above to meet the City of Renton and WSDOT standards.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695·000004
1-27 Chapter 1
Non-Motorized Transportation
• Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along the west
side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site.
Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation could encourage future transit usage when
planned public transit becomes available.
• A pedestrian trail would be provided onsite along the shoreline that would be accessible
to the public and would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal
sidewalk system.
City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees
• In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic
mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building
permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways.
Parking
• The proposed parking supply under Alternatives 1 and 2 would meet the minimum off-
street parking requirements of the City of Renton.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
Level of Service/Queuing
• Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures could reduce
the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing
impacts at study intersections.
Public Transportation
• In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall
Terminals site could include site amenities (i.e. planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and
access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1-405/NE 44th
Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the
future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid
Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE
44th Street interchange).
Non-Motorized Transportation
• A paved bicycle lane could be provided along the east side of Ripley Lane to mitigate
potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on
Ripley Lane.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-28 Chapter 1
Parking
• Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation
demand management (TOM) measures for proposed office and residential uses could
be implemented to potentially reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby
reducing the necessary parking supply.
Fire Apparatus Access
• Fire access would be provided per Renton Municipal Code, or City approved alternative
fire protection measures could be proposed by the applicant.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417595v3 0032695-000004
1-29 Chapter 1
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter of the OFaftdraft Environmental Impact Statement (9E-ISElS) describes the
Proposed Action(s) and Alternatives for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
Background information and a summary of historic site activities are also presented. Please see
Chapter 1 of this document for a summary of the findings of this 9E-ISEIS and Chapter 3 for a
detailed presentation of the affected environment and probable significant environmental impacts
of the Proposed Action(s) and Alternatives.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Century Pacific, the applicant, is proposing redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site (see
Figure 2-1, Regional Map). The approximately 21.5-acre site, comprised of a Main Property
along Lake Washington and a separate Isolated Property to the northeast, is currently vacant (see
Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map and Figure 2-3, Existing Site Conditions). Redevelopment is proposed
in order to create a mixed-use development, including residential, potentially office, retail and
restaurant uses, as well as open space, and vehicular and pedestrian improvements. For this EIS,
it is assumed that the Quendall Terminals redevelopment would be fully built out by 2015;
however, actual buildout would depend upon market conditions.
2.2 BACKGROUND
The Quendall Terminals site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility and has
been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote and other hazardous chemicals (see the Site
History section in this chapter, Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for details).
As a result of this prior contamination, cleanup of the site is required under federal and state law.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) initially served as the lead regulatory
agency for overseeing cleanup of the site. A Remesial Invesli~ationAn earlier remedial
investigation (Ril report and a draft Risk AssessmentlFoo<lses Feasibility Stusyrisk
assessmenVfocused feasibility study (FS) were completed for the site, under the oversight of
Ecology in 1997 and 2004, respectively. In 2005, Ecology requested that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) take the lead for overseeing further cleanup activities at the site. EPA
subsequently assumed the role of lead agency, and in 2006, the site was added to the EPA's
Superfund' National Priorities List. In September 2006, the property owners entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA. which sets forth the requirements for
completion of an RifFS and risk assessmJillt. TRe AGe reEjuires tRe property owners to complete
a Femeaial investi~atioR ans feasibility stuay (RllFS). Bases OR tRe RIfFS, EPA will propose a
preferres oleanup remesy, ans after plol81is somment · .... ill selest a final Gleanup remesy for tRe site.
EPA is slolrrently reviewin~ the re'/ises sraft RI. The property owners expeot tRe sraft FS to 8e
oompletea by April 2Q11.The RifFS and risk assessment reports which are currenlly being
prepared by the property owner and EPA. characterize the nature and extent of contamination
and potential..m>K~o" associated with exposure to site contamination, and evalu.<!te .alternative
Superfund is the name given to the federal environmental program established to address sites requiring cleanup
under Federal law. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. as amended. that can be used by EPA to perform site cleanup
work. The Superfund program allows the EPA to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or to perform
cleanups itself and then seek reimbursement from responsible parties for EPA's cleanup costs.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 2-1 Chapter 2
D\!I!JJ411992., .. I ... 99J .• ".9A10_~20.4
r~medies that could be implementecjJp)J1itigate contaminant exposures. After the updatedBliE§
and risk assessment rep~prtlUlfe developed. a Proposed Plan identi1YLrm.tb.().~l()J~§Jo be taken to
ensure that the.QIJendall Terminals Site will be protective~ft1\Jman health and the environmenl
will.b:()JIJOvided for public review and a public.meeting will be held if requested. After EPA reviews
all public comments it will issue a ReCPI5.t.Qf Decision (ROQ) specifying the final cleanup and
mitigatiQn plan fQr the.~jie. It is also PQssible that restoration actions.will .• Qs<s;ur as part Qf a
potential J)g!,ural reSQurce damage (NRQ) settleme!JLDb.QS<~§~ befQre site redevelQpment.
=tHelt is EPA's PQsitiQn that the ROD willJn.cIl&~.JiQlan fm mitigating wetlands and shQrelines
using environmentalEgl.!irements (wetland jurisdictiQn mitigation ratiQs, environ~L!1;:llpMff!ill>
and setbacks) in placeaUbat time. EPA currently anticipates that the Rl2J2wili b.eJssued in fall
2Q14:. EPA and the resPQnsible parties will subseguen\lY enter into an agreement fm the
implementatiQn Qf the remedy.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
D"'TJ.!.U.79Q 2 .\ W.n69~
2·2 Chapter 2
Figure 2·1
Regional Map
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
9"'T J 81 J 79g;!.! gO}'!R~"9~~9@"t
2·3 Chapter 2
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!)\VTJ8'1I92~' J Wm9. ggggg_,
2-4 Chapter 2
Figure 2-3
Existing Site Conditions
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
l'lu'T1841120"'1 .. 00l2.9~. ooooo~
2-5 Chapter 2
TRe site will uAsergo cleanup/remediation under EPA o'JersigRt gases on its status as a
Superfuns site, pursuant to tRe final cleanup plans defines gy EPA. EPA is expectes to select the
final cleanup astion in late 2011. As part of tRis ongoing process, applicagle Gleanup metRods ' .... ill
consider potential~art of the ongoing RI/ES the site owners and EPA are considering
potential futurl).J,iJe . .JJse (i.e .. redevelopment plans) for the site. Certain activities related to
redevelopment, such as grading, treatment of wetlands, stormwater control, utility/building
construction, public access, etc., will be dictated by EPA in coordination with the City of Renton
and other agencies (see Chapter 3, and Appendices 0 and E for details).
This ggsE.LS briefly summarizes the history of the site and the site's current conditions; refers to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
process and its regulatory requirements; and, discusses protocols and institutional controls that
will ultimately set out requirements and compliance methods for construction and long-term
redevelopment. TRe DEISThis EIS also recognizes the potentiaLfur restoration actions to occur
as part of a potential NRD settlement. As a result. the EIS impact analyses assume an
existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediationmitigation and any NRD
restoration (that is, the condition of the site after remediation/NRD restoration has been
accomplished). Baseline consition assumptions Rave geen determined gased on the varieus
studies completes in conjunstion with tRe sraft RifFS ans witR specific fuesback from EPA; tRey
The baseline (post-cleanup and mitigation/post-NRD restoratiQn conditions) assumed in this
DEIS was developed using the 19.8.3 Henton Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant
information as deS,cribed in Appendix E of the DEIS If environmental requirements cause EPA
and/or anY.,NRD settlement to impose more stringent environmental standards tg~
mitigation/restoration standards in the ROD and/Qr NRQ_settlement. that may lead to a smaller
redevelopment. Therefor.e. the baseline in this DE IS represents the reasonable maximum of
development-related impacts. EPA will not identify the final cleanup planJQr the site until it issues
its ROD estimated to occur in 20J 4... and this EIS does not in any way presuppose the final
remedy that EPA will ultimately select.
EPA has not selected a final remedy for the site so these assumptions are based on information
known at this time and do OQUn anoV. way presuppose the final remedy that EPA will ultimately
select. Rather. these assumptions form the basis for evaluation of potential impacts associated
with redevelopment. Therefore, only the probable significant environmental impacts and
applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site are addressed in this
ggsEIS; potential impacts associated with cleanup/remesiationmitigation and any NRD
res.lillafum activities will be addressed through the separate EPNNRD process (see Section 3.3,
Environmental Health, and Appendix 0 for details). As discussed above the post-remediation
conditions assum.ed in this EIS were developed to assess the reasonable maximum of
development-related impacts. In thee.venUtlat the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA in the
ROD and/or aOYd:19Jential NRD restoration results in a significantly larger footprint fQ[
redevelopmeoltlJ.ilIl.ilSSumed in this EIS, the City will determine whether such changes warrant
submittal of a supplemental EIS or other documentation. MQ!:eQ.ver. the Applicant will be required
to comply with any requirements imposed by EPA as a part of cleanup (e.g. EPA takes the
positiorrJ,t may impose different wetland mitigation ratios environmental buffers and setback
requirements and stormwater discharge requi(emerrts) even if those requirements are not
articulated in this EIS.
The following elements are assumed to be included as part of the site
cleanup/remesiationmitigation and any NRD process and form the baseline/existing condition for
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
ill"IJ~U9!!2"LWJ2695@QQ94
2-6 Chapter 2
purposes of analysis in this DEIS. EIS. NOTE: the cleanup remedy will jns;llJ~~ more than a
"clean" soil surface. bytJgr purposes of this EIS only potenlieJremediallNRD actions that mey
affect future develOR.!J1ent are identified beloW. As described above, the cleanup/remediation is an
ongoing process being conducted by EPA, and it is possiBle that there could be some-changes to
these assumptions as remedies and plans are finalized.
• Placement of a 2 foot thick sand cap over tho upland portion of the Main Property.
• Placoment of a 2 to d foot thick layered cap 60nsisting of organoclay, sand, gravel and
topsoil over most of the sediments ..... ithin the shoreline area adjacent to and lakeside of
the former Quendall Pond (approximately dGG linear foet of shoreline).
• Excavation of shoreline soil 10 accommodale the shoreline cap.Clean surface soil will be
present when the remedy is complete. Areas of the site that require remediation w~
remediated. Potential reme.dJal actlQns include but are not limited to soil removal anJJ
replacement with clean fill and capping. Overall the resulting remediation will be
protective of .human health and the environment in additio[l !o satisfying all pertinent
h~alth and environmental regulations.
• Fillin§ of certain exislin§Existjng on-site wetlands. Implementation of will be filled and
a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be implemented, including re-establishing and
expanding certain wetlands, and recreating/enhancing riparian habitat to replicate the
existin§ riparian functions.
• Possible localized soil removal (i.e. in the former railroad loadin§ area and in planned
utility corridors onsite).
• PossiBle installation of a permeaBle shoreline §roundwater treatment ..... all adjacent 10
portions of the lake shoreline.for mitigation and/or as part of a potential natural resource
damages settlement. While specifications for shoreline mitigation and restoration will not
be finalized until the ROD and/or a potential natural reSQJ.,!rce damages settlement this
EIS assumes a post-remediation .JX)]'1J1illon that WQuid result in the greatest area fQr
redevelopment based Qntlli!.~Ulll3. RentQn ShQreline Management Plan_amL .. Qtlli!r
relevant infQrmation as described in Appendix E of the DEIS. As pang.nbe remedy and/or
~RD restoration EPA and/or any potential I\J.RD settlement may require additional
mitigation/NRD restoratiol11halwl!l..rn.duce the site area available for redevelopment and if
this resultsJn baseline conditions significantly different than thos.e. ass.umed in this EIS, the
~y.(ill determine whether this change would warrant s.u.Qrnittal of a supplemental EIS or
other documentation as appropriate.
• Implementation of institutional controls to prevent alteration of the cap durin§
rodevelopment withoutany of the.~cRs.ill" other components of the EPA remedY/NRD
restoration, ins;J..uding alteration to wetlands and habitat withoutpli2r EPNNRD trustee
approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose.
• Implementation of an Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) that
would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility
installations or other site disturbances are necessary after implementation of the final
remedial action.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWE18U729.'.·!.gO,m5.29.()j)2.1
2-7 Chapter 2
See Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for more information on these
assumptions.
Though a cleanup action performed under Superfund authorities (e.g., a Consent Decree) would
be exempt from the procedural requirements of federal, state and local environmental laws
(including the environmental review process), the action must nevertheless comply with the
substantive requirements of such laws. EPA will determine whether the selected cleanup action
is protective of hUlIlllrl. heqlth and the environment and complies with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements and will also provide technical documents and the proposed
cleanup plan for public review prior to finalizing its cleanup decision in the ROD.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND PURPOSE
SEP A EIS and Lead Agency
For purposes of the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, the City of Renton is responsible
for performing the duties of a lead agency, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). The City's Environmental Review Committee serves as the Responsible Official for the
SEPA review. As indicted above, EPA is the responsible entity for all cleanup/remediation plans
and actions.
Determination of Significance and EIS Scoping
On November 18, 2009, the applicant submitted an application for Master Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and Binding Site Plan approval for the Ouendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project. The City of Renton, as SEPA lead agency, determined that the project
may have a significant impact on the environment. As a result, an EIS is required, per WAC
43.21 C.030(2)(c) and must be prepared consistent with WAC 197-11-400 through 460. On
February 19, 2010, the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Request for
Comments on the Scope of the EIS. The DS indicated that a public meeting would be held to
provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the Proposed Actions and to provide
input into the environmental review process, and that the EIS scoping period would end on March
12,2010. However, the initial EIS scoping period ended before the public scoping meeting could
be held. As a result, a second public scoping period was opened in order to accommodate a
public meeting (this scoping period ended on April 30, 2010). The two scoping periods comprise
expanded EIS scoping under SEPA (per WAC 197-11-408 through 410).
The EIS public scoping meeting was held on April 27, 2010, to provide the public with
opportunities to comment on the range of environmental issues, alternatives and actions that
should be considered in the EIS. During the EIS scoping meeting, the public was encouraged to
provide both written and/or oral comments on the scope of the EIS. A total of nine people signed
in and a total of four people spoke at the public meeting.
During the two EIS scoping comment periods, a total of five comment letters/emails were
received, including: two comment letters from agencies (Washington State Department of
Transportation and King County), one comment letter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and two
comment letters from one individual. All of the comment letters/emails are available for review at
the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. See Appendix B for
further information on the scoping process and a summary of the scoping comments.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
1)"'1 18j 179G~x.L99n'9'QQ9QQ4
2-8 Chapter 2
The majority of the comments that were received during the public scoping period for the
Quendall Terminals EIS related to Recreation/Public Shoreline Access, Utilities (utility
construction), Critical Areas, and TransportationlTraffic. Following EIS scoping, the City identified
the following elements to be analyzed in this QE.laEIS:
• Earth
• Critical Areas
• Environmental Health
• Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land and Shoreline Use
• Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
• AestheticsNiews
• Parks and Recreation
• TransportationlT raffic
Purpose ofEIS Analysis
Per WAC 197-11-400, an EIS is an objective, impartial evaluation of the environmental
consequences of a proposed project. It is a tool that will be used by the City of Renton, other
agencies and the public in the decision-making process. An EIS does not recommend for or
against a particular course of action.
The Draft EIS (DEIS) is the City's initial analysis of probable Significant environmental impacts of
the Proposed Actions and alternatives for a range of topics, such as: earth, critical areas, land
use, transportation, etc. The DE IS has been issued and distributed to agencies, organizations,
and the public for review as part of a public comment period. A public meeting will be held
following issuance of the DEIS to gather comments regarding the DEIS. Comments on the DEIS
can be given verbally at the public meeting or in writing at any time during this comment period.
Based on the comments received on the DEIS, a Final EIS (FEIS) will be prepared as the final
step in the EIS process. The FE IS provides responses to comments received on the DE IS from
agencies, organizations and the public, and may contain clarifications to the analysis of
environmental impacts. The DE IS and FEIS together comprise the document that the City will use
-along with other analyses and public input -regarding decisions on the redevelopment project.
After the FEIS is issued, City staff will make recommendations to the decision-makers on the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. A public hearing will be held as part of the
decision-making process on the project. Ongoing opportunities for public input will occur as part
of the decision-making process.
2.4 APPLICANT'S OBJECTIVES
For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-11-440) the following are the applicant's (Century Pacific's)
primary objectives for the proposal:
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
[>1'1T..L~J .. 1}2~.'}.J.2.9.1 .. '!&.~
2-9 Chapter 2
• Create a compact, urban residential development that allows for inclusion of a compatible
mix of uses, including retail uses, as well as potentially office uses, as the market allows.
• Consistent with the Growth Management Act, establish housing at high densities in close
proximity to existing employment centers in downtown Renton and other primary
employment centers on the Eastside.
• Create an overall urban design concept that is consistent throughout the site.
• Provide appropriate visual corridors through the site to the shoreline.
• Create a development that provides opportunities, such as public walkways or a plaza, for
visitors and residents to visually Gfaccess and to the extent permitted by the ROD and/or
any potential NRD settlement physically access the shoreline of Lake Washington.
• Allow for remediation of the site and ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with
the environmental remediation effort.
• Work cooperatively with the City of Renton to adopt a binding site plan and possible
development agreement that provide the necessary predictability, consistency and
expediency for long-term success of the redevelopment and allow for flexibility to respond
to market factors over time.
• Coordinate with state, federal and local agencies, tribes, organizations, institutions, public
and private sector interests and other interested parties to facilitate implementation of both
a successful remediation and redevelopment plan in an expeditious manner that returns
the property to productive use.
• Allow for redevelopment of the property that is financially viable from a real estate market
perspective and allows financial return in a timely fashion.
2.5 SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terrninals site is located in the northern portion of the City
of Renton, within the Southwest Y. of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County.
The junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90 is located approximately 3.5 miles to the
northeast (see Figure 2-1). The site includes the approximately 20.3-acre Main Property, located
adjacent to Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property, to the northeast
of the Main Property. The Main Property is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard and is
generally bounded by Lake Washington on the west; a Puget Sound Energy Easement and the
Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility on the north; Railroad right-of-way; Lake
Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N on the east; and, the Barbee Mill residential
development on the south. The adjacent Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N
on the north and west, and the southbound Interstate-405 off-ramp on the south and east (see
Figure 2-2).
2.5.1 Site History
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
""n.A8J)]~'.d .. Qm'.9.~ .. QQ.Q!lll;I
2-10 Chapter 2
Beginning in 1917, creosote and related products were manufactured on the site for about 53
years. The creosote manufacturing facility refined and processed coal tar and oil-gas tar residues
that were shipped or barged to the site from Lake Union. Tars and creosote products were
released in portions of the site where transport, production and/or storage of the products were
performed. In 1972, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals. Between 1969 and 1978, the site
was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Beginning in 1975, the site was used
as a log sorting and storage yard (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix 0 for
details).
2.5.2 Existing Site Conditions
The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant and essentially unused. The site gently slopes
from east to west and is partially vegetated, including mature trees along the western and
southern edges of the Main Property. Ten wetlands totaling approximately 0.9 acres are present
onsite, eight on the Main Property and two on the Isolated Property (see Section 3.2, Critical
Areas, and Appendix E for details). A small brick building, a sewer pump station and a shack are
located on the eastern edge of the Main Property. A dock remnant and wharf are situated along
the Lake Washington shoreline. There are no other buildings onsite (see Figure 2-3).
Existing Utilities
Water
The City of Renton currently provides water service to the site. There is an existing 12-inch water
main located offsite to the west of the existing railroad tracks within the Railroad right-of-way, and
a 1 O-inch water line on the Main Property. The City's water system in the vicinity of the project has
the capacity to supply a maximum of 5,600 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 PSI residual pressure.
The site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone and static pressure is approximately 124 PSI
at the street level (City of Renton, 2009).
Sewer
The City of Renton currently provides sewer service to the Site. An existing 12-inch sewer line
and the Baxter Sewer Pump Station are located in the eastern portion of the Main Property. The
line runs along the east property line (west of the Railroad right-of-way). The Baxter Sewer Pump
Station was designed to serve the Quendall Terminals site, as well as the Sea hawks
Headquarters and Training Facility and Barbee Mill development. The pump station was designed
for an overall peak flow of 594 gallons per minute (GPM) and a flow of 97.2 GPM from the
Quendall Terminals site. The pump station has the ability to be modified to increase the station's
capacity by over 300 GPM (KPFF, 2010).
Stormwater
An interim stormwater control system is present on the Main Property and consists of swales and
berms, as well as a previously constructed sediment pond. The purpose of the interim system is
to control site runoff and erosion/sedimentation prior to site cleanup and remediation. Surface
runoff currently infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface flow or swales.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
Il'HJ.8'.l.1.202· IOO}4mQQ~Q01
2-11 Chapter 2
Existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Shoreline Designations
The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (2009) designates the Ouendall Terminals site (including
the Main Property and the Isolated Property) as Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). Per the
COR Purpose Statement, this designation provides opportunities for large-scale office,
commercial, retail, and multifamily residential projects that develop through a master plan and site
plan process and incorporate significant site amenities and/or gateway features. The zoning
classification of the Ouendall Terminals site (including both properties) is
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). Per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-2-020(0), the COR
zone is intended to provide a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center and residential
activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural
environment. The Lake Washington shoreline along the Main Property is classified as an Urban
environment in the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (1983). Per RMC 4-3-090(J), the
objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of the shoreline by providing
for public use and access, and by managing development to enhance and maintain the shoreline
for viable and necessary urban uses (see Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans, Policies, and
Regulations for details).
2.6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S)
2.6.1 Proposed Actions
The Proposed Actions for the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Possible Development Agreement between the City and the applicant';
• Other local, state and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This DE IS addresses the probable significant environmental impacts of proposed redevelopment
of the Ouendall Terminals site. In order to disclose environmental information relevant to the
Ouendall Terminals redevelopment and in compliance with SEPA, this DEIS evaluates two
redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1-the subject of the November 2009 application, and
Alternative 2 - a lower density alternative), as well as the No Action Alternative. Through further
evaluation by the City and the applicant and based on public input, either the Alternative 1
redevelopment plan, the Alternative 2 redevelopment plan, a modification of either plan or a
combination of the two plans could be carried forward for possible approval by the City.
2.7.1 EIS Alternatives Concept Overview
2 The possible Development Agreement between the City of Renton and the applicant could idenmy infrastructure
requirements, phasing (as appropriate), and specific development standards for the site.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 2-12 Chapter 2
IJWTI8ll.7.2Q2· I QQ}'~~.QQ.QQQ1
The Quendall Terminals project is intended to create a vibrant waterfront redevelopment that
would convert a Superfund site into a compatible mix of uses, including residential, office (under
Alternative 1 only), retail and restaurant uses. Redevelopment would represent a compact, urban
form, with a consistent design concept throughout the site. Opportunities would be provided for
visitors and residents to visually Gfand tgJhe extent permitted by the ROD and any PO~IJJiaLNRD
settlement physically access the shoreline of Lake Washington via public walkways and plazas,
as well as through proposed view corridors created by on-site roadways, surface parking areas
and open space. The project would be required to be consistent with the final
cleanup/remediation plan for the site approved by the EPA, including protocols and institutional
controls for construction and long-term redevelopment.
2.7.2 EIS Alternatives Summary
Mix of Uses
Alternatives 1 and 2 would include a mix of residential, office (under Alternative 1 only), retail,
restaurant uses, as well as open space and parking. The mix of uses under Alternatives 1 and 2
would differ slightly as shown in Table 2-1. Alternative 2 would include the same amount of retail
and restaurant uses as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 would feature fewer residential units
and parking spaces than Alternative 1, and no office uses. More open space would be provided
under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1.
Site Area Breakdown
Table 2-2 provides a breakdown of the site area under Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in Table
2-2, similar amounts of area would be in built/impervious surfaces, and in vegetated/pervious
areas under the redevelopment alternatives.
Table 2-1
SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT -
ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Alternative 1 (sq. ft,) Alternative 2 (sq. ft.)
Residential 800 708
Office 245,000 0
Retail 21,600 21,600
Restaurant 9,000 9,000
Open Space£ 509,600 518,300
Parking 2,171 1,364'
Source. Lance Mueller and Associates, 2010.
1 Residential data represents the total number of residential units on the site.
2 For purpose of this DEIS, open space includes: paved plazas, sidewalks, natural areas, landscaped areas
and unpaved trails. These areas mayor may not meet the City's standards. regulations, and procedures for
open space.
3 Parking data represents the total number of parking spaces on the site.
Site Uses
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
lW'T.l8.']79_9_2 ... I .. gq,t§~.g299.Q1
Table 2-2
SITE AREA BREAKDOWN -
ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Alternative 1 (acres)
2-13
Alternative 2 (acres)
Chapter 2
Built Areas (Impervious Areas)
Building footprints 5.0
Paved rights-of-way, roads, 4.2
pedestrian/bike paths
Surface parking areas 1.4
Paved plazas 0.2
Subtotal 10.8
Vegetated Areas (Pervious Areas)
Natural areas 1 4.4
Landscaped areas 6.0
Unpaved trails 0.2
Subtotal 10.6
Total 21.5'
Source: Lance Mueller Architects, 2010.
1 Includes the adjacent 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast that is part of the site.
, Totals differs from sums of subtotals due to rounding.
4.1
3.9
2.7.'
0.1
10.8
4.4 '
6.1
0.3
10.8
21.5'
3 Although there is less total parking under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1, more of the parking is surface parking,
which is why the surface parking areas acreage is greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1.
Assumed Buildout Date
Redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site would occur subsequent to EPA's s8cision on
tReROD and/or any potential NBQ~merJt which will set forth EPA's final cleanup/remediation
plans, and implementation of these plans (ePA is expected to selest a r:emedy in late 2Q11 )--a£I!i
EPA takes the position that any mitigation/restoration alaflswill be bl:l~ed . ..Qn_environmental
requirements in place at ItleJime of the issuance of the ROD (the estimated date for the ROD is
2014) andlorpn:L-!2otential NRD settlement. Some redevelopment activities could be initiated in
conjunction with the remediation effort (i.e .• some utilities could potentially be installed in
conjunction with grading under the remediation). For this EIS, it is assumed that the Quendall
Terminals redevelopment would be fully built out by 2015; however, actual buildout would depend
upon the final cleanup schedule and market conditions. A specific phasing schedule for
redevelopment has not been defined at this point.
2.7.3 Description of Redevelopment Alternatives
Alternative 1 -Application
The approximately 21.5-acre site would be subdivided into 7. lots, 4 of which would contain
mixed-use buildings and three of which would contain the Shoreline Restoration Area. Below is a
description of the specific features of redevelopment under Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-4, Site
Plan -Alternative 1).
Residential
Alternative 1 would provide a total of 800 multifamily residential units. Residential units would be
located in all of the buildings onsite, except buildings NE 1 and SE 3 (see Figure 2-4). A net
residential denSity of 46 dwelling units per acre would result (800 dwelling units/17.23 acres of
useable area). Both apartment and condominium units would likely be provided. Due to the site's
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18~.172Q2,.J .. Q9l;l'9'.QQ9QQ~
2-14 Chapter 2
waterfront location, it is anticipated that the proposed residential units would be targeted towards
middle and upper income households. Proposed residential uses are anticipated to generate
approximately 1,300 residents.
Office
Alternative 1 would feature approximately 245,000 square feet of office uses. These uses would
be located in buildings NE 1 and SE 3 (see Figure 2-4). Proposed office uses are anticipated to
employ approximately 1,000 people.
Retail and Restaurant
Approximately 21,600 square feet of retail and approximately 9,000 square feet of restaurant
uses would be included in Alternative 1. These uses would be located at ground level in buildings
NW 1 and SW 3, along Street "8" (see Figure 2-4). These uses are anticipated to employ
approximately 50 people.
Access/Parking
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a new access drive connecting to Ripley Lane
N in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as via the extension of N 43rd Street (from the
existing 8arbee Mill access) in the southeast quadrant of the site. The applicant proposes to
dedicate or set aside approximately 3.7 acres of additional right-of-way, as required to provide
access to the 7 proposed lots. East-west access within the site would be provided by Drives "D",
"E" and "F" (private driveways) and Street "8" (a public street): north-south access within the site
would be provided by Streets "A" and "C" (both public streets). Three traffic circles and a
hammerhead fire truck turnaround at the terminus of Drive "E" are also proposed (see Figure 2-4
and Appendix C for cross-sections of the on-site roadways).
Certain of the proposed roadways on site do not currently meet City of Renton requirements for
fire access. The southwest fire access could be lengthened or extended along the west side or
lake side of the proposed structures from the hammerhead to meet the access criteria. The
access surface could be an all weather asphalt or an alternate surface (i.e. grass-crete) pending
assurance by a geotechnical engineer that the soils could support fire fighting equipment.
The two access points to the site cross Port of Seattle property (the Railroad right-of-way) at N
43'd Street and a new access drive onto Ripley Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site (see
Figure 2-4). These site access roads would be within dedicated public rights-of-way and would
include sidewalks, curb cuts and gutters.
Figure 2-4
Site Plan -Alternative 1
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
Q~MT .. 18.U}2l!.'J.QQM.9~
2-15 Chapter 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!1}YTl§11]1l2,-, I Q91?"9;9W92~
2-16 Chapter 2
Parking spaces for 2,171 cars would be provided in both structured and surface parking areas.
Approximately 1,986 structured parking stalls would be located above grade in two levels beneath
the proposed buildings. Approximately 185 at-grade surface parking stalls would occur in one lot
in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as along and at the terminus of Street "B" (see Figure
2-4). No underground parking would be provided.
Open Space/Recreational Facilities
For purposes of this DE IS, it has been calculated that approximately 11.7 acres of open space
and related areas would be provided onsite, including: paved plazas, natural areas, landscaped
areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. This open space and related areas mayor may not meet the
City's standards, regulations and procedures to be considered open space. Approximately 3.4 to
3.5 acres of the on-site open space and related areas would be visually and to the ex1ent
consistent""jlh the ROD and any NRD settlement physically accessible to the general public (h&.
the natural shoreline aroa anEl~ the shoreline trail, r86~86tiv8Iy). Approximately 4.3 to 4.1
acres of semi-private landscaped courtyards with views toward Lake Washington and passive
recreation opportunities (i.e. for gathering and strolling) would be available for Quendall Terminals
residents. Approximately 1.2 acres of natural, un-useable open space (wetland habitat) would be
provided at the Isolated Property (see Figure 2-4). Additional semi-private areas could be
provided as rooftop gardens and private balconies would be provided in the proposed buildings.
Recreational facilities (i.e., workout rooms) could be included in the buildings (see Section 3.8,
Parks and Recreation, for details).
New roadways proposed on the Main Property would include sidewalks to provide pedestrian
access. As part of redevelopment, a pedestrian corridor/trail would also be constructed along the
Lake Washington shoreline during cleanup/remediation. This trail would provide a range of
pedestrian amenities and passive recreation opportunities that would be available to the general
public during reasonable hours (anticipated to be from 10 AM to dusk). Two interpretive wetland
viewpoints would be incorporated into the design of the trail. The trail would likely be 10 feet wide
and would be built with a surface that would support a maintenance pickup truck and ambulance,
and would also meet ADA guidelines. The trail would link to the site's upland internal pedestrian
circulation system (sidewalks), which would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard, where
existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present. The trail would be privately owned and
maintained.
Building Design
Nine buildings would be constructed on the Main Property under Alternative 1. These buildings
would range in size from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet. The maximum height of
the buildings would be 7 stories (5 stories over 2 stories of parking) or approximately 80 feet.
Redevelopment would represent a compact, urban form, with a consistent design concept
throughout the site. The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through a
variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes
and facades. Ground-level uses (retail and restaurant) would include canopies, pedestrian/street
lighting and alternating fac;:ade materials to enhance the visual appeal of the buildings, particularly
along Street "B". Upper-level uses would be setback from the ground-level fac;:ade for modulation
and visual interest; additional architectural elements would be included, such as fac;:ade
modulation, and alternating materials and details. Decorative screening of under-building parking
would be provided. Exterior building materials would include: glass, painted metal, concrete,
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
f)WI,lMH992 .. 199).0')'999Q94
2-17 Chapter 2
brick veneer, metal panel siding, stucco and composite panel siding (see Figure 2-5,
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1).
The design of the building would meet fire protection and detection requirements from the current
City of Renton fire code ordinance and the 2009 International Building Code, including: fire
protection and detection requirements (fire sprinkler, fire alarm and dry standpipe systems),
elevators, high-rise building provisions, pre-fire planning and building radio coverage
requirements. A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the
time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's emergency
services.
Landscape Design
It is anticipated that a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be developed in conjunction with site
cleanup/remediation, and will be subject to separate review and approval by the EPA and/or
appropriate resource agencies. A conceptual design has been included in this DEIS-tRat
reflresents the assllrnee fllan fer the. The conceptuJ!.Ld~skm isJ~!tsed on the 1983 Renton
Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant information as described in Appendix E of the
DElli. Howe.\LeLl;t~QiS~~~!tl: in . .1h~ DEIS, current environmental standards may change
in the future because more stringent regulatorv standards could be established. En'lironrnenlallt
is EPA's position that environmental reqUirements for envir.onmental mitigati.on/rest.orati.on may
result in laroer mitigati.on rati.os buffers and/or setbacks resulting in larger .or higher quality
wetlands and shoreline restoration. As shown on this conceptual plan, restoration would occur in
the shoreline setback along Lake Washington that is assumed to average 68 feet in width, and
include re-vegetation with native plant species. Wetlands would be reestablished and expanded
in the shoreline area of the Main Property, as well as on the Isolated Property. Riparian habitat
would be recreated/enhanced (see Figure 2-6, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
Alternative 1 and Figure 2-7, Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2).
A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for proposed redevelopment of the upland
portion of the Main Property. According to this plan, native and ornamental plants that are suited
for this climate zone would be installed as landscaping throughout the site. The intent of the plan
is to create a landscape that is functional, aesthetically pleasing, diverse and water efficient.
Landscaping would include new trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
Landscaping would be provided between the buildings, including landscaped courtyards that
would provide views of Lake Washington, gathering areas and passive recreation opportunities
for building residents. Street trees and street landscaping would be planted along the new
roadways onsite; surface parking areas would also include landscaping, as required by City of
Renton regulations. Under-building parking would be screened by landscaping. A landscaped
edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would provide a buffer and partial visual
screen between the on-site development and adjacent properties (see Figure 2-8). New buildings
could also include rooftop plazas with landscaping and green roof elements.
Grading
Under its status as a Superfund site by EPA, preliminary grading of the Main Property will be
accomplished for site cleanup/remediation. Applicable cleanup methods will consider
redevelopment plans for the site as appropriate. For this EIS, the baseline condition assumes
that lirnitee disturbance of site soils will be necessary and capping of the upland and shoreline
portions of the Main Property wiIImay occur with cleanup/remediation. The baseline c.ondiiiQIlS.
also assume that capping will require the fil\1lIIl!:!g of several existing wetlands onsite. Wetlanes,
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
i)wTI8'17')92"lgO)269599000'
2-18 Chapter 2
i'!mUhalnew wetlands will be Feestablishedcreated and current wetlands will be expanded in the
shoreline area of the Main Property, as well as on the Isolated Prof)erl'l, as compensation for this
filling (see Section 3.2, Plants and Animals, and Appendix E for details).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
D"'T]8<1790'··1 OOn6~.i.oooooJ
2-19 Chapter 2
Figure 2-5
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!lc\\l:Hl!±I.122.Z~t~'Z~9~
2-20 Chapter 2
Figure 2-6
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 1
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
~WTJ 8~J.7.2.92, IQQ12~2$.Q99#Ql
2-21 Chapter 2
Figure 2·7
Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging· Alternatives 1 and 2
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
P',"TJS'j7994"i9Ql.62; 090994
2·22 Chapter 2
Figure 2·8
Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
D"gJiJ I 729."1903.69,990001
2·23 Chapter 2
Minimal additional grading would be required for the proposed redevelopment. The actual amount
of grading that would be required has not been quantified at this time; some fill would be required
to achieve the proposed site grades. It is estimated that approximately 53,000 to 133,000 cubic
yards of fill would be required, depending on the average fill depth at the site. It is assumed that
the fill material would be imported from an approved location. Some cut/fill would be required for
installation of utilities (installation of certain utilities could be coordinated with the
cleanup/remediation effort). Buildings and roads would likely be constructed on piles/piers.
Utilities
Water
Water service to Alternative 1 would be provided by the City of Renton via the existing water main
in the Railroad right-of-way. The existing water main on site would be abandoned and a new
looped 12-inch water main with fire hydrants would be installed around the site, in accordance
with City of Renton requirements. Per the City's requirements, any new construction must have
one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM located within 100 feet of
buildings and additional hydrants within 300 feet of buildings. Automatic fire sprinklers would also
be included within all buildings. As described under Existing Conditions in this chapter, the City's
water system in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site has the capacity to supply a maximum
of 5,600 GPM at 20 PSI. The City has calculated that a preliminary fire flow of 5,000 GPM would
be required for the project. It is anticipated there is sufficient capacity in the City's water system to
serve the project and meet the City of Renton's requirements. However, a hydraulic analysis of
the City's water system, with the proposed project building demands included, would be
completed prior to construction in order to confirm that the water demands of the proposed project
can be met by the existing system (KPFF, 2010).
Sewer
Sewer service to Alternative 1 would be provided by the City of Renton via the existing sewer line
in Lake Washington Boulevard. The existing sewer line onsite would be reused or abandoned
and additional lines provided to connect to the off-site line. The existing Baxter Pump Station
onsite would remain and would be incorporated into the proposed sewer system.
As described under 2.5.2 Existing Site Conditions in this chapter, the Baxter Pump Station was
designed to handle sewage flow of 97.2 GPM from the Quendall Terminals site. The estimated
flow from the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project would be approximately 614 GPM.
Therefore, the capacity of the Baxter Pump Station would need to be increased by approximately
517 GPM to 1,111 GPM to accommodate the proposed project. The Baxter Pump Station was
designed with the ability to increase capacity by changing pump impellers and increasing the wet
well capacity; these measures could be included as part of redevelopment of the site (KPFF,
2010).
Stormwater
The interim stormwater control system would be eliminated with cleanup/remediation of the site.
During construction of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, a Temporary Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by City of Renton. Following construction, a permanent
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
f}WcJcHHc17992'.I.fXU2W~
2-24 Chapter 2
stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM.
Stormwater runoff would be collected from impervious surfaces and conveyed to Lake
Washington through a piped stormwater drainage system. Stormwater would be discharged to
the lake via three new outfalls. Stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e.
roadways and surface parking lots) would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. No stormwater
detention would be required, per City regulations (see Section 3.2, Critical Areas, for details).
Institutional controls such as worker safety standards., approved by EPA would be implemented
for future utility installations requiring site disturbance after implementation of the final remedial
action.
Alternative 2 -Lower-density Alternative
Similar to Alternative 1, the site would be subdivided into 7 lots, 4 of which would contain
mixed-use buildings and three of which would contain the Shoreline Restoration Area. Below is a
description of the specific features of redevelopment under Alternative 2 (see Figure 2-9, Site
Plan -Alternative 2 and Tables 2·1 and 2·2 for a summary/break down of redeveloprnent under
Alternative 2).
Residential
Alternative 2 would provide a total of 708 multifamily residential units. Residential units would be
located in all of the buildings onsite. A net residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre would
result (708 dwelling units/17.53 acres of useable area). Like Alternative 1, both apartment and
condorninium units would likely be provided, and it is anticipated that the units would be targeted
towards middle and upper income households.
Office
Alternative 2 would not feature any office uses.
Retail and Restaurant
The same amount of retail (21,600 SF) and restaurant (9,000 SF) uses in the same general areas
onsite would be included under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1 (at ground level in buildings
NW 1 and SW 3, along Street "B"). These uses are anticipated to employ approximately 50
people.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
pWH84H2Q2, j 09j_W.9090Q4
2-25 Chapter 2
Figure 2-9
Site Plan -Alternative 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
I)"'T 181 1}')<J2' I gQm9aQQW~
2-26 Chapter 2
Access/Parking
As under Alternative 1, vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley
Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as via the extension of N 43'd Street (from the
exiting Barbee Mill access) in the southeast quadrant of the site. The applicant proposes to
dedicate approximately 3.6 acres of public right-of-way to provide access to the 7 proposed lots.
East-west access within the site would be provided by Drives "D" and "F" (private driveways) and
Street "B" (a public street); north-south access within the site would be provided by Streets "A"
and "C" (both public streets). Two traffic circles are also proposed (see Figure 2-9 and Appendix
C for cross-sections of the on-site roadways). Fire apparatus access roads would need to meet
applicable fire code requirements.
The two access pOints to the site would cross Port of Seattle property (the Railroad right-of-way)
at N 43'" Street and a new access drive onto Ripley Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site
(see Figure 2-9). These site access roads would be within dedicated public rights-of-way and
would include sidewalks, curb cuts and gutters.
Parking for approximately 1,364 cars would be provided in structured and surface parking areas.
Approximately 988 structured parking stalls would be located above grade in one level beneath
the proposed buildings, as well as on two parking decks located in the northeast and southeast
quadrants of the site. Approximately 376 at-grade surface parking stalls would occur in two
surface parking lots located in the northwest and southwest quadrants of the site, as well as along
and at the terminus of Street "B" (see Figure 2-9). No underground parking would be provided.
Open Space/Recreational Facilities
For purposes of this EIS, it has been calculated that approximately 11.8 acres of open space and
related areas would be provided onsite, including: paved plazas, natural areas, landscaped
areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. The characteristics of the open space and related areas
would be similar to Alternative 1. This open space and related areas mayor may not meet the
City's standards, regulations, and procedures to be considered open space.
Building Design
Similar to Alternative 1, nine buildings would be constructed on the Main Property under
Alternative 2. These buildings would range in size from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 square
feet. The maximum height of the buildings would be 6 stories (5 stories over 1 story of parking) or
a maximum of approximately 67 feet, as compared to 7 stories and a maximum of 80 feet under
Alternative 1.
Building design concepts would be similar to Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-10, Representative
Elevations -Alternative 2) and would meet fire protection and detection requirements from the
current City of Renton fire code ordinance and the 2009 International Building Code.
Landscape Design
The applicant's proposed Shoreline Restoration Plan as described in Appendix E would be
similar to Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-11, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual DeSign -Alternative 2
and Figure 2-7, Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2). The landscape design
for the upland area of the Main Property would also be similar to Alternative.1 (see Figure 2-8).
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
p\'fr 1.~.1.JJ2.~ .•.. ,.Lfi!)J)J'?I .. ~~.o.2Q.1
2-27 Chapter 2
Figure 2-10
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
1J"'J·.1..! . .ti}992. ,.1 .. 99};!!.~ .. 99999.~
2-28 Chapter 2
Figure 2·11
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
f)"'T 194179{J"'lWm9;~Q@M
2·29 Chapter 2
Grading
Grading for site cleanup/remediation and redevelopment would be similar to Alternative 1.
Utilities
The provision of utilities (water, sewer and stormwater control) would be similar to Alternative 1.
2.7.4 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the Quendall
Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities associated with the site's statlJS as a
SlJFlerflJRd siterequired by EPA will still occur (see Sections 2.2 Background and 3.3,
Environmental Health, of this chaFlter for details). Al.!D.d.e!:th.!lU'-!.Q.Actkm Alternative, a Shoreline -_._ .. ".-..
Restoration Plan will be implemented in conjunction with site cleanup/remediation lJRder the No
ActioR Altemativeandlor to resolve potential natural resource damages claims. Since the
cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the site, if no
redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition (post-remediation)
will likely be somewhat different than the baseline conditions assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2,
and described earlier in this chapter. Such differences could include:
• No publically accessible shoreline trail wilI'l!lQJ.l/d be provided.
• Shoreline areas that are not part of any potential NRD settlement and outside of the
wetland/wetland buffer wilImgy not.Jikely be restored.
• Remediation of the upland portion of the Main Property wilIwQJJld likely include
seeding/temporary re-vegetation to prevent erosion and sedimentation until development
occurs at some point in the future.
• AR iRterifR:r~ stormwater control system will be iRstalled, sifRilar to lJRder existiRg
cORditioRSwould not be integrated into a redevelopment plan.
(See Figure 2-12, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative.)
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
9'."T 1811729-I g9J,!2t 999991
2-30 Chapter 2
Figure 2·12
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT.ll4H9Q2yJllfB"95.gQQQQ4
2·31 Chapter 2
2.8 BENEFITS AND DISADV ANT AGES OF DEFERRING PROJECT
IMPLEMENT A TION
The benefits of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of redevelopment
of the Quendall Terminals site include deferral of:
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the natural environment (i.e. critical areas);
and,
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the manmade environment (i.e. traffic
operations and aesthetics/views).
The disadvantages of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of
redevelopment include deferral of:
• The opportunity to restore the site to a productive use after remediation;
• The opportunity to provide a mixed-use development in the Kennydale neighborhood of
Renton, including residential, possibly office, retail, restaurant and open space uses;
• Development of a publically accessible trail along the Lake Washington shoreline; and,
• Tax revenues and other fees (i.e. permit, inspection and utility connection fees) that would
accrue to the City of Renton.
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
D'''T .. 1.!4.'7RQ2'J.001269I000004
2-32 Chapter 2
Document comvarison by Workshare Compare on Monday October 24 2011 3·10·02 PM . , , --..
ilnnnt,
lD.ocument lID nterwoyenSite:lldwtdocslDWT 118411902/1
ioescrivtion W18417902y1 <DWl'=> -Chll,Rter2Iclean]
~oc].lll}ellt2J]) interwovenSite:lldwldQcslDWT/18411902/2
Descrivtion #J 8417902v2<DWT>cChapter2Lclearu
Rendering set standard
Legend;
Insertion
geietiefl
Me'f.e6 ffll.ffl
Moved to
St:i1e chang,e
format cha~
Me'iee deletiefl
Inserted cell
Deleted eel!
Moved cell
SRlitiMer!!ed cell
Paddin~cell
Statistit5 :
Cmmt
Insertions .6
Deletions 7
Moved from Q
Moved to Q
S!:ile change Q
Eormatchanged Q
Total ch!lI!~s II
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
3-12-01 PM
Input:
Document 1 10 interwovenSite:lldwtdocslDWT 118419623/1
Description #18419623v1 <DWT> -Chapter 2 [Original]
Document 210 interwovenSite:lldwtdocslDWT 118422016/1
Description #18422016v1 <DWT> -Chapter 2 CMP
Rendering set standard
Legend:
Insertion
geletisH
MS'iea It-sm
Moved to
Style change
Format change
MHVed-adetiaH
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 106
Deletions 52
Moved from 1
Moved to 1
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 160
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the Proposed
Action(s) and Alternatives for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. Background
information and a summary of historic site activities are also presented. Please see Chapter 1
of this document for a summary of the findings of this EIS and Chapter 3 for a detailed
presentation of the affected environment and probable significant environmental impacts of the
Proposed Action(s) and Alternatives.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Century Pacific, the applicant, is proposing redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site (see
Figure 2-1, Regional Map). The approximately 21.5-acre site, comprised of a Main Property
along Lake Washington and a separate Isolated Property to the northeast, is currently vacant
(see Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map and Figure 2-3, Existing Site Conditions). Redevelopment is
proposed in order to create a mixed-use development, including residential, potentially office,
retail and restaurant uses, as well as open space, and vehicular and pedestrian improvements.
For this EIS, it is assumed that the Quendall Terminals redevelopment would be fully built out by
2015; however, actual buildout would depend upon market conditions.
2.2 BACKGROUND
The Quendall Terminals site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility and has
been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote and other hazardous chemicals (see the Site
History section in this chapter, Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix 0 for
details). As a result of this prior contamination, cleanup of the site is required under federal and
state law. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) initially served as the lead
regulatory agency for overseeing cleanup of the site. An earlier remedial investigation (RI)
report and a draft risk assessment/focused feasibility study (FS) were completed for the site,
under the oversight of Ecology in 1997 and 2004, respectively. In 2005, Ecology requested that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take the lead for overseeing further cleanup
activities at the site. EPA subsequently assumed the role of lead agency, and in 2006, the site
was added to the EPA's Superfund' National Priorities List. In September 2006, the property
owners entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA, which sets forth the
requirements for completion of an RifFS and risk assessment. The RifFS and risk assessment
reports, which are currently being prepared by the property owner and EPA, characterize the
nature and extent of contamination and potential risks associated with exposure to site
contamination, and evaluate alternative remedies that could be implemented to mitigate
contaminant exposures. After the updated RifFS and risk assessment reports are developed, a
Proposed Plan identifying the steps to be taken to ensure that the Quendall Terminals Site will
be protective of human health and the environment will be provided for public review and a
public meeting will be held if requested. After EPA reviews all public comments, it will issue a
Superfund is the name given to the federal environmental program established to address sites requiring cleanup
under Federal law. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, that can be used by EPA to perform site cleanup
work. The Superfund program allows the EPA to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or to perform
cleanups itself and then seek reimbursement from responsible parties for EPA's cleanup costs.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 2-1 Chapter 2
DWT 18417902,3 0032695-000004
Record of Decision (ROD) specifying the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site. It is also
possible that restoration actions will occur as part of a potential natural resource damage (NRD)
settlement process but before site redevelopment. It is EPA's position that the ROD will include
a plan for mitigating wetlands and shorelines using environmental requirements (wetland
jurisdiction, mitigation ratios, environmental buffers and setbacks) in place at that time. EPA
currently anticipates that the ROD will be issued in fall 2014; EPA and the responsible parties
will subsequently enter into an agreement for the implementation of the remedy.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695'()00004
2-2 Chapter 2
Figure 2-1
Regional Map
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184179{)2v3 0032695-000004
2-3 Chapter 2
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-4 Chapter 2
Figure 2·3
Existing Site Conditions
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2·5 Chapter 2
As part of the ongoing RI/FS, the site owners and EPA are considering potential future site use
(i.e" redevelopment plans) for the site. Certain activities related to redevelopment, such as
grading, treatment of wetlands, stormwater control, utility/building construction, public access,
etc., will be dictated by EPA in coordination with the City of Renton and other agencies (see
Chapter 3, and Appendices D and E for details).
This EIS briefly summarizes the history of the site and the site's current conditions; refers to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process
and its regulatory requirements; and, discusses protocols and institutional controls that will
ultimately set out requirements and compliance methods for construction and long-term
redevelopment. This EIS also recognizes the potential for restoration actions to occur as part of
a potential NRD settlement. As a result, the EIS impact analyses assume an existing/baseline
condition subsequent to cleanup/mitigation and any NRD restoration (that is, the condition of the
site after remediation/NRD restoration has been accomplished).
The baseline (post-cleanup and mitigation/post-NRD restoration conditions) assumed in this
DEIS was developed using the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant
information as described in Appendix E of the DEIS. If environmental requirements cause EPA
and/or any NRD settlement to impose more stringent environmental standards to set
mitigation/restoration standards in the ROD and/or NRD settlement, that may lead to a smaller
redevelopment. Therefore, the baseline in this DEIS represents the reasonable maximum of
development-related impacts. EPA will not identify the final cleanup plan for the site until it
issues its ROD, estimated to occur in 2014, and this EIS does not in any way presuppose the
final remedy that EPA will ultimately select.
EPA has not selected a final remedy for the site so these assumptions are based on information
known at this time and do not in any way presuppose the final remedy that EPA will ultimately
select. Rather, these assumptions form the basis for evaluation of potential impacts associated
with redevelopment. Therefore, only the probable significant environmental impacts and
applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site are addressed in this EIS;
potential impacts associated with cleanup/mitigation and any NRD restoration activities will be
addressed through the separate EPNNRD process (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health,
and Appendix D for details). As discussed above, the post-remediation conditions assumed in
this EIS were developed to assess the reasonable maximum of development-related impacts.
In the event that the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA in the ROD and/or any potential
NRD restoration results in a significantly larger footprint for redevelopment than assumed in this
EIS, the City will determine whether such changes warrant submittal of a supplemental EIS or
other documentation. Moreover, the Applicant will be required to comply with any requirements
imposed by EPA as a part of cleanup (e.g., EPA takes the position it may impose different
wetland mitigation ratios, environmental buffers and setback requirements, and stormwater
discharge requirements) even if those requirements are not articulated in this EIS.
The following elements are assumed to be included as part of the site cleanup/mitigation and
any NRD process and form the baseline/existing condition for purposes of analysis in this EIS.
NOTE: the cleanup remedy will include more than a "clean" soil surface, but for purposes of this
EIS only potential remedial/NRD actions that may affect future development are identified
below. As described above, the cleanup/remediation is an ongoing process being conducted by
EPA, and there could be changes to these assumptions as remedies and plans are finalized.
• Clean surface soil will be present when the remedy is complete. Areas of the site that
require remediation will be remediated. Potential remedial actions include but are not
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695'()00004
2-6 Chapter 2
limited to soil removal and replacement with clean fill and capping. Overall, the resulting
remediation will be protective of human health and the environment in addition to
satisfying all pertinent health and environmental regulations,
• Existing on·site wetlands will be filled and a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be
implemented, including re-establishing and expanding wetlands, and
recreating/enhancing riparian habitat for mitigation and/or as part of a potential natural
resource damages settlement. While specifications for shoreline mitigation and
restoration will not be finalized until the ROD and/or a potential natural resource
damages settlement, this EIS assumes a post-remediation condition that would result in
the greatest area for redevelopment based on the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management
Plan and other relevant information as described in Appendix E of the DEIS, As part of
the remedy and/or any NRD restoration, EPA and/or any potential NRD settlement may
require additional mitigation/NRD restoration that will reduce the site area available for
redevelopment and if this results in baseline conditions significantly different than those
assumed in this EIS, the City will determine whether this change would warrant submittal
of a supplemental EIS or other documentation as appropriate.
• Implementation of institutional controls to prevent alteration of any of the caps or
other components of the EPA remedy/NRD restoration, including alteration to wetlands
and habitat without prior EPNNRD trustee approval, and to prevent the use of on-site
groundwater for any purpose.
• Implementation of an Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) that
would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility
installations or other site disturbances are necessary after implementation of the final
remedial action.
See Section 3,3, Environmental Health, and Appendix 0 for more information on these
assumptions,
Though a cleanup action performed under Superfund authorities (e,g" a Consent Decree) would
be exempt from the procedural requirements of federal, state and local environmental laws
(including the environmental review process), the action must nevertheless comply with the
substantive requirements of such laws. EPA will determine whether the selected cleanup action
is protective of human health and the environment and complies with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements and will also provide technical documents and the proposed
cleanup plan for public review prior to finalizing its cleanup decision in the ROD.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND PURPOSE
SEPA EIS and Lead Agency
For purposes of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, the City of Renton is
responsible for performing the duties of a lead agency, as required by the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). The City's Environmental Review Committee serves as the Responsible
Official for the SEPA review. As indicted above, EPA is the responsible entity for all
cleanupiremediation plans and actions.
Determination of Significance and EIS Scoping
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-7 Chapter 2
On November 18, 2009, the applicant submitted an application for Master Plan, Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit and Binding Site Plan approval for the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project. The City of Renton, as SEPA lead agency, determined that the project
may have a significant impact on the environment. As a result, an EIS is required, per WAC
43.21C.030(2)(c) and must be prepared consistent with WAC 197-11-400 through 460. On
February 19, 2010, the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Request for
Comments on the Scope of the EIS. The DS indicated that a public meeting would be held to
provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the Proposed Actions and to provide
input into the environmental review process, and that the EIS scoping period would end on
March 12, 2010. However, the initial EIS scoping period ended before the public scoping
meeting could be held. As a result, a second public scoping period was opened in order to
accommodate a public meeting (this scoping period ended on April 30, 2010). The two scoping
periods comprise expanded EIS scoping under SEPA (per WAC 197-11-408 through 410).
The EIS public scoping meeting was held on April 27, 2010, to provide the public with
opportunities to comment on the range of environmental issues, alternatives and actions that
should be considered in the EIS. During the EIS scoping meeting, the public was encouraged
to provide both written and/or oral comments on the scope of the EIS. A total of nine people
signed in and a total of four people spoke at the public meeting.
During the two EIS scoping comment periods, a total of five comment letters/emails were
received, including: two comment letters from agencies (Washington State Department of
Transportation and King County), one comment letter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and
two comment letters from one individual. All of the comment letters/emails are available for
review at the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. See
Appendix B for further information on the scoping process and a summary of the scoping
comments.
The majority of the comments that were received during the public scoping period for the
Quendall Terminals EIS related to Recreation/Public Shoreline Access, Utilities (utility
construction), Critical Areas, and TransportationiTraffic. Following EIS scoping, the City
identified the following elements to be analyzed in this EIS:
• Earth
• Critical Areas
• Environmental Health
• Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land and Shoreline Use
• Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
• AestheticsNiews
• Parks and Recreation
• T ransportationiT raffic
Purpose of EIS Analysis
Per WAC 197-11-400, an EIS is an objective, impartial evaluation of the environmental
consequences of a proposed project. It is a tool that will be used by the City of Renton, other
agencies and the public in the decision-making process. An EIS does not recommend for or
against a particular course of action.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-8 Chapter 2
The Draft EIS (DEIS) is the City's initial analysis of probable significant environmental impacts
of the Proposed Actions and alternatives for a range of topics, such as: earth, critical areas,
land use, transportation, etc. The DEIS has been issued and distributed to agencies,
organizations, and the public for review as part of a public comment period. A public meeting
will be held following issuance of the DE IS to gather comments regarding the DEIS. Comments
on the DEIS can be given verbally at the public meeting or in writing at any time during this
comment period.
Based on the comments received on the DEIS, a Final EIS (FE IS) will be prepared as the final
step in the EIS process. The FEIS provides responses to comments received on the DEIS from
agencies, organizations and the public, and may contain clarifications to the analysis of
environmental impacts. The DEIS and FEIS together comprise the document that the City will
use -along with other analyses and public input -regarding decisions on the redevelopment
project.
After the FEIS is issued, City staff will make recommendations to the decision-makers on the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. A public hearing will be held as part of the
decision-making process on the project. Ongoing opportunities for public input will occur as part
of the decision-making process.
2.4 APPLICANT'S OBJECTIVES
For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-11-440) the following are the applicant's (Century Pacific's)
primary objectives for the proposal:
• Create a compact, urban residential development that allows for inclusion of a
compatible mix of uses, including retail uses, as well as potentially office uses, as the
market allows.
• Consistent with the Growth Management Act, establish housing at high densities in close
proximity to existing employment centers in downtown Renton and other primary
employment centers on the Eastside.
• Create an overall urban design concept that is consistent throughout the site.
• Provide appropriate visual corridors through the site to the shoreline.
• Create a development that provides opportunities, such as public walkways or a plaza,
for visitors and residents to visually access and to the extent permitted by the ROD
and/or any potential NRD settlement, physically access the shoreline of Lake
Washington.
• Allow for remediation of the site and ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with
the environmental remediation effort.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
OWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-9 Chapter 2
• Work cooperatively with the City of Renton to adopt a binding site plan and possible
development agreement that provide the necessary predictability, consistency and
expediency for long-term success of the redevelopment and allow for flexibility to
respond to market factors over time.
• Coordinate with state, federal and local agencies, tribes, organizations, institutions,
public and private sector interests and other interested parties to facilitate
implementation of both a successful remediation and redevelopment plan in an
expeditious manner that returns the property to productive use.
• Allow for redevelopment of the property that is financially viable from a real estate
market perspective and allows financial return in a timely fashion.
2.5 SITE DESCRIPTION
The approximately 21.5-acre Ouendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the
City of Renton, within the Southwest Y. of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King
County. The junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90 is located approximately 3.5 miles to
the northeast (see Figure 2-1). The site includes the approximately 20.3-acre Main Property,
located adjacent to Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property, to the
northeast of the Main Property. The Main Property is located at 4350 Lake Washington
Boulevard and is generally bounded by Lake Washington on the west; a Puget Sound Energy
Easement and the Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility on the north; Railroad right-of-
way; Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N on the east; and, the Barbee Mill
residential development on the south. The adjacent Isolated Property is generally bounded by
Ripley Lane N on the north and west, and the southbound Interstate-405 off-ramp on the south
and east (see Figure 2.2).
2.5.1 Site History
Beginning in 1917, creosote and related products were manufactured on the site for about 53
years. The creosote manufacturing facility refined and processed coal tar and oil-gas tar
residues that were shipped or barged to the site from Lake Union. Tars and creosote products
were released in portions of the site where transport, production and/or storage of the products
were performed. In 1972, the site was sold to Ouendall Terminals. Between 1969 and 1978,
the site was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Beginning in 1975, the site
was used as.a log sorting and storage yard (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and
Appendix D for details).
2.5.2 Existing Site Conditions
The Ouendall Terminals site is currently vacant and essentially unused. The site gently slopes
from east to west and is partially vegetated, including mature trees along the western and
southern edges of the Main Property. Ten wetlands totaling approximately 0.9 acres are
present onsite, eight on the Main Property and two on the Isolated Property (see Section 3.2,
Critical Areas, and Appendix E for details). A small brick building, a sewer pump station and a
shack are located on the eastern edge of the Main Property. A dock remnant and wharf are
situated along the Lake Washington shoreline. There are no other buildings onsite (see Figure
2-3).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-10 Chapter 2
Existing Utilities
Water
The City of Renton currently provides water service to the site. There is an existing 12-inch
water main located offsite to the west of the existing railroad tracks within the Railroad right-of-
way, and a 1 O-inch water line on the Main Property. The City's water system in the vicinity of the
project has the capacity to supply a maximum of 5,600 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 PSI
residual pressure. The site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone and static pressure is
approximately 124 PSI at the street level (City of Renton, 2009).
Sewer
The City of Renton currently provides sewer service to the site. An existing 12-inch sewer line
and the Baxter Sewer Pump Station are located in the eastern portion of the Main Property.
The line runs along the east property line (west of the Railroad right-of-way). The Baxter Sewer
Pump Station was designed to serve the Ouendall Terminals site, as well as the Seahawks
Headquarters and Training Facility and Barbee Mill development. The pump station was
designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gallons per minute (GPM) and a flow of 97.2 GPM from
the Ouendall Terminals site. The pump station has the ability to be modified to increase the
station's capacity by over 300 GPM (KPFF, 2010).
Stormwater
An interim stormwater control system is present on the Main Property and consists of swales
and berms, as well as a previously constructed sediment pond. The purpose of the interim
system is to control site runoff and erosion/sedimentation prior to site cleanup and remediation.
Surface runoff currently infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface flow or swales.
Existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Shoreline Designations
The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (2009) designates the Ouendall Terminals site
(including the Main Property and the Isolated Property) as Commercial/Office/Residential
(COR). Per the COR Purpose Statement, this designation provides opportunities for large-scale
office, commercial, retail, and multifamily residential projects that develop through a master plan
and site plan process and incorporate significant site amenities and/or gateway features. The
zoning classification of the Ouendall Terminals site (including both properties) is
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). Per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-2-020(0), the COR
zone is intended to provide a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center and residential
activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural
environment. The Lake Washington shoreline along the Main Property is classified as an Urban
environment in the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (1983). Per RMC 4-3-090(J), the
objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of the shoreline by providing
for public use and access, and by managing development to enhance and maintain the
shoreline for viable and necessary urban uses (see Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans,
Policies, and Regulations for details).
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-11 Chapter 2
2.6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S)
2.6.1 Proposed Actions
The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Possible Development Agreement between the City and the applicant';
• Other local, state and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This DEIS addresses the probable significant environmental impacts of proposed
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site. In order to disclose environmental information
relevant to the Quendall Terminals redevelopment and in compliance with SEPA, this DEIS
evaluates two redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1-the subject of the November 2009
application, and Alternative 2 -a lower density alternative), as well as the No Action Alternative.
Through further evaluation by the City and the applicant and based on public input, either the
Alternative 1 redevelopment plan, the Alternative 2 redevelopment plan, a modification of either
plan or a combination of the two plans could be carried forward for possible approval by the
City.
2.7.1 EIS Alternatives Concept Overview
The Quendall Terminals project is intended to create a vibrant waterfront redevelopment that
would convert a Superfund site into a compatible mix of uses, including residential, office (under
Alternative 1 only), retail and restaurant uses. Redevelopment would represent a compact,
urban form, with a consistent design concept throughout the site. Opportunities would be
provided for visitors and residents to visually and to the extent permitted by the ROD and any
potential NRD settlement, physically access the shoreline of Lake Washington via public
walkways and plazas, as well as through proposed view corridors created by on-site roadways,
surface parking areas and open space. The project would be required to be consistent with the
final cleanuplremediation plan for the site approved by the EPA, including protocols and
institutional controls for construction and long-term redevelopment.
2.7.2 EIS Alternatives Summary
Mix of Uses
Alternatives 1 and 2 would include a mix of residential, office (under Alternative 1 only), retail,
restaurant uses, as well as open space and parking. The mix of uses under Alternatives 1 and
2 would differ slightly as shown in Table 2-1. Alternative 2 would include the same amount of
, The possible Development Agreement between the City of Renton and the applicant could identify infrastructure
reqUirements, phasing (as appropriate), and specific development standards for the site.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 2-12 Chapter 2
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
retail and restaurant uses as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 would feature fewer
residential units and parking spaces than Alternative 1, and no office uses. More open space
would be provided under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1.
Site Area Breakdown
Table 2-2 provides a breakdown of the site area under Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in Table
2-2, similar amounts of area would be in built/impervious surfaces, and in vegetated/pervious
areas under the redevelopment alternatives.
Table 2-1
SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT -
ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Alternative 1 (sq. ft.) Alternative 2 (sq. ft.)
Residential 800 708
Office 245,000 0
Retail 21,600 21,600
Restaurant 9,000 9,000
Open Space' 509,600 518,300
Parking 2,171 0 1,3640
Source. Lance Mueller and AssocIates, 2010.
1 Residential data represents the total number of residential units on the site.
2 For purpose of this DEIS, open space includes: paved plazas, sidewalks, natural areas, landscaped areas
and unpaved trails. These areas mayor may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and procedures for
open space.
3 Parking data represents the total number of parking spaces on the site.
Table 2-2
SITE AREA BREAKDOWN -
ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Site Uses Alternative 1 (acres) Alternative 2 (acres)
Built Areas (Impervious Areas)
Building footprints 5.0
Paved rights-of-way, roads, 4.2
pedestrian/bike paths
Surface parkinQ areas 1.4
Paved plazas 0.2
Subtotal 10.8
Vegetated Areas (Pervious Areas)
Natural areas 1 4.4 '
Landscaped areas 6.0
Unpaved trails 0.2
Subtotal 10.6
Total 21.5'
Source: Lance Mueller ArchItects, 2010.
1 Includes the adjacent 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast that is part of the site.
2 Totals differs from sums of subtotals due to rounding.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-13
4.1
3.9
2.7'
0.1
10.8
4.4 '
6.1
0.3
10.8
21.5'
Chapter 2
3 Although there is less total parking under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1, more of the parking is surface parking,
which is why the surface parking areas acreage is greater under Alternative 2 than Altemative 1.
Assumed Buildout Date
Redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site would occur subsequent to EPA's ROD and/or
any potential NRD settlement, which will set forth EPA's final cleanup/remediation plans, EPA
takes the position that any mitigation/restoration will be based on environmental requirements in
place at the time of the issuance of the ROD (the estimated date for the ROD is 2014) and/or
any potential NRD settlement Some redevelopment activities could be initiated in conjunction
with the remediation effort (i.e" some utilities could potentially be installed in conjunction with
grading under the remediation). For this EIS, it is assumed that the Quendall Terminals
redevelopment would be fully built out by 2015; however, actual buildout would depend upon
the final cleanup schedule and market conditions. A specific phasing schedule for
redevelopment has not been defined at this point
2.7.3 Description of Redevelopment Alternatives
Alternative 1 -Application
The approximately 21.5-acre site would be subdivided into 7 lots, 4 of which would contain
mixed-use buildings and three of which would contain the Shoreline Restoration Area. Below is
a description of the specific features of redevelopment under Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-4, Site
Plan -Alternative 1).
Residential
Alternative 1 would provide a total of 800 multifamily residential units. Residential units would
be located in all of the buildings onsite, except buildings NE 1 and SE 3 (see Figure 2-4). A net
residential density of 46 dwelling units per acre would result (800 dwelling units/17.23 acres of
useable area). Both apartment and condominium units would likely be provided. Due to the
site's waterfront location, it is anticipated that the proposed residential units would be targeted
towards middle and upper income households. Proposed residential uses are anticipated to
generate approximately 1,300 residents.
Office
Alternative 1 would feature approximately 245,000 square feet of office uses. These uses
would be located in buildings NE 1 and SE 3 (see Figure 2-4). Proposed office uses are
anticipated to employ approximately 1,000 people.
Retail and Restaurant
Approximately 21,600 square feet of retail and approximately 9,000 square feet of restaurant
uses would be included in Alternative 1. These uses would be located at ground level in
buildings NW 1 and SW 3, along Street "B" (see Figure 2-4). These uses are anticipated to
employ approximately 50 people.
Access/Parking
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 003269S-000004
2-14 Chapter 2
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a new access drive connecting to Ripley
Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as via the extension of N 43rd Street (from
the existing Barbee Mill access) in the southeast quadrant of the site. The applicant proposes
to dedicate or set aside approximately 3.7 acres of additional right-of-way, as required to
provide access to the 7 proposed lots. East-west access within the site would be provided by
Drives "D", "E" and "F" (private driveways) and Street "8" (a public street); north-south access
within the site would be provided by Streets "A" and "C" (both public streets). Three traffic
circles and a hammerhead fire truck turnaround at the terminus of Drive "E" are also proposed
(see Figure 2-4 and Appendix C for cross-sections of the on-site roadways).
Certain of the proposed roadways onsite do not currently meet City of Renton requirements for
fire access. The southwest fire access could be lengthened or extended along the west side or
lake side of the proposed structures from the hammerhead to meet the access criteria. The
access surface could be an all weather asphalt or an alternate surface (i.e. grass-crete) pending
assurance by a geotechnical engineer that the soils could support fire fighting equipment.
The two access points to the site cross Port of Seattle property (the Railroad right-of-way) at N
43 rd Street and a new access drive onto Ripley Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site (see
Figure 2-4). These site access roads would be within dedicated public rights-of-way and would
include sidewalks, curb cuts and gutters.
Figure 2-4
Site Plan -Alternative 1
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-15 Chapter 2
Parking spaces for 2,171 cars would be provided in both structured and surface parking areas.
Approximately 1,986 structured parking stalls would be located above grade in two levels
beneath the proposed buildings. Approximately 185 at-grade surface parking stalls would occur
in one lot in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as along and at the terminus of Street "8"
(see Figure 2-4). No underground parking would be provided.
Open Space/Recreational Facilities
For purposes of this DEIS, it has been calculated that approximately 11.7 acres of open space
and related areas would be provided onsite, including: paved plazas, natural areas, landscaped
areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. This open space and related areas mayor may not meet
the City's standards, regulations and procedures to be considered open space. Approximately
3.4 to 3.5 acres of the on-site open space and related areas would be visually and to the extent
consistent with the ROD and any NRD settlement, physically accessible to the general public
(e.g., the shoreline trail). Approximately 4.3 to 4.1 acres of semi-private landscaped courtyards
with views toward Lake Washington and passive recreation opportunities (i.e. for gathering and
strolling) would be available for Quendall Terminals residents. Approximately 1.2 acres of
natural, un-useable open space (wetland habitat) would be provided at the Isolated Property
(see Figure 2-4). Additional semi-private areas could be provided as rooftop gardens and
private balconies would be provided in the proposed buildings. Recreational facilities (i.e.,
workout rooms) could be included in the buildings (see Section 3.8, Parks and Recreation, for
details).
New roadways proposed on the Main Property would include sidewalks to provide pedestrian
access. As part of redevelopment, a pedestrian corridor/trail would also be constructed along
the Lake Washington shoreline during cleanup/remediation. This trail would provide a range of
pedestrian amenities and passive recreation opportunities that would be available to the general
public during reasonable hours (anticipated to be from 10 AM to dusk). Two interpretive
wetland viewpoints would be incorporated into the design of the trail. The trail would likely be
10 feet wide and would be built with a surface that would support a maintenance pickup truck
and ambulance, and would also meet ADA guidelines. The trail would link to the site's upland
internal pedestrian circulation system (sidewalks), which would connect to Lake Washington
80ulevard, where existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present. The trail would be
privately owned and maintained.
Building Design
Nine buildings would be constructed on the Main Property under Alternative 1. These buildings
would range in size from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet. The maximum height of
the buildings would be 7 stories (5 stories over 2 stories of parking) or approximately 80 feet.
Redevelopment would represent a compact, urban form, with a consistent design concept
throughout the site. The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through
a variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting
streetscapes and facades. Ground-level uses (retail and restaurant) would include canopies,
pedestrian/street lighting and alternating fagade materials to enhance the visual appeal of the
buildings, particularly along Street "8". Upper-level uses would be setback from the ground-
level fagade for modulation and visual interest; additional architectural elements would be
included, such as fagade modulation, and alternating materials and details. Decorative
screening of under-building parking would be provided. Exterior building materials would
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184 I 7902v3 0032695'{)00004
2-16 Chapter 2
include: glass, painted metal, concrete, brick veneer, metal panel siding, stucco and composite
panel siding (see Figure 2-5, Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1).
The design of the building would meet fire protection and detection requirements from the
current City of Renton fire code ordinance and the 2009 International Building Code, including:
fire protection and detection requirements (fire sprinkler, fire alarm and dry standpipe systems),
elevators, high-rise building provisions, pre-fire planning and building radio coverage
requirements. A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the
time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's emergency
services.
Landscape Design
It is anticipated that a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be developed in conjunction with site
cleanup/remediation, and will be subject to separate review and approval by the EPA and/or
appropriate resource agencies. A conceptual design has been included in this DEIS. The
conceptual design is based on the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan and other relevant
information as described in Appendix E of the DEIS. However, as discussed earlier in this
DEIS, current environmental standards may change in the future because more stringent
regulatory standards could be established. It is EPA's position that environmental requirements
for environmental mitigation/restoration may result in larger mitigation ratios, buffers and/or
setbacks resulting in larger or higher quality wetlands and shoreline restoration. As shown on
this conceptual plan, restoration would occur in the shoreline setback along Lake Washington
that is assumed to average 68 feet in width, and include re-vegetation with native plant species.
Wetlands would be reestablished and expanded in the shoreline area of the Main Property, as
well as on the Isolated Property. Riparian habitat would be recreated/enhanced (see Figure 2-
6, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 1 and Figure 2-7, Wetland D Buffer
Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2).
A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for proposed redevelopment of the upland
portion of the Main Property. According to this plan, native and ornamental plants that are
suited for this climate zone would be installed as landscaping throughout the site. The intent of
the plan is to create a landscape that is functional, aesthetically pleasing, diverse and water
efficient. Landscaping would include new trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and
species. Landscaping would be provided between the buildings, including landscaped
courtyards that would provide views of Lake Washington, gathering areas and passive
recreation opportunities for building residents. Street trees and street landscaping would be
planted along the new roadways onsite; surface parking areas would also include landscaping,
as required by City of Renton regulations. Under-building parking would be screened by
landscaping. A landscaped edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would
provide a buffer and partial visual screen between the on-site development and adjacent
properties (see Figure 2-8). New buildings could also include rooftop plazas with landscaping
and green roof elements.
Grading
Under its status as a Superfund site by EPA, preliminary grading of the Main Property will be
accomplished for site cleanup/remediation. Applicable cleanup methods will consider
redevelopment plans for the site as appropriate. For this EIS, the baseline condition assumes
that disturbance of site soils will be necessary and capping of the upland and shoreline portions
of the Main Property may occur with cleanup/remediation. The baseline conditions also assume
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695·000004
2-17 Chapter 2
that capping will require the filling of several existing wetlands onsite, and that new wetlands will
be created and current wetlands expanded in the shoreline area of the Main Property, as
compensation for this filling (see Section 3.2, Plants and Animals, and Appendix E for
details).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-18 Chapter 2
Figure 2-5
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 1
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-19 Chapter 2
Figure 2·6
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 1
QuendaJ/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184 1 7902vJ 0032695-000004
2·20 Chapter 2
Figure 2-7
Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184 1 7902v3 0032695-000004
2-21 Chapter 2
Figure 2-8
Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-D00004
2-22 Chapter 2
Minimal additional grading would be required for the proposed redevelopment. The actual
amount of grading that would be required has not been quantified at this time; some fill would be
required to achieve the proposed site grades. It is estimated that approximately 53,000 to
133,000 cubic yards of fill would be required, depending on the average fill depth at the site. It
is assumed that the fill material would be imported from an approved location. Some cut/fill
would be required for installation of utilities (installation of certain utilities could be coordinated
with the cleanup/remediation effort). Buildings and roads would likely be constructed on
piles/piers.
Utilities
Water
Water service to Alternative 1 would be provided by the City of Renton via the existing water
main in the Railroad right-of-way. The existing water main onsite would be abandoned and a
new looped 12-inch water main with fire hydrants would be installed around the site, in
accordance with City of Renton requirements. Per the City's requirements, any new
construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM located
within 100 feet of buildings and additional hydrants within 300 feet of buildings. Automatic fire
sprinklers would also be included within all buildings. As described under Existing Conditions in
this chapter, the City's water system in the vicinity of the Ouendall Terminals site has the
capacity to supply a maximum of 5,600 GPM at 20 PSI. The City has calculated that a
preliminary fire flow of 5,000 GPM would be required for the project. It is anticipated there is
sufficient capacity in the City's water system to serve the project and meet the City of Renton's
requirements. However, a hydraulic analysis of the City's water system, with the proposed
project building demands included, would be completed prior to construction in order to confirm
that the water demands of the proposed project can be met by the existing system (KPFF,
2010).
Sewer
Sewer service to Alternative 1 would be provided by the City of Renton via the existing sewer
line in Lake Washington Boulevard. The existing sewer line onsite would be reused or
abandoned and additional lines provided to connect to the off-site line. The existing Baxter
Pump Station onsite would remain and would be incorporated into the proposed sewer system.
As described under 2.5.2 Existing Site Conditions in this chapter, the Baxter Pump Station
was designed to handle sewage flow of 97.2 GPM from the Ouendall Terminals site. The
estimated flow from the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project would be approximately
614 GPM. Therefore, the capacity of the Baxter Pump Station would need to be increased by
approximately 517 GPM to 1,111 GPM to accommodate the proposed project. The Baxter
Pump Station was designed with the ability to increase capacity by changing pump impellers
and increasing the wet well capacity; these measures could be included as part of
redevelopment of the site (KPFF, 2010).
Stormwater
The interim stormwater control system would be eliminated with cleanup/remediation of the site.
During construction of the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, a Temporary Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695·000004
2-23 Chapter 2
erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per the 2009 King County Surface
Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by City of Renton. Following construction, a
permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009
KCSWDM. Stormwater runoff would be collected from impervious surfaces and conveyed to
Lake Washington through a piped stormwater drainage system. Stormwater would be
discharged to the lake. via three new outfalls. Stormwater runoff from pollution-generating
surfaces (i.e. roadways and surface parking lots) would be treated prior to discharge to the lake.
No stormwater detention would be required, per City regulations (see Section 3.2, Critical
Areas, for details).
Institutional controls, such as worker safety standards, approved by EPA would be implemented
for future utility installations requiring site disturbance after implementation of the final remedial
action.
Alternative 2 -Lower-density Alternative
Similar to Alternative 1, the site would be subdivided into 7 lots, 4 of which would contain mixed-
use buildings and three of which would contain the Shoreline Restoration Area. Below is a
description of the specific features of redevelopment under Alternative 2 (see Figure 2-9, Site
Plan -Alternative 2 and Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for a summary/break down of redevelopment under
Alternative 2).
Residential
Alternative 2 would provide a total of 708 multifamily residential units. Residential units would
be located in all of the buildings onsite. A net residential density of 40 dwelling units per acre
would result (708 dwelling units/17.53 acres of useable area). Like Alternative 1, both
apartment and condominium units would likely be provided, and it is anticipated that the units
would be targeted towards middle and upper income households.
Office
Alternative 2 would not feature any office uses.
Retail and Restaurant
The same amount of retail (21,600 SF) and restaurant (9,000 SF) uses in the same general
areas onsite would be included under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1 (at ground level in
buildings NW 1 and SW 3, along Street "B"). These uses are antiCipated to employ
approximately 50 people.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-24 Chapter 2
Figure 2-9
Site Plan -Alternative 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184 1 7902v3 003269S-{)00004
2-25 Chapter 2
Access/Parking
As under Alternative 1, vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley
Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site, as well as via the extension of N 43 rd Street (from
the exiting Barbee Mill access) in the southeast quadrant of the site. The applicant proposes to
dedicate approximately 3.6 acres of public right-of-way to provide access to the 7 proposed lots.
East-west access within the site would be provided by Drives "D" and "F" (private driveways)
and Street "B" (a public street); north-south access within the site would be provided by Streets
"A" and "C" (both public streets). Two traffic circles are also proposed (see Figure 2-9 and
Appendix C for cross-sections of the on-site roadways). Fire apparatus access roads would
need to meet applicable fire code requirements.
The two access pOints to the site would cross Port of Seattle property (the Railroad right-of-way)
at N 43 rd Street and a new access drive onto Ripley Lane N in the northeast quadrant of the site
(see Figure 2-9). These site access roads would be within dedicated public rights-of-way and
would include sidewalks, curb cuts and gutters.
Parking for approximately 1,364 cars would be provided in structured and surface parking
areas. Approximately 988 structured parkin9 stalls would be located above grade in one level
beneath the proposed buildings, as well as on two parking decks located in the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the site. Approximately 376 at-grade surface parking stalls would occur
in two surface parking lots located in the northwest and southwest quadrants of the site, as well
as along and at the terminus of Street "B" (see Figure 2-9). No underground parking would be
provided.
Open Space/Recreational Facilities
For purposes of this EIS, it has been calculated that approximately 11.8 acres of open space
and related areas would be provided onsite, including: paved plazas, natural areas, landscaped
areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. The characteristics of the open space and related areas
would be similar to Alternative 1. This open space and related areas mayor may not meet the
City's standards, regulations, and procedures to be considered open space.
Building Design
Similar to Alternative 1, nine buildings would be constructed on the Main Property under
Alternative 2. These buildings would range in size from approximately 77,000 to 112,800
square feel. The maximum height of the buildings would be 6 stories (5 stories over 1 story of
parking) or a maximum of approximately 67 feet, as compared to 7 stories and a maximum of
80 feet under Alternative 1.
Building design concepts would be similar to Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-10, Representative
Elevations -Alternative 2) and would meet fire protection and detection requirements from the
current City of Renton fire code ordinance and the 2009 International Building Code.
Landscape Design
The applicant's proposed Shoreline Restoration Plan as described in Appendix E, would be
similar to Alternative 1 (see Figure 2-11, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative
2 and Figure 2-7, Wetland D Buffer Width Averaging -Alternatives 1 and 2). The landscape
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 184179{J2v3 0032695.(J00004
2-26 Chapter 2
design for the upland area of the Main Property would also be similar to Alternative 1 (see
Figure 2-8).
Figure 2-10
Representative Building Elevations -Alternative 2
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-(100004
2-27 Chapter 2
Figure 2-11
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -Alternative 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-28 Chapter 2
Grading
Grading for site cleanup/remediation and redevelopment would be similar to Alternative 1.
Utilities
The provision of utilities (water, sewer and stormwater control) would be similar to Alternative 1.
2.7.4 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the Quendall
Terminals site at this time. Cleanup/remediation activities required by EPA will still occur (see
Sections 2.2 Background and 3.3, Environmental Health for details). Under the No Action
Alternative, a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be implemented in conjunction with site
cleanup/remediation and/or to resolve potential natural resource damages claims. Since the
cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the site, if no
redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition (post-
remediation) will likely be somewhat different than the baseline conditions assumed for
Alternatives 1 and 2, and described earlier in this chapter. Such differences could include:
• No publically accessible shoreline trail would be provided.
• Shoreline areas that are not part of any potential NRD settlement and outside of the
wetland/wetland buffer may not be restored.
• Remediation of the upland portion of the Main Property would likely include
seeding/temporary re-vegetation to prevent erosion and sedimentation until development
occurs at some point in the future.
• The stormwater control system would not be integrated into a redevelopment plan.
(See Figure 2-12, Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative.)
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-29 Chapter 2
Figure 2-12
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design -No Action Alternative
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695-000004
2-30 Chapter 2
2.8 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEFERRING PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
The benefits of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of
redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site include deferral of:
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the natural environment (i.e. critical areas);
and,
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the manmade environment (i.e. traffic
operations and aesthetics/views).
The disadvantages of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of
redevelopment include deferral of:
• The opportunity to restore the site to a productive use after remediation;
• The opportunity to provide a mixed-use development in the Kennydale neighborhood of
Renton, including residential, possibly office, retail, restaurant and open space uses;
• Development of a publically accessible trail along the Lake Washington shoreline; and,
• Tax revenues and other fees (i.e. permit, inspection and utility connection fees) that
would accrue to the City of Renton.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT 18417902v3 0032695'()00004
2-31 Chapter 2
3.2 CRITICAL AREAS
This section describes critical areas on the Ouendall Terminals site. including wetlands and
riparian habitat. Potential impacts to critical areas from redevelopment under the EIS alternatives
are evaluated. This section is based on the Wetland and Habitat Assessment Report (October
2010) prepared by Raedeke Associates. Inc. (see Appendix E to this DEIS).
Background Information
This section is based on a review of available documentation on the site and proposed
redevelopment, including the November 2009 wetland assessment, lake study, and habitat data
report prepared by Anchor OEA; the July 2010 conceptual Shoreline Restoration Conceptual
Design prepared by Anchor OEA; the November 2009 drainage report prepared by KPFF; and,
the Marsh 2010preliminaJ}' draft remedial investigation f3ref3areEldata provided by Anchor OEA
and Aspect Consulting. in March 2010. Site conditions and mapped resources were also
reviewed through King County's iMap system. See Appendix E for additional information on
sources that were reviewed.
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Pre-remediation Conditions
The Ouendall Terminals site is partially vegetated in trees, shrubs, grasses and herbaceous plant
species associated with upland, and wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington. The
disturbed upland area on the Main Property was heavily used during past log sorting activities and
primarily consists of grasses and herbs (see Chapter 2 for further information on the site's past
uses). Several wetlands in the upland area were originally constructed for interim historical
wastewater and stormwater control facilities and currently contain primarily scrub-shrub
vegetation, including invasive species. Shrub and forested areas occur in the western portions of
the Main Property, including along the Lake Washington shoreline. The Main Property contains
over 450 trees that range from 6 inches to 32 inches in diameter. The riparian habitat on the Main
Property along the lake shoreline, including the wetland buffer areas, contains features such as
snags and downed woody debris. Vegetation on the Isolated Property typically includes
scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation associated with wetland areas, including invasive species.
Wetlands
Ten existing wetlands, labeled A through J and totaling approximately 0.9 acres have been
identified and delineated on the site (see Figure 20 in Appendix D for a map of the existing
wetlands). Eight of the delineated wetlands (A through H) are located on the Main Property,
primarily in the western part of the property near and along the Lake Washington shoreline. Four
of these wetlands (A, D, F and H) are slope and/or lake-fringe wetlands associated with Lake
Washington. Of these, Wetlands A, D and F derive their hydrologic conditions largely from Lake
Washington. Wetland D also has an upper arm that extends farther from the lake to the south,
and likely collects some surface runoff from surrounding uplands. Wetland H was excavated in
2006 in conjunction with installation of an interim stormwater control system to convey stormwater
into the lake from a ditch along the south Main Property boundary, while trapping silt and wood
debris in several check dams.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-1 Critical Areas
The other four wetlands on the Main Property (B, C, E and G) are depressional wetlands which
are not associated with other surface waters. These were originally constructed as wastewater
and/or stormwater control facilities. These wetlands currently seasonally contain standing water.
As mentioned above, an interim stormwater control system is present on the Main Property and
consists of swales and berms, as well as a previously constructed sediment pond. The purpose
of the interim system is to control site runoff and erosion/sedimentation prior to site cleanup and
remediation. Surface runoff currently infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface
flow or swales. The existing on-site wetlands that correspond to constructed stormwater features
include Wetlands B, C, E, G and H.
The remaining two wetlands onsite (I and J) are present on the Isolated Property. Wetland I is a
depressional wetland, and Wetland J is a depressional and slope wetland that flows to an
adjacent stream. These two wetlands were created through grading and road construction and
receive stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces.
The wetlands on the Quendall Terminals site typically consist of forest and scrub-shrub or
scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation, or combinations of all three cover types. Wetlands were
rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) rating system, as well as the
City of Renton (2010) Critical Areas Regulations. All the wetlands onsite met the criteria for
Category III wetlands according to Ecology's rating system, except for Wetland D (Category II)
and Wetlands C and H (Category IV). Based on the City of Renton's wetland rating criteria,
Wetlands Band E were rated as Category 1, wetland A, D and F were rated as Category 2, and
the remaining wetlands, C, G, H, I and J, were rated as Category 3.
The snags, downed woody debris and dense cover in the riparian habitat along the Lake
Washington shoreline on the Main Property currently provides habitat for a variety of species,
including cavity-nesting birds, small mammals, and waterfowl. No priority habitats have been
identified on the project site. Priority wetland habitat occurs south and east of the site (within
approximately 500 feet) along May Creek and its tributaries. Priority fish species, including coho,
fall Chinook, and sockeye salmon, as well as resident cutthroat trout and winter steelhead, are
documented to occur in May Creek. These species, as well as Dolly Varden/bull trout, are also
documented to occur within Lake Washington.
May Creek comes within approximately 400 feet of the southeastern portion of the site when it
passes under Lake Washington Boulevard. However, no runoff from the Quendall Terminals site
drains to May Creek. Any protective buffers associated with May Creek do not extend onto the
site. There are also wetlands located on the Sea hawk's property to the north. Buffers associated
with these wetlands do not extend onto the Quendall Terminals site.
Post-Remediation Existing Conditions
~ollo'llin§As discussed in Section 2.2, this EIS assumes that site sleanup aREI remeEliation, it is
aS6umeEl that the entire Main Preperty, insluElin§ the uplanEl anEl shoreline areas, will se sappeEl
'Nith two to three feet of soil. This sappin§ 'Nillremediation will include a cap and/or removal and
backfill with clean soil resulting in a clean soil surface over the Main Property. Capping and/or soil
removal and replacement could result in the fillfilling of all of the existing wetlands and elimination
of riparian habitat on this property. No sappin§ anEl assosiateEl fillfilling of wetlands willis assumed
t2 occur on the Isolated Property. CertainTo mitigate for these cleanup-related impacts,
additional wetlands 'Nill se reestaslisheEl/expanEleEl anEl riparian hasitat will se
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-2 Critical Areas
reereateElienhaneeEl 'Nith imi3lementation of aeclJSLriPerjan habitat would be recestablished and/or
expanded. While specificationsJqrshoreline mitigation and restoration will not be finalized until
the ROD and/or a potential natural resource damages settlement this EJS-<lS~UmElJ1~R
post-remediation condition that wouldal!Q""J!l~c,greatest area for development (see Chapter 1.
Section 1.1 and ChapteLf+~§ection 2.2 for further information regarding how EPA will finalize
remediation requirement§J",-The Shoreline Restoration Plan (seeassumed in this EI~ based,S1P
th~J~lll,.Renton Shoreline Management Plan requirements.!lnd Appendix E of the DEIS is
depicted in Figures 2-6 and 2-11 for the Shoreline Restoration Coneei3tual Design under
Alternatives 1 and 2, respectivelyfr-. If the environment mitigation/restorationsrestoratiQIl
requirementsi~LIl+EPA takes the position it can impose greater mitigation ratLQ§".~buffers,
setbJ!.kks) are more stringent at the time the ROD is deveLQIled, the wetland and shoreline
restoration areas will probably beJarg!;lrthan depicted in Figures 2c6 and 2-11.
Wetlands
As mentioned above, it is assumed that all of the wetlands on the Main Property wilIwould be filled
witRalLa [l;ls.u1Lof the assumed cai3i3ing of Ihis i3rei3eFly for sleanui3!remediation. Threecapping
and/or soil removal and replacement with clean fill that L§~~!mected to occur during site cleanup.
EPA will not determine the firwl W-D!land impacts and mitigation requirements until it identifies tl}e
final cleanup plan for the site and issues its Record of Decision (ROD), As discussed in.s~Y!L9D
2.2~ the Applicant will be required to comply with anYEquirernents imposed by EPA as a part of
cleanup under the federal ROD, even if those requirements are not articulated in this EIS or City
approvals. PreviguslY+ approved standards, focused on the protection of human hea!tllaodJtle
environment such as wetlands and neceSSarY habitaU>'y~1}e City as part of the EIS process could
be changed pursuant to the ROD. In the eVlillLthe.final cleanup remedy selected by EPA will
result in a post-remedj~tion baseline that is Significantly larger from the baseline conditior:J§
desQIi_beg, ,in this DEIS and thus the redevelopment footprint is srn.!!.Iler. the Citv will determine
wt:lelher such changes warrant submittal of a supplO!Dental EIS or other documentation as
appropriate.
I~ssumed that three of the wetlands along the shoreline (A, 0 and H) wiIlwould be
re-established, and two of these wetlands (A and D) wilIwould be expanded to mitigate for wetland
fill on the remainder of the site. The assumed cleanup would not impact the two wetlands
identified on the Isolated Property (I and J) will not l3e imi3aeteEl l3y the eleanui3iremediation. and
Wetland J wilIwould be expanded as part of the mitigation for wetland impacts associated with site
remediation. This EJS.assumes these post-[l;lmediation conditions because they I\(QuJd result in
tOe,g,Lf:laj,est area for redevelopment based on the 1983 Reokm..sboreline Management Plan and
Appendix E of the DEIS.
SutJjeet 10 EPA approval,Similarly~Lwas ass.umed that impacts to on-site wetlands witRresulting
from cleanup/remediation will likelyand/or any potential natural resource.-dama,gelLSOttlement
would be mitigated at a 1.5: 1 ratio, (which would allow the greatest area for redeveJoRm~
based on the 1983 ~eDton Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of theJ)I::I~ except for
those that are exempt from critical area regulation (e.g. Wetland G) which wilIwould be mitigated
at a 1:1 ratio per City of Renton critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050.C(f), due to its small size
and physical isolation. Based on the Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Designs for Alternatives 1
and 2, the overall compensatory wetland creation/expansion (at Wetlands A, 0 and J) wilIwoUld
total approximately 31,800 square feet (see Figures 2-6 and 2-11). The wetlands that wilIWQJ.!ld
be re-established or expanded along the Lake Washington shoreline with remediation wilIare
assumed to be classified as Category 2 wetlands per the City of Renton (2010) Municipal Code,
which requires a 50-foot buffer for commercial uses. The expanded Wetland J in the Isolated
Property wilI~ remain a Category 3 wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer under the City of
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-3 Critical Areas
Renton (2010) Municipal Code. Wetland I wiIlWO.J,!.!£j remain a Category 3 wetland, which requires
a 25-foot buffer. None of the proposed wetland buffers would extend onto adjacent properties,
due to buffer averaging.
The reestablished/expanded wetlands along Lake Washington (A, D and H) wiIlare assumed in
this EIS to include emergent, scrub-shrub and forested components to mitigate for the losses of
similar cover types along the shoreline. These will alsecleanup/remediation and/or Qoteu\@1
natural resource damage restoration actions are assumed to include open water components and
large woody debris to diversify habitat conditions along the shoreline. The assumed expansion of
Wetland J wiIlwould similarly include a mix of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. This
is intended to compensate for remediation impacts to on-site wetlands and/or potential natural
resource damages not associated with Lake Washington (8, C, E and G) and is expected to
diversify and improve wetland habitat on this part of the site over the current mix of invasive
species, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygras5canarv grass.
Wetland/riparian buffer areas wiIlare also ~-.e.dJQ be revegetated along the Lake Washington
shoreline follewing §s ~~.p.arLgLc~.2J1UWremediation and/or any potential natural resource
da.!l1.ages ... ..5.ettiement. The baseline condition assumes re-vegetation of at least the minimum
50-foot wetland buffer areas, consistent with City of Renton regulations. The wetland/riparian
buffers wiIlwould likely consist of a variety of cover types, including shrub habitat of willows and
other water-tolerant shrubs, as well as both deciduous and coniferous forest cover types.
The newly planted wetland vegetation is expected to establish within the first growing season
following cleanup/remedi<!1iQn ~mdLgri!J1d2leJ1J_e.nl.ation of actions required in any potential natural
re.s.ource damage.s. settlement. Generally, after the first growing season, 80 to 90 percent of tree
and shrub species plantings can be expected to survive, and emergent wetland plantings can be
expected to provide 10 to 15 percent cover. As the tree and shrub species grow, they will
continue to provide more cover and structural diversity in the restored/enhanced wetland and
buffer areas. Functional habitat will be provided immediately following establishment of new
plantings, but will continue to improve as the wetland matures. Fully functioning habitat is
generally provided after three to five growing seasons, when total cover of tree and shrub
plantings is on the order of 30 to 40 percent, and cover of emergent wetland plantings is on the
order of 50 to 75 percent (Anchor QEA, 2010).
A 25-foot buffer, at a minimum, will remain on the expanded Wetland J and retained Wetland I
within the Isolated Property. Thus, the baseline condition for this part the site is assumed to
consist of Wetland I and its buffer and an expanded and diversified Wetland J and its buffer. The
Washington State Department of Transportation may use the Isolated Property for the future
1-405 widening and NE 44'h Street interchange improvement project (see Section 3.9,
Transportation, for additional information). However, a final design is not complete for this
project, and WSDOT would be responsible for providing compensation if the wetlands or wetland
buffers on this area of the site are impacted.
The Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design assumed to be implemented as part of
cleanup/remediation and/or any -potential natural resource damages settlement and retained
under Alternatives 1 and 2 includes construction of a small, continuous wave-attenuation berm
composed of permeable material, such as sand and gravel, between Wetland D and the lake to
protect the wetland from wave energy and to minimize erosion and associated habitat
disturbance. A similar, but discontinuous berm wiIlwould be constructed along the lake along
portions of Wetland A. The water level and hydrology of the re-establish ed/expanded Wetlands A
and D wiIl~ be controlled by the water surface elevation of Lake Washington, but surface
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-4 Critical Areas
water cannectian wiIIwauld anly be present between the lake and partians af Wetland A The
cantinuaus wave attenuatian berm that 'Nill-sepafaleseparating all af Wetland D from the lake
wiIIwauld be cantralled by Lake Washing tan elevatians via a graundwater cannectian. As a result,
while bath Wetlands A and D wiIIWQuld be "assaciated" with the shareline, Wetland D wiIIwauld
nat be cantiguaus with the lake, and the ardinary high water mark (OHWM) in this area wiIIWQY)d
fallaw the wetland baundary far wetlands cantiguaus with Lake Washingtan (west af Wetland D in
this case). With the discantinuaus wave attenuatian berm that will be canstructed alang the lake
alang partians af Wetland A, the OHWM in the Wetland A area wiIIwauld fallaw the
re-established/expanded wetland baundary (the eastern wetland baundary in this case; see
Figures 2·10 and 2·11).
3.2.2 Impacts
This sectian evaluates patential impacts to. wetland and riparian habitats ooreestablished and/ar
expanded as part af the cleanup/remediatian af and/ar any patential natural resaurce damages
settlement far the Quendall Terminals site ffilfiR§l!-R.iU§§.J.!lt . .9LsJ.Jbsequent canstructian and
aperatian af the propased redevelapment. As discussed in Sectian 2.2. the Applicant will b~
required to. cam ply with any requirements impased by EPA as a part af cleanup under the federal
RQD.+ ___ .!i\!~n--jLil}Q§.e requirements ..l!Ie_.JD.Qre_J,tdn.~JJL.Qr not articulated in this EIS or City
approvals.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, mixed-use development is proposed on the upland portian of the Main
Property, in an area that will be sapped with is assumed to be covered with clean soil (as a result
of capping and/or removal of cantaminSllkm and replacement with clean fill as part of the site
cleanup/remediationl. The sapped shoreline restoratian area alang Lake Washington,
totalingassumed to total approximately 3.2 acres, would largely remain in the post-remediation
condition. +Risltis assumed this area wauld cansist of a revegetated riparian zone that includes
reestablished/expanded wetland areas, wetland buffers, and restored/enhanced riparian habitat.
Alf approved by EPA a trail that wauld be accessible to the public would be provided along the
shoreline, and would include interpretive wetland viewpoints (see Figure 2·6, Shoreline
Restoration Plan Conceptual DeSign -Alternative 1). No develapment would occur on the
Isolated Property. This praperty would remain in its past-remediation conditian-as, which l§
assumed to include retained/expanded wetlands and their buffers.
Direct Impacts
Under Alternative 1, no direct impacts would occur to the assumed retained/expanded wetlands
(Wetlands I and J) on the Isalated Property, ar the assumed re-established/expanded wetlands
(Wetlands A, D and H) on the Main Property. The wetlands along the Lake Washington shoreline
(Wetlands A, D and H) would be retained within a re-vegetated riparian zone. Similarly, Wetlands
I and J on the Isalated Praperty would be retained within natural open space.
A portion af the buffer an Wetland D W91Mis propased by the applicant to be reduced to. 25 feet;
other partions of the buffer would be expanded to provide compensatary area, as allowed by the
buffer averaging provisions in the City of Rentan Municipal Code (see Figure 2·7 far a depiction
of the Wetland D buffer averaging). The area of buffer expansion (nearly 6,000 square feet)
wauld exceed the area of buffer reduction (approximately 5,400 square feet) so that more total
buffer area would be provided with the proposed buffer averaging, consistent with buffer
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-5 Critical Areas
averaging provisions in the Code. Wetland A would be provided with a minimum 50-foot buffer,
plus additional upland riparian habitat within the re-vegetated riparian zone. Thus, the buffer
width along Wetland A would range from 50 feet to well over 100 feet. Wetland H would be
protected with a 50-foot buffer, which exceeds the required 25-foot minimum buffer based on its
classification. A publically accessible, unpaved pedestrian trail is also proposed within the riparian
habitat and would cross the wetland buffer areas. EPA takes the position that it may impose
additional conditions that affect the wetland buffers.
Prol3osesln assilion 10 any environmental set9a~re\Hlkements imsoses 9... EPA,
£lF9S0SesProposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the shoreline under
Alternative 1, as required by the City of Renton 1983 Shoreline Master Program, as amended
(Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-090). This setback would be measured from the eastern
edge of Wetland A and from the OHWM, including along the continuous shoreline attenuation
berm near Wetland D. The re-vegetated riparian area extends well beyond the required 50-foot
shoreline setback in several locations (see Figure 2-7). It is EPA's position that it can impose
additional setback requirements.
+hfeeSubject to EPA's approval, three stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the
shoreline area to convey treated stormwater from the developed areas of the site to Lake
Washington. Construction of these outfalls would be in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM to
prevent erosion and sedimentation of the lake. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct
impacts to the reestablished/expanded wetland areas and designed with energy dissipation to
prevent erosion during operation. Together with the proposed trail, these are relatively minor
encroachfllents that are not expected to adversely affect the integrity of the Lake Washington
shoreline. These outfalls, which may either discharge into nearshore wetlands or directly into
Lake Washington, could be constructed during site cleanup/remediation to reduce potential
impacts to the shoreline area.
Indirect Impacts
Proposed redevelopment under Alternative 1 has the potential to cause indirect impacts to the
reestablished/expanded wetlands relating to hydrologic conditions and potential for erosion and
sediment deposition. Grading and construction of impervious surfaces and operation of the
permanent stormwater collection and treatment facilities would modify the surface hydrologic
conditions of the site, and thus potentially could affect hydrologic conditions of the wetlands.
During Construction
Clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed redevelopment would expose
erodible soils on the site. The potential for erosion and delivery of sediments to the wetlands
along the shoreline and to Lake Washington would be greatest during the construction period and
would depend on the construction season, soil types, the amount of exposed soils, slopes,
surface drainage patterns and mitigation measures employed. Sediment transport and
deposition, particularly during construction, can adversely impact plant and animal communities
of the wetlands and the lake by affecting water quality (increased turbidity, suspended and
settleable solids, temperature, pollutants), which could adversely affect the suitability of aquatic
habitats for various forms of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife.
Installation of certain utilities (i.e., the conveyance pipes to the stormwater outfalls) could disturb
vegetation that has been established in the Shoreline Restoration area with site remediation.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-6 Critical Areas
Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading associated
with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated areas.
The project would include implementation of a TESCP during construction, per the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control,
which would limit or prevent erosion or sediment deposition into the shoreline wetlands and the
lake. Some sediment deposition could occur within the wetland buffers, and potentially the
wetlands, especially during construction; however, the impacts to the wetlands are not expected
to be significant. PFeFl9Sedin addition to any requirements imposed by EPA proposed buffers
would range from 50 to well over 100 feet on Wetland A and from 25 feet to over 100 feet on
Wetland D. With appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., silt fences), and to the extent that
vegetation is established within the buffers as a part of site remediation, and on-site slopes are
assumed to be relatively gentle, the potential for sediment deposition into the wetlands would be
very limited. Therefore, no significant impacts to the shoreline wetlands, riparian habitat and the
lake would be anticipated during construction.
Following Construction
Following construction, the exposed upland portions of the Main Property would be covered in
buildings, paved areas and landscaping. A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for this
portion of the site. According to this plan, ornamental plants and, as possible, native plants that
are suited for this climate zone would be installed as landscaping throughout the property.
Landscaping would include new trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and species
(see Figure 2-8, Alternative 1 -Preliminary Landscape Plan). There would be much less potential
for erosion and sedimentation with the proposed redevelopment. Introduction of noxious weeds
or invasive species would be avoided to the extent practicable in areas that would be re-vegetated
as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with the native species planted, this would help
limit the unnecessary spread of invasive species that could adversely affect the suitability of open
space habitats onsite and in the vicinity for wildlife.
A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton.-'illd_-'!lliQ.in.accordance with EPA remediation ----_._------_ .. -
requirements. Stormwater runoff would be collected from impervious surfaces; conveyed to Lake
Washington through a piped stormwater drainage system; and, discharged to the lake via three
new outfalls. Stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e. roadways and surface
parking lots) would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. Roof runoff (considered to be
non-pollution generating) would be collected and discharged directly to the lake separately. No
stormwater detention would be required, per City regulations. The system would be designed to
contain and convey the 25-year peak flows from developed conditions for on-site tributary areas.
No upstream tributary areas would drain to the project site or the proposed stormwater control
system. Thus, no severe flooding or erosion problem would be expected from potential overflow
from a 1 ~O-year storm event. In addition, the outfalls to the lake from the stormwater control
system would be designed to prevent erosion at their outlets. Based on these factors, together
with the lack of direct stormwater discharge to the reestablished/expanded wetlands in the
shoreline area, no significant impacts to the on-site wetlands from erosion or sediment deposition
would be expected during operation of the project. Water quality impacts to the wetlands and lake
also would not be expected.
The reestablished/expanded wetlands along the lake shore (Wetlands A, 0 and H) would derive
their hydrology from the lake (as under existing conditions), rather than surface water runoff. The
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-7 Critical Areas
hydrology of the wetlands on the Isolated Property (Wetlands I and J) would not be affected, as no
development is proposed in that area.
Wildlife Habitat Impacts
With respect to wildlife habitat, after completion of the remediation measures...and/or measures
required as part of the potential natural resource.§.settlement, most of the site wiIIm~ be left as
bare soil, except the re-vegetated shoreline habitat, including the reestablishedl expanded
wetland areas. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas would not be expected to
remove significant habitat features or to displace wildlife from these upland areas. Some
disturbance of the re-vegetated shoreline habitat from human and construction activity may occur
during construction. However, this vegetation would likely be relatively recently established and
would initially provide limited habitat during this period.
After redevelopment, some wildlife species adapted to urban environments (e.g., starlings, house
sparrows, American robins, various swallows, American crows, raccoons) would likely come to
use the site over time and utilize the developing vegetation in the upland portion of the site, as well
as the native vegetation within the riparian zone. Given the urban context of the site and vicinity,
some of these urban-adapted species (e.g. starlings, crows) may limit use of the re-vegetated
shoreline habitats by other native species, such as cavity-nesting birds and songbirds.
Public use of the proposed shoreline trail within the re-vegetated riparian zone would likely cause
some noise and disturbance to wildlife in the vicinity of the trail. The trail itself would also form a
break in native vegetation within the area and maintain some fragmentation of the developing
habitat over time. However, the trail would also limit pedestrian access to the riparian area, and
would prevent human use and degradation of the re-vegetated shoreline area.
Overall, Alternative 1 is not expected to adversely impact terrestrial priority species, as none are
known to occur onsite. A variety of fish species, including salmonid fish, several of which are
federal or state-listed species, are known to use nearshore habitats within Lake Washington.
Following remediation, nearshore habitat conditions are expected to recover and improve over
pre-remediation conditions. The only development proposed in this area would be the storm water
outfalls, which would be installed in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM and EPA remediation
requirements.. As mentioned above, water quality treatment would be provided for stormwater
runoff from pollution-generating surfaces. Therefore, no significant impacts to the priority fish
species in the lake would be anticipated.
Alternative 2
Similar to Alternative 1, under Alternative 2 mixed-use development is proposed on the upland
portion of the Main Property, in an area that ..... ill be cappeEl with site~aJiSJ.tmed to be covered with
clean surface soil (as a result of capping andlor IlLmoval of contamination and replacement with
clean fill as part of cleanuplremediationl. The sappeEl shoreline restoration area along the Lake
Washington, totaliA§assumed to total approximately 3.2 acres, would largely remain in the
post-remediation condition. +rusH is assumed this area would consist of a re-vegetated riparian
zone that includes re-established/expanded wetland areas, wetland buffers, and
restoredlenhanced riparian habitat. Alf approved by EF'8.....a trail that would be accessible to the
public would be provided along the shoreline, and would include interpretive wetland viewpoints
(see Figure 2-11, Shoreline Restoration Plan Conceptual Design -Alternative 2). No
development would occur on the Isolated Property. This property would remain in its
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-8 Critical Areas
post-remediation condition-as,~'<lll:)ich is assumed to include retained/expanded wetlands and their
buffers.
Under Alternative 2, mixed-use development would include fewer residential units, essentially the
same area for commercial/retail uses and no office space. The shoreline restoration area,
encompassing the re-established/expanded wetlands and their buffers and restored/enhanced
shoreline habitat along the shoreline would be provided, encompassing slightly more area than
Alternative 1 (approximately 1,400 square feet more).
As under Alternative 1, no direct wetland impacts would occur under Alternative 2. No
development would occur within the Isolated Property, thus no direct impacts would occur to
Wetlands I and J, as under Alternative 1.
The same buffer averaging proposed by the applicant for Wetland D wooltIis also proposed by the
applicant to be applied under Alternative 2, such that the minimum buffer would be 25 feet and
additional compensatory buffer area would be provided (see Figure 2-7). Wetland A would be
provided with essentially the same buffer as under Alternative 1, ranging from a minimum of 50
feet wide to well over 100 feet wide.
Alternative 2 is assumed to include implementation of a similar TESCP plan during construction
and a similar permanent stormwater control plan as Alternative 1. Thus, significant indirect
impacts to on-site wetlands and the lake would not be expected from stormwater runoff during
construction and operation of the project.
With a similar footprint and site features, such as the publicly accessible trail, the redevelopment
under Alternative 2 would be expected to result in essentially the same impacts to wildlife habitat
as under Alternative 1. With fewer residential units and no office development, human activity
and noise levels would be slightly less than under Alternative 1. Given the urban context of the
area, however, impacts from disturbance and noise would likely be similar to under Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no redevelopment would occur on the Quendall Terminals site at
this time. The site would remain in a post-remediation condition, with a-Gaj:)clean surface soil
present over the entire Main Property and re-established and expanded wetlands along the
shoreline ans an e*flanses wetlans (Wetlana J) on the Isolates Proflerty. The restored/enhanced
and re-vegetated areas along the lake are assumed to include fUlly-re-vegetated 50-foot buffers
of Wetlands A and D, as part of the remediation. No additional riparian habitat restoration area is
assumed to be established that would connect Wellands A and D. No buffer averaging would be
necessary on Weiland D. No publically accessible trail with interpretive weiland viewpoints would
be provided in the shoreline restoration area. It is anticipated that the upland portions of the site
would be seeded with some kind of cover crop to provide temporary re-vegetation until
development occurs at some time in the future.
Under the No Action Alternative, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the wetlands along
the Lake Washington shoreline on the Main Property or on the Isolated Property. Less area along
the shoreline would be re-vegetated to establish riparian habitat than under Alternatives 1 and 2.
However, it is assumed that vegetation would gradually become established over time along the
shoreline between the re-established wetlands and their buffers.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-9 Critical Areas
The process of natural succession would occur under the No Action Alternative, as long as the
site is not redeveloped. Vegetation in the restored/enhanced areas would grow and develop over
time. Given enough time and lack of a major disturbance (such as fire), the seeded upland areas
would gradually re-vegetate as well, as has occurred after cessation of activities on the site
previously. This vegetation would likely consist of a combination of native (e.g. red alder, black
cottonwood, willow) and exotic invasive species (e.g. Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed)
adapted to disturbed areas.
No impacts to wildlife, including priority fish species in the lake, would be anticipated under this
alternative.
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented during construction, per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth, and Appendix
D for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent or limit impacts to the lake and
shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Following Construction
• Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the
retainedlre-established/expanded wetlands onsite.
• Re-established/expanded wetlands would be retained in an open space tract that includes
required buffers and a riparian habitat enhancement area.
• WetlaAslrLadQiliQ.I1-.\Q any requirements impQsed by EPA. wetland buffer areas would
meet or exceed the minimum City-required buffers for Wetlands A, D and H (the Wetland
D buffer would meet the City's requirement through buffer averaging). Wetland I and J
would also be provided with buffers that meet or exceed ,!-oplicable City requirements.
• Proposes In addition to any setbacks requires requirements impose.d.bLt=:PA. proPQsed
buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the OHWM, as requires by...in
cQmpliance with the City of Renton's 1983 Shoreline Master Program, which reguires a
minimum setback Qf 50 feet for cQmmercial uses and 2~Jeel fQr residential uses for
Category 2 wetland~ (see SectiQn 3 for additional details).
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton and cQnsistent with
EPA remediation requirements. The system would collect and convey stormwater runoff
to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system. Water quality treatment would be provided
for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake
and shoreline wetlands.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-10 Critical Areas
• Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area
on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
• Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in the
vicinity for wildlife.
• Alf approved by EPA a publicly accessible, unpaved trail would be provided through the
shoreline area that would include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading
associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated
areas.
• Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site
remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment.
3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas would be anticipated.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-11 Critical Areas
Document compariSODRyWOrkshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11'46'23 AM
IlnDut:
DocumenLt 10 interwovenSite:lldwtdQcslDWTf18418142f1
Descriotion #18418142v1<DWT> -Section 3,2 Critical Areas fcleanl
Document ?ID interw()venSite:lldwtdocsIDWTf18418142f2
Descriotion #18418142v2<DWT> -Section 3,2 Critical Areas [clean]
Bendering set standard _. __ .-._. --
Stati~ti!:<~;
CQUot
Insertions 7
Deletions 4
MQ'Led from Q
Moved to Q
Style change Q
FQrmatcbaoged 0
Total changes 11
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11 "48'13 AM
Input:
Document 1 ID lfile://C:\Users\paks\Desktop\DEIS\ 10-13-11 \Section 3 2 -
Critical Areas [Original).docx
Description Section 3 2 -Critical Areas [Original]
Document 2 ID interwovenSite://dwtdocs/DWT/18419662/1
Description !#18419662v1<DWT> -Section 3.2 Critical Areas CMP
Rendering set standard
Legend:
Insertion
geietiefl
Moved-.frem
MJlvedJ~
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
I nserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 139
Deletions 73
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 212
3.2 CRITICAL AREAS
This section describes critical areas on the Quendall Terminals site, including wetlands and
riparian habitat. Potential impacts to critical areas from redevelopment under the EIS
alternatives are evaluated. This section is based on the Wetland and Habitat Assessment
Report (October 2010) prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (see Appendix E to thisDEIS) ..
Background Information
This section is based on a review of available documentation on the site and proposed
redevelopment, including the November 2009 wetland assessment, lake study, and habitat data
report prepared by Anchor QEA; the July 2010 conceptual Shoreline Restoration Conceptual
Design prepared by Anchor QEA; the November 2009 drainage report prepared by KPFF; and,
preliminary draft remedial investigation data provided by Anchor QEA and Aspect Consulting in
March 2010. Site conditions and mapped resources were also reviewed through King County's
iMap system. See Appendix E for additional information on sources that were reviewed.
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Pre-remediation Conditions
The Quendall Terminals site is partially vegetated in trees, shrubs, grasses and herbaceous
plant species associated with upland, and wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington.
The disturbed upland area on the Main Property was heavily used during past log sorting
activities and primarily consists of grasses and herbs (see Chapter 2 for further information on
the site's past uses). Several wetlands in the upland area were originally constructed for interim
historical wastewater and stormwater control facilities and currently contain primarily scrub-
shrub vegetation, including invasive species. Shrub and forested areas occur in the western
portions of the Main Property, including along the Lake Washington shoreline. The Main
Property contains over 450 trees that range from 6 inches to 32 inches in diameter. The
riparian habitat on the Main Property along the lake shoreline, including the wetland buffer
areas, contains features such as snags and downed woody debris. Vegetation on the Isolated
Property typically includes scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation associated with wetland areas,
including invasive species.
Wetlands
Ten existing wetlands, labeled A through J and totaling approximately 0.9 acres have been
identified and delineated on the site (see Figure 20 in Appendix 0 for a map of the existing
wetlands). Eight of the delineated wetlands (A through H) are located on the Main Property,
primarily in the western part of the property near and along the Lake Washington shoreline.
Four of these wetlands (A, D, F and H) are slope and/or lake-fringe wetlands associated with
Lake Washington. Of these, Wetlands A, D and F derive their hydrologic conditions largely from
Lake Washington. Wetland D also has an upper arm that extends farther from the lake to the
south, and likely collects some surface runoff from surrounding uplands. Wetland H was
excavated in 2006 in conjunction with installation of an interim stormwater control system to
convey stormwater into the lake from a ditch along the south Main Property boundary, while
trapping silt and wood debris in several check dams.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-1 Critical Areas
The other four wetlands on the Main Property (B, C, E and G) are depressional wetlands which
are not associated with other surface waters. These were originally constructed as wastewater
and/or stormwater control facilities. These wetlands currently seasonally contain standing
water.
As mentioned above, an interim stormwater control system is present on the Main Property and
consists of swales and berms, as well as a previously constructed sediment pond. The purpose
of the interim system is to control site runoff and erosion/sedimentation prior to site cleanup and
remediation. Surface runoff currently infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface
flow or swales. The existing on-site wetlands that correspond to constructed stormwater
features include Wetlands B, C, E, G and H.
The remaining two wetlands onsite (I and J) are present on the Isolated Property. Wetland I is a
depressional wetland, and Wetland J is a depressional and slope wetland that flows to an
adjacent stream. These two wetlands were created through grading and road construction and
receive stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces.
The wetlands on the Quendall Terminals site typically consist of forest and scrub-shrub or
scrub-shrub and emergent vegetation, or combinations of all three cover types. Wetlands were
rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) rating system, as well as
the City of Renton (2010) Critical Areas Regulations. All the wetlands onsite met the criteria for
Category III wetlands according to Ecology's rating system, except for Wetland 0 (Category II)
and Wetlands C and H (Category IV). Based on the City of Renton's wetland rating criteria,
Wetlands Band E were rated as Category 1, wetland A, 0 and F were rated as Category 2, and
the remaining wetlands, C, G, H, I and J, were rated as Category 3.
The snags, downed woody debris and dense cover in the riparian habitat along the Lake
Washington shoreline on the Main Property currently provides habitat for a variety of species,
including cavity-nesting birds, small mammals, and waterfowl. No priority habitats have been
identified on the project site. Priority wetland habitat occurs south and east of the site (within
approximately 500 feet) along May Creek and its tributaries. Priority fish species, including
coho, fall Chinook, and sockeye salmon, as well as resident cutthroat trout and winter
steelhead, are documented to occur in May Creek. These species, as well as Dolly Varden/bull
trout, are also documented to occur within Lake Washington.
May Creek comes within approximately 400 feet of the southeastern portion of the site when it
passes under Lake Washington Boulevard. However, no runoff from the Quendall Terminals
site drains to May Creek. Any protective buffers associated with May Creek do not extend onto
the site. There are also wetlands located on the Seahawk's property to the north. Buffers
associated with these wetlands do not extend onto the Quendall Terminals site.
Post-Remediation Existing Conditions
As discussed in Section 2.2, this EIS assumes that site remediation will include a cap and/or
removal and backfill with clean soil resulting in a clean soil surface over the Main Property.
Capping and/or soil removal and replacement could result in the filling of all of the existing
wetlands and elimination of riparian habitat on this property. No filling of wetlands is assumed
to occur on the Isolated Property. To mitigate for these cleanup-related impacts, additional
wetlands and riparian habitat would be re-established and/or expanded. While specifications for
shoreline mitigation and restoration will not be finalized until the ROD and/or a potential natural
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-2 Critical Areas
resource damages settlement, this EIS assumes a post-remediation condition that would allow
the greatest area for development (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1 and Chapter 2, Section 2.2 for
further information regarding how EPA will finalize remediation requirements). The Shoreline
Restoration Plan assumed in this EIS, based on the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan
requirements and Appendix E of the DEIS is depicted in Figures 2-6 and 2-11 for Alternatives 1
and 2, respectively. If the environment mitigation/restoration requirements (e.g., EPA takes the
position it can impose greater mitigation ratios, buffers, setbacks) are more stringent at the time
the ROD is developed, the wetland and shoreline restoration areas will probably be larger than
depicted in Figures 2-6 and 2-11.
Wetlands
As mentioned above, it is assumed that all of the wetlands on the Main Property would be filled
as a result of the capping and/or soil removal and replacement with clean fill that is expected to
occur during site cleanup. EPA will not determine the final wetland impacts and mitigation
requirements until it identifies the final cleanup plan for the site and issues its Record of
Decision (ROD). As discussed in Section 2.2, the Applicant will be required to comply with any
requirements imposed by EPA as a part of cleanup under the federal ROD, even if those
requirements are not articulated in this EIS or City approvals. Previously, approved standards,
focused on the protection of human health and the environment such as wetlands and
necessary habitat, by the City as part of the EIS process could be changed pursuant to the
ROD. In the event the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA will result in a post-remediation
baseline that is significantly larger from the baseline conditions described in this DEIS and thus
the redevelopment footprint is smaller, the City will determine whether such changes warrant
submittal of a supplemental EIS or other documentation as appropriate.
It is assumed that three of the wetlands along the shoreline (A, 0 and H) would be re-
established, and two of these wetlands (A and D) would be expanded to mitigate for wetland fill
on the remainder of the site. The assumed cleanup would not impact the two wetlands
identified on the Isolated Property (I and J) and Wetland J would be expanded as part of the
mitigation for wetland impacts associated with site remediation. This EIS assumes these post-
remediation conditions because they would result in the greatest area for redevelopment based
on the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS.
Similarly, it was assumed that impacts to ol1-site wetlands resulting from cleanup/remediation
and/or any potential natural resource damages settlement would be mitigated at a 1.5: 1 ratio
(which would allow the greatest area for redevelopment) based on the 1983 Renton Shoreline
Management Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS except for those that are exempt from critical
area regulation (e.g. Wetland G) which would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio per City of Renton
critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050.C(f), due to its small size and physical isolation. Based
on the Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Designs for Alternatives 1 and 2, the overall
compensatory wetland creation/expansion (at Wetlands A, 0 and J) would total approximately
31,800 square feet (see Figures 2-6 and 2-11). The wetlands that would be re-established or
expanded along the Lake Washington shoreline with remediation are assumed to be classified
as Category 2 wetlands per the City of Renton (2010) Municipal Code, which requires a 50-foot
buffer for commercial uses. The expanded Wetland J in the Isolated Property would remain a
Category 3 wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer under the City of Renton (2010) Municipal
Code. Wetland I would remain a Category 3 wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer. None of
the proposed wetland buffers would extend onto adjacent properties, due to buffer averaging.
The reestablished/expanded wetlands along Lake Washington (A, 0 and H) are assumed in this
EIS to include emergent, scrub-shrub and forested components to mitigate for the losses of
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-3 Critical Areas
similar cover types along the shoreline. These cleanup/remediation and/or potential natural
resource damage restoration actions are· assumed to include open water components and large
woody debris to diversify habitat conditions along the shoreline. The assumed expansion of
Wetland J would similarly include a mix of emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. This is
intended to compensate for remediation impacts to on-site wetlands and/or potential natural
resource damages not associated with Lake Washington (8, C, E and G) and is expected to
diversify and improve wetland habitat on this part of the site over the current mix of invasive
species, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass.
Wetland/riparian buffer areas are also assumed to be revegetated along the Lake Washington
shoreline as a part of cleanup/remediation and/or any potential natural resource damages
settlement. The baseline condition assumes re-vegetation of at least the minimum 50-foot
wetland buffer areas, consistent with City of Renton regulations. The wetland/riparian buffers
would likely consist of a variety of cover types, including shrub habitat of willows and other
water-tolerant shrubs, as well as both deciduous and coniferous forest cover types.
The newly planted wetland vegetation is expected to establish within the first growing season
following cleanup/remediation and/or implementation of actions required in any potential natural
resource damages settlement. Generally, after the first growing season, 80 to 90 percent of
tree and shrub species plantings can be expected to survive, and emergent wetland plantings
can be expected to provide 10 to 15 percent cover. As the tree and shrub species grow, they
will continue to provide more cover and structural diversity in the restored/enhanced wetland
and buffer areas. Functional habitat will be provided immediately following establishment of
new plantings, but will continue to improve as the wetland matures. Fully functioning habitat is
generally provided after three to five growing seasons, when total cover of tree and shrub
plantings is on the order of 30 to 40 percent, and cover of emergent wetland plantings is on the
order of 50 to 75 percent (Anchor QEA, 2010).
A 25-foot buffer, at a minimum, will remain on the expanded Wetland J and retained Wetland I
within the Isolated Property. Thus, the baseline condition for this part the site is assumed to
consist of Wetland I and its buffer and an expanded and diversified Wetland J and its buffer.
The Washington State Department of Transportation may use the Isolated Property for the
future 1-405 widening and NE 44th Street interchange improvement project (see Section 3.9,
Transportation, for additional information). However, a final design is not complete for this
project, and WSDOT would be responsible for providing compensation if the wetlands or
wetland buffers on this area of the site are impacted.
The Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design assumed to be implemented as part of
cleanup/remediation and/or any potential natural resource damages settlement and retained
under Alternatives 1 and 2 includes construction of a small, continuous wave-attenuation berm
composed of permeable material, such as sand and gravel, between Wetland D and the lake to
protect the wetland from wave energy and to minimize erosion and associated habitat
disturbance. A similar, but discontinuous berm would be constructed along the lake along
portions of Wetland A. The water level and hydrology of the re-established/expanded Wetlands
A and D would be controlled by the water surface elevation of Lake Washington, but surface
water connection would only be present between the lake and portions of Wetland A. The
continuous wave attenuation berm separating all of Wetland D from the lake would be controlled
by Lake Washington elevations via a groundwater connection. As a result, while both Wetlands
A and D would be "associated" with the shoreline, Wetland D would not be contiguous with the
lake, and the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in this area would follow the wetland boundary
for wetlands contiguous with Lake Washington (west of Wetland D in this case). With the
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-4 Critical Areas
discontinuous wave attenuation berm constructed along the lake along portions of Wetland A,
the OHWM in the Wetland A area would follow the re-established/expanded wetland boundary
(the eastern wetland boundary in this case; see Figures 2-10 and 2-11).
3.2.2 Impacts
This section evaluates potential impacts to wetland and riparian habitats reestablished and/or
expanded as part of the cleanup/remediation of and/or any potential natural resource damages
settlement for the Quendall Terminals site as a result of subsequent construction and operation
of the proposed redevelopment. As discussed in Section 2.2, the Applicant will be required to
comply with any requirements imposed by EPA as a part of cleanup under the federal ROD,
even if those requirements are more stringent or not articulated in this EIS or City approvals.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, mixed-use development is proposed on the upland portion of the Main
Property, in an area that is assumed to be covered with clean soil (as a result of capping and/or
removal of contamination and replacement with clean fill as part of the site
cleanup/remediation). The shoreline restoration area along Lake Washington, assumed to total
approximately 3.2 acres, would largely remain in the post-remediation condition. It is assumed
this area would consist of a revegetated riparian zone that includes reestablished/expanded
wetland areas, wetland buffers, and restored/enhanced riparian habitat. If approved by EPA, a
trail that would be accessible to the public would be provided along the shoreline, and would
include interpretive wetland viewpoints (see Figure 2-6, Shoreline Restoration Plan Conceptual
Design -Alternative 1). No development would occur on the Isolated Property. This property
would remain in its post-remediation condition, which is assumed to include retained/expanded
wetlands and their buffers.
Direct Impacts
Under Alternative 1, no direct impacts would occur to the assumed retained/expanded wetlands
(Wetlands I and J) on the Isolated Property, or the assumed re-established/expanded wetlands
(Wetlands A, D and H) on the Main Property. The wetlands along the Lake Washington
shoreline (Wetlands A, D and H) would be retained within a re-vegetated riparian zone.
Similarly, Wetlands I and J on the Isolated Property would be retained within natural open
space.
A portion of the buffer on Wetland D is proposed by the applicant to be reduced to 25 feet; other
portions of the buffer would be expanded to provide compensatory area, as allowed by the
buffer averaging provisions in the City of Renton Municipal Code (see Figure 2-7 for a depiction
of the Wetland D buffer averaging). The area of buffer expansion (nearly 6,000 square feet)
would exceed the area of buffer reduction (approximately 5,400 square feet) so that more total
buffer area would be provided with the proposed buffer averaging, consistent with buffer
averaging provisions in the Code. Wetland A would be provided with a minimum 50-foot buffer,
plus additional upland riparian habitat within the re-vegetated riparian zone. Thus, the buffer
width along Wetland A would range from 50 feet to well over 100 feet. Wetland H would be
protected with a 50-foot buffer, which exceeds the required 25-foot minimum buffer based on its
classification. A publically accessible, unpaved pedestrian trail is also proposed within the
riparian habitat and would cross the wetland buffer areas. EPA takes the position that it may
impose additional conditions that affect the wetland buffers.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-5 Critical Areas
Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the shoreline under Alternative
1, as required by the City of Renton 1983 Shoreline Master Program, as amended (Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-3-090). This setback would be measured from the eastern edge of
Wetland A and from the OHWM, including along the continuous shoreline attenuation berm near
Wetland D. The re-vegetated riparian area extends well beyond the required 50-foot shoreline
setback in several locations (see Figure 2-7). It is EPA's position that it can impose additional
setback requirements.
Subject to EPA's approval, three stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the shoreline
area to convey treated stormwater from the developed areas of the site to Lake Washington.
Construction of these outfalls would be in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM to prevent
erosion and sedimentation of the lake. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts
to the reestablished/expanded wetland areas and designed with energy dissipation to prevent
erosion during operation. Together with the proposed trail, these are relatively minor
encroachments that are not expected to adversely affect the integrity of the Lake Washington
shoreline. These outfalls, which may either discharge into nearshore wetlands or directly into
Lake Washington, could be constructed during site cleanup/remediation to reduce potential
impacts to the shoreline area.
Indirect Impacts
Proposed redevelopment under Alternative 1 has the potential to cause indirect impacts to the
reestablished/expanded wetlands relating to hydrologic conditions and potential for erosion and
sediment deposition. Grading and construction of impervious surfaces and operation of the
permanent stomrwater collection and treatment facilities would modify the surface hydrologic
conditions of the site, and thus potentially could affect hydrologic conditions of the wetlands.
During Construction
Clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed redevelopment would expose
erodible soils on the site. The potential for erosion and delivery of sediments to the wetlands
along the shoreline and to Lake Washington would be greatest during the construction period
and would depend on the construction season, soil types, the amount of exposed soils, slopes,
surface drainage patterns and mitigation measures employed. Sediment transport and
deposition, particularly during construction, can adversely impact plant and animal communities
of the wetlands and the lake by affecting water quality (increased turbidity, suspended and
settleable solids, temperature, pollutants), which could adversely affect the suitability of aquatic
habitats for various forms of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife.
Installation of certain utilities (i.e., the conveyance pipes to the stormwater outfalls) could disturb
vegetation that has been established in the Shoreline Restoration area with site remediation.
Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading associated
with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated areas.
The project would include implementation of a TESCP during construction, per the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control,
which would limit or prevent erosion or sediment deposition into the shoreline wetlands and the
lake. Some sediment deposition could occur within the wetland buffers, and potentially the
wetlands, especially during construction; however, the impacts to the wetlands are not expected
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-6 Critical Areas
to be significant. In addition to any requirements imposed by EPA, proposed buffers would
range from 50 to well over 100 feet on Wetland A and from 25 feet to over 100 feet on Wetland
D. With appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., silt fences), and to the extent that
vegetation is established within the buffers as a part of site remediation, and on-site slopes are
assumed to be relatively gentle, the potential for sediment deposition into the wetlands would be
very limited. Therefore, no significant impacts to the shoreline wetlands, riparian habitat and the
lake would be anticipated during construction.
Following Construction
Following construction, the exposed upland portions of the Main Property would be covered in
buildings, paved areas and landscaping. A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for
this portion of the site. According to this plan, ornamental plants and, as possible, native plants
that are suited for this climate zone would be installed as landscaping throughout the property.
Landscaping would include new trees, shrubs and groundcovers of various sizes and species
(see Figure 2-8, Alternative 1 -Preliminary Landscape Plan). There would be much less
potential for erosion and sedimentation with the proposed redevelopment. Introduction of
noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent practicable in areas that
would be re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with the native species
planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive species that could adversely
affect the suitability of open space habitats onsite and in the vicinity for wildlife.
A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the 2009
KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton and also in accordance with EPA remediation
requirements. Stormwater runoff would be collected from impervious surfaces; conveyed to
Lake Washington through a piped stormwater drainage system; and, discharged to the lake via
three new outfalls. Stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e. roadways and
surface parking lots) would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. Roof runoff (considered to
be non-pollution generating) would be collected and discharged directly to the lake separately.
No stormwater detention would be required, per City regulations. The system would be
designed to contain and convey the 25-year peak flows from developed conditions for on-site
tributary areas. No upstream tributary areas would drain to the project site or the proposed
stormwater control system. Thus, no severe flooding or erosion problem would be expected
from potential overflow from a 100-year storm event. In addition, the outfalls to the lake from
the stormwater control system would be designed to prevent erosion at their outlets. Based on
these factors, together with the lack of direct stormwater discharge to the
reestablished/expanded wetlands in the shoreline area, no significant impacts to the on-site
wetlands from erosion or sediment deposition would be expected during operation of the
project. Water quality impacts to the wetlands and lake also would not be expected.
The reestablished/expanded wetlands along the lake shore (Wetlands A, 0 and H) would derive
their hydrology from the lake (as under existing conditions), rather than surface water runoff.
The hydrology of the wetlands on the Isolated Property (Wetlands I and J) would not be
affected, as no development is proposed in that area.
Wildlife Habitat Impacts
With respect to wildlife habitat, after completion of the remediation measures and/or measures
required as part of the potential natural resources settlement, most of the site may be left as
bare soil, except the re-vegetated shoreline habitat, including the reestablished/ expanded
wetland areas. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas would not be expected to
Quendal/ Terminals Draft E/S
December 2010 3.2-7 Critical Areas'
remove significant habitat features or to displace wildlife from these upland areas. Some
disturbance of the re-vegetated shoreline habitat from human and construction activity may
occur during construction. However, this vegetation would likely be relatively recently
established and would initially provide limited habitat during this period.
After redevelopment, some wildlife species adapted to urban environments (e.g., starlings,
house sparrows, American robins, various swallows, American crows, raccoons) would likely
come to use the site over time and utilize the developing vegetation in the upland portion of the
site, as well as the native vegetation within the riparian zone. Given the urban context of the
site and vicinity, some of these urban-adapted species (e.g. starlings, crows) may limit use of
the re-vegetated shoreline habitats by other native species, such as cavity-nesting birds and
songbirds.
Public use of the proposed shoreline trail within the re-vegetated riparian zone would likely
cause some noise and disturbance to wildlife in the vicinity of the trail. The trail itself would also
form a break in native vegetation within the area and maintain some fragmentation of the
developing habitat over time. However, the trail would also limit pedestrian access to the
riparian area, and would prevent human use and degradation of the re-vegetated shoreline
area.
Overall, Alternative 1 is not expected to adversely impact terrestrial priority species, as none are
known to occur onsite. A variety of fish species, including salmonid fish, several of which are
federal or state-listed species, are known to use nearshore habitats within Lake Washington.
Following remediation, nearshore habitat conditions are expecled to recover and improve over
pre-remediation conditions. The only development proposed in this area would be the
stormwater outfalls, which would be installed in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM and EPA
remediation requirements. As mentioned above, water quality treatment would be provided for
stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces. Therefore, no significant impacts to the
priority fish species in the lake would be anticipated.
Alternative 2
Similar to Alternative 1, under Alternative 2 mixed-use development is proposed on the upland
portion of the Main Property, in an area that is assumed to be covered with clean surface soil
(as a result of capping and/or removal of contamination and replacement with clean fill as part of
cleanup/remediation). The shoreline restoration area along the Lake Washington, assumed to
total approximately 3.2 acres, would largely remain in the post-remediation condition. It is
assumed this area would consist of a re-vegetated riparian zone that includes re-
established/expanded wetland areas, wetland buffers, and restored/enhanced riparian habitat.
If approved by EPA, a trail that would be accessible to the public would be provided along the
shoreline, and would include interpretive wetland viewpoints (see Figure 2-11, Shoreline
Restoration Plan Conceptual Design -Alternative 2). No development would occur on the
Isolated Property. This property would remain in its post-remediation condition, which is
assumed to include retained/expanded wetlands and their buffers.
Under Alternative 2, mixed-use development would include fewer residential units, essentially
the same area for commercial/retail uses and no office space. The shoreline restoration area,
encompassing the re-established/expanded wetlands and their buffers and restored/enhanced
shoreline habitat along the shoreline would be provided, encompassing slightly more area than
Alternative 1 (approximately 1,400 square feet more).
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-8 Critical Areas
As under Alternative 1, no direct wetland impacts would occur under Alternative 2. No
development would occur within the Isolated Property, thus no direct impacts would occur to
Wetlands I and J, as under Alternative 1.
The same buffer averaging proposed by the applicant for Wetland D is also proposed by the
applicant to be applied under Alternative 2, such that the minimum buffer would be 25 feet and
additional compensatory buffer area would be provided (see Figure 2-7). Wetland A would be
provided with essentially the same buffer as under Alternative 1, ranging from a minimum of 50
feet wide to well over 100 feet wide.
Alternative 2 is assumed to include implementation of a similar TESCP plan during construction
and a similar permanent stormwater control plan as Alternative 1. Thus, significant indirect
impacts to on-site wetlands and the lake would not be expected from stormwater runoff during
construction and operation of the project.
With a similar footprint and site features, such as the publicly accessible trail, the redevelopment
under Alternative 2 would be expected to result in essentially the same impacts to wildlife
habitat as under Alternative 1. With fewer residential units and no office development, human
activity and noise levels would be slightly less than under Alternative 1. Given the urban context
of the area, however, impacts from disturbance and noise would likely be similar to under
Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Aclion Alternative, no redevelopment would occur on the Quendall Terminals site
at this time. The site would remain in a post-remediation condition, with clean surface soil
present over the entire Main Property and re-established and expanded wetlands along the
shoreline. The restored/enhanced and re-vegetated areas along the lake are assumed to
include fully-re-vegetated 50-foot buffers of Wetlands A and D, as part of the remediation. No
additional riparian habitat restoration area is assumed to be established that would connect
Wetlands A and D. No buffer averaging would be necessary on Wetland D. No publically
accessible trail with interpretive wetland viewpoints would be provided in the shoreline
restoration area. It is anticipated that the upland portions of the site would be seeded with some
kind of cover crop to provide temporary re-vegetation until development occurs at some time in
the future.
Under the No Action Alternative, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the wetlands along
the Lake Washington shoreline on the Main Property or on the Isolated Property. Less area
along the shoreline would be re-vegetated to establish riparian habitat than under Alternatives 1
and 2. However, it is assumed that vegetation would gradually become established over time
along the shoreline between the re-established wetlands and their buffers.
The process of natural succession would occur under the No Action Alternative, as long as the
site is not redeveloped. Vegetation in the restored/enhanced areas would grow and develop
over time. Given enough time and lack of a major disturbance (such as fire), the seeded upland
areas would gradually re-vegetate as well, as has occurred after cessation of activities on the
site previously. This vegetation would likely consist of a combination of native (e.g. red alder,
black cottonwood, willow) and exotic invasive species (e.g. Himalayan blackberry, Japanese
knotweed) adapted to disturbed areas.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-9 Critical Areas
No impacts to wildlife, including priority fish species in the lake, would be anticipated under this
alternative.
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including . Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented during construction, per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth, and
Appendix D for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent or limit impacts to
the lake and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Following Construction
• Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the retained/re-
established/expanded wetlands onsite.
• Re-established/expanded wetlands would be retained in an open space tract that
includes required buffers and a riparian habitat enhancement area.
• In addition to any requirements imposed by EPA. wetland buffer areas would meet or
exceed the minimum City-required buffers for Wetlands A, D and H (the Wetland D
buffer would meet the City's requirement through buffer averaging). Wetland I and J
would also be provided with buffers that meet or exceed applicable City requirements.
• In addition to any requirements imposed by EPA, proposed buildings would be setback a
minimum of 50 feet from the OHWM in compliance with the City of Renton's 1983
Shoreline Master Program, which requires a minimum setback of 50 feet for commercial
uses and 25 feet for residential uses for Category 2 wetlands (see Section 3 for
additional details).
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the
requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton and consistent with
EPA remediation requirements. The system would collect and convey stormwater runoff
to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system. Water quality treatment would be provided
for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake
and shoreline wetlands.
• Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland
area on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat
benefits to native wildlife species.
• Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-10 Critical Areas
the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive
species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in
the vicinity for wildlife.
• If approved by EPA, a publicly accessible, unpaved trail would be provided through the
shoreline area that would include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading
associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated
areas.
• Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site
remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment.
3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas would be anticipated.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 3.2-11 Critical Areas·
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
This section of the DEIS describes the existing environmental health-related conditions on the
Quendall Terminals site and provides a summary of the site remediation and deanup process.
Potential environmental health-related impacts associated with redevelopment under the EIS
alternatives and mitigation measures to address potential impacts are identified. This section is
based on the Hazardous Substances section of the Technical Report: Geology; Groundwater,
and Soils (November 2010) prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (see Appendix D to
this DEIS).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
Site History
In 1916, early homesteaders sold the Quendall Terminals Main Property to Peter Reilly, who
began the operation of Republic Creosoting in 1917. The property was used for creosote
manufacturing for more than 50 years, until 1969. Operations on the property primarily included
the distillation of coal and oil-gas tar residues (coal tar) that were obtained from local coal
gasification plants. Tar feedstock was typically transported to the facility onsite from Lake Union
and unloaded from tankers or barges at a t-dock that extended out into Lake Washington or at a
shorter, near-shore pier. The feed stock was unloaded into two two-million gallon, above-ground
storage tanks. Above-ground pipes transferred the feedstock from the tanks to the manufacturing
facilities. Once distilled, several fractions were stored in tanks (light distillates and creosote) or
below-grade pitch bays (heavy distillates) prior to being transported offsite for various uses. Light
distillates were used for chemical manufacturing feedstock, middle distillates (creosote) were
used for wood preservation and heavy (bottom) distillates (pitch) were used for applications such
as roofing tar. At the peak of its productivity, the Republic Creosoting facility produced
approximately 500,000 gallons of tar per month. Wastes produced by the manufacturing
processes were disposed of onsite; solid wastes were placed near the shoreline and liquid wastes
were discharged to two sumps. In addition to site-produced wastes, foundry slag from PAC CAR
was reportedly used as fill at the site.
In 1971, Quendall Terminals purchased the site and leased the above-ground tanks that
remained from the creosote facility for the storage of waste oil, diesel, and lard. From 1975 until
2009. Quendall Terminals used the Main Property for log storage and sorting.
The Quendall Terminals Isolated Property is §eRerally "acaRI aRd is comprised of existing trees
and vegetation associated with two wetlands. There have been no historic industrial uses on the
Isolated Property site and no associated site contamination or hazardous substance issues.
Both the Quendall Terminals Main Property and Isolated Property are currently vacant and
essentially unused.
Site Remediation and Cleanup Process
As stated above, from about 1916 to 2008, various industrial activities, including creosote
manufacturing, petroleum product storage, and log sorting/storage, have occurred on the
Quendall Terminals Main Property, and have resulted in the release of various contaminants to
the soil and groundwater at the property. From the 1980s through 2005, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) provided oversight for the remediation/cleanup of the site under
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
!)'N:r.1841.8522v+JQ03~695:000004
3.3-1 Environmental Health
the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). Under Ecology's guidance, a Remedial Investigation report
was completed in 1997 and a draft Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study was completed in 2004.
In 2005, Ecology requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
assume responsibility for directing and overseeing the remediation of the Quendall Terminals
Main Property and the property was subsequently added to EPA's Superfund National Priorities
List (NPL) in 2006. In September 2006, the property owners (Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter
and Company) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA that required
them to complete a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS). The RI/FS is intended to
comprehensively evaluate environmental conditions at the site and review various remediation
options from which EPA will chose a preferred cleanup remedy; a final cleanup remedy will be
selected following a public comment period. Remediation activities will be conducted as part of a
separate action and are not a part of the AOC requirements or the environmental review for the
proposed Quendall Terminals redevelopment.
Currenlly, IheThe property owners have sOA'l13leles a DraA RI Ihal is unser review By EPAand
EPA are currently completing a draft RI and risk assessment report, and are in the process of
preparing a Qfafldraft FS report. It is anticipated that the sraA RifFS will Be sOA'l13leles By A13Fil
:m.14.Proposed Plan proposing a cleanup approach will be provided for public review and
comment in spring 2013. A summary of the Graftpreliminarv draft RI and Graftan outline of the FS
arep~ss is provided below. The site will undergo cleanup/remediation under its status as a
superfund site by EPA, pursuant to the final cleanup plans defined by EPA. Following public
comment EPA is expected to select the final site remedy in lale 2Q11.1b.aL"ijJLJ:l'!,}1!:L~.ffi~DJed, in
the Record of Decision in fall 2014.
Preliminary Draft Remedial Investigation (RI) Results
The Graftd.rnft RI report for the Quendall Terminals Main Property insluseswill include a summary
of the history of the property and past industrial activities; a summary of past site characterization
data; identification of data gaps; identification of contaminants of interest; and, documentation of
the extent of contamination in all the media (soil, groundwater and sediment). The Graft
RJpreliminarv drafLBL[~PQI1-<!YJ!.ilable at the time this DEIS was prepared identifies hazardous
chemicals associated with past site use that could potentially pose a risk to human health and the
environment. Chemicals of potential concern are listed in Table 2 of Appendix D and include
arsenic, benzene and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), among others.
Extent of Contamination
Most of the contamination that is present on the Quendall Terminals Main Property is isolated and
contained within the property. Contamination on the Main Property consists of chemicals of
potential concern that are adhered to soil particles, dissolved into water or concentrated as dense,
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the subsurface. The DNAPL represents actual liquid
product that has leaked into the ground. Since DNAPL has a higher density than water, it will tend
to sink below the water table to accumulate in the higher permeability portions of the subsurface
soils (see Figure 11 in Appendix D for the approximate locations of DNAPL in the subsurface of
the site).
Large areas of soil contamination are located on the east side of the Main Property, near the
former manufacturing facility and railroad auxiliary track, and at the east end of the former T -dock
pier. Along the southern and eastern boundaries of the property, fill soils range from about 1 to 2
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
l.lWIJiil,8~.n.Y+fQQ~?q9ScQ.QOoQ4
3.3-2 Environmental Health
feet thick, while in other areas the fill is more than 10 feet thick (see Figures 12 and 13 in
Appendix D for the approximate extent of soil contamination).
Groundwater contamination in the Shallow Aquifer beneath the site underlies a majority of the
Quendall Terminals Main Property. Contamination in the Deep Aquifer mostly occurs under the
western portion of the Main Property, generally centered along the shoreline of Lake Washington
(see Figures 14 and 15 in Appendix D for the approximate extent of groundwater contamination).
Sediment contamination is generally centered around the former T -dock pier and-"'&St east of the
Quendall Terminals Main Property boundary (see Figures 16 and 17 in Appendix D for the
approximate extent of contamination in the sediments underlying Lake Washington).
Gfaft-Feasibility Study (FS) Process
The purpose of the Draft FS is to evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives and select a
preferred remediation alternative for the Quendall Terminals site. Various remedial alternatives
have been evaluated as part of the Draft FS prasess and it is antisipated that EPA will selest a
remedial alternative that sansists af the fallawing elements (the remedial astians assumed in this
DEIS):Focused FS conducted under Ecology's o.ver~i!L1:!L and these evaluations will be updated
and modified as appropriate to address EPA's requirements for a cleaIlYR,,!jlthe Quendall site.
J;;J;',8Ureferred.. remediation alternative will consist of actions such thatjhJL,QQst-cieanup
cond.itions at Quendall will bedlJ9te"Qtive of human health and the environment in addition to
satisfying all pertinent health and environm.J)ntaLre.gJJLations. The preferred remediation
alternative will be documented in the Quendall Record of Decision (ROO) foJl,oWiI}Q a public
comment period.
Development of Quendall Pre-ROD DEIS Baseline
This DEIS assumes an existing/baseline condition subsequ!:mUQ cleanup (that is the condition of
the....s.i1e....after cleanup has been aCcomplished\. The baseline condition..fur. 1till; DE IS was
~~Io-R~d.,.~9m1~s;twmg.J.l.Q1en1ia1 cleanup actions any necessarY wetland mitigation as_-"illl.d§;l,9,J9
compensate for environmental impacts relillltin9JL2IDJbgs.e...cleanup actions (based on the 1983
Renton Shoreline Management Plan and Appendix E of.1.he DEI§L and shoreline restoration
asso.cia.te.d . ..wittuIflY potential settlement to address alleged natural resource dalJ:1!l9~. Ttl,t;!
cleanup for Quendall will not be deismmo.ed until the ROD is issued and accordingly, the
speCifications for wetland mitigation Cannot b~ fina!iZ~_J.!.ntiL1he ROD haS been approved
~jfying the requirements for cleanup. Also for Quendall, potential settlement oL!jny_.alJ~ed
natural res()u(J:;§_(tcll)J~S. would probably occur after the ROD has been issued.
• Plasement af a twa faat thisk sand Gap aver the upland parlian af the Main Preperly.
Even though EPA has not selected the final remedy, the Agency was consulted in developing this
ll,g§..ElcUn.e,J;QHdi1jOQ.wblctl will be used solely for evaluation of potential impacts associated with
redevelopment, In the event the final cleauupJemedy selected by EPA in the ROD is significantly
different from the assumptions described in this EIS. the City will determine._ .... beiber.mJ..cb
change§._W!lfJ!l11b§JJ.Q.mjJ1a1....Qf. a supplemental EIS or other documentation, Moreover, the
Applicant will be required to comply with an~_~,C)Jirel1Jents that may be imposed by EPA as a part
gtctea.nup. even if those requirements are not articulated in this EIS,
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DW! 18~.I.~.i.92v+2 003269i,Q00004
3.3-3 Environmental Health
• Placement of a two to three foot thick layered cap consisting of organoclay, sand, gravels
and topsoil over most of the sediments within the shoreline area adjacent to and lakeside
of the former Quendall Pond (approximately ;300 linear feet of shoreline),
The foliowir;J,gJeImldiationand restora1iorL(lJ~m~[lj§J2nDJbJ) baseline condition for purposes of
this DEIS:
• Excavation of shoreline soil to accommodate the placement of the shoreline cap.~
surface soil will be present when the remedy is complete. Areas of the site that require
remelijation wil.1 blLremeli.iated. Potential remedial actions include but are not limited to
soil removal and replacement with clean fill and cappilJlh~QYo(l!9~J!L~~sulting
remediation will be protective of human health and the environment in addition to
satisfying all pertinent health and environmental regulations.
• f=illing of certain existingExisting on-site wetlands. Implementation of will be filled and
a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be implemented, including re-establishing and
expanding certain wetlands, and recreating/enhancing riparian habitat,
• Possible localized soil removal in the former railroad loading area and in planned utility
corridors onsite.
• Possible installation of a permeable shoreline groundwater treatment wall adjacent to the
lake, spanning the entire shoreline area. for mitigation and/or as part of a potential natural
resource damages settlement as described in more detail in Section 3 .. ~."~~hll~Ltb~
specific shoreline plan will not be finalized until the ROD and/or a potential natu)"lll
r~J.!!'Qe~mag~ettlement, this EIS assumes a post-remediation condition that would
allow the greatest area for redeveJ2pmenLba..s.edon,19§3 Henton Shoreline Management
Plan and Appendix E of the DEIS. As part of the remedy, EPA m.a¥.,regJJiutgQ9,Ui2mM
mitigation that will reduce the site area available for redevelopment and if this results in
bJ!.§.elille.¥QQ<lllL9D.§J!ignifica[lJi)( diff.eUillUb..an those assumed in this EIS the City will
determine whether the difference would warrant submittal of a supplerne.!J~.t::lS...Qr~g~.d
documentation as appropriate.
• Implementation of institutional controls to prevent--tRe alteration of the cap withoutany
of the caps or other components of the EPA remedy and wetland and habitat restoration
during redevelopment without prior EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site
groundwater for any purpose. For example in areas that are capped institutional controls
may prevent digging without prior EPA apprQ.val.
• Implementation of an Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) that
would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility
installations or other site disturbances are necessaryproposed after implementation of the
final remedial action.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWT1.8118592v+2 003269;,0000Q4
3.3-4 Environmental Health
Impacts
Redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2 would include mixed-use development with a variety
of densities and building heights; however, construction activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 are
anticipated to be similar and would require a similar amount of grading and cut/fill as part of
redevelopment. Therefore, it is anticipated that potential environmental health-related impacts
associated with redevelopment would be similar under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternatives 1 and 2
Prior to redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Quendall Terminals Main Property will
undergo cleanup and remediation under the oversight of the EPA, as described in the previous
section. The asslJFAesR[Lrm!JY elements of this cleanup/remediation a~surllimjn lhiu~are
listed above. It is assumed that the effiifesurface ~ Main Property will be cappes with
reFAesiationcovered with clean soil or other capping material, which will liFAit the potential
fGfprevent exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater that pose a risk to humans and the
environment during and following construction. As necessary, a perFAeasle shoreline
!jrolJns' .... ater treatFAent 'Nall cOlJls also se installes to provent the FAi!jration of contaFAinants in
!jrolJns·Nater to Lake Washin!jton. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the
cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the
final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA. and with any associated institutional
controls.
The majority of the upland portion of the Main Property, outside of the shoreline setback area.
would be developed with new buildings and paved areas under Alternatives 1 and 2. Due to the
soft and loose nature of the existing subsurface soils, construction of these features could result in
settlement of the site as a result of the potential loads imposed by foundations. utilities and traffic
(see Section 3.1, Earth, and Appendix 0 for details). It is assumed that Alternatives 1 and 2
would not include any below-grade excavations for parking or basements if SQme corllimlinalion
~i[LRlaJ;;J:l; however, it is likely that the construction of new buildings onsite would require deep
foundation supports (such as piles) due to the nature of existing soils on the site. The construction
of deep foundations for each building could generate contaminated soil or groundwater to which
workers would be exposed. As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be
used and special handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to
prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances. and no significant impacts would be
anticipated. Personal protection measures and special training could also be provided for City of
Renton staff that provides inspection during construction and maintenance following construction
in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater. Alternatively, buried
utilities and public roads serving the site could be placed in clean fill material. The clean fill
material should be of sufficient width and depth (3 to 4 feet below the invert of the utility) to allow
for maintenance of utilities without human exposure to contaminated soils. In order to prevent
future contamination of clean fill material a barrier to prevent recontamination of the fill material
could be provided.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2. the main utility corridors for the proposed development could be
installed during the proposed remedial action onsite. Additional utility excavations could also be
required to connect specific buildings to the main utility corridor with redevelopment. Additional
excavations during redevelopment could generate contaminated soil or groundwater that would
require additional personal protection measures for workers and special handling and disposal
measures.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010 ,n'iT lS4.I.SS.92v. \29032695,Q09004
3.3-5 Environmental Health
In addition to potential impacts from utility and deep foundation excavations, there is also the
potential for volatile contaminants in the subsurface to generate vapors that could intrude into
utility trenches and above-grade structures dlole to the fuel that the planned remedial action wOlolld
leave contaminated soil, grololndwater, sediments and D~JAPLif some contamination is left in
place beneath the site. If oono! addressed by the development design, these vapors could pose a
potential risk to human health. Separation of living/working areas from the contaminants by \he
SGilsome type of cap and under-building garage, as well as implementation of potential
institutional control measures would ensure that future building inhabitants would not be exposed
to unacceptable vapors accumulating within buildings or utility corridors from contaminated soils
and groundwater, and no significant impacts would be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no redevelopment and its potential environmental health-related
impacts would occur on the Quendall Terminals site at this time. The site would remain in a
j36Sl-Howeyer. a Shoreline Restoration Plan will be irnplernenle~.in~um;tion wilh sile
cleanup/remediation condition, which wOlolld incllolde placement of soil caps over the entire Main
Property and possitJle installation of a permeatJle shoreline groundwater treatment wall adjacent
to the lakeandlor 10 resolve potential natural resource darna.g.!l.~(:J~Lrn~. These remediation
features would prevent direct contact with contaminants at the ground surface, and address the
potential for contaminants to enter Lake Washington via groundwater.
3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process, and
would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected
and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that
unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater or vapors would not occur.
• Institutional controls would be followed to prevent theand would likely include prohibitions
on any alteration of the soil caprelllil.dial elemenls without EPA approval, and to preventQn
the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose.
• An Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the
excavation of soils, installation of utilities or other site disturbances without prior EPA
approval.
• As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special
handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent contact
with hazardous materials and substances.
Quendall Terminals Draft EIS
December 2010
DWTI841.859"y-!.003269'·OQooo4
3.3-6 Environmental Health
• Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater
contaminants by under-building 9,P9,\(,~,g[9oy,!bd"garages; institutional controls would also
be implemented to prevent exposure of residents/employees to unacceptable vapors
and/or other contarnilli!ted materials,
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the
planned remedial action so that disturbance of the sail sap remedial elements le~",¥9J1~J
and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to
sappiR§ af the MaiR Prapertyremedial acUQD,
• Personal protection measures and special training should be provided for City of Renton
staff that provides inspection during construction and maintenance following construction
in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater,
• Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development should be placed in clean fill
material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the
invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the
clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future
maintenance of the road or utility lines,
3.3.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts would be anticipated.
Quendal/ Terminals Draft E/S
December 2010
DWT.J84185.9~vH 003.69:;:000024
3.3-7 Environmental Health
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11'50'26 AM
Iinout:
Inn,,"mF>nillQ interwovenSite:lldwtdocS/Uvv 1/18411l$2L1
Descriotion m4-lll;:;9~V1<[)vvI:>-S~~iQn3,3 Env Health [!;Iean]
DocumenL2J[) Ilo1erwQvenSite;lIdwtdQcslDWT/l1H18592L2
DesJ;[lptloo W18418592v2<DWI> -SectiQn 3,3 Env Healtb [clean]
I set Istandard
lK. ,~ ~-
M, ,i t"
IStyle
Irorm~t'~
""-,."
cell
~L ~ cell
~
I cell
~, I cell
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, October 24, 2011
11'51'34 AM
Input:
Document 1 ID file:/lC:\Users\paks\Desktop\DEIS\1 0-13-11 \Section 3 3 -
Environmental Health [Original],doc
Description Section 3 3 -Environmental Health [Original]
Document 2 ID interwovenSite:lldwtdocs/DWT/18419703/1
Description #18419703v1<DWT> -Section 3,3 Env Health CMP
Rendering set standard
Legend:
Insertion
geletieH
Meved lFern
Moved to
Style change
Fonnat change
MHved deletiE>R
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 95
Deletions 45
Moved from 0
Moved to 0
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 140