HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscCity of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Restoration Plan
~:c
Preparedfor
City of Renton
City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
This report was funded in part by a Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology
Prepared by
Parametrix
411 1 08th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
T.425.458.6200 F.425.458.6363
www.paramctrix.com
In Association With:
Adolfson Associates, Inc
Maney ARC
March2010 1553-1779-031
CITATION
Parametrix. 20 I O. City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington.
March 2010.
City (f Renton I
Shoreline A1a5fer Program Updafe
Draft ResturatlOn ['Ian
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT ............................................................................ 1-2
1.3 SHORELINE INVENTORy .................................................................................. 1-3
1.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed .................................................... l-3
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek ................................................................... 1-6
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE ............................................................................................. 1-8
1.3.6 Built Environment... ...................................................................................... 1-8
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................... 2-1
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP ......................................................................... 2·1
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE
PRIORITIES .......................................................................................................... .2-I
2.2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives ................................................... .2-2
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects ................................... .2-3
2.3 DUW AMISH/GREEN RIVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES ......... .2-4
2.3.1 Lower Green River ...................................................................................... .2-4
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek ................................................................... .2-5
2.3.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects ............................................ 2-6
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS ..................... 3-1
3.1 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON .............................................................. 3-I
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan ........................................................................... .3-1
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District.. ................................................. .3·1
3.1.3 King County Conservation District ............................................................. .3-3
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs ..................................... .3-4
3.2 GREEN RIVER /SPRINGBROOK CREEK .......................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 WRIA 9 GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan .................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District.. ................................................. .3-5
3.2.3 King Conservation District ........................................................................... 3-6
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project ........................................ 3-6
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs ..................................... .3-6
3.2.6 81ack River Watershed Alliance .................................................................. .3-6
3.2.7 Herons Forever ............................................................................................ .3-7
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS ...................................................... .3-7
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning ....................................................... .3-7
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations ............................................................................ 3-8
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan .......................................... .3-8
March2010 I 553·1779·031
I
City of Renton
Shoreline lv/asler ?rogram L'lJdate
Draft RestoratIOn Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan .................................................................................. .3-9
3.3.5 Private Development .................................................................................. .3-11
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach ........................................................................ .3-11
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES ........................ .4-1
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS .................................................................................... .4-1
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RNER ............................................................. .4-1
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities ................................................................................... .4-1
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach ..................................................................... .4-2
4.3 GREEN/SPRINGBROOK ...................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.1 Priorities ....................................................................................................... .4-9
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach ..................................................................... .4-9
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ....................................... 5-1
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................... 5-1
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING ............................................................... .5-3
6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 6-1
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Role of the Restoration Plan in the SMP Update .................................................... 1-2
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan .............................................. 3-2
3-2 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan ............................................. .3-5
4-1 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach ............................................................ .4-3
4-2 Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach .......................................................... .4-10
5-1 Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................ 5-2
ii March2010 I 553·1779·031
ACRONYMS
BRWA
DNR
DO
ERP
FCRW
KCD
LOS
LWD
KCFCZD
NPDES
RCW
RM
SMA
SMP
UGA
WAC
WDFW
WSDOT
March2010 I 553-1779-031
City o.! Renton
Shoreline A1aster Program [Jpdate
Draft Restoration !'Ian
Black River Watershed Alliance
Department of Natural Resources
dissolved oxygen
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed
King Conservation District
level of service
Large Woody Debris
King County Food Control Zone District
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Revised Code of Washington
River Mile
Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Management Plan
Urban Growth Areas
Washington Administrative Code
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of Transportation
iii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE
CilY of Renton I
Shm'eline Master Program (Jpdale
Drafi Restorafron Pian
The City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to activities and uses within
its shoreline zone. Activities which produce adverse impacts on shoreline ecological
functions must have mitigation for those impacts to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. By law, development within the shoreline zone is not required to improve the
affected shoreline beyond the baseline condition at the time the activity takes place. How
then can shoreline ecological functions be improved over time in areas where the baseline
condition is marginally, or even severely, degraded?
Section 173-26-20 I (2)(f) Washington Administrative Code (WAC) of the SMP Guidelines
says:
Master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify
existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and
identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement
to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should
make real and meaningful use of established or funded non-regulatory policies and
programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should
appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or non-
regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any
restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations
and mitigation standards.
However, degraded shorelines are not exclusively a result of pre-SMP activities, but also of
unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines also require that "Local
master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate
will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline" (173-26-l86(8)(b)(ii)
WAC). While some actions within shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the SMP
should hold that permit exempt developments must still comply with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) or the local SMP. Because the shoreline environment is also
affected by activities taking place outside of a specific local master program's jurisdiction
(e.g., shoreline areas upstream of the City and otherwise outside of City limits), assembly of
interlocal agreements, forums, programs, and policies can be essential for understanding how
the City fits into the larger watershed framework. Watershed-wide goals and objectives are
critical for the improvement of highly interconnected regional environments.
As indicated by the Guidelines, the following discussion provides a summary of existing or
baseline shoreline conditions, lists restoration objectives both regionally and locally,
evaluates ongoing programs and restoration projects, and provides potential restoration
opportunities within the City of Renton. Lastly, implementation of restoration goals and
monitoring development of ecological functions over time will allow the City's Restoration
Plan to meet SMP Guidelines.
This Restoration Plan is also intended to support grant funding of restoration projects by the
City and/or other non-governmental organizations as well as provide the interested public
with contact information for organizations working with the City to enhance the environment.
The difference between the role of regulatory and non-regulatory programs in achieving no
net loss is illustrated in conceptual form in Figure 1-1, below. Generally speaking,
regulations that address development projects are designed to achieve no net loss. However,
March20IO 1553-1779-031 I-I
City of Renton
Shoreline /l'/asler Program [/pdale
Draft RestorallOn Plan
there are exceptions to this. For example, non-water-dependent uses are required to provide
public benefit in the fonn of public access and/or ecological restoration as addressed in WAC
173-26-241 (3)( d). In general, however, restoration activities undertaken by public, private,
and non-profit organizations in accordance with this plan, and other programs are expected to
provide the primary source of improvements to ecological functions.
SMP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function
Hig/Mf
Low.,.
HoNer lou -CUrretll' Sat.tine • ••
On-golng d.grad.tfan
from .:dtting
dtV'IOpm.nt
. _'. ---------..... ----
SOUTce: \\lashington Department or Eeology
SMP
Plan
••••••••••••••••••
QfI'·.h mltlptlon
opporfuntti ••
Awold and MlUgIIh
Imp ....
Figure 1-1. Role ofthe Restoration Plan in the SMP Update
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT
1-2
City of Renton is located within the Lake Washington/Cedar River (Water Resource
Inventory Area [WRJA] 8) and the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 9) watersheds.
WRJA 8 encompasses 692 square miles (Kerwin 2001) and two major subbasins, the
Sammamish River and the Cedar River, both of which flow into Lake Washington. WRIA 8
boundaries fallow topographic divides between WRIA 7 (Snohomish River) to the north and
east, and WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish Rivers) and Puget Sound to the south and west (Kerwin
2001). The majority (approximately 86 percent) of WRIA 8 is in the Puget Lowlands
physiographic region. The upper Sammamish drainage lies in the Cascade foothills, while the
upper Cedar River drainage extends through the foothills into the Cascade Mountains. WRIA
8 has a population of about 1.5 million people, the most of any WRIA in the state.
WRIA 9 contains the Green River and its tributaries, including the Duwamish
waterway/estuary, and nearby tributaries draining directly to Puget Sound. WRIA 9 is bound
topographically by WRIA 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) to the north and WRJA to
(Puyallnp River) to the south. The Green River watershed is 462 square miles, and the river
March 20 to I 553-1779-031
Cify of Renton I
Shoreline Afaster Program Update
Draft Res/ora/ton Pian
itself stretches 93 miles from its source in the Cascade Mountains through the Cascade
foothills and Puget Lowlands before emptying into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The
population of WRIA 9 is approximately 565,000.
The City accounts for less than three percent of the geographical area and its population
(80.708) is less than a half of one percent of the population of about two million within
WRlAs 8 and 9. The City is also located near the lower end of both WRIAs. Hence,
management actions taken within the City limits have a limited effect on overall watershed
conditions. However, actions taken to manage reach-scale processes, such as riparian and
floodplain functions, could have a larger effect on specific ecological processes and
functions, particularly rearing functions of anadromous fish.
The City also lies in the lower portion of May Creek and Springbrook Creek but accounts for
a much larger proportion of the total watershed area. As such, management actions for these
shorelines conducted within the City may have a more substantial effect on overall watershed
conditions and shoreline ecological functions.
1,3 SHORELINE INVENTORY
1.3,1 Introduction
The Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report as part of the City of Renton's SMP will
facilitate the City of Renton's compliance with the State of Washington's SMA and updated
SMP Guidelines. The inventory describes existing physical and biological conditions in the
shoreline area within City limits, including recommendations for restoration of ecological
functions where they are degraded. A brief summary of the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Report relevant to the Restoration Plan is summarized below.
1,3,2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
The City's jurisdiction includes area in both WRlAs, the Green/Duwamish Watershed or
WRIA 9 and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed or WRIA 8. For
organizational purposes, shorelines in WRIAs 8 and 9 will be broken into two sections for
analysis within this Restoration Plan. In WRIA 8, significant shorelines include Lake
Washington, Cedar River, and May Creek titled as Cedar River/Lake Washington. In WRIA
9, significant shorelines include Green River and Springbrook Creek titled as Green
River/Springbrook Creek.
As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain waters of
the state plus their associated "shorelands." Shorelands are defined as:
Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river
deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the
provisions of this chapter ... Any county or city may determine that portion of a one-
hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its master program as long as such portion
includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two
hundred feet therefrom. (RCW 90.58.030)
1.3.3 Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed
The Lake Washington basin covers most of the 692 square miles contained in WRIA 8 and is
populated with approximately 1.4 million people (Kerwin 2001). The City lies at the south
end of Lake Washington and contains approximately 21 square miles, or three percent, of the
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 1-3
City of Renton
Shoreline Alasla Program Update
Draft RestoratIOn Plan
total watershed and less than one-half percent of the total watershed population. Lake
Washington has 80 miles of shoreline, about six of which are within the Renton planning
area, or about eight percent.
The Cedar River Watershed drains an area of 191 square miles, 125 square miles of which lie
upstream of the City of Seattle drinking water diversion. The upper watershed is mostly
second growth forest, but 16 percent of it is climax, old-growth forest. Most impervious
surface in the watershed occurs in its lower, urbanized portions. The Lower Cedar River
basin is primarily (90 percent) within the jurisdictional boundary of King County. The
remaining jurisdictional area is within the cities of Renton (7.8 percent), Maple Valley (2.1
percent), and Kent (0.8 percent; King County 2009).
The May Creek watershed is about 8,960 acres in Renton, Newcastle, and unincorporated
King County, and includes 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands. The portion of the Creek in Renton includes 2.3 stream miles of shoreline
planning area partitioned into four reaches. The Creek is an important salmonid stream and
contains a substantial amount of protected shoreline.
1.3.3.1 Land Use
1-4
Land use areas within this section include the Lake Washington basin, Cedar River, and May
Creek Watersheds.
According to King County Assessor's (2008) parcel data, City land-use along the Lake's
shoreline is a mix of residential, industrial, parks, recreation and open space, and vacant areas
with vacant land and low-density residential development representing the dominant land
uses.
Thirteen of the 187 City parcels along the Lake's shoreline are either unmodified or restored
including one single-family residential property on Reach E and Gene Coulon Park on
Reaches F and G. Gene Coulon Park contains a combination of restored shoreline, vegetated
shoreline, and some armored shoreline. Kennydale Beach Park (Reach 0) contains a
combination of modified and natural shoreline. The remaining 174 City parcels contain some
level of "hard" armoring. This includes major commercial/industrial parcels (e.g., the Renton
Boeing Plant) and private residential properties with hard armoring, moderate armoring,
natural shoreline, or a combination thereof. Parcels that are completely armored with concrete
bulkheads, rocks, or similar structures comprise 67 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline.
The majority of these parcels occur in Reaches D, E, and K, which are developed for single
or single/multi-family residential use. Losses of wetland and shoreline vegetation in the Lake
is likely attributable to filling and shoreline development (Grass ley 2000).
City land-use along the Cedar River shoreline is composed of a mix of residential, parks,
recreation and open space, government/institutional, roadway and undeveloped lands. As a
result of human development within and upstream the city, 64 percent of the lower Cedar
River is modified on at least one bank, a condition which, in conjunction with decreased
flows, has artificially narrowed the river's historic average width of approximately 250 feet to
110 feet. This alteration has resulted in a 56 percent reduction in water surface area,
corresponding to a loss in available instream aquatic habitat (Kerwin 2001). Channelization
and the disconnection ofthe Cedar River floodplain for flood control have affected storage of
water, sediment, and contaminants, simplifying in stream habitat.
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of May Creek are a mix of parks, recreation and open
space, undeveloped lands, and residential. The upper, eastern portion of the basin is
characterized by less dense residential and agricultural development, and includes a
significant portion of the undeveloped parkland on Cougar Mountain. Above May Canyon,
the Creek lies in a formerly dredged, straightened channel at the center of a wide, very low-
March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton I
Shoreline Master Program C'lJdate
Draft RestoratIOn Plan
gradient valley. The lower, western portion of the basin is inside the Urban Growth Area
(UGA; primarily within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Renton and Newcastle) is fairly dense
urban residential development. About 50 percent of the basin is torested, but the amount of
urban development is increasing (Kerwin 200 I).
1.3.3.2 Nearshore and Riparian Habitat
Nearshore and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline is severely altered in
nearly every reach, within the City of Renton and outside of the City limits. Residential and
commercial development. including bulkheads. docks. paved areas, and landscaped yards
have adversely modified most of the Lake Washington shoreline habitat. However. many of
these shoreline areas continue to provide shallow water habitat at the toe of bulkheads, and
some locations that do not have bulkheads. Narrow docks perpendicular to the shorelines do
not appear to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook, but the fish appear to migrate
around wider structures where they occur in shallow water (less than three feet deep).
A Muckleshoot Tribe representative has indicated that the deeper nearshore habitats with
rocky substrates and without vegetation appear to be preferred by smallmouth and
largemouth bass. These bass may also be keying in on overwater coverage and pilings as
ambush habitat. Because there is an abundance of these habitat types in the shoreline,
predation opportunities that would not exist historically are likely increasing today (Walter
2009).
Shallow water habitat along these shorelines provides important rearing habitat for juvenile
Chinook as they slowly migrate from the Cedar River and rear along Lake Washington's
shorelines. Those areas closest to the River are most important for this rearing function
because the smallest Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months as
they gradually move away from the river mouth. Although riparian vegetation increases the
refuge and prey production functions for this habitat, the shallow beaches support rearing
juvenile Chinook in the absence of natural riparian vegetation (Tabor 2008).
The continuing cumulative adverse effects of bulkheads and the lack of native vegetation on
near-shore processes important to a variety of aquatic species including substrate character,
interflow, shallow water temperature, and the food web may be reduced in the future by the
recent proposal by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove the sheet-pile
outfall structure and restore the nearshore as part of an aquatic restoration program (DNR
2009) and by expansion ofthe Cedar River delta.
The Cedar River downstream of 1-405 is an artificial channel created early in the 20th
century, and is completely constrained between levees and revetments. These reaches were
regularly dredged to prevent flooding from their completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s.
Portions of the reaches were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-1970s.
Instream habitat in these reaches is almost entirely riffle, with little habitat complexity. Land-
uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for re-connection with
a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor. Channelization and existing
land-uses also prevent significant large woody debris (LWD) from accumulating in the
channel. Reaches A and B are also very low-gradient and depositional, and the substrates
have high levels of fine sediments.
The reach between 1-405 and SR 169 has a higher degree of function than downstream
reaches although it is partially diked, leveed, and bulkheaded with extensive alternation on
the north side (right bank) from past commercial multi-family and single family development.
The south side (left bank) is almost entirely in public ownership with relatively heavy
riparian vegetation, although there are some flood control revetments on the south side. The
Maplewood residential neighborhood on the north side (right bank) immediately downstream
March2010 I 553-1779-031 1-5
I
City of Renton
Shorelme .Masfcr Program Update
Draft Res/oration Plan
of SR 169 is subject to shallow flooding in a IOO-year event. In addition, an active landslide
scarp is located directly across the river from the neighborhood. The occurrence of a major
landslide would block all or a portion of the channel suddenly and could force river flows
across the residential area with potentially devastating results. The King County flood
management plan proposes voluntary buy-out of this area since there is no reliable means to
reduce long term landslide hazard.
The reach upstream of SR 169 is less constrained, allowing for the development of gravel
bars and a very small degree of meandering and channel migration. At present, Reach D has a
significant amount of LWD due to the landslide caused by the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001.
This includes log-jams behind the Ron Regis Park, just upstream of the Elliott Spawning
Channel. Most of the left bank of Reach C is deciduous forest, and the portion of Reach D
adjacent to fhe golf course and Ron Regis Park is deciduous forest. These forested areas are
generally at least 200 feet in width.
The Cedar River and May Creek delta provides a large amount of rapidly-developing, natural
shallow water habitat in Lake Washington. In the past, the mouth of the River was
periodically dredged for flood control. The City has no plans to dredge the delta in the future
for flood control (Straka 2008). However, some dredging for the Municipal Airport float
plane dock is proposed in order to restore water depths. Dredging at the mouth of May Creek
was previously performed to accommodate log storage for the Barbee Mill sawmill. The
natural processes at the delta have not yet developed any areas of sufficient elevation to
support riparian vegetation, but they have created a large amount of shallow water habitat
where young Chinook first enter fhe lake. Further natural expansion of the delta is likely to
eventually prove a very productive complex of shallow aquatic habitat, wetlands, and uplands
that together will provide for the transition between the river and lake environment that is
critical to a number of species, including salmon. The May Creek Basin Action Plan supports
enhancement offhat delta in the policy:
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits.
1.3.4 Green River/Springbrook Creek
1.3.4.1 Shoreline Inventory
The Green River Watershed covers an area of 566 square miles, a small portion of which falls
within Renton's jurisdiction. At approximately river mile (RM) II, the Green River passes to
the west of the City of Renton. None of the river channel lies within City limits, but some
floodway and jurisdictional shoreline as well as significant portions of tributary basins such as
the Black River/Springbrook Creek are located within City limits. Springbrook Creek is the
largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed area of about 15,763 acres
(24.6 square miles). The creek is 12 miles long including 3.5 miles within fhe City.
1.3.4.2 Land Use
1-6
The lower Green River Subwatershed contains a mix of agricultural, industrial, commercial,
parks/recreation/open space, roadways, and residential land uses (WRIA 9). Levees and/or
revetments have been constructed along the majority of the Green River to increase bank
strength and reduce flooding. Flows within the Green River have been significantly modified
March2010 I 553-1779-031
CilY of Renton I
Shorelme Master Program Update
Draft RestoraflOn Plan
after the construction of Howard A. Hansen Dam and installation of water diversions. These
modifications have considerably reduced the severity of Ooods that historically covered much
of the valley bottom. Current conditions of the Lower Green River levee and revetment
system is a growing source of concern for King County and jurisdictions involved, as many
of the levees are aging and would not meet current standards for either flood conveyance or
stability.
Springbrook Creek is the largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed
area of about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles). The basin is composed of two distinct
physical settings. In the eastern half of the subbasin, rolling hills rise to elevations of about
525 feet above the valley floor. The western half of the basin is virtually flat.
All of Springbrook Creek in the City was extensively modified and straightened for
agricultural drainage in the 1920s by King County Drainage District No.1, which owns the
Springbrook Creek right-of-way. The channel area from the Black River Pump Station,
including Forebay area up to the Oakesdale bridge crossing just upstream of Southwest 16th
Street, was improved in the 1980s and 1990s for flood control by the City in cooperation with
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service; Straka
2008).
The pump station prevents high flows in the Green River from backing up into Springbrook
Creek, reducing the risk of flooding. The pump station is a barrier to salmonids upstream and
downstream during certain seasons, and is in need of replacement to avoid obstructing fish
passage (Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
Instream habitat in the Springbrook Creek shoreline is extremely uniform and virtually
identical across reaches. The Black River Basin plan (City of Renton 1993) notes that under
present conditions the lack of suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing capacity due
to degraded water quality, especially high temperatures during warm summer months,
provides little usable fish habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). These limiting conditions
remain today. The stream is constrained and channelized throughout the shoreline. The
stream gradient is very flat, sinuosity is very low, and the stream has been almost completely
straightened in Reach C, reducing channel surface area (usable habitat) thereby limiting
habitat creation.
Reach A has been impounded by the Black River flood control structure, and much of the
reach is contained in a large pond that is prone to increased temperature and corresponding
low dissolved oxygen (DO). Temperature may present a barrier for migrating salmonids.
Impaired temperature and DO have degraded salmonid rearing and, in upstream reaches, have
inhibited incubation. The Black River Pumping Station can act as a barrier to migration of
juvenile and adult salmonids due to inadequate screening, fishway design, and operation
schedule (Kerwin and Nelson 2001). The riparian corridor in this reach is primarily forested
and more than 250-feet-wide on either bank. However, invasive reed canarygrass is also
dominant in areas, particularly on the river's left shoreline where public access and a trail
system exist.
The Black River lagoon is a large, open water and forested wetland. Another wetland
complex can be found downstream surrounding the Springbrook and Panther Creek
confluence. A wetland area has been preserved as part of the Longacres Business Park. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City implemented ajoint,
multi-site wetland mitigation bank that includes 130 acres of wetland restoration,
rehabilitation, and enhancement (WSDOT 2008).
March2010 I 553-1779-031 1-7
City of Renton
,s'horeline A1aster Program C/pdafe
Draft RestorallOn Plall
1.3.5 LAKE DESIRE
Lake Desire is comprised of mixed and deciduous forest interspersed with residential lots.
Along the north and southeast reaches of the lake's shoreline arc natural areas; the entire
shoreline has medium-high ecological function for LWD quality.
Biological function is affected by residential development along the Lake Desire shoreline,
but significant areas of open space exist along the north and southeast lakeshore. These areas
provide important habitat and other ecological functions enhanced by their place in a larger
network of natural areas. Contiguous parks and protected areas include Lake Desire Natural
Area, McGarvey Park Open Space, and Petrovisky Park. These conditions help the Lake
Desire shoreline sustain a high level of ecological function
Lake Desire is fed by two small tributaries, one each on the western and northern shoreline
(see Map 3a). Both streams are rated in City critical areas regulations as ephemeral and non-
salmonid bearing. The northern tributary flows past a wetland just upstream of its mouth. The
northern wetland and stream delta are a unique hemlock-forested peatland, a highly sensitive
Category 1 wetland (Lower Cedar River #15 in the King County Wetland Inventory) that is
one of few remaining in the urbanizing Puget Sound lowlands (King Co. 1993). An area of
hydric soil to the south of the Lake may be evidence of a historical wetland. Other wetlands
may occur in the area that have not yet been identified or mapped.
No priority habitats are found within the Lake Desire shoreline, nor is the Lake accessible to
anadromous salmon ids (see Map 5a). Lake Desire has historically been stocked with non-
native rainbow trout, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and largemouth bass, which all still
inhabit the Lake.
Lake Desire-Spring Lake Park serves as a wildlife corridor between the two lakes.
Contiguous natural upland areas ring Lake Desire to the east, north, and west, but residential
development along the lakeshore presents a barrier to wildlife movement to and from the
lake.
Nearshore habitat is impacted seasonally by increased phosphorus loads that cause algal
blooms. In addition, the invasive Eurasian milfoil has established itself in the Lake. Both
conditions alter natural habitat conditions and limit access to important shallow-water habitat.
1.3.6 Built Environment
1.3.6.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of Lake Desire are a mix of low density residential (59
percent) and undeveloped lands (35 percent). Existing land-use was assessed using 2008 King
County Assessor's parcel data.
Planned Land-Use
\.g
The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning land-use designations in the Lake Desire
shoreline planning area are low density residential (City of Renton 2008).
March2010 I 553·1779·031
City uJRellion I
Shoreline Master Proxram L'pdale
Draft Restorell/on Plan
2. WATERSHED RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
In response to the challenges facing the Sound, in 2007 the Legislature created the Puget
Sound Partnership to reverse Puget Sound's decline and restore it to health by 2020. This
agency replaced the Puget Sound Action Team created in 1996, to protect and restore Puget
Sound and its spectacular diversity of life now and for future generations. The Partnership has
developed the following priorities in its Action Plan:
Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain
Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost·
effective approach to ecosystem health.
Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget
Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at
an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage.
Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of the Partnership's efforts have
focused on cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient
resources have been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our
rivers, beaches, and species.
Priority D: Work together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding
are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region.
Many of the programs and laws now used to regulate or support activities in
Puget Sound were established on a piecemeal basis to address individual
problems. Strategies that will help to address problems more effectively at an
ecosystem scale include improved coordination of land use planning, water
supply, ecosystem protection, transportation, and species recovery plans. The
Action Agenda calls for the reform of environmental regulatory programs as
well as improvements to the capacity of local partners to implement actions
and compliance efforts across Puget Sound.
Priority E: Build an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management
system.
2.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER (WRIA 8) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRL4 8) Near·Term
Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation, Lake Washington suffers from "[a]ltered
trophic interactions (predation, competition), degradation of riparian shoreline conditions,
altered hydrology, invasive plant species, poor water quality (phosphorus, alkalinity, pH),
[and] poor sediment quality" (WRIA 8 Steering Committee 2002). The WRL4 8 Action
Agenda established four "ecosystem objectives," which are intended to guide development
and prioritization of restoration actions and strategies. The objectives are as follows:
a. "Maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create habitat characteristics
favorable to salmon.
b. Maintain or enhance habitat required by salmon during all life stages and maintain
functional corridors linking these habitats.
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 2·1
City ()f Renton
Shoreline Master Program fJpdare
Draft Restorarion Plan
c. Maintain a well-dispersed network of high-quality refuge habitats to serve as centers
of population expansion.
d. Maintain connectivity between high-quality habitats to allow for population expansion
into recovered habitat as degraded systems recover."
2_2.1 Cedar River/Lake Washington Objectives
Results from the WRlA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan as well as the Cedar River
Basin Plan supports lower Cedar River and Lake Washington basin goals and objectives.
These objectives aim to:
2.2.1.1 Lake Washington
• Increase native vegetation quality, width, and diversity in protected riparian corridors
adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration pathways for fish and
wildlife, along with food, nest sites, shade, and organic debris.
• Decrease frequency and impact of overwater and in-water structures through
minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials such as grated decking.
• Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation along lake
shorelines.
• Protect and Restore water quality within tributary streams.
• Where feasible, improve riparian health along shorelines hy removing bulkheads and
using bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to improve
aquatic conditions.
• Reconnect and rehabilitate small creek mouths along lake banks as juvenile rearing
areas.
2.2.1.2 Cedar River
Flood Damage Reduction
• Modify Levees and Revetments in selected areas to reduce public maintenance costs,
restore natural flood storage and help reduce flood damage system-wide.
• Re-establish Channel Capacity of the Renton Reach to I DO-year flood discharge in
order to reduce flood damages.
• Voluntary Flood Buyouts of Residences at locations along the mainstem to reduce
flood damage and danger to residents where the most hazardous flood flows occur.
• Provide Technical Assistance and Limited Financial Assistance to help floodplain
residents and responsible agencies reduce flood damages in the less hazardous areas
and improve flood emergency communications.
Aquatic Habitat
• Purchase Critical Habitat Sites as part of the King County Open Space Program.
• Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
2-2 MW'ch2010 I 553-1779-031
City oj Renton
Shore/me Master Program Update
Drafi Restoration Plan
Water Quality and Groundwater Protection
• Purchase Critical Habitat Sites at 13 mainstem and II tributary sites as part of the
King County Open Space Program.
• Restore and Enhance Aquatic Habitat at 70 mainstem and 14 tributary sites with
volunteer labor recruited for the smaller scale, labor intensive projects.
• Promote Forest Retention using incentives for landowners to keep their land in forest
uses such as tax relief and increased technical assistance.
• Protect Steep Ravines and Slopes of the Cedar River to prevent erosive runoff from
new development through a combination of infiltration and enhanced
retention/detention facilities.
2.2.2 Cedar River/Lake Washington Restoration Projects
Fifteen potential projects roughly within Renton's Jurisdiction are identified in the Final Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish/ Watershed (WRlA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
The following are Conservation Plan site-specific Protection and Restoration projects for
Lake Washington and the Cedar River respectively:
C266 Section I, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
Restoration ofDNR Property as part of City's Sam Chisham Trail project. Remove
a portion of flume (along lakeside), create shallow water habitat, protect existing
cove, and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along cove.
C267 Section I, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach H-I): Shoreline
restoration between mouth of Cedar River and Gene Coulon Park; explore options
with private property owners to remove bulkheads, restore shallow water habitat, and
riparian vegetation.
C268 Section I, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach J, Cedar River
Reach A): Explore lowering/modifYing Cedar River Delta to create more shallow
water habitat, reduce bird predation for juvenile salmon by cutting trees lower.
C269 Section I, South Lake Washington west of Cedar River Mouth (Reach K): Explore
options with homeowners to remove bulkheads, conversion of nearshore habitat to
shallow beach and restore riparian vegetation. Reduce number of docks by using
community docks.
C270 Section I, South Lake Washington near Cedar River Mouth (Reach K, D, B-A):
Explore opportunities to restore small creek mouths; remove bulkheads and reduce
number of docks by developing community docks throughout section I.
C264 Section 1, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach G): Enhance
mouth of Lower John's Creek; enhance lower channel to reduce predator habitat,
restore riparian vegetation, and protect water quality and quantity from stormwater
flows.
C265 Section I, South Lake Washington within Gene Coulon Park (Reach F): Enhance
mouth of Kennydale Creek, remove silt, and facilitate recruitment of sand and
gravel. Protect existing shallow water delta.
C203, C204 Logan St. Bridge to 1-405 (Cedar River Reach B, RM 1-1.6): Explore options
to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river and for any needed restoration
plantings on the right bank. If redevelopment occurs in this reach of river, explore
possibility of setting back levees and restoring riparian buffer.
Mru-ch2010 1553-1779-031 2-3
I
City of Renton
Shorelme Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Pian
C206 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Riparian restoration on right bank of
industrial use area likely to be redeveloped in the near future, improve riparian
habitat via easement purchase for buffer and removing bank hardening.
C207 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): There is multifamily residential usc
on the right bank of the river; explore opportunities to remove impervious surface
area and bank hardening on site, restore riparian buffer.
C20g 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM /.6-4.2): Maplewood neighborhood flood
buyouts and floodplain restoration, explore options to restore floodplain.
C211 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): The Cedar River
Basin Plan includes a potential project to restore a side channel on the right bank of
the river on property owned by Maplewood Height Home Owners Association and
the City across from the golf course and downstream the landslide. Channel
restoration should include a flow-through channel reconnected to the Cedar at upper
end for juvenile Chinook benefit.
C2l2 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): Conifer under-
planting within reach, particularly in Ron Regis Park near slide area.
C213. C214 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.7): Protect
existing riparian habitat and extensive LWD in reach. Explore using LWD and levee
setback to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to public lands associated
with Ron Regis Park while protecting natural habitat forming processes. Project
study should include lower Madsen Creek.
2.3 DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER (WRIA 9) SYSTEM-WIDE PRIORITIES
According to the GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-
Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed
suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to land use changes which
have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon habitat, major engineering changes to
shoreline environments, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and
industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides
(WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2002). The WRIA 9 Near-Term Action Agenda established
three high priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery:
• "Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River watershed
and the nearshore areas of VashonlMaury Island.
• Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot
Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves several
types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat, restoring degraded
habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water quality and flows.
• Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles) to and
from the Upper Green River subwatershed."
2.3.1 Lower Green River
The following habitat management strategies for the Lower Green River subwatershed,
including Renton, are also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit
for a King (Steering Committee 2005):
• In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and
revetments to the maximum extent practicable.
2-4 March 2010 I 553-1779-031
Clfy of .Henton I
Shoreline .Hasler Program L'IJdate
Draft Restoratio/] Plan
• Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all
new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river.
Rehabilitation includes:
Installation of L WD
Control of invasive weeds and replanting of native vegetation
Introduction of spawning gravel in the Green River Mainstem
• Protect and restore side channels, off-channel wetlands, tributary mouths, and pools
that provide shelter and habitat complexity for young salmon.
• Protect and restore natural sediment movement by reconnecting sediment sources to
the river.
• Modify the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage.
Although the GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term
Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in
ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures
those processes and functions that benefit all fish and wildlife.
2.3.2 Black River/Springbrook Creek
Key findings and identified habitat limiting factors in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Report-Part II (Kerwin 2000) include:
• Historically, it is believed that these creeks were important areas ofrefugia to
anadromous salmonids that reared year round in the Green River basin.
• Water quality is degraded throughout much of this subbasin.
• There is no functioning riparian habitat throughout the lower reaches of Mill and
Springbrook Creeks. The absence of this habitat contributes to the lack of stream
channel diversity, complexity, and ultimately successful salmonid rearing capabilities.
• The Black River Pump Station is a partial fish passage barrier and does not meet
current fish screening criteria. Adult salmonids that migrate upstream ofthis structure
cannot migrate back into the mainstem Green River because of facility design.
• There are several known barriers to adult salmonid fish passage in Springbrook, Mill,
and Garrison Creeks. Some of these barriers are seasonal and/or dependent on annual
precipitation patterns.
• Degraded water quality throughout the lower reaches of Springbrook and Mill Creeks
adversely impact adult Chinook and coho reproductive success along with coho,
cutthroat, and steelheadjuvenile survival.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 2-5
Cify of Renton
Shoreline Master Program L'pdate
Drajt Restoration Plan
2.3.3 Green River/Springbrook Restoration Projects
2·6
Restoration goals and objectives from the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan support lower Green
River subwatershed areas in proximity to or within City shorelines. These goals aim to:
• Improve the health of the Green River. Springbrook Creek and additional tributary
streams by identifying hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent
feasible with bioengineered stabilization solutions.
• Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and erosion
control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline processes. Where
levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set back due to infrastructure
considerations, maintain and repair them using design approaches that maximize the
use of native vegetation and LWD.
• Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing L WD
recruitment potential through plantings of trees, particularly conifers, in the riparian
corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-tenn needs.
• Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams.
Specific projects identified include:
LG 17 Fort Dent Levee (RM 11.4-11.7): Without affecting existing soccer fields, setback
the Fort Dent Levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench.
Plant native riparian vegetation and add LWD along toe of slope and on the created
bench. Rehabilitate existing banklines to create low velocity and/or shallow water
habitat during juvenile migration.
LG 18 Black River Marsh (RM 11): Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable
native vegetation at the Black River confluence with the GreenlDuwamish. Project
would remove 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement ofLWD along banklines.
LG 19 Lower Springbrook Reach (RM 1): Rehabilitate riparian areas for rearing and off-
channel refuge on Springbrook Creek. Approximately 4,500 feet of Springbrook
would be improved with riparian plantings, LWD, pool construction, channel branch
excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a two-stage (low-and
high-flow) channel.
In addition, a number of potential restoration efforts for the Black River/Springbrook Creek
watershed were identified.
March 2010 1553·1779.031
CityafRenton I
Shoreline Master Program C'pdate
Draft Restoration Plan
3. ONGOING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND ORGANIZATIONS
3.1 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON
3.1.1 WRIA 8 Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan
The City is one of27 members of the WRIA 8 forum, which funded and developed the Final
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic
and site-specific actions to address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Lake
Washington/Cedar River Watershed (WRIA 8 2005). Site-specific restoration sites and
objectives of the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan are identified within the
Potential Sites Section 2.2.2 of the Restoration Plan.
3.1.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007, the King County Council established the King County Food Control Zone District
(KCFCZD) which included transfer of the assets of the previously-existing 10 individual
flood control zone districts to the new countywide district and established a countywide tax
assessment.
Current plans call for spending between $179 million and $335 million to implement the
recommendations included in the recently adopted Flood Hazard Management Plan (King
County 2007). These plans and projects include the installation of setback levees and
inclusion of habitat features as part of the overall flood control project. The plan was adopted
by the King County Council January 16,2007.
Within the Flood Hazard Management Plan lies the Action Plan to address flood risk
reduction needs as well as allocating grant funds. Basin-specific areas within King County
are categorized based on requiring "status quo" for work that can be achieved with the current
funding or "enhanced funding" for high priority needs that will require additional funding
sources. A full list of Cedar River proposed actions and cost estimates can be seen below at
Table 3-1 (KCFHMP 2007).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 3-1
City r?f Renton
Shoreline Masler Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action Description Project Estimated
Start Date 10-Year Cost
Cedar River Residential Determine best alternative(s) for reducing 2008 $175.000
Flood Hazard Mitigation risks to homes in areas subject to flood
Analysis hazards including both repetitive loss and
proposed project areas. Emphasis will be on
residential neighborhoods with extensive flood
hazard areas. Supports recommendations
ERA-1 through 4.
Cedar River Channel Prepare channel migration zone study and 2009 $30,000
Migration Zone Study maps for the Cedar River.
and Mapping.
Cedar Rapids Levee Setback levee to improve flood conveyance 2009 $137,000
Setback and restore habitat. Complete project design,
permits, and construction. Funding will cover
project management and non reimbursable
grant expenses associated with this grant
funded project. Total project cost is estimated
at $1,500,000.
Jan Road-Rutlege Remove portions of both levees that protect 2009 $955,000
Johnson Levee only open space. Segments of existing levees
Setbacks constrict conveyance and direct erosive flood
flows into the Cedar River Trail and State
Route 169.
Dorre Don Meanders -Purchase flood-prone properties in lower 2009 $175,000
Phase 1 Flood Hazard Dorre Don area and, where possible, modify
Analysis levees to improve flood conveyance and
protect residential area.
Maplewood Acquisition Evaluate hazard reduction options in 2009 $116,446
and Levee Setback neighborhood at risk of flooding due to
Phase 1 landslide and rapid channel change
Renton -Cedar River Reconstruct one of five bridges to an elevation 2014 $667,395
Bridge Flood Reduction above the new floodplain (protects major
Project public infrastructure).
Cedar Grove Mobile Purchase mobile home park and provide 2008 $4,349,000
Home Park Acquisition relocation assistance to the residents in this
Project area of major flood hazards.
Rainbow Bend Levee Setback or remove levee to improve flood 2009 $1,733,000
Setback and Floodplain conveyance and storage through this reach
Reconnection and to restore floodplain functions.
Cedar River Early Action Purchase or otherwise mitigate flood risks to 2009 $2,811,000
Residential Flood nine repetitive loss properties not addressed
Hazard Mitigation by other projects in this basin. Supports
recommendations ERA-1 and 4.
Herzman Levee Setback Setback levee to reduce erosive forces on the 2008 $1,023,000
& Floodplain Cedar River Trail and State Route 169.
Reconnection
Cedar River Gravel Riparian enhancement, both sides of reach, 2010 $6,039,877
Removal Project Facilitate instream pool structure, habitat
diversity and floodplain connections in reach.
Lower Lions Club Purchase and remove flood-prone homes. 2011 $1,485,671
3-2 March 20 \0 I 553-1779·031
City of Renton I
Shoreline .Haster Program Update
Drafi RestoratIOn Plan
Table 3-1. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan (continued)
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for the Cedar River (2007-2016)
Proposed Action
Lower Jones Road
Setback Project
Maplewood Acquisition
and Levee Setback
Phase 2
Getchman Levee
Setback and Floodplain
Reconnection
Rhode Levee Setback
and Home Buyouts
Description Project Estimated
Start Date 10-Year Cost
Purchase the homes and property. set back 2012 $4,408,000
road, and associated revetment.
Reduce flooding risks in neighborhood at risk 2013 $10,528,784
of flooding due to landslide and rapid channel
change.
Setback the levee to improve river's flood
conveyance, flood storage, and its interaction
with lower Taylor Creek, while maintaining
protection for Maxwell Road. Most of the
acquisitions for this project are already
completed or are underway.
Purchase homes along path of fastest,
deepest flood flow, and set back the levee to
lower localized velocities and depths.
$2,670,000
$3,518,000
3.1.3 King County Conservation District
Between the years of 1999 and 2005, total grant money offered by the King Conservation
District (KCD) totaled about $5 million for 64 projects and actions KCD funding doubled in
2006 due to an increase in the KCD assessment from $5 per parcel to $10 per parcel. In 2006
and 2007, KCD grants for habitat restoration within WRIA 8 totaled approximately $1.4
million annually and funded 15 actions each year (King County 2009). Between 1994 and
2007, the City has received $45,978 in KCD Member Jurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant
Program Grants within the City-wide reaches of Cedar River, Lake Washington, and May
Creek for the May Creek Basin Action Plan which was completed in 2001.
High priority projects and programs for WRIA 8 KCD funding are found in the Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan and Potential Sites Section 6.2 for Cedar River and Lake
Washington Shorelines within the City.
WRIA 8 projects in-progress or completed projects funded in part by KCD Grants include:
• The Cedar Rapids -Ricardi Reach Floodplain Acquisition (C224) includes 15 acres
for restoration project (C222) work and levee removal. The area is between RM 7.2-
7.4 of the Cedar River mainstem and was completed 12/31/2007.
• Rainbow Bend Acquisition allows funds from the 2007 KCD Grant Cycle to purchase
20 acres of floodplain at a cost of $1.1 million along the Lower Cedar River. The area
includes most natural existing riverine and riparian habitat downstream from Maple
Valley.
• The Cedar River Habitat Restoration Stewardship (2007) provides funds for planting
projects and stewardship of restoration sites such as the Lions Club side-channel
project.
• Lower Cedar Acquisition allows funds to purchase up to 20 acres of floodplain along
the Lower Cedar River (RM 9 -15.1) in 2008.
For a map and list of further habitat work projects made possible in part by King
Conservation District grants in WRIA 8, go to: http://hws.ekosystem.us/
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 3·)
City of Renton
Shoreline Musla Program Update
Draft Resloraliol1 Plan
3.1.4 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.1.4.1 Renton Community Services Department
The Volunteer Program within the City's Community Services Department operates within
many City departments and several restoration-specific regional groups. Within the City,
park and recreation volunteer opportunities are available for a variety of groups based on size,
commitment, and interest. Habitat restoration volunteer park projects in the past 1-2 years
include:
• Cedar River Trail invasive plant removal, replanting with trees and shrubs, and litter
clean-up (2008-09);
• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park shoreline litter clean up and invasive plant
removal (2008);
• Fish Ladder/Cedar River tree planting (2008); and
• Black River Riparian Forest invasive plant removal and path restoration (2008-09).
Upcoming park restoration projects in need of volunteers can be found on the spotlight
opportunities webpage: http://rentonwa.gov/workingldefault.aspx?id=568.
3.1.4.2 Salmon Watchers Program
The Salmon Watchers Program provides opportunities for citizens to be involved in the care
of salmon-bearing streams. During the salmon run season between September and January,
volunteers record the number of salmon they witness at a selected location and the date and
time of their site visits. The program serves to increase public awareness of the plight of the
salmon, and indicates where habitat enhancement may be valuable. Volunteers will be
trained at several locations on distinguishing the various species of salmon and trout; training
is provided by the City of Renton Surface Water Utility and the King County Water and Land
Resources Division.
Within Renton, volunteers can select from sites along the Cedar River and May Creek that
are optimal for salmon watching. The specific locations will be safe and easily accessible.
For more on the Salmon Watchers Program and volunteer opportunities, please visit the
Salmon Watcher Web Site of King County Water and Land Resources:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environmentianimalsAndPlants/salmon-and-troutisalmon-
watchers.aspx
3.1.4.3 Cedar River Naturalist Program
3-4
Friends of the Cedar River Watershed (FCRW) is the non-profit whose mission is to inspire
conservation and protection of a healthy Cedar River Watershed through restoration,
education, and stewardship. FCR W leads the Cedar River Naturalist Program and has been
active in recruiting volunteers, hosting restoration work parties within the watershed, and
raising funds to help build the Cedar River Watershed Education Center. Along with
restoration events, FCR W programs include:
• The Cedar River Watershed Report works in collaboration with local schools,
governments, the media, and non-profit groups to engage high school leaders in a
progress evaluation towards sustainability in the Cedar River Watershed.
• The Cedar River Salmon Journey stations volunteer naturalists at sites along the
Cedar River to educate visitors about the journey made by salmon from the ocean,
through the Ballard Locks, into Lake Washington, and on up the River to spawn.
More information and volunteer opportunities can be found at: www.cedarriver.org
March 2010 1553.1779.031
Clfy of Renlon I
Shoreline .'fasler Program {jpda/e
Draft Restora/lOn Plan
3.2 GREEN RIVER ISPRINGBROOK CREEK
3.2.1 WRIA 9 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan
The importance of the Green/Duwamish Watershed as an ecosystem within the Puget Sound
has resulted in considerable focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the
federal listing of Chinook and bull trout as endangered species. watershed planning in the
region (e.g .• WRIA 9) has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 2005). The
plan establishes goals. objectives, and programmatic and site specific actions to address
restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Green River watershed.
The City was one of 16 members of the WRIA 9 Forum, which participated in financing and
developing the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. The City's
Shoreline Master Program update relies on the science included in the WRIA 9 Salmon
Habitat Plan and related documents, and incorporates recommended projects and actions
from the WRIA 9 documents.
3.2.2 King County Flood Control Zone District
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for an
integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007 the King County Council established the KCFCZD which included transfer of the
assets of the previously-existing ten individual flood control zone districts to the new
countywide district and established a countywide tax assessment.
Within the lower Green River Basin, KCFCZD sponsors levee improvement projects with
local partnerships (KCFHMP 2007). A start list of Green River proposed actions and cost
estimates from 2007-2016 generated by the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management
Plan includes five projects listed in Table 3-2:
Table 3-2. 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
Proposed Actions and Cost Estimates for Green River, City of Renton Vicinity (2007-2016)
Proposed Action
Pump Station Operation
Green River Flood Study
Nursing Home Levee
Project
Salmon Habitat
Recovery Cost Share
Green River Flood
Control Zone District
Program Management
March 2010 I 553·1779·031
Description
Maintain and Operate three pump stations including the
Black River pump station
Complete flood study and corresponding Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for the Green River between RM 5 -45.
Rehabilitate levees to reduce the risk of flooding in the
Lower Green River.
Provide financial support to and participate in Salmon
Recovery Funding Board and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Ecosystem Recovery Project habitat projects.
Provide program management and administration to Green
River Flood Control Zone District projects, programs, and
other related activities.
Estimated
10-Year
Cost
$2.100.000
$1.000,000
$2,438,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
3-5
I
Cif)' of Renton
Shoreline Master Program L'pdate
Draft Restoration Plal1
3.2.3 King Conservation District
The KCD is a non-regulatory natural resources assistance agency founded in 1949. The
District promotes conservation through demonstration projects, educational events, providing
technical assistance, and, in some cases, providing or pointing the way to funds that may be
available for projects.
The WRIA 9 Forum allocates approximately $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential
technical assessments (KCD 2009). Since 2005, high priority sites for WRIA 9 KCD funding
were identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat Plan and Strategic Assessment report.
Between the years of 1994-2007, the City of Renton has been awarded a total of $86,076 in
KCD Member Jurisdiction and WRIA Forum Grant Program Grants for six projects within
the City-wide reaches of Green River and Black River/Springbrook Creek. These projects
include the Wetland Mitigation, Springbrook Creek, Future Stream Enhancement Project for
1994 ($5,456) and 1995 ($5,565); the Springbrook Creek Channel Improvement and Wetland
Mitigation Project ($11,549.19); the Black River Riparian Forest Buffer Enhancement Plan
($3,552); the SW 34th Street Culvert Replacement Project ($55,085); and the Black River
Channel Native Plant Restoration Project PI & PII ($4,869).
3.2.4 Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project
A couple of the projects listed in the WRIA 9 Recommended Programs were originally
identified by the Green-Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project (ERP), a cooperative effort
between 17 local governments, Indian Tribes, the State of Washington, NOAA Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, and various
other organizations and private citizens.
The ERP generated a list of 45 projects, 29 of which were ultimately incorporated into the
Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed Fit for a King which received nearly $2
million in funding. As of 2005, ERP implementation funds of nearly $2 million were
provided by the federal government under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Of the 29 projects incorporated in the Salmon Habitat Plan, three are found in the Lower
Green River and Springbrook Creek areas specific to the City of Renton. These projects
listed numerically (LG-#) in the Plan include Fort Dent levee setback (LG-17), Black River
Marsh riparian rehabilitation (LG-18), and Lower Springbrook Reach (LG-18); see full
description at Potential Restoration Sites Section 6.1.2.
3.2.5 City of Renton Restoration Projects and Programs
3.2.5.1 Renton Community Services Department
See Section 3.1.4.1 for infonnation about the Volunteer Program within the City's
Community Service Department.
3.2.6 Black River Watershed Alliance
3-6
The Black River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) is an organization which coordinates a variety
of restoration projects within the Black River and Springbrook Creek Watersheds. Past
projects include: native plant restoration on the downstream and upstream sides of the Black
River Pump Station as part of the Black River Channel Native Plant Restoration Project,
Black River Riparian Forest wildlife monitoring, free class and group presentations, free
school and group field trips through the forest, booths at open houses and events, and
participation in the King County Clean Stream Car Wash Program (Renton 2007).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City of Renton
Shoreline lfaster Program Update
Draft Resturalwn Plan
Restoration work done by Black River Watershed Alliance has received support through
grants from King County matched by the City with KCD funds. With the help of volunteers,
BR W A aims to:
• Protect and enhance the Black River Watershed for wildlife habitat, water and air
quality, and for its historic value to indigenous people.
• Develop community awareness of the Black River Watershed through
educational field trips and presentations, and restoration projects.
• Foster community stewardship of the Black River.
• Work cooperatively with other groups interested in protecting the Black River.
• Provide an opportunity for the community to connect with nature.
More information at: http://www.blackriverwatershedalliance.com/
3.2.7 Herons Forever
Herons Forever is a non-profit organization. The Black River heron colony is one of the
largest in Washington State with over 50 active nests. Herons Forever is a non-profit
organization which strives to build local support to preserve, protect, and enhance the Black
River Riparian Forest for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enjoyment of citizens. Herons Forever
sets up volunteer work parties to help restore Blue Heron habitat through invasive plants and
litter removal and has helped secure public funds to purchase nearly 60 acres of private land
buffering heron nest sites by 1996.
More information at: http://www.heronsforever.orgl
3.3 CITY OF RENTON CITY-WIDE ACTIONS
3.3.1 Stormwater Management and Planning
Stormwater discharge from throughout the city eventually enters surface water and enters the
Lake Washington/Cedar River or Green River watersheds.
On March 31, 2008, Ecology approved the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II permit. The NPDES Phase II permit is required to cover the City's
stormwater discharges into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit,
the City must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach;
detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (spills, illegal dumping,
wastewater); management and regulation of construction site runoff; management and
regulation of runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction; and pollution
prevention and maintenance for municipal operations.
Currently, Renton has approved use of the 2009 King County Stormwater Permit Design
Manual along with city amendments to implement NPDES Phase II Municipal Stormwater
Permit deadlines given by the Department of Ecology in 2007. Based on the implementation
of the City's Storm Water Management Plan, new developments which create more than
5,000 square feet of new impervious surface trigger drainage review including off-site
analyses, erosion and runoff control, and conveyance system design. This will help mitigate
any further water quality degradation done to salmon bearing waters such as May Creek and
Cedar River as well as nearshore riparian habitat of Springbrook Creek and Lake
Washington.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 3-7
City of Rent()n
Shoreline ,Haster· Program lfpdule
Draft RestO/'atiun Plan
Implementing NPDES Phase II flow control and surface watcr design standards will aid in
the City's ability mitigate pollution from municipal stormwater systems into the City's
streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands.
3.3.2 Critical Areas Regulations
The City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations are found in Renton Municipal Code Section
4-3-050 of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, The City adopted a
revised Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in 2004, consistent with other requirements of the
Growth Management Act update, The updated regulations are based on "best available
science," and provide a high level of protection to critical areas in the City, particularly for
streams and wetlands.
The regulations affect lands outside of Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction and address:
o Geologically hazardous areas
o Frequently flooded areas
o Critical aquifer recharge areas
o Wetlands
o Habitat conservation areas, including streams and lakes and areas associated with
priority species
Provisions in the regulations generally:
o Provide for the general prohibition of alteration in those critical areas with ecological
importance such as wetlands, streams, lakes, marine shorelines, and wildlife habitat
areas.
o Restrict the range of allowed uses.
o Provide for buffers to either protect human health and safety (in the case of
Geological Hazards) or protect ecological functions.
3.3.3 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan
3-8
The City of Renton's objective under this policy framework is to provide a high quality
comprehensive park, recreation, open space, and trails system to meet short-and long-term
needs of current and future Renton residents. The following policies concerning natural
resources protection and restoration include:
Policy P-17. Encourage private donations of properties where public access is anticipated or
planned and where consistent with the Long Range Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan.
Policy P-41. Steward the City's open space network to protect the City's natural character
and sustain its urban forest resources.
Policy P-57. Develop inventories and management plans for open space and natural areas.
Policy P-58. Provide funds for native vegetation and other habitat enhancements to
encourage appropriate wildlife on existing open space lands where consistent with the
recreational use of the area.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031
Policy P-59. Acquire open space that has the following features:
a. Can fill a gap or connect the existing open space network
b. Is environmentally sensitive or unique
c. Provides wildlife habitat
d. Can protect natural resource areas
e. Is archeologically significant
f. Provides relieffrom urban development
Cify oj Renton I
Shoreline "Haster Program update
Draft Restoratioll Plan
Policy P-60. Increase public awareness of, and appreciation for, specific natural features
through education and interpretive programs.
Policy P-67. Linkages should be provided with surrounding communities within major
regional corridors such as the Cedar River, Green River, the Lake Washington Loop, and the
Soos Creek Trail.
Policy P-I09. Partner with non-profit agencies, King County, the State of Washington, the
Federal government and other public and private service providers to meet the cultural,
recreational, social, and environmental programs and space needs of the City.
Policy P-116. Coordinate with other governmental agencies and private organizations to
provide a connected open space system for the City and surrounding region.
3.3.4 Capital Facilities Plan
3.3.4.1 Surface Water Utility
A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-
site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance
(Renton Municipal Code Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns,
maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within
public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management
purposes.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard in Renton
The Surface Water Utility LOS is intended to accomplish the following:
• Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall
duration and intensity to protect public safety, property, and convenience of areas
within City;
• Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and
groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies;
• Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water
runoff to pre-developed level; and
• Provide protection offish and wildlife habitat.
Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007-2012
Surface Water Utility developments include: Cedar River Basin, Springbrook Creek Wetland
and Habitat Mitigation Bank, Storm System Improvement and Replacement, Springbrook
Creek Improvements, and Green River Ecosystem Restoration. Budgeting costs for these
items between the years of 2007-2012 will be $8,835,000 (CFP 2008).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 3-9
I City of Renton
Shoreline ,I.,faster Program Update
Draft Re stomt/On Nan
3.3.4.2 Parks
Parks and open space areas within the City provide ways for the public to interact with the
natural environment. Adjacent and within sensitive shorelines. open space natural areas serve
to protect existing habitat from effects of the built environment. Park and open space areas
must continue to grow to match City growth as well as mitigate development impacts to
wildlife habitat within sensitive shoreline areas.
The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acresll,OOO population. The
LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas is only 5.35 acresll,OOO, which reduces the
2007 overall Planning Area LOS to 12.26 acresll ,000. Continued acquisition of park and
open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing
boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved Potential Annexation Areas (CFP 2008).
Acquisitions
Two Park types within Renton's Capital Facilities Plan cater toward open space protection
and restoration:
1. Open Space Areas, defined as general open space, trail systems, and other
undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep
hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive
area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily
wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas.
• Open Space Areas applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
May Creek Greenway (29.82 acres), Honey Creek Greenway (35.73 acres), May
CreekiMcAskill (l0 acres), and Cedar River Natural Area (237 acres).
• Open Space Areas applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes: the
Black River Riparian Forest (92 acres), Panther Creek Wetlands (73 acres),
Renton Wetlands (125 acres), and Cleveland Property (23.66 acres), Springbrook
Watershed (38 acres).
The majority of this park type is wetlands, steep slopes or land otherwise not suitable
for recreational development.
2. Linear Parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that
generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a
street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of
open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this
type of area.
• The Linear Parks applicable to the Cedar River/Lake Washington area include:
the Cedar River Trail (4.5 miles), Honey Creek Trail (I mile), and Lake
Washington Blvd (1.5 miles).
• The Linear Parks applicable to the Green River/Springbrook area includes the
Springbrook trail spanning a length of two miles.
Opportunities exist for additional linear parks along utility corridors.
Management of Existing Parks
3-10
The city policies for management of parks provide for meeting multiple goals including both
recreational use and ecological stewardship.
March2010 I 553-1779-031
City oj Renton I
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draji RestoratIOn Plan
Opportunities for incremental changes in park management to sustain more productive
shoreline resources include measures such as shifting activity areas such as picnic areas
further from the water's edge, relocating lawn areas further from the waters edge and planting
and maintaining native vegetation buffers along the water. The management of waterfront
park lands represents a challenge in balancing competing goals of the Shoreline Management
Act of increasing public recreational use of the shoreline and protecting and enhancing
ecological processes.
3.3.5 Private Development
Many shoreline properties have the potential for improvement of ecological functions
through:
• Management of shoreline vegetation to emphasize native species to reduce
potential water quality impacts from chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides), contribute to temperature attenuation and provide food-cycle
functions;
• Reduction or modification of shoreline arrnoring;
• Reduction of overwater cover and in-water structures or reducing shading; and
• Reductions in impervious surface coverage and/or water quality treatment of
runoff prior to discharge into surface waters.
The SMP includes requirements for removing bulkheads and similar hard shoreline structure
when properties are redeveloped, including partial compliance at lower levels of
redevelopment. The City could also explore administrative incentives for restoration, such as
waiving some or all permit fees or providing more rapid review.
Multiple contiguous properties may be restored through grant resources that would address
restoration more effectively than through lot-by-Iot redevelopment.
3.3.6 Public Education/Outreach
Voluntary actions by shoreline property owners are an essential element of the restoration
strategy and have fhe potential to affect a greater extent of the property than the limited
number of properties expected to redevelop in the future. The Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
includes a range of "Outreach and Education Actions" with a range of target audiences from
the general public, to shoreline property owners in general, to lakeshore property owners
specifically, to businesses, to youth, and others.
The City also can work with other local jurisdictions to establish a Shore Stewards program
for Lake WaShington, the Cedar River, and SpringbroOk Creek within the existing King
County. Shore Steward programs provide a forum for waterfront and stream-side property
owners to share ideas, information and resources and sets up guidelines for shoreline
residents to preserve and enhance fhe shoreline environment.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 3-11
City of Renton I
.')'horeline Master Program Update
Draft RestoraflOn Plan
4. RENTON RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES & PRIORITIES
4.1 OVERALL CITY GOALS
The Renton SMP Restoration Plan is intended to be coordinated with other existing plans in
the area, but provide additional potential project focused on opportunities identified in the
SMP Inventory/Characterization.
The SMP Restoration Plan Goals are:
• Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in
WRIA 8 to implement the Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
(WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
• Use the scientific foundation and the identification of opportunities and
constraints in the SMP Inventory/Characterization together with other watershed,
fish, and flood control plans as a resource to identifY restoration strategies and
projects.
• Use the comprehensive list of projects and other actions consistent with the
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, and the King County Flood Management
Plan as sources of potential site-specific projects.
• Coordinate land use decisions, particularly mitigation required of development
projects, with the comprehensive list of project actions for coordinated
implementation of the most effective restoration strategy.
• Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property
owners, in addition to agency funded and project related actions as well as
resource friendly daily actions such as vegetation selection and management,
pesticide/herbicide use, car washing and other activities.
• Provide for management of City-owned parks and other facilities to provide for
ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control and other goals.
• Seek funding for restoration actions and programs from a variety of sources and
by working with other WRIA 8 stakeholders to seek federal, state, grant and
other funding opportunities.
4.2 LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER
4.2.1 Restoration Priorities
Restoration of Renton's shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with site-specific
limitations. The WRIA 8 Chinook Conservation Strategy and the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan lists an array of actions on potential restoration sites listed above that
watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next decade. Chinook Conservation
Strategy priorities for Lower Cedar River and South Lake Washington intend to:
• Protect the best remaining habitat and prevent degradation of existing high-
quality habitat.
• Protect, reconnect, andlor restore off-channel habitat and shallow, mainstem
habitat.
• Protect and, where feasible, restore floodplain connectivity throughout the Cedar
River subarea.
March2010 1553-1779-031 4-1
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Drajt Restorarion Plan
• Remove bank hardening and remove or setback existing structures in the
floodplain to prevent additional bank hardening.
• Protect and restore in-stream channel complexity and runctional riparian
conditions.
• Ensure the adequate and continual supply of suitable spawning substrate
throughout the system.
• Reduce forest road runoff and fine sediments entering the mainstem and its
tributaries.
• Protect and maintain flows in the mainstem and tributaries to provide suitable
rearing, spawning, and migratory habitats for all salmon species.
• Enhance existing habitats: This action will improve the functioning of the
existing aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats which presently exist
along the Cedar River and at tributary mouths entering Lake Washington. These
actions could include the removal of non-native invasive vegetation, installation
of native riparian vegetation, and installation of L WD below ordinary high water
mark.
4.2.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
4·2
Tables 4-1 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map I.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031
City uJ Rel1lon
Shoreline Master Program [/pdate
Draft Reslora/ion Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach Location
Lake Washington
Lake Washington Reach A From Bellevue city limits to
Renton city limits
Lake Washington Reach B From the city limits to the
Sea hawks training facility
Lake Washington Reach C From the Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training
facility through the former
Barbee Mill site.
Lake Washington Reach D From May Creek to Mountain
View Avenue
March2010 I 553-1779-031
Restoration Objectives
This developed single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing adverse impacts shall be through providing for native
vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water and may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on
the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection
incorporating vegetation.
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and
to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or belter chance of affecting
change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A
Some opportunities may be present at the Puget Sound Energy submerged cable crossing in this reach if it is
replaced in the future.
This area provides some riparian vegetation at the Seahawks facility from previous redevelopment activity.
There is a large vacant parcel with complex wetlands and some riparian vegetation in the center portion of the
site that would require buffer preservation and enhancement upon redevelopment The site is currently a
superfund site and it will be important to integrate the policies and standards of the SMP as part of any cleanup
program.
Adjacent to the Barbee Mill subdivision there is a narrow replanted vegetation area on publiC aquatic land that
has been withdrawn from leasing in recognition of the ecological restoration activities that have taken place.
A portion of the frontage to the south is bulkheaded single family lots with pending dock applications.
In the long term over 20 to 50 years, May Creek delta formation will lead to additional riparian area and shallow
wetlands where riparian vegetation will provide multiple benefits to aquatic and terrestrial species.
The May Creek Basin Management Plan addresses the delta in the following: "
In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance
May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility
study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could
reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic
benefits."
The (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan includes Project C277 Restoration of mouth of May Creek.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued, This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
imgrovements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks aSJlfQll<lrty redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
4-3
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location
Lake Washington Reach E from Mountain View Avenue
to Gene Coulon Park
Lake Washington Reach F The less developed northerly
portion of Gene Coulon Park
Lake Washington Reach G The more developed
southerly portion of Gene
Coulon Park
Lake Washington Reach H Southport mixed-use
development
Restoration Objectives
encouraged through education programs.
Some opportunities may be present on short sections of shoreline presently part of the railroad right of way that
may be acquired by King County.
The City of Renton Parks Department has opportunities to naturalize the Kennydale Park water frontage through
softer shoreline protection in conjunction with beach restoration and provision of shoreline native riparian
vegetation.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the shoreline.
The status of this area and restoration opportunities are similar to Reach A and would involve incremental
improvements to vegetation, bulkheads and docks as property redevelops as well as voluntary improvements
encouraged through education programs.
This public park provides numerous opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegelation s implemented
as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Kennydale Creek is enhancement Project C265 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This is the more active portion of the park with more hard surface, a boat launCh ramp, over-water walkways, a
swimming beach and water-oriented restaurant and recreational uses.
Despite the amount of alteration, there are productive shoreline areas that provide opportunities for
enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing park management. This
must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
This area provides opportunities for enhancement project financed by a variety of grant funds.
Enhancement of the mouth of Johns Creek is enhancement Project C264 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon
Conservation Plan Recovery Plan
This site has received preliminary approvals for mixed use development. Buffers for vegetation management
are not addressed in existing approvals and opportunities for public access along the waterfront and supporting
water oriented uses are the designated priority.
Enhancement of the near-shore area, including modification of the shore protection installed in the 1950s
through 1970s should be a priority of both private development and public projects.
The delta of Johns Creek also contributes sediment to this area which may contribute to restoration of some
nearshore functions through natural processes.
Options to work with private property owners to remove bulkheads and restore shallow water habitat is project
C267 in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan.
Lake Washington Reach I Boeing Plant and to the Cedar This reach of about 2,500 linear feet is about evenly divided between a vegetated area which is managed by the
River Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as public aquatic lands and the Boeing Renton Plant.
Shoreline restoration of the DNR site to remove a portion of the existing flume create shallow water habitat,
4-4 March 2010 I 553-1779·03 1
City oj Renton
Shoreline Master Program u'pdate
Drcift Res/oratIOn Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Shoreline Reach Location
Lake Washington Reach J Renton Municipal Airport
Lake Washington Reach K From the Renton Municipal
Airport to the Seattle city
limits
May Creek
May Creek A
March2010 I 55J.i779·031
From the mouth of the creek
to Lake Washington Blvd.
Restoration Objectives
protect existing cove. and plant overhanging riparian vegetation along shore is project C266 in the WRIA 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan. Implementation of this program should ensure preservation
of deep water areas in the adjacent Southport Development to meet the City's SMP goals for accommodating
water dependent uses.
In the future, public projects to develop and enhance riparian and emergent vegetation within the delta should be
pursued. This may involve installation of "habitat islands" to speed the natural process of delta formation and is
generally consistent with the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which
calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
This reach of about 650 feet is currently entirely armored with vertical bulkheads. The airport is currently
pursuing reconfiguration and dredging for the seaplane dock. As part of this program they are proposing to use
dredged materials to create one or more "habitat islands" that will provide both riparian and shallow aquatic
habitat and also be located to direct siltation within the Cedar River Delta to reduce the needed frequency of
maintenance dredging.
Enhanced riparian vegetation may be provided on the habitat island(s) and adjacent to bullheaded areas with
the maintenance of trees so they do not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a substantial bird
roosting area that could interfere with aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished
by periodic thinning to remove more mature growth.
This reach of about a mile is almost entirely a developed single family neighborhood with about 600 feet of multi-
family development and a trailer park. This area is deSignated by Renton as a future area of Commercial,
Office, Residential (COR) use which provides for high intensity use. Redevelopment of this area will provide
opportunities for restoration through native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water as well as possible
reconfiguration or elimination of over-water structures.
In the single·family area there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects although several
undeveloped areas have the potential for acquisition for a combination of public access, preservation and
enhancement.
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C269 calls for working with homeowners to
remove bulkheads, convert of nearshore habitat to shallow beach, restore riparian vegetation and reduce the
number of docks by using community docks.
Restoration of the delta at the mouth of May Creek is addressed in Lake Washington Reach C.
Vegetation in the May Creek corridor was set aside as an open space area and enhanced as part of the recent
Barbee Mill subdivision. Monitoring and enforcement of vegetation establishment standards will be needed to
4·5
City oj Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoratiun Plan
Shoreline Reach
May Creek B
May Creek C
May Creek D
Cedar River
Cedar River A
4-6
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Location
From Lake Washington Blvd
to 1-405
Restoration Objectives
ensure successful maturation of the vegetation.
This is a relatively intact reach with mature native riparian vegetation. Preservation of a buffer can be expected
with future residential development.
Planling of conifers within the buffer area in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 to
supplement the existing deciduous trees will establish a mix of vegetation and over the longer term establish of
forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure.
Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for an existing deficit and promote natural channel
processes.
From 1-405 to NE 36th Street This section of May Creek is largely owned by Renton and King County and maintained as open space. There
are several private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some
places.
From NE 36th Street to the
city limits
Mouth to Logan Avenue
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
This section of May Creek is largely part of the King County and maintained as open space. There are several
private properties that extend to the creek and have cleared vegetation up to the creek in some places, installed
bank protection and is some cases bridged the stream for access.
Acquisition of existing privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis is a priority to allow management of the
stream corridor as public open space. Properties that are acquired should be programmed for removal of bank
stabilization, removal of bridges and replanting.
Where riparian vegetation has been cleared or where it is primarily deciduous, removal of invasive species,
interplanting of conifers in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 will establish a mix of
vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large
woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for
an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes.
This reach of the Cedar River is bounded by the City of Renton Cedar River Trails park on the east and the
Municipal Airport on the west.
Within the park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of
ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to
the shoreline.
Enhanced riparian--'Legetation may be provided adjacent to the airport with the maintenance of trees so they do
March2010 I 553-1779-031
Shoreline Reach
Cedar River B
Cedar River C
March20IO I 553·1779'()31
Cify of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Drajr Restoration Plan
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Location Restoration Objectives
not achieve a height and diameter that will provide a sUbstantial bird roosting area that could interfere with
aviation safety as part of airport management. This may be accomplished by periodic thinning to remove more
mature growth.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park management, balanced with
needs of flood control levees and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Replacement of the North Boeing Bridge should be explored. This bridge is an obstruction to flood water.
Replacement of the bridge with one that is not an obstruction may reduce the amount of dredging needed for
flood control.
Flood control dredging of the river should be coordinated with mitigation projects, including possible
enhancement of the delta through habitat islands.
Logan Avenue to 1-405 bridge Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of flood control management programs
that may be integrated with and opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Vegetation management and public access should be addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to
additional flood management activities.
1-405 to the SR 169
The existing public walkway near the water should be considered for relocation to the top of the bank and the
streambank revegetated with native species.
Within the city owned land, including the senior center, the park maintenance facility, Jones Park and Liberty
Park, opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented as part of ongoing
park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical access to the
shoreline.
Exploring options to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river is Project C 203 in the WRIA 8 Chinook
Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan Project C267 which calls for restoring shallow water habitat.
Project C 210 notes that Renton's three riverside parks (Liberty, Cedar River Park, NARCO property) are going
through re-master planning and suggests pursing opportunities to move some of more active recreation uses to
protect habitat with more passive recreational uses along the water.
Within the city owned land, including the Cedar River Park on the north site (right bank) and public open space
on the south side (left bank) opportunities for enhancement of native riparian vegetation should be implemented
as part of ongoing park management. This must be balanced with goals of providing public visual and physical
access to the shoreline.
Enhancement of native riparian vegetation and removal or replacement of bank armoring can be expected to be
implemented upon redevelopment of private property on the north shore.
In the Maplewood neighborhood downstream of SR 169 the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
Recovery Plan Project C208 calls for possible flood buyouts in this neighborhood and pursuit of opportunities to
restore the floodplain as well as options for bioengineering and softening bank hardening. The King County
Flood Management Plan calls for voluntary buy-out of this area because more than half the neighborhood would
be inundated by shallow flooding in a 1 DO-year event and an active landslide scarp poses risk of a major
landslide that could block all or a portion of the channel, and could potentially redirect the flow of the river into
the residential area.
4·7
City of Renlon
Shoreline Masler Program Update
Draft Restoratjon Plan
Shoreline Reach Location
Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Restoration Objectives
In the single-family areas there are some opportunities for providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to
the water as individual properties redevelop based on the standards related to lot depth together with
replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Educational programs
to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with native vegetation and to replace or upgrade
docks and other over-water structures has a roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory
approaches.
Cedar River 0 SR 169 to UGA boundary This reach of a little more than a mile is largely in public ownership. The few residential parcels are designated
for voluntary buy-outs in the King County Flood Management Plan. There are several mitigation projects in this
area including rearing channels constructed by King County. Renton and the Corps of Engineers, although some
have been damaged by recent floods. This reach should be the subject of a comprehensive restoration plan.
The WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Recovery Plan calls for Project C212 to provides for conifer
interplanting in forested riparian areas within reach, while noting concern raised that under natural conditions
forested riparian areas in the lower Cedar River may have been primarily deciduous; Project C213 calls for
existing riparian habitat, instream habitat conditions and extensive LWD in reach; Project C214 41 proposes a
study of options to protect habitat in this reach and reduce flooding and erosion in Ron Regis Park: including
exploration of LWD installation and levee setbacks to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to Ron Regis
Park while allowing natural habitat forming processes
4-8 M""h 2010 I 553-l779-031
4.3 GREEN/SPRINGBROOK
4.3.1 Priorities
en:}' of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Updnte
Draft Re5toration Plan
Proposed Actions by the GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon
Habitat Plan include projects to protect, restore, rehabilitate, or substitute habitat or the
processes that create habitat.
The Plan recommends an array of projects such as the potential restoration sites listed above
that watershed partners can strive to carry out over the next 10 years. Lower Green River and
Springbrook Creek, in accordance with the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan proposed actions
intend to:
• Protect existing processes and habitats that are working well;
• Restore processes and habitats that can be returned to good conditions;
• Rehabilitate damaged processes and habitats that can be sustained with on-going
efforts; and
• Substitute processes and habitats that are lost.
4.3.2 Restoration Strategy by Reach
Tables 4-2 summarizes restoration strategies by the individual reaches identified in the
Renton Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Characterization and shown in Map 1.
March2010 1553-1779-031 4-9
City o/Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach
Shoreline Reach
Black River Reach A
Black/Springbrook B
Springbrook 0
Lake Desire
Lake Desire A
4-10
Location
The Black River/Springbrook to Grady Way
From Grady Way to SW 16th Street
From SW 16th Street to City Limits.
17408 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to 18228 West
Lake Desire Dr. SE
Restoration Objectives
There are opportunities to provide native vegetation buffers at such time as private
property downstream of Monster Road redevelops.
Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged in areas of railroad
right of way not devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of railroad facilities may
require specific vegetation preservation and enhancement programs.
The retrofitting or reconstruction of the Black River Pump Station to improve fish passage
is a long term goal identified in the WRIA 9 Habitat-limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Report but is likely to be very expensive.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project LG 18 calls for rehabilitation of riparian areas in
the Black River Marsh by and removing fill from the left bank of the Black River
confluence just west of the railroad tracks. Other strategies include creating new off-
channel habitats and/or placement of LWD along banks.
This section of the stream is bridged by Grady Way and 1-405.
Improvements to the stream channel and riparian vegetation should be implemented in
conjunction with road improvement and maintenance programs.
Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district channels in
conjunction with management plans including adjustments to channel dimensions to
assure continued flood capacity with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by
vegetation. Vegetation management should retain a continuous trail system that may be
relocated further from the stream edge.
When adjacent land redeveloped vegetated buffers should be provided that will integrate
with re-vegetation of the stream channel.
Additional plans should be pursued for wetland rehabilitation including relocating existing
flood control levees to be outside of adjacent wetlands to allow more natural floodplain
characteristics.
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan Project calls for rehabilitation of areas for rearing and
off-channel refuge on Springbrook Creek including riparian plantings, LWD, pool
construction, channel branch excavation and, where appropriate, modification to create a
2-stage (Iow-and high-flow) channel.
For the entire lake, implement phosphorus controls including phosphorus treatment from
new development runoff, lake aeration and encouraging replacement of ornamental
vegetation with native vegetation requiring less fertilizer and therefore producing less
phosphorus in runoff.
This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities for restoration to limit or reverse ongoing
adverse impacts shall through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the
water may be implemented as individual properties redevelop based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
M<ITch2010 I 553-1779·031
Shoreline Reach
Lake Desire B
Lake Desire C
Lake Desire D
March 2010 I 553·1779·031
Clfy of Renton
Shoreline Masler Program update
Draft Restoration Plan
Table 4-2. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach (continued)
Location
18228 West Lake Desire Dr. SE to the Natural Area
at the south end olthe Lake
Natural Area at the south end of the Lake
From the Natural Area to 17346 West Lake Desire
Dr. SE
Restoration Objectives
protection incorporating vegetation.
Educational programs to encourage voluntary replacement of ornamental vegetation with
native vegetation and to replace or upgrade docks and other over-water structures has a
roughly equal or better chance of affecting change as do regulatory approaches.
There is no public land in this reach and little opportunity for public enhancement projects.
Shoreline vegetation enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat launching site
balancing values of riparian vegetation with public access.
Same as Reach A.
Existing shoreline vegetation in this publicly owned natural area should be preserved with
some accommodation for interpretive access to the water s as part of park management
plans, subject to the primary objective of protecting ecological functions.
Same as reach A for developed single family lots.
For the Urban Conservancy area at the top of the lake, private lots should be targeted for
acquisition and preservation.
4·11
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
CltV of Renton I
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
As noted in the Shoreline Inventory section of this report, the City's shoreline area is
occupied by industrial, commercial, multi-and single-family residences, and
parks/recreation/open space areas. To ensure that restoration goals are being achieved, it is
important for the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan and to adapt to changing
conditions. Under WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi), the development of a jurisdiction's SMP
must, "Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs
will be implemented ... in meeting the overall restoration goals." To remain consistent with
restoration framework and guidance for SMP development, project implementation and
monitoring will survey available funding sources, project timelines and benchmarks, and
document progress of restoration projects.
5.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Achievements of present restoration projects and restoration planning processes are made
evident through existing partnerships with agencies and organizations. Restoration efforts are
implemented because local citizens, non-governmental organizations, tribes, the City, state,
and federal resource agencies form partnerships to collaborate and problem solve, sharing the
responsibility of each project. For projects near or within City-limits, the greatest likelihood
of funding would result from continued participation in the WRIA 8 and 9 forums as well as
partnering with King County and state and federal agencies. A list of potential funding
sources can be found in Table 5-1 below.
March2010 I 553-1779-031 5-1
City of Renton
Shoreline A1aster Program Update
Draft Restoration Pfan
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities
5-2
Organization
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Basinwide Restoration New SUlrts
General Investigation
Bruce Sexauer
P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 764-6959
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Nell Fuller
911 NE 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 231-2014 NeIiJuller@fws.gov
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10: Pacific Northwest
Grant Administration Unit
Bob Philips Philips.bob@epa.gov
Washington State Department of
Ecology
www.ecy.way.gov/programs/wq/plants/
grants/index.htm
Washington Department ofFish and
Wildlife
http://wdfw.wa.gov/volunter/vol-7.htm
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB) http://www.rco.wa.gov/
King County Flood Control District
http://www.kingcountyfloodcontrol.org
King Conservation District
http://www.kingcd.orgipro_gra.htm
King County Dept of Natural Resources
and Parks
Ken Pritchard
Grant Exchange Coordinator
(206) 296-8265
ken .pritchard@kingcounty.gov
Community Salmon Fund
est. by National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF)and Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)
Grant/Funding Information
Cost~share assistance for fish and wildlife projects, flood management,
general restoration of riparian areas. Chieffunder of the Green-Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Project
Funds and assists in the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Grants Program and several fish passage programs including a barrier
culvert removal or replacement program.
Funds projects ranging from protecting the natural environment, including
wetlands, restoration, and stewardship work related to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Funding sources including low-interest loans and grants for improving
Washington state water quality as well as prevention and control ofnon-
native aquatic plants.
Grants for financial assistance for private landowners taking action to
restore habitat and help preserve threatened species. Local stewardship
programs which participate in repairing fish and wildlife habitat.
Grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board range from $10,000 to
$900,000 in years past for organizations in 28 counties. In 2008, two
WRIA 8 projects including Lower Cedar River Acquisition received
$481,507 in grant fimding and three WRIA 9 projects received $363,725.
Current plans to spend $335 million to implement 2006 Flood Hazard
Management. Plans for levee setback and removal for Cedar and Green
River, flood buyouts in progress for Cedar floodplain areas.
WRIA 8 Steering Committee allocates roughly $1.3 million in KCD
Grants annually since 2006. 67% or $890,000 ofthe annual budget in 2007
going to Site-Specific restoration and protection projects along lower and
middle Cedar River reaches.
WRIA 9 Forum receives $634,000 in KCD funds annually to support
habitat protection and restoration projects identified in the watershed
Habitat plan and Strategic Assessment.
King County Water Quality Grant Fund. Grants of up to $60,000 are
available for restoration and protection of watersheds, streams, rivers,
lakes, and tidewater.
Habitat protection and restoration project grants of up to $75,000
consistent with local salmon habitat plans. The program focuses on
smaller community based restoration projects to support salmon recovery
on private property in cooperation with businesses and landowners. Grants
March 2010 I 553-1779-031
Table 5-1. Funding Opportunities (continued)
Organization Grant/Funding Information
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
requests in the $10,000-$20,000 range are strongly encouraged.
Ducks Unlimited
Matching Aid to Restore Habitat
(MARSH)
Matching funds for habitat restoration and enhancement projects, helps
develop and preserve waterfowl habitat.
(916) 852-2000 conserve@ducks.org
5.2 BENCHMARKS AND MONITORING
As a long-range policy plan, the SMP guidelines include the goal that local master
programs " ... include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the
overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area" (WAC 173-26-20 I (c».
To establish the SMP benchmark for implementation effectiveness, the legislature provided a
timeframe for jurisdiction amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012
amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment
schedule requiring that "Local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs
at least once every seven years after the applicable dates ... [and] if necessary, revise their
master programs (RCW 90.58.080 (4»."
The 7-year period starts once the City of Renton amends its SMP on or before December I,
2009 (RCW 90.58.080 (4)(11». While the review period is taking place, an ongoing
assessment of project successes and limitations must still occur as restoration projects are
planned and implemented within the City. A restoration framework developed in part by
Palmer et al (2005) provides several tasks for assessing restoration actions and revising the
planning process to meet restoration goals. The following actions include:
• Adaptively manage restoration projects;
• Summarize restoration progress including grant applications and funds secured;
• Monitor post-restoration conditions;
• Revise the planning process to reflect changes in objectives and policy re-evaluation;
and
• Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities.
To document progress toward restoration goals regionally within WRIAs 8 and 9 and locally
within the City, annual assessments should occur to determine how well restoration criteria
are met and how effectively the goals of this restoration plan are achieved. Although
implementation may be resource-and time-intensive, its overall impact is significant due to
the potential amount of affected shorelines. With grant aid available to projects of various
scales, the improvement of ecological function outweighs the direct cost of shoreline
protection or restoration, making it increasingly feasible to carry out implementation.
March 2010 I 55)·1779·031 5·)
6. CONCLUSIONS
City of Renton
Shoreline Masler Program Update
Draft Re~lordlion Pl;m
As part of the Shoreline Master Program update process, the purpose of the Restoration Plan
is to help improve shoreline function over time (WAC 173-26-20 I (2)(f)). This restoration
plan gives the City of Renton a framework with which to pursue ecosystem functioning
within both the GreenlDuwamish River and Lake Washington/Cedar River Watersheds. In
time, restoration actions outlined in this document will be implemented and results under the
guise of the City's Restoration Plan within the Shoreline Master Program will be under way.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 6-1
City of Renton I
Shoreliolt M<lster Prob'TaTn Update
Draft RestoratlOo Plan
7. REFERENCES
Chrzastowski, M. 1983. Historical changes to Lake Washington and route of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigation, Open-File Report, WRI 81-1182.
Renton, City of. 2004. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 1,2004.
Renton, City of. 2005. Impervious Surface Geographic Information System Data.
Renton, City of. 2008. City of Renton Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 5387,
adopted June 9, 2008.
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2009. Salmon Recovery Board, WRIA
8 Application, South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration (#3)
Kerwin, J., 2008 Salmon and SteeIhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. W A. P 4.
http://www. govlink.org/watersheds/8/reportsIDOE-Grant -Report2008.pdf (accessed July 14,
2009).
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. W A.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. S. (Eds). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report. Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9
and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources. http://salmon.scc.wa.gov
King County 1993 Cedar River Current and Future Conditions. Report. King County
Department of Public Works,. Surface Water Management Division,
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: Volumes I, II and
III. July 2005. http://www.govlink.orglwatersheds/8/planninglchinook-conservation-
plan.aspx (accessed July 14,2009).
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our
Watershed Fit for a King: GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA
9).August 2005
http://www.govlink.orglwatersheds/9/pIanimplementation/HabitatPlan.aspx#download
(accessed July 14, 2009).
King, County of 2007, King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, Shoreline Master Program, Appendix E: Technical Appendix Contains:
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: Methodology and Results May 2007
King, County of, Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District
(KCFCZD), 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
http://www.kingcolll1tv.gov/environment/waterandlandlfloodingldocumentsltlood-
hazard-management-plan.aspx\
March2010 1553-1779-031 7-1
I City of Remon
Shoreline Master Program Update
Draft Restoration Plan
7-2
King County Water and Land Resources Division, Flood Control Zone District (KCFCZD)
2007 Cedar Sammamish Basin Technical Committee Meeting Wednesday April 25, 2007
http://yollc' kingcou Iltv. gov I dnrpl w 1 rI n ood/tl ood-contro 1-zon e-d i stricti cedar-
samma 111 is h!btc-l11eeti n g-S lIl11m arv 1070425 -cedar-meet in g. pd f
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008c. Lake Desire. Management Plan
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterrcs/smlakes/desire.htm. Accessed on May 5, 2008.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2007. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for
Shoreline Protection Alternatives in Lake Washington, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112.December 13,2007
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2009 Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation, Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of
Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112. April 20, 2009 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/carbamate.pdf
Puget Sound Biological Review Team (PSBRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget
Sound Steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle
Green River, Washington: 2000 Data Report. Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington.
Renton, City of, and King County. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan.
Renton, Washington. 107 pgs.
http://voUl' . ki n gco lIntv. gOY I dnrp/l ib raryl 1 99 8/kc r72 6/F IN A L-Ma v -Creek-Bas in -P lan-4-
16-01.pdf
Renton, City of 2003, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
prepared by Parametrix Inc., September 2, 2003, Renton, W A
Straka, Ron. 2008 City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, Personal
communication, September 2008
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B Footen, and L.
Park. 2004. Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of
the Lake Washington basin. Unpublished report, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,
Washington. 86 p.
http://www. f",s. gov I pac i fi c/",estwa f",olfi s her ies/Pu b lica ti olls/F P2 24. pd
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2003. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2001 Report. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
Tabor, R. A., H. A Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2003 and 2004 Report. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
October 20091 553-1779·031
Ci1y of Rcntoll I
Shoreline Master Pro!,'Tam Update
Draft RestoratIOn Plan
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. 1-405 Springbrook Creek
Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/Springbrook/. Accessed on July 22, 2008.
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 7·)
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects
Analysis
Prepared/or
City of Renton
City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
This report was funded in part through a grant from
the Washington Department of Ecology .
• < .; \',',
t:I.ULljl;,
Prepared by
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
T.425.458.6200 F.425.458.6363
W\'¥'w.parametrix.com
In Association With:
Adolfson Associates, Inc
Maney ARC
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Av'culo..ble. on CD
CITATION
Parametrix. 2010. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue,
Washington. March 2010.
Shoreline Alaster Pruhrram Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE .............................................................................................. 1-2
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT ............................................................................ 1-4
1.3 METHODOLOGy ................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3.1 Current Circumstances Affecting the Shorelines and Relevant Natural
Processes ...................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use ofthe Shoreline ..... 1-5
1.3.3 Beneficial Effects of Any Established Regulatory Programs Under
Other Local, State, and Federal Laws ........................................................... 1-5
1.3.4 General Conclusions ..................................................................................... 1-5
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION FRESHWATER SHORELINES .......... 2-1
2.1.1 General Framework and Conceptual ModeL .............................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Characterization Structure ............................................................................ 2-2
3. GENERAL ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................... 3-1
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ......................... 3-2
3.2.1 Future Population and Economic Growth .................................................... 3-2
3.3 TYPICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND
USES ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 EFFECTS OF CURRENT LOCAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS .................... 3-5
3.4.1 Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Areas .................................................. 3-5
3.4.2 Zoning .......................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.3 Critical Areas ................................................................................................ 3-6
3.4.4 Stormwater ................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5 EFFECTS OF CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY
PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.5.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ....................... 3-7
3.5.2 Section 404 Permit ....................................................................................... 3-7
3.5.3 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................... 3-8
3.5.4 Washington State Department of Ecology ................................................... 3-8
3.5.5 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) .............................................................. 3-8
3.6 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................... 3-9
3.6.1 Salmon Recovery .......................................................................................... 3-9
3.6.2 King County Floodplain Management ....................................................... 3-11
3.6.3 Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) .................................................................. 3-12
3.6.4 Washington Department of Natural Resources .......................................... 3-12
3.6.5 WDFW ....................................................................................................... 3-13
3.7 MATRIX SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................... 3-13
March 2010 I 558-1687·004
Shoreline }Jasler Program {jpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Anafvsis
CIty of Renton
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES
I-I Achieving No Net Loss Through Regulations and Restoration ............................. 1-3
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Alterations Associated with Key Processes ............................................................ 2-5
2-2 Key Processes and Responses to Alterations ......................................................... 2-3
3-1 Matrix by Reach for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of Shoreline
Management Plan on Ecological Productivity ..................................................... 3-14
3-2 Matrix of Landscape Processes for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of
Shoreline Management Plan ................................................................................. 3-38
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS IN SEPARATE PORTFOLIO
Exhibit 1. Streams with Shoreline Jurisdiction
Exhibit 2. Zoning
Exhibit 3 Land Use (Based on Assessors records)
ii March 2010 I 558-1687-004
ACRONYMS
BAP
CREP
FEMA
GIS
HPA
LWD
MRC
NPDES
OFM
RMC
SEDs
SMA
SMP
UGA
USFWS
WAC
RMC
WDFW
WMU
March2010 1558-1687-004
Shoreline Afaster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Fffects Analysis
City of Renton
Best Available Practices
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Geographic Information Systems
Hydraulic Project Approval
Large Woody Debris
Marine Resources Committee
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Financial Management
City of Renton Municipal Code
Shoreline Environment Designations
Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Management Plan
Urban Growth Areas
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington Administrative Code
City of Renton Municipal Code
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Watershed Management Unit
iii
1. SUMMARY
Shoreline Alaster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative I:.ffects Analysis
City of Renton
This report supports City of Renton's Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update. The
County's SMP, also known as Title 23 of the City of Renton Code (RMC), is being updated
to comply with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA or the Act)
requirements (RCW 90.58), and the state's shoreline guidelines (Washington Administrative
Code [WAC] 173-26, Part III), which were adopted in 2003.
The SMP update process involves the following steps:
1. Reviewing and revising shoreline goals and policies
2. Inventorying and analyzing shoreline conditions
3. Determining shoreline environment designations (SEDs)
4. Assessing cumulative impacts of shoreline development
5. Preparing a restoration plan
This element assesses the cumulative impacts of shoreline development under the revisions to
the SMP. This PRELIMINARY analysis assesses existing trends to assist in developing
policies and regulations that will be analyzed prior to adoption.
This work was funded in part through a grant from the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
In general, the findings of this analysis, as it applies to Renton Shorelines are:
• A large component of cumulative impacts on ecological processes results from
watershed-wide processes that have changed natural functions within the Cedar
RiverlLake Washington and Green River/Duwamish Watersheds.
• It is not known, at this time, whether general trends in ecological degradation are
continued. Based on trends of continuing declines in key aquatic species, such as
Chinook Salmon, Steelhead and Sockeye over several decades the most justifiable
conclusion is that existing land use and practices within the watersheds are
continuing to degrade habitat and trends will increase unless substantial changes in
practices are implemented in many areas.
• Many of the trends are likely to be related to human induced changes in habitat
watershed-wide. Actions in Renton, in conjunction with other jurisdictions, are
likely to be important to slowing or reversing those trends. Such efforts, however will
be effective only if undertaken watershed-wide and include a variety of measures
including:
» Restoring watershed channel geomorphic conditions through a variety of
measures including removal or further setback of flood control levies and control
of urban storm runoff;
» Restoring the water quality functions of wetlands by restoring connections
between streams and wetlands by removing barriers, such as flood control
structures;
» Restoring water quality functions of wetlands by restoring wetlands displaced by
other uses;
» Reducing stream temperatures by restoring riparian vegetation;
March 2010 I 558-1687-004 1-1
Shoreline Master Program IJpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
;, Restoring water quality functions by providing buffer areas in which sediment,
nutrients, pathogens and other pollutants can be removed or entrained;
;, Providing urban stonnwater management to address peak flows as well as water
quality
• A particular ecosystem niche that appears to be critical to Chinook Salmon, and
likely other species in the watershed is the importance of the nearshore areas of Lake
Washington to very young salmonids in early lifecycle stages. In these areas, food
sources, chemical contaminants and predation within the nearshore of Renton may be
critical to this lifecycle stage.
• Specific ongoing contributions to degradation of the nearshore that are present and
will likely continue, unless substantial changes are made too physical facilities
include
;, Shoreline bulkheads that have negative impacts on substrate through producing
high energy environments because of reflective wave action and also contribute
to the absence of shoreline vegetation;
;, The lack of native vegetation on the shoreline that likely contribute to the near-
shore food chain and also result in higher nearshore temperatures due to the lack
of shade;
;, The combined influence of the lack of native vegetation and the presence of
ornamental vegetation with typical management practices including use of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides which affect not only the nearshore food
chain but also have identified impacts on the central pervious system functions of
fish, including salmonids;
;, Current docks and other moorage facilities that contribute to predation and also
may cause avoidance behavior in salmonids forcing them out of nearshore
environments and into environments where food and shelter are less available
and where predation is increased ..
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE
1-2
The Shoreline Management Act Guidelines (WAC 173-26-18683)(d) require analysis of
cumulative impacts "to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other
shoreline functions and/or uses.
The principle that regulation of development shall achieve no net loss of ecological function
requires that master program policies and regulations address the cumulative impacts on
shoreline ecological functions that would result from future shoreline development and uses
that are reasonably foreseeable from proposed master programs.
The guidelines provide specific guidance on the concept of no net loss in WAC 173-26-
201(2)(c) and the relation between regulations and other programs:
When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with
the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that
development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing
shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of "net" as used herein,
recognizes that any development has potential or actual, short-tenn or long-tenn
impacts and that through application of appropriate development standards and
employment of mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shure line Master Program Update
Shurelme Cumulative tffects AnalysIs
City of Rcnton
impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not
diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or
development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives
of RCW 90.58.020, master program provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible,
protect existing ecological functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological
functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of
ecological functions.
Master programs shall also include policies that promote restoration of ecological
functions, as provided in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(1), where such functions are found to
have been impaired based on analysis described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(i). It is
intended that local government, through the master program, along with other
regulatory and nonregulatory programs, contribute to restoration by planning for and
fostering restoration and that such restoration occur through a combination of public
and private programs and actions. Local government should identify restoration
opportunities through the shoreline inventory process and authorize, coordinate and
facilitate appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects within their
master programs. The goal of this effort is master programs which include planning
elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and
resources within the shoreline area of each city and county.
This difference between the role of regulatory and non regulatory programs is illustrated
conceptual form in Exhibit 1-1, below.
SMP Updates: Achieving No Net Loss of Ecological Function
Higher
•
Lower
Key:
No Hel LoS'S' _ Cutrl!nI a:n~',"e
On-ga-lng degtadatia-n
from ui&.tln-g
Cltw.lopmtnt ----_ .... _--------
UnAvoldUJk Imparn
fromn.w
$vtlopm.nt
• ••
Source: Washington Department of Ecology
SMP Restoration
Plan
VoJuntaryrtMorltj;on
oppol1Uoitin
••••••••••••••••••
ot'!'·lIIt. mitigation
opportunitlu
A ... oid and Mftig.t
Impam
·Qe~III~~
1tIndaIds.'
=~~
.C9/I1Pa.nc.$IraQgy
,<'".' .,<'. ,< "
.c .......... 1mplicIs
~.
.RJttOfold<)nPlln
Figure 1-1. Achieving No Net Loss Through Regulations and Restoration
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline ;"laster Program []pdale
Shoreline Cumulative Effects AnalysIs
City of Renton
Evaluation of cumulative impacts is required to consider (WAC 173-26-186(8):
• Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
• Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and
• Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and
federal laws. "
This cumulative impacts assessment uses these three considerations as a framework for
evaluating the potential long-term impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes
that may result from development or activities under the proposed SMP over time.
1.2 CITY OF RENTON CONTEXT
City of Renton is located within in the Lake Washington/Cedar River (Water Resource
Inventory Area [WRIA 1 8) and the Green/Duwamish River (WRIA 9) watersheds.
WRIA 8 encompasses 692 square miles (Kerwin 2001) and two major subbasins, the
Sammamish River and the Cedar River, both of which flow into Lake Washington. WRIA 8
boundaries follow topographic divides between WRIA 7 (Snohomish River) to the north and
east, and WRIA 9 (Green/Duwamish Rivers) and Puget Sound to the south and west (Kerwin
2001). The majority (approximately 86 percent) of WRIA 8 is in the Puget Lowlands
physiographic region. The upper Sammamish drainage lies in the Cascade foothills, while the
upper Cedar River drainage extends through the foothills into the Cascade Mountains. WRIA
8 has a popUlation of about 1.5 million people, the most of any WRIA in the state.
WRIA 9 contains the Green River and its tributaries, including the Duwamish
waterway/estuary, and nearby tributaries draining directly to Puget Sound. WRIA 9 is bound
topographically by WRIA 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) to the north and WRIA 10
(Puyallup River) to the south. The Green River watershed is 462 square miles, and the river
itself stretches 93 miles from its source in the Cascade Mountains through the Cascade
foothills and Puget Lowlands before emptying into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The
population of WRIA 9 is approximately 565,000.
The City accounts for less than three percent of the geographical area and its popUlation
(about 88,000) is less than a half of one percent of the population of about two million within
WRlAs 8 and 9. The City is also located near the lower end of both WRlAs. Hence,
management actions taken within the City limits have a limited effect on overall watershed
conditions. However, actions taken to manage reach-scale processes, such as riparian and
floodplain functions, could have a larger effect on specific ecological processes and
functions, particularly rearing functions of anadromous fish.
The City also lies in the lower portion of May Creek and Springbrook Creek but accounts for
a much larger proportion of the total watershed area. As such, management actions for these
shorelines conducted within the City may have a more substantial effect on overall watershed
conditions and shoreline ecological functions.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this cumulative analysis is based on:
• Description of current conditions based on the findings outlined in the
Inventory/Characterization Report
• Description of foreseeable future development and use ofthe shoreline through
14 March 2010 I 558-1687.004
Shoreline Master Program [Jpdate
Shoreline Cumuiaril'e /:.ffects Analysis
City orRenton
" Projection of the likely effects of future development on shoreline and
watershed functions utilizing the "Landscape Analysis" provided in the
Inventory and Characterization
., Projection of the likely beneficial effects of any established regulatory
programs under other local, state, and federal laws as well as non-regulatory
1.3.1 Current Circumstances Affecting the Shorelines and Relevant Natural
Processes
Existing conditions are addressed in the landscape characterization provided in the City of
Renton Draft Inventory and Characterization Report, January 2010. brief summary of the
methodology is provided below. Please refer to Part 1 of the Inventory and Characterization
Report for more detail.
1.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use of the Shoreline
Description offoreseeable future development and use of the shoreline through:
• Projection of allowed uses, density, general character of uses and number of units
provided by existing zoning on a buildout basis.
• Existing land use patterns affecting cultural and economic trends in response to the
opportunities and constraints of the zoning.
• Projection of likely development within the WMU over a 20 year planning horizon
based on OFM projections and the county's Comprehensive Plan.
1.3.3 Beneficial Effects of Any Established Regulatory Programs Under Other
Local, State, and Federal Laws
The beneficial effects of established regulatory programs consist of the following:
• Provisions of existing county land use and development regulations
• State and federal programs
• The beneficial effects of conservation and restoration programs
1.3.4 General Conclusions
This cumulative effects analysis assesses the probable beneficial effects of:
• The Renton Shoreline Management Program
• The proposed King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and other jurisdiction
SMPs within the Cedar River Watershed
• The proposed Tukwila Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and other jurisdiction SMPs
within the Green River Watershed
• The proposed Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and other jurisdiction SMPs
within the Springbrook Creek Watershed
• The Renton Critical Areas Regulations adopted in December 2005.
• Other state and federal regulatory programs
• Non-regulatory enhancement efforts
March 2010 I 558-1687-004 1-5
Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
This assessment is based on the description of existing ecological functions in the Inventory
and Characterization prepared for the Shoreline Management Plan.
It is important to recognize that the ecological processes and functions that occur within
Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction are affected by processes within the entire watershed,
not only those that take place within shorelines regulated by the Shoreline Master Plan. It is
critical to recognize that:
• The Shoreline Management Act applies only to streams with a flow greater than 20
cubic feet per second and lakes over 20 acres in size, these are relatively large
streams and lakes. (See Exhibit I, Streams with Shoreline Jurisdiction in the Map
Portfolio.)
• The portion of the watershed under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction is
relatively limited. It is seldom more than 20 to 30 percent of stream length and is
often less than 10 percent.
• The processes that affect ecological functions occur throughout the watershed, and
therefore occur largely outside of Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction.
• The regulations ofthe local Shoreline Management Program, including the shoreline
area designations, policies, regulations and permit requirements, affect the ecological
processes immediately adjacent to streams under shoreline jurisdiction and generally
within 200 feet of the water. (See Exhibit 2, Proposed Shoreline Environmental
Designations in the Map Portfolio.) This can have an important local influence but
often cannot compensate for processes upstream outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
The following is a summary of the major processes affecting shoreline ecological processes
and the relative effect of the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) on those functions.
Geology, which generally determines the natural location and transport capacity of earth
materials through materials deposition, topography, and landforms is a process that takes place
throughout the landscape. The SMP has little influence on functions related to geology.
Climate, which is generated by the long-term weather patterns of a region is a process over
which lands in SMA jurisdiction have almost no influence.
Vegetation, is mainly influenced by geology and climate in terms of establishing native plant
communities. Vegetation is important within SMA jurisdiction and on lands outside of SMA
jurisdiction. Because it affects overall landscape processes on the watershed level, and
because the relatively small amount of land and stream miles within SMA jurisdiction as
compared to outside, the effects of vegetation on aquatic systems in most watersheds in City
of Renton occur largely outside of SMA jurisdiction.
On the Cedar and Green Rivers, the major programs that affect vegetation are King County
rural and resource zoning and the buffer requirements of the King County Critical Areas
Ordinance which apply to a much wider area than the SMP. Programs of upstream cities also
have an influence, although buffers tend to be smaller and urban areas on the Green River
have extensive levee systems. In addition, flood management programs, recently consolidated
into the King County Flood Control District may have a major impact.
On Lake Washington, most native vegetation has been removed or altered to ornamental
landscaping, except for:
• Reach C contains:
» A narrow buffer has been re-established at the Seahawks Training Center,
1-6 March2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline Master Program c/pdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
". A vegetation and wetland community re-established on portions of the
shoreline at the Quendall Tenninals Superfund Site;
". A beach and vegetation restoration program has been developed on public
harbor lands which have been withdrawn from leasing by the DNR in
recognition ofthe environmental values ofthe area;
• Reach F in the City of Renton Gene Coulon Park has substantial, although generally
narrow areas of shoreline vegetation in the northerly portion of the park,
• Reach I contains public harhor lands in the easterly third of the Boeing site which are
currently proposed to be restored by the DNR, including removing the existing
outfall flume from the fonner Sheffelton Plant to restore beach conditions.
On Lake Washington, riparian vegetation may playa substantial role in reversing trends of
decline of Chinook salmon by providing appropriate nearshore habitat for a critical juvenile
lifecycle stage. It also may contribute to other species through restoration of elements of the
food chain.
On the Cedar River, most native vegetation has been removed in the central area between
Logan Streets and 1-405, but several areas of substantial vegetation remain:
• Reach A contains a substantial, although generally narrow area of shoreline
vegetation on the east (right) bank in the city park.
• Reach C is primarily native vegetation on the south (left) bank in public open space
areas
• Reach D contains a wide buffer of native vegetation adjacent to the golf course and
Ron Regis Park
The Green River consists largely of the backwaters of the river at the mouth of the Black
River and contains relatively little native vegetation and is crossed by two wide railroad
corridors.
The Black River/Springbrook Creek is periodically cleared of large diameter vegetation in the
portions managed by the Drainage District. Areas with substantial riparian vegetation
include:
• Reach A -the Black River Forest and a narrow riparian vegetation corridor adjacent
to the Sewage Treatment Plant extending to Grady Way,
• Reach C contains a riparian corridor of varying width within the Longacres Office
Park,
• Reach D contains restored npanan vegetation within the Springbrook Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
Hydrology, and specifically the influence of land use also occurs on a watershed basis.
Because the majority of any given watershed is outside of SMA jurisdiction, the major
influence on the volume and rate of water transport will take place on tributaries with flows
below the 20 csfs SMA jurisdiction threshold.
Infiltration/recharge is largely affected by land use On a watershed basis. Whether the land
use or land cover is managed forests, agricultural, large lot rural, or urban development, the
change in infiltration, recharge and other mechanisms will manifest as the result of changes in
native forest cover and increases in runoff from loss of vegetation cover over the entire
watershed. Changes in infiltration and other hydrology mechanisms occur with a change or
loss of native vegetation cover. This change in vegetation cover is due to the land use
Mmch 2010 I 558-1687-004 1-7
Shoreline ,I"Iasler Program r.Jpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
1·8
practices of managed forests, agricultural, large lot rural, or urban development. Because the
vast majority of the area of the watershed is outside of SMA jurisdiction, these areas will
have the primary influence,
On the Cedar and Green Rivers, the major programs that affect surface runoff and peak flow
mechanisms are King County rural and resource zoning and the buffer requirements of the
King County Critical Areas Ordinance which apply to a much wider area than the SMP.
Programs of upstream cities also have an influence through stormwater management
programs.
Localized hydrology on Lake Washington is likely to be an important factor in Sockeye
beach spawning and may be locally blocked by armored shorelines.
Sediment delivery mechanisms have wide-ranging impacts on aquatic ecosystems and can
limit ecologic function by impairing habitat quality and water quality, Surface erosion and
mass wasting are naturally occurring mechanisms of sediment supply, but each can increase
sediment inputs to aquatic ecosystems when the landscape is altered by human use.
On the Cedar and Green Rivers, the major programs that affect sediment delivery
mechanisms are King County rural and resource zoning and the buffer requirements of the
King County Critical Areas Ordinance which apply to a much wider area than the SMP.
Programs of upstream cities also have an influence through stormwater management
programs. Urban areas on the Green River have extensive levee systems largely managed by
the King County Flood Control District has a major impact on sedimentation mechanisms. In
urbanized areas erosion control programs in clearing and grading codes as well as stormwater
management programs also have an important impact on sedimentation. F
On Lake Washington, most natural sedimentation processes have been altered in the past by
flood control dredging of the Cedar River and dredging of the deltas of streams such as May
Creek for other reasons, Local erosion and deposition are also affected by shoreline armoring
that limits sediment sources and produces high wave environments that affect the slope and
substrate ofthe nearshore. Dredging in the Cedar River and May Creek deltas has ended and
may restore the natural sedimentation dynamic in areas close to those sources,
Water quality is also likely to be influenced both by changes at the watershed scale that
affect nutrient cycling in aquatic ecosystems and by urban stormwater, In the relatively
smaller area under SMA jurisdiction local inputs of herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals
may have an important localized impact.
All the factors affecting nutrient cycling are likely to occur at a watershed level, including
fertilizer originating from both agricultural and residential areas, nutrients from septic tanks
or sewer system leakage, and changes that affect the nitrogen fixation rates of natural
processes, The major factors that influence water quality differ somewhat between the Cedar
and Green Rivers because there is much less agriculture in the Cedar River watershed. The
total load of pollutants is likely to be influenced by watershed-wide effects, but in the case of
the Cedar River, urban stormwater runoff is likely an important contributor. On the Green
River, watershed wide processes outside of Renton have the predominant effect, Springbrook
Creek is largely urbanized and urban stormwater is the primary source of most pollutants,
although the lack of shading from riparian vegetation affects summer temperature.
On the Lake Washington system inputs from the watershed as a whole are the most
significant source of pollutants. In the nearshore, however, local sources of herbicides,
pesticides and other chemicals from maintenance of lawns and landscaping adjacent to the
shoreline may have a localized impact on nearshore areas important to the food chain and
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shorelme A1aster Program Update
Shoreline ('umulatlve tjfects Analysis
City of Renton
may directly affect the central nervous system of Chinook salmon at a criticallifecycle stage,
as well as other species.
Heat and light inputs are affected by surface water, groundwater and riparian shading. The
influence of shading is most substantial on small tributaries and tributaries may have the
greatest influence on larger streams. The major programs that influence heat and light inputs
are the riparian buffer requirements of many jurisdictions in the watersheds, although it is
locally very important, especially in the nearshore of Lake Washington.
March 2010 I 558-1687'{)04 1-9
2. METHODOLOGY
Shoreline ,Hasler Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
The analysis of the cumulative effects of the Shoreline Management Program, together with
other programs is summarized in Table 3-8. Matrix for Evaluation of Cumulative Effects of
Shoreline Management Plan on Ecological Functions. This table considers the type of effects
of a variety of human activities on a cross section of ecological functions and assesses the
probable beneficial effects of:
• The Shoreline Management Program
• The Critical Areas Regulations adopted in December 2005.
• Other state and federal regulatory programs
• Non-regulatory enhancement efforts
This assessment is based on the description of ecological functions in the Inventory and
Characterization prepared for the Shoreline Management Plan. The "landscape analysis"
methodology used in that analysis analyses a number of processes that are important for
aquatic resource management-hydrology, sediment, water quality (e.g., nntrients, pathogens,
toxins/metals), organic matter, and heat/light. Because that analysis provides the basis of the
assessment of cumulative effects, it is summarized below.
2.1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION FRESHWATER SHORELINES
The landscape characterization approach used in the Renton Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization, July 2009 examines specific processes including the movement of water,
sediment, nutrients, pathogens, toxicants, organic matter, and energy or heat that form and
maintain the landscape over a large geographic scale. These processes interact with landscape
features to create the structure and function of aquatic resources (Ecology 2005).
The analysis uses a coarse-grained approach for integrating landscape processes into shoreline
management, restoration planning, and other land use planning efforts (Ecology 2005). The
purposes of the analysis are to highlight the relationship between key processes and aquatic
resource function and to describe the effects of land use on those key processes. This approach
is not intended to quantify landscape processes and functions. Rather, the goal is to: 1) identify
and map areas on the landscape important to processes that sustain shoreline resources; 2)
determine their degree of alteration; and 3) identify the potential for protecting or restoring
these areas.
2.1.1 General Framework and Conceptual Model
The watershed analysis approach attempts to answer four questions:
I. What are the key landscape processes that maintain aquatic/shoreline resources and
their functions?
2. Which geographic areas within watersheds are most important for maintaining each
key process?
3. How have human activities/land use altered important process areas and to what
extent have the key processes been impaired?
4. Which areas have potential for sustaining or improving resource function through
protection and/or restoration?
The processes that are most important for aquatic resource management-hydrology,
sediment, water quality (e.g., nutrients, pathogens, toxins/metals), organic matter, and
March 2010 I 558·1687·004 2-1
Shoreline Master Program (.1pdate
Shoreline Cumulative Fj{ects Analysis
City of Renton
heat/light-function in a framework established by process controls, including geology,
climate, vegetation, and land use. The processes, which are all related to the transport of
materials and energy across the landscape, function through a number of mechanisms that act
to input, transport, store, or remove materials and energy. The pathways and magnitude in
which materials and energy are input, transported, stored and/or lost influence the structure of
aquatic systems, including streams, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries. These aquatic systems in
Geology generally determines the natural location and transport capacity of earth materials
through materials deposition, topography, and landforms. Climate is generated by the long-
term weather patterns of a region. Factors contributing to regional climate include global,
regional, and local wind, moisture, and temperature variations. Climate determines the
availability of water in a region-a most important function, because hydrology drives many
other processes that influence ecological functions in aquatic systems. In addition, climate
affects watershed conditions such as growing season and vegetation, and is a major influence
on human population pattems.
Vegetation is mainly influenced by geology and climate, but it is unique in tbat its feedback
relationship with landscape processes is important for maintaining aquatic resources.
Vegetation influences hydrology through the interception, evapotranspiration, and infiltration
mechanisms (Ziemer and Lisle 2003). Vegetation also affects sediment erosion and transport;
and is the source of most organic inputs to aquatic systems. Vegetation helps control
microclimate; plays a major role in fixing nitrogen and influencing otber nutrient and water
quality mechanisms; and partly controls light inputs and associated primary production in
aquatic habitats. Vegetation helps shape instream habitat conditions by creating habitat;
providing food, substrate, and cover for numerous species; and influencing numerous other
surface conditions such as channel morphology, channel migration, and avulsion. Vegetation
alteration is a primary mechanism through which land uses impact landscape processes.
2.1.2 Characterization Structure
The approach to characterizing landscape-scale processes consisted of several steps, which
are described below).
Step 1 -Identify Aquatic Resources and their Contributing Areas
Generally speaking the landscape analysis utilized watersheds identified as Water Resource
Inventory Areas and include the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed (WRIA 8) and the
GreenlDuwamish River watershed (WRIA 9).
In addition, reference is made to the specific streams and lakes under shoreline jurisdiction.
Step 2 -Key Landscape Processes
2-2
Processes occurring at the landscape scale maintain aquatic resources to varying degrees. The
Landscape Analysis in the Inventory/Characterization focuses on key processes tbat are
fundamental to the integrity of the ecosystem and can be managed witbin the context of the
available land use plans and regulations The following key processes are critical to sustaining
tbe aquatic resources and likely to be altered by human activity:
• Hydrology
• Sediment
• Water Quality
• Organic Matter
• Heat/Light
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects AnalysIs
City of Renton
Additional background infonnation describing key processes is provided in the Inventory and
Characterization.
Step 3 -Map Process-intensive Areas
The Inventory and Characterization used available GIS data to identify and map areas within
the City that support key processes. The geographic location of these specific features (e.g.,
depressional wetlands, penneable surficial deposits, or steep gradients) is used to identify
process-intensive areas.
Process-intensive areas are the focus of the Landscape Analysis in the Inventory/
Characterization because they control how key processes operate. In some cases, the process-
intensive areas are areas where inputs to the processes occur (e.g., the steep slopes that
generate sediment supply as a result of erosion). For other processes, inputs occur so broadly
across the landscape that specific process-intensive input areas are difficult to identify. In
those cases, the important process areas are areas that facilitate movement or storage of
materials such as water, sediment, or pathogens.
Commonly, multiple processes are present in a single area due to feedback relationships
among processes. Storage areas such as depressional wetlands are a good example because
they store surface water, which traps sediment and facilitates phosphorus removal and
contaminant adsorption, uptake and storage. The mapping exercise allows us to identify areas
where each process occurs as well as areas that support multiple processes and therefore may
provide valuable protection andlor restoration opportunities.
Step 4 -Map Process Alterations
This step determines where land uses and/or actions associated with land use have altered
naturally occurring processes. Knowing where and how processes have been altered provides
insight into the management approaches that may be appropriate for each geographic region.
Altered areas may provide opportunities for restoration, while unaltered areas may have
potential for conservation or similar protection. Table I-I shows the types of alterations
identified for each process. The methodology of this cumulative analysis is based on the
process changes outlined in Table I-I.
Hydrology
Land use can greatly change the hydrologic process in a given area. Specifically, the volume
and rate of water transport through each flow path can be altered by loss of forest cover and
increases in impervious surface. As a result of land use, particularly urbanization, water is
redirected from all other runoff pathways. This affects not only peak flows but also
groundwater discharge during periods of baseflow.
infiltrationiRecbarge
Land use is a predictor of effective impervious area. Impervious surfaces can impact
infiltration in all areas of a watershed, but it is particularly detrimental in areas that naturally
support high rates of infiltration and recharge (Le., penneable deposits on low slopes).
Other factors associated with impervious development increase the effective drainage density
and route water away from infiltration/recharge pathways toward direct runoff as discussed
below under Surface Runoff/ Peak Flows.
Snrface Water Storage
The loss of surface water storage potential can increase the volume and shift the timing of
flow or increase water level fluctuations in lentic systems Land use can either directly impact
storage through the destruction of storage areas (e.g., floodplains, wetlands, and the
M",ch 2010 I 558-1687-004 2-3
Shoreline Master Program f..fpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Ana(vsis
City of Renton
hyporheic zone) or indirectly decrease storage by reducing connectivity between the storage
areas and streams. Components of reduced connectivity include diked/leveed channels;
stream channelization and incision; increased sediment supply; and wetland ditching.
Some of these alterations are more appropriately addressed either in other landscape
processes (e.g., sediment supply) or at the reach scale (i.e., channel modifications and
incision). Other impacts are difficult to characterize with existing information, such as loss of
hyporheic function. Therefore, the alteration of focus for surface water storage is loss of
wetland storage and floodplain disconnection.
Surface Ruuoff! Peak Flows
Surface runoff and peak flow mechanisms are closely linked to the infiltration/recharge
mechanism described above since runoff is inversely correlated to infiltration/recharge.
Runoff is affected by development that increases drainage density, synchronizing runoff
during peak events and consequently increases the magnitude and frequency of peak flows.
Ditches in forested and rural areas and storm sewers in urban areas act as conveyance
channels artificially increasing drainage density and improving the efficiency of water
delivery to streams.
Groundwater Flow
Precipitation is the primary source of groundwater recharge. Therefore, the primary influence
on groundwater flow and discharge is infiltration and recharge. However, alterations to flow
paths and groundwater extraction/consumption also influence the availability of groundwater
for maintaining ecological functions during the summer low flow period. Draining areas of
shallow groundwater via ditching, pumping or other practices shortens the groundwater flow
paths and decreases retention time. Consequently, the efficiency of groundwater discharge
increases, and the availability of groundwater for discharge during low runoff periods
decreases.
Sediment
2-4
Changes in sediment supply have wide-ranging impacts on aquatic ecosystems and can limit
ecologic function by impairing habitat quality and water quality. Surface erosion and mass
wasting are naturally occurring mechanisms of sediment supply, but each can increase
sediment inputs to aquatic ecosystems when the landscape is altered by human use. Loss of
forest cover and roads can increase inputs to aquatic systems by increasing rates of mass
wasting and surface erosion. Altered hydrology may also increase hillslope inputs to aquatic
resources as well as influence rates of in stream transport and storage.
Mass Wasting
Mass wasting is an important mechanism on the Cedar River. It is less important in the
lower Green River because of topography and gradient.
Surface erosion usually occurs as a result of particle entrairunent by rainfall and overland
flow. Roads are a primary source of increased sediment inputs to aquatic systems via surface
erosion in forested environments. Roads within -200 feet of aquatic ecosystems dramatically
increase sediment inputs from surface erosion.
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline Alaster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
Table 2-1. Alterations Associated with Key Processes
Key Landscape Process Mechanism Process-intensive areas
Hydrology Infiltration/Recharge Permeable soils on low slopes
Sediment
Water quality
Organic matter
Heatllight Inputs
March 2010 I 558·1687·004
Artificial conveyances (indicator is road density)
Surface water storage Depressional wetlands, lakes, and floodplains
Surface runoff and peak flow Rain-on-snow zones
Groundwater flow Shallow aquifers
Soil erosion
Mass wasting
Storage
Nutrient sources
Pathogen sources
Toxin/Metal sources
Cycling (storage/transport)
LWD recruitment (source)
Canopy cover
Steep slopes with erodible soils
Mass wasting hazard areas
Depressional wetlands, lakes, and floodplains
Contributing area
None
Toxins -none; metals -groundwater
Riparian zones
Channel migration zones
Mass wasting areas
Riparian corridors
Alterations
Impervious area
Roads, ditches, storm sewers
Drained or filled depressional wetlands
Streams disconnected from floodplains
Loss of hydrologically mature forest cover
Road density
Ditched/drained areas with shallow groundwater
Consumption
Native vegetation loss
Roads near streams
Till agriculture
Developing lands
Roads in mass wasting hazard areas
Drained or filled depressional wetlands
Floodplain disconnection
Stream channelization
On-site septic systems, agriculture (waste and
fertilizer); residential areas (fertilizer), riparian
disturbance
On-site septic systems, agricultural waste
All land uses (non-specific)
Drained or filled depressional wetlands
Riparian disturbance
Loss of mature forest
Bank armoring, dikes/levees
Channelized streams
Loss of mature forest
Loss of vegetation
2-5
Shoreline .\laster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
Areas of low erosion potential can also be significant sources of sediment, particularly for
land uses that directly disturb soil due to clearing for urban uses, or clearing of forest land to
convert to agriculture .. Till agriculture or bare fallow soil areas can increase surface erosion
by 40 to 50 percent).
Bank Erosion
Streams, wetlands, and lakes can store sediment before being transported farther downslope
to estuaries and nearshore ecosystems. Channelization and floodplain disconnection cause
loss of overbank sediment deposition in the floodplain during peak flows; draining and filling
depressional wetlands can also reduce sediment storage capacity on the landscape. Thus,
alterations to surface water storage are also indicative of reduced sediment storage. The
residence time of sediment stored in the floodplain may decrease as a result of land use.
Bank erosion is the largest source of increased sediment supply in urbanizing basins. Changes
in stream morphology brought on by altered sediment supply-transport processes in streams
can include increased bank erosion and channel migration rates. Loss of riparian vegetation
also increases the susceptibility of streambanks to fluvial entrainment and mass failures. The
alterations that indirectly influence bank erosion are discussed in other sections (riparian
condition; surface runoff and peak flows). Consequently, bank erosion is not directly
addressed in the alteration analysis, but increases in bank erosion rates are noted in the
response section.
Water Quality
Nutrients
Changes to hydrology and sediment supply at the landscape-scale will profoundly influence
nutrient cycling in aquatic ecosystems, and alterations to these processes are discussed in
previous sections. The Landscape Analysis in the Inventory/Characterization focuses on
alterations to nutrient inputs resulting from certain land uses. Fertilizer originating from both
agricultural and residential areas can be a potential source of increased nitrogen inputs to both
aquatic ecosystems and groundwater. In addition, fecal waste from septic tanks, commercial
agriculture, and hobby farms can also contribute excess nitrogen and other nutrients.
Other human impacts that alter aquatic resources influence nutrient retention. Floodplain
disconnection and loss of riparian forest cover can limit hyporheic function and nitrogen
fixation rates and preclude deposition of sediment and adsorbed phosphorous. Loss of
wetlands also decreases rates of nutrient retention via chemical reactions such as
denitrification.
Pathogens
Pathogen inputs are primarily associated with human disturbance. Human sources of fecal
matter and associated pathogens include on-site septic systems and animal operations such as
dairies and hobby farms.
Like all water quality components, pathogen loading is highly correlated to hydrology and
sediment processes, and increases inputs and disturbance frequency provide a vehicle for
increased pathogen inputs and decreased retention. Decreased removal is indirectly
influenced by increased hydrology and sediment fluxes, which result from channelization,
wetland destruction, and increases in impervious area.
ToxinslMetals
Many land uses are sources of toxins and increased metal inputs that are harmful to aquatic
ecosystems. The types of pollutants typically vary by land use Urban land uses (i.e.,
March 2010 I 558-1687-004 2-\
Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline (:umuiative Effects AnalysIs
City of Renton
residential, commercial, municipal and industrial) can introduce contaminants such as metals,
organic compounds, and pesticides. Heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, copper and zinc) can be
released from motor vehicles, building materials and rooftops (Some homeowners and land
managers use insecticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers for lawn care.
The primary mechanism of contaminant transport from urban and rural lands to the
surrounding watershed is runoff. Impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, sidewalks, pavement,
rooftops) are key in the transport of stormwater runoff and associated contaminants.
Rural land uses (i.e., agriculture and forestry) are also potential sources of pesticides
Irrigation and storm events will enhance the movement of pesticides and metals bound to
loose organic matter (Nelson and Booth 2002; Hopkinson and Vallino 1995), thus,
toxin/metal mechanisms are similar to mechanisms in other water quality processes such as
nutrients and sediment.
Organic Matter
Riparian forest disturbances reduce woody debris in streams, which in turn leads to adverse
changes in channellhabitat-forming processes. In headwater areas, roads may increase the
incidence of landslides; however, associated loss of forest cover in these areas decreases
L WD recruitment via landslides. Land use encroachment into riparian zones, reduces forest
cover and decreases L WD recruitment potential. Land uses and resource management
practices that channelized streams also limit recruitment potential via bank erosion/channel
migration.
Heat/Light
The Landscape Analysis in the Inventory/Characterization relies on data that uses percent
canopy cover within this range as an indicator of the potential for increased heat/light inputs.
Step 5 -Identify Responses to Process Alterations
2-2
The presence of primary structural responses that can indicate the presence of a process
alteration confirms predictions regarding process alterations and provides information
regarding the magnitude of the alteration. These responses generally indicate the presence of
altered processes but may not represent the full suite of possible responses.
Primary structural responses can also produce secondary structural responses as well as
consequent ecological responses. Table 2-2 identifies some of the key primary and indirect
functional changes that occur in response to altered processes.
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline /',4aster Program Update
Shorelme Cumulative effects Analysis
City of Renton
Table 2-2. Key Processes and Responses to Alterations
Process
Hydrology
Sediment Supply
Water Quality
Toxins
Phosphorus/Nitrogen
Fecal matter
Organic Inputs
HeaVLight
M ... ch 2010 I 558·1687-004
Mechanism
Infiltration and
Recharge
Surface Runoff
Surface Water
Storage
Groundwater
Inputs
Storage
Inputs
Storage
LWD inputs
Inputs
Primary Structural
Response to
Impairment
Increased frequency and
duration flow; decreased
baseflow.
Increased peak flow;
channel erosion;
morphological
homogeneity.
Increased duration and
decreased vol urne of low
flow
Substrate fining; high
TSS/turbidity; increased
coarse sediment supply
Increased channel
instability
Increased concentrations
(303(d) listings)
Riparian disturbance;
Forest cover loss on
landslide-prone areas
Riparian disturbance
(decreased shading)
Greater temperature
extremes (303(d) listings)
Secondary Responses
Peak flow:
Channel incision; loss of habitat
complexity; increased bedload
transport; decreased biodiversity
and productivity; increased redd
scour and juvenile flushing
Baseflow:
Migratory barriers; decreased
habitat availability; increased
temperature
Reduce hyporheic connection
and volume; low 8-IBI score;
interstitial infilling, degraded
spawning grounds; aggrading
and entrenching channels.
Increased mortality
Increased BOD and
eutrophication
Shellfish contamination
Reduced species richness
Drinking water contamination
Biotic energy loss;
Decreased LWD density;
Reduced habitat complexity (pool
density and quality); Decreased
sediment and organic matter
storage and sorting;
Decreased biod iversity and
productivity
Increased primary productivity;
Reduced DO;
Migration barriers;
Reduced species richness;
Reduced growth,
Increased disease susceptibility;
Decreased egg viability
2-3
Shoreline Alas{er Program Update
Shoreline CumulatIve Effects Analysis
City of Renton
3. GENERAL ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The Shoreline Management Act Guidelines (WAC 173-26-18683)(d) require analysis of
cumulative impacts "to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other
shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and
regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of
addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities. Evaluation of such
cumulative impacts should consider:
• Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
• Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and
• Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and
federal laws."
This cumulative impacts assessment uses these three considerations as a framework for
evaluating the potential long-term impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes
that may result from development or activities under the proposed SMP overtime.
Current circumstances generally consist of the conditions of the shoreline as documented in
the Inventory and Characterization prepared for the SMP update.
Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline includes the allowed
uses within the shoreline as established by the Shoreline Management Plan, together with the
projection of the likely uses expected to develop, based on current development patterns.
Description of foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline through a
combination of:
• Projection of allowed uses, density, general character of uses and number of units
provided by existing zoning on a buildout basis.
• Existing land use patterns affecting cultural and economic trends in response to the
opportunities and constraints of the zoning.
• Projection of likely development within the WMU over a 20 year planning horizon
based on Washington State OFM projections and the county's Comprehensive Plan.
The beneficial effects of established regulatory programs include the following:
• Provisions of existing county land use and development regulations
". Comprehensive Plan polices that directly affect the location and scale of
development, through Urban Growth Areas
". Zoning Regulations
". Critical Area regulations
". Flood Damage Prevention regulations
". Stormwater management provisions in
• State and federal programs
". Federal and state programs under the Clean Water Act
• Section 404 and 401 programs
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits
". The state Dairy Nutrient Management Act RCW 90.64
March 2010 I 558-1687-004 3-1
Shoreline Alaster Program lJpdate
Shoreline Cumulative FJfects AnalysIs
City of Renton
}> The Endangered Species Act
• Hydraulic Project approval administered by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
• Programs administered by the Washington Department of Ecology
• The beneficial effects of conservation and restoration programs
}> Implementation ofthe WRIA 8 and 9 Salmon Recovery Plans
}> Programs administered by other agencies
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Reference should be made to the City of Renton Inventory and Characterization Report for a
detailed description of existing conditions.
3.2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
This section provides a general assessment of:
• General growth in population and employment projected to 2022.
• Uses allowed in each of the Shoreline Areas (Shoreline Environmental Designations)
provided in the Shoreline Management Plan together with an overview of the areas
with the designation and the range of projected uses.
3.2.1 Future Population and Economic Growth
The 2009 estimate by the state Office of Fiscal Management population of City of Renton
was 83,650 persons in 37,741 housing units. Total 2008 employment was 56,416 jobs
according to the Puget Sound Regional Council Covered Employment estimates. Since that
time several annexations have occurred that have increased population to about 88,000.
Growth in City of Renton since 2000 has been 28,728 with the largest growth spurt occurring
between 2007 and 2008 when the City annexed the Benson Hill, a community of 16,272
people.
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) forecast the growth for the City over a 21 year
interval from 200 I to 2022 to have an increase of 9,723 households and 33,600 jobs. Growth
targets established by the Growth Management Planning Council expect 6,198 households
and 27,597 jobs. Under Buildable Lands requirements set by the Growth Management Act,
both growth forecasts fall within the estimated land capacity of 11,261 households and
32,240 jobs.
Based on forecasts of population and employment growth, Renton will continue to plan for a
six-year increment increase of 2,778 units and 9,300 jobs for the 2007 to 2012 Capital
Facilities Plan. Reviews and revisions of the Capital Facilities Plan may result if actual
growth continues to exceed the forecast growth developed by PSRC.
3.3 TYPICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USES
3·2
It is important to recognize that the ecological processes and functions that occur within
Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction are affected by processes within the entire watershed,
not only those that take place within shorelines regulated by the Shoreline Master Plan.
March 2010 I 558·1687.(J04
Shoreline ll,faster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Rcnton
Table 3-2 provides a summary in matrix format of the types of cumulative effects produced
by the processes and functions addressed in the landscape analysis and the extent to which the
proposed revisions to the Shoreline Management Program addresses those potential effects.
Geology, which generally determines the natural location and transport capacity of earth
materials through materials deposition, topography, and landforms is a process that takes place
throughout the landscape. Since the area under direct SMA jurisdiction is a very small part of
the overall affected area, non-shoreline areas, and even factors outside of City of Renton are
the scale at which this is of most effect. Within the county, there are variations hetween and
within specific WMU. Again, these have an effect on the landscape as a whole and are more
affected by the larger areas outside of SMA jurisdiction than those within.
Climate, which is generated by the long-term weather patterns of a region is a process over
which lands in SMA jurisdiction have almost no influence.
Vegetation, which is mainly influenced by geology and climate is important within SMA
jurisdiction and on lands outside of SMA jurisdiction. Because it affects overall landscape
processes on the watershed level, and because the amount of land and the amount of stream
miles outside of SMA jurisdiction is greater, this factor is of greatest importance outside of the
influence of vegetation on hydrology through the interception, evapotranspiration, and
infiltration mechanisms. The effects of vegetation on sediment erosion and transport; and as
the source of organic inputs to aquatic systems is also important locally, but for most
watersheds in City of Renton, the majority of this mechanism occur outside of SMA
jurisdiction.
Hydrology, and specifically the influence of land use also occurs on a watershed basis.
Because the majority of any given watershed is outside of SMA jurisdiction, the major
influence on the volume and rate of water transport will take place on tributaries with flows
below the 20 cfs SMA jurisdiction threshold.
Infiltration/recharge is largely affected by land use on a watershed basis. Changes in
infiltration and other hydrology mechanisms occur with a change or loss of native vegetation
cover. This change in vegetation cover is due to the land use practices of managed forests,
agricultural, large lot rural, or urban development. Because the vast majority of the area of
the watershed is outside of SMA jurisdiction, these areas will have the primary influence.
The loss of surface water storage potential, which can increase the volume and shift the
timing of flow, or increase water level fluctuations in lentic systems also is a cumulative
function throughout the watershed. Changes that affect storage potential storage through the
elimination of storage areas provided by floodplains, wetlands, and the hyporheic zone or
indirectly decrease storage by reducing connectivity between the storage areas and streams all
occur on a greater scale outside SMA jurisdiction.
Surface runoff and peak flow mecbanisms, which are closely linked to the
infiltration/recharge mechanism described above also are primarily a watershed function. All
the mechanisms that increase impervious surface and that eliminate the natural delays in
surface runoff reaching streams (such as itches in forested and rural areas and storm sewers in
urban areas) all relate to the total area affected, and therefore are most influenced by the land
outside SMA jurisdiction.
Sediment delivery mechanisms have wide-ranging impacts on aquatic ecosystems and can
limit ecologic function by impairing habitat quality and water quality. Surface erosion and
mass wasting are naturally occurring mechanisms of sediment supply, but each can increase
sediment inputs to aquatic ecosystems when the landscape is altered by human use. Loss of
forest cover and roads can increase inputs to aquatic systems by increasing rates of mass
M",ch 2010 I 558·1687-004 3-3
Shoreline ."daster Program (jpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Ana~vsis
City of Renton
3-4
wasting and surface erosion. Altered hydrology may also increase hil1slope inputs to aquatic
resources as well as influence rates of instream transport and storage.
Mass wasting and erosion are both influenced by natural features such as topographic and
soils, as well as human alternation. Mass wasting is influenced largely by conditions that
increase risk of slope failure directly by altering slope properties or indirectly by
redistributing excess water to landslide prone areas. Topographic and soil conditions that are
higher risk areas for erosion and mass wasting generally occur in areas with greatest relief
and are drained by a network of small streams primarily outside of SMA jurisdiction.
Influence of human activities such as loss of forest cover and alteration of topography
through roads and other human disturbance also occur throughout the landscape.
Band erosion of streams is one mechanism that may occur at a greater magnitude in streams
under SMA jurisdiction because the greater flows result in higher erosive forces. It is not
clear, however, whether the cumulative effects of bank erosion on many smaller streams may
be of similar or greater magnitude. The loss of stream buffer vegetated areas, of wetlands that
provide a buffering function on streams and wetlands, and that may store sediment before
being transported farther downslope all occur throughout the watershed and may be as
substantial outside SMA jurisdiction.
In urban areas, bank erosion is the largest source of increased sediment supply in urbanizing
basins and is largely caused by changes in stream morphology brought on by altered
runoff/infiltration patterns resulting from increased impervious surfaces. This alteration is
largely a watershed function rather than one that occurs primarily in SMA jurisdiction. The
smaller streams below the 20 CSF threshold are more likely to be affected by changes in
stream morphology and become the major sites of increased bank erosion and increased
sedimentation.
Water quality is also likely to be influenced more thy changes at the watershed scale that
affect nutrient cycling in aquatic ecosystems rather than the processes in the relatively smaller
area under SMA jurisdiction. All the factors affecting nutrient cycling are likely to occur at a
watershed level, including fertilizer originating from both agricultural and residential areas,
nutrients from septic tanks or sewer system leakage, and changes that affect the nitrogen
fixation rates of natural processes that are affected by loss of floodplain connection, riparian
forest cover, and wetlands.
Like all water quality components, pathogen, toxin and heavy metal loading is highly
correlated to hydrology and sediment processes, increased inputs and reduction in natural
removal, all of which occurs on a watershed scale. Disturbance frequency provides a vehicle
for increased pathogen inputs and decreased retention. Decreased removal is indirectly
influenced by increased hydrology and sediment fluxes, which result from channelization,
wetland destruction, and increases in impervious area.
Organic matter inputs relate to the loss of riparian forest disturbances and results in reduction
of woody debris in streams, which in tum leads to adverse changes in channellhabitat-
forming processes. The process occurs throughout a watershed and large woody debris
(LWD) from headwater areas may be transported from upstream during peak flow events. On
streams under SMA jurisdiction that can be affected by recruitment within the adjacent
riparian area. These mechanisms are likely to be primarily affected by riparian buffer areas
established in the Critical Area regulations that apply both within SMA jurisdiction and in
smaller streams. The overall importance of L WD is a watershed-wide process. The smaller
streams below 20 CSF may provide as important functions for aquatic species, and therefore
the beneficial effects ofLWD may be as important outside SMA jurisdiction as within.
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline Master Program (Jpdale
Shoreline ClIInu!alive Ejfects Analysis
Cit) ofRenlon
The input of organic material that provides food sources to aquatic species occurs throughout
the watershed. The magnitude of flows in a stream influence the extent to which the dominant
source of organic inputs and food sources comes from within the aquatic environment or
from outside. Larger streams with greater flows within SMA jurisdiction may generate more
of the food chain from the aquatic environment, but are also dependent on inputs from
smaller tributaries for nutrients and may be degraded by alterations of the inputs from those
smaller streams.
Heat and light inputs are affected by surface water, groundwater and riparian shading. The
influence of shading is most substantial on small tributaries and tributaries may have the
greatest influence on larger streams. If stream temperature levels are already higher because
of loss of groundwater infiltration and loss of shading on tributaries, it is unlikely to be
substantially decreased if those features are present in larger flow streams under SMP
jurisdiction. Overall, heat and light inputs on streams are likely to be influenced most by
conditions on streams outside of SMA jurisdiction.
3.4 EFFECTS OF CURRENT LOCAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS
3.4.1 Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Areas
City of Renton has designated urban growth areas in cooperative planning efforts with local
cities and King County. The Growth Management Act encourages growth within urban
growth areas and discourages growth outside them. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
divides urban areas with land that must remain rural. The policies in City of Renton for
establishing urban growth boundaries include:
• The need to assure logical service boundaries,
• The need to avoid isolated pockets or abnonnally irregular boundaries,
• Consideration of land needs analysis of residential, commercial and industrial needs
within urban areas, and
Between City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary lies Potential Annexation Areas
(PAA's) or areas assigned to a city agreeing to annex it sometime in the future. Under King
County's Countywide planning policies, urban areas such as PAA's must be part of a city by
2012.
Renton has three PAA's: East Renton Plateau and Fairwood/Petrovitsky designated in 1995,
as well as West Hill in 2005. If all three PAA's were annexed, Renton's population would
grow to 130,000 from its May 2009 estimate of 82,548. In 2008, a portion of the
Fairwood/Petrovitsky PAA came into the city as the Benson Hill Communities annexation,
adding 16,272 residents and 4.2 square miles. Currently there are 11 annexations being
processed by the City.
3.4.2 Zoning
Zoning Regulations in City of Renton Code Chapter 4 primarily address economic goals and
compatibility with other human uses through a variety of mechanisms including:
• By specii)'ing zoning categories with a specific range of allowed uses, generally
• By establishing density regulations, generally minimum lot sizes
• By providing for development standards for specific features of development,
including
March2010 I 558·1687·004 3·5
Shoreline Master Pyogrurn lJpdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
Cit) of Renton
>-Setbacks
';> Open space
';> Landscaping
" Parking
» Stonnwater
Zoning affect the intensity of urban uses and provides the context for many of the changes in
functions of streams and shorelines but generally does not address shoreline issues directly
(except in provisions relating to the Shoreline Master Program).
3.4.3 Critical Areas
The City of Renton has adopted Critical Areas Regulations affect lands outside of Shoreline
Management Act jurisdiction and address:
• Geologically hazardous areas
• Frequently flooded areas
• Critical aquifer recharge areas
• Wetlands
• Habitat conservation areas, including streams and lakes and areas associated with
priority species
Provisions in the regulations generally:
• Provide for the general prohibition of alteration in those critical areas with ecological
importance such as wetlands, streams, lakes, marine shorelines, and wildlife habitat
areas.
• Restrict the range of allowed uses.
• Provide for buffers to either protect human health and safety (in the case of
Geological Hazards) or protect ecological functions.
3.4.4 Stormwater
3-6
Renton has approved use of the 2009 King County Stonnwater Pennit Design Manuel
(KCSWDM) along with city amendments that include flow control and surface water design
standards.
To apply surface water design standards and NPDES minimum requirements, all new
development regardless of size may be subject to stonnwater requirements issued by the City.
Site regulation under surface water design includes creation or replacement of impervious
surfaces, flow control, and water quality. New developments that create more than 5,000
square feet of new impervious surface trigger drainage review including off-site analyses,
erosion and runoff control, and conveyance system design. Runoff treatment for pollution
generating impervious surfaces greater than 5,000 square feet includes biofiltration designed
for the 2-year stonn or an oversized wetpond if the project constructs more than one acre of
pollution generating impervious surface.
The Peak Rate Flow Standard is the current flow control standard used by the City which
detains runoff from a developed site based on single-event hydrologic modeling. NPDES
standards require continuous hydrologic modeling to match flow durations between II, of the
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline Master Prugram Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renlon
two year flow up to the 50-year flow (City Council). To comply, the City requires projects
generating more that.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) apply duration-based standards for
detention facilities.
Duration standards seek to avoid potential disruption to the downstream channels by
choosing a "threshold discharge," below which sediment transport in the receiving channel is
presumed not to occur and so postdevelopment flow durations can be increased without
concern. This choice can be made by site-specific, but rather expensive, analysis based on
stream hydraulics and sediment size or can be applied as a "generic" standard based on
predevelopment discharges.
An additional issue that remains with a duration standard is the threshold discharge below
which there are "no effects" of flow-duration increase.
Problems with structural approaches to stormwater management include:
• Point discharge -The consequences of converting a natural condition of dispersed
overland flow into numerous headwaters into a point discharge at a surface-water
outfall can result in locally severe erosion and disruption of riparian vegetation and
instream habitat (e.g., Booth, 1990).
• Groundwater -Flow durations control will not address changes to groundwater
recharge or discharge, because no constructed detention ponds, even the largest
designed under this standard, can delay wintertime rainfall sufficiently for it to
become summertime discharge.
• Individual storm hydrographs -There is no attempt (or ability) to construct detention
ponds that match durations for specific storm events or even an entire storm season.
Thus the aggregate flow-duration spectrum may be unchanged, but the timing and
brevity of any single storm hydrograph may be quite different from the undisturbed
condition (Booth 1997).
3.5 EFFECTS OF CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
3.5.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The federal Clean Water Act requires states to set standards for the protection of water
quality. The mandate of the federal Clean Water Act is administered by the state Department
of Ecology in conjunction with state water quality laws. The program regulates activities that
result in wastewater discharges to surface water from industrial facilities or municipal
wastewater treatment plants as well as non-point pollution. NPDES permits for storm water
discharges have two basic components. Stormwater discharge from construction sites are
covered by a Statewide General Permit and require compliance for clearing of sites of five or
more acres. NPDES permit requirements for municipal stormwater systems are being phased
in with the first phase affecting jurisdictions that serve populations of 1 00,000 or more.
3.5.2 Section 404 Permit
The federal Clean Water Act also regulates excavation and dredging in waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. Certain activities in Waters of the United States, including wetlands and
streams may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This requirement is
administered by the Corps in conjunction with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. As
part of the program, the Washington State Department of Ecology is required to certifY
compliance with water quality standards under Section 401 of the CWA.
March 2010 I 558-1687-004 3-7
Shoreline Alasta Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
3.5.3 Endangered Species Act
The federal ESA addresses the protection and recovery of federally threatened and
endangered listed species. The ESA is jointly administered by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specific
programs developed or under development in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers include design standards for docks contained in the USACE Regional Permit No.3
that apply to Lake Washington and proposed restrictions on shoreline protection included in
a Biological Opinion dated December 13,2007 (NMFS 2007). Other programs with potential
impacts on Renton include the NMFS Biological Opinions on flood control facilities issued
September 22,2008 and addressing certain pesticides issued April 20, 2009. These programs
will affect issuance of federal permits, most notably Section 404 Permits.
3.5.4 Washington State Department of Ecology
Ecology has regulatory authority over a wide variety of programs that affect water quantity
and quality through the on waters ofthe state. Some of these programs include:
• Water Pollution Control RCW 90.48 RCW.
• Water pollution control facilities financing RCW 70.146
• Underground petroleum storage tanks RCW 70.148
• Hazardous materials RCW 70.136
• Radioactive waste RCW 70.99
• Hazardous waste management RCW 70.1 OS
• Hazardous waste fees 70.1 05A
• Hazardous waste cleanup, Model toxics control act RCW 70.1 OSD
• Mixed radioactive and hazardous waste. RCW 70.lOSE
• Detergent phosphorus content. RCW 70.9SL
• Water Rights RCW 90.03-44
• Shoreline management act of 1971 RCW 90.S8
• Dairy nutrient management RCW 90.64
• Underground storage tanks RCW 90.76
• Ch. 90.82 RCW -Watershed planning RCW 90.82
Many of these programs are administered in coordination to provide multiple benefits,
including coordination with the Shoreline Management Act.
3.5.5 Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
3-8
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regulates activities that use,
divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the beds or banks of waters of the state and may
affect fish habitat. Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction requiring construction below the
ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound or streams in the city could require an HPA from
WDFW. Projects creating new impervious surface that could substantially increase
stormwater runoff to waters of the state may also require approval.
March 2010 I 558-1687-004
3.6 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS
3.6.1 Salmon Recovery
Shorelme Master Program t/pdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
The Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 and 9 Salmonid Recovery Plans (SRP)
outlines actions necessary to recover Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonid
populations. with a particular focus on Chinook salmon, and provides a framework for
implementing recommended actions agreed to by local, state, federal, and tribal governments
in WRIA I (SRP 2005). The draft SRP includes a Salmonid Habitat Restoration Strategy
(Version 2.4, 2004) that identifies and prioritizes specific projects to protect and restore
habitats and the ecosystem processes essential to the recovery of threatened Chinook salmon
and bull trout, along with other salmonids native to the Nooksack watershed.
The Cedar River Salmon Recovery Plan has the following priorities for the near-term (10-
year time frame):
• Hydrology
~ Protect surface and ground water instream flows during migrant Chinook life
stages
~ Establish shoreline native riparian vegetation for runoff infiltration and to
maintain cool stream temperatures
• Floodplain Connectivity
~ Setback and remove dikes and levees to help create off-channel habitats and
lower flow velocities during high flow periods
• Habitat Quantity
~ Create pool habitats via large woody debris (LWD) and shoreline conifer
underplanting for future LWD recruitment
The SRP identifies the following projects upstream of Renton that are likely to have
beneficial impacts on Chinook Habitat:
• Reach E (RS, RM 4.4-5.8)
~ Remove Buck's Curve Levee and revegetate floodplain to slow river flow
and encourage channel diversity
• Reach G (R7, RM 7.3-8.2)
» Setback or Remove both Cooks/Jefferies and Progressive levees to restore
Cedar Rapids Floodplain, increase pools via LWD, and reconnect sub
channel
• Reach J (RIO, RM 10.2-12.7)
~ Revegetate and reconnect Lion's Club side channel (RM 12) which
historically provided Chinook spawning and rearing habitat
~ Remove Cedar Grove Road SE (RM I I) in conjunction with flood buyouts
and restore floodplain
~ Setback or remove Rainbow Bend Levee (RM 11.2) to reconnect floodplain;
construct side channels and place LWD for pool habitat
March 2010 I 558·1687-004 3·9
Shorelme .~laster Program L'pdate
Shorelme Cumulative Effects AnalysIs
City of Renton
• Reach K (Rll, RM 12.7)
';. Restore LWD at Taylor Creek confluence and a mile upstream the tributary
to aid in fish passage
';. Continue LWD placement at the Petersen (RM 14.1) and Rock Creek (RM
18.2) to both aid in fish passage and create a flow refuge for juvenile fish
• Reach R (R18 RM 20.1)
';. Place L WO, restore vegetation on left bank, and open up Wingert Side
Channel for more habitat access.
The SRP identifies the following projects within Renton that are likely to have beneficial
impacts on Chinook Migration:
• Reach A (Mouth to Logan Avenue bridge)
';. Riparian vegetation enhancements within the scope of existing flood control
facilities
';. Removal of hardened shorelines requmng substantial changes to flood
control facilities; lessens habitat of prickly sculpin, predator to juvenile
salmon
';. Reconfiguration of river to provide more natural stream character, possible
after redevelopment
• Reach B (Logan Avenue bridge to 405-bridge)
';. Overhanging vegetation/conifers would provide increased refuge habitat and
some food resources. Idea locations for planting vegetation would be the
existing paved footpath adjacent to the water and the water's edge along
Liberty Park.
• Reach C ([-405 bridge to the SR 169 bridge)
';. Removal of hardened banks to replace with a native vegetation buffer.
';. Maintenance of existing natural vegetation through removing invasive
species, enhancement near [-405 where vegetation removal has taken place.
';. Short-term opportunity: non-water-oriented uses including retail, office, or
multi-family going in place of a former concrete batch plant where riparian
vegetation buffers can be established on private land.
• Reach D (SR-169 bridge to Ron Regis Park)
';. Maintaining existing off-channel spawning channels and natural vegetation.
';. At RM 4.7, restore side channel downstream of landslide, add LWD along
banks of Ron Regis Park and conifer under planting acquiring future L WO.
A complete list of near term salmon recovery programs is available at:
http://ww-w.sharedsalmonstratelIy.org/RecoveryPlan.htm
The Green River Salmon Plan has the following priorities for the near-term (1 O-year time
frame):
• Protect existing processes and habitats that are working well;
• Restore processes and habitats that can be returned to good conditions;
3-10 March 2010 I 558-1687-004
Shoreline ."daster Program (Jpdale
Shoreline Cumulative EJJixlS Analysis
City of Renton
o Rehabilitate damaged processes and habitats that can be sustained with on-going
efforts; and
o Substitute processes and habitats that are lost.
In addition, the SRP identifies projects including tasks such as:
o Levee setbacks on the Green River mainstem;
o Removal of bulkheads or replacement with softer forms of shoreline protection In
marine nearshore habitats;
o Planting native vegetation and installation of large woody debris in freshwater
habitats;
o Side channel reconnection in freshwater habitats;
o Side channel reconnection in freshwater habitats; and
o Introduction of spawning gravel in the Green River mainstem (WIRA 9).
The SRP provides important scientific and technical information about the restoration
priorities in City of Renton. Although, salmon-focused by definition, the SRP recognizes the
need to restore the landscape processes that form habitats to which wild salmonid stocks are
adapted. The SRP authors clearly acknowledge the relationship between recovery of
threatened salmon ids and broader ecosystem restoration goals:
A complete list of near term salmon recovery programs is available at:
http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/plan/voI2.htm
3.6.2 King County Floodplain Management
King County adopted the 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan that identified the need for
an integrated countywide flood control program through formation of a flood control zone
district to address subregional flood risk and infrastructure needs on tributaries and in local
jurisdictions.
In 2007 the King County Council established the King County Food Control Zone District
(KCFCZD) which included transfer of the assets of the previously-existing ten individual
flood control zone districts to the new countywide district and established a countywide tax
assessment.
The county is currently prioritizing potential projects along the Cedar River. Some examples
of projects under consideration include:
o Johnson Levee Setbacks to address channel constriction; facility vulnerability at
Cedar River Trail and SR-169 This project will remove portions of both levees that
solely protect open space land.
o Rainbow Bend Levee Setback and Floodplain Reconnection addresses channel
constriction and facility vulnerability at the Cedar River Trail and SR-169 This
project will setback the levee to achieve improved conveyance and floodplain
capacity.
o Elliott Bridge Levee Setback and Acquisition (Cedar Elliott Bridge) to address
overtopping levee; seepage, repetitive loss properties. The project includes property
buyouts and levee setback
March 2010 I 558·1687·004 3-11
Shoreline Aiasler Program f.../pdate
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis
City of Renton
• WPA Levee Setback and Acquisition (Cedar WPA) to address overtopping levee;
channel migration hazards; facility vulnerability. The project involves acquiring
homes in floodway and floodplain and setback or removal of a revetment, restoration
and revegetation of the floodplain.
• Lower Lions Club to Cedar Grove Road (Cedar Lower Lions) to address overtopping
levee; repetitive loss properties. The project involves acquisition of flood-prone
homes
• Brassfield Revetment Setback and Acquisition (Cedar Brassfield) to address channel
constriction; facility
3.6.3 Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)
In response to the challenges facing the Sound, in 2007 the Legislature created the Puget
Sound Partnership to reverse Puget Sound's decline and restore it to health by 2020. This
agency replaced the Puget Sound Action Team created in 1996, to protect and restore Puget
Sound and its spectacular diversity of life now and for future generations. The Partnership has
developed the following priorities in its Action Plan;
Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain
Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost-
effective approach to ecosystem health.
Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget
Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at
an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage.
Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of our efforts have focused on
cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient resources have
been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our rivers, beaches, and
specIes.
Priority D: Work together as a coordinated system to ensure that activities and funding
are focused on the most urgent and important problems facing the region.
Many of the programs and laws now used to regulate or support activities in
Puget Sound were established on a piecemeal basis to address individual
problems. Strategies that will help to address problems more effectively at an
ecosystem scale include improved coordination of land use planning, water
supply, ecosystem protection, transportation, and species recovery plans. The
Action Agenda calls for the refonn of environmental regulatory programs as
well as improvements to the capacity of local partners to implement actions
and compliance efforts across Puget Sound.
Priority E: Build an implementation, monitoring, and accountability management system.
3.6.4 Washington Department of Natural Resources
)·12
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages state lands
including forests, farms, commercial properties and underwater lands under state ownership.
Much of this land is dedicated to supporting trusts for specific public institutions like schools
and universities.
DNR's aquatic lands are managed to provide access to the waters of the state -rivers, lakes,
streams and Puget Sound. DNR also works to serve the continuation of navigation and
commerce. Aquatic lands in Lake Washington include all lands beyond the inner harbor line.
March 2010 I 558·1687-004
Shoreline Alaster Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effecls Ana(vsis
City of Renton
DNR issues leases for uses within harbor lands, including penn its for docks and other over-
water structures that extend beyond the Inner Harbor Line.
Two examples of management programs on uplands within harbor areas include:
• A beach and vegetation restoration program in Reach C on public harbor lands at the
fonner Barbee Mill site which have been withdrawn from leasing by the DNR in
recognition of the environmental values of the area;
• Public harbor lands in the easterly third of the Boeing site in Reach I which are
currently proposed to be restored by the DNR, including removing the existing
outfall flume from the fanner Sheffelton Plant to restore shoreline nearshore
conditions.
3,6.5WDFW
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is a state leader in providing technical
support staff as well as funding to salmon recovery efforts. A complete list of WDFW's
activities is available at their website at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov.
3.7 MATRIX SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The matrix below provides a more detailed assessment of potential cumulative effects of
development and the extent to which existing regulations address the potential source of
degradation.
The Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis will assess the beneficial impacts of the proposed
Shoreline Management Plan and other programs.
3.8 REFERENCES
All references are found in the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update
Shoreline Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington.
March 2010.
March2010 I 558-1687-004 3-13
Iysical or Biological Function
_evel:
The watershed size affects the structure
)f tributary discharge to the system.
ms with a greater geographical coverage
tributaries that are affected differentially
on patterns. The effect of single stonm
e system depends on the geographic
.ther patterns. Natural lake systems
ligh water levels in the winter and low
in the summer.
-/lnterilow: Streamflow also consists of
ich is shallow subsurface flow from
that infiltrates into the soil surface and
~ans of gravity toward a stream channel.
ften a substantial component of base
:Jrecipitation periods
I: Native vegetation influences the
\thich precipitation reaches surface water.
over affects the rate of runoff, infiltration,
;tance of soils to erosion from a variety of
~h of these factors has an impact on
hology and stability.
ation is adapted to regional weather,
j soil conditions, as well as use as habitat
)f species and therefore will function as a
;tem.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: The natural lake water levels have been
reversed by US Anmy Corps of Engineers
management of the Hiram Chittenden Locks with low
water levels maintained in the winter and high levels
in the summer.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development leads to
increased impervious surfaces, which increases
surface runoff and decreases infiltration and interflow.
Decreased interflow may reduce the natural base flow
of smaller stream systems. Resourced and rural
areas outside the UGA have the greatest influence on
these factors
Reach Level:
Peak Flows: Action on the reach level has little or no
effect on this hydrologic process.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development on the shoreline
may increase surface runoff and decreases infiltration
and interflow_ Decreased interilow on Lake
Washington will not affect overall hydrologic
processes but may affect local processes such as
interflow to beach gravels supporting beach
spawning.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: Watersheds tributary to Lake Washington have largely
been altered in the past 150 years.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction Critical Area Ordinances
(CADs) that require maintaining existing buffering vegetation based
on stream classification. The loss of native vegetation from the area
outside buffers generally will result in a substantial change in runoff
character.
Small stream headwaters remaining within Renton are protected by
vegetated buffers in CAD to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater systems.
Reach Level:
On Lake Washington, local shoreline protection may affect the
localized movement of groundwater to beach sediments and affect
sockeye beach spawning success.
Proposl
to Protect or Restl
Watershed Level: The SMP
the watershed area Which out
be the major influence on thi~
Reach Level: Hydrology is af
use and development pattern~
effect compared to watershed
Impervious area is addressed
Bulk Standards
4-3-090. E.7. Facility Arrange,
Standards encourage mainter
4-3-090.G.l.a.v Vegetation C,
future development.
Lake Washington Reaches A,
and have fewer functions and
at the time that substantial re(
Lake Washington Reaches C
potential for incremental enha
shoreline
Magnitude of change is relal
shorelines are developed and
next 20 years is relatively smt
-.,-'----------""-----
uality is required for most biological Watershed Level:
Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can be
an unnatural source of nutrients and other pollutants
that can degrade water quality in streams and
wetlands.
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading of
chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use. Roadways and
driveways generally increase with single family
density. Multifamily driveways and parking area is
determined more by development type, especially
provision of garages rather than surface parking
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on~site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills;
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles.
Reach Level: The same mechanisms as outlined
above are present within SMP jurisdiction_
In the nearshore of Lake Washington local sources of
herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals from
maintenance of lawns and landscaping adjacent to
the shoreline may have a localized impact on
nearshore areas important to the food chain and may
directly affect the central nervous system of Chinook
salmon at a criticallifecycle stage, as well as other
species.
Watershed Level: Throughout the Lake Washington watersheds
land alteration is pervasive, most of which are associated with a
variety of applications of substances on the land.
Lake Washington overall water quality is largely determined by
watershed level pollutant load, however nearshore areas can be
adversely affected by adjacent discharge.
Reach Level: The Lake Washington nearshore is adversely affected
by application of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. on adjacent
lawn and ornamental vegetation that results in discharge and
adversely affect salmon ids at the critical small fry lifestages in
localized nearshore areas.
~u •• uu .... ~ u. 1"1Ir~~'
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Provisions tha'
SMP 4-3-090. G.1.a. v Veget,
vegetation adjacent to shorelil
and chemicals that may wash
4-3-090. E.11 Utilities.d.iv Sto
development to meet current:
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the te
current standards must take p
Magnitude of change is relat
shorelines are developed and
next 20 years is relatively smc
Relative importance of chang~
discharge of herbicides, pestil
maintenance of lawns and Ian
a much greater effect since pc
lifecycle stage are higher in R
distance from the Cedar Rivel
Reaches A, B, D. E and K an
Change in vegetation from pe
replacement with native vege1
change is likely in the near ter
and education programs may
medium to long term (10 to 3C
Reach C includes the Seaha.
may see additional restoratior
medium term (10 to 20 years)
Reaches F and G within Gem
enhancement of native veget,
and I are likely to see little res
DNR aquatic lands.
.~-.--. _. -.-.-~.--..
I: Juvenile salmon ids, particularly
1 on nearshore habitat during the critical
e as they slowly migrate from the Cedar
:tr along Lake Washington's shorelines.
closest to the River are most important
19 function. Chinook use gently sloping,
elines for weeks to months as they
Ive away from the river mouth. (Tabor
Reach Level: Residential and commercial
development, including bulkheads, docks, paved
areas, and landscaped yards have adversely modified
most of the Lake Washington shoreline habitat.
Affects include interruption of natural sediment
sources from dredging of depositional areas such as
deltas, structures that interrupt the longitudinal flow of
sediment and bulkheads that reflect wave action and
create a high energy environment in the nearshore
that mobilize fine sediments and deposit in the deeper
portions of the lake, leaving the nearshore largely
gravel and cobble substrate.
Lake Washington:: Most of the Lake Washington shoreline has
been modified by reSidential and commercial development, including
bulkheads. docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards.
Reach Level: All reaches in Renton are bullheaded except Reach C
that includes the Seahawks and Quendall Terminals sites and a
portion of the Barbee Mill site that has been restored. Reach F within
Gene Coulon Park is largely natural gravel beach. Reaches in
Renton may have a much greater effect on Chinook salmon the
critical small fry lifecycle stage since populations are higher in Renton
Shorelines as a function of distance from the Cedar River.
Past dredging of the Cedar River and May Creek have interrupted the
supply of sediment to the nearshore.
LV ... VLC"'~ V' ...... ~~.
Reach Level~ Protection of th
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and using soft soluti
4-3-090. G.3 Dredging particu
interference in Cedar River ar
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the tt
current standards must take J=
Magnitude of change is relat
shorelines are developed and
next 20 years is relatively sm~
The long-term importance of (
critical importance to ESA lisb
nearshore for a criticallifecycl
Reaches A, B , D, E and K an
Change in bulkheads from pe
replacement is likely to be inc
near tenn (10 years). The eff,
programs may result in percel
(10 to 30 years).
Reach C includes the Seahav
may see additional restoratior
short to medium term (10 to 2
Reaches F and G within GenE
enhancement, largely in Reac
little restoration of native vege
~------w-~------------
lin cool water temperatures through
;hade and creation of a cool and humid
over the stream.
ter is important to the ecosystem in the
lS, branches, and terrestrial insects and is
element of the food chain in streams and
Ibitat in lakes.
Reach Level: The loss of upland buffers through
urbanization lead to a loss in shade and cooler
temperature areas adjacent to streams and reduce
the contribution of organic matter.
Reach Level: Lake Washington has little mature vegetation providing
shade from mature trees. This may adversely affect nearshore
habitat areas critical to juvenile salmon lifecycle stages.
.. v r IV"~"''' VI .~"' ..... ,
Reach Level:
Vegetation buffers are addre,
Environmental Effects No Net
establishes a review process
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stabili
alteration and would enhance
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the It
current standards must take p
Magnitude of change is rela1
shorelines are developed and
next 20 years is relatively sm,
The long-term importance of (
critical importance to ESA list!
nearshore for a criticallifecycl
Reaches A, B , D, E and K an
Change in vegetation from pe
replacement with native veget
change is likely in the near tel
and education programs may
medium to long tenm (10 to 3C
Reach C includes the Seaha'."
may see additional restoratior
medium term (10 to 20 years)
Reaches F and G within Gene
enhancement of native veget,
and I are likely to see little res
DNR aquatic lands.
-,,------------"'--------------
10k produced in the Cedar River migrate
lshington. Small fry remain in very
,r along the lake's shorelines These fry
sloping sand to gravel with some
or submerged vegetation or fine woody
rovides cover from avian or fish
Ind longitudinal continuity are all
wildlife productivity. Continuity along
s a variety of upland areas, links different
'ian vegetation communities, and
movement to respond to local disruptions
y due to flooding, fire, local predation
d human disturbance. A nearly
parian zone is the typical natural
he Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992).
Deeper nearshore habitats with rocky substrates and
without vegetation appear to be preferred by
smallmouth and largemouth bass, Human intervention
has increase the relative abundance of these habitat
types in the shoreline increasing predation
opportunities and potentially adversely affecting
native Chinook.
Current docks and other moorage facilities that
contribute to predation and also may cause avoidance
behavior in salmon ids forcing them out of nearshore
environments and into environments where food and
shelter are less available and where predation is
increased ..
The riparian corridor in urban watersheds can
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences: the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings.
Lake Washington:: Most of the lake Washington shoreline has
been modified by residential and commercial development, including
bulkheads, docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards.
Reach Level: All reaches in Renton are bullheaded and have
extensive dock coverage except Reach C that includes the Seahawks
and Quendall Tenminals sites and a portion of the Barbee Mill site that
has been restored. Reach F within Gene Coulon Park is largely
natural gravel beach. Reaches in Renton may have a much greater
effect on Chinook salmon the critical small fry lifecycle stage since
populations are higher in Renton Shorelines as a function of distance
from the Cedar River.
Lake Washington has little continuous vegetation at the water's edge
providing little potential to support corridors for animal movement.
lV r 'Vl'C,",l V' .... 'C ... l'
Reach Level; The prey/preda
addressed to some extent thn
SMP 4-3-090. EA. EnvironmE
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
vegetation that provides food
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stabili
alteration and using soft sol uti
4-3-090.F.7 Piers and Docks'
avoid disturbance or shade in
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the tt
current standards must take p
Magnitude of change is relal
shorelines are developed and
next 20 years is relatively sm,
The long-term importance of (
critical importance to ESA listl
nearshore for a criticallifecycl
Reaches A, B , D, E and K an
Change in shoreline structure
voluntary replacement with na
incremental. Little change is I
effect of regulations and educ
change in the medium to long
Reach C includes the Seaha.
may see additional restoratior
medium term (10 to 20 years)
Reaches F and G within GenE
enhancement of native vegetc
and I are likely to see little res
DNR aquatic lands.
Reach Levet The longitudina
directly addressed by
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse'
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stabil
alteration because these appl
development.
Magnitude of change is relal
since most shorelines are dev
provided in buffers will providE
terrestrial species.
-.1------. -----... ---..
at are in the form of particulates (e.g.,
phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
ed in a wetland with greater detention
ds with no outlet are the most effective in
I by wetlands with an outlet that flows
Illy, followed by wetlands with year-round
h longer times that water is retained and
1 settle (Adamus et al. 1991).
lce sedimentation by acting like a filter
sediment particles to drop to the wetland
mus et al. 1991).
)f dissolved phosphorus and toxic
through adsorption to soil particles is
1 soils are high in clay or organic content
30sselink 1993}. Removal of nitrogen
atic system (denitrification) is done by
live only in the absence of oxygen
30sselink 1993).
levels of nitrogen transformation occur in
wetland that undergo a cyclic change
,(oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen
litions. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
_evel:
The watershed size affects the structure
)f tributary discharge to the system.
ms with a greater geographical coverage
tributaries that are affecled differentially
on patterns. The effect of single storm
e system depends on the geographic
~ther patterns. Natural lake systems
dgh water levels in the winter and low
in the summer.
-/lnterflow: Streamflow also consists of
ich is shallow subsurface flow from
that infiltrates into the soil surface and
~ans of gravity toward a stream channel.
ften a substantial component of base
:>recipitation periods
Wetland function can be reduced through direct
displacement and through off~site factors that reduce
function. Urban development and agriculture can
increase the amount of sediments entering the
wetland and adjacent stream systems and affect the
soil substrate and affect the type of vegetation by
changing the conditions under which different plants
compete with one another.
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system. Degradation
can occur due to changes in the hydrologic conditions
maintaining soil type or to a pollutant load that is
greater than the capacity of the system to process
nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that change
the patterns of seasonal ponding to either year-round
ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a different
duration. This can change the balance of functions
provided.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: May Creek is highly altered with
agricultural use in the upper watershed. This does
not, however tend to alter peak flows sUbstantially.
Urban development in the lower watershed affects
peak flow levels and duration for tributaries.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development leads to
increased impervious surfaces, which increases
surface runoff and decreases infiltration and interflow.
Decreased interflow may reduce the natural base flow
of smaller stream systems. Resourced and rural
areas outside the UGA have the greatest influence on
these factors
Reach Level: May Creek and other smaller streams
are likely more dependent on interflow for low
summer flows and especially maintaining temperature
suitable for aquatic habitat.
.._---_ .. _-------'--.-
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread shoreline stabilization
and interference with delta formation providing little potential for
adjacent wetlands.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows and Groundwater Interflow:
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial change in runoff character.
Reach Level:
Most of May Creek in Renton above 1-405 is in public ownership and
has native vegetation cover. This portion of the stream is relatively
small compared to the watershed and has litHe influence over the flow
regime.
LV .-.v~ ...... ~ v .... COlII.'
Watershed Level: For the 0,
Renton SMP has little influen(
watershed and small area affe
Reach Level: The preservatlc
090. E.4.c. that adopts new w
on Ecology recommendations
Magnitude of changejs relal
since most streams and lake ~
The most influence may be or
where minor wetlands are pre
Watershed Level: The SMP
the watershed area which out
be the major influence on this
Reach Level: Hydrology is af
use and development patternl
effect compared to watershed
Vegetation buffers are addrel
buffers are addressed in SMP
Net Loss of Ecological Functi{
new development,
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and would enhance
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have a relatively small influen,
public ownership and relativel
Magnitude of change is relal
Creek since most of it is in rei
influences outside of SMA juri
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhanc
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
.,---------_.-.... ---_.----------
uality is required for most biological
1 and depth is a function of flow
;ize and type of transported sediment,
and bank materials. Channel width tends
lownstream. The width/depth ratio varies
slope, bank erodability, degree of
It, and velocity (Rosgen 1996).
Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can be
an unnatural source of nutrients and other pollutants
that can degrade water quality in streams and
wetlands_
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading of
chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use. Roadways and
driveways generally increase with single family
density_ Multifamily driveways and parking area is
determined more by development type, especially
provision of garages rather than surface parking
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on-site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills;
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles_
Width and depth ratios can be changed through
channelization, loss of riparian vegetation, flood
control structures and other alteration and may result
in increases in flood frequency and magnitude.
Watershed Level: Throughout the watersheds land alteration is
pervasive, most of which are associated with a variety of applications
of substances on the land.
May Creek has SUbstantial upstream rural pasture areas with potential
contributions of nutrients and contaminants_
Roadways and driveways generally increase with single family
density_ Multifamily driveways and parking area is determined more
by development type, especially provision of garages rather than
surface parking
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
major contributors_ Relatively little land in SMA jurisdiction discharges
directly to the stream. Reaches B through D are largely natural in
character.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in stream channel alteration.
Stormwater management standards for new development affect less
altered steams in less developed areas but have limited effect on
previously developed areas.
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
major contributors_ Relatively little land in SMA jurisdiction discharges
directly to the stream. Reaches B through D are largely natural in
character.
LV r IVLe ..... VI ....... "'L·
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level:
Impervious area addressed b~
Bulk Standards
4-3-090. E.? Facility Arrangel
Standards encourage mainter
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. E.ll Utilities.d.iv Sto
development to meet current:
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have a relatively small influen'
public ownership and relativel
Magnitude of change is relal
Creek since most of it is in rei
influences are of much greate
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhanc
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reac h level: Stream structu
addressed to some extent thn
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090.G.6b Stream Alternat
4-3-090. E.4.c.l adoption by r
RMC 4-3-050 will address sm
Magnitude of change is relal
Creek since the majority of stl
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count:
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhanc
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
-'-'-~'--' .
>ottom substratum is critical habitat for
~ incubation and embryo development, as
I habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates.
luality can be degraded by deposition of
t, by streambed instability due to high
1.
redistribution of streambed particles is a
~ss in gravel·bed streams, excessive
~gradation often result from excessive
primarily in pools with high habitat
vith abundant cover, and where large
). (LWD) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
· 1988).
's several critical functions in forested
3ms, including dissipation of flow energy,
streambanks, stabilization of
storage of sediment, and providing in-
"and habitat diversity (Bisson et al. 1987;
1988; Gregory et al. 1991),
primarily in pools with high habitat
vith abundant cover, and where large
). (LWD) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
· 1988)_ Cutthroat and salmon are
many small streams in the Pacific
nd as such, are potential competitors
lat also prey on juvenile coho). In
itat, rather than food, is the limiting
most salmonids in the Pacific Northwest
t and Margolis 1991)_
Stream channel morphology can be affected by shifts
in the hydrologic regime due to increases in
impervious surfaces, which changes the amount and
patterns of runoff and streamflows. Higher flows
generally lead to changes in channel character,
higher stream erosion rates, increases in
sedimentation, and disconnections from the floodplain
with resulting loss of flood storage. In general, these
changes compound each other in an urban
environment.
Increased scour and erosion are particularly relevant
to substrate.
Clearing for pasture, crops, or lawn removes woody
vegetation recruitment.
Immature forest lacks the potential for mature trees to
fall and provide woody vegetation recruitment.
Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD
Human development with resulting changes in the
hydrologic regime can lead to stream channelization,
dredging, and degradation of the riparian zone,
resulting in loss of pool frequency and quality_
Reduction of riparian cover can lead to a loss of LWD
recruitment, resulting in a degradation of pool habitat.
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in stream substrate alteration
Reach Level; May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
and substrate, except for sediment from upstream erosion
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced. The effects of hUman alteration on this fUnction occur
throughout the watershed. The influence of the area under shoreline
jurisdiction if minor compared to the scale of the watershed
processes. Upstream areas are largely cleared for pasture or urban
use.
Reach Level: May Creek within Renton is less altered in channel
character and has more localized potential for LWD, recruitment in
largely vegetated reaches. The immaturity of the forest, however
limits the size of LWD.
L ..... -..... L ...... L V' '''''O:OL'
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level; Aquatic habitat
in
SMP 4-3-090_ EA Environme
Functions that establishes a r·
4-3-090_ G.4 Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090_G_6b Stream Alternat
4-3-090_ EA.c.1 adoption by r
RMC 4-3-050 will address sm
Magnitude of change is rela1
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count'
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhan(
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level: LWD is addres,
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090_ G.4 Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is rela1
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhanc
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
heavily on small lowland streams and
ff~channel wetland areas during their
e (Bisson et al. 1988). Off-channel
;h as sloughs, beaver ponds, wetlands,
""anently or seasonally flooded lands)
t rearing areas for juvenile salmon ids
elps maintain cool water temperatures
is ion of shade and creation of a cool and
::Iimate over the stream.
ter is important to the ecosystem in the
!s, branches, and terrestrial insects and is
element of the food chain in streams and
Ibitat in lakes.
Urbanization of streams may cause stream
channelization, reducing off-channel habitat.
The loss of riparian buffers through urbanization and
agriculture can change natural stream functions, and
lead to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas
adjacent to streams and reduce the contribution of
organic matter.
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in loss of off--channel habitat.
Reach Levet May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
with public open space providing potential for stream dynamics to
produce off--channel habitat. Most of the stream, however, is within a
relatively narrow gorge which limits potential for off-channel features.
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced by rural and urban development. The effects of
human alteration on this function occur throughout the watershed. The
influence of the area under shoreline jurisdiction if minor compared to
the scale of the watershed processes.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CADs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial change in runoff character.
Small stream headwaters remaining within Renton are protected by
vegetated buffers in CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater systems.
Reach Level: May Creek in SMP jurisdiction is less altered in
channel character and has more potential for shade from mature
trees. Upstream area include forest cover as well as areas cleared for
pasture.
~V'-.v~ ...... ~ u •• ," ... :;:t~,
Watershed Level: Renton SI
habitat because of location wi
affected and the confined nalL
Reach Level; Off Channel ha
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. G.3 Dredging particu
interference in May Creek del'
shallow habitat as fish leave tl
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stab iii
alteration and 4-3-090.G.6b S
Magnitude of change is relal
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count:
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhan<
Reaches B through D general
are affected primarily by upstr
Watershed Level: Renton SI
vegetation because of locatiO!
affected.
Reach Level~ Vegetation is al
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.C:
Magnitude of change is relat
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count'
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhan(
Reaches B through D general
.~ _. __ . _. _._._..,.-_ .. _ ... __ ._ ..
Ind longitudinal continuity are all
wildlife productivity. Continuity along
:5 a variety of upland areas, links different
ian vegetation communities, and
movement to respond to local disruptions
y due to flooding, fire, local predation
d human disturbance. A nearly
parian zone is the typical natural
he Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992).
at are in the form of particulates (e.g.,
phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
ed in a wetland with greater detention
ds with no outlet are the most effective in
I by wetlands with an outlet that flows
lily, followed by wetlands with year-round
h longer times that water is retained and
1 settle (Adam us et al. 1991).
lce sedimentation by acting like a filter
sediment particles to drop to the wetland
mus et al. 1991).
)f dissolved phosphorus and toxic
:hrough adsorption to soil particles is
1 soils are high in clay or organic content
30sselink 1993). Removal of nitrogen
alic system (denitrification) is done by
live only in the absence of oxygen
30sselink 1993),
levels of nitrogen transformation occur in
wetland that underyo a cyclic change
~ (oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen
lilions. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
The riparian corridor in urban watersheds can
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences; the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be Similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings.
Wetland function can be reduced through direcl
displacement and through off-site factors that reduce
function. Urban development and agriculture can
increase the amount of sediments entering the
wetland and adjacent stream systems and affect the
soil substrate and affect the type of vegetation by
changing the conditions under which different plants
compete with one another.
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system. Degradation
can occur due to changes in the hydrologic conditions
maintaining soil type or to a pollutant load that is
greater than the capacity of the system to process
nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that change
the patterns of seasonal ponding to either year-round
ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a different
duration. This can change the balance of functions
provided.
Watershed: The loss of riparian buffers adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced. The effects of human alteration on this function occur
throughout the watershed. There is little potential for continuous
animal movement along most stream corridors The influence of the
area under shoreline jurisdiction if minor compared to the scale of the
watershed processes.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial reduction in habitat.
Reach Levet May Creek Reach A has been channelized with a
relatively narrow riparian corridor that provides for animal movement
but few other functions.
Reach B has extensive vegetation cover but is isolated from upstream
portions of the stream by the 1-405 crossing which is a barrier to
animal movement, although some movement occurs.
Reaches C and D have extensive natural vegetation and habitat value
and connect with upstream portions of the corridor.
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: May Creek Reach A has been channelized and has not
associated wetlands.
May Creek Reached B through 0 are largely unaltered in channel
character but are laryely constrained by steep topography allowing
relatively little area for adjacent wetlands.
,V ,-• v~t;::~~ u ..... t;::.:n'
Watershed Level: Renton SI
by the amount of forest cover
animal movement. Comparee
affects a relatively small area.
Reach Levet Vegetation cov!
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is relat
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count:
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhane
Reaches B is isolated from th!
1-405 crossing that does not n
Reaches C and 0 generally p
connect to upstream areas thl
Watershed Level: Renton SI
function because of the relati\
SMA jurisdiction largely due te
Reach Level: The preservatie
SMP 4-3-090, EA.c. that adol
buffers based on Ecology rec(
Magnitude of change is relal
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count'
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhanc
Reaches B through 0 general
because of the confined topo~
function where wetlands are J:
are sensitive to proximity impacts such
ght may not occupy otherwise suitable
5 subject to those features.
des for a complex balance between prey
"S. A variety of factors may affect this
II conditions, predators cannot exceed
ply provided by prey. Domestic animals
may increase the total predator
Ir beyond the normal balance because
their food from humans and therefore the
ulation is not affected by the prey
_evel:
The watershed size affects the structure
)f tributary discharge to the system.
ms with a greater geographical coverage
tributaries that are affected differentially
on patterns. The effect of single storm
• system depends on the geographic
.ther patterns. Natural lake systems
ligh water levels in the winter and low
in the summer,
'/interftow: Streamflow also consists of
ich is shallow subsurface flow from
that infiltrates into the soil surface and
~ans of gravity toward a stream channel.
ften a substantial component of base
orecipitation periods
Noise, light, and other proximity impacts result in
direct disturbance to species using the habitat.
Natural predators tend to be more mobile than prey
species and move more readily between habitat
areas. The isolation of prey speCies in small areas
with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory
efficiency such that a balance between predation and
replacement may not be maintained.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may
increase the total population of predators in an area
beyond natural levels such that a balance between
predation and replacement of prey species may not
be maintained. Habitat conditions may be adequate to
maintain a population of a specific speCies, but they
will not persist due to predation.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: The Cedar river hydrology is modified by
diversion of a SUbstantial portion of its flow for
domestic water supply. Land use in the upper
watershed is highly altered with forestry, agricultural
and rural use. Urban development is not present
along the main-stem of the river but has altered most
of the lower watershed and affects tributaries that
provide substantial flows and has altered peak flow
levels and duration for tributaries.
Groundwaterllnterflow Development leads to
increased impervious surfaces, which increases
surface runoff and decreases infiltration and interftow.
Decreased interflow may reduce the natural base flow
of smaller stream systems. Resourced and rural
areas outside the UGA have the greatest influence on
these factors
Reach Level: lnterflow is an important component of
low summer flows and especially important for
maintaining temperature suitable for aquatic habitat.
Watershed: The widespread conversion to urban use has produced
proximity impacts, even in those cases where buffers are provided
resulting in a general transition to human tolerant speCies.
The widespread conversion to urban use has fragmented habitat,
even in those cases where open space is provided resulting in
general predator pressure on native species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has resulted in additional
pressure from domestic animals and tends to further depress
population of native species.
Reach Level: May Creek Reach A has been channelized with a
relatively narrow riparian corridor that provides for animal movement
but few other functions.
Reach Level: May Creek Reach A has been channelized and has not
associated wetlands.
Reach B is isolated from upstream portions by the 1-405 crossing.
Reaches C and D have extensive natural vegetation and habitat
value.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows and Groundwater Interflow:
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial change in runoff character.
Reach Level:
The portion of the Cedar River in Renton has relatively little hydrologic
input compared to the watershed as a whole. Most flows are from
drainage from urban development outside SMP jurisdiction. Small
stream headwaters remaining within Renton are protected by
vegetated buffers in CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater systems.
Watershed Level: Renton SI
function because of the relati\,
SMA jurisdiction largely due t(
Reach Level: The preservatic
SMP 4-3-090. EA.c. that adol
buffers based on Ecology rec!
Magnitude of change is rela!
Creek since the majority of str
outside of SMA jurisdiction an
regulations, particularly count:
less urbanized areas.
Reach A is substantially mod
potential for additional enhan(
Reaches B throug h D general
those wetlands present due te
Watershed Level: The SMP
the watershed area which out
be the major influence on thi~
Reach Level: Hydrology is af
use and development pattern~
effect compared to watershed
Vegetation buffers are addre!
buffers are addressed in SMP
Net Loss of Ecological Functi(
new development,
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse'
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and would enhance
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have a relatively small influen'
public ownership and relativel
Magnitude of change is rela!
the watershed as a whole are
Cedar River Reaches A and E
potential for providing hydralo
drain into them outside of SMj
runoff.
Reach C is substantially alter<
potential for SUbstantial enhar
makes little contribution to hyc
that drain into it outside of SM
urban runoff.
Reach D is predominantly in,
has a high level of function wi·
1 and depth is a function of flow
iize and type of transported sediment,
and bank materials. Channel width tends
lownstream. The width/depth ratio varies
slope, bank erodability, degree of
,t, and velocity (Rosgen 1996),
an unnatural source of nutrients and other pollutants
that can degrade water quality in streams and
wetlands.
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading of
chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use. Roadways and
driveways generally increase with single family
density, Multifamily driveways and parking area is
determined more by development type, especially
provision of garages rather than surface parking
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on-site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills;
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles.
Width and depth ratios can be changed through
channelization, loss ofriparian vegetation, flood
control structures and other alteration and may result
in increases in flood frequency and magnitude.
•
pervasive, most of which are associated with a variety of applications
of substances on the land.
May Creek has substantial upstream rural pasture areas with potential
contributions of nutrients and contaminants.
Roadways and driveways generally increase with single family
density. Multifamily driveways and parking area is determined more
by development type, especially provision of garages rather than
surface parking
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
major contributors, Relatively little land in SMA jurisdiction discharges
directly to the stream.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in stream channel alteration.
Stormwater management standards for new development affect less
altered steams in less developed areas but have limited effect on
previously developed areas.
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
major contributors.
Cedar River Reaches A and B are channelized and have little
potential for providing natural channel dynamic.
Reach C is substantially altered with stabilization structures and
presently provides limited natural channel dynamic.
Reach 0 is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate level of function which is constrained by existing flood
control structures.
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Impervious are.
SMP Table 4-3-090. E.9 Shor
4-3-090. E. 7, Facility Arrangel
Standards encourage mainter
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090, E.ll Utilities.d,iv Slo
development to meet current!
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have a relatively small influen,
public ownerShip and relativel
Magnitude of change is relai
the watershed as a whole are
Cedar River Reaches A and E
potential for providing hydralo
drain into them outside of SMI
runoff.
Reach C is substantially alter!
potential for substantial enhar
makes little contribution to hyc
that drain into it outside of 8M
urban runoff.
Reach 0 is predominantly in '
has a high level of function wi
little contribution to hydrologic
drain into it outside of SMA jUi
runoff.
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Stream structu
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environm€
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090,G.6b Stream Alternat
4-3-090, EA.c.l adoption by r
RMC 4-3-050 will address sm
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed an
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
potential for providing channe
Reach C is substantially alterE
potential for substantial enhar
Reach 0 is predominantly in '
h~~ ~ hinh IRvF!lnf fllndinn wi
} incubation and embryo development, as
I habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates.
luality can be degraded by deposition of
t, by streambed instability due to high ,.
redistribution of streambed particles is a
~ss in gravel-bed streams, excessive
~gradation often result from excessive
primarily in pools with high habitat
vith abundant cover, and where large
) (LWO) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
· 1988).
1S several critical functions in forested
3ms, including dissipation of flow energy,
streambanks, stabilization of
storage of sediment, and providing in-
• and habitat diversity (Bisson et al. 1987;
1988; Gregory et al. 1991).
primarily in pools with high habitat
'lith abundant cover, and where large
; (LWD) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
.1988). Cutthroat and salmon are
many small streams in the Pacific
nd as such, are potential competitors
)at also prey on juvenile coho}. In
itat. rather than food, is the limiting
most salmon ids in the Pacific Northwest
t and Margolis 1991).
in the hydrologic regime due to increases in
impervious surfaces, which changes the amount and
patterns of runoff and streamflows. Higher flows
generally lead to changes in channel character,
higher stream erosion rates, increases in
sedimentation, and disconnections from the floodplain
with resulting loss of flood storage. In general, these
changes compound each other in an urban
environment.
Increased scour and erosion are particularly relevant
to substrate.
Clearing for pasture, crops, or lawn removes woody
vegetation recruitment.
Immature forest lacks the potential for mature trees to
fall and provide woody vegetation recruitment.
Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD
Human development with resulting changes in the
hydrologic regime can lead to stream channelization,
dredging, and degradation of the riparian zone,
resulting in loss of pool frequency and quality.
Reduction of riparian cover can lead to a loss of LWD
recruitment, resulting in a degradation of pool habitat.
stream structure have resulted in stream substrate alteration
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered
and provided limited habitat functions.
Reach C is substantially altered with stabilization structures and
presently provides limited in-stream habitat. .
Reach 0 is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate level of function which is constrained by existing flood
control structures.
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced. The effects of human alteration on this function occur
throughout the watershed, The influence of the area under shoreline
ju risdiction if minor compared to the scale of the watershed
processes. Upstream areas are largely cleared for pasture or urban
use.
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered
and provided limited function.
Reach C is substantially altered with stabilization structures and
presently provides limited function.
Reach 0 is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate level offunction which is constrained by existing flood
control structures.
location within the watershed
Reach Levet Aquatic habitat
to some extent through
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. EnvironmE
Functions that establishes a fi
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090.G.6b Stream Alternat
4-3-090. E.4.c.1 adoption by r
RMC 4-3-050 will address sm
Magnitude of change is relat
miles within the watershed an
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
limited potential for providing i
land interface.
Reach C is substantially alten
potential for substantial enhar
Reach D is predominantly in I
has a high level of function wi
potential for enhancement is f
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level: LWD is add res,
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is relat
miles within the watershed arE
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
limited potential for providing I
Reach C is substantially alterE
potential for substantial enhar
buffer areas are increased.
Reach 0 is predominantly in .
has a moderate level of functi
major potential for enhancemE
ff-charmel wetland areas during their
e (Bisson et al. 1988). Off-channel
'h as sloughs, beaver ponds, wetlands,
rmanently or seasonally flooded lands)
t rearing areas for juvenile salmonids
elps maintain cool water temperatures
ision of shade and creation of a cool and
:Iimate over the stream.
ter is important to the ecosystem in the
lS, branches, and terrestrial insects and is
element of the food chain in streams and
lbitat in lakes.
channelization, reducing off~channel habitat.
The loss of riparian buffers through urbanization and
agriculture can change natural stream functions, and
lead to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas
adjacent to streams and reduce the contribution of
organic matter.
stream structure have resulted in loss of off-channel habitat.
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered
and provided limited function.
Reach C is substantially altered with stabilization structures and
presently provides limited function ..
Reach D is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate level of function which is constrained by existing flood
control structures.
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced by rural and urban development. The effects of
human alteration on this function occur throughout the watershed. The
influence of the area under shoreline jurisdiction if minor compared to
the scale of the watershed processes.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial change in runoff character especially temperature.
Small stream headwaters remaining within Renton are protected by
vegetated buffers in CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater systems.
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered
and provided limited function except within the vegetated park on the
left bank of Reach A.
Reach C left bank is substantially altered with stabilization structures
and has little riparian vegetation presently provides very low function.
The right bank is vegetated and provided moderate function.
Reach D is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate to high level of function which is limited largely by the
relatively immature condition of tree cover.
habitat effect on the system a
watershed and small area affE
Reach Leve!: Off channel hat
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed an
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
limited potential for providing I
Reach C is substantially alten
potential for substantial enhar
Reach D is predominantly in .
has a moderate level of functi
major potential for enhancemE
Watershed Level: Renton SI
vegetation effect on habitat or
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Vegetation is 81
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse'
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. GA Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is rela1
miles within the watershed an
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
limited potential for providing I
Reach C is substantially alterE
potential for substantial enhar
buffer areas are increased.
Reach 0 is predominantly in
has a moderate level of functi
major potential for enhanceml
wildlife ~productivity. Continuity along
:5 a variety of upland areas, links different
"ian vegetation communities, and
movement to respond to local disruptions
y due to flooding, fire, local predation
d human disturbance. A nearly
parian zone is the typical natural
he Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992).
at are in the form of particulates (e.g.,
phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
ed in a wetland with greater detention
ds with no outlet are the most effective in
I by wetlands with an outlet that flows
Illy, followed by wetlands with year-round
h longer times that water is retained and
1 settle (Adamus et al. 1991).
lee sedimentation by acting like a filter
sediment particles to drop to the wetland
mus et al. 1991).
)f dissolved phosphorus and toxic
~hrough adsorption to soil particles is
1 soils are high in clay or organic content
30sselink 1993). Removal of nitrogen
atie system (denitrification) is done by
live only in the absence of oxygen
30sselink 1993).
levels of nitrogen transformation occur in
wetland that undergo a cyclic change
,(oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen
litions. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences; the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings.
Wetland function can be reduced through direct
displacement and through off-site factors that reduce
function. Urban development and agriculture can
increase the amount of sediments entering the
wetland and adjacent stream systems and affect the
soil substrate and affect the type of vegetation by
changing the conditions under which different plants
compete with one another.
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system. Degradation
can occur due to changes in the hydrologic conditions
maintaining soil type or to a pollutant load that is
greater than the capacity of the system to process
nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that change
the patterns of seasonal ponding to either year-round
ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a different
duration. This can change the balance of functions
provided.
result of human alteration occurs throughout the watershed. The main
stem of the Cedar River provides potential for continuous animal
movement along areas in public ownership. Most private land does
not provide continuous buffers that would facilitate animal movement.
The stream miles in tributaries outside of SMA jurisdiction provides
the vast majority of potential habitat.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CADs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally result in a
substantial loss of habitat.
Reach Level:
Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered and provided
almost no opportunity for terrestrial animals to move through he
corridor except for those adapted to swimming such as beavers.
Reach C left bank is substantially altered and has little riparian
vegetation and presently provides very low habitat function. The right
bank is vegetated and provided moderate function and an effective
corridor east of 1-405.
Reach 0 is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has a moderate to high level of habitat function.
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered
and provided no associated wetlands.
Reach C left bank is substantially altered and has little riparian
vegetation and presently provides no wetland habitat. The right bank
is largely high bank and provides few if any wetlands.
Reach D is predominantly in open space and recreational use and
has some wetlands on the right bank in off-channel areas, but is
isolated from the main channel by flood control structures.
habitat within the system as a
watershed and small area affe
Reach Level: Vegetation pro'
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environm€
Functions that establishes a fi
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse'
addressing riparian buffers,
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed arE
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Cedar River Reaches A and E
limited potential for providing I
movement.
Reach C is substantially alterE
potential for SUbstantial enhar
buffer areas are increased.
Reach 0 is predominantly in '
has a moderate level of habit.:
enhancement.
Watershed Level: Renton SI
water quality function habitat
the potential for wetland presE
Reach Levet The preservatlc
SMP 4-3-090. E.4.c. that ado~
buffers based on Ecology reCe
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed an
SMA jurisdiction and will be in
regulations, particularly count
less urbanized areas.
Cedar River Reaches A and E
wetland functions
Reach C is substantially alterE
potential for substantial enhar
Reach 0 is predominantly in c
has a moderate level of wetlal
enhancement in conjunction v
ght may not occupy otherwise suitable
i subject to those features.
des for a complex balance between prey
s. A variety of factors may affect this
II conditions, predators cannot exceed
ply provided by prey. Domestic animals
may increase the total predator
Ir beyond the normal balance because
their food from humans and therefore the
ulation is not affected by the prey
_evel:
The watershed size affects the structure
)f tributary discharge to the system.
ms with a greater geographical coverage
tributaries that are affected differentially
on patterns. The effect of single storm
, system depends on the geographic
'ther patterns. Natural lake systems
dgh water levels in the winter and low
in the summer.
"/Interflow: Streamflow also consists of
ich is shallow subsurface flow from
that infiltrates into the soil surface and
~ans of gravity toward a stream channel.
ften a substantial component of base
:)recipitation periods
-.
direct disturbance to species using the habitat.
Natural predators tend to be more mobile than prey
species and move more readily between habitat
areas. The isolation of prey species in small areas
with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory
efficiency such that a balance between predation and
replacement may not be maintained.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may
increase the total population of predators in an area
beyond natural levels such that a balance between
predation and replacement of prey species may not
be maintained. Habitat conditions may be adequate to
maintain a population of a specific species, but they
will not persist due to predation.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: The Black River/Springbrook Creek
hydrology is modified by urban development
throughout most of the watershed and has altered
peak flow levels and duration.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development leads to
increased impervious surfaces, which increases
surface runoff and decreases infiltration and interflow.
Decreased interflow may reduce the natural base flow
of smaller stream systems. Resourced and rural
areas outside the UGA have the greatest influence on
these factors
Reach Level: Interflow is an important component of
low summer flows and espeCially important for
maintaining temperature suitable for aquatic habitat.
proximity impacts, even in those cases where buffers are provided
resulting in a general transition to human tolerant species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has fragmented habitat,
even in those cases where open space is provided resulting in
general predator pressure on native species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has resulted in additional
pressure from domestic animals and tends to further depress
population of native species.
Reach Level: Cedar River Reaches A and B are substantially altered,
provided no associated wetlands and related habitat.
Reach C left bank is substantially altered and has little riparian
vegetation and presently provides no wetland habitat. The right bank
is largely high bank and provides few if any wetlands. There is little
wetland habitat present.
Reach D is predominantly In open space and recreational use and
has some wetlands and associated habitat on the right bank in off-
channel areas, but is isolated from the main channel by flood control
structures.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows and Groundwater Interflow:
Remaining vegetation adjacent to tributaries in the Springbrook Creek
watershed is protected by upstream jurisdiction CAOs, largely the City
of Kent. In many cases, however, there is little functional vegetation
left and the watershed continues to be largely characterized by urban
runoff.
Reach Level:
The portion of the Black River/Springbrook Creek in Renton has a
moderate influence on the total hydrologic input to the system
compared to the upstream portions of the watershed. Most flows are
from drainage from urban development outside SMP jurisdiction.
Small stream headwaters remaining within Renton are protected by
vegetated buffers in CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater systems.
A feature affecting the hydrology of the lower portion of the Black
River/Springbrook Creek in Renton is the dam and pumping station in
Reach A which limits the upstream encroachment of flood water from
the Green River.
habitat in the system as a wh(
Reach Levet The preservatic
SMP 4-3-090. EA.c. that adol
buffers based on Ecology ree<
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed an
of SMA jurisdiction and will be
regulations, particularly count:
less urbanized areas.
Cedar River Reaches A and E
wetland functions
Reach C is substantially alten
potential for substantial enhar
redevelopment occurs.
Reach D is predominantly in C
has a moderate level of wellal
enhancement in conjunction v
Watershed Level: The SMP
the watershed area which out
be the major influence on this
Reach Level: Hydrology is af
use and development pattern!
effect compared to watershed
Hydrology is influenced by:
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environml
Functions that establishes a rl
Magnitude of change is relal
is within small tributaries outs;
is predominantly urban with a:
Black River/Springbrook Cree
urban development with a lar~
Lagoon. SMP proviSions pro\
hydrologic character created t
provide some
Reaches Band C drain an arE
provisions provide little potent
created by urban runoff.
1 and depth is a function of flow
,ize and type of transported sediment,
and bank materials. Channel width tends
lownstream. The width/depth ratio varies
slope. bank erodability. degree of
.t. and velocity (Rosgen 1996).
an unnatural source of nutrients and other pollutants
that can degrade water quality in streams and
wetlands.
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading of
chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use. Roadways and
driveways generally increase with single family
density. Multifamily driveways and parking area is
determined more by development type, especially
provision of garages rather than surface parking
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on-site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills;
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles.
Width and depth ratios can be changed through
channelization, loss of riparian vegetation, flood
control structures and other alteration and may result
in increases in flood frequency and magnitude.
predominate, most of which are associated with a variety of
applications of substances on the land.
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
major contributors. The land in SMA jurisdiction that discharges
directly to the stream is a miniscule portion of total runoff.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in stream channel alteration.
Stormwater management standards for new development affect less
altered steams in less developed areas but have limited effect on
previously developed areas.
Reach Level: Watershed areas outside of SMA jurisdiction are the
largest component of stream miles.
Black River/Springbrook Creek Reach A is largely channelized with a
small portion flowing in a relatively natural channel through the Black
River lagoon.
Reaches C and C are channelized and presently provide limited
natural channel dynamic.
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Impervious arei
Table 4-3-090. E.9 Shoreline
4-3-090. E.7. Facility Arrange,
Standards encourage mainter
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. E.11 Utilities.d.iv Sto
development to meet current:
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have a relatively small influen'
public ownership and relativel
Magnitude of change is relati\
within small tributaries outside
predominantly urban with assl
Reaches A through C drain ar
SMP provisions provide little r
created by urban runoff in the
Watershed Level: Renton SI
majority of stream miles are a
Renton.
Reach Level: Stream structu
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environm€
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090. G.4 Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090.G.6b Stream Altemat
4-3-090. EA.c.1 adoption by r
RMC 4-3-050 will address sm
Magnitude of change is relai
miles within the watershed an:
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
All reaches are substantially a
channel functions is likely to b
as the WRIA 9 Salmon Habita
rehabilitation of areas for rear
Springbrook Creek including r
construction, channel branch,
modification to create a 2-sta~
~ incubation and embryo development, as
I habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates.
lualily can be degraded by deposilion of
t, by streambed instability due to high
1.
redistribution of streambed particles is a
!SS in gravel-bed streams, excessive
!gradation often result from excessive
primarily in pools with high habitat
vith abundant cover, and where large
; (LWD) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
.1988).
1S several critical functions in forested
1ms, including dissipation of flow energy,
streambanks, stabilization of
storage of sediment, and providing in-
· and habitat diversity (Bisson et al. 1987;
1988; Gregory et al. 1991).
primarily in pools with high habitat
vith abundant cover, and where large
:0 (LWD) is the main structural component
· 1988). Some species of salmon rely
nail lowland streams and associated off-
and areas during their rearing phase
· 1988). Cutthroat and salmon are
many small streams in the Pacific
nd as such, are potential competitors
>at also prey on juvenile coho). In
itat, rather than food, is the limiting
most salmonids in the Pacific Northwest
t and Margolis 1991).
heavily on small lowland streams and
ff-channel wetland areas during their
e (Bisson et al. 1988). Off-channel
;h as sloughs, beaver ponds, wetlands,
mnanently or seasonally flooded lands)
t rearing areas for juvenile salmon ids
in the hydrologic regime due to increases in
impervious surfaces, which changes the amount and
patterns of runoff and streamflows. Higher flows
generally lead to changes in channel character,
higher stream erosion rates, increases in
sedimentation, and disconnections from the floodplain
with resulting loss of flood storage. In general, these
changes compound each other in an urban
environment.
Increased scour and erosion are particularly relevant
to substrate.
Clearing for pasture, crops, or lawn removes WOOdy
vegetation recruitment.
Immature forest lacks the potential for mature trees to
fall and provide woody vegetation recruitment.
Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD
Human development with resulting changes in the
hydrologic regime can lead to stream channelization,
dredging, and degradation of the riparian zone,
resulting in loss of pool frequency and quality.
Reduction of riparian cover can lead to a loss of LWD
recruitment, resulting in a degradation of pool habitat.
Urbanization of streams may cause stream
channelization, reducing off-channel habitat.
stream structure have resulted in stream substrate alteration
Reach Level:
All reaches are low gradient and have substrate that provides little
function besides rearing. The existing pumping station also limits
stream gradient.
Watershed: The channelized nature of the majority of the stream
miles in the watershed provides limited opportunity for natural stream
structure supporting habitat. The dimenSions of vegetated uplands
and maturity of trees adjacent to the water is low throughout the
watershed and of a size that has little potential for LWD recruitment
and modification of in-stream structure.
Reach Level:
Creek Reach A has relatively large upland vegetation within the Black
Forest Lagoon and the channelized corridor adjacent to Oaksdale
Avenue.
Reaches B has very limited native vegetation.
Reach C is largely maintained free of vegetation adjacent to the water
for conveyance purposes, with the exception of shore areas restored
as part of the Longacres Business Park and as part of the
WSDOT/Renton wetland bank.
Watershed Levet In the overall watershed, widespread changes in
stream structure have resulted in loss of most off-channel habitat.
Reach Level: Off channel habitat exists only in Reach A within the
Black Forest Lagoon and in Reach C within shore areas restored as
part of the Longacres Business Park and as part of the
WSDOT/Renton wetland bank.
location within the watershed
Reach Level: Aquatic habitat
to some extent through
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environm.
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and
4-3-090.G.6b Stream Alternat
Magnitude of change is relal
miles within the watershed arE
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
All reaches are SUbstantially c;
substrate functions is limited t
Watershed Level: Renton SI
location within the watershed
Reach Level: LWD is addres'
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environm€
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and 4-3-090.G.6b S
Magnitude of change is relal
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public (
Watershed Level: Renton SI
habitat because of location wi
affected.
Reach Level; Off channel hal
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environm.
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Conse,
addressing riparian buffers,
by 4-3-090. GA Shoreline Sta
bank alteration and 4-3-090.G
Magnitude of change is relal
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public (
ision of shade and creation of a cool and
::limate over the stream.
:er is important to the ecosystem in the
~s, branches, and terrestrial insects and is
element of the food chain in streams and
lbitat in lakes.
md longitudinal continuity are all
wildlife productivity. Continuity along
.s a variety of upland areas, links different
"ian vegetation communities, and
movement to respond to local disruptions
y due to flooding, fire, local predation
d human disturbance. A nearly
parian zone is the typical natural
he Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992).
agriculture can change natural stream functions, and
lead to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas
adjacent to streams and reduce the contribution of
organic matter.
The riparian corridor in urban watersheds can
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences; the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings.
miles in the watershed and maintenance practices that remove
vegetation to improve conveyance provides very little adjacent
vegetation.
Reach Level: Creek Reach A has relatively large upland vegetation
within the Black Forest Lagoon and the channelized corridor adjacent
to Oaksdale Avenue.
Reaches B has very limited native vegetation.
Reach C is largely maintained free of vegetation adjacent to the water
for conveyance purposes, with the exception of shore areas restored
as part of the Longacres Business Park and as part of the
WSDOT/Renton wetland bank.
Watershed: The loss of riparian buffers adjacent to the water is
greatly reduced. The effects of human alteration on this function occur
throughout the watershed. There is little potential for continuous
animal movement along most stream corridors The influence of the
area under shoreline jurisdiction if minor compared to the scale of the
watershed processes.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by upstream
jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining existing buffering
vegetation based on stream classification, however there is limited
remaining vegetation to protect The loss of native vegetation from the
area outside buffers generally will result in a substantial change in
runoff character.
Reach Level: Creek Reach A has relatively large area of upland
vegetation within the Black Forest Lagoon that provides substantial
habitat. It is connected to the Green River by corridors of relatively
low quality and has provides few opportunities fro upstream
movement of terrestrial species, other than those that swim.
Reach C is largely maintained free of vegetation adjacent to the water
for conveyance purposes, with the exception of shore areas restored
as part of the Longacres Business Park and as part of the
WSDOT/Renton wetland bank that provide terrestrial habitat but are
relatively isolated.
vegetation effects on the wate
within the watershed and sma
Reach Level: Vegetation is a,
SMP 4-3-090. E.4. Environme
Functions that establishes a rl
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090.G.6b Stream Alternat
Magnitude of change is rela!
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public E
Watershed Level: Renton SI
habitat because of location wi
affected.
Reach Levet Terrestrial habi·
SMP 4-3-090. EA. Environme
Functions that establishes a n
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
Magnitude of change is relal
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public c
phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
ed in a wetland with greater detention
ds with no outlet are the most effective in
I by wetiands with an outiet that flows
.lIy, followed by wetlands with year-round
h longer times that water is retained and
,setile (Adamus et al. 1991).
Ice sedimentation by acting like a filter
sediment particles to drop to the wetland
mus et al. 1991).
)f dissolved phosphorus and toxic
:hrough adsorption to soil particles is
1 soils are high in clay or organic content
30sselink 1993). Removal of nitrogen
atic system (denitrification) is done by
live only in the absence of oxygen
30sselink 1993).
levels of nitrogen transformation occur in
wetiand that undergo a cyclic change
o (oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen
litions. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
are sensitive to proximity impacts such
ght may not occupy otherwise suitable
s subject to those features.
des for a complex balance between prey
"S. A variety of factors may affect this
II conditions, predators cannot exceed
ply provided by prey. Domestic animals
may increase the total predator
Ir beyond the normal balance because
their food from humans and therefore the
ulation is not affected by the prey
displacement and through off-site factors that reduce
function. Urban development and agriculture can
increase the amount of sediments entering the
wetland and adjacent stream systems and affect the
soil substrate and affect the type of vegetation by
changing the conditions under which different plants
compete with one another.
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system. Degradation
can occur due to changes in the hydrologic conditions
maintaining soil type or to a pollutant load that is
greater than the capacity of the system to process
nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that change
the patterns of seasonal ponding to either year-round
ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a different
duration. This can change the balance of functions
provided.
Noise, light. and other proximity impacts result in
direct disturbance to species using the habitat.
Natural predators tend to be more mobile than prey
species and move more readily between habitat
areas. The isolation of prey species in small areas
with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory
efficiency such that a balance between predation and
replacement may not be maintained.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may
increase the total population of predators in an area
beyond natural levels such that a balance between
predation and replacement of prey species may not
be maintained. Habitat conditions may be adequate to
maintain a population of a specific species, but they
will not persist due to predation.
stream structure have resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: Creek Reach A has relatively large area of wetland
within the Black Forest Lagoon that provides SUbstantial function.
Reach C wetlands include preserved are restored areas in the
Longacres Business Park and the WSDOTIRenton wetland bank.
Watershed: The widespread conversion to urban use has produced
proximity impacts, even in those cases where buffers are provided
resulting in a general transition to human tolerant species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has fragmented habitat,
even in those cases where open space is provided resulting in
general predator pressure on native species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has resulted in additional
pressure from domestic animals and tends to further depress
population of native species.
Reach Level:
Creek Reach A wetlands within the Black Forest Lagoon in the
Longacres Business Park and the WSDOTIRenton wetland bank.
have highly variable setbacks from adjacent development and have
relatively high levels of proximity impacts. The effects on habitat
varies by species
quality functions because of it
for wetland presence within S
Reach Level: The preservatic
090. EA.c. that adopts new w
on Ecology recommendations
Magnitude of change is relal
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public ~
Watershed Level: Renton SI
because of the relatively smal
presence within SMA jurisdict
Reac h Levet The preservatic
SMP 4-3-090. E.4.c. that adol
buffers based on Ecology reci
Magnitude of change is relat
miles within the watershed are
influenced most by critical are
regulations that address strea
Magnitude of change is relati'l,
stream is separated from adja
corridor owned by the drainag
improvement lies with public E
_evel:
The watershed size affects the structure
)f tributary discharge to the system.
ms with a greater geographical coverage
tributaries that are affected differentially
on patterns. The effect of single storm
a system depends on the geographic
3.ther patterns. Natural lake systems
ligh water levels in the winter and low
in the summer.
-/interflow: Streamflow also consists of
ich is shallow subsurface flow from
that infiltrates into the soil surface and
:lans of gravity toward a stream channel.
ften a substantial component of base
orecipitation periods
I: Native vegetation influences the
vhich precipitation reaches surface water.
over affects the rate of runoff, infiltration,
;tance of soils to erosion from a variety of
:h of these factors has an impact on
hology and stability.
ation is adapted to regional weather,
:i soil conditions, as well as use as habitat
)f species and therefore will function as a
;tem.
uality is required for most biological
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: Lake Desire is fed by two small
tributaries, one each on the western and northern
shoreline. Both tributaries have a relatively large area
of publicly owned land in forest cover. Inflow into the
lake is highly variable by season and is very limited in
the summer.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development leads to
increased impervious surfaces, which increases
surface runoff and decreases infiltration and interflow.
Decreased interflow may reduce the natural base flow
of smaller stream systems. In the case of Lake
Desire, interflow is likely to continue to occur by is not
suffiCient to counter low summer flows.
Reach Level:
Peak Flows: Action on the reach level adjacent to the
lake has limited effect on this hydrologic process.
Groundwater/lnterflow Development on the shoreline
may increase surface runoff and decreases infiltration
and interflow. Decreased interflow on Lake Desire
affects localized position but has limited effect on
overall hydrologic processes.
Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can be
an unnatural source of nutrients and other pollutants
that can degrade water quality in streams and
wetlands.
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading of
chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use.
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on-site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills:
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles.
Watershed Level:
Peak Flows: Watersheds tributary to Lake Desire have largely been
altered in the past 50 years but continue to retain SUbstantial amounts
of native forest.
Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is protected by King
County and other upstream jurisdiction CAOs that require maintaining
existing buffering vegetation based on stream classification. The loss
of native vegetation from the area outside buffers generally will result
in a substantial change in runoff character.
Reach Level: On Lake Desire, local shoreline protection may affect
the localized movement of groundwater.
Where urban development occurs within the lake Desire watersheds,
land alteration can be expected to be associated with a variety of
applications of substances on the land.
The Lake Desire watershed is designated by King County as a critical
lake watershed due to the annual whole-lake total phosphorus
concentration of 49 mg/I, its status as a eutrophic lake and modeling
of future trophic status that indicates that the lake will become
hypereutrophic with a future summer whole-lake total phosphorus
concentration predicted to be 114 micrograms/liter.
The King County lake Desire Management plan goal is improving the
lake's existing trophic status through requiring that 50 percent of total
phosphorus loading be removed from all new development prior to
discharge to any drainage that enters lake Desire and construction of
an in-lake aeration system.
Watershed Level: The SMP
the watershed area which out
be the major influence on this
Reach Level: Hydrology is af
use and development pattern!
effect compared to watershed
Impervious area addressed b;
Bulk Standards
4-3-090. E.7. Facility Arrangel
Standards encourage mainter
4-3-090.G.1.a. v Vegetation C,
future development.
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and using soft sol uti
Desire shorelines have highly
stabilization. There is potenti;
bulkheads are replaced in the
Magnitude of change is relal
most shorelines are develope,
the next 20 years is relatively
shoreline.
Provisions that address these
SMP 4-3-090. G.1.a.v Vegeta
vegetation adjacent to shorelil
and chemicals that may wash
4-3-090. E.11 Utilities.d.lv Sto
development to meet current ~
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the U·
current standards must take ~
Magnitude of change is relat
most shorelines are develope,
the next 20 years is relatively
shoreline.
The continuing application of 1
Management Plan requiring tr
phosphorus removal is likely t
lot anadromous species due to the
treams connecting to the Cedar Rive.
lin cool water temperatures through
shade and creation of a cool and humid
over the stream.
ter is important to the ecosystem in the
!s, branches, and terrestrial insects and is
element of the food chain in streams and
,bitat in lakes.
md longitudinal continuity are all
wildlife productivity. Continuity along
:s a variety of upland areas, links different
ian vegetation communities, and
movement to respond to local disruptions
y due to flooding, fire, local predation
d human disturbance, A nea~y
parian zone is the typical natural
he Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992),
at are in the form of particulates (e.g.,
phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
ed in a wetland with greater detention
enhance sedimentation by acting like a
Ising sediment particles to drop to the
,ce (Adamus et al. 1991).
)f dissolved phosphorus and toxic
through adsorption to soil particles is
, soils are high in clay or organic content.
,itrogen from the aquatic system
,n) is done by bacteria that live only in the
'xygen (with the highest levels of nitrogen
m occur in areas of the wetland that
Iclic change between oxic {oxygen
anoxic (oxygen absent) conditions.
80sselink 1993).
sediment are largely related to natural erosion
processes on adjacent land.
The loss of upland buffers through urbanization lead
to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas
adjacent to streams and reduce the contribution of
organic matter.
The riparian corridor in urban watersheds can
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences; the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings,
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system. Degradation
can occur due to changes in the hydrologic conditions
maintaining soil type or to a pollutant load that is
greater than the capacity of the system to process
nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that change
the patterns of seasonal ponding to either year-round
ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a different
duration. This can change the balance of functions
provided.
development, with wide variation in the presence, and size of
bulkheads, docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards.
Given the shallow natural character of the lake, alterations have likely
had little impact on substrate.
The amount of shoreline vegetation on Lake Desire varies widely.
Many lots are cleared with lawn extending to the shoreline. A
substantial number of lots have preserved native vegetation at the
shoreline.
Lake Desire has little continuous vegetation at the water's edge
providing little potential to support corridors for animal movement.
There are two large wetland complexes at the north and south ends of
the lake.
Previously existing wetlands in residential areas may have been
displaced by clearing and grading associated with development.
may affect erosion and sedim
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and using soft solut,
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the te
current standards must take p
Magnitude of change is relat
most shorelines are develope,
the next 20 years is relatively
shoreline.
Reach Level: Vegetation buN
Environmental Effects No Net
establishes a review process
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
addressing riparian buffers,
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabili
alteration and would enhance
4-10-095 Nonconforming Use
have an important influence 0
features by establishing the te
current standards must take p
Magnitude of change is relat
most shorelines are develope,
the next 20 years is relatively
shoreline.
Reach Level: The longitudina
directly addressed by
4-3-090.G. Vegetation Consel
4-3-090. GA Shoreline Stabil
alteration because these appl
development.
Magnitude of change is relat
shorelines are developed and
buffers will provide little longitl
The preservation of wetlands
adopts new wetland classifica
recommendations.
Magnitude of changejs rela1
most streams and lake shore~
remaining wetlands will be pre
ght may not occupy otherwise suitable
s subject to those features.
des for a complex balance between prey
s. A variety of factors may affect this
II conditions, predators cannot exceed
ply provided by prey. Domestic animals
may increase the total predator
Ir beyond the normal balance because
their food from humans and therefore the
ulation is not affected by the prey
-.
direct disturbance to species using the habitat.
Natural predators tend to be more mobile than prey
species and move more readily between habitat
areas. The isolation of prey species in small areas
with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory
efficiency such that a balance between predation and
replacement may not be maintained.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may
increase the total population of predators in an area
beyond natural levels such that a balance between
predation and replacement of prey species may not
be maintained. Habitat conditions may be adequate to
maintain a population of a specific species, but they
will not persist due to predation.
lake are bounded by residential development only at the lakeshore
and have extensive upland buffers ..
090. E.4.c. that adopts new w
on Ecology recommendations
Magnitude of changeJs relat
development is adjacent to thl
wetland areas are largely out~
preserved by the King County
~ and/or Parameter
influenced
ed Conditions
Natershed size,
~ of non-local
Ition and weather
ed Conditions
ters
ed Conditions
'egetation
Physical or Biological Function
The watershed size affects the structure and pattern
of streamflows in a variety of ways. Smaller stream
systems tend to react to precipitation patterns on a
local level. Single storm events generally affect the
entire small stream system at once. Larger systems
with a greater geographical coverage tend to have
tributaries that are affected differentially by
precipitation patterns.
Stream headwaters tend to consist of many
channels, many with low and intermittent individual
flows. These tributaries cumulatively provide a
substantial component of surface flows for lowland
Puget Sound streams (Booth 2002).
Native vegetation influences the patterns by which
precipitation reaches surface water. Vegetation cover
affects the rate of runoff, infiltration, and the
reSistance of soils to erosion from a variety of
sources. Each of these factors has an impact on
stream morphology and stability.
Native vegetation is adapted to regional weather,
geologic, and soil conditions, as well as use as
habitat by a variety of species and therefore will
function as a complete system.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Not influenced.
Small tributaries, intermittent streams usually
eliminated by development -replaced by enclosed
systems (recent development incorporates detention!
treatment, unless exempt).
Alteration of native vegetation accompanies
development but is not necessarily directly correlated
with land use or density.
Agriculture can clear native vegetation completely.
Large lot development can negatively impact native
vegetation and allow nonnative vegetation to
colonize an area.
Higher-density development generally is
accompanied by greater clearing and impervious
surfaces, but may incorporate areas of open space
and be integrated with a basinwide system of
preserving riparian corridors.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
None
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
watersheds largely under Federal Forest Service
jurisdiction and timber management and similar
programs.
Reach Level: Small stream headwaters remaining
within Renton are protected by vegetated buffers in
CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater
systems.
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
watersheds have largely been altered in the past 150
years. Remaining vegetation adjacent to streams is
protected by King County and other upstream
jurisdiction CADs that require maintaining existing
buffering vegetation based on stream classification.
The loss of native vegetation from the area outside
buffers generally will result in a substantial change in
runoff character.
Reach Level: Small stream headwaters remaining
within Renton are protected by vegetated buffers in
CAO to the extent that they were not previously
displaced or headwaters placed in piped stormwater
systems.
to Protect
Watershed L
because of Ie
area affected
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt-
areas.
Watershed L
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
090. EA.c.1 ,
regulations in
almost all of \
Magnitude of
since most ht
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tr
areas.
Watershed L
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
090. EA.c.1 ,
regulations in
almost all of \
Magnitude of
since most hE
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt
areas.
~ and/or Parameter
influenced
ed Conditions
:; in Peak Flows
ed Conditions
1terflow/Change in
)WS
Physical or Biological Function
Natural watersheds tend to be primarily pervious
surfaces with native vegetation also influencing the
rate of runoff and infiltration. Increasing amounts of
impervious surfaces resulting from human
development tends to shift a watershed to a greater
proportion of overland runoff with resulting effects on
streamflow, morphology, and stability.
Storm events and seasonal water flow affect the
amount of water conveyed by a given stream. The
change in peak flow would alter the morphology of
the stream, generally resulting in a wider, shallower
stream channel with differences in pool/riffle length
and depth and water velocity on a seasonal basis.
Surface water runoff includes water that travels over
the land surface and through channels to reach a
stream. However, streamflow also consists of
interflow, which is shallow subsurface flow from
precipitation that infiltrates into the soil surface and
travels by means of gravity toward a stream channel.
Interflow is often a substantial component of base
flows in low-precipitation periods
Sources of Human Disturbance
Development leads to increased impervious
surfaces, which alters the flow regime, disrupting
natural stream morphology. Channelization and
damming compound alterations in stream
morphology.
Development leads to increased impervious
surfaces, which increases surface runoff and
decreases infiltration and interflow. Decreased
interflow may reduce the natural base flow of smaller
stream systems.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
urban development is present largely in lower
watersheds. Outside of stream buffers, impervious
surface varies by development intensity. King
County and other upstream jurisdictions do not
regulate impervious surface for water cycle functions.
In urban areas imperious surface is generally
addressed by stormwater management standards for
detention and treatment to meet water quality
standards. Most existing development is not subject
to stormwater management standards.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and
impervious surface is established. In most cases,
stormwater management facilities are not in place for
existing development. Lower reaches of Cedar River
are subject to water quality treatment but not
detention standards.
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
urban development is present largely in lower
watersheds. In large rivers, interflow is not likely to
be a significant factor for flows but may contribute to
lower temperatures except locally.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and the
transition from infiltration to surface flow is
established.
May Creek and other smaller streams are likely more
dependent on interflow for low summer flows and
especially maintaining temperature suitable for
aquatic habitat.
On Lake Washington, local shoreline protection may
affect the localized movement of groundwater to
beach sediments and affect sockeye beach
spawning success.
to Protect
Watershed L
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
Table 4-3-091
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm.:
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt
areas.
Watershed L~
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level·
Table 4-3-091
4-3-090. E. 7.
Performance
natural hydro
4-3-090.G.1.'
encourages i
Mag nitude of
since most 51
expected to r
relatively smc
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations n·
areas,
~ and/or Parameter
influenced
ed Conditions
t-Generating
j Surfaces
ed Conditions
Impervious
ys, Driveways,
ed Conditions
Impervious
Physical or Biological Function
Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways
and parking areas tend to produce pollution loading
of chemicals, heavy metals, and particulates from
sources related to vehicular use.
Runoff from roof area is categorized separately
because the pollutant load from roofs is generally
less than impervious surfaces used by automobiles.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Pervious surfaces such as lawns and pastures can
be an unnatural source of nutrients and other
pollutants that can degrade water quality in streams
and wetlands.
Nutrients result from a variety of sources, including
fertilizers, used in agriculture or landscaping;; and
discharge from on-site sewage treatment or leakage
from sewer piles.
Chemical contaminants result from a variety of
sources, including fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides used in agriculture or landscaping;
contaminants washed off roadways; accidental spills;
and discharge from on-site sewage treatment of
leakage from sewer piles.
Roadways and driveways generally increase with
single family denSity. Multifamily driveways and
parking area is determined more by development
type, especially provision of garages rather than
surface parking
Roof area is generally a function of density, although
moderate densities with large structures can have
similar roof areas as higher density shared -wall
townhomes
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: Throughout the Cedar River and
Green River watersheds land alteration is pervasive,
most of which are associated with a variety of
applications of substances on the land.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and the
amount of lawn and associated with application of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have substantial areas
of forest management as well as agriculture and
urban development and are somewhat reduced by
contribution of upstream volumes.
May Creek has substantial upstream rural pasture
areas with potential contributions of nutrients and
contaminants.
Lake Washington water quality is largely determined
by watershed level inputs. Adjacent lawn and
ornamental vegetation may discharge to the
nearshore and adversely affect salmon ids in
nearshore areas.
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
urban development is present largely in lower
watersheds. In large rivers, localized pollutants are
diluted t an extent by the higher quality flows from
upstream watersheds.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and the
transition from infiltration to surface flow is
established and pollutant loads are established.
Lake Washington water quality is largely determined
by watershed level pollutant load.
The Cedar and Green Rivers are relatively less
affected by pollutant loads due to high upstream
volumes.
May Creek has a substantial but relatively smaller
upstream watershed.
Springbrook Creek and other smaller streams are
likely highly affected by pollutant loads from
impervious surfaces ..
Watershed Level: Cedar River and Green River
development is largely rural in upper reaches where
roof area is not a significant component. Urban
development is largely present largely in lower
watersheds. Where urban development is most
intense roofs may be a large component and
contributes to change in interflow but generally do
not contribute to pollutant load.
Reach Level: Impacts of roofs as a substantial
component of impervious surface is present largely
in the downtown areas where discharge is largely to
the Cedar River or Lake Washington.
to Protect
Watershed L.
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
Conservation
shorelines to
chemicals the
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm,
The majority
are outside a
most by critic
regulations t~
areas.
Watershed L.
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
provides stan
Magnitude of
since most st
network is es
redevelop in .
proportion to
include exlen
In an urban a
influence is Iii
treatment pre
required by n
programs Im~
Watershed L~
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
Table 4-3-091
Magnitude of
since most st
redevelop wil
adverse impc:;
I and/or Parameter
influenced
,uality
:ature
,ualily
ltJTurbidily
Physical or Biological Function
Stream temperatures vary seasonally and daily
within watersheds and are influenced by climate,
elevation, extent of riparian vegetation, and
groundwater inputs. Lower stream temperatures are
generally associated with better water quality (higher
dissolved oxygen) and promote greater biological
diversity (Allen 1995).
Suspended sediment consists of small particles that
may be rapidly transported downstream and
deposited on floodplains, overbank storage, or
between gravel on the creek bed (Salo-Cundy 1987).
Increased turbidity can increase the temperature of
the water because particles suspended in the water
absorb the sun's heat more than pure water.
Increases in fine sediment can also clog spawning
gravel and reduce habitat. Turbidity is the
measurement of the suspended particles in the
water.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Runoff from impervious surfaces and/or discharge of
wanner water from detention ponds can increase
water temperatures, thus lowering dissolved oxygen
and reducing biological diversity. The removal of
riparian vegetation via clearing and development
activities can increase stream temperatures.
Loss of riparian areas through development, runoff
from impervious surfaces, construction activities,
logging practices, and streambank erosion can
increase sedimentation to streams, increasing
turbidity.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: In large systems temperature is
influenced by a wide range of factors. Surface water
from headwater forests provide low temperature
inputs.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and the
influence of runoff on temperature is well established
over most of the city.
Lake Washington temperature is influenced both by
watershed level inputs and surrounding urbanization.
Solar radiation in the absence of shading can have
adverse effects on the most susceptible shallow
nearshore areas.
The Cedar and Green Rivers are relatively less
affected by localized higher temperature inputs due
to higher upstream volumes.
May Creek has a substantial but relatively smaller
upstream watershed and is relatively susceptible to
inputs from high temperature stormwater runoff.
Springbrook Creek is largely urbanized and
substantially affected by higher temperature
stonnwater.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed.
widespread changes from native forest cover have
lead to substantial increases in erosion and
sedimentation and therefore turbidity.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed and the
influence of runoff on sedimentation relates to
volumes, soils and susceptibility of watercourses to
erosion.
Lake Washington turbidity is largely determined by
watershed level inputs. Surrounding urban
development likely contributes substantially as do
river and stream inputs
The Cedar and Green Rivers are affected by
widespread land use changes.
May Creek is subject to substantial sedimentation
from erosion on urbanized tributaries.
Springbrook Creek is low gradient and experiences
little channel erosion but is substantially affected by
stormwater inputs.
to Protect
Watershed Lt
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
addressed in
Conservation
Magnitude of
Since most st
expected to r
relatively smc
The majority
are outside a
most by critic
regulations t~
areas.
In an urban a
detention pro
and shading I
contributor to
through drain
development
implemented
Watershed Lt
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
through SMP
Net Loss of E
review proce~
E.7. Facility f
Performance
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm.::
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt
areas.
! and/or Parameter
influenced
Conditions and
;s
epth Ratio
Conditions and
;s
lank Condition
Physical or Biological Function
Stream width and depth is a function of flow
magnitude, size and type of transported sediment,
and the bed and bank materials. Channel width
tends to increase downstream. The width/depth ratio
varies with channel slope, bank erodability, degree of
entrenchment, and velocity (Rosgen 1996).
Streambank condition is affected by a number of
related parameters such as the amount and type of
riparian vegetation, adjacent land use activities,
floodplain connectivity, and manMmade structures.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Width and depth ratios can be changed through
channelization, loss of riparian vegetation, flood
control structures and other alteration and may result
in increases in flood frequency and magnitude.
Degradation of stream banks through development
{e.g., riprap}, channelization, or reduced riparian
vegetation can lead to erosion, which has secondary
effects such as increased turbidity and
sedimentation_
Current Trends or Effect of CUrrent Regulations
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in stream channel alteration. Stormwater
management standards for new development affect
less altered steams in less developed areas but have
limited effect on previously developed areas.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization and levees to address flood
control.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character,
except where street crossings have established set
points limiting channel migration.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
little channel erosion but is substantially affected by
stormwater inputs.
Lake Washington shorelines have been altered by
lowering the water level and widespread shoreline
stabilization.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in vegetation cover has resulted
in pervasive changes in erosion and sedimentation
throughout the system. Stormwater management
standards for new development affect less altered
steams in less developed areas but have limited
effect on previously developed areas.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of vegetation adjacent to
streams and lakes.
The Cedar Rivers has been replaced by a
constructed channel in the central part of the city with
substantial riparian vegetation east of 1-405 and
some riparian vegetation downstream of Logan Ave.
May Creek has among the least altered stream
channel and riparian vegetation_
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
little channel erosion but is substantially affected by
stormwater inputs.
Lake Washington shorelines have substantially
altered riparian vegetation in most areas.
to Protect
Watershed Lt
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
extent throug
Effects No NE
establishes a
by 4-3-090. (
for minimizin!
Stream Alten
adoption by r
RMC 4-3-05C
shoreline juri!
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm.
The major inf
altered strear
marginal impl
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt-
areas.
Watershed Lt
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
extent throug
Effects No N!
establishes a
by 4-3-090. (
for minimizin!
Alternation, 4
Conservation
adjacent to sl
adoption by r
RMC 4-3-05C
shoreline juri!
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm,
The major inf
altered strear
marginal impi
The majority
are outside 0
most by critic
regulations tt-
areas.
~ and/or Parameter
influenced
Conditions and
:s
lin Connectivity
Conditions and ,s
Habitat Elements -
:e
Physical or Biological Function
Floodplain connectivity is important to dissipate
energy during flooding events to reduce erosion and
degradation of the stream channel. In addition,
floodplain connectivity generally maintains a high
groundwater table that provides a hydrologic link
between the stream and wetlands and maintains
wetland functions and native riparian vegetation and
succession.
The stream bottom substratum is critical habitat for
salmonid egg incubation and embryo development,
as well as being habitat for benthic
macroinvertebrates. Streambed quality can be
degraded by deposition of fine sediment, by
streambed instability due to high ftows, or both.
Although the redistribution of streambed particles is a
natural process in gravel-bed streams, excessive
scour and degradation often result from excessive
flows.
Salmon rear primarily in pools with high habitat
complexity, with abundant cover, and where large
woody debris (LWD) is the main structural
component (Bisson et aL 1988). Some species of
salmon rely heavily on small lowland streams and
associated off-channel wetland areas during their
rearing phase (Bisson et aL 1988).
Sources of Human Disturbance
Development (fill andlor levees) in ftoodplains reduces
the ability of the ftoodplain to attenuate ftoods and
dissipate energy. This generally results in erosion and
channel incision, which lowers the groundwater table
and disconnects wetlands and riparian vegetation from
the stream.
Stream channel morphology can be affected by shifts
in the hydrologic regime due to increases in
impervious surfaces, which changes the amount and
patterns of runoff and streamflows. Higher flows
generally lead to changes in channel character,
higher stream erosion rates, increases in
sedimentation, and disconnections from the
floodplain with resulting loss of flood storage. In
general, these changes compound each other in an
urban environment
Increased scour and erosion are particularly relevant
to substrate.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread flood control structures and development
in the floodplain have narrowed the floodplain and
altered natural floodplain functions.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of floodplains
The Cedar Rivers has been replaced by a
constructed channel in the central part of the city. A
relatively natural floodplain is present upstream of
SR 169.
May Creek has among the least altered floodplains
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered for
flood conveyance.
Lake Washington shorelines are managed for a high
water cycle opposite natural conditions with no
ftoodplain
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in stream substrate alteration
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size with resulting changes in substrate.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization. Cedar River substrate is
fai~y intact upstream of 1-405.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
and substrate, except for sediment from upstream
erosion
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
with pervasive structural changes including
substrate.
to Protect
Watershed L.
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
extent throug
Effects No N,
establishes a
by 4-3-090. C
090.G.1.n. V,
Standards by
development
requiring floo
Magnitude of
since mast st
control struct
and the area
years is relati
shoreline. T~
preserving Ie'
The greatest
King County
removal and
within the floc
to allow more
established.
Watershed L.
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
structu re is al
4-3-090. EA.
Ecological Fl
process for n
Shoreline Stc
bank alteratic
as well as by
of Critical ArE
address sma
Mag n[tude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively smi
The major inf
altered strear
marginal imp'
The greatest
King County'
removal and
within the floc
to allow more
established.
~ and/or Parameter
influenced
Conditions and
os
Habitat Elements -
ality
Conditions and
os
Habitat Elements -
,nel Habitat
Physical or Biological Function
LWD performs several critical functions in forested
lowland streams, including dissipation of flow energy,
protection of stream banks, stabilization of
streambeds, storage of sediment, and providing in-
stream cover and habitat diversity (Bisson et al.
1987; Masseretal.1988; GregoryetaI.1991).
Salmon rear primarily in pools with high habitat
complexity, with abundant cover, and where large
woody debris (LWD) is the main structural
component (Bisson et al. 1988). Some species of
salmon rely heavily on small lowland streams and
associated off-channel wetland areas during their
rearing phase (Bisson et al. 1988). Cutthroat and
salmon are sympatric in many small streams in the
Pacific Northwest, and as such, are potential
competitors (adult cutthroat also prey on juvenile
coho). In general, habitat, rather than food, is the
limiting resource for most salmon ids in the Pacific
Northwest region (Groot and Margolis 1991).
Salmon rely heavily on small lowland streams and
associated off-channel wetland areas during their
rearing phase (Bisson et al. 1988). Off-channel
habitats (such as sloughs, beaver ponds, wetlands,
and other permanently or seasonally flooded lands)
are important rearing areas for juvenile salmon ids
Sources of Human Disturbance
Clearing for pasture, crops, or lawn removes woody
vegetation recruitment.
Immature forest lacks the potential for mature trees
to fall and provide woody vegetation recruitment.
Channel clearing and channelization removes LWD
Human development with resulting changes in the
hydrologic regime can lead to stream channelization,
dredging, and degradation of the riparian zone,
resulting in loss of pool frequency and quality.
Reduction of riparian cover can lead to a loss of
LWD recruitment, resulting in a degradation of pool
habita\.
Urbanization of streams may cause stream
channelization, reducing off-channel habitat.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent
to the water is greatly reduced. The effects of human
alteration on this function occur throughout the
watershed, The influence of the area under shoreline
jurisdiction if minor compared to the scale of the
watershed processes.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with little
potential for growth or recruitment of LWD.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered and have limited riparian vegetation and
potential for LWD. Cedar River vegetation is less
altered on the right bank upstream of 1-405 and
upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is less altered in channel character and
has more potential for LWD, except in areas devoted
to pasture.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
and managed to produce little LWD potential.
Lake Washington has little mature vegetation
providing LWD potential.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in loss of off-channel habitat.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size including loss of off-channel habitat
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization and levees to address flood
control with consequent loss of off channel habitat.
Such facilities have been constructed on the Cedar
River upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
with public open space providing potential for stream
dynamics to produce off-channel habitat.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
with little off-channel habita\.
Lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread
shoreline stabilization and interference with delta
formation providing little potential for off-channel
habita\.
to Protect
Watershed LE
because of Ie
area affected
Reach Level:
extent throug
Effects No N<
establishes a
by 4-3-090.G
G.4 Shoreline
minimizing be
Alternation.
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm,
The major inf
altered strear
marginal impi
The greatest
King County'
removal and
within the floc
to allow more
established.
Watershed L<
on off-channe
watershed ar
Reach Level·
extent throug
Effects No Nt
establishes a
by 4-3-090.G
G.4 ShorelinE
minimizing b~
Alternation.
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm,
The major inf
altered strear
marginal impi
Provisions of
address smal
beneficial imr
! and/or Parameter
Influenced Physical or Biological Function
Buffers Helps maintain cool water temperatures through
provision of shade and creation of a cool and humid
microclimate over the stream.
Organic matter is important to the ecosystem in the
form of leaves, branches, and terrestrial insects and
is an important element of the food chain in streams
and nearshore habitat in lakes.
Sources of Human Disturbance
The loss of riparian buffers through urbanization and
agriculture can change natural stream functions, and
lead to a loss in shade and cooler temperature areas
adjacent to streams and reduce the contribution of
organic matter.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed: The area and maturity of trees adjacent
to the water is greatly reduced, The effects of human
alteration on this function occur throughout the
watershed. The influence of the area under shoreline
jurisdiction if minor compared to the scale of the
watershed processes.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with little
potential for shade from mature trees.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered and have limited riparian vegetation and
potential for shade from mature trees .. Cedar River
vegetation is less altered on the right bank upstream
of 1-405 and upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is less altered in channel character and
has more potential for shade from mature trees,
except in upstream areas devoted to pasture.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
and managed to produce little potential for shade
from mature trees.
Lake Washington has little mature vegetation
providing shade from mature trees. This may
adversely affect nearshore habitat areas critical to
juvenile salmon lifecycle stages.
to Protect
Watershed LI
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
some extent·
Environment1
Functions the
development
Conservation
addressing ri
Stabilization 1
alteration anc
water bodies.
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to r
relatively sm.:
The major inf
altered strear
marginal impi
provisions for
vegetation in
Washington \
alteration of E
nearshore fe.
provisions in
! and/or Parameter
influenced Physical or Biological Function
lshington Juvenile salmon ids, particularly Chinook, rely on
Ire nearshore habitat during the critical rearing phase as
they slowly migrate from the Cedar River and rear
along Lake Washington's shorelines. Those areas
closest to the River are most important for this
rearing function. Chinook use gently sloping, shallow
shorelines for weeks to months as they gradually
move away from the river mouth. (Tabar 2008)
Sources of Human Disturbance
Residential and commercial development, including
bulkheads. docks. paved areas, and landscaped
yards have adversely modified most of the Lake
Washington shoreline habitat.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: This function occurs throughout
Lake Washington, however nearshore areas in
Renton may be most critical to Cedar River stocks
because of the importance of habitat near the mouth
of the river
Reach Level: Lake Washington shorelines have
been substantially altered by lowering the water
level, widespread shoreline stabilization, docks and
other structures and interference with delta
formation.
to Protect
Watershed L~
substantial in
Renton may I
because of U·
of the river
Reach Level:
addressed to
E.4. Environr
Functions the;
development
Conservation
that provides
090.F.? Piers
protections fc
Dredging par
interference i
formation,
Magnitude of
relatively smc
are develope
the next 20 y'
the entire she
existing struc
nearshore fe,
provisions in
influence on t
The cumulati'
be a substan,
actions on pu
proximity to tl
short term be
! and/or Parameter
influenced
Buffers
on/Connectivity
Function
'uality -Capture of
lts -Settlement
'uality -Capture of
lts -Persistent
on
'uality -Removal of
:;. -Soils -Anoxic
ns
:uality -Removal of
:;.-Soils-
,I Ponding
Physical or Biological Function
Area, width and longitudinal continuity are all
important to wildlife productivity, Continuity along
corridors links a variety of upland areas, links
different types of riparian vegetation communities,
and provides for movement to respond to local
disruptions in productivity due to flooding, fire, local
predation pressure, and human disturbance. A nearly
continuous riparian zone is the typical natural
condition in the Pacific Northwest (Naiman 1992).
Pollutants that are in the form of particulates (e.g.,
sediment, or phosphorus that is bound to sediment)
will be retained in a wetland with greater detention
time. Wetlands with no outlet are the most effective
in this, followed by wetlands with an outlet that flows
only seasonally, followed by wetlands with year-
round outlet but with longer times that water is
retained and sediment can settle (Adamus et al.
1991).
Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a filter
and causing sediment particles to drop to the
wetland surface (Adamus et al. 1991).
The uptake of dissolved phosphorus and toxic
compounds through adsorption to soil particles is
highest when soils are high in clay or organic content
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Removal of nitrogen
from the aquatic system (denitrification) is done by
bacteria that live only in the absence of oxygen
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
The highest levels of nitrogen transformation occur in
areas of the wetland that undergo a cyclic change
between oxic (oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen
absent) conditions. (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993),
Sources of Human Disturbance
The riparian corridor in urban watersheds can
become fragmented from a variety of human
influences; the most common and potentially
damaging is the enclosing of streams in piped
conveyance systems that remove most ecological
functions from the areas enclosed. Ditching and
canalization are nearly as damaging. Road crossings
can be similarly disruptive, depending on the
character and frequency of crossings.
Wetland function can be reduced through direct
displacement and through off-site factors that reduce
function. Urban development and agriculture can
increase the amount of sediments entering the
wetland and adjacent stream systems and affect the
soil substrate and affect the type of vegetation by
changing the conditions under Which different plants
compete with one another.
Loss of function can occur through displacement and
through change in runoff patterns or the type and
amount of pollutants that enter a system.
Degradation can occur due to changes in the
hydrologic conditions maintaining soil type or to a
pollutant load that is greater than the capacity of the
system to process nutrients.
Development and increases in impervious surfaces
may lead to changes in hydrologic regime that
change the patterns of seasonal ponding to either
year-round ponding, deeper ponding, or ponding of a
different duration. This can change the balance of
functions provided.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed: The loss of riparian buffers adjacent to
the water is greatly reduced. The effects of human
alteration on this function occur throughout the
watershed. There is little potential for continuous
animal movement along most stream corridors The
influence of the area under shoreline jurisdiction if
minor compared to the scale of the watershed
processes.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with little
potential for riparian vegetation to support corridors
for animal movement and use.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered and have limited riparian vegetation and
potential for riparian vegetation to support corridors
for animal movement and use .. Cedar River
vegetation is less altered on the right bank upstream
of 1-405 and upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is less altered and has more potential for
riparian vegetation to support corridors for animal
movement and use.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
and managed to produce with little potential for
riparian vegetation to support corridors for animal
movement and use.
Lake Washington has little continuous vegetation at
the water's edge providing little potential to support
corridors for animal movement.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size including Joss of wetland function.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization and levees to address flood
control with consequent loss of wetland function.
More potential is present upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
with public open space providing potential for
preservation of wetlands, except for alteration for
rural uses in upstream reaches.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
with wetland area except those constructed as part
of development or a wetland bank.
Lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread
shoreline stabilization and interference with delta
formation providing little potential for adjacent
wetlands.
to Protect
Watershed Ll
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
buffers are n(
Vegetation C
vegetation or
that provides
these apply tl
development
watersheds c
May Creek h;
not be readil~
Magnitude of
since most st
expected to t
water quality
for terrestrial
Watershed L!
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland clas~
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
extensively IT
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of BI
wetlands hav
! and/or Parameter
influenced
Function
'uality -Wetland
I Relative to
I Load
Function
:uality -Wetland
I Relative to
I Load -Urban
. Residential Lawns
Proximity
Physical or Biological Function
The opportunity for wetlands to improve water quality
in a watershed is related to the amount of pollutants
that come into the wetland relative to the size and
vegetation community within the wetland.
Qualitatively, the level of pollutants can be correlated
with the level of disturbance and type of development
in the landscape, For example, relatively undisturbed
watersheds will carry much lower sediment and
nutrient loads than those that have been impacted by
development, agriculture, or logging practices
(Hartmann et al. 1996; Reinelt and Horner 1995).
The character and persistence of pollutants resulting
from logging, agriculture, and urban development
differ substantially.
See above,
Sources of Human Disturbance
Development can increase impervious surfaces,
funneling pollutants into wetlands. Wetlands that
have been reduced in size are less able to carry
sediment and pollutant loads and improve water
quality than larger wetlands.
Residential lawns and landscaping as well as
commercial development and special uses such as
golf courses adjacent to wetlands contribute overland
runoff with pesticides, nutrients, and sediments in
quantities that can exceed the wetland's capacity to
process nutrients and other contaminants. The
effects depend on type and amount of fertilizers and
pesticides applied. The presence or absence of an
intervening buffer of native vegetation to filter or
capture sediments or nutrients affects the pollutant
load. Type of buffer vegetation. distance. and slope
affect the effectiveness of buffers.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed.
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size including loss of wetland function.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization and levees to address flood
control with consequent lass of wetland function.
More potential is present upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
with public open space providing potential for
preservation of wetlands, except for alteration for
rural uses in upstream reaches.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
with wetland area except those constructed as part
of development or a wetland bank.
Lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread
shoreline stabilization and interference with delta
formation providing little potential for adjacent
wetlands.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed.
widespread changes in stream structure have
resulted in loss of wetland function.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
widespread alteration of stream channels at every
stream size including loss of wetland function.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered by channelization and levees to address flood
control with consequent loss of wetland function.
More potential is present upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is largely unaltered in channel character
with public open space providing potential for
preservation of wetlands, except for alteration for
rural uses in upstream reaches.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
with wetland area except those constructed as part
of development or a wetland bank.
Lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread
shoreline stabilization and interference with delta
formation providing little potential for adjacent
wetlands.
to Protect
Watershed L,
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland class
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
extensively IT
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of BI
wetlands hav
Watershed Lo
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland class
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
extensively IT
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of BI
wetlands hav
~ and/or Parameter
influenced Physical or Biological Function
Function See above.
'uality -Wetland
1 Relative to
t Load-
ys, Driveways,
Areas With Direct
je
Function See above.
,uality -Wetland
1 Relative to
t Load -Urban
Direct Conveyance
eas With
n!Treatment
Function
m in Stream
and Flooding -
ter Wetlands
Function
m in Lake Fringe
Wetlands found in the headwaters of streams are
important in reducing peak flows because they slow
down and desynchronize the initial peak even in
cases where surface water storage is limited
(Brassard et al. 2000).
Wetlands with shoreline plants provide a physical
barrier to waves and protect the shore from erosion.
This protection consists of both shoreline anchoring
and the dissipation of erosive forces (Adamus et al.
1991). Extensive, persistent (especially woody)
vegetation provides protection from waves and
currents associated with large storms that would
otherwise penetrate deep into the shoreline (Adamus
et al. 1991). Emergent plants provide some
protection but not as much as the stiffer shrubs and
trees.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Roads, driveways, and parking lots that discharge
directly, without detention and treatment, generate
pollutants (including sediment, nutrients, chemicals,
and heavy metals) that can exceed the wetland's
capacity to process nutrients and other
contaminants.
Large areas of impervious surface may produce
runoff volumes that far exceed the natural flows
under which wetlands evolved and may change
physical character through eroSion of channels
through wetlands, subject wetlands to more frequent
inundation, and increase sediment deposition that
may reduce storage capacity and change vegetation
comm un ities.
Detention and treatment systems can change the
peak discharge rates from impervious surfaces, but
do not change the overall increase in runoff and
therefore the duration of flows, Treatment facilities
vary in effectiveness in nutrient and chemical
removal, The effectiveness of detention/treatment is
affected by long-term investment in maintenance.
Although beneficial, even with detention/treatment,
wetland function can be degraded by hydrologic,
sediment, and pollutant loads.
Development often displaces small wetlands that
may not be identified because local regulations
exclude small wetlands from preservation. They also
may be overlOOked if vegetation has been altered or
if field surveys are not detailed.
Clearing, bulkheading, and fill for lawns or other
shoreline access to lakes removes wetlands and
their functions.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in land use have resulted from
urbanization. In existing development there is little
treatment of automobile related pollutants.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with
impervious surfaces. Most vehicle related pollutants
are not treated.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes in the water cycle due to
urbanization and the increase in runoff is only
partially offset by structural features such as
stormwater detention and treatment.
Watershed Level: In the overall watershed,
widespread changes land use have resulted in loss
of headwater wetlands.
Lake Washington shorelines have been substantially
altered by lowering the water level, widespread
shoreline stabilization and interference with delta
formation providing little potential for retention of
establishment of adjacent wetlands.
to Protect
Watershed L,
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland class
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
extensively IT
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of BI
wetlands hav
Watershed L!
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland clas~
recommend a
Magnitude of
since most st
extenSively rr
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of BI
wetlands hay
required by n
overall impac
SMP policies
headwater w~
have the grec:
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland clas~
recommenda
Magnitude of
Lake Washin
been extensi'
restoration or
measurable E
! and/or Parameter
influenced
-Presence and
-Proximity Impacts
-Predation -
Jiversity
Physical or Biological Function
The area of buffer present increases the total area
available as habitat. Many species require a
minimum area for breeding, escape, cover, and food
production. Generally, larger species require a larger
area for food production based on their biomass.
Species further up the food chain, such as
carnivores, may require a larger area for prey
species to be present at densities that make
predation practical. Specific species also vary greatly
in the specific habitat needs for various functions.
Species that are sensitive to proximity impacts such
as noise or light may not occupy otherwise suitable
habitat that is subject to those features.
Habitat provides for a complex balance between prey
and predators. A variety of factors may affect this
balance.
Under natural conditions, predators cannot exceed
the food supply provided by prey. Domestic animals
such as cats may increase the total predator
population far beyond the normal balance because
pets receive their food from humans and therefore
the predator population is not affected by the prey
population.
Sources of Human Disturbance
Areas retained in natural or open space in
agricultural, rural, or urban areas may be below the
threshold of size or complexity to provide all life-cycle
functions of breeding, rearing, and food production
for a species, and if so, they may be functionally
unusable for that species.
Noise, light, and other proximity impacts result in
direct disturbance to species using the habitat.
Natural predators tend to be more mobile than prey
species and move more readily between habitat
areas. The isolation of prey species in small areas
with limited ability for refuge may increase predatory
efficiency such that a balance between predation and
replacement may not be maintained.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may
increase the total population of predators in an area
beyond natural levels such that a balance between
predation and replacement of prey species may not
be maintained. Habitat conditions may be adequate
to maintain a population of a specific species, but
they will not persist due to predation.
Current Trends or Effect of Current Regulations
Watershed: The loss of riparian buffers adjacent to
the water is greatly reduced. The effects of human
alteration on this function occur throughout the
watershed. There is little potential for continuous
animal movement along most stream corridors The
influence of the area under shoreline jurisdiction if
minor compared to the scale of the watershed
processes.
Reach Level: Most of the city is developed with little
potential for riparian vegetation to support corridors
for animal movement and use.
The Cedar and Green Rivers have been substantially
altered and have limited riparian vegetation and
potential for riparian vegetation to support corridors
for animal movement and use .. Cedar River
vegetation is less altered on the right bank upstream
of 1-405 and upstream of SR 169.
May Creek is Jess altered and has more potential for
riparian vegetation to support corridors for animal
movement and use.
Springbrook Creek has been substantially altered
and managed to produce with little potential for
riparian vegetation to support corridors for animal
movement and use.
Lake Washington has little continuous vegetation at
the water's edge providing little potential to support
corridors for animal movement.
Watershed: The widespread conversion to urban use
has produced proximity impacts, even in those cases
where buffers are provided resulting in a general
transition to human tolerant species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has
fragmented habitat, even in those cases where open
space is provided resulting in general predator
pressure on native species.
The widespread conversion to urban use has
resulted in additional pressure from domestic
animals and tends to further depress population of
native speCies.
to Protect
Watershed LI
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland clas~
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
extensively IT
wetlands in L
River Reach
portions of Bl
wetlands hav
of buffers ma
Watershed Lt
tributaries to
Renton SMP
within the wa
Reach Level:
addressed in
wetland clas~
recommenda
Magnitude of
since most st
buffers are dt
provided in bl
wildlife produ
City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and
Analysis
Prepared for
City of Renton
City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
This report was funded in part through a grant from
the Washington Department of Ecology.
" . ~ fllU{;Y
Prepared by
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
T. 425,458.6200 F. 425,458.6363
www.parametrix.com
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401)
ESA Adolfson
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200
Seattle, W A 98107
T. 206.789.9658 F. 206.789.9684
Maney ARC
1719 E. Spring Street Suite 301
Seattle, W A 98122
T 206.383.2447
"
CITATION
Parametrix. 2010. Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis. Prepared
by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. March 20 I O.
March2010 I 55J.l779·031 (04/0401)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1
I. I PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. I-I
1.2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ............................................................................... 1-1
1.3 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS .......................................... 1-2
1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ................................................................. 1-4
2. METHODS ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 DATA SOURCES .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 DETERMINING SHORELINE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES ................. 2-2
2.3 APPROACH TO CHARACTERIZING ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES
AND SHORELINE FUNCTIONS ......................................................................... 2-4
2.4 APPROACH TO INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF
REGULATED SHORELINES ............................................................................... 2-4
3. ECOSYSTEM-WIDE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................... 3-1
3.1 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Hydrogeologic Setting .................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.2 Land Conversion. Development, and Management ..................................... 3-3
3.2 ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES ...................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Water ............................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.2 Sediment ....................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 Water Chemistry ........................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.4 Organic Matter ............................................................................................. 3-7
3.2.5 Other Processes ............................................................................................ 3-7
3.3 PROCESS IMPAIRMENTS .................................................................................. 3-9
3.3.1 Regional Water Resource Management and Impacts ................................. 3-1 0
3.3.2 Watershed Analyses ................................................................................... 3-12
4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 4-1
4.1 LAKE WASHINGTON ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 General Conditions ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources ....................................................... 4-1
4.1.3 Built Environment ...................................................................................... 4-18
4.2 MAY CREEK ....................................................................................................... 4-28
4.2.1 General Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-28
4.2.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources .................................................... .4-28
4.2.3 Built Environment ...................................................................................... 4-31
4.3 CEDAR RIVER ................................................................................................... 4-35
4.3.1 General Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-35
4.3.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources .................................................... .4-36
4.3.3 Built Environment ...................................................................................... 4-42
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline InventolY and Analysis
City of Renton
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4.4 GREEN RiVER .................................................................................................... 4-49
4.4.1 General Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-49
4.4.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources ..................................................... 4-49
4.4.3 Built Environment ...................................................................................... 4-50
4.5 BLACK RIVER/SPRINGBROOK CREEK ........................................................ 4-53
4.5.1 General Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-53
4.5.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources .................................................... .4-53
4.6 LAKE DESIRE .................................................................................................... 4-62
4.6.1 General Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-62
4.6.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources .................................................... .4-62
4.6.3 Built Environment ...................................................................................... 4-64
5. ECOLOGIC MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION TOOLS .............................. 5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 DESIGNATION, RATING, AND CLASSIFICATION ........................................ 5-1
5.2.1 Washington DNR Stream Typing System .................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Fish Species and Lifestage Stream Classification System ........................... 5-1
5.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Based Classification System ................................. 5-2
5.2.4 Functional Assessment Options ................................................................... 5-2
5.3 BUFFER OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.2 "No Harm" Regulatory System .................................................................... 5-7
6. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS ............................... 6-1
6.1 LAKE WASHINGTON ......................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.1 WRIA Plans .................................................................................................. 6-4
6.1.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach .............. 6-7
6.2 MAY CREEK. ...................................................................................................... 6-IS
6.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 6-15
6.2.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach ............ 6-20
6.3 CEDAR RIVER ................................................................................................... 6-21
6.3.1 WRIA Recovery Plan ................................................................................. 6-21
6.3.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach ............ 6-26
6.4 GREEN RIVER .................................................................................................... 6-29
6.5 BLACK RIVER/SPRINGBROOK CREEK ........................................................ 6-30
6.5.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 6-30
6.5.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach ............ 6-31
6.6 LAKE DESIRE .................................................................................................... 6-35
6.6.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 6-35
6.6.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach ............ 6-35
ii March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline ,\laster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventol}' and Ana~rsis
CIty of R~nton
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
I-I Graphic Depiction of the SMA Shoreline Jurisdiction ........................................... 1-3
3-1 Cedar River Prior to Diversion ............................................................................... 3-4
3-2 Riparian Vegetation Function in an Urban Setting ................................................ 3-9
3-3 Rating of Priority Areas for Process-based Protection and Restoration ............... 3-13
4-1 Density of Chinook Population, Distance from Mouth of Cedar River ................ .4-4
4-2 Typical Shoreline Armoring with Rock .............................................................. .4-12
4-3 Typical Shoreline Armoring with Rock and Cement.. ........................................ .4-12
4-4 Typical Residential Dock on Lake Washington .................................................. .4-13
4-5 Dock with Grated Deck ........................................................................................ 4-13
4-6 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Lake
Washington Shoreline Planning Area .................................................................. 4-20
4-6 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Lake
Washington Shoreline Planning Area (Continued) ............................................. .4-21
4-7 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the May
Creek Shoreline Planning Area ............................................................................ 4-33
4-8 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Cedar
River Shoreline Planning Area ............................................................................. 4-44
4-9 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Green
River Shoreline Planning Area ............................................................................. 4-51
4-10 City of RentonlWSDOT Wetland Mitigation Bank Site Map .............................. .4-57
4-11 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Black
River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline Planning Area ............................................ .4-58
4-12 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the Lake
Desire Shoreline Planning Area ........................................................................... 4-65
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Shoreline Map List ................................................................................................. 2-1
2-2 Shoreline Planning Area, City of Renton ............................................................... 2-3
3-1 303(d) Water and Sediment Quality Impairments for Lake Washington ............. 3-14
3-2 2004 Ecology 303(d) Water Quality Impairments in Cedar River Watershed ..... 3-16
3-3 2004 Ecology 303(d) Water Quality Impairments in WRIA 9 ............................. 3-20
3-4 Watershed Conditions in Black River and Springbrook Creek ............................ 3-21
4-1 Shoreline Modifications by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels ....... .4-14
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) iii
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventor}' and AnalysIs
Cit)' of Renton
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4-2 Overwater Structures by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels ............ .4-15
4-3 Building Setbacks by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels .................. 4-16
4-4 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Lake Washington ................ 4-22
4-5 Impervious Surface in Lake Washington Shoreline Planning Area Includes
only the area within the Shoreline Planning Area ............................................... .4-23
4-6 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along May Creek .......................... 4-34
4-7 Impervious Surface in May Creek Shoreline Planning Area .............................. .4-34
4-8 Cedar River Shoreline Tributary Characteristics .................................................. 4-38
4-9 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Cedar River ........................ .4-45
4-10 Impervious Surface in Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area .............................. 4-45
4-11 Registered Sites near Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area ................................ 4-48
4-12 Inventoried Sites near Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area .............................. 4-48
4-13 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Green River ....................... .4-52
4-14 Impervious Area for the Green River Shoreline Planning Area .......................... .4-52
4-15 Habitat Types in Springbrook Creek .................................................................... 4-55
4-16 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Black River/Springbrook
Creek .................................................................................................................... 4-59
4-17 Impervious Surface in Black River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline Planning
Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-59
4-18 Inventoried Sites near Black River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline Planning
Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-62
4-19 King County Shoreline Ecological Function Ratings for Lake Desire ................. 4-63
4-20 Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Lake Desire ........................ .4-65
5-1 Comparison of Functions of Stream and Lake Buffer Widths ............................... 5-6
6-1 Influence of Watershed-scale Processes on Shoreline Ecological Function .......... 6-2
6-2 Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Lake
Washington Shoreline ............................................................................................ 6-5
6-3 Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities for May
Creek Shoreline .................................................................................................... 6-16
6-4 Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, May Creek
Shoreline ............................................................................................................... 6-I 7
6-5 Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities for
Cedar River ........................................................................................................... 6-22
6-6 Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Cedar River
Shoreline ............................................................................................................... 6-23
;y March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Drajt Shoreline inventory and AnalysIs
Clly of Renton
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
6-7 Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities for
B lack River/Springbrook Creek ......................... "",, ............................................ 6-3 I
6-8 Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Black
River/Spri ngbrook Creek Shoreline ........ "" ........................................... " .......... " 6-32
APPENDICES
Maps
Map No. Map Title
1 a - e Shoreline Planning Area
2 Regional Context
3a Water Bodies and Wetlands
3b Topography, Water Bodies and Wetlands
4a Landslide, Erosion and Seismic Hazard Areas
4b Surficial Geology
4c Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
4d FEMA Floodplain
4e Cedar River Floodplain
4f Black River, Green River, Springbrook Creek
Floodplain
4g May Creek Floodplain
5a Fish Distribution, Salmon Stock Inventory
5b Fish Distribution, Salmon Rearing, Spawning
5c Wildlife Heritage Points
6 Shoreline Permits 2003-2009 City Wide
6a Shoreline Permits 2003-2009 Lake Washington
7 Water Quality
8 Renton Comprehensive Land Use
8a Renton Zoning
8b King County Zoning
8c King County Comprehensive Land Use
8d I mpervious Surfaces
8e Land Cover
8f Impervious Surfaces (Roadways & Buildings)
9a - d Transportation and Utilities
1 Oa - c Vacant Land Cover
11 a-h Shoreline Modifications
12a Renton Parks and Trails
13a Channel Mitigation Zones -May Creek
13b Channel Mitigation Zones -Cedar River
Appendix A ..... Reach Conditions, Unincorporated Lake Washington Shoreline (Reach K)
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) v
Shoreline Afas/er Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory und Ana(rsls
City orRenlon
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BMP
BNSF
BP
BPA
City
DAHP
DOES
DDT
DNR
DO
Ecology
EPA
ESA
ESU
FEMA
GIS
GMA
HCP
KCDD
LAAS
LWD
NCDC
NMFS
NOAA
NRHP
NWAA
NWl
OHWM
PAA
PAH
PCB
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
best management practice
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
before present
Bonneville Power Administration
City of Renton
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation
King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
Department of National Resources
dissolved oxygen
Washington State Department of Ecology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
evolutionarily significant unit
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Geographic Information System
Growth Management Act
Habitat Conservation Plan
King County Drainage District
Larsen Anthropological Archaeology and Historic
Preservation
large woody debris
National Climate Data Center
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Register of Historic Places
Northwest Archaeological Associates
National Wetlands Inventory
ordinary high water mark
Potential Annexation Area
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
vii
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline InventOlY and Analysis
City of Renton
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
viii
PSBRT
RCW
RM
RMC
ROW
SASSI
SMA
SMP
TMDL
UGA
USACE
USGS
WAC
WDFW
WHR
WRIA
WSDOT
Puget Sound Biological Review Team
Revised Code of Washington
river mile
Renton Municipal Code
right-of-way
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
Shoreline Management Act
Shoreline Master Program
total maximum daily load
Urban Growth Area
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
Washington Administrative Code
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Washington Historic Register
Water Resource Inventory Area
Washington State Department of Transportation
March2010 I 55J·I779·031 (0410401)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Shoreline iv/aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and AnalysIs
CIty of R~nton
The City of Renton (City) is conducting a comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
update with the assistance of a grant administered by the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) (Shoreline Master Act [SMA] Grant No. G080031O). Cities and counties
are required to update their SMPs to be consistent with the state SMA, Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.58 and its implementing guidelines, the Shoreline Management
Guidelines, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26.
Early steps in the comprehensive SMP update process include the inventory and
characterization of shoreline conditions. The inventory and characterization provide a basis
for updating the City's goals, policies, and regulations for shoreline management. The term
'shorelines' in this report refers to areas that meet the criteria for 'shorelines ofthe state' as
defined by the SMA (see Section 1.3 -Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions). As shown in
Map la-e, the shorelines in the City are:
• Lake Washington
• May Creek
• Cedar River
• Green River
• Black River/Springbrook Creek
• Lake Desire, located in the City's potential annexation area.
Lake Washington is designated as a 'shoreline of statewide significance'. As such, additional
policies apply to this shoreline since it is a statewide as well as local resource l (see Section
1.3 -Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions below).
This report describes the initial results of the shoreline inventory and characterization in
accordance with Task 1.3 of the City's grant agreement with Ecology. It includes a general
discussion of the ecosystem-wide processes that influence the City's shorelines and provides
a detailed account of the ecological functions and land use patterns along each shoreline
segment or reach.
This draft report will be revised and finalized based on comments from Ecology and the
public. The final report will be used to guide other elements of the City's SMP update process
including the development of shoreline policies, regulations, environment designations and
restoration strategies.
1.2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW
Washington's SMA was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in
a referendum. The SMA was created in response to growing concerns about the effects of
unplanned and unregulated development on the state's shoreline resources. As a result, the
1 RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)
March20l0 1553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline .tfaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
central goal of the SMA is 'to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the state's shorelines,2
The SMA is ajoint state/local program. Local governments responsible for administration are
charged with developing SMPs in accordance with state guidelines developed by Ecology.
The guidelines give local governments discretion to adopt SMPs that reflect local
circumstances and to develop other local regulatory and non-regulatory programs that relate
to the goals of shoreline management.
The City developed its first SMP in January 1977. The most recent update was adopted in
2005 but has not yet been approved by Ecology. The SMP is maintained as a separate
document that contains both policies and regulations. In addition, the regulations are codified
in Title IV (RMC 4-3-090) of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC).
1.3 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS
1-2
According to the SMA, the City's SMP regulations apply to all 'shorelines of statewide
significance', 'shorelines', and their adjacent 'shorelands' :
o 'Shorelines of statewide significance' include portions of Puget Sound and other
marine water bodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow
of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade Range that
have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a surface
area of 1,000 acres or more.
o 'Shorelines' are defined as streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or
greater and lakes with a surface area of 20 acres or greater.
o 'Shorelands' are defined as the upland area within 200 feet of the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) of any shoreline or shoreline of statewide significance; floodways
and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all
associated wetlands and river deltas.
o 'Associated wetlands' means those wetlands that are in proxim ity to and either
influence or are influenced by waters subject to the SMA4 (Figure 1-1). These are
typically wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands
that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction through surface water
connection and/or other factors.
In any given area, the landward extent of shoreline jurisdiction is identified based on site
specific factors such as the location of the OHWM. However, for planning purposes,
jurisdiction can be assumed to include the shore lands as generally depicted in Figure 1-1.
2 RCW 90.58.020
3 RCW 90.58.030
4 WAC 173-22-030(1)
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
r
_ --:c~)._
" /" ".~-..~ ,
LEGEND
-OROINAAY HlQH WATER tu.Rltl>OWNW)
__ lD~FTFROM~
SMA fLOOOWAY
lOO FeET FROM stu. FLOOtmA. ...
~IHIYE.l.R~OODFlLI.""
1
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
"
" "
Figure 1-1. Graphic Depiction of the SMA Shoreline Jurisdiction
The City of Renton has identified three areas for potential annexation into the City: East
Renton Plateau, FairwoodIPetrovitsky, and West Hill. If annexation occurs, all three ofthese
Potential Annexation Areas (P AAs) would become part of the incorporated area under the
City's jurisdiction. Shoreline areas are present in all three PAAs:
• The southwest comer of the East Renton Plateau PAA intersects a portion of the
Cedar River.
o The FairwoodiPetrovitsky PAA, located south of the East Renton Plateau PAA,
includes:
~ a section ofthe Cedar River
~ all of Lake Desire
• The West Hill PAA includes the shoreline of Lake Washington extending from the
current Renton City limits to the Seattle City limits. It also extends to the current
Tukwila City limits which includes land within 200 feet of the Green River (which
lies immediately to the southwest).
The portions of Lake Washington, Cedar River, and Lake Desire that are located in Renton's
PAA are included in this report. In addition, the area on the Lake Washington shoreline
between the north City limits and the City of Bellevue is included in this assessment. This
area is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA, as defined by the Washington Growth
Management Act [GMAJ of 1990'), but is not subject to a formal PAA agreement with
'RCW 36.70A
March 2010 I 553-\779-03\ (04/0401) 1-3
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
adjacent jurisdictions. The only access to this area is through the City of Renton and utilities
are provided by the City. Thus, Renton is the jurisdiction most likely to annex this area in the
future. The Shoreline Management Guidelines allow a city to pre-designate shoreline
regulations within adopted UGAs.6 Thus, adopted SMP regulations will be applicable to these
areas upon annexation without requiring future amendment of the SMP (Map la-Ie).
1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
1-4
The City'S SMP works in concert with the City'S Comprehensive Plan and a variety of other
regulatory plans and programs to manage shoreline resources and regulate development near
the shoreline. The Comprehensive Plan and associated Sub-Area Plans establish the general
land-use pattern providing an overall vision for growth and development for areas inside and
outside shoreline jurisdiction. Various sections of the RMC pertaining to zoning (Title IV),
environmental policy (4-3 RMC), stormwater management (4-6 RMC), and permitting (4-8
and 4-9 RMC) also playa major role in how the City'S shorelines are managed.
The SMA requires local governments to review any plans, regulations, and ordinances that
apply to areas adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction. Those plans, regulations, and ordinances
need to 'achieve a consistent use policy' in conformance with the SMA and the SMP.7 This
means that the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations of the City's municipal
code must be consistent with the SMP.
One of the most important areas for consistency is between the SMP and 'environmentally
critical areas' (4-3 RMC) development standards and use regulations. Environmentally
critical areas including streams, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,
fish and wildlife conservation, and geologic hazard areas are found throughout the City's
shoreline jurisdiction. Although critical areas are to be identified and designated under the
GMA, they must also be protected under SMA when located within the shoreline jurisdiction.
The Washington State Legislature and the Growth Management Hearings Board have
determined that local governments must adopt SMPs that protect critical areas within the
shoreline at a level that is 'at least equal' to the level of protection provided by the local
critical areas ordinance.8
The GMA also calls for coordination and consistency of comprehensive plans among local
jurisdictions. Because SMP goals and policies are an element of the local comprehensive
plan, the requirement for internal and intergovernmental plan consistency may be satisfied by
watershed-wide or regional planning. Consistent with this provision, the City of Renton is
coordinating with King County; the neighboring cities of Kent, Tukwila, Bellevue, Seattle,
and Newcastle; and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during the SMP update process.
6 WAC 173-26-150
7 RCW 90.58.340
'Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1933
MW'ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
2. METHODS
2.1 DATA SOURCES
Shoreline Master Prugram
Revised Draft Shoreline hrventory and Analysis
City of Renton
A number of local, regional, state and federal agency data sources, maps, and technical
reports were reviewed to compile this inventory and characterization report. This includes
information pertaining to watershed conditions and ecosystem-wide processes as well as data
on the land-use patterns and ecological conditions of Renton's shorelines. Assessing
conditions at these two distinct geographic scales, the watershed scale and the shoreline reach
scale is a key requirement of the SMP update process.' A series of maps depicting shoreline
and watershed attributes accompanies this report (as summarized in Table 2-1). Data sources
from the King County Geographic Information System (GIS) database were used for the
P AAs and the unincorporated area along Lake Washington, north of Renton city limits. A
complete list of data sources used to compile the report is included in Section 6.
Table 2-1. Shoreline Map List
Map Title Map No.
Shoreline Planning Area 1a - e
Regional Context 2
Water Bodies and Wetlands 3a
Topography, Water Bodies and Wetlands 3b
Landslide, Erosion and Seismic Hazard Areas 4a
Surficial Geology 4b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area 4c
FEMA Floodplain 4d
Cedar River Floodplain 4e
Black River, Green River, Springbrook Creek Floodplain 4f
May Creek Floodplain 4g
Fish Distribution, Salmon Stock Inventory 5a
Fish Distribution, Salmon Rearing, Spawning 5b
Wildlife Heritage Points 5c
Shoreline Permits 2003-2009 City Wide 6
Shoreline Permits 2003-2009 Lake Washington 6a
Water Quality 7
Renton Comprehensive Land Use 8
Renton Zoning 8a
King County Zoning 8b
King County Comprehensive Land Use 8c
Impervious Surfaces 8d
Land Cover 8e
Impervious Surfaces (Roadways & Buildings) 8f
Transportation and Utilities 9a - d
Vacant Land Cover 10a - c
Shoreline Modifications 11 a-h
Renton Parks and Trails 12a
Channel Mitigation Zones -May Creek 13a
Channel Mitigation Zones -Cedar River 13b
9 WAC 173-26-201
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 2-1
Shorelme Master Prugram
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
2.2 DETERMINING SHORELINE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES
2·2
The approximate extent of shoreline jurisdiction within the municipal limits of the City and
its designated PAA is shown in Map la, referred to as the 'shoreline planning area.' In
general this extent represents:
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Lake Washington within the City's
municipal limits (Note: The mapped edge of Lake Washington is only marginally
different than the OWHM);
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Lake Washington within the
designated P AA of the City;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Lake Washington within
unincorporated King County, north of the City's municipal limits and south of
Bellevue city limits;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Mainstem Cedar River within the
City's municipal limits
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Mainstem Cedar River within the
designated P AA of the City;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Mainstem Green River within the
City's municipal limits;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of the Black River and Springbrook
Creek within the City's municipal limits;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of May Creek within the City's municipal
limits;
• Lands within 200 feet of the mapped edges of Lake Desire within the designated
PAA of the City;
• All floodways associated with the areas above; and
• Those portions of the 100-year floodplains currently mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that are within 200 feet of the mapped
floodway.
(Note: Lands within the floodplain of the Cedar River and Springbrook Creek within 200 feet
of the floodway are only marginally different than lands within 200 feet of the OHWM in
channelized portions of the river within the city. For Springbrook Creek, the floodplain for
jurisdictional purposes is the floodplain of the creek itself and does not include portions of the
Green River floodplain that overlap that of the creek.)
This area covers a total of approximately 14 linear miles within the City limits, 4 linear miles
within the designated P AAs, and V2 of a linear mile in King County, outside the PAA. Of
those, approximately 5 miles are along Lake Washington; 6 miles are along the Cedar River;
less than \I, mile is along the Green River; 3 miles are along the Black River/Springbrook
Creek; 1.6 miles are along May Creek; and 1.7 miles are along Lake Desire. The shoreline
planning area encompasses approximately 900 acres.
Planning area boundaries were derived using existing information from the King County GIS
database. The location ofthe 20 cfs flow point on streams was confirmed using best available
information (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1998).10 For purposes of this report, the
mapped edges of the lake and creek shorelines are assumed to correspond to the approximate
10 USGS data regarding upstream boundaries for SMA streams and rivers (USGS, Water-Resources
Investigations Report 96-4208) to confirm SMP jurisdictional boundaries.
M",ch2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
,
Shoreline Masler Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
location of the OHWM. Field inspection is required to identify the actual OHWM location on
a specific property to detennine jurisdiction limits. regulatory setbacks andlor buffers.
Likewise, shoreline jurisdiction may include 'associated' wetlands. Generally, a wetland's
relationship to the shoreline must be detennined in the field by on-site inspection. 11 The maps
outlined in Section 2.1 above indicate all mapped wetlands as potentially associated wetlands
and likely include some wetlands that do not meet the criteria of "associated" wetlands.
The shoreline planning area is intended for planning purposes only. As a result, the actual
regulated boundaries of shoreline jurisdiction may differ from the area shown on Map I a,
depending on infonnation gathered on the ground at any specific location.
For purposes of the shoreline inventory and characterization, the shoreline planning area was
divided into segments, called reaches. Reach designations were detennined based on existing
and potential land-use (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial land-use, parks, and open
space). The Cedar River, Black River/Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are each divided
into four reaches; the Green River includes one reach; and Lake Washington is divided into
11 reaches, including one in unincorporated King County and one in the City's PAA. The
portion of Lake Desire in the City's PAA is designated as one reach. The extent and general
description of individual shoreline reaches that comprise the City's shoreline planning area
are summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Shoreline Planning Area, City of Renton
Reach
Shoreline Numbers
Cedar River A through D
Green River A
Lake A through K
Washington
Black River I A through C
Springbrook
Creek
May Creek A through D
Lake Desire A
General Description
Extends from the mouth of the river to
City limits at Ron Regis Park (along
State Route 169)
Within City limits (along West Valley
Highway and east to the Black River
pump station 12)
Extends from Bellevue to the West
Hill PM (between City limits and
Seattle City limits)
Extends from the City limit on the
Black River to SW 43" Street (S 180'h
Street) at south City limit
Extends from the mouth (at
confluence with Lake Washington) to
Northeast 36~ Street at City limits
(Northeast portion of City)
Includes entire lakeshore except
portion outside the City·s PM
Approximate
Size (acres)'
405
29
132
203
91
41
Approximate
Percentage of
City's Shoreline
(excluding PM)
45% (45%)
3% (3%)
15%(12%)
23% (23%)
10% (10%)
5% (0%)
Does not indude open water areas; however, does include floodways, and floodplains within 200 feet offloodways based on existing
mapping sources (see Map 1).
L 1 Additional associated wetlands may be present that are not depicted on the available maps.
12 This is designated as a Green River reach rather than a Black River reach because it primarily
functions as a backwater of the Green River and is isolated hydraulically ITom the Black River by the
pump station.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 2-3
Shorelme kfaster Program
Revis('d Draft Shoreline Inwntory and Analysis
Cily of Renton
2.3 APPROACH TO CHARACTERIZING ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES AND
SHORELINE FUNCTIONS
SMA guidelines require local jurisdictions to evaluate ecosystem-wide processes and their
relationship to shoreline ecological functions.13 Ecosystem processes generally refer to the
dynamic physical and chemical interactions that form and maintain aquatic resources at the
watershed scale. These processes include the movement of water, sediment, nutrients,
pathogens, toxins, and wood as they enter into, pass through, and eventually leave the
watershed.
For this report, ecosystem processes were characterized using an approach similar to that
described in Protecting Aquatic Eco5ystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to
Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et a!., 2005). The approach predicts water
movement through a watershed based on topography, soils, geology, climate and other
hydrogeologic factors. Across a watershed, these factors govern the patterns of surface water
and groundwater flow between upland and aquatic areas. The approach focuses on water flow
patterns because water movement underlies most of the other physical and chemical
interactions that occur in a watershed.
The purposes of the ecosystem-scale analysis are to highlight the relationship between key
processes and aquatic resource functions, and to describe the effects of land-use on those key
processes. The goals are to:
• Identify and map areas in the watershed that are most important to processes that
sustain shoreline resources;
• Determine the extent to which those important areas and their processes have been
altered; and
• Identify management strategies and potential opportunities for protecting or restoring
these areas.
The results of the analysis are provided in Sections 3.
2.4 APPROACH TO INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF REGULATED
SHORELINES
2-4
The inventory and characterization at the reach scale of the Cedar River, Green River, Lake
Washington, Black River/Springbrook Creek, May Creek, and Lake Desire scale is intended
to characterize conditions adjacent to each of the SMA-regulated water bodies as well as in-
water conditions ..
A boat survey of the Lake Washington shoreline was conducted in the Renton city limits and
PAAs on April 8, 2008. The shoreline survey extended from the Bellevue city limits on the
east side of the Lake to the Seattle city limits in the West Hill P AA at the south end of the
Lake. Observations regarding land-use and lake shore modifications, such as docks and
bulkheads, were recorded to provide current information about the lake shoreline. The analysis
of lake shoreline modifications included interpretation of 2005 and 2007 King County aerial
photography (King County 2005; King County 2007); and analysis of 2006 and 2007 Ecology
oblique photography (Ecology 2006; Ecology 2007) (Maps lla to Ile).14
13 WAC 173-26-201 (2)(c)
14 Although the oblique photography is recent, this analysis may not contain all of the most recent dock
or shoreline armoring developments.
MlU"ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline [n"entory and Ana(vsis
City of Rl:nton
In addition, the 2007 King County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report was used
to characterize the Lake Desire shoreline and Reach K of the Lake Washington shoreline
(King County 2007). The report characterized ecosystem processes, land-use, archaeological
and historic properties, and identified potential restoration opportunities.
This report includes up-to-date information on land-use, zoning, public access, impervious
surface, water quality, priority habitats and species, and lake shore modifications.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 2-5
3. ECOSYSTEM-WIDE CHARACTERIZATION
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline lnl'entmy and Analysis
City of Renton
Ecological structure and function in shorelines are driven by physical and biological
processes occurring at varying spatial scales across the entire ecosystem. These processes
operate within a physical structure defined by geology and climate. Processes affect shoreline
structure and function through the input, transport, storage and/or loss of materials, including
water, sediment, chemicals, and organic matter.
Although many of the processes that affect ecological function in the City's shorelines occur
outside the city and are outside the City's control, an understanding of their impact is
important when considering the potential for management actions that may be undertaken by
the City. For this reason, SMA guidelines require local jurisdictions to look beyond
shorelines and 'assess the ecosystem-wide processes to determine their relationship to
ecological functions present within the jurisdiction' .15
The following ecosystem characterization defines the area contributing to shoreline functions
in the City, identifies the hydrogeologic controls and physical processes that occur, and
characterizes changes to processes resulting from land-use. In addition, important areas where
processes can be managed with the highest return on investment are identified, with emphasis
given to areas within the City.
3.1 STUDY AREA
Jurisdictional shorelines in the City of Renton lie within the Lake Washington/Cedar River
(Water Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] 8) and the GreenlDuwamish River (WRIA 9)
watersheds, and these two watersheds comprise the study area for the ecosystem
characterization (Figure 3-1). Information presented below is either taken directly or
modified from literature produced as part of WRIA planning and is supplemented by
ecosystem characterizations recently conducted as part of SMP updates prepared by King
County and incorporated cities, including Kirkland, Tukwila, and Sammamish.
WRIA 8 encompasses 692 square miles (Kerwin 200 I) and two major subbasins, the
Sammamish River and the Cedar River, both of which flow into Lake Washington. Lake
Sammamish, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and numerous tributaries to each. WRIA 8 is
located predominantly within King County, with the northwest portion extending into
Snohomish County. WRIA 8 boundaries follow topographic divides between WRIA 7
(Snohomish River) to the north and east, and WRIA 9 (GreenlDuwamish Rivers) and Puget
Sound to the south and west (Kerwin 2001). The majority (approximately 86 percent) of
WRIA 8 is in the Puget Lowlands physiographic region. The upper Sammamish drainage lies
in the Cascade foothills, while the upper Cedar River drainage extends through the foothills
into the Cascade Mountains. WRIA 8 has a population of about 1.5 million people, the most
of any WRIA in the state. The City's population of 80,708 is about one half of one percent of
the total popUlation of WRIA 8.
WRIA 9 contains the Green River and its tributaries, including the Duwamish
waterway/estuary, and nearby tributaries draining directly to Puget Sound. WRIA 9 is bound
topographically by WRIA 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) to the north and WRIA 10
(Puyallup River) to the south. The Green River watershed is 462 square miles, and the river
itself stretches 93 miles from its source in the Cascade Mountains through the Cascade
[5 WAC 173.26.201(3)(d)(i)
Macch 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401) 3-1
Shoreline Master Proj.,'ram
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
foothills and Puget Lowlands before emptying into Puget Sound at Elliott Bay. The
population of WRIA 9 is approximately 565,000.
The City accounts for less than three percent of the geographical area and its population
(80,708) is less than a half of one percent of the population of about two million within
WRIAs 8 and 9. The City is also located near the lower end of both WRIAs. Hence,
management actions taken within the City limits have a limited effect on overall watershed
conditions. However, actions taken to manage reach-scale processes, such as riparian and
floodplain functions, could have a larger effect on specific ecological processes and
functions, particularly rearing functions of anadromous fish.
The City also lies in the lower portion of May Creek and Springbrook Creek but accounts for
a much larger proportion of the total watershed area. As such, management actions for these
shorelines conducted within the City may have a more substantial effect on overall watershed
conditions and shoreline ecological functions. Given this context, the ecosystem
characterization is conducted using a broad resolution at the WRIA-scale, with emphasis
placed on processes occurring within the City. The characterization highlights the potential
for process-based restoration of ecological structure and function within the City limits.
3.1.1 Hydrogeologic Setting
3-2
The existing Lake Washington and Green River watersheds exhibit geology. climate, and
topography typical of most Puget Lowland drainages (Maps 3a, 3b, and 4a). The major rivers
in WRIAs 8 and 9 were shaped by the underlying geologic features found throughout the
region and include uplift and mountain building, volcanic activity, glaciation, marine
deposition, and post-glacial alluvial deposition. Climate is driven by maritime patterns that
foment mild, wet fall to spring months and cool dry summer months.
In lowland areas in and around Renton, glacially deposited sediments underlie alluvial
floodplains. Drift in the Renton area consists principally of till (Qvt), advance outwash sand
and gravel (e.g., sediment deposited by water flowing off the advancing glacier; Qva), and
recessional outwash sands and gravels (e.g .• sediment deposited by water flowing off the
receding glacier). In some areas the till is dense enough to act as an aquitard, limiting vertical
groundwater movement. Overlying alluvial sediments contain 15 to 20 feet of recent deposits
underlain by older, coarser alluvium that can be up to 90 feet thick. Deposits are often capped
by fill as a result of urban developments (Fabritz et aI., 1998) such as Renton Municipal
Airport. Subsurface geology in the vicinity of the City is a combination of bedrock, glacial,
and interglacial sediments.
Mean annual precipitation in the City is 42 inches, most of which accumulates between
October and May. Precipitation in the Puget Lowlands typically occurs as low-intensity,
long-duration storms. Snowfall is uncommon and short-lived, but snowpack can range from
around 50 inches at elevations above 2,000 feet to several hundred inches at elevations
greater than 5,000 feet in the Cascade Mountains, where total water equivalent precipitation
averages between 60 and 100 inches per year (National Climate Data Center [NCDC] 2008).
Upstream of the lowlands, the major rivers and their tributaries flow through upland plateaus
consisting of glacial drift (e.g., sediment deposited directly or indirectly by a glacier or
associated meltwaters). The headwaters of the Sammamish basin extend only to the Cascade
foothills, and groundwater plays an important role in sustaining annual stream flows. The
same is true for lowland streams found in the City such as Springbrook and May Creeks.
In the headwaters of the Cedar and Green Rivers, snowpack melting from high in the Cascade
Mountains drives discharge of both water and sediment, a result of the cold temperatures,
steep slopes and shallow soils commonly found where volcanic bedrock has uplifted.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Dra]t Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
The following sections describe the processes and alterations for each basin with
jurisdictional shorelines within the City boundaries.
3.1.2 Land Conversion, Development, and Management
WRIAs 8 and 9 have similar development histories and existing land-use patterns (Kerwin
2001). Settlement of Puget Sound by non-indigenous peoples began in the I 850s. Subsequent
to the Treaty of Elliott Point in 1855, tribes were relegated to reservations, and rapid
development and resource consumption ensued. In addition to the creation of settlements and
small towns, early land-use activities included dredging and channelizing the Green and
Cedar Rivers to improve navigation, constructing rail corridors, and land clearing associated
with agriculture and forestry. Flood control soon followed to protect forest and agricultural
practices, including the reconfiguration of the watersheds' hydrologic architecture discussed
above (dams, drinking water diversion, Lake Washington inflow and outflow
reconfiguration).
As population in the area grew, land-uses in lowland areas transitioned from forestry and
agriculture to urban development, including medium-and high-density residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Industrial land-use was established at various
locations, including along the Duwamish Waterway, which continues to be an important
waterborne transportation corridor. Some of the industrial development on Lake Washington
was water-dependent; for example, sawmills depended on currents to transport rafted logs.
For the most part, present-day industrial development on Lake Washington is not water-
dependent. The primary uses of City shorelines are residential, public park, and open space.
Originally, WRIAs 8 and 9 were a single, large watershed (Figure 3-1). A number of physical
alterations to the watershed, completed in the early 20th century, were intended to improve
navigation, control flooding, increase land availability, and develop drinking water resources
for a burgeoning population. These changes irrevocably changed the original watershed
hydrography.
Some of these alterations include:
• 191 I White River permanently diverted from Green River to Puyallup River
• 1912 Masonry Dam closure on the Cedar River; drinking water diverted for City of
Seattle
• 1913 Drinking water diversion on the Green River constructed by City of Tacoma
• 1916 Lake Washington outflow diverted to Hiram-Chittenden Locks and lake levels
lowered 9 feet
• 1916 Cedar River discharge diverted from Black River to Lake Washington; due to
lowering of Lake Washington, Black River dried up except for the short section
sustained by discharge from Springbrook Creek
• 1917 Duwamish Waterway constructed
• 1940 Most of GreenlDuwamish estuarine wetlands converted to developed land
• 1962 Howard Hanson Dam built for Green River flood contro I
These alterations resulted in the creation of two distinct watersheds and reduced the mean
annual discharge of both the Green and Cedar Rivers (Figure 3-1). Originally, the Cedar
River and Lake Washington flowed via the Black River into the Green River and the
Duwamish estuary. The total area draining to the Duwamish estuary included 692 square
March 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401) 3-3
Shorelme Vaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline li1l'entory and Analysis
City of Rc:nton
miles in the existing Lake Washington watershed--ofwhich 607 square miles are drained by
the Cedar River. In addition, the White River historically was a major tributary of the Green
River, adding an additional 494 square miles to the total drainage area. Today, the White
River is part of the Puyallup River watershed; the Cedar River flows into Lake Washington
and is now in a separate watershed from the Green River.
Figure 3-1. Cedar River Prior to Diversion
Source: (JSGS 1895
3.1.2.1 Existing Land Use
3-4
Both upper watersheds support drinking water supplies and arc therefore protected to varying
extents. In WRIA 8, Sammamish River headwaters do not extend into the Cascade
Mountains; headwaters lie in upland plateaus and land-use is as discussed previously in
Section 3.1.2. In accordance with the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, forestry has
been discontinucd in favor of conservation. In the Green River headwaters, upstream of the
Tacoma water diversion, forest practices continue over the entirety of the land, but public
access is limited. Below the tree line, land cover is forest of varying sera I stages and a small
amount (less than 10 percent) ofland-use is residential (Kerwin and Nelson 2001).
Between the Cascade Mountains and urbanized areas, forestry and agricultural land account
for approximately 50 percent of land-use. The remaining land-use is primarily rural
residential development.
In urban areas, residential land-use makes up 40-60 percent of development, depending on
the area. An additional 30 percent of land is typically apportioned for commercial and
industrial use. One exception is the area surrounding the Duwamish Waterway, for which
industrial uses make up 43 percent of land-use. The City of Renton is located in the highly
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 «()4f0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana(vsis
City of Renton
urbanized lower watershed. Development in the City mirrors general land-use patterns in
surrounding urbanized areas.
3.2 ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES
Watershed physical processes deliver, transport, store, and remove materials from the
ecosystem, thereby affecting the structure and biological functions of river and lake
shorelines. The movement of water, sediment, chemicals, and organic material occur
throughout the landscape, but these processes occur at varying intensities, depending on local
geologic and climate conditions. The following section describes ecosystem processes, and
identifies areas most important for supporting those processes. This section summarizes
conditions broadly across the entire study area.
3.2.1 Water
The cycling of water through the ecosystem is dependent on geologic and climate controls
such as slope, elevation, precipitation type and amount, soil permeability, storage potential on
the surface (landform), and underground (soil porosity) (Figure 1-1).
Water is input to the watershed system via either rain or snow. In upper elevations, snowfall
typically remains until late spring and early summer, when it melts and swells rivers and
streams. During winter months, between the elevations of 1,500 and 4,500, storm events can
occur, during which rain falls on existing snowpack, melting the snow and causing flood
events. At elevations below 1,500 feet, precipitation occurs mostly in the form of low-
intensity rainfall that infiltrates the soil to recharge groundwater or is delivered to surface
water bodies via shallow subsurface floW."
During rain-on· snow events or other episodes that cause flooding, storm flow can be
attenuated through temporary storage in floodplains, wetlands, lakes, and in-channel features
that add roughness and decrease flow velocities. Typically, storage areas occur near low-
gradient streams and in lowland areas where physical relief is very low, coarse glacial
outwash stores high volumes of water, and subsurface flow velocities are rapid. Water can be
transported to storage areas via hyporheic (i.e., flow through streambeds and soils near stream
channels) and overbank flow.
Alternatively, precipitation can infiltrate the soil to recharge groundwater. The geologic
characteristics of upland plateaus, where land transitions from lowlands to the Cascade
foothills, make them important areas for groundwater recharge. Upland plateaus contain
coarse outwash, deposited by receding glaciers. This coarse outwash overlays fine-grained till
and creates a soil with a high infiltration rate. Furthermore, upland plateaus receive more
precipitation than lowland area. The result is that upland plateaus have a very high potential
to recharge groundwater. However, till underlying coarse deposits can also act as an aquitard,
preventing infiltrated water from percolating to recharge deep, underlying aquifers. Instead,
water is confined and creates wetlands or moves laterally above confining till layers to
discharge to streams. Deeper aquifers are also confined by layers of till interspersed with
coarse deposits. Groundwater moves laterally and eventually discharges in lowland areas to
support baseflow in lakes and rivers.
]6 Rainfall rates can also exceed soil infiltration capacity, causing overland flow, which combined with
shallow subsurface flow and groundwater discharges augments streamflows and sometimes causes
flooding.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-5
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Rcntoll
3.2.2 Sediment
The cycling of sediment through an ecosystem is dependent on geologic features such as
slope, land cover, soil cohesion, and storage potential determined by landform, and climate
features such as precipitation duration and intensity. Also important are interactions
(inclnding impairments) with the hydrologic process, which is a vehicle for sediment delivery
and transport. Therefore, many of the alterations to the hydrologic process also directly and
indirectly affect the sediment process.
The primary mechanisms for sediment delivery to aquatic systems are mass wasting and soil
erosion. Mass wasting in the form of shallow landslides typically occurs on steep slopes of a
certain curvature. The vast majority of landslide hazard areas occur in the Cascade Mountains
and, to a lesser extent, the foothills. These areas are underlain by volcanic deposits, which
contribute valuable gravel and cobble to streams. The Green River gorge has important
localized sources of coarse sediment input where steep walls deliver sediment to the river
(Kerwin 2000). Landslides occur along the steep slopes marking upland-lowland transition
and in the ravines of tributary streams as they cut through this transition. Bedrock in these
areas is sedimentary and delivers a higher proportion of silt and sand.
Soil erosion is a function of soil erosivity, slope, and cover. Steep slopes with erosive soils
also contribute fine sediment to water bodies, not high quality gravel and cobble substrate.
Erosive soils are most commonly associated with alluvium and outwash. Therefore, the
Cascade foothills and steep plateau-upland transitions have a high potential for surface
erosion in addition to landsliding.
Important areas for sediment storage are the same as those described for water. Depressional
areas such as lakes, wetlands, and floodplains allow for the precipitation of suspended
sediment in slack water. Additionally, larger streams and rivers with low gradients cycle
sediment through periods of transport and storage as they migrate laterally across the
floodplain. Therefore, alluvial deposits in floodplains are an important source of high quality
substrate.
Processes for sediment delivery to lakes include the delivery of sediment via tributaries and
bank erosion. Inputs remain localized, and mechanisms for transport are limited. These areas
provide extremely important, high quality habitat in lake ecosystems.
3.2.3 Water Chemistry
3·6
The delivery of elements and compounds to water bodies is highly dependent on water and
sediment processes that provide a vehicle for dissolved and adsorbed materials transportation.
Vegetation and the atmosphere also play a role in the delivery of certain
compounds/elements. These mechanisms for delivery do not result in background levels that
degrade ecological structure and function in the study area, although aluminum may naturally
occur at relatively elevated levels (Kerwin and Nelson 200 I). Furthermore, they do not
typically occur in important, localized areas on the landscape (Stanley et al. 2005). While
important areas for input of these materials are not identified, the discussion of alterations to
delivery of contaminants in a subsequent section (Section 4) will include a description of
important areas.
Storage of materials that affect water quality is similar to those for sediment, where adsorbed
compounds, including phosphorus, nitrogen, and toxins can be deposited and potentially
removed via biotic uptake. Wetlands with mineral soils are important areas where dissolved
phosphorus can undergo adsorption and storage. Toxin storage, however, is better facilitated
by wetlands with clay or organic soils where adsorption and biotic uptake is better catalyzed
(Stanley et al. 2005). Nitrogen cycling and storage is fomented by small streams, where
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (0410401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inven/ol)" and Analysis
City of Renton
alders have a great capacity for nitrogen uptake in hyporheic zones. Nitrogen cycling is also
augmented by wetlands with non-organic soils (denitrification) and pH-neutral or alkaline
soils (nitrification; Stanley et al. 2005).
Areas in upland plateaus have a high frequency of peaty and clay wetlands underlying
surficial geology (Map 4b) and are important areas for toxin storage, denitrification, and
adsorption and deposition of dissolved contaminants. Lowland wetlands are more likely to be
either fine grained, where floodplain deposition has occurred, or mineral, where coarse-
grained alluvium is present. These depositional areas also support deposition of adsorbed
contaminants.
Like wetlands, lakes are depositional areas that have a high potential for storage of adsorbed
materials. Streams, deltas, shallow water areas, and lacustrine wetlands are all depositional
areas near lakeshores where contaminants can be stored. If nutrient/contaminant loading
increases, sediment quality can be impaired. Destruction or disturbance of these sinks can
render a lake more susceptible to eutrophication (a state of high algal productivity that
decreases dissolved oxygen [DO] levels) or ecological responses to water quality impairment.
3.2.4 Organic Matter
Organic materials include living organisms and the carbon-based material they leave behind
after dying, including coarse woody debris, finer woody debris, and detritus. These elements
are important for the cycles of energy and nutrients in aquatic ecosystems, including storage,
transport, and chemical transformation (Naiman 2001). Downed trees playa significant role
in the aquatic ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. Large woody debris (LWD) significantly
influences the geomorphic form and ecological functioning of riverine ecosystems (Maser et
al. 1988; Nakamura and Swanson 1993; Collins and Montgomery 2002; Abbe and
Montgomery 1996; Collins et al. 2002; Montgomery et al. 2003a; Montgomery et al. 2003b).
In a natural system, LWD provides organic material to aquatic ecosystems and is considered
a principal factor in forming stream structure and associated habitat characteristics (e.g.,
pools and riffles). Riparian vegetation is the key source of LWD. LWD is primarily delivered
to rivers, streams, or wetlands by mass wasting (landslide events that carry trees and
vegetation along with sediment), windthrow (trees, branches, or vegetation blown into a
stream or river), and bank erosion (Stanley et al. 2005). Thus, riparian areas, steep forested
slopes adjacent to streams, and channel migration zones are important areas for L WD
recruitment.
3.2.5 Other Processes
Other secondary processes have less widespread but important influences on overall
ecological function in shorelines, including heat/light inputs, biotic interactions, and habitat
connectivity. Climate change may already be acting to increase water temperatures as the
region experiences a warming trend (Kerwin 2000), and riparian vegetation, channel
morphology, and water input source also contribute to overall temperature regimes in water
bodies. The introduction of invasive plants and animals can have a significant influence on
community productivity through competition, food web dynamics, and predator-prey
interactions, among others. Habitat connectivity, which may be limited by natural barriers
such as waterfalls, can also limit community or population productivity by limiting
availability to valuable habitat.
Shoreline vegetation contributes to a wide range of ecological functions within shoreline
areas. Vegetation contributes to habitat functions for a range of fish and wildlife species.
Healthy environments for aquatic species are linked with the surrounding terrestrial
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-7
Shoreline .Hasler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Invenlory alld Analysis
City of Renton
3-8
ecosystem including vegetation cover. Commonly recognized functions of the shoreline
vegetation include:
• Providing shade necessary to maintain the cool temperatures required by salmonids,
spawning forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
• Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life.
• Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates.
• Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides.
The roots of trees and other riparian vegetation provide the bulk ofthis function.
• Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through storm water
retention and vegetative filtering.
• Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from groundwater and
surface runoff.
• Providing a source of L WD into the aquatic system. LWD is the primary structural
element that functions in streams to provide hydraulic roughness element to moderate
flows. L WD also serves a pool-forming function in streams, providing critical
salmonid rearing and refuge habitat. Abundant L WD increases aquatic diversity and
stabilization.
• Regulating of microclimate in the stream-riparian corridors.
• Providing critical wildlife habitat, including migration corridors and feeding,
watering, rearing, and refugia areas
• L WO provides cover from birds, fish, and other juvenile salmonid predators.
Large woody debris (LWO) is generally recognized as an important element of the natural
shoreline of Lake Washington. Under natural conditions it provides shoreline complexity that
may have a role in providing refuge area for juvenile salmon and other species. It is also an
important organic input and is important to the overall function of the food chain. The role of
woody debris in the predator-prey dynamics in the shallow littoral environment, especially
with non-native predator species, has not been clearly established.
Sustaining different individual functions requires different widths, densities, and
compositions of vegetation. The importance of the different functions varies with the
character of shoreline setting. Figure 3-2 provides an illustration of the functions of riparian
vegetation in an urban setting.
M ... ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Trees planted along side property
lines at sufficient width and diversity
can provide wildlife habitat and
corridors to the water.
Lawn areas produce
runoff, fertitiler and
pesticides, Mobility
depends on slope and
(II her faclon;,
Enviroromentatiy
sensitive lawn care
practices can
reduce impacts,
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory} and Analysis
City ofRen1on
50 feet or
greater
20-30 feet
10-15 feet
shOreline buffer area of 50 feet
wide Of greater planted in native
groundcover, shrubs and a variety
of native deciduous and coniferous
trees will provide substantial
shading and a habitat area usable
by a wider range of species as well
as provide leaf and litter. a variety
of food supplies and, over lime,
polontial for large woody debris, A shoreline buffer area of 10 to 15 feet wide
planted in native 9roundcover and shrubs can
eliminate applicalton of chemicals normally used
for lawn care and can intercept some sediments,
chemicals and nutrients carried by runoff.
The same buffer area with additional plantings
of low trees such as willows or vine maple will
provide some limited food resources for the
shoreline dependent species,
A shoreline buffer area of 20 to 30 leet wide planted
in native groundcover and shrubs will normally
intercept most overland transport of sediments,
chemicals and nutrients carried by runoff on lOW to
moderate slopes, The same buffer planted with
additional ptantings of low trees will provide some
shading and enhanced habolat and a somewhat
more vaned food supply,
Figure 3-2. Riparian Vegetation Function in an Urban Setting
3_3 PROCESS IMPAIRMENTS
Both regional water resource management and land-use have altered watershed processes in
WRIAs 8 and 9. The two watersheds are somewhat unique in that they provide drinking
water for the two largest urban areas in the Puget Sound, Seattle and Tacoma, Water resource
management creates important social benefits but also disrupts natural watershed processes
that historically occurred in the basin. In addition, historic, regional planning actions to
improve transportation and supply hydroelectric power have directly altered processes and
degraded shoreline ecological function. The potential for the City of Renton to restore
processes and ecological function via this management framework is limited, as management
occurs at a regional level. Therefore, the effect of water resource management on watershed
processes is discussed briefly, but the analysis is not extended to the identification of
management opportunities.
The City has the potential to improve ecosystem function through land-use management,
including conservation and restoration actions both inside and outside of City limits. Forest
practices, agriculture, and rural and urban development all impact processes by changing land
cover and limiting process connectivity, Watershed analyses presented below discuss the
effect of these activities on watershed processes and identifY priority management areas for
protecting and restoring processes. A watershed analysis is conducted for each water body-
containing jurisdictional shoreline within the City.
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-9
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory' and Analysis
Clty of Renlon
3.3.1 Regional Water Resource Management and Impacts
Management actions taken in the early 1900s to improve transportation, improve
development potential, and develop water resources profoundly impacted watershed
processes. As discussed previously (Section 3.1.2), these actions included redesign of
watershed architecture, including management of Lake Washington water levels, production
of hydroelectric dams, and consumption of surface and groundwater.
3.3.1.1 Watershed Hydrography
The redesign of watershed architecture included diverting the White River to the Puyallup
River watershed, diverting the Cedar River from the Green River to Lake Washington, and
diverting Lake Washington/Sammamish River from the Green River to Salmon Bay. These
alterations reduced the watershed area of the Green River by 60 percent and mean annual
discharge by 70 percent (Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
Glacial melt supports summer flows on the White River. Its diversion from the Green River
caused a disproportionate reduction in summer low flows. These low flow conditions reduce
the availability of rearing habitat, and associated increases in temperature reduce juvenile
growth rates and may present migration barriers to escaped adult habitat. The White River
historically contributed 70 percent of the gravel to the Green River downstream of river mile
32 (Mullineaux 1970), all of which was lost when it was redirected to the Puyallup River.
This change has degraded substrate quality and the availability of gravel suitable for salmonid
spawning. The White River also contributed a major portion of groundwater to the shallow
aquifer used by the City of Auburn for drinking water (Pacific Groundwater Group 1999 as
cited in Kerwin and Nelson 2001). Loss of this recharge source causes a concern for the
sustainability of the water resource. However, the effect of the White River diversion on
groundwater flow and recharge is not currently well-understood because of lack of historic
data.
The redirection of the Cedar River also reduced streamflow in the Green River. The Cedar
River, however, entered the Green River very low in the watershed, so the alteration, in
conjunction with drinking water diversions and the White River diversion, affected primarily
the Duwamish estuary. Access to the Cedar River by native salmonid populations was also
cut off. Salmon stocks naturally adapted to the new outlet through Lake Union and the ship
canal and most species are still found in the system. However, Green River pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. ketal salmon stocks thought to exist historically in
the Cedar River are no longer present.
The operations at the Howard Hanson Dam, the City of Tacoma's water diversion, and other
water municipalities have affected water flows in the Green River. These facilities now
dictate summer minimum flows and have led to drastically reduced spring flows.
3.3.1.2 Lake Washington Hydrology
3-10
The lowering of Lake Washington's elevation and the engineering of the inflow/outflow
regime is the most significant alteration to ecosystem processes, including direct hydrologic
effects and interactive effects on other processes. The lake-level lowering reduced total
surface area by seven percent and shoreline length by 12 percent (Kerwin 2001). In addition,
the lake edge has been converted from shallow water and wetland habitat to deep water
habitat (Kerwin 2001). In total, more than 1,300 acres of shallow water habitat were lost
(Kerwin 2001).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates water level fluctuations in the Lake.
The managed range of fluctuation is one-third of the historic fluctuation, and the timing of
March2010!553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shure line Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Invenrory and Analysis
Cify of Renton
fluctuation has been reversed. Whereas Lake levels were historically lowest during the
summer, the opposite is true today. The altered hydrology creates some benefits for lakeshore
property owners and recreational users but has impacted Lake ecology. Substantial areas of
shallow water habitat that provide important habitat for juvenile salmon ids and associated
ecological communities were lost. Changes in the natural hydrologic regime also affect native
fish, wildlife, and plant species adapted to natural fluctuations of the water level. Fluctuations
are known to alter aquatic macrophyte communities (Cooke et al. 1993). No historic data are
available, but riparian vegetation has responded to the altered hydrologic regime; aquatic
plants adapted to shallow water habitats and terrestrial vegetation adapted to drier summer
conditions have been lost.
3.3.1.3 Dams and Drinking Water Diversion
Dams and drinking water diversions on both the Cedar River and Green River have disrupted
material (i.e., water, sediment, wood, chemicals, heat) transport processes and split each river
into two distinct areas. Upstream watershed processes are generally intact, but the influence
of those intact processes on downstream ecological structure and function has been muted.
Functions that are affected include:
• Fish passage/migration
• Timing and amount of water delivery and storage
• Sediment and organic matter storage and transport
At the time of construction, none of the four dam/diversion structures were designed for fish
passage. The Masonry Dam on the Cedar River lies upstream of a natural fish passage barrier,
but the remaining three structures limit the ability of fish to access historically available
habitat. The Landsburg Diversion cut off 12 miles of the Cedar River previously accessible to
salmonids below Cedar Falls, while the upper 28.5 miles of the Green River and its tributaries
were also rendered inaccessible (Kerwin 2000). Fish passage was included for the Landsburg
Diversion as a provision of the 2001 Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), but the
Green River structure currently remains impassable.
The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology was used to develop a flow regime under the
existing Cedar River HCP (200 I) intended to sustain both salmonid populations and the
drinking water supply. The City of Seattle currently has rights to 105 million gallons per day
(mgd) of water and flexible rights up to an additional 95 mgd, depending on timing and
necessity, or approximately 25-30 percent of total annual discharge (Kerwin 2000). On the
Green River, the City of Tacoma was granted the right to divert up to 113 cfs from the Green
River, or 12 percent of the annual flow at the point of the diversion (Kerwin and Nelson
2001).
In addition to the amount of discharge, the timing and intensity of discharge have been
altered by flow control structures. On the Green River, peak flows have been reduced to
prevent downstream flooding and the historic bankfull discharge (analogous to the 2-year
recurrence interval flood) never occurs. The duration of moderate flows has increased in the
winter, and water that would normally produce spring freshets from snowmelt are held back
to augment summer low flows. This effort to create low flow augmentation does not fully
compensate for the water diverted by Tacoma during the summer, and summer low flow
discharge remains lower than historic averages (Kerwin and Nelson 200 I).
Altered flow conditions have a number of structural and functional consequences. Reduction
in flood events limits the capacity of rivers to renew themselves, including forming habitat
features and transporting sediment downstream and storing it in the floodplain. Biotic
March 2010 I 55J.l779-031 (04/0401) 3-11
Shoreline A4as.ter Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City orRenton
communities adapted to natural flow regimes are affected as well. Juvenile salmonids use
spring freshets to indicate migration and smoltification. Plants, such as cottonwoods, are also
dependent on flooding for germination. Reduced summer low flows may alter the migration
timing of escaped adult salmon returning to spawn and affect water temperature and DO
levels.
A trap and haul system has been constructed to remove adult salmon around the Tacoma
Public Utilities Headworks Diversion Dam and Howard Hanson dams. USACE is
constructing ajuvenile fish collection system so that juveniles migrating downstream through
Howard Hanson dam may be collected and trucked downstream. The TPU diversion dam is
outfitted with a fish ladder and fish screen system.
Dams and diversions also affect sediment storage and transport. The high quality gravels
derived from volcanic rock are unable to pass the dams, although the Landsburg Diversion on
the Cedar River does pass some gravel during peak flows. Particularly on the Green River,
this fact, coupled with the lack of peak flows that can initiate substrate transport, prevents
gravel from being replenished. Storage of the available sediment behind the dam has
contributed to channel armoring and incision in downstream areas. Finally, flood storage
behind dams that reduces peak flows also extends the duration of high flows. This affects
sediment transport and stream bank erosion, which, consequently, affect ecosystem processes
(Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
The dams also prevent the normal process of wood transport to downstream areas. The
Howard Hanson dam is relocating a portion of the wood and sediment that is entrained above
it to downstream areas as mitigation for its operations. While this is an improvement over
past practices, the entrainment of wood and sediment at the dam has implications for
downstream areas in that the entire source of wood and sediment is not available due to these
structures. The result is that the remaining sources of sediment and wood recruitment become
more important to creating and sustaining fish habitat and the removal of large trees a
potential significant impact. The combination of these circumstances with existing areas that
do not have trees or the potential to grow trees to maturity because of land use presents a
challenge to restoration of structural conditions analogous to native fish habitat.
3.3.2 Watershed Analyses
Land-use effects on watershed processes are presented below for each basin with
jurisdictional shoreline within the City. The analysis includes identifying priority areas for
process-based protection and restoration. In general, emphasis for protection and restoration
depends on land-use and the degree to which the area supports ecosystem-wide processes
(Figure 3-3). The two criteria for rating functions result in three general categories:
• Areas with the highest priority for protection and preservation are the areas with a
moderate to high importance for processes and moderate to low levels of alteration
which have the highest priority to allow the processes to continue with minimal
change in existing conditions.
• Areas with for restoration may have a range of importance for processes and a range
of alteration. The graphic indicates that priority is generally based on the importance
of the process, rather than the extent of alteration. Some areas of high alteration may
have high potential for restoration if the affected processes are important.
• Areas with low importance for processes and high levels of alteration generally are
those areas with the greatest suitability for development for human use, which
generally entails loss of ecological processes.
3-12 March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline ,Hasler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City ofRenlon
Basin analyses also provides a perspective of the City's location in the watershed and the
relative capacity for protecting and restoring processes within the City limits and UGA.
High
Low
Low Moderate Hlgh
Level of Altemtion of Watershed Processes
Figure 3-3. Rating of Priority Areas for Process-based Protection and Restoration.
3.3.2.1 Lake Washington
The Lake Washington basin includes most of the 692 square miles contained in WRIA 8 and
is populated by approximately 1.5 million people (Kerwin 2001). Two major subbasins
comprise the watershed, Lake Sammamish and Cedar River, both which flow into Lake
Washington. Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and numerous tributaries to
each are also part of WRIA 8. The City of Renton lies at the south end of Lake Washington
and contains the mouth and about 6 miles of the lower of the Cedar River. Approximately 21
mi', or 3 percent, of the total watershed area lies within City limits. The City's population of
80,708 is less than one-half of one percent of the total population of the watershed.
Altered sediment inputs are not identified in existing literature as limiting to the ecology of
the Lake, but development and associated bank hydromodification have reduced the natural
coarse sediment inputs in stream deltas and along the lakeshore, respectively. Dredging has
altered delta physiography where it occurs, such as the mouth of the Cedar River and May
Creek. These deltas potentially support a high degree of ecological function (Gracie 2004,
Riley 1998), including shallow water habitat, spawning grounds for lake-type sockeye, and
attachment substrate for macroinvertebrates and benthic organisms. Dredging of the mouth of
the Cedar River has been determined to have little or no positive impact on flood control and
is not expected to be proposed in the future (Straka 2009c). Dredging of the delta of May
Creek formerly occurred at the Barbee Mill sawmill to enable log storage. With the closure of
the mill, dredging has ended, and delta formation and structure are expected to eventually
return to a more natural dynamic, although this may require several decades (Renton 2003).
Lake sediments are a sink for pathogens and toxins and the resulting sediment quality can
influence lake ecology. Due to limited transport and mixing of sediments, poor sediment
quality is usually localized in stream deltas and old industrial sites (Kerwin 2001).
Moshenberg (2004) found that Lake Washington sites contained elevated levels of
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-13
Shoreline Afa.~ter Program
RevIsed Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
3-14
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), but that tributyl tin, metals, and polyaromatic hydrocarbon
levels were not above nonnal. Levels of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) are
decreasing from historic levels when DDT was unregulated, and recent inputs are not
apparent (Moshenberg 2004).
Sediment input from upstream sources is also a vehicle for the introduction of phosphorus
into the Lake. However, historic eutrophication in the Lake resulted from the direct sewage
discharge (Kerwin 200 I). This practice was discontinued in the 1960s, and the Lake reverted
to its natural mesotrophic condition. Tributaries are now the primary sources of phosphorous
inputs to the Lake. While these inputs have not currently altered the natural trophic state of
the Lake, the potential for such an effect remains if tributary water quality deteriorates due to
future build-out and associated increases in sediment and phosphorous loads (Kerwin 200 I).
Tributary discharge and other runoff (e.g., overland flow) are also sources of nitrogen,
pathogens, and toxins that affect water quality in the Lake. Currently, 15 sites along the Lake
are listed as having impaired water quality (Ecology 2008; Table 3-1). Dioxin, benzene, and
chlordane are all pesticide derivatives with other various industrial uses. Benzene is a bi-
product of DDT degradation, which was banned as a pesticide agent but is environmentally
persistent. These toxins have low solubility and are typically found in sediments, where they
bioaccumulate through the food web. Most sites are associated with industrial sites or
tributary mouths. See Map 7 for areas of impaired water quality along the City's shoreline.
Table 3-1. 303(d) Water and Sediment Quality Impairments for Lake Washington
Compound Medium
Phosphorus Water
Ammonia Water
Fecal Coliform Water
Dioxin Tissue
Benzene (DDT Tissue
derivative)
Chlordane Tissue
Lead Tissue
Mercury Tissue
PCBs Tissue
Sediment Bioassay Sediment
Source: Ecology (2008)
Number of Sites
2004
Impaired
2
15
2
Area of
Concern
8
4
1
2
8
2008
Impaired
2
15
2
3
4
NA
Area of
Concem
4
4
3
2
l'
8
NA
In addition to watershed-scale processes, the Lake's ecology has been affected by shoreline-
scale processes and human-induced changes in biotic interactions. Bank annoring (i.e.,
bulkheads) has contributed to the reduction in availability of shallow water habitat. In
conjunction with the alteration to riparian areas, bank annoring has led to a substantial
reduction in natural shoreline vegetation and allochthonous organic inputs. Inputs include
LWD that provide natural above-and in-water cover preferred by rearing and migrating
juvenile salmonids, respectively, In addition, those sockeye salmon (0. nerka) with a lake-
type life history are reliant on lakeshore with gravel and groundwater upwelling suitable for
spawning. However, functionality in these key areas is severely limited by bulkheads or other
MW'ch20101553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revi.~ed Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIS
City ofRenlon
shoreline moditications. Currently, existing cover is predominantly in the form of docks,
piers, floats, and other man-made structures. Such structures provide excellent habitat for
non-native warm water species such as yellow perch (Perca flavenscens), brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dobmieu), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). These species use these structures as cover to prey on juvenile
salmonids.
The introduction of non-native species into the Lake's ecosystem has had a profound effect
on biotic interactions, including macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and fishes. Non-native,
invasive macrophytes such as Eurasian aquatic milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and fragrant
white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) existing in large quantities in Lake Washington have a
demonstrated negative effect on native fish communities (Frodge et al. 1995). Such flora
reduced DO levels locally in areas of poor mixing. Invasive species use areas infested with
invasive macrophytes (such as areas shaded by overwater structures) to prey on juvenile
salmon, particularly Chinook (0. tshawytscha), which tend to remain in the Lake through the
height of annual milfoil production.
3.3.2.2 Cedar River
The Cedar River drains 191 mi' of area, 125 mi' of which lies upstream of the City of Seattle
drinking water diversion. Almost 100 percent of the land upstream of the Landsburg Water
Diversion is owned by the City of Seattle and is maintained as natural environment to protect
the city's drinking water resource. The upper watershed is mostly second growth forest, but
16 percent of the upper watershed is climax, old-growth forest. Most of the impervious
surface in the watershed occurs in its lower, urbanized portions.
While processes other than stream flow remain relatively intact in the upper watershed, the
lower watershed has been extensively altered. The City of Seattle's Chester Morse Masonry
Dam diverts a substantial portion of the flow for water supply and also alters the flood cycle
and other aspects of the natural hydrology. Management of the river channel for navigation
and flood prevention included extensive diking. Today, 64 percent of the lower Cedar is
modified on at least one bank, a condition which, in conjunction with decreased flows, has
artificially narrowed the river's historic average width of approximately 250 feet to 110 feet.
This alteration has resulted in a 56 percent reduction in water surface area (i.e., available
instream aquatic habitat; Kerwin 2001).
The loss of floodplain and riparian connectivity in the lower 17 miles of the Cedar River has
also affected storage of water, sediment, and contaminants, simplirying instream habitat.
Channelization and the disconnection of the Cedar River floodplain for flood control have
restricted access to and decreased the amount of channel and frequently-inundated habitat,
preventing salmonids and other organisms dependent on these riverine wetlands from
accessing this natural habitat. This is of particular concern for Chinook stream-type history
salmon, which use these streams and associated habitat to rear juvenile salmonids. More
Chinook now exhibit a lake-type life history and use Lake Washington for rearing prior to
smoltification and outmigration. Many of the Chinook leaving the Cedar River and entering
the Lake are relatively young and require shallow habitat in the Lake for a critical life cycle
stage (Remers 1971; Grassley 2000).
Channelization has also limited availability and recycling of spawning gravels. The toes of
steep banks in the middle watershed are important remaining sources of coarse substrate, and
high quality pool habitat is often associated with these features. Efforts to stabilize these areas
to protect human development limits gravel and LWD inputs, degrading local habitat quality
(Kerwin 2001).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04f04{)1) 3-15
Shoreline ,Vaster Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of RenlOn
3·16
Tributaries in the lower watershed have also experienced altered stonnflows as a result of
human development. Many of these streams flow through relatively steep and confined
valleys or ravines, and altered hydrology has caused incision and increased sediment inputs,
channelization, riparian disconnection, and habitat simplification. Kerwin (200 I) also
identifies Rock Creek as having impaired summer baseflow due to water withdrawals.
Residential land-uses and associated actions such as sewage line installations and road
crossings have also contributed to increased sedimentation and degraded water quality in
tributary basins. Nutrieut inputs and fecal colifonn are likely contributed by a variety of
sources, including agriculture, livestock waste, residential fertilizers, and septic systems.
Urban and industrial land-uses in the Cities of Renton and Kent are the primary sources of
toxins such as PCBs and other chemicals associated with oil and gas on roads.
Water quality impainnents in the Cedar River Watershed are summarized in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. 2004 Ecology 303(d) Water Quality Impairments in Cedar River Watershed
Water Body
Cedar River
Rock Creek
Taylor Creek
Rex River
Source: Ecology (2008)
Impairments Areas of Concern
Fecal coliform, temperature DO, fecal coliform, temperature, pH
DO, pH
Bioassessment
pH
Due to land use changes within the Cedar River floodplain, many high process areas are have
been impacted by flood control structures as well as urban and rural development. There are a
variety of areas upstream from Renton where relatively minor restoration efforts can provide
restoration of important ecological processes. A variety of such locations are identified in
salmon recovery and floodplain management plans.
At river mile (RM) 4.7 a landslide and flood damage has degraded a side channel restoration
area in Ron Regis Park for which the city is considering mitigation (WIRAS). At RM 4.4-5.8,
Buck's Curve Levee limits floodplain connectivity and off channel habitat vegetation and
channel diversity necessary for riparian habitat. Cavanaugh Pond (RM 6.5, wetlands #6) is a
44 acre Natural Area on Cedar River's right bank where invasive species make it difficult to
establish native forest that provides the most effective riparian habitat (KC SMP). Also at
RM 6.5, the Herzman Levee separates the Cedar River from its floodplain, thereby eliminating
off-channel habitat (KC SMP). The Cook/Jefferies and Progressive Investment levees are
located between RM 7.3-8.2 and have resulted in a confined channel structure and a
disconnected sub-channel just below Cook/Jefferies levee (WIRA8, KC SMP). The Lion's
Club side channel (RM 10.2-12.7) is currently dry but was once a side channel and floodplain
which provided spawning gravels for Chinook rearing habitat (KC DNR).
The Cedar Grove Road SE crossing (RM 11) and Cedar Mountain Revetment (RM 10.9)
create channel confinement and little floodplain access. Rainbow Bend and McDonald Levees
(RM 11.5, 11.7) disconnect the Cedar River from its natural floodplain, increasing channel
velocities via downstream channel confinement (KC SMP). Due to increasing floodwaters,
Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park at RM II is at high-risk for flooding and is currently a
relocation candidate for the King County Flood Control District.
At the Taylor Creek/Cedar River confluence (RM 12.7), there is a shortage of LWD which
aids in fish passage (WIRA8). Petersen Creek (RM 14.1) and Rock Creek (RM 18.2) require
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (0410401)
Shoreline Master Program
ReVised Draft Shoreline fnvel7lol)' and Analysis
City of Renton
LWD for fish passage as well along with floodplain restoration at the mouth and prospective
rock structures to create flow refuge for juvenile fish (WIRAS).
At RM 20.1, the Wingert Side Channel lacks vegetation and LWD to help with riparian
habitat. Revetments at RM 20.2 and 20.6 are preventing a vegetation buffer from developing
along riparian areas, minimizing salmon habitat. At RM 21.5, Wetland 69 is disconnected to
Cedar River, preventing salmonid access (KC SMP).
bt addition to these locations identified for specific actions, there are a range of man-made
structures and land use changes that affect ecological processes areas of less intense rural
development that are candidates for restoration or rehabilitation.
3.3.2.3 May Creek
The WRIA S Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors Report (Kerwin 2001) provides limited
information about the May Creek Watershed. Information presented below relies heavily on
the May Creek Basin Action Plan adopted in 2001 by King County and the City (Renton,
2001).
The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 mi 2 The seven-mile-long stream
originates on the forested slopes of Cougar and Squak Mountains and the Renton Plateau.
Tributaries originating high in the watershed flow onto a relatively large floodplain with a low
gradient (May Valley). As the gradient increases downstream, and the stream cuts through
relatively erosion-resistant deposits to form a canyon before opening up into the Lake
Washington valley.
Upper reaches of the May Creek watershed lie mostly outside urbanized land and UGAs.
Historic logging, farming, and mining practices have been replaced by residential development
in tributary basins. The tributary basins still contain a significant amount of open space;
residential land and hobby farms in May Valley; and urban development in the City of
Newcastle and in the City, downstream of the May Creek gorge.
Effective impervious area was reported as seven percent in 200 I and is expected to increase to
twelve percent as a result of future build-out (Renton 2001). Kerwin (2000) estimated total
impervious area to be between eleven to sixteen percent at the time of the report. Most of the
impervious area is located within the City, in lowland areas, the Honey Creek drainage on the
East Renton plateau, and in incorporated areas of Newcastle to the north. The wide floodplain
in May Valley provides substantial storage during flood events and is extremely important for
attenuating stormflows downstream in lowland reaches. Peak flows have increased flooding in
the valley, but filling and straightline drainage have reduced flood storage capacity (Renton
2001).
Increased peak flows and riparian degradation have contributed to increased stream
channelization and bank erosion in the upper watershed. Eroded sediment is deposited in May
Valley and in May Creek itself, diminishing flood storage potential and degrading substrate
quality. Storage of sediment in floodplain areas is desirable for improving sediment and water
quality processes, but has negative feedback effects on hydrology. Increased peak flows have
also caused increased bank erosion in the May Creek gorge and lowland tributaries.
Sediment acts as a vehicle for delivery of phosphorous and toxins to water bodies in the
absence of storage areas between the source and receiving body. Despite the documented
presence of increased sediment loading in May Creek, a water quality trend analysis conducted
by King County showed decreased total suspended solids and phosphates from the period of
1979-2004 (King County 200S). Monitoring results indicated increased conductivity and
ammonia-nitrogen concentrations over the same period. May Creek is also becoming more
M",ch 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401) 3-\7
-
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Drqft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
acidic, but remains unimpaired as defined by state water quality criteria." Water quality in
Honeydew Creek and May Creek is listed as impaired by fecal colifonn on the state 303(d)
listings. This suggests increased inputs of waste from livestock and septic systems on the
upland plateau.
Degraded riparian habitat also affects instream structure and physical habitat; Kerwin (2000)
gives May Creek a 'poor' rating for instream habitat. The rating system addresses criteria such
as pools and LWD density. Existing riparian corridors are primarily deciduous and early-seral
conifer forests; some have been deforested as a result of land-use encroachment. This is
particularly true in May Valley, which is mostly open space, having been converted from
forest to pasture.
Water quality is also suffering as a result of increasingly high temperatures (King County
2008). This may be partially due to climate change, which is increasing ambient air
temperature and altering snow to rain precipitation ratios. However, non-functional riparian
conditions (Kerwin 200 I), low flow impairments associated with groundwater recharge, and
flow alterations indicate that localized factors may also contribute to increased temperatures
and, consequently, deteriorating water quality.
3.3.2.4 Green River
3-18
The Green River watershed is 566 mi', and the river itself stretches 93 miles. The river
originates in the Cascade Mountain crest near Stampede Pass. From its source, the river flows
west and northwest through narrow valleys and steeply-sloped terrain before reaching Howard
Hanson Dam at river mile (RM) 64.5. At RM 61.0, the river flows past the Tacoma drinking
water diversion (RM 61.0), which marks the beginning of a 14.5-mile gorge, through which
the river drains prior to entering the Puget Lowlands. Downstream of the gorge, agriculture,
forestry, and rural residences are common. The river transitions to more urbanized settings
downstream of So os Creek and Highway 18 (RM 33.7).
At approximately RM II, the Green River passes to the west of the City of Renton. None of
the river channel lies with City limits, but some floodway and jurisdictional shoreline as well
as significant portions of tributary basins such as the Black River/Springbrook Creek are
located within City limits. WRlA 9 has an estimated population of 564,000. Although 90
percent ofthe population lives within lowland UGAs, there is almost no residential land-use or
popUlation within the Black River/Springbook Creek basins in the City.
Land-use in the upper watershed has had a low-to moderate-impact on rain-on-snow Zllnes and
sediment inputs via mass wasting. However, the impact of these alterations is overridden by
the Howard Hanson Dam actions which artificially stores both water and sediment and
interrupts replenishment of course gravels and LWD. Tributaries upstream of the dam are
likely affected to some extent by land-uses, but those effects are not translated downstream.
Land-uses downstream in upland plateaus and lowlands have historically included ditch
construction, channelization, and flood control dikes and levees that have degraded
mechanisms for water storage. Normally, the patchwork mosaic of aquatic habitats associated
with a large river system and active floodplain sustain aquatic habitat during low flows and
attenuate flow during storm events. Alterations that have disconnected the floodplain have
concentrated discharge in the Green River channel and substantially reduced off-channel
aquatic habitat quantity, quality, and availability.
17 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC 173-201A
March 20101 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline ,\faster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventor}' and Analysi.~
City of Renton
Nowhere is impact of river channelization more apparent than in the Duwamish estuary, which
is an extremely important habitat for rearing and outmigrating juvenile salmonids. More than
97 percent of the historic estuarine mudflats, marshes, and forested riparian swamps
comprising the estuary have been destroyed by river channelization, ditching, draining,
dredging, and filling.
In addition, urbanization in upland plateaus drained by tributaries and in the lower reaches of
the Green River decreases groundwater recharge and increases stonnflows. These alterations
occur to a lesser extent between urban areas and mountains, where impervious area remains
low, but forest cover loss is moderate, particularly on the mainstem floodplain.
Downstream of the gorge, mass wasting of sedimentary bedrock adjacent to the river and
disturbed areas associated with land-use contributes predominately fine sediment to the river.
In addition, floodplain disconnection has reduced the storage capacity for fine sediments,
which instead accumulate in the main channel, increasing the propensity for substrate
annoring and generally degrading substrate quality.
Increased fine sediment loading degrades physical habitat quality and provides a vehicle for
adsorbed contaminants such as phosphorus and chemical toxins to enter water bodies. This
input mechanism is particularly important in urban residential and industrial areas (Table 3-3),
found primarily in the lower watershed where toxin sources and other water quality
impainnents are present in high densities. In the Duwamish Waterway this mechanism is
further exacerbated by contribution of adjacent land uses to chemical toxins, including several
Brownfields and Superfund sites.
Lakes, wetlands, and floodplains provide storage for fine sediment and adsorbed contaminants
to precipitate instead of entering streams. Numerous lakes in the middle watershed are listed as
impaired for phosphorus, implying the potential or existence of eutrophication and change to
macrophytic community structure and productivity. Wetland and floodplain functions are
highly degraded in this area, limiting the potential for water quality improvement.
Agricultural land-use may also contribute phosphorus through sediment pathways as well as
nitrogen. Rural residential areas and hobby farms found between the gorge and urban areas
and on tributary plateaus are sources of nitrogen and pathogen contamination associated with
human and animal waste, but roads in these and other areas provide pathways for both
adsorbed and water-soluble materials such as automobile residues to enter water bodies.
Pathogen contamination is a serious problem throughout the entire lower watershed and
Duwamish Waterway.
Low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are associated with the presence of fecal colifonn.
Dissolved oxygen is also highly correlated with temperature, which has become a major
limiting factor for salmonids in the watershed (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Sources of
temperature increases include impaired hydrologic and riparian processes. Reduced low flows
in the summer resulting from snowmelt storage and reduced groundwater inputs act in concert
with decreased shading from deforested riparian areas to wann surface waters.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-19
Shoreline Afw"!er Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and AnalysIs
City of R~TJlun
Table 3-3. 2004 Ecology 303(d) Water Quality Impairments in WRIA 9
Water Body
Duwamish Waterway
Lower Green River
Black River/Springbrook
Mill Creek
Hill (Mill) Creek
Mullen Slough
Star Lake
Panther Lake
Tributary 09.0046
Big Soos Creek
Little Soos Creek
Meridian Lake
Jenkins Creek
Covington Creek
Morton Lake
Sawyer Lake
DoloffLake
Middle Green River
Crisp Creek
Newaukum Creek
Upper Green River
(Howard Hanson Dam
tailout)
Gale Creek
Smay Creek
Category 2' Impairments
Temperature, DO, pH,
phthalate
DO, Temperature, pH
Mercury, Copper, Bis(2·
ethylhexyl)phthalate
Temperature
Temperature
Phosphorus
Temperature, mercury,
ammonia-N, pH
pH
pH
Mercury, DO
pH
Toxaphene, Endrin
Dieldrin
Category 5 b Impairments
PCB, PAH, DO, pH, DDT', DOD', Alpha SHC',
DOE'
Temperature, fecal coliform, DO
DO, Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform, DO
Temperature, fecal coliform, DO, copper
Fecal coliform, DO
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform, DO
Fecal coliform, DO
Temperature
Fecal coliform, phosphorus
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform, phosphorus
Fecal coliform
Fecal colifonm, temperature
Fecal coliform
Fecal, DO, copper
Temperature
Temperature
,
Attaining some of the designated uses; no use is threatened; and insufficient or no data and information are available to
determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened.
b Impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and requires a total maximum daily load (TMDL).
The loss of intact riparian corridors has also limited biotic uptake of contaminants and
deposition of fine sediment that would improve ecological function. In addition, there are
impacts to instream habitat complexity and sediment storage potential from the lack of L WD
(and recruitment potential).
3.3.2.5 Black River/Springbrook Creek
3-20
Black River/Springbrook Creek flows into the Green River at RM II. As indicated in Section
3.1.2, the Black River previously was part of the Cedar River system and conveyed the flows
of the Cedar River to the Green River. In 1916, Cedar River discharge diverted from the Black
River to Lake Washington; due to lowering of Lake Washington. The portions of the Black
River east of Springbrook Creek dried up or were filled and the Black River is simply an
archaic label for the downstream reaches of the Springbrook Creek system.
MW'ch20101553-1779-031(04/0401)
Shorelme Masler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City ofRenlOn
Its headwaters are located on the eastern plateau between the Green and Cedar Rivers. Almost
all of this watershed is highly urbanized. Since the 1930s, the stream has been maintained in
an artificial channel by King County Drainage District #1 (KCDD #1), which owns the
Springbrook Creek rigbt-of-way (ROW). The KCDD # I maintained the channel initially for
agricultural drainage and currently maintains it for stormwater conveyance (Map 9b). The
channelized stream resulted in substantial alteration to hydrologic patterns. Adjacent
development generally extends to the edge of the levees that define the stream bank, limiting
the width of the riparian corridor. Existing riparian vegetation, if present, is typically herb,
shrubs, and deciduous trees. Alterations in the basin are extensive and ecological function is
highly impaired (Table 3-4).
Upland areas are underlain by varying layers of geologic deposits that force groundwater to
move horizontally and produce seeps along the upland/floodplain transition, supporting a
shallow floodplain aquifer and the summer baseflow in Springbrook Creek. The large amount
of impervious surface limits infiltration potential and redirects water overland, increasing peak
flows. Loss of floodplain connectivity and conversion of associated wetlands to impervious
surfaces limits flood attenuation capacity and increases peak flows (Kerwin and Nelson 2001).
Land conversion has also resulted in increased inputs of fine sediment. Within the stream is
very low gradient and these increased inputs of fine sediment exacerbate poor substrate
conditions in reaches that have naturally high fine content. Conversion of an extensive
network of historic riparian wetlands and loss of floodplain connectivity limits the potential
for both sediment storage and water quality improvement. Industrial land-uses adjacent to the
water body and its tributaries have resulted in high concentrations of metals, including copper,
lead, zinc, and cadmium (Kerwin and Nelson 2001). The lack of a functional riparian corridor
exacerbates sediment and water quality impairments and contributes to the overall lack of
instream habitat complexity. Eighty-three percent of Springbrook Creek is glide habitat, while
only three percent is pool habitat (Harza 1995 as cited in Kerwin and Nelson 200 I). Some
gravel still exists in the Hill Creek tributary upstream of the Green River floodplain; these
reaches are a high priority for protection (Kerwin and Nelson 200 1).
Black River/Springbrook Creek contributes to water quality impairment in the mainstem
GreenlDuwamish River, but the contribution is effectively proportionate to flow and the
relative level of degradation. Black River/Springbrook Creek mean annual flow for the period
of record is approximately 10 cfs, a small fraction of the Green River's mean annual flow of
1530 cfs (USGS 2008).
Table 34. Watershed Conditions in Black River and Springbrook Creek
Stream Floodplain Instream LWD Streambed Sediment Riparian WQ Hydrology
Black River F F P P P P P P
Springbrook F P P P P P P P
Creek
Hill Creek F p p p p p p P
Hill Creek F p p p P ND P P
tributary
Garrison Ck. F ND ND ND ND ND P
F = Fair; P = Poor; ND = No data; NA = not applicable
Source: Kerwin and Nelson (2001)
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 3-21
Biotic
P
P
NA
NA
NA
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
3.3.2.6 Lake Desire
3·22
Lake Desire located five miles southeast of the City in a Potential Annexation Area. The lake's
surface area is 72 acres, and it is relatively shallow, reaching a maximum depth of 21 feet.
Land-use in the basin and along the shoreline is low-and medinm-density residential (Map
8a). King County manages the Lake Desire/Spring Lake Park to the east and sontheast of the
lake. Rainbow trout (0. mykiss), yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and
largemouth bass are known to inhabit the lake.
Lake Desire is currently eutrophic (characterized by high amounts of aquatic algae and low
DO levels; King County Natural Resources and Parks 2008c). Lake Desire is listed as
impaired for phosphorus on Ecology's 2004 303(d) list of impaired water bodies (Ecology
2008). The exotic species Eurasian water milfoil has been observed. These conditions are
likely the result of landscaping and septic waste associated with adjacent residential land-uses.
The sport-fish species in the lake are non-native and have likely had some influence on natural
biotic interactions in the lake.
King County completed a management plan for the lake in the mid-1990s and received partial
funding to implement management actions, including an artificial aeration facility to improve
DO concentrations. The plan included a clanse requiring the removal of 50 percent of all
phosphorus in storrnwater runoff attributed to new development (King County Department of
Natural Resources [DNR] 1996).
M"",h2010 1553.1779.031 (0410401)
4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
4.1 LAKE WASHINGTON
4.1.1 General Conditions
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shore/me Inventory and Analysis
CilY of Renton
Lake Washington is designated a shoreline of statewide significance by the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) because it is greater than 1,000 acres in size. As such, the
Lake is recognized for its value to all citizens of the State of Washington and should be
managed to ensure that this value is sustained.
Renton contains about six miles of Lake Washington shoreline which has been partitioned
into eleven reaches (See Map I b). These reaches are based primarily on land· use
characteristics and, to a lesser extent, on ecological functions (ecological function is similar
across reaches).
4.1.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
As indicated above in Section 3.3.2.1, the Lake Washington basin includes most of the 692
square miles contained in WRIA 8 and is populated by approximately 1.4 million people
(Kerwin 2001). The City of Renton lies at the south end of Lake Washington and contains
approximately 21 square miles, or three percent, of the total watershed and less than one·half
percent of the total watershed population. Lake Washington has 80 miles of shoreline, about
six of which are within the Renton planning area, or about eight percent.
In 1916, the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed and the Cedar River was re·routed
to the lower end of Lake Washington, permanently altering the Lake's ecology and shoreline,
and decreasing the range of annual lake level fluctuations. Prior to 1916, the Lake's depth
would fluctuate as much as seven feet during flood events (Chrzastowski 1983). The
lowering of the Lake's elevation and the management of the inflow/outflow regime has
represented the most significant alteration to the waterbody's ecosystem processes, having
direct hydrologic effects and effects that interact with other processes. Lowering the Lake's
level reduced its total surface area and shoreline length, converted its edges from gradual to
steep declines, and converted much of the near shore from wetland habitat into deep water
habitat (Kerwin 2001). More than 1,300 acres of shallow water habitat, acres which once
provided habitat for juvenile salmon ids and associated ecological communities, were lost in
the process (Kerwin 2001).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE regulates water level fluctuations in the Lake in a
manner that reduces the range of fluctuation so that the range is about one·third of the natural
fluctuation, and also reverses the seasonal fluctuation pattern (natural lake levels are lowest
during the summer; the opposite is true today). This altered hydrology creates some benefits
for lakeshore property owners and recreational users, but has impacted the Lake's ecology.
Changes in the natural hydrologic regime affect native fish, wildlife, and plant species
adapted to natural fluctuations of the lake level.
In 1896, it was observed that 'the shore of Lake Washington is not well adapted to collecting
with a seine' (Evermann and Meek 1897). This was probably due to the abundant submerged
woody debris, and dense underbrush, small trees, and tule (hardstem bulrush) that fringed the
shoreline. The vegetation community of hardstem bulrush and willow that naturally
dominates the Lake's shoreline has largely been replaced with development, hard·armoring,
landscaped yards, and artificially continuous lakefront parcels. The loss of natural shoreline
has reduced complex shoreline features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody
M""h2010 1553-1779-031 (0410401) 4-1
Shorelme Master Program
Rel'ised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana(rsls
Cif), of Rentoll
debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble
beaches, Riparian vegetation has responded to the altered hydrologic regime and led to a
change in relative proportion of aquatic plants adapted to shallow water habitats, and
terrestrial vegetation adapted to drier summer conditions.
The majority of Lake Washington's shoreline is now urban residential (Weitkamp et a!.
2000). There are also a few commercial and industrial developments on the shoreline, the
largest of which are located in Kenmore at the north end, at downtown Kirkland and Carillon
Point in Kirkland on the east side, in the Leschi area of Seattle on the west side, and at the
Boeing Company and Renton Municipal Airport at the south end.
Analysis of aerial photos indicates that in 1999, approximately 59 percent of the vegetation
cover adjacent to the shoreline was lawn/garden, with slightly less than 20 percent natural
shrub-scrub, forested, or herbaceous habitat. About 70 percent of the shoreline was
bulkheaded, which is similar to the 67 percent in the City of Renton.
There were 2,737 docks on the Lake in 1999, an increase of almost 50 percent from 1960.
Renton, has the lowest number of docks per mile of shoreline, a fact that reflects the large
proportion of public and industrial shoreline ownership of City shoreline (Tolt 2001).
4.1.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
Seven tributaries drain to Lake Washington within the City's municipal limits. To the north
of May Creek there are two unnamed tributaries (Map I b). Both May Creek and the Cedar
River are high-quality waters that support anadromous salmonids. Between them lie
Kennydale Creek and John Creek. Another ephemeral stream that does not support salmonids
lies west ofthe Cedar River.
Wetlands are identified on the Lake Washington shoreline in the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI, USFWS 2008) north of May Creek. In Reach C there is a small wetland
area on the Seahawks Training Center and a large wetland complex along the lake margins of
the Quendall Terminals property. In Gene Coulon Park there are apparent wetland complexes
near the mouth of Kennydale Creek and slightly further south and north of the driveway
turnaround. The pUblic harbor lands adjacent to the Boeing site may contain some wetlands.
It is probably that there are small pockets of wetland on properties not managed as lawn.
4.1.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
4-2
Most species of anadromous salmon and trout native to the west coast of North America
including Chinook, coho (0. kisutch), sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, and steel head (0.
mykiss), coastal cutthroat (0. e/arkie/arki), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus; native char)
can be found in WRIAs 8 (Cedar River; see Map 5a) and 9 (Green River; see Map 5b). There
are also resident cutthroat and rainbow trout (same species as steelhead) living in these
waters, although the rainbow trout in Lake Washington appear to be descendents of non-
native hatchery stock (Kerwin 2001).
The Lake Washington watershed supports three Chinook stocks, including Issaquah Creek,
north Lake Washington tributaries, and Cedar River, all of which are listed as Threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; Kerwin 2001). Chinook produced in the Cedar
River are those most likely to use shoreline habitat within the City. Coho and Sockeye
salmon produced in the Cedar River are also present along the City's shorelines.
Additional salmonids associated with the Lake enter from May Creek, located between
Reaches C and D, and the Cedar River, which discharges into the Lake between Reaches I
and J (Maps 5a and 5b; WDFW SaSI 2008).
March 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Prowam
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Cedar River salmonids found in Lake Washington include:
• Lake Washington/Sammamish Tributary Sockeye (Healthy Status)
• Lake Washington Beach Spawning Sockeye (Depressed Status)
• Summer/Fall Cedar Chinook (Depressed Status)
• Cedar Sockeye (Depressed Status)
• Cedar Coho (Depressed Status)
• Lake Washington Winter Steelhead (Critical Status)
May Creek species include the following (Status):
• Lake Washington Beach Spawning Sockeye (Depressed Status)
• Lake Washington Winter Steelhead (Critical Status)
• Lake Washington/Sammamish Tributary Sockeye (Healthy Status)
Young fall Chinook produced in the Cedar River migrate into Lake Washington from late
winter through summer (February-July) Juvenile Chinook outmigrate into Lake Washington
from the Cedar River until the end of July (Walter 2009). The early migrants are small fry
(-1.2 inches) that remain in very shallow water (-I ft) along the lake's shorelines (Tabor et
al. 2004). These fry prefer gently sloping sand to gravel (swimming beach) shorelines with
some overhanging or submerged vegetation or fine woody debris that provides cover from
avian or fish predators. The young Chinook remain in the shoreline habitat eating mostly
epibenthic insects (chironomid pupae; Kohler et al. 2006). As they grow, they gradually
move into deeper water (2-3 feet deep), but remain along the shorelines. By June, the young
Chinook have grown large enough to move into deeper waters and begin to feed on
planktonic prey, specifically zooplankton (Daphnia spp; Kohler et al. 2006). Recent warming
trends in Lake Washington may affect Daphnia abundance (Hampton 2006).
Early juvenile Chinook are highly-dependent on shallow shoreline habitat during their early
rearing in the Lake. Larger juvenile Chinook migrating to the Lake in late spring are less
dependent on shorelines and move rapidly through the Lake to the Ship Canal and Puget
Sound. All Chinook are listed as threatened under the ESA as part of the Puget Sound
evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). Surveys of juvenile Chinook presence in Lake
Washington indicate that the density of fish fall off with distance from the mouth of the
Cedar River as indicated in Figure 4-1. This may indicate that the first several miles of
shallow habitat along the shoreline in the City are of disproportionate importance for this
criticallifecycle stage (Tabor 2008).
The Cedar River produces some Coho salmon (Kiyohara and Volkhardt 2007). Coho
generally spend their first year of life rearing in freshwater then migrate through Lake
Washington as smolts to the ocean during early summer (April-July) in their second year of
life.
Two extant Sockeye stocks within the Lake Washington watershed are distinguished by
geographic and reproductive separation and by genetic differences. The Cedar River/Issaquah
Creek/Lake Washington beach spawning population appears to be derived from the Baker
Lake, Skagit River stock (Hendry et al. 1996) planted in Lake Washington in the 1930s and
1940s. The Bear Creek-Cottage Creek population is distinct from the non-native populations
and is apparently predominantly of native ancestry (Hendy et al. 1996). Lake Washington
Sockeye are depressed (Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory [SASSI] 1984) but are not
ESA-listed.
Mw-ch2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-3
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4-4
Numerous Sockeye spawn in the Cedar River. Young Sockeye may rear in the river for some
time prior to migrating to Lake Washington for additional rearing. Sockeye also spawn in
shallow water (1-20 ft deep) at many locations along Lake Washington's shorelines. No
accurate surveys of current spawning locations are available, and it is unknown if any of the
other streams within the City of Renton historically supported Sockeye.
Figure 4-1. Density of Chinook Population, Distance from Mouth of Cedar River
Beach spawning by sockeye salmon in Lakes Washington is believed to have been much
more common in the past than at present. Relatively few sockeye are believed to currently
spawn in beach areas compared to stream spawning fish. Boat surveys are only conducted
one or two times annually by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at
several index areas in Lake Washington including Coleman Point in Renton (at about N. 30th
Street). Relatively few adult sockeye are observed during these index surveys, and few lake
residents report sightings of spawning sockeye in nearshore areas, although such survey
methods are recognized as lacking in rigor. When sockeye salmon are observed spawning in
beaches, they typically utilize gently sloping beach or nearshore areas with small gravel
substrates (Foley pers. comm. 2009). Bulkheads at the shoreline can discourage beach and
nearshore spawning because the bulkhead typically eliminates the gradually sloping shoreline
gradient and shallow water habitat that sockeye favor for spawning. Bulkheads also may
block groundwater upwelling that supplies dissolved oxygen and therefore reduce spawning
success (Foley, pers. comm. 2009). Juvenile Sockeye are primarily planktivorous feeders
residing in the lake's water column away from the shoreline (Eggers et al. 1978). Lake
Washington Sockeye undergo very substantial variations in adult return numbers that support
in-lake fisheries during some years.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana(vsis
City of Renton
Two stocks of resident Sockeye that do not migrate to saltwater, known as Kokanee, have
also been identified in the Lake Washington watershed, An early-run stock once resided in
Issaquah Creek but is now believed to be functionally extinct. Another stock currently uses
larger tributaries of the Sammamish River such as Bear Creek. Lake Sammamish Kokanee
are currently being considered for listing under ESA. Kokanee have not been to occur in the
City's streams or use its shorelines.
Puget Sound Steelhead is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Cedar River population is
of natural origin. Populations of winter-run Steelhead have undergone steep declines in
abundance recently. According to the stock status report for 2002, steelhead numbers are
below 100. Steelhead redd counts in the Cedar River have declined to fewer than a dozen in
recent years. This represents is a critical issue for steelhead survival. (Walters 2009) Winter-
run or ocean maturing Steelhead return as adults to the tributaries of Puget Sound from
December to April (Puget Sound Biological Review Team [PSBRT] 2005). Spawning occurs
from January to mid-June with peak spawning occurring from mid-April through May.
Steelhead reproduce in the Cedar River as well as several other areas within the Lake
Washington watershed. According to the stock status report for 2002, steelhead numbers are
below 100. Steelhead redd counts in the Cedar River have declined to fewer than a dozen in
recent years. This represents is a critical issue for steelhead survival. (Walters 2009)
Commonly, young Steelhead rear within the River and its tributaries for two or more years
before beginning their migration to the ocean through Lake Washington. Seaward migration
occurs principally from April to mid-May (PSBRT 2005). At an age of 2 years or more, the
juvenile Steelhead migrants tend to be substantially larger than other salmon migrants (two-
year-old wild smolts are 140-160 mm in length [Wydoski and Whitney 1979]). They tend to
migrate rather rapidly, and are not dependent on shallow shoreline habitat.
The inshore migration pattern of Steelhead in Puget Sound is not well understood; it is
generally thought that Steelhead smolts move quickly offshore (PSBRT 2005). At this time,
very little information is known about juvenile Steelhead use of Lake Washington.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) researchers have captured Steelhead
migrants in the Cedar River from mid-April through the end of May (Volkhardt et al. 2006),
but if or how they use the nearshore area of the Lake has not yet been determined. Critical
Habitat designation is currently under development by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with a proposal
expected in the future (NMFS 2007).
Rainbow trout in Lake Washington appear to be descendents of previously planted, hatchery-
produced trout. Young rainbow trout are primarily planktivores, feeding predominately on
Daphnia, but become piscivorous as they grow larger (Beauchamp 1990). Rainbow trout are
predators of juvenile Chinook in the Cedar River (Tabor et al. 2004). Both rainbow and
cutthroat been identified as a substantial predators of juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington
(Tabor et al. 2005).
In recent years, the cutthroat trout population has been increasing in Lake Washington (Fresh
1994). Juvenile cutthroat begin feeding on invertebrates and switch to fish as they grow larger
(Beauchamp et al. 2006). Young cutthroat move from tributaries into Lake Washington at
about age two and feed increasingly on fish as they grow in size (Nowak et al. 2005).
Cutthroat range throughout the Lake and do not establish home ranges. They forage in littoral
areas primarily in the spring during daylight hours (Nowack and Quinn 2002).
Bull trout is listed as threatened under the ESA. A resident popUlation of bull trout occurs in
Chester Morse Lake (Cedar River; Reiser et al. 1997). These bull trout spawn in the upper
Cedar River and rear in Chester Morse Lake. Small numbers of sub-adult and adult bull trout
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-5
Shoreline A1wsler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analy~·is
City of Renton
have been observed in Lake Washington over a number of years. These bull trout appear to
be migrants into Lake Washington from other river basins or fish that have passed
downstream from Chester Morse Dam and become isolated from their population.
Other native fish species found in the Lake Washington watershed include western brook
lamprey (Lampetra richardson i), river lamprey (Lampetra auresii), peamouth chub
(Mylocheilus caurinus), largescale sucker (Caloslomus snyderi), pygmy whitefish
(Prosopium coulten), northern pikeminnow (P. oregonsensis), speckled dace (Rhinichlhys
osculus), and five species of sculpin (Cot/us sp.). Numerous species of nonnative fish also
occur, including yellow perch, brown bullhead, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus),
pumpkinseed sunfish, and largemouth and smallmouth bass, which can be significant
predators of juvenile salmonids (Kerwin 2001; Parametrix 2000). Many of these species are
found in the Green River. Although many may occur in shallow shoreline areas, none are
known to require specific shoreline habitat characteristics.
Priority habitat data from WDFW identifies two osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nests north of
May Creek (Reaches A and B) and a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest in the
vicinity of the Cedar River (Reaches I and J; Map 5c: Wildlife). These species and others use
shoreline areas for foraging and cover.
4.1.2.3 Nearshore and Riparian Habitat
4·6
Nearshore and riparian habitat along the Lake Washington shoreline is severely altered in
nearly every reach, within the City of Renton and outside of the City limits. Residential and
commercial development, including bulkheads, docks, paved areas, and landscaped yards
have adversely modified most of the Lake Washington shoreline habitat. However, many of
these shoreline areas continue to provide shallow water habitat at the toe of bulkheads, and
some locations that do not have bulkheads. Narrow docks perpendicular to the shorelines do
not appear to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook, but the fish appear to migrate
around wider structures where they occur in shallow water (less than three feet deep).
A Muckleshoot Tribe representative has indicated that the deeper nearshore habitats with
rocky substrates and without vegetation appear to be preferred by smallmouth and
largemouth bass. These bass may also be keying in on overwater coverage and pilings as
ambush habitat. Because there is an abundance of these habitat types in the shoreline,
predation opportunities that would not exist historically are likely increasing today (Walter
2009).
Shallow water habitat along these shorelines provides important rearing habitat for juvenile
Chinook as they slowly migrate from the Cedar River and rear along Lake Washington's
shorelines. Those areas closest to the River are most important for this rearing function
because the smallest Chinook use gently sloping, shallow shorelines for weeks to months as
they gradually move away from the river mouth. Although riparian vegetation increases the
refuge and prey production functions for this habitat, the shallow beaches support rearing
juvenile Chinook in the absence of natural riparian vegetation (Tabor 2008).
Reaches A and B from the Bellevue City limits to the Seahawks Training Center are largely
single family and have shorelines modified by bulkheads and docks throughout these reaches.
Natural riparian vegetation has been removed, and only a few residences have trees or shrubs
that support natural habitat functions. However, many of the bulkheads do not extend far into
the lake, leaving a small amount of shallow water habitat used by juvenile Chinook and other
shallow water fishes. Most of the docks in these reaches are narrow at the shorelines;
consequently, most are unlikely to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook. The
alteration of the shoreline, including the effects of bulkheads on the nearshore substrate and
March 2010 I 55).1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Remon
on interflow, of bulkheads and ornamental vegetation on shade and shallow water
temperature, the loss or degradation of the normal food web in the aquatic and adjacent
upland areas, the discharge of chemical load to the lake from overspray and runoff of
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from maintenance of ornamental vegetation as well as
the effects of over-water structures all may be considered to continue adverse effects on
aquatic organisms and continue to contribute to the decline of ecological functions.
Reach C immediately north of May Creek includes shoreline has undergone restoration
recently, in conjunction with redevelopment projects at the Seahawks Training Center and the
former Barbee Mill Sawmill. The Seahawks Training Center has included some replanting of
the lakeside as well as preservation of a lakeside wetland. The central property in this area,
the Quendall Terminals site has the most natural vegetation and wetland complexes along the
shoreline. This site, however is contaminated from past creosote treatment facilities. It is
unknown what affect cleanup of the site may have on the site.
At the southern portion of the reach at the Barbee Mill subdivision the public aquatic lands
have been reshaped into more natural beach configuration including L WD installed for
shoreline protection and to provide in-water structure for fish habitat and upland areas have
been replanted. This area has been withdrawn for leasing by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) who is responsible for management of public aquatic lands due to the value
of the restored area as habitat, to give the process or restoration time to become established
and to benefit the public by providing the opportunity to observe, stusy, enjoy, and promote
the understanding of the restoration of such systems (DNR 2006). Some overhanging
vegetation and deciduous tree cover does exist, and can be expected to improve as plantings
mature.
The May Creek delta was dredged in the past to provide log storage for Barbee Mill.
Dredging is no longer needed for log storage and flood conveyance in May Creek for the
recent subdivision was designed presuming reformation of the delta in the future (Renton
2003). Sediment from May Creek will reform a natural delta and provides natural shallow
water habitat as well as wetlands and eventually additional upland riparian habitat. It is likely
to be ten to fifteen years before delta formation is readily apparent, but after filling in deeper
areas dredged in the past the area will fill rapidly thereafter and provide complex high quality
aquatic and riparian habitat. As the delta expands, it is likely to provide an important habitat
for Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. The May Creek Basin
Action Plan calls for enhancement of the delta if Barbee Mill operations should cease to
provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area (Renton, King County
200 I).
The effects of current use and future redevelopment on ecological functions are uncertain.
Current vegetation buffers are very limited and are likely to provide limited function. Areas
with bulkheads will have adverse impacts on nearshore areas. Areas where ornamental
vegetation is maintained next to the lake will continue to have adverse impacts water
temperature and water quality. The development of over water structures may affect predator
balance, and maintenance of access to docks in the area of delta formation may interfere with
the range of beneficial effects from reestablishment of that natural process and ecosystem
complex.
In Reaches D and E, single-family residential use has removed almost all natural vegetative
cover but shallow shoreline habitat of some value still exists, providing Chinook rearing
habitat. The northerly portion of these reaches will benefit from May Creek delta deposition.
The area around Coleman Point provides important shallow water habitat and has been
identified and monitored as a sockeye spanning location by WDFW (Foley 2009).
March20IO 1553.1779.031 (04/0401) 4·7
Shoreline /",{aster Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4·8
The alteration of the shoreline environment and the continuing effects of bulkheads,
ornamental vegetation and over water structures will have continuing adverse effects on
natural processes important to a variety of aquatic species including substrate character,
interflow, shallow water temperature, the normal food web, discharge of chemicals to the
lake and predator balance and therefore are likely to continue to contribute to trends of the
decline of ecological functions.
Reaches F and G include Gene Coulon Park. The north end of the park (Reach F) provides
functional riparian habitat through abundant native trees and shrubs at the shoreline and
relatively natural sloping substrate without bulkheading. Although much of the upland area is
lawn and there is some impervious area from trails and vehicular access, the area provides a
range of natural riparian functions and some overhanging cover and has shallow water habitat
conditions suitable for use by very young salmon.
In the southern, more developed portion of Gene Coulon Park (Reach G) riparian vegetation
along a substantial area ofthe shoreline has been removed. However, the gently-sloping sand-
gravel beaches, such as at the swimming beach and boat launch, do provide shallow water
habitat heavily used by very young Chinook. The peninsula at the south end of Gene Coulon
Park provides some natural riparian vegetation overhanging the shoreline.
The effects of varying extents of alteration of the shoreline environment in this area on the
trends observed throughout the lake of decline of key species are uncertain. High populations
of juvenile salmonids have been observed, but it is not known whether these populations are
due to proximity to the Cedar River or to the quality of the habitat. In general, the extent to
which the shoreline has been altered is likely to have continuing impacts on substrate
character, interflow, shallow water temperature, the normal food web, discharge of chemicals
to the lake, and predator balance however at a much lower level than more intensely
developed area. Reach F also has high potential for improving habitat values through changes
in management to emphasize native shorel ine vegetation cover.
Reach H between Gene Coulon Park and the Boeing Company has a modified shoreline that
provides little habitat value. This reach is the location of the former Sheffelton Steam Plant
and is currently undergoing redevelopment as the Southport mixed use development. The
shoreline in this area consists of vertical bulkheads adjacent to relatively deep substrates.
Riparian vegetation is absent. The absence of shallow (less than three-foot-deep) habitat
severely limits the functions provided to young Chinook in this reach; however this relatively
short stretch likely does not substantially impede fish movement along the shore with the
current absence of over-water structures. The sediment from Johns Creek immediately to the
north may change the depth and character of substrate over time as deposition continues.
Reach I between Southport and the Cedar River is a highly modified shoreline which
provides little habitat value. Most of the shoreline in this area has steep or vertical hard
substrates including the former Sheff elton Steam Plant flume and bulkheads at the Boeing
facility. Where present, the riparian vegetation is dominated by shrubs and scrub. The
absence of shallow habitat limits the functions provided to young Chinook in this reaches.
About a third of this reach is public harbor land with upland vegetation bounded by the sheet
pile former outfall from the Sheffelton power generation plant.
The continuing cumulative adverse effects of bulkheads and the lack of native vegetation on
near-shore processes important to a variety of aquatic species including substrate character,
interflow, shallow water temperature, and the food web may be reduced in the future by the
recent proposal by the DNR to remove the sheet-pile outfall structure and restore the
nearshore as part of an aquatic restoration program (DNR 2009) and by expansion of the
Cedar River delta.
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline lnventmy and Analysis
CIty of Renton
The Cedar River delta provides a large amount of rapidly-developing, natural shallow water
habitat in Lake Washington. In the past, the mouth of the River was periodically dredged for
tlood control. The City has no plans to dredge the delta in the future for tlood control (Straka
2008). However, some dredging for the Municipal Airport tloat plane dock is proposed in
order to restore water depths. Natural processes at the delta have not yet developed any areas
of sufficient elevation to support riparian vegetation, but they have created a large amount of
shallow water habitat where young Chinook first enter the lake. Further natural expansion of
the delta is likely to eventually prove a very productive complex of shallow aquatic habitat,
wetlands and uplands that together will provide for the transition between the river
environment and lake environment that is critical to a number of species, including salmon.
Reach J contains the Renton Municipal Airport immediately east of the Cedar River Delta.
The airport has managed riparian vegetation to avoid bird nesting or roosting to prevent
collisions with airplanes (Straka 2008). However, some LWD has been retained along the end
of the runway to enhance shoreline habitat. The Airport's shoreline is currently lined with
either concrete and rock rubble or vertical sheet pile bulkheads. The character of the shoreline
contributes to continuing cumulative adverse effects of bulkheads and the lack of native
vegetation on near-shore processes important to a variety of aquatic species including
substrate character, intertlow, shallow water temperature, and the food web. Airport
authorities are currently working with resource agencies and the Muckleshoot Tribe to
develop additional improvements to the shoreline and delta habitat associated with
reconfiguration of the tloat plane dock.
Reach K, located east of the Airport, is primarily multi-family and single-family residential
with very limited natural vegetation. Bulkheads, residential structures, and landscaped areas
dominate the shoreline. Much of the shoreline is also devoted by docks and moored vessels.
Many bulkheads in this reach extend to water depths of several feet at the low lake elevation,
thereby eliminating much shallow shoreline habitat.
Existing development, ongoing landscaping practices, and shoreline modification, including
installation of bank features and new overwater structures, have contributed to the conditions
in Lake Washington that have to continue to degrade. It is possible that the current structures
and vegetation management practices contribute to continuing trends of declines of indicator
species such as Chinook salmon and steelhead.
4.1.2.4 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
In addition to providing key habitat inputs for aquatic species, riparian areas provide habitat
to terrestrial wildlife species. In natural conditions, wildlife species abundance and diversity
are higher in native riparian-wetland habitat than in other habitat types because these areas
provide:
• A diversity of habitat including structural features and plant species;
• Edge habitat where two or more types of habitat adjoin;
• Varied food sources; and
• A predictable water source (Kauffman, et al. 200 I; O'Connell et al. 2000).
The productivity of wildlife habitat is related to its size and complexity. High-quality habitat
allows an area to provide for the necessary lifecycle stages of a species including
reproduction, sustenance (forage), refuge from predators, genetic diversity, and the
opportunity to avoid or recover from catastrophic events such as disease that can decimate
local populations. In landscapes altered by human development and activities, habitat patch
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-9
Shoreline Afa.ster Program
Revised Drqft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4-10
size and complexity and linkages are key factors that allow species to find enough area for
needed functions and move from one area to another. In areas where habitats are fragmented
and isolated by development and roads, linkages that connect larger tracts of more diverse
habitat are especially important (Adams 1994).
In an urbanized setting like Renton, riparian areas provide habitat for species if they are
connected by linkages or corridors that allow species to move between areas to forage, breed,
and complete other functional or seasonal needs. The characteristics of a species are critical
to how they use habitat. Birds, for example, can fly to a variety of habitat patches, but may
need protected nesting areas that are not affected by predation or nest parasitism (Robbins
1991). Small species, such as amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals, may be able to
maintain populations within a small area, but are subject to catastrophic declines from
disease, parasites, or predation that may depopulate a habitat patch. Wifhout adequate
linkages, these potential habitats may not be re-colonized, leading to an overall decline in
species popUlations and diversity (Ferguson 200 I). Substantial habitat patches with linkages
are relatively rare on the Lake Washington shoreline in the City.
Sensitive wildlife species occurring in the area include osprey and bald eagle (Map 5c).
Osprey species have two documented occurrences in Reach C and one documented
occurrence adjacent to Reach G of the Lake. Although osprey may roost or nest inland from a
lake shoreline, they will use open water and shoreline areas to forage. Bald eagle nesting
areas are not recorded along the Lake Washington shoreline within the City or County PAAs.
However, there is one nesting area documented along Reach A of the Black River and one
documented along Reach D of the Cedar River. Bald eagles have a large home range and
likely use the Lake's shoreline for perching and foraging opportunities. Presence of overwater
structures serve as obstacles to shoreline access and clear views of potential prey. The area
around fhe Lake is highly-developed, with a dominant land cover of medium-and high-
density land-use (Map 8e) and a recorded presence of 143 private dock structures along the
City and County PAA shoreline. These shoreline modifications eliminate potential roosting
and nesting habitat for osprey, bald eagles, and other birds of prey along and directly adjacent
to the shoreline.
Shorelines in Reaches A and B are extensively modified by residential development and the
removal of natural riparian vegetation. Ornamental trees and shrubs may provide some
terrestrial wildlife functions, but do not provide a continuous vegetated corridor. The right of
way of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway does provide a continuous corridor
parallel to the shoreline that is largely vegetated on each side of the tracks and connects to
habitat patches. The effectiveness of this linkage is limited on fhe east, however, by Interstate
405, a formidable barrier. Habitat patches along the railroad ROW are relatively small. The
narrow width of the private roadway serving fhis area is a relatively permeable barrier to
movement from the shoreline to the railroad ROW to the east, but the presence of houses and
ornamental vegetation likely reduces the likelihood that terrestrial species would be attracted
to most of the shoreline.
Reach C contains the Seattle Seahawks Football Training Facility, Quendall Terminals, a
Superfund site, and a recently completed residential subdivision. This corridor has some
native riparian vegetation and a narrow corridor of restored shoreline vegetation along fhe
Seahawks center and the residential development. The May Creek corridor provides a linkage
between this area and a relatively complex vegetated community to the east, but the culvert
crossing under Interstate 405 is a substantial barrier to wildlife movement.
In Reaches D and E, single-family residential development has removed almost all natural
vegetative cover, but continues to provide limited habitat value, primarily for birds. Although
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline A1aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
eil}, of Renton
the BNSF railroad adjoins this area to the east, there is little vegetation along the ROW to
provide a corridor for animal movcment.
The north end of Gene Coulon Park (Reach F) provides a variety of functional habitat.
Although much of the Park is lawn, there are areas of native vegetation, most notably at the
mouth of John's Creek. An almost continuous corridor of tree cover is present along the
adjacent railroad. John's Creek provides a linkage to a narrow riparian corridor to the east,
but movement is limited by Lake Washington Boulevard. Linkages to other habitat areas are
limited. The south end of Gene Coulon Park is devoted to more intensive recreation use and
provides little continuous shoreline vegetation
Reaches H and I, between Gene Coulon Park and the Cedar River delta, include some areas
of riparian vegetation north of the Boeing property on state aquatic lands, but this habitat is
isolated from potential linkages by impervious-surfaced, bank-armored shorelines on either
side. The Cedar River delta provides little terrestrial habitat, but may support some riparian
vegetation in the area as delta deposition continues. It is connected to parkland along the east
bank of the Cedar River and a narrow area of altered vegetation adjacent to the Renton
Municipal Airport. Overall, habitat potential in this area is very limited.
The Renton Municipal Airport (Reach J), immediately east of the Cedar River, has managed
shoreline vegetation in the past to prevent establishment of habitat for birds that might
interfere with airplanes. Most of the shoreline is rock rubble or vertical sheet pile bulkheads,
which provides little or no terrestrial habitat.
East of the Airport (Reach K), natural vegetation is not present where bulkheads, residential
structures, and landscaped areas predominate on the shoreline. There is a potential linkage via
a narrow riparian corridor to the east, but movement is limited by Lake Washington
Boulevard (a four-lane major arterial).
4.1.2.5 Critical Areas
The City has identified and mapped landslide and erosion hazard areas along portions of
Reach E and in two short sections of Reach F (see Map 4a). These areas have steep slopes
that are relatively short. Other sections of shoreline from Reach J east are flat and were likely
historic wetlands (see Map 4b). The City has determined many shoreline areas that have been
filled to be seismic hazard areas because of their susceptibility to soil liquefaction (see
Map 4c).
USACE manages the water level in Lake Washington, thus, no flood hazard areas are present
on the shoreline except for the Cedar River delta. Aquifer recharge areas lie mostly outside of
the Lake Washington shoreline (see Map 4c). A large aquifer recharge area extends from
Lake Washington Boulevard to the City limits, adjacent to Reaches E and F (see Map 4c).
Small portions of this recharge area are within 200 feet of the Lake Washington OHWM and
thus lie within jurisdictional shoreline.
4.1.2.6 Shoreline Modifications
Conditions and processes throughout the Lake Washington system have been significantly
modified over the last 100 years. Some of the larger-scale modifications include:
• In 1916, when the Ship Canal was opened and the Cedar River re-routed to Lake
Washington, the Lake's ecology and shoreline were permanently altered. These
actions lowered the Lake's level by 10 feet, exposed 5.4 square kilometers of
previously shallow water habitat, reduced the Lake's surface area by seven percent,
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-11
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana(l'S1S
City of Renton
4-12
decreased the shoreline length by about 12.8 percent, and eliminated much of the
lake's wetlands (King County et a!., 2005).
• Water level fluctuations in the Ship Canal, maintained by the USACE, range up to 3
feet; the water surface elevation ranges between 20 and 23 feet. The minimum water
elevation is maintained during winter, in reverse of a natural annual hydro-cycle.
This allows for annual maintenance of docks and other structures; minimizes damage
during winter storms; and provides flood storage volume (USACE 2004c).
• Increased stormwater runoff and input of sediment and other pollutants into the Lake
due to changes in land use and increased development.
In addition, there has been extensive localized modification of the shoreline. Modifications
include shoreline armoring (concrete bulkheads, riprap, and other 'hard' structures intended
to stabilize the shoreline and minimize erosion), overwater structures (e.g., marinas,
residential docks, and piers), and dredging and filling (Figures 4.2, 4-3,4-4, and 4-5).
Figure 4-2. Typical Shoreline Armoring with Rock
Figure 4-3. Typical Shoreline Armoring with Rock and Cement
\1arch 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401)
l': ,,';'" ,
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Draft Shurefine Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Figure 4-4. Typical Residential Dock on Lake Washington
Figure 4-5. Dock with Grated Deck
Shoreline modifications associated with residential development are most prevalent in
Reaches D and E, which arc characterized by single-family residential development with
associated bulkheads, riprap. docks, and boallifts. In contrast, the lakeshore in Reaches rand
G (low density residential land-use) and Reach J (industrial land-use) contain shoreline areas
that vary from natural or restored shoreline to a combination of hard armoring with some
vegetated shoreline for an overall less-modified physical environment (see Tables 4-1, 4-2,
and 4-3, below in this section). A synthesized table with percent modifications by Reach and
category can bc found in Appendix A.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 4-13
Shordme !\Iaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4·14
Table 4-1. Shoreline Modifications by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels
Shoreline Modifications A B C 0 E F G H J K Total
Total number of shoreline parcels 3 13 5 33 25 3 3 99 187
Parcels with hard shoreline armoring 7 31 22 3 91 156
Parcels with commerciaVindustrial shoreline
Parcels with combination of hard shoreline armoring 3 2 2 11
and natural vegetation
Parcels with moderate shoreline armoring (no 2 3 6
bulkhead, some veg., and/or areas of natural veg.)
Parcels with natural (unmodified) shoreline 2 3 4 11
Parcels with restored shoreline (large woody debris 2
present)
Total 3 13 5 33 25 1 1 3 3 1 99 187
Thirteen parcels along the Lake's shoreline are either unmodified or restored (Table 4-1,
Maps lIb and lie). The restored parcels include one single-family residential property on
Reach E and Gene Coulon Park on Reaches F and G. Gene Coulon Park contains a
combination of restored shoreline, vegetated shoreline, and some armored shoreline.
Kennydale Beach Park (Reach D) contains a combination of modified and natural shoreline.
Overall, 174 parcels contain some level of 'hard' armoring. This includes major
commercial/industrial parcels (e.g., the Renton Boeing Plant) and private residential
properties with hard armoring, moderate armoring, natural shoreline, or a combination
thereof. Parcels that are completely armored with concrete bulkheads, rocks, or similar
structures comprise 67 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline. The majority of these
parcels occur in 0, E, and K, which are developed for single or single/multi-family residential
use.
Armored shorelines create undesirable habitat conditions for native fish including several
species of native salmon that use the Lake for rearing and migration. Bulkheads, for example,
eliminate and displace shoreline vegetation that is critical for fish and other wildlife. Hard
armoring also displaces available water refugia and foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Bulkheads may alter the slope, configuration, andlor substrate composition of the shoreline
by obstructing upland sediment supply and increasing erosion on neighboring properties
lacking bulkheads. The increased wave erosion from waves reflected from bulkheads may
also affect substrate composition and the slope of the nearshore (Kahler 2000). This increased
erosion on neighboring properties is likely associated with increases in bulkhead
construction, partly explaining why the cumulative number of bulkheads on the Lake is so
high (Walter 2009). Losses of wetland and shoreline vegetation in the Lake is likely
attributable to filling and shoreline development (Grassley 2000).
Piers and docks may alter natural predator-prey interactions and create favorable conditions
for predator fish species (e.g., sculpin, smallmouth bass). Juvenile salmon require sufficient
cover such as brush piles, rootwads, and undercut banks to avoid predators. Developed lakes
containing piers and docks in place of natural cover may result in an increased likelihood for
predation.
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysi.~
City of Renton
Table 4-2. Overwater Structures by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels
Overwater Structure A B C 0 E F G H J K Total
Parcels with fioaUbuoy present
Parcels with joint use residential dock
Parcels with major boat ramp facility
Parcels with no private residential dock
Parcels with other dock structures (not defined above)
Parcels with private boat lift
Parcels with private boat lift and covered dock
Parcels with private residential dock
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3 5
2
8
11
3
1
1
3
15
5
1
2
2
2
6
15
2
20
16
26
11
6
13
3
32
5
46
34
32
13 Parcels with private. covered residential dock
Parcels with public marina
Total
113
3 13 5 33 25 1 1 3 3 1 99 187
Source: ESA Adolfson 2008
There are 143 private docks associated with shoreline parcels along the Lake, most of which
occur on Reaches D (25 total), E (22 total), and K (81 total; Table 4-2, Maps II b and 11 e).
Only 32 parcels along the shoreline lack a private residential dock. This includes the
relatively unaltered reaches F and G, which have one floaVbuoy structure and one public
marina, respectively (Maps 11 band Ilc). Properties without docks that contain only
floats/buoys, boat ramp structures, or public marinas comprise a small portion of the
shoreline (12 parcels total). Twenty-five percent of the parcels have private boat lifts; parcels
with both a private boat lift and a covered dock make up 18 percent of the shoreline. In
addition, 13 parcels contain joint-use residential docks.
Overwater structures along the shoreline have several effects on fish, wildlife, and aquatic
vegetation. Docks and piers create artificial shading which reduces the amount of light
available for phytoplankton and aquatic macrophytes. This may decrease primary
productivity and fish and invertebrate species diversity (Kahler 2001). Studies indicate that
predators linger near piers and other structures, which affects prey population levels.
Although these data are somewhat inconclusive, bass (particularly smallmouth bass) have
been documented to thrive in lakes with highly modified shorelines while salmonids and
other fish species decline. This suggests that predator species have an advantage over prey
fish species in structurally-altered environments (Kahler 2000).
Historically, docks and piers were constructed of chemically-treated (e.g. creosote-coated)
wood, which introduces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals to the
aquatic environment. These preservatives can leach into the water column and become toxic
to aquatic organisms. The number of docks made of treated wood is unknown. It is expected
that most of the newly-constructed docks along the Lake's shoreline areas are made of
alternative, neutral materials that are less harmful to the environment and to aquatic
organisms.
Noise and pile driving associated with construction of dock, pier, and bulkhead construction
can also affect fish and wildlife. Noise and vibration caused by driving in marine
environments has been found to startle juvenile salmonids (Feist et a!. 1996). These effects
likely occur in lake environments and the surrounding area as well, although additional data
are needed. Modem technology commonly required by permitting agencies for new in-water
construction (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, acoustic wave-reducing bubble curtains, etc.)
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-15
Shoreline /I.{aster Program
ReVised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4-16
reduces or mitigates these effects. Individual residential docks are exempt from these
requirements.
Shore-spawning Sockeye salmon species, which occur in the Lake, are particularly
susceptible to dock, pier, and bulkhead construction and shoreline alterations that modi/)' any
of the following:
• Habitat structure
• Substrate
• Hydrologic patterns
• Water temperature
• Water quality
Sockeye spawning areas may become degraded due to several factors, including scoured
streambed material, fine sediment that has eroded from building sites, and surface water
runoff from impervious surface that is transported into the Lake. Vulnerable beach spawning
areas include nearshore substrates that receive spring-fed upwelling and alluvial fans at
stream mouths (Parametrix 2003).
Sensitive wildlife species occurring in the area include osprey and bald eagle. The presence
of overwater structures serve as obstacles to shoreline access and clear views of potential
prey. The area around the Lake is highly-developed, with a dominant land cover of medium-
and high-density land-use (Map 8e) and a recorded presence of 143 private dock structures
along the City and County PAA shoreline. These shoreline modifications eliminate potential
roosting and nesting habitat for osprey, bald eagles, and other birds of prey along and directly
adjacent to the shoreline. Potential prey species (e.g., salmonids and other fish present in the
Lake) may also provide insufficient nutrition or harmful agents due to water quality issues in
the lake (Map 7).
Table 4-3, Building Setbacks by Reach on Lake Washington Shoreline Parcels
Setback A B C 0 E F G H J K Total
Parcels with building setback between 20 and 50 feet 6 3 7 51 69
Parcels with building setback greater than 50 feet 6 11 21
Parcels with building setback of less than 20 feet 6 28 12 34 84
Parcels with no structure present 2 2 2 2 2 3 13
Total 3 13 5 33 25 1 1 3 3 1 99 187
Source: ESA Adolfson 2008
According to aerial photograph analysis, approximately 45 percent of the Lake's shoreline
parcels within the City and County PAA shoreline contain structures with a building setback
of less than 20 feet. Most of the parcels with this setback width were located along the three
most developed reaches: D, E, and K. Approximately 37 percent of the shoreline parcels have
building setbacks of 20 to 50 feet. Reach K contained most of the parcels characterized by
this building setback width, which probably reflects the greater depth of the lots in that area.
Development patterns that include structures close to a lake's shoreline can negatively affect
the shoreline and water quality in several ways. Development located on sloped terrain can
contribute to erosion and overland stormwater runoff, which deposits sediments that act as a
vehicle for delivery of phosphorous and toxins to water bodies, soluble pollutants, and excess
nutrients into a lake. A vegetated buffer area less than 50 feet in length is of limited
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Il1vel1to,}' and Ana/pis
City of Renton
effectiveness in removing sediments and nutrients. Stonmwater from driveways can contain
high levels of petrochemicals from fuel and lubricants. If the area between buildings is
devoted to lawn, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides can be washed into a lake by rainfall. If
applied in a volatized fonm, fertilizers may drift into the water during application (May 1997).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has detenmined that carbaryl and carbofuran,
common chemicals in lawn care products jeopardize salmon due to effects on the central
nervous system (NMFS 2009). Location of lawns or ornamental vegetation adjacent to the
shoreline also limits the potential for native vegetation to provide shade, cover, and food
resources for aquatic species (Collins 1995).
Human activity along a shoreline, particularly when associated with overwater structures
such as docks and piers, can disturb fish and wildlife species that use shoreline habitat for
cover, foraging. and/or nesting areas (Brazner 1997). Wave action and water level
fluctuations in the Lake (generally ranging from elevation 20 to 23 feet) together with the
proximity of structures close to the shoreline has led to shoreline stabilization on most
shoreline property with hard anmoring. Hard anmoring prevents the recruitment of native
sediments to the Lake, which prevents the replenishment of a natural shallow nearshore and
beach environment, which together with a vegetated environment and absorbs and dissipates
wave energy at the shoreline. Instead, anmoring reflects wave energy at the shoreline, creating
a high-energy environment in the Lake and resulting in gradient and substrate features that
are less favorable for spawning and rearing habitat (Kahler 2000).
Recent penmit activity in the City and along Lake Washington is shown in Figures 6 and 6a.
Of special interest to Lake Washington is the large amount of single family redevelopment
and remodeling of existing lakeshore lots. In many cases, this redevelopment and remodeling
has not been accompanied by replacement of existing shoreline stabilization or docks. This
may represent the loss of opportunity to apply future revisions to shoreline regulations to
these sites, until such time as those facilities age or need to be replaced, separate from
changes in the primary structures.
4.1.2.7 Other Natural Features
The City has identified and mapped landslide hazard areas along most of Reaches E and F
and two short sections of Reach F (see Map 4a). Reach F also contains a short stretch of
shoreline susceptible to surface erosion (see Map 4a). These areas generally have steep
slopes. Other sections of shoreline from Reach J east are flat and were likely historic
wetlands (see Map 4b). The City has detenmined many of these areas to be seismic hazards
because of their susceptibility to soil liquefaction.
The USACE manages the water level in the Lake, thus except for the Cedar River delta, no
flood hazard areas are present in the shoreline. Aquifer recharge areas lie mostly outside of
the Lake's shoreline (see Map 4c). A large aquifer recharge area extends from Lake
Washington Boulevard to the City limits, adjacent to Reaches E and F (see Map 4c). Small
portions of this area are within 200 feet of the Lake Washington OHWM and thus lie within
jurisdictional shoreline.
The sensitive natural areas described above are regulated under Renton Critical Areas
Ordinance" , as other similar areas in other shorelines described below.
18 Renton Municipal Code, 4-3-050
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-17
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline JrrvenlOl)' and Analysis
City of R~ntl)n
4.1.3 Built Environment
4.1.3.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
According to King County Assessor's (2008) parcel data, land-use along the Lake's shoreline
is a mix of residential, industrial, parks, recreation and open space, and vacant areas. In
general, low-density residential development (23 percent) and vacant land (22 percent) are
the dominant land-uses along the shoreline. Industrial lands and parks, recreation, and open
space lands make up 15 percent each. Lands dedicated to transportation comprise
approximately 20 percent of the shoreline planning area.
• Reach A: is entirely single-family residential and lies between the Bellevue city
limits and Renton city limits
• Reach B: includes mostly single-family use with one large shoreline multi-family
development
• Reach C: includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks headquarters and
training facility at the northernmost portion of the Reach. The Quendall Tenninals
south of the Seahawks headquarters has been designated a Superfund site by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The site is being studied by the EPA to
detennine the extent ofthe pollution caused by coal tar and creosote application and
the best course of remedial action. A residential development is currently being built
on the southernmost portion of reach on the fonner Barbee Mill site (City of Renton
website 2008b).
• Reaches D and E: are primarily single-family residential and contain the City's
Kennydale Beach Park on the shoreline. Lots in Reach E are generally of greater
depth, and can be accessed via Mountain View Avenue.
• Reaches F and G: are composed entirely of Gene Coulon Park and are categorized
as parks, recreation, and open space.
• Reach H: is composed of vacant (66 percent) and multi-family residential (33
percent) land-uses. Southport, a mixed-use development under construction, will be
located along the entire length of the reach. The first phase, completed in 2002, is a
395-unit apartment building. The second, final phase is the development of three
nine-story office buildings, a hotel, and several restaurants to create a Lake-front
promenade (City of Renton website 2008c).
• Reach I: contains the Renton Boeing Plant, classified as an industrial land-use,
which is located just east of the mouth of Cedar River. A portion of the shoreline in
this reach is public aquatic lands located waterward of the inner harbor line.
• Reach J: contains the Renton Municipal Airport, which is classified as
government/institutional. A portion ofthe Airport's shoreline frontage is considered a
water-dependent use since it includes a seaplane dock on the Lake.
• Reach K: contains a portion the West Hill P AA and extends from the current City
limits to the Seattle city limits and is primarily single-family residential with some
multi-family residential within the 200 foot zone of shoreline jurisdiction. However,
the majority of this development does not directly front the water. There is a small
mobile home park in the easterly portion of this Reach.
4·18 March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Planned Land-Use
Shorelme Master Progrum
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Within the City limits the City's Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use designations
along the Lake are mainly residential and mixed-use. Reach B has low density residential (S2
percent) and mixed-use (1S percent) comprehensive plan and zoning designations. All of
Reaches C, Hand [ are designated with mixed-use comprehensive plan and zoning
designations. Reaches 0 through G are designated with low density residential zones and
comprehensive plan designations. Reach J has industrial designations (City of Renton 200Sb).
Outside City limits in Reaches A and K, the City and County have designated most of the
land as low density residential. Reach A is located in unincorporated King County. According
to County Zoning and Land Use Maps, Reach A is entirely designated as low density
residential. Reach K is located in the City's PAA. The County has zoned most of Reach K as
low density residential (77 percent) with the remaining as multi-family residential (23
percent). The City's Comprehensive Plan has designated more land as low density residential
(96 percent). The remaining is designated as multi-family residential (four percent; King
County Department of Development and Environmental Services [DDES] 2006 and 200S;
City of Renton 200Sb).
MllfCh 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-19
Shoreline A1aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renlon
RE~CH A
R[lCf-In
REACHF
L.E<lEND
~---~
V ".y v
t,Ult,'INr
~s~~.1jj • • V
Mlt"\I,,"$tl ~;t' l"IiI'Js.lm'
~.\:Iw.
/--" ! \
I' I . :.:~;
\'---,j
..... --.....
,/ \
I I "'" I, ) .,0
\ .I '"""-..........
1'.:,
11"("'-;
V W \/
&:t..:m"""lDIL' ~;rt1,~to:.' lrJ~t!J1
r~I.JJ:i:~1 CbIoI, 5Plf:t"
/
(,
I(----... .. ·\t(~~
\ ...... ""~"//
1~ /1'" I' \,
I I
" i
"----j ~~.
\7 c---;
\;
','iT...l1D U .... .r.tr ... l1
U-~"\!~~ rlt"?'lr
Figure 4-6 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Lake Washington Shoreline Planning Area
4-20 March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
P.EA;:111
AEACK 1\
lEGEIID
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Drafi Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
ZC.oNG DlllRleTS
-"II Cocmi)' I,\oti r w j.,. l,\).Cd iJse. ~rrnl=w' 'rahz .. t-.tl GU'~·I1""Ir!!r. p~iP.et:.' TIlm';q\;Jjm, ·"1I~1I1' ll-Irll .... ·
Rr • .Il:II'!I;1 Rr.Ii:Rm.;t Klltlil I~JtLtl:1.·' CJKfI Sf,n.::c lh:rur.:r.rr-d ::lor.:J:~
Figure 4-6 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Lake Washington Shoreline Planning Area (Continued)
Figure 4-6 shows the percentage of existing land-use, zoning, and comprehensive plan land-
use designations for each of the Lake's shoreline reaches. The City of Renton does not
designate ROW with a zoning district or a comprehensive plan designation. Therefore, the
values in the columns Zoning Districts and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations do
not include ROW. Transportation is an existing land-use in many shoreline planning areas, a
transportation category was included in the Existing Land Use Designations analysis. The
total amount of transportation per reach was determined using King County Assessor's data,
which is available at the parcel level and provides transportation land-use information where
parcels categorized as ROW are typically included in the railroad ROW. City staff performed
additional calculations of existing roadway ROW by reach.
Existing water-oriented uses are located in Reaches D, F, G, and J. These include parks that
provide physical access to the Lake and a Renton Municipal Airport with a seaplane dock.
Kennydale Beach Park (Reach D) and Gene Coulon Park (along the entire length of Reaches
F and G) provide public access to the shoreline via beach access, public piers, and boat
launches. The Renton Municipal Airport (along the entire length of Reach J) is a water-
dependent use since it has a seaplane dock. Water-oriented opportunities beyond these uses
are limited because of the existing single-family residential development.
Undeveloped or Vacant Lands
Table 4-4 provides the percentage of parcels identified as undeveloped and the undeveloped
area by reach. Reach A, in unincorporated King County, is almost 50 percent undeveloped.
The percentages of undeveloped area shown in the table for Reach C and H will decrease
once construction of Port Quendall and Southport are completed. The remaining undeveloped
areas are located in reaches designated for single-family residential development (Reaches B,
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-21
Shoreline A/aster Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
D, and E), The Washington DNR owns approximately 3 acres of vacant, undeveloped land
which is located outside the City limits, near Reach I (King County Department of
Assessments website 2008), The property is not accessible to the public,
Table 4-4. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Lake Washington
Reach
A
B
c
o
E
F
G
H
J
K
# of
Lois
35
19
37
56
34
5
4
4
4
3
160
% Undeveloped
Lots
6%
16%
5%
9%
9%
60%
50%
50%
50%
0%
9%
Source: King County 2008; City of Renton 2008a
% Undeveloped
Area
49%
22%
41%
19%
29%
44%
0%
66%
0%
0%
2%
4.1.3.2 Impervious Areas
4-22
Impervious areas were analyzed based on the City's GIS layer. Impervious areas include
roadways, buildings, and other paved surfaces (such as driveways and parking lots) that
prevent the natural penetration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces affect infiltration,
create more stormwater runoff, increase the rate ofrunoff, and alter runoff timing. Table 4-5
shows the total impervious area and percent of impervious area for each reach within the
Lake's shoreline planning area. Only buildings and public ROWs are included as impervious
areas, The entire ROW was included in the calculation for roadway impervious surfaces, This
was derived from the same calculation conducted by the City of Renton for the transportation
land use category, Building impervious area was calculated based on 2005 aerial photos. The
data does not include other types of paved surfaces,
Mw-,h 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
CIty orRen/on
Table 4-5. Impervious Surface in Lake Washington Shoreline Planning Area
Includes only the area within the Shoreline Planning Area
Total Impervious Percent Roadway % of Total Building % of Total
Reach Acres Area (Acres) Impervious Impervious areas Impervious Areas
A 11 4 33% 65% 35%
B 6 2 24% 9% 91%
C 18 2 10% 58% 42%
D 13 5 37% 78% 22%
E 12 3 27% 52% 48%
F 15 10% 98% 2%
G 13 5% 18% 82%
H 3 0 0% 0% 100%
12 3 26% 96% 4%
J 2 0.31 17% 0% 100%
K 27 12 43% 78% 22%
Source: City of Renton,2005
Since the data does not reflect driveways, parking lots, and recent construction, the amount of
impervious surface for some reaches is larger than shown in the table. The following is a list
of sites that contribute additional impervious area:
• Construction of Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and training facility and Conner
Homes in Reach C
• Parking lot pavement in Gene Coulon Park in Reaches F and G
• Southport Phase 2 construction in Reach H
• Pavement at Boeing Airplane Company in Reach I
• Pavement at Renton Municipal Airport in Reach J
The remaining reaches (A, B, D, E, and K) have established single-and multi-family
residential land-uses with impervious surface amounts that are more accurately reflected in
the table. In general, the percentage of impervious area is an indicator of development density
and intensity. Overall in the City, approximately 25 percent of the Lake's shoreline planning
area is impervious due to public ROWs and buildings.
4.1.3.3 Floodplain and Channel Migration
Lake Washington does not have a floodplain because the lake elevation is controlled by the
US Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram Chittenden Dam and Locks.
Lakes are not considered to have channels or channel migration zones.
4.1.3.4 Public Access
Currently, the public has visual and/or physical access to the Lake's shoreline at the
following locations (City of Renton Parks and Recreation website 2008):
• The Seahawks Football Training Facility provides a small shoreline access and
viewing area near the north end of the property in Reach C.
• The Barbee Mill residential development provides public access to a small area of
public aquatic lands waterward oftbe inner harbor line in Reach C.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-23
Shoreline ivfaster Program
Revl~·ed Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana(vsis
City orRenlon
• Kennydale Beach Park is a 1.8-acre park located in Reach 0 with a sandy beach
that provides physical access to the Lake. The Park also has a pier, log boom,
playground, picnic tables, restrooms, and benches.
• Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park is a 55-acre park located in Reaches F and G.
It has passive and active water-oriented and non-water-oriented recreation
opportunities including eight boat-launch lanes, playground equipment, tennis courts,
horseshoe pits, sand volleyball courts, picnic shelters, an interpretive botanical walk,
fishing pier, food concessions, parking lots, and 1.5 miles of paved trails along the
shoreline.
• Lake Washington Bike Trail is a mixed-use trail that can be accessed at the
southern end of Gene Coulon Park in Reach G. The portion of the trail located to the
north of the park is situated along Lake Washington Boulevard and provides views of
the Lake until it is routed adjacent to 1-405 near the City limits. (City of Bellevue
Parks and Community Services 2003; King County GIS Center 2007).
• Cedar River Boathouse is located on pilings in the Lake at the north end of the
Cedar River Trail (see Section 4.3.2.3 Public Access -Cedar River) in Reach I. The
boathouse was Boeing's former hydrofoil development building until it was donated
to the City. The City has leased the boathouse to Cascade Canoe & Kayak Centers
since 200 I. The Center offers canoe and kayak rentals, classes, and guided trips.
• The Renton Municipal Airport Seaplane Dock provides a parking area and
informal public access adjacent to the seaplane dock in Reach J.
Opportunities for enhanced public access by reach include:
• Reaches A and B are single-family residential with one multi-family development
and lie between the Bellevue city limits and the Seahawks Football Training Center.
There is currently no public access in these reaches. There is a public trail along 1-
405, but it does not have views of the water. It is unlikely that new development will
occur in this area, except possible redevelopment of the multi-family site, in which
case public access would be required. Public agency actions to improve public access
may include visual access from trail development along the railroad ROW inland of
the residential lots; however, that may be limited by topography and vegetation.
Opportunities for public access to the water include an existing undeveloped railroad
right of way and potential public acquisition, including several parcels that do not
currently have roadway access.
• Reach C includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks headquarters and
training facility to the north and the Barbee Mill subdivision to the south. The
Quendall Terminals parcel between is a Superfund site contaminated with coal tar
and creosote. There is public access along a portion of the shoreline at the Seahawks
site and to public aquatic lands at the Barbee Mill subdivision. Opportunities for
provision of public access from development projects will occur after cleanup of the
Superfund site which will provide for multi-use development and shoreline access
across the entire property, consistent with vegetation conservation. Future
redevelopment of both the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site is possible under the
existing zoning which allows higher intensity use and provides an opportunity for
continuous public access parallel to the shoreline along the entire reach as well as
public access to non-single-family docks or piers. Public agency actions to improve
public access may include access on public aquatic lands and a future trail along the
railroad that likely will provide public visual access only in the northerly and
4·24 March 20 to I 553·1779·031 (0410401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Anu(vsls
City of R~nton
southerly portion of the reach because distauces are too great and because views are,
or will be, blocked by intervening buildings.
• Reaches D and E are primarily single family. There is one public access facility, the
City of Renton Kennydale Beach Park. Public visual access is provided from Lake
Washington Boulevard, which contains a bicycle/pedestrian path. It is unlikely that
new development will occur in this area. Opportunities for future public access are
likely primarily from public action on the shoreline. The most likely potential is for
enhanced public views from Lake Washington Boulevard which is considerably
above the elevation of the shoreline and provides views between structures and over
the roofs of many structures. Enhancement of public views along Lake Washington
Blvd. could be enhanced by providing viewing areas adjacent to travel and bicycle
lanes with amenities such as benches. Potential views from a future trail along the
railroad likely will be limited by the elevation and blockage in most areas by
intervening buildings. Opportunities for public access to the water include public
development of access on an existing undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to
the water and potential public acquisition of selected parcels, including portions of
parcels to narrow to effectively develop.
• Reaches F and G encompasses Gene Coulon Park. There is a variety of public
access at the park from trails, lawn areas, beach areas, boardwalks, and docks. There
also may be opportunities for visual access from a future trail along the railroad and
from Lake Washington Boulevard which is elevated above the park in some areas
and could be enhanced by providing viewing areas adjacent to travel and bicycle
lanes with amenities such as benches.
• Reach H contains the Southport mixed-use development that currently provides
shoreline access along the entire shoreline, including a public walkway over the
abandoned water discharge flume at the south edge of the property that connects with
public aquatic lands. There may be additional opportunities for public access or
water-oriented uses in future development phases including provisions such as
seating and landscaping.
• Reach I contains the Renton Boeing Plant. Public access in this area includes the
Cedar River Boathouse located on pilings in Lake Washington and accessed from the
west from the Cedar River Trail. The boathouse includes a public fishing area and
provides canoe and kayak rentals, classes, and guided trips. In the future, there may
be opportunities for public access if the Boeing site is redeveloped. In the shorter
term, there are opportunities for additional public access on public aquatic lands
adjacent to about half of the shoreline of the Boeing Plant. These public aquatic
lands, however, are currently classified for industrial use, although they are generally
undeveloped. The City has developed a plan for a waterfront trail which would
connect the public access at the Southport development to the Cedar River Trail and
may be implemented in the future when environmental and security issues can be
resolved.
• Reach J includes the Renton Airport. Public visual access to the shoreline is
provided from a lawn area adjacent to the seaplane dock with the Will Rogers/Wiley
Post monument. This park has access from Rainier Avenue and a parking area. The
seaplane dock to the east of the park does not provide public access. If the Renton
Boeing Plant were redeveloped to other uses in the future, changes in configuration
or use of the municipal airport might be considered. If that occurred, public access
along the shoreline and connection to the Cedar River Park may be considered. If the
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-25
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline hTVenlory and AnalysIs
Cily or Renton
airport redeveloped to other uses, public access on the shoreline would be one
element to be balanced with goals for ecological restoration and water oriented use.
Public agency actions to improve public access in the shorter ternl should include
enhancing opportunities for the public to approach the water's edge from the existing
lawn area.
• Reach K is primarily single fanlily with some multi-family and extends from the
current City limits to the Seattle city limits. There is no public access in this area.
Future redevelopment of a small mobile home park in the easterly portion of this
reach and from redevelopment of existing multi-family uses provides the potential for
future shoreline access balanced with goals for ecological enhancement. Public visual
access is provided from Rainier Avenue. Potential for enhanced public views from
Lake Washington Boulevard is likely only from public action that might include
enhanced pedestrian facilities and acquisition of the several undeveloped parcels.
4.1.3.5 I nfrastru ctu re
A limited number of surface streets are located in the Lake's shoreline planning area. The
major roadways that pass within the shoreline planning area are Lake Washington Boulevard,
a two-lane collector arterial, and Rainier Avenue South, a four-lane principal arterial. The
BNSF railroad tracks run along Lake Washington Boulevard. There are no bridges within the
Lake's shoreline planning area. Nine stOmlwater outfalls that discharge into the Lake are
recorded in the City's inventory (Map 9b), but it is likely that there are additional unrecorded
outfalls from both the street system and private development. There is also a wastewater main
located in the Lake that runs along a portion of Reach B and along the entire length of Reach
D. The City GIS database does not include utility infomlation for Reaches A and K (City of
Renton 2008b; King County 2002).
4.1.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources
The City's Comprehensive Plan (2004) addresses historic preservation. The Plan establishes a
goal to maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately
recognizing its historic andlor arChaeological sites.
Native American History
4·26
Lake Washington and the other shoreline areas within the City are part of the Duwamish
Indian Tribe's historic fishing area. The entire Lake served as a cultural resource for the Tribe
and other groups that harvested fish, ganle, and plant species in the area for generations.
The Duwamish Tribe is a Puget Salish-speaking group that resided in winter villages along
the shores of the Cedar River, Black River, Duwanlish River, Lake Washington, Lake Union,
Salmon Bay, and Elliot Bay (Larsen Anthropological Archaeological Services [LAAS]
2005). The Tribe lived in cedar plank houses along the shorelines during the winter months.
For the rest of the year, the Tribe would leave their winter houses to harvest salmon, dig
clams, hunt wildlife, and gather plants. The dwellings constructed during the warmer time of
year consisted of mats used as walls and planks taken from the winter village (Duwamish
Tribe website 2008).
In 1855, the Tribe signed the Treaty of Point Elliott with the United States. The United States
expected the Duwamish to leave their aboriginal territory and move to the Port Madison
Reservation and, post-Treaty, the Muckleshoot Reservation. Some of the Duwamish moved,
while others stayed and, later, sought federal recognition, which was denied by President
George W. Bush's Administration in 200 I. The Tribe is still seeking federal recognition in
the U.S. Congress (Northwest Archaeological Associates (NWAA) 2007; LAAS 2003a).
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
ShorelJl1e Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe that is the present-day
political successor to tribes and bands that were party to two treaties with the United States in
1854 and 1855: the Treaty of Medicine Creek and the Treaty of Point Elliott. In those treaties,
the party tribes reserved the right to fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations and
to hunt on all open and unclaimed lands. These reserved treaty rights are the 'supreme law of
the land' and where in conflict with state or local laws are preemptive. The Muckleshoot
Tribe's right to exercise these reserved treaty rights today has been affinrned by federal court
decisions and includes the right to harvest fish free of state interference, subject to
conservation principles; to co-manage the fishery resource with the State; and to harvest up to
50 percent of the harvestable fish. (See United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp.3 J 2,365
[WD Wn. 1974], affd 520 F. 2d 676 [9 th Cir. 1975]; Washington v. Washington State
Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 [1979].)
The Renton Shoreline Master Program study area falls within the recognized and court-
affinrned usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations of the Muckleshoot Tribe. The
federally-recognized Snoqualmie Tribe has ancestral ties to the study area, but has no
affinrned off-reservation treaty fishing rights. No other federally-recognized tribe may
exercise treaty fishing rights within the study area without consent. The Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe has a staff of fisheries biologists, operates two salmon hatcheries, and has taken an
active role in managing salmon in the Cedar-Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish Basin.
Due to the importance of the Tribe's fisheries resources, and other traditional resources, the
Tribe continues to play an active role in the maintenance and protection of the City's
shorelines (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 2008).
Euro-American History
Euro-American settlement of the Renton area began in 1853. Settlement was driven by the
discovery of coal at the nearby Squak Mountain. Timber harvesting and hop fanrning were
also primary economic activities. Euro-American settlement continued to grow in the vicinity
as transportation routes were developed.
During World War II, the Federal Government developed an aircraft manufacturing plant on
fonrner wetlands at the south end of Lake Washington, adjacent to the Cedar River. Aircraft
production during the War brought thousands of people seeking employment to the region.
The Boeing Airplane Company purchased this plant from the Government in 1946, at the
conclusion of the war. Following the war, Renton remained a major manufacturing center for
the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, which produces the 737 Model at the South Lake
Washington plant. Production at that plant continues today.
Other notable facilities in the area were built more recently, including the Seattle Seahawks
headquarters and training facility on Lake Washington near Northeast 44th Street, and
numerous small businesses and service industries (City of Renton website 2008a).
Registered and Inventoried Sites
The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)
maintains a database system which catalogs sites that are registered with the Washington's
Historic Register (WHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The database
also has sites inventoried by state archaeologists and cultural survey reports prepared during
project-specific planning efforts. A search of the database indicated the following:
• There are no state-or federally-registered sites within the shoreline planning area.
• There is one inventoried site. The U.S. Navy Martin PBM-5 Mariner (KI-404) is
located in the Lake just off the seaplane ramp at the Boeing Plant. The flying boat
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-27
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Im1enlory and Analysis
City of Renton
patrol bomber sank in 1949, while being ferried from the Naval Air Station in Seattle
to the Boeing seaplane ramp in Renton, The aircraft remains where it came to rest in
1949, embedded in a dense silt bottom (Naval Historical Center 1997),
Potential for Encountering Archaeological Resources
Several cultural resources investigations have been conducted for recent projects in the City
(LAAS 2003a; HRA 2005a; LAAS 2004), These reports note that areas along the Lake and
the Cedar River have a high probability for encountering archaeological resources, There is
also high probability along edges of contemporary river channels, old river channels, and
streams within the Green River floodplain, Laura Murphy with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
has indicated that the Tribe considers most of the City of Renton to have a high probability
for archaeological resources, (Murphy 2009)
4.2 MAY CREEK
4.2.1 General Conditions
May Creek is an important salmonid stream and contains a substantial proportion of protected
shoreline.
4.2.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
The May Creek watershed is about 8,960 acres in Renton, Newcastle, and unincorporated
King County and includes 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands. Headwater streams come off steep, forested ravines from the nortb, east, and
south, The basin can be divided roughly into two halves. The upper, eastern portion of the
basin is characterized by less dense residential and agricultural development, and includes a
significant portion of the undeveloped parkland on Cougar Mountain. Above May Canyon,
the Creek lies in a formerly dredged, straightened channel at the center of a wide, very low-
gradient valley. The lower, western portion of the basin is inside the UGA (primarily within
the jurisdiction of the Cities of Renton and Newcastle) and is fairly dense urban residential
development. About 50 percent of the basin is forested, but the amount of urban development
is increasing (Kerwin 2001), The May Creek Basin Action plan was adopted in 2001 by King
County and the Cities of Renton and Newcastle,
The portion of the Creek in Renton includes 2.3 stream miles of shoreline planning area
partitioned into four reaches. The Creek is an important salmonid stream and contains a
substantial amount of protected shoreline.
4.2.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
4·28
Two small tributaries enter the Creek in Reach D (see Map 1 b), both of which are ephemeral,
non-salmonid bearing streams, One tributary enters on river left at the west end of Northeast
31" Street. Gypsey Creek drains south to enter May Creek at the upstream end of Reach D
(see Map 3a), Kerwin (2000) identifies a passage barrier at the mouth of Gypsey Creek.
Much of the shoreline within 200 feet of the channel is riparian wetland in Reach C. The
wetland is a mix of forested and scrub/shrub communities and extends north from the Creek
along the eastern edge ofthe 1-405 corridor, The Interstate and other roads substantially affect
the hydrology of both the wetland and the stream. This wetland was likely part of a larger
historic wetland complex that included the May Creek delta,
At least one additional wetland exists on river right, where the stream turns east. This wetland
appears to lie on a slope and is likely sustained by seepage associated with confining Qgpc
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Rn!ised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
(glacial drift) geologic deposits. This wetland extends to within 200 feet of May Creek and
mayor may not be hydrologically-associated with the Creek. Other wetlands may occur in
the area that have not yet been identitied or mapped.
4.2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Winter Steelhead, and Cutthroat all use May Creek for spawning,
rearing, and migration (Kerwin 2001; see Maps Sa and Sb). The portion of the stream located
within the shoreline planning area provides limited spawning habitat, but all species migrate
upstream past the ravine to spawn and rear in May Valley reaches.
One osprey nest is located on the Lake near the mouth of the Creek (see Map Sc). Riparian
and backwater areas provide cover and foraging habitat for these birds and other species of
birds and wildlife.
4.2.2.3 Instream and Riparian Habitat
Reach A, which measures 1,300 linear feet (0.25 miles) was substantially degraded in the
past. The Creek was re-routed in the 1920s to accommodate industrial development and
moved from its central location across the alluvial fan/delta to the east edge. The riparian area
is in the process ofrevegetation as part of the adjacent Barbee Mill residential development to
provide a corridor 3S-feet-wide on each side. The narrow width of the buffer, the time
required for vegetation to reach the size necessary to provide shade and temperature
attenuation, and the presence of a trail with potential human disturbance limits riparian
functions.
The May Creek delta was dredged in the past to provide log storage for Barbee Mill.
Dredging is no longer needed for log storage and flood conveyance in May Creek for the
recent subdivision was designed presuming reformation of the delta in the future (Renton
2003). Sediment from May Creek will reform a natural delta and provides natural, shallow
water habitat as well as wetlands and eventually additional upland riparian habitat. It is likely
to be ten to fifteen years before delta formation is readily apparent, but after filling in deeper
areas dredged in the past, the area will fill rapidly thereafter and provide complex high
quality aquatic and riparian habitat. As the delta expands, it is likely to provide an important
habitat for Steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. The May
Creek Basin Action Plan calls for enhancement of the delta if Barbee Mill operations should
cease to provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area (Renton, King
County 200 I).
Reach B, measuring 1,150 linear feet (0.22 miles), is also located on the historic alluvial fan
and like Reach A, the Creek is constrained by roads. The existing riparian corridor is intact,
forested wetland, comprised primarily of small-to medium-sized deciduous trees.
Reaches C (measuring 3,200 linear feet [0.60 miles]) and D (measuring 6,270 linear feet
[1.23 miles]) has riparian vegetation of sufficient width and density to provide a range of
functions. Mixed and deciduous forest covers are the dominant cover types. In Reaches C and
D, the Creek is constrained by residential development and Jones Avenue. However, some
migration potential does exist, particularly in stretches of Reach D.
Pool habitat is present is Reaches B-D, but at low density and quality (providing limited
ecological function). L WD is also present, but the small size of riparian trees limits
recruitment potential. In addition, LWD present in the stream tends to be small and have a
low influence on stream morphology unless accumulated in a jam. Jams or LWD
accumulations that do form tend to be unstable and do not persist.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-29
Shorelme .Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory arid Analysis
City of Renton
Residential lots are common in Reach D, and some forest has been converted to landscaping.
Stream armoring for residential use is relatively minor. A landscaping business present at the
upstream end of Reach D has also cleared a large portion of the shoreline, leaving a very
narrow butfer.
Shoreline Modification
No quantitative data is available regarding streambank armoring and revetments and levees
along May Creek, but a review of aerial photography suggests evidence of hydro-
modifications in each of the following areas:
o Reach A: The stream is completely straightened with little naturalized riparian
vegetation, the stream bank, however is not armored.
o Reach B: Armoring associated with the grades of the Creek crossings of Lake
Washington Boulevard and 1-405. The stream section between the roads is relatively
unaltered.
o Reach C: A portion of stream bank in upper Reach C appears to be armored where it
flows parallel to Jones Avenue (200 feet). Just upstream, all or a portion of 500 feet
of the right stream bank appears to be hydromodified to protection a private residence.
o Reach D: Some modification is associated with five private residences and four road
crossings on the north side of the Creek near the end of the reach. A vegetated buffer
is present between the residences and the Creek.
4.2.2.4 Floodplain and Channel Migration
4-30
The May Creek floodplain has been delineated in Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) studies and maps (FEMA 2007). Floodplains are indicated on Map 4d. The
floodplain below Lake Washington Blvd. was extensively modeled as part of the Barbeee
Mill subdivision and the channel and riparian area designed to contain the 100 year flood
presuming the re-establishment of the delta.(Renton 2003). Between Lake Washington Blvd.
and 1-405, the floodplain is up to 300 feet wide with the more extensive potion to the north of
the channel.
East of 1-405, the floodplain varies from about 50 feet to up to 200 feet with the more
extensive area in the vicinity of NE 40 th Street and between NE 36th Street and NE 32nd
Street. Portions of the stream were channelized and relocated as part of [-405 construction in
the 1960s. There are no flood control facilities on May Creek. Review of aerial photos taken
since the 1930s indicate relatively little change in the channel location. A preliminary
assessment of the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) by Department of Ecology staff of the area
east of 1-405 indicates that the creek is located within a gorge that partially confines the
stream providing topographic control on stream location. Immediately east of 1-405 the
stream flows through public land except for a few private lots between N 36th and N 37th
Street and at about N 32nd Street. The stream is contained by topography on both sides and is
bounded by 1-405 on the west, and by either Jones Road or private residences on the buff
above the creek on the east side. The stream has an east-west orientation just south of 31st
Street and is bounded by a very high gorge on the south side. It crosses north of NE 31 st
street at about the 2000 block and crosses back south at about the 2200 blockwithin a level
area at the confluence with Gypsy Creek. This area was extensively farmed in the 1930s but
is now large lot residential development largely on the north side of the creek but with one
residence at 2415 NE 31st Street reached by a bridge. West of Edmonds Avenue NE the
stream is contained in a deep wooded gorge. Most of the stream corridor south of NE 31 st
Street is in public ownership as part of the May Creek Park.
March20101553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline InveI1lOI}' and Analysis
City of Renton
The channel migration area was likely the entire valley bottom before extensive human
alteration. The steep slopes bound the channel migration area on the east and south and Jones
Ave NEfNE 31st Street and residential development provide a boundary on the east and
north, in addition to topographic constraints. Ecology has provided a rough estimate of
channel migration rate of 2 to 6 feet per year and results in the estimated 10year channel
migration area shown in Figure 13a which indicates a high channel migration hazard. This
zone generally exceeds the 500 year floodplain as mapped by FEMA except in the vicinity of
the confluence of Gypsy Creek. Except at this flatter location, the CMZ is contained by
natural topography. The entire CMZ and FEMA mapped floodplain is within Shoreline
Management Act jurisdiction as being within 200 feet of the OHWM and the floodway.
The Shoreline Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221 (3)(b) direct local governments to take into
account the river's characteristics and its surroundings, noting that in some cases, river
channels are prevented from normal or historic migration by human-made structures or other
shoreline modifications. Legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit channel
movement and therefore are not to be considered within the channel migration zone of May
Creek Reaches C and D include the existing Jones Road and SE 31 st Street as well as the
legally established shoreline stabilization structures for a few single family residences.
For the most part, the CMZ for May Creek is within publicly owned open space. For single
family residences, future redevelopment may allow for establishment of a vegetation
conservation buffer area that allows additional area for channel migration. In addition, both
King County and the City of Renton have a longstanding policy of acquiring land in the May
Creek Valley on a willing-seller basis as funds become available. This may lead to additional
public ownership in the area and opportunities to remove human-made constraints.
4.2.2.5 Other Natural Features
The May Creek floodplain is confined, but coarse alluvial deposits support a high degree of
function. In addition to historic and existing riparian wetlands, the floodplain presents some
property hazard due to flooding and potential for liquefaction or other mass wasting during an
earthquake (see Maps 4a and 4c). These deposits also support a shallow aquifer and sustained
aquifer recharge areas in the shoreline valley and upland areas in Reach D (see Map 4c). The
aquifer recharge area extends from the shoreline across the entirety of the upstream
watershed.
Steep slopes present landslide and erosional hazards on the river left of Reach D where the
Creek turns east. The valley is confined by steep walls in Reaches C and D that also present
landslide and erosional hazards. However, those areas are generally located outside of the
shoreline planning area (see Map 4a).
4.2.3 Built Environment
4.2.3.1 Existing and Planned Land Use
EXisting Land Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of May Creek are a mix of parks, recreation and open
space, undeveloped lands, and residential. Land-use within the Creek's shoreline planning
area was assessed using 2008 King County Assessor's parcel data.
• Reach A: The portion of this Reach categorized as undeveloped (29 percent) by the
King County Assessor is undergoing residential development as part of the
redevelopment of the Barbee Mill sawmill. Therefore, the future amount of
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4·31
Shoreline Alaster Program
Hevised Draft Shoreline inventory and Ana~l"SIS
City of Renton
undeveloped land will drop to zero percent. Residential land-use will increase from
four to 58 percent. The remaining shoreline planning area is dedicated to roadways
and railroad tracks (32 percent).
• Reach B: This Reach is a mix of undeveloped (38 percent), low density residential
(28 percent). roadways (22 percent), and commercial land-uses (12 percent).
• Reaches C and D: These reaches are primarily made up of the May Creek Greenway
and May Creek Park (designated as vacant by King County Assessor). Reach C is
also dominated by roadways (56 percent).
Planned Land-Use
4-32
The City's zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use designations are
Commerc ialiOffice/Residential in Reach A (categorized as mixed-use to coincide with King
County Assessor land-use classification) and Residential Low Density and Resource
Conservation in Reaches B through D (City of Renton 2008b).
Figure 4-7 shows the proportions of current land-use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-
use designations for each May Creek shoreline reach. The mixed-use category encompasses
the CommercialiOffice/Residential designation in a more general category for consistency
with King County Assessors land-use coding.
The data for City zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use exclude roadways and railroad
tracks. Roads and railroads classified as transportation are included in the existing land-use
data.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
RW:H
IiEACilA
ReAC~ B
REACH C
R~CHO
LEGEND
EXISTfIG LAND USE
!lE!ijG!lA!lONS
~'e',. 3S'X
11X
'\7 W •• V
Lnll' ~il~' thJIi.F3I'1lf~ tli~j USII C%l'llmErtiill l 11;J1JS;<i31
~:lerlllil fCI:!lda,1Ia ~eb1!1
Shoreline Alaster Program
R('l'ised Draft Shoreline lnVenlO1}' and Ana(vsis
City of R~nton
ZOWiG DI5I'RICTS
i~-'\)
''----~
v f[f
G:r .. erllmer{.' :)rt~IQ;i!:;1
Irl!llll~li:I~ Op(in~
V
COIIPR£HENSIVE Pl.lII
l.AHII USIO DESlGN4TIOO
\:} <;\7
T'iJ"1~!ltb" V!K4~tl Ur~nl:;o'o'n
lJr~.'€l~ I'arcel~
Figure 4-7 Percentages of Existing. Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
May Creek Shoreline Planning Area
The May Creek shoreline does not currently have any water-dependent or water-related uses,
A review of King County Assessor's data revealed that there is only one property classified
as commercial along the Creek's shoreline_ The commercial property is an office building,
which would not be considered a water-dependent or related use, The May Creek Greenway
and May Creek Park described in Section 4223 (Public Access -May Creek) could
potentially provide water-enjoyment uses if public access to the shoreline is established,
Undeveloped or Vacant Lands
Table 4-6 provides the percentage of undeveloped parcels and undeveloped area by reach_ As
described earlier, the Port Quendall parcels designated as undeveloped will be developed with
residential units, Undeveloped areas in Reach B are designated for single-family and mixed-
use development. A large portion of undeveloped area in Reaches C and 0 is part of the May
Creek Greenway and May Creek Park,
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-33
Shoreline .Haster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline lnvf!nrory and Analysis
City of Renton
Table 4-6. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along May Creek
# of % Undeveloped % Undeveloped
Reach Lots Parcels Area
MC·A 82 76% 29%
MC-B 4 50% 38%
MC-C 20 60% 29%
MC-D 30 57% 67%
Source: King County, 2008; City of Renton, 2008a
4.2.3.2 Impervious Areas
Impervious areas were analyzed for the May Creek shoreline planning area based on the
City's GIS data. Table 4-7 shows the total impervious area and percent of impervious area for
May Creek. The data only includes impervious surfaces provided by buildings and public
ROWs. However, most impervious area within May Creek's shoreline planning area is
roadway. Roadway pavement occupies an especially large portion of Reach C, since 1-405
travels along the Reach's entire length.
Table 4-7. Impervious Surface in May Creek Shoreline Planning Area
Total Impervious Percent Roadway % of Total Building % of Total
Reach Acres Area (Acres) Impervious Impervious areas Impervious Areas
A 15 3 22% 86% 14%
B 12 3 23% 98% 2%
C 18 10 57% 98% 2%
0 46 7 15% 95% 5%
Source: City of Renton GIS data 2005
4.2.3.3 Public Access
The following parks are located in the May Creek shoreline planning area. The parks do not
provide access to the shoreline (City of Renton Parks and Recreation website 2008):
• Barbee Mill Trail: A pedestrian trail is provided on the east side of the Creek within
the 35-foot-wide riparian corridor provided in the residential redevelopment of the
Barbee Mill site.
• May Creek Greenway: A 30-acre natural area is located on the south bank of May
Creek in Reaches C and D. Ownership of the greenway is split between the City and
County.
• May Creek Park: A City-owned park with ten acres of natural area is located in
Reach D.
Opportunities for enhanced public access along May Creek include:
• The public access trail from near the mouth to Lake Washington Boulevard, and from
near 1-405 to the east.
4-34 March 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
• The private property between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 may be
required to provide public access at the time it develops, although public access
through the culverts under 1-405 are likely to be very problematic.
• Access across the freeway may be diverted to 44'h Street, or a separate pedestrian
overpass could be considered.
• Much of the stream corridor east of 1-405 is publicly-owned. Public access
improvements here are most likely to take the form of interpretive trails and will
require careful location and design to avoid degradation of ecological functions.
4.2.3.4 Infrastructure
There are three bridges that cross May Creek. Lake Washington Boulevard and the BNSF
railroad tracks cross May Creek between Reaches A and B. 1-405 crosses May Creek between
reaches B and C. 1-405 also travels along the entire length of Reach MC-C. Two stormwater
outfalls have been recorded along May Creek in the City's inventory (Map 9b). It is likely
that there are additional unrecorded outfalls from both the street system and adjacent
development (City of Renton 2008b; King County 2002).
4.2.3.5 Historic and Cultural Resources
Native American and Euro-American historic use of the area is detailed in Section 4.1.4.5
A search of the DAHP database for resources within the May Creek shoreline indicated the
following:
• There are no state-or federally-registered sites within the May Creek shoreline
planning area.
• There are no inventoried sites within the May Creek shoreline planning area.
• There are two ethnographic sites located within the shoreline planning area. A large
Duwamish village site was reported to have been located near the mouth of May
Creek. The village was reported to have included two longhouses. A portion of a trail
used by Native Americans for resource procurement and trade has been identified
along the northern bank of the Creek. The trail may have been part of a series of
interconnected trails that provided access to eastern Washington (Western Shore
Heritage Services, inc., 2005).
As with Lake Washington, May Creek falls within the recognized usual and accustomed
fishing grounds and stations of the Muckleshoot Tribe.
4.3 CEDAR RIVER
4.3.1 General Conditions
The upper watershed of the Cedar River is characterized by second and old-growth forest,
while the lower watershed has been extensively altered. After its re-routing to the lower end
of Lake Washington in 1916, the Cedar River has been channelized and significantly
impacted by high popUlation growth and development. Along lower reaches of the river, this
has included hard armoring (bulkheads), scouring, construction of docks and piers, and
removal of native vegetation.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4·35
Shoreline Master Program
Revised {)raft Shoreline frrvenrory and Analysis
City of Rcnlon
4.3.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
4.3.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
4-36
Historically, the Cedar River flowed into the Black River then drained into the
GreenlDuwamish River that flows into Elliott Bay in the Puget Sound. In 1912, the lower 1.5
miles of the Cedar River were redirected into a constructed channel and diverted to flow into
Lake Washington. This was done because of flooding and the anticipated lowering of the
Lake as part of the Ballard Locks being constructed at the time by the USACE.
The lower 1.25 miles of the River has been periodically dredged to a depth of 10 feet since
1912 to protect against flooding. The dredging addresses sediment deposition in the
constructed reach caused by low gradient and sediment transport from the upstream
watershed. Commercial Waterway District No.2 was formed to implement the channel
modifications and dredging of the river and delta. The Commercial Waterway District
performed maintenance dredging of the Lower Cedar River approximately every ten years
until it dissolved in 1957. Since it was a special purpose District within the City's corporate
boundaries, the City assumed the District's ownership of the constructed channel and the
responsibility for maintaining the constructed channel.
During this period, the City dredged the channel to a maximum depth of 10 feet to maintain
channel capacity and decrease flooding from the mouth to Logan Avenue Bridge. The City
continued dredging the channel and delta but with a large reduction of dredging quantities in
the 1970s until 1983, when dredging was discontinued. From 1983 to 1998, the channel was
not maintained to the original depth due to various factors, including restricted access to the
channel after the north. Boeing North and South bridges were built across the river and
difficulties in obtaining necessary permits. Stoneway Gravel mined the channel upstream of
1-405 for gravel until the early 1970s, removing 10,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of material
annually.
Due to the discontinuation of dredging on the lower 1.25 miles of the River, channel capacity
was gradually reduced. During a November 1990 flood, the river overflowed its banks and
flooded the Renton Municipal Airport, Boeing facilities and adjacent properties, resulting in
significant damages. Following the flood, the City worked with the USACE to address the
problem.
Using hydrologic modeling, it was predicted that through a process called aggredation,
sediment loads would be transported downstream from the highlands and fill-in the lower
Cedar River channel bed in less than 20 years. During storm events, the River could overflow
the aggredated channel, run onto the Renton Municipal Airport's runways and other
impervious surfaces, and flow into the center of downtown Renton. This flooding would
clearly cause a public safety hazard, and result in significant property damages.
To eliminate this threat, the City and USACE created the Section 205 Flood Hazard
Reduction Project (Cedar River 205 Project). In the summer of 1999, Phase I of the project
commenced: the lower 1.25 miles of the River channel were dredged at an average depth of
four feet from the Williams Avenue Bridge to the Lake, slightly downstream of the North
Boeing Bridge Phase II of the project. Phase II was undertaken in late 1999 and 2000, and
included the construction of levees and floodwalls along the lower 1.25 miles of the River.
Ongoing maintenance in the form of periodic dredging, is predicted to be necessary every
three years in perpetuity to maintain the design level of protection against the laO-year
recurrence interval event with at least 90 percent of reliability. However, subsequent dredging
of the channel has not been necessary, from the combined result of operational changes in
storage and flow releases by the City of Seattle at the Chester Morse Masonry Dam and lower
than average precipitation from 2000 to 2005.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Prugram
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
The City continues to monitor annual sedimentation along the lower River to ensure that a
bed elevation that would necessitate maintenance dredging has not been reached. Future
maintenance dredging is required by the City's agreement with the USACE for Cedar River
205 Project in order to maintain the flood protection benefits of the federally-constructed
project. The City is also required to maintain a levee certification and keep floodplain
mapping current. It is estimated that maintenance dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the
River will be necessary within the next four to seven years, depending upon the flood events
and the rate of sediment deposition.
Prior to 1957, the Commercial Waterway District No.2 may have done some dredging of the
Cedar River Delta for navigational purposes. The delta may also have been dredged for
gravel mining purposes. More recently, the delta was dredged by the City in 1993 to reduce a
bird-strike hazard to airplanes using the Renton Municipal Airport. The permitted dredge
depth was four feet below the wintertime water level of Lake Washington. The Airport is
currently planning limited dredging of the delta to maintain access to the seaplane base dock.
There are no future plans to dredge the delta for flood control purposes since it was
determined that the River elevation upstream of the North Boeing Bridge on flood elevations
(Straka 2009).
Future dredging could be proposed for navigational purposes or boater safety.
Six tributaries drain to the Cedar River (Table 4-8), all of which are located in Reaches C and
D. These tributaries flow across the historic Cedar River floodplain before reaching the valley
wall. Two small wetlands are located on the left bank of Reach C, slightly downstream of
Maplewood Creek. Also, a large associated wetland spans Reach D and is contained mostly
in the open space of Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park (see Map 3a).
4.3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
Cedar River supports a Chinook stock that is listed as Threatened under the ESA (Kerwin
2001; see Maps 5a and 5b). Fall Chinook produced in the River have a broad range of life
histories. Rearing can be stream-type or a combination of stream-and lake-type. Young
Chinook commonly rear for some time in the very shallow portions of the River with low
current velocities. These areas tend to be relatively free of the sculpins that are prevalent
predators in deeper water and along riprap shorelines. Chinook juveniles then migrate into
Lake Washington from late winter through early summer (February-July), where they
continue to rear or move directly to saltwater.
Coho are produced in the River, but in recent years only in small numbers (Kiyohara and
Volkhard, 2007). Coho generally spend their first year of life rearing in freshwater prior to
migrating to the ocean as smolts in their second year of life. Juvenile Coho commonly rear
along streambanks and in off-channel habitat. Pollok et al. (2004) found that young Coho
prefer beaver ponds in the Stillaguamish River and they likely prefer similar habitat in the
Cedar and Green Rivers. Coho smolts migrate through the lower Cedar River in late April
through May on their way to the ocean.
Cedar River Sockeye appear to be derived from the Baker Lake/Skagit River stock (Hendry
et al. 1996) planted in Lake Washington in the 1930s and 1940s. The Sockeye stock is
depressed (SASSI 1984) but not ESA-Iisted. Numerous Sockeye spawn in the River. Young
Sockeye may rear in the River for some time prior to migrating to the Lake for additional
rearing. In the River, the young Sockeye may seek off-channel ponds for winter rearing (Hall
2002)
Steelhead also reproduce in the Cedar River. Commonly, the young Steelhead rear within the
river and its tributaries for two or more years before beginning their migration to the ocean
through Lake Washington. During their riverine rearing, young Steelhead are substantial
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 4-37
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana{ysis
City of Renton
predators of migrating Steelhead salmon (Beauchamp 1995). At an age of two years or more,
the juvenile Steel head migrants tend to be substantially larger than other salmon migrants.
Cutthroat trout also occur in Cedar River. Cutthroat prefer steep riffle habitat, but use an
entire river for rearing and migration. Preferable spawning habitat is not common within the
shoreline located in the City.
Bull trout spawn in the upper Cedar River and rear in Chester Morse Lake. Small numbers of
sub-adult and adult Bull trout have been observed in Lake Washington over a number of
years. These Bull trout appear to be migrants into Lake Washington from other river basins or
fish that have passed downstream from Chester Morse Dam and become isolated from their
population.
Essentially, the lower portion of the Cedar River within the City functions as a
rearing/migratory corridor for most of the anadromous salmon and trout produced in the
watershed.
Before being rerouted in 1916, the Cedar River drained into the Duwamish River via the
Black River. Pink and Chum salmon may have utilized the Cedar River at that time; however,
they no longer occur.
Other native fish species found in the River may include western brook lamprey, river
lamprey, peamouth chub, largescale sucker, pygmy whitefish, northern pikeminnow,
speckled dace, char, and five species of sculpin. Numerous species of nonnative fish also
occur in the watershed including yellow perch, brown bullhead, black crappie, pumpkinseed
sunfish, and largemouth and smallmouth bass, which can be significant predators of juvenile
salmon ids (Kerwin 200 I; Parametrix 2000). Many of these species are found in the Green
River. Although many may occur in shallow shoreline areas, none are known to require
specific shoreline habitat characteristics. Altered shoreline areas, however, such as the rock-
lined levee areas along the Cedar River that lack wood, may provide preferred habitat for
salmonid predators (e.g., sculpin and bass).
,
b
Table 4-8. Cedar River Shoreline Tributary Characteristics
Stream Known Passage
Reach Stream Location Rating' Salmonid Use Barriers
C
D
Ginger Creek Left bank 3 Cutthroatb None
Unnamed Left bank 4 None None
Tributary
Maplewood Creek Right bank 2 Coho, Cutthroat Full
Molasses Creek Left bank 2 Coho, Sockeye, Partial
Cutthroat
Madsen Creek Left bank 2 Coho. Sockeye, None
Steelhead,
Cutthroat
Unnamed Right bank 3 Cutthroat None
Tributary
2= Perennial salmonid-bearing; 3 = Perennial non-salmonid bearing; 4 = ephemeral non-salmonid bearing_ Source: Jones and
Stokes (2005).
SSHIAP data do not report the presence of cutthroat.
4.3.2.3 Instream and Riparian Habitat
4·38
Reaches A and B are entirely artificial, created as part of watershed realignment early in the
20th Century, and are completely constrained between levees and revetments. These reaches
were regularly dredged to prevent flooding from their completion in 1912 until the mid-
1970s. Portions of the reaches were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-
1970s. Instream habitat in these reaches is almost entirely riffle, with little habitat
March 2010 I 553·\779·03\ (04/0401)
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inwntor}' and Analysis
City of Renton
complexity. Land-uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for
re-connection with a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor.
Channelization and existing land-uses also prevent significant LWD from accumulating in the
channel. Reaches A and B are also very low-gradient and depositional, and the substrates
have high levels of fine sediments.
As a result of existing land-use, Reaches C and D have a higher degree of function than
downstream reaches. Both Reaches C and D are partially diked and leveed, although Reach D
is less constrained, allowing for the development of gravel bars and a very small degree of
meandering and channel migration. At present, Reach D has a significant amount of L WO
due to the landslide caused by the Nisqually Earthquake in 200 I. This includes log-jams
behind the Ron Regis Park, just upstream of the Elliott Spawning Channel. Most of the left
bank of Reach C is deciduous forest, and the portion of Reach D adjacent to the golf course
and Ron Regis Park is deciduous forest. These forested areas are generally at least 200 feet in
width. Upstream of the Park, residential development has encroached onto the shoreline, and
forested riparian cover is very limited.
Despite the presence of some functional riparian forest in Reaches C and D, LWD
recruitment potential is very low, both because channelization limits the River's ability to
migrate and accumulate wood, and because existing trees, if recruited, would not have a
significant impact on stream morphology.
Reach D has accumulated individual pieces of L WO, but it has not accumulated in jams.
These pieces may provide some instream cover for fish, but their impact on river habitat
complexity is negligible. Instream habitat in Reaches C and D is almost exclusively riffles
and glides.
In Reach C: existing land-use including a former sand and gravel operation and a large multi-
family complex have substantially altered the shoreline environment through elimination of
most native vegetation and shoreline armoring. This alteration has removed most aquatic
habitat value from these sections of the shoreline and contribute to cumulative impacts of
alteration of the stream environment that contributes to continuing trends in the decline in
ecological functions including interruption of infiltration, and shading s necessary to maintain
the temperatures, providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life including food in the form
of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates, filtering and vegetative uptake of
nutrients and pollutants from groundwater and surface runoff, regulating of microclimate in
the stream-riparian corridors and other functions. Single family development in the reach
contributes to cumulative trends of degradation and varies depending on the intensity of
development, building setbacks and the extent of alteration of vegetation and bulkheading.
In 1995, the County constructed a groundwater-spawning channel adjacent to the River
behind the Maplewoood Golf Course on City's property at approximately RM 4.4. The
County groundwater-spawning channel was constructed as part of the King County Elliott
Levee Reconstruction and Habitat Enhancement Project to provide spawning habitat for
Sockeye salmon (Straka 2008). In 1998, a groundwater-fed spawning channel was
constructed adjacent to Ron Regis Park at approximately RM 4.8. The Elliott Spawning and
Rearing Habitat Channel was constructed in 2000, behind the Maplewood Golf Course at
approximately RM 4.6. Both of these projects were provided as mitigation for dredging of the
Cedar River in Reach A. (USACE 1997a & 1997b).
In 2001, the Nisqually Earthquake caused a landslide that blocked the Cedar River, which
resulted in the Cedar River diverting into the groundwater-spawning channel. The City
requested assistance from the USACE to replace the groundwater-spawning channel. The
replacement channel is proposed for construction on the left bank of the River at
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-39
Shoreline lv/aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Ana~"sis
City ofRenlon
approximately RM 3.4. Land rights in the area have been acquired, and design and permitting
have been completed; however, construction of the project has been postponed indefinitely
due to lack of federal funding (Straka 2008).
4.3.2.4 Floodplain and Channel Migration
4-40
The Cedar River floodplain has been delineated in Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) maps and additional studies done for the city by the Corps of Engineers and Tudor
Engineers in the late-1970s and by Northwest Hydraulics Consultants in 2002. The results of
that floodplain delineation are shown in Map 4e.
Reaches A and B east of 1-405 is a constructed and managed channel. The City of Renton has
a floodplain management program that includes maintenance of the channel which was
created in 1912 by Commercial Waterway District No.2 and assumed by the city in 1957.
The City dredged the channel and delta periodically until 1983 when dredging was
discontinued. During a November 1990 flood, the river overflowed its banks and flooded the
Renton Municipal Airport, Boeing facilities and adjacent properties, resulting in significant
damages. Following the flood, the City and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
developed an analysis of flooding potential that predicted that aggredation due to sediment
loads transported down the river would fill-in the lower Cedar River channel bed in less than
20 years. During storm events, the River could overflow the created channel, run onto the
Renton Municipal Airport's runways and other impervious surfaces, and flow into the center
of downtown Renton. This flooding would clearly cause a public safety hazard, and result in
significant property damages. It would also negatively-impact salmonid migration upstream
and spawning.
To eliminate this threat, the City and USACE created a Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction
Project (Cedar River 205 Project). In the summer of 1999, Phase I was implemented
including dredging the lower 1.25 miles of the channel an average depth offoUT feet from the
Williams Avenue Bridge to downstream of the North Boeing Bridge. Phase II of the project
undertaken in late 1999 and 2000 included the construction of levees and floodwaJls along
the lower 1.25 miles of the River.
Ongoing maintenance, in the form of periodic dredging, is predicted to be necessary in
perpetuity to maintain the design level of protection against the 100-year recurrence interval
event with at least 90 percent ofreliability. However, subsequent dredging of the channel has
not been necessary, from the combined result of operational changes in storage and flow
releases by the City of Seattle at the Chester Morse Masonry Dam and lower than average
precipitation from 2000 to 2005.
The City continues to monitor annual sedimentation along the lower River to ensure that a
bed elevation that would necessitate maintenance dredging has not been reached. Future
maintenance dredging is required by the City's agreement with the USACE for Cedar River
205 Project in order to maintain the flood protection benefits of the federally-constructed
project. The City is also required to maintain a levee certification and keep floodplain
mapping current. It is estimated that maintenance dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the
River will be necessary within the next four to seven years, depending upon the flood events
and the rate of sediment deposition.
In Reach C between 1-5 and SR 169 the floodplain is up to 400 feet wide in the vicinity of the
former Stoneway Concrete plant immediately east of RiverView Park. It is approximately
1,200 feet wide west of SR 169 and extends over about half of the subdivision in that area.
The Maplewood residential neighborhood on the north side (right bank) immediately
downstream of SR 169 is subject to a number of flood-related hazards. According to flood
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Anal}~~is
City of Renton
studies more than half the neighborhood would be inundated by shallow flooding in a 100-
year event. In addition, an active landslide scarp is located directly across the river from the
neighborhood. The Person Flood Control Revetment was built on the left bank to stabilize the
base of the landslide-prone slope, but it ultimately provides minimal protection against a
landslide feature of such large scale. The occurrence of a major landslide here triggered by
heavy rains, a earthquake, or just normal forces acting over time could block all or a portion
of the channel, and could potentially redirect the flow of the river into the residential
area. The King County flood management plan proposes voluntary buy-out of this area since
there is no reliable means to reduce long term landslide hazard. (KCFCZD 2007)
In Reach D east of SR 169 the floodplain is 1,200 to 1,500 feet wide and extends in many
areas from SR 169 to the edge of steep bluffs on the north side of the river. Uses within this
area are largely public open space, including the Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis
Park as well as some single family residences immediately east of the city limits within the
Urban Growth Area (UGA).
A channel migration zone (CMZ) study by King County is currently underway. A
preliminary assessment was made by the Department of Ecology staff.
In this reach the channel on the left bank (north side) is generally confined by steep
slopes except for the area within about a quarter mile upstream of SR 169, which includes
the Maplewood Golf Course, and about a quarter mile downstream of the I 54th Avenue
bridge, which contains about 20 residential lots ranging from one half to seven acres in
size. The steep slopes of the left bank influence channel migration through periodic
landslides. A recent slope failure during the Nisqually earthquake shifted the channel to
the right (south).
The historic channel migration area likely included the entire river bottom before
extensive human alteration including construction of SR 169 and the former Milwaukee Road
railroad right of way (now the Cedar River trail). Aerial photos dating back to the 1930s
indicate that the areas occupied by channels since that time period are within the floodway as
mapped by FEMA. The probable CZM extends nearly the width of the floodplain. About one
quarter to half of the floodplain in this area is in SMA jurisdiction: 200 feet from the
floodway.
Ecology has employed a simplified method to determine possible migration areas through
calculating an annual migration rate based on recent channel migration. These annual rates
can be used are then used to calculate the distance the channel could travel over a specified
period of time. Ecology staff have estimated the annual migration rates for this reach at
between 8 and 27 ft per year. Figure l3b shows a 10 year high hazard area. (Olson 2009)
For the most part, the CMZ for May Creek is within publicly owned open space including the
Maplewood Golf Course and Ron Regis Park. There also are about 20 single family
residences between Ron Regis Park and the 1 54th Avenue SE bridge.
The Shoreline Guidelines in WAC 173-26-22l(3)(b) direct local governments to take into
account the river's characteristics and its surroundings, noting that in some cases, river
channels are prevented from normal or historic migration by human-made structures or other
shoreline modifications. Legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit channel
movement and therefore are not to be considered within the channel migration zone. At the
outermost limit, SR 169 provides an outside limit to the potential CZM. There are, however, a
number of existing levees in this reach ofthe Cedar River owned and maintained by the King
County Flood Control Zone District and shown in the inset in Figure 13b. These levees and
revetments are part of a system located along many of the meander bends along the lower and
MW'ch2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-41
Shore/me Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inw:nfory and Ana(vsis
City of Renton
middle portions of the river, Most of these were built in the 1960s and 70s to prevent lateral
migration of the river that might cause flood or erosion damage to developed properties and
infrastructure, They are designed to direct the river's tlow rather than to contain flood flow,
These levees effectively contain the CMZ to within close proximity of the existing channel.
The King County 2006 Flood Management Plan provides a policy direction to selectively set-
back flood protection facilities to reconnect the river with its floodplain and allow habitat
restoration work to take place while managing flood hazards to protect private property and
infrastructure. (King County 2006)
4.3.2.5 Other Natural Features
Despite dikes and levees along the extent of the shoreline, Reaches A and D are still at
significant risk of flooding. Affected areas include Renton Municipal Airport, Maplewood
Golf Course, Ron Regis Park, and residential areas upstream of the Park. With the exception
of a small area in Reach C, the entire shoreline is also an aquifer recharge zone (see Map 4c),
The valley walls bordering the Cedar River floodplain in Reaches C and D have a high
potential for surface erosion and moderate risk oflandslides (see Map 4a). Two short sections
of shoreline on the left bank of Reach C and two sections on the right bank of Reach D have a
very high landslide risk. In addition, the portion of shoreline surrounding Ginger Creek
(Reach C) is a coal mine hazard area on both banks. The entire floodplain of the River is an
earthquake hazard area (see Map 4a).
4.3.3 Built Environment
4.3.3.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of River are a mix of residential, parks, recreation and
open space, government/institutional and undeveloped lands. Transportation dominates land-
uses in the shoreline planning area (27 percent), Existing land-use within the River shoreline
planning area was assessed using 2008 King County Assessor's parcel data.
• Reach A: The west bank upstream of the mouth of the river is currently in use by the
Renton Municipal Airport (classified as government/institutional in the Assessor's
classification [43 percent]). The east bank is devoted to the Cedar River Park, The
Assessor's use-classification of the balance of the shoreline planning area is as
roadways (35 percent); parks, recreation and open space (15 percent); and industrial
(six percent), Most of the Boeing Plant east of the river is outside the 200-foot
shorel ine jurisdiction.
• Reach B: The majority of Reach B is in use by roadways and railroads (53 percent),
The remaining uses include government/institutional (16 percent); single-family
residential (nine percent); multi-family residential (seven percent); commercial/retail
(six percent); and parks, recreation and open space (four percent).
Government/institutional uses include the Renton Senior Center, Renton Library, a
religious institution, a non-profit organization and the Renton Parks Department
maintenance site,
• Reach C: Existing land-use includes low density residential (18 percent); parks,
recreation and open space (seven percent); multi-family residential (four percent);
and industrial (four percent). Undeveloped lands (38 percent) and roadways and
railroads (25 percent) dominate the existing land-use, A large amount of land
4-42 March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline .Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
classified as undeveloped lands is the Cedar River Greenway System (see: Section
4.3.2.3, Public Access).
• Reach D: The dominant land-use is parks, recreation and open space (31 percent),
followed by undeveloped lands (24 percent), low density residential (21 percent), and
roadways (15 percent).
Planned Land-Use
The City's zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use designations are essentially the same
within the Cedar River shoreline planning area. Reach A is zoned Industrial (89 percent) and
Mixed-Use (11 percent), and is categorized as Urban Center-North in the Comprehensive
Plan, allowing a range of uses. Reach B is zoned as Mixed-Use (22 percent), Low Density
Residential (39 percent), and Multi-Family Residential (24 percent) and Commercial (15
percent) and is categorized as Urban Center-Downtown land-use and Center Downtown in
the Comprehensive Plan. Reach C is zoned Low Density Residential (85 percent) and Mixed-
Use (15 percent) and categorized as Commercial/Office/Residential and Residential Low
Density in the Comprehensive Plan. Reach D is zoned as Low Density Residential and
categorized as Residential Low Density, R-4 and Resource Conservation/R-4 in the
Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton 2008b). The percentages indicated are based on the
King County Assessor's coding system.
Figure 4-8 shows the proportions of current land-use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-
use designations for each Cedar River shoreline reach. The data for City zoning and
Comprehensive Plan land-use excludes roadways and railroads, which are categorized as
transportation, are included in the existing land-use data. The mixed-use category
encompasses the Urban Center, Downtown, Center, Downtown and Commercial/Office/
Residential designation for consistency with King the County Assessors land-use coding.
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401) 4-43
Shoreline Master Program
RevIsed Draft Shoreline Inventory alld Analysis
City of Renton
REAC~ A
REACh C
RE,ACH D
LEGEND
EXISTiNG LAND USE
DE5IGNATIOIIS lI*lItG DISTRICTS
n~ fJ·"' ... '. \ 39' .•
%}"\
~4i
COIoIPREHEHSIVE PLAN
LAND UINO DESIGNAnoiIs
vv VI
La,., em.lt~ tNII-Fam1y t!i~e.j UiU ':-O'flmsrOill' h~~!i:~il GJ''E<fl!mw.' =-.rl;;.';::a=:.l T"ir"iWiillbn Viilta'l~ Ur,jIl'!C'I'F'l
~:lfr~lil Re9da1ltla' ketall IretiwtKln Opef1 Space lJro:t-.'a~ P:m:~s
Figure 4-8 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area
A portion of the Renton Municipal Airport's shoreline frontage is considered a water-
dependent use because it includes a seaplane dock on Lake Washington; however, none of the
River frontage can be considered water-dependent. Most of the River's shoreline between
Logan Avenue and 1-405 is commercial or residential. There is a large vacant site on the
north bank, east of 1-405. This site was previously occupied by the Stoneway Concrete batch
plant.
The River provides the most opportunity for public access of all the shoreline waterbodies in
Renton. The Cedar River Trail and the numerous parks along the River provide the public
with multiple opportunities to access andlor view the water.
Undeveloped or Vacant Lands
4-44
Table 4-9 provides the percentage of undeveloped parcels and undeveloped area by reach. As
described above, a large portion of the Cedar River Greenway System in Reach C and D is
incorrectly categorized as undeveloped area instead of parks, recreation, and open space.
March 2010 I 553-1779-{)31 (04/0401)
Shoreline ;Vfa.ster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventm}' and Analysis
City of Renton
Table 4-9. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Cedar River
# of % Undeveloped % Undeveloped
Reach Lots Lots Area
CR-A 9 11% 1%
CR-B 62 11% 3%
CR-C 170 25% 38%
CR-D 64 19% 24%
Source: King County 2008; City of Renton 2008a
4.3.3.2 Impervious Areas
Impervious areas were analyzed based on the City's GIS layer. Table 4-10 below shows the
total amount of impervious area for each reach within the Cedar River shoreline planning
area. The impervious area only includes public ROWs and buildings.
Table 4-10. Impervious Surface in Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area
Total Impervious Roadway % of Total Building % of Total
Reach Acres Area (Acres) Percent Impervious Impervious areas Impervious Areas
A 79 30 38% 92% 8%
B 32 20 63% 82% 18%
C 168 48 28% 86% 14%
D 126 21 17% 90% 10%
Source: City of Renton 2005
Since the data does not reflect driveways and parking lots, the amount of impervious surface
for some reaches is larger than is shown in the table. The following is a list of sites that
contribute additional impervious area:
• Pavement at Renton Municipal Airport and Boeing Airport Company in Reach A
• Parking lots and driveways along Cedar River Trail and Renton Memorial High
School Stadium in Reach A
• Compacted dirt at Stoneway Sand and Gravel site in Reach C
According to the data in the table, the vast majority of impervious surface adjacent to the
River is roadways.
4.3.3.3 Public Access
The Cedar River provides significant opportunities for shoreline access. There is at least one
park in every reach, with the exception of only the Cedar River Trail in Reach A. The Cedar
River Trail is a pedestrian and bicycling trail that provides water-oriented recreation. It is
located along the entire length of the River within the City limits. The trail continues
upstream, beyond City limits, towards Maple Valley. Access to the trail in the City is located
in Reach A via North Riverside Drive or the Renton Memorial High School Stadium.
Additional access points are located at Reach C in Liberty Park, Cedar River Park, Riverview
Park, and Maplewood Roadside Park; and Reach D at Ron Regis Park (City of Renton Parks
and Recreation website 2008) (Map 12).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-45
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City ofRenlOll
• Cedar River Trail Park: Located in Reach A on the east side of the River, the 24-
acre Park provides parking, a non-motorized boat launch, restrooms and passive-use
areas. The major feature of the Park is the Cedar River Trail, which starts at Lake
Washington.
• Jones Park: Located in Reach B, the 1.2-acre Park includes a playground, picnic
tables, benches, and restrooms. The Park does not provide physical access to Cedar
River.
• Liberty Park: Located in Reach B, the 12-acre active recreation Park includes
basketball courts, tennis courts, two fields with bleachers, picnic areas, shelters,
playground equipment, a skate-park, and a large a parking lot with 180 stalls. The
Park provides access to the Cedar River Trail.
• The Renton Library: Located in Reach B and spanning the River to the east of
Bronson Way, the Library provides visual access to the river from walkways.
• Riverview Park: Located in Reach C, this II-acre ark provides water-oriented
recreation. Non-motorized boat launches provide the public with access to the
shoreline. The Park also has restrooms, a picnic shelter, interpretive salmon life cycle
displays, wildlife viewing, and open meadows along the Cedar River Trail.
• Maplewood Park: This active, one-acre park is located in Reach C. It functions as a
gateway to the Cedar River Trail and provides access to the water.
• Cedar River Natural Zone: This 257-acre, undeveloped greenway is located along
the southern bank of the River in Reach C. The Cedar River Trail partially travels
through the greenway.
• The Maplewood Golf Course: This city-owned golf course located in Reach D. The
golf course does not provide physical access to Cedar River.
• Ron Regis Park: Located in Reach D, this 45-acre Park provides l2Y, acres of active
recreation, including a baseball/softball field, soccer field, basketball court, restrooms
and a parking lot with a 120 stalls. The remainder of the Park, located along Cedar
River is left in its natural state. The park provides a soft-surface walkway to the
Cedar River that was damaged by flows diverted by landslides in the 2001
earthquake. Though damaged, the walkway still provides access to the River.
Opportunities for enhanced public access by reach include:
• Reach A from the mouth to Logan Ave contains the Cedar River Trail Park on the
east bank with a trail along the entire reach. There is no public access from the
Municipal Airport to the east. The potential for redevelopment along this reach is
very limited, unless the Boeing Plant should be redeveloped, which might lead to a
change in the use ofthe Municipal Airport and the potential for public access as part
of that redevelopment.
• Reach B extends from Logan Ave. to 1-405. The public owns a corridor about 200
feet wide as part of the former Commercial Waterway District. There is a
continuous trail system along the north side of the river. The Renton Senior Center
and several parks are in this reach. Jones Park is 1.2-acres in size and includes a
playground, picnic tables, benches and restrooms. Liberty Park is a 12-acre active
recreation park that includes sports fields, picnic areas, playgrounds, and a
skatepark. The Renton Library that spans the river east of Bronson Way provides
visual access to the river from walkways. Future redevelopment of private land may
4-46 Mru-ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revi.~ed Draft Shoreline inventory and Analy.~is
City of Renton
provide opportunities for an enhanced area of public access and shoreline oriented
uses to enhance shoreline enjoyment. The city park maintenance facility along the
river may be redeveloped to provide additional recreation opportunities. Revisions
to the existing trail to relocate further from the water's edge to allow revegetation
should be considered in the future as part of park and river maintenance plans.
• Reach C is located between [-405 and SR 169 and contains the Cedar River Trail on
the fonner Milwaukee Road Railroad ROW. Riverview Park: is located on the north
side of the river and provides a non-motorized boat launch and public shoreline
access as well as a picnic shelter, interpretive salmon life cycle displays, wildlife
viewing, and open meadows along the Cedar River Trail. Maplewood Park is an
active one-acre park that functions as a gateway to the Cedar River Trail and
provides access to the water. The Cedar River Greenway System is a 237-acre
undeveloped greenway located along the southern bank. Private redevelopment of
the fonner Stoneway Cement plant east of Riverview Park, the Riviera Apartments,
and other properties with high intensity zoning provides opportunities for enhanced
public access parallel to the shoreline as well as shoreline ecological enhancement
and possibly water-oriented development. There is some single-family development
in the area that provides little opportunity for enhanced public access except
through public acquisition.
• Reach D between SR 169 and the City limits contains the Maplewood Golf Course
and Ron Regis Park. There is no public access along the river adjacent to the golf
course. Whereas Ron Regis Park provides a soft-surface walkway to the Cedar
River that was damaged by flows diverted by landslides in the 200 I earthquake, but
remains accessible. Public shoreline access in this area should be balanced with
ecological values. There are several spawning channels that have been developed
along this reach to enhance fish habitat. The Cedar River Trail in this area is
alongside SR 169 but provides access to the Cedar River furfher upstream and
downstream. There is limited private land in this reach and little potential for
redevelopment that might include public access.
4.3.3.4 Infrastructure
Numerous bridges span the Cedar River within Renton city limits. Most of these crossings
occur within Reach B, including two private bridges connecting the Boeing Airplane
Company with the Renton Municipal Airport, the Williams Avenue Bridge, the Wells
Avenue Bridge, the Bronson Way Bridge, the Houser Way Bridge, the Renton Public Library
and the BNSF railroad tracks. Logan Avenue, a six-lane principal arterial, spans the river in
Reach A. [-405 crosses the River in Reach C as does a pedestrian bridge beneath the 1-405
bridge and a pedestrian bridge carrying the Cedar River Trail. SR 169 (Renton Maple Valley
Road), a principal arterial, and 149th Avenue cross the river in Reach D with the Cedar River
Trail utilizing the old highway bridge.
There are also several roads that travel parallel to the river within the shoreline planning area,
including streets on both sides of the river between Williams and Wells Avenues and
continuing along the north bank to Bronson Way. There are 25 stonnwater outfalls along the
Cedar River in Reaches A, B, and C recorded in the City of Renton inventory (City of Renton
2008b; King County 2002) (Map 9b). It is likely that there are additional, unrecorded outfalls
from both the street system and adjacent development.
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (0410401) 4-47
Shoreline AlaSler Program
Revlsed Drqft Shurelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
4.3.3.5 Historic and Cultural Resources
Native American and Euro-American historic use of the area is detailed in Section 4.1.4.5
(Historic and Cultural Resources -Lake Washington).
A search of the DAHP database indicated that there are two state-and federally-registered
sites near the River shoreline planning area as described in Table 4-11:
Table 4-11. Registered Sites near Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area
Name
Renton Substation Snoqualmie Falls
Power Company (45-KI-74)
Renton Fire Station (45-KI-209)
Source: DAHP 2008b and 2008c
Location
1017 South 3" Street
235 Mill Avenue
South
Year
Built
1898
1939
Description
Energy Facility
Government fire
station
The DAHP database also indicated that there are two inventoried sites near the Cedar River
shoreline planning area as described in Table 4-12:
Table 4-12. Inventoried Sites near Cedar River Shoreline Planning Area
Name
Henry
Moses
Aquatic
Center (45-
KI-686)
Historic
debris
scatter (45-
KI-542)
General
Location Date
Northeast 291
side of the before
Cedar River present
channel (BP)
Soulh bank Nol
of the Cedar provided
River
Source: lAAS 2003b; NWM 2007; Norman 1996
Description
Two hearths and other
archaeological malerials.
Site was used as a
Iraveling campsite for
resource gathering or
trading groups traveling
along the Cedar River Pack
Trail.
National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP)
Eligibility Determination
Eligible bul has been
completely removed through
controlled excavation
Several hundred bricks, Not determined
drainage liles, RR-tie-sized
boards, two cart wheels,
one axle, and slabs of
aluminum siding and
roofing.
A cul1ural resource report prepared by Historical Research Associates in October 2005 for a
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) project identified three ethnographic sites.
• A Duwamish Tribe fish weir and trading ground located at the present site of
Maplewood Golf Course.
• A Duwamish Tribal village west of Maplewood Golf Course. along the Cedar River
in the vicinity of Maplewood Village,
• The historic period trail from Seattle to the Cascade Mountains, also called the Cedar
River Pack Trail.
4-48 M=h 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shure line Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inl'entury and Analysis
City of Renton
The Cedar River falls within the recognized usual and accustomed fishing grounds and
stations of the Muckleshoot Tribe.
4.4 GREEN RIVER
4.4.1 General Conditions
As indicated in the watershed analysis in Section 3.1, only a small portion of the 566-square-
mile Green River watershed is within the City. Most of the Green River watershed within the
City is within the Springbrook Creek watershed, discussed below. For the purposes of this
analysis, the portion of the Black River downstream of the pump station is considered part of
the Green River, since most of its hydrologic functions are related to the adjacent Green
River. With the exception of the Black River spur, the entire Green River channel is separated
from the City by the BNSF railway mainline that parallels the river. Except for the Black
River, areas within the City that are within the SMA jurisdiction include slivers of land
adjacent to the railway where the River meanders to the east.
4.4.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
4.4.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
The Black River below the pump station is the only portion of the Green River within the
shoreline planning area that has a hydraulic connection to the river. Although most of the
historic floodplain was likely wetland, the channel has been realigned and no wetlands are
known to occur within the shoreline planning area (see Map 3a). Small wetlands may be
present that have not yet been identified or mapped.
4.4.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
No priority habitats for wildlife were identified within the shoreline planning area, although
two bald eagle nests are located within y, mile of the shoreline (see Map 5c). The eastern
section of the planning area falls within the Black River Riparian Forest conservation area,
although the width ofthe protected corridor on either side of the Black River is less than 150
feet.
Chinook, Coho, Chum, Pink, Steelhead, and Cutthroat are all found in the Green River (see
Map 5a), and life histories are similar to those described for the Cedar River (see Section
4.3.1.3). Pink and Chum salmon typically migrate directly to saltwater upon emergence.
Other species use the City's shorelines primary for migration and rearing. The Muckleshoot
Tribes
4.4.2.3 lnstream and Riparian Habitat
The riparian corridor is typically less than 100 feet wide on either side of the Black River
below the pump station and is composed of small-to medium-sized deciduous trees and
emergent vegetation. Roads, paths, and industrial development limit the width, and, on the
right bank, bisect vegetative cover. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) cover is very
common to dominant. LWD recruitment potential is low.
The Black River is channelized and is almost exclusively glide habitat, providing little habitat
complexity Or foraging potential or cover for either fish or wildlife.
Upstream of the Black River, a very thin sliver of Green River shoreline planning area lies
within Renton city limits. This area includes only riparian habitat. The shoreline is isolated
Mru-ch2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-49
Shoreline Alaster Program
RevIsed Draft Shoreline hrvenlory and Ana~vsis
City of Renton
from the River by a railroad levee and does not contain any natural cover or support any
ecological function.
4.4.2.4 Other Natural Features
The lower portion of the Black River is identified as part of the Green River shoreline
planning area specifically because a portion of the floodplain is still connected (see Map 4c).
City critical areas maps do not identify these areas as aquifer recharge zones.
Landslide, erosion, and coal mine hazards are not present on the shoreline, but alluvial
deposits underlying the entire Green and Black River floodplains present a seismic hazard
(see Map 4a).
4.4.2.5 Floodplain and Channel Migration
Flood hazards witbin the Green/Duwamish River system have been actively managed since
the tum of the lOth/20 th Centuries by (a) diversion of the White River into the Puyallup
drainage, (b) lowering Lake Washington, and diversion oftbe Cedar River (c) installation of
the Howard A. Hanson Dam, and (d) the installation of levees and revetments.
Current floodplain studies indicate that extensive flooding would occur in a major event,
largely because the Green River levee system is no longer credited witb providing 100-year
flood protection along the entire reach of the Green except for levees protecting the
Southcenter area. Current Green River flood plain information is indicated in Map 4f.
The King County Flood Control Zone District (KCFCZD) was established in 2007 to
implement tbe 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan (KCFHMP) and assumed
the assets and responsibilities of the previous ten individual flood control zone districts. The
flood hazard management plan includes a comprehensive program to update the flood control
program for the Green River, but in the short to medium term, the risk of flooding from the
Green River can be expected over a large portion of the City of Renton to the east of the
rIver.
The channel migration zones of tbe Green river prior to European Settlement likely
meandered over much of the valley floor (Collins and Sheikh, 2005). The river is currently
constrained by the installation of levees and/or revetments along most of tbe channel banks
adjacent to the city. Although some of those levees are not federally-certified, the presence of
these features as well as roads and railroads parallel to tbe river results in little or no potential
for channel migration into Renton.
4.4.3 Built Environment
4.4.3.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
EXisting Land-Use
4-50
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of the Green River are a mix of industrial, roadways,
government/institutional, commercial/retail, and undeveloped lands. Existing land-use was
assessed using 2008 King County Assessor's parcel data. The majority of the Green River
shoreline is designated as industrial (45 percent), with the remainder as roadways and
railroads (19 percent), government/institutional (\3 percent), commercial/retail (12 percent),
and undeveloped lands (11 percent). A portion of the Black River Riparian Forest and
Wetland has been misclassified as undeveloped lands instead of parks, recreation and open
space. The industrial designation includes the Columbia Distributing Company, a beer and
wine distribution facility.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline /Ilaster Prugram
Revised Drajt Shorelme Invent0'Y' and Analysis
City of Renton
There are three areas in the City of Renton adjacent to the Tukwila city limits that are within
SMA jurisdiction as measured by the 200-foot jurisdiction boundary from portions of the
Green River. All of these areas are separated from the river by the BNSF railroad.
Planned Land-Use
The City has designated the Green River shoreline planning area as Employment Area Valley
with Medium Industrial and Resource Conservation zoning. Figure 4-9 shows the proportions
of current land-use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use designations for the Green
River shoreline. The data for city zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use exclude roadways
and railroads. Roads and railroads, categorized as transportation, are included in the existing
land-use data.
The Renton Comprehensive Plan designation for the entire Black River/Springbrook Creek
area is Employment Area-Valley. It is categorized as Commercial below for consistency with
the King County Assessor's land-use coding.
~DlSTRlCrs
'OJ~
LEGEND
1_'1/11 ~il~ r/ljli.F-:Jmi'f I}im.:l tHnf fnmnmrj",i' "'1\I115t~! :;"o'Qmf!lt:r~' =',tt,..1i!HC' Tr..Npot:llr)H \'''';.:''I;IL' UrknlJ'{.Vl
,,*iljl!l'tiill RE'Sd8'lha: Retilil :rnlltlJlY.lfl 0111111 ~ Uro:lEtodt«d Palrels
Figure 4-9 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Green River Shoreline Planning Area
The only water-dependent use in the Green River shoreline planning area occurs on behalf of
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe that fishes the River's mainstream. A review of King County
Assessor's data revealed that there are several commercial and industrial properties along the
Green River, but these properties do not involve any water-dependent or water-related uses.
Public access is provided through the Black River Riparian Forest and Wetland.
Vacant Lands
Table 4-13 provides the percentage of undeveloped parcels and undeveloped area. As
described earlier, a portion of undeveloped area is part of the Black River Riparian Forest and
Wetland.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-51
Shoreline ,"laster Program
Revised Drafi Shorelme Inventory and Anu!.vsis
City of Renton
Table 4-13. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Green River
# of % Undeveloped % Undeveloped
Reach Lois Lois Area
GR-A 27 33% 11%
Source: King County 2008; City of Renton 2008a
4.4.3.2 Impervious Areas
Impervious areas were analyzed based on the City's GIS layer. Table 4-14 below shows the
total amount of impervious area for the Green River shoreline planning area. The impervious
area only includes public ROWs and buildings. Most impervious area is due to Monster Road
Southwest.
Table 4-14. Impervious Area for the Green River Shoreline Planning Area
Roadway % of Total
Reach
Total
Acres
Impervious
Area (Acres) Percent Impervious Impervious areas
Building % of Total
Impervious Areas
A 29 7 23% 22% 18%
Source: City of Renton 2005
4.4.3.3 Public Access
There is no public access to the Green River shoreline within Renton city limits. The
Duwamish Green River Trail located along the Green River in Tukwila provides visual
access to the Green River shoreline (City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation website 2008).
The area of the Black River west of Monster Road provides no public access. There may be
opportunities to establish public physical access from a trail parallel to the water as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of
trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent park including
crossing under the railroad tracks.
4.4.3.4 Infrastructure
Monster Road, a principal arterial, crosses over the Black River within the Green River
shoreline planning area. BNSF railroad tracks are located within the Green River shoreline
planning area. There are no storm water or wastewater outfalls along the Green River within
the City limits recorded in the City's inventory (Map 9b). (City of Renton 2008b; King
County 2002). It is likely that there are unrecorded outfalls primarily from both the street
system that are culverted under the BNSF railway.
4.4.3.5 Historic and Cultural Resources
4-52
Native American and Euro-American historic use of the Renton area is detailed in Section
4.1.4.5 (Historic and Cultural Resources -Lake Washington). A search of the DAHP
database indicated that there are no state-or federally-registered sites, nor are there any
inventoried sites within the Green River shoreline planning area.
The Green River falls within the recognized usual and accustomed fishing grounds and
stations of the Muckleshoot Tribe.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
4.5 BLACK RIVER/SPRINGBROOK CREEK
4.5.1 General Conditions
Shore/me Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Invcntory and Analysis
City ofRenlon
Springbrook Creek is the largest subbasin in the lower Green River Basin, with a watershed
area of about 15,763 acres (24.6 square miles). The basin is composed of two distinct
physical settings. In the eastern half of the subbasin, rolling hills rise to elevations of about
525 feet above the valley floor. The western half of the basin is virtually flat.
The creek is 12 miles long with about 3.5 miles in the City. Tributaries, Mill and Garrison
Creeks, enter from the south from the City of Kent. Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek
originate on plateaus to the east with headwaters at Panther Lake and flow into Springbrook
Creek near Southwest 30th Street. Only the mainstem of Springbrook Creek is within SMA
jurisdiction, together with associated wetlands.
All of Springbrook Creek in the City was extensively modified and straightened for
agricultural drainage in the 1920s by King County Drainage District No. I, which owns the
Springbrook Creek ROW. The channel area from the Black River Pump Station, including
Forebay area up to the Oakesdale bridge crossing just upstream of Southwest 16th Street, was
improved in the 1980s and 1990s for flood control by the City in cooperation with the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service; Straka 2008).
The pump station prevents high flows in the Green River from backing up into Springbrook
Creek, reducing the risk of flooding. The pump station is a barrier to salmonids upstream and
downstream during certain seasons, and is in need of replacement to avoid obstructing fish
passage (Kerwin and Nelson 2000).
4.5.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
4.5.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
Black River/Springbrook Creek now is a stream system that flows parallel to the Green River
and about a half mile to the east. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the Black River previously
was part of the Cedar River system and conveyed the flows of the Cedar River to the Green
River. In 1916, Cedar River discharge was diverted from the Black River to Lake
Washington due to lowering of Lake Washington. The portions of the Black River east of
Springbrook Creek dried up or were filled and the Black River is simply an archaic label for
the downstream reaches of the Springbrook Creek system.
The major tributaries to Springbrook Creek include Rolling Hills Creek and Panther Creek.
Rolling Hills Creek flows west into Springbrook Creek along Southwest 23,d Street in a piped
conveyance (see Map 3a). Approximately the first 3,000 feet of stream is piped. Jones and
Stokes (2005) identifY Rolling Hills Creek as perennial but non-salmonid bearing. Just
upstream, Panther Creek flows west into Springbrook Creek via its primary channel and a
piped distributary. Panther Creek supports Coho and Cutthroat according to Williams et at.
(1975), but WRIA 9 literature does not identifY direct observation of existing use by Coho
(Kerwin and Nelson 2000). A small, unnamed, ephemeral tributary flows east and enters
Springbrook Creek between Rolling Hills and Panther Creeks. The stream is non-salmonid
bearing. According to the Muckleshoot Tribes fisheries division, Springbrook Creek is used
by all salmonid species except Sockeye Salmon (MIFTD 2009).
Black River/Springbrook Creek flows through what was historically the Green River
floodplain, which deposited alluvium that supported large riparian wetlands. Some of these
wetlands still exist today. A large, forested wetland also exists along the Black River
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-53
Shoreline Musler Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renlon
paleochannel in Reach A (see Map Id ). In addition, the impoundment created upstream of
the flood control structure creates an area of open water catalogued by the National Wetland
Inventory.
Another wetland complex can be found downstream surrounding the Springbrook and
Panther Creek confluence. To the west, a forested wetland runs along the right bank of
Springbrook Creek and up both banks of Panther Creek. An additional emergent wetland lies
on the west side of Springbrook Creek.
In addition, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City
implemented a joint, multi-site wetland mitigation bank that includes 130 acres of wetland
restoration, rehabilitation, and enhancement (WSDOT 2008; Figure 4-10). Three of these
sites are contiguous to Springbrook Creek, and the other two sites are potentially associated
with (and may be within) the shoreline planning jurisdiction. The mitigation bank sites are
located between Southwest 27'" Street and the City limits at Southwest 43" Street. Other
wetlands may occur in the area that have not yet been identified or mapped.
4.5.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
Chinook, Chum, Coho, Steelhead Trout, and Cutthroat Trout are all found in Black
River/Springbrook Creek and utilize the habitat primarily for migration (see Maps 5a and 5b).
However, Coho are the only anadromous salmonids to use the stream extensively. With the
exception of Chum, salmonids may also use the Black River for rearing to a limited extent.
Kerwin and Nelson (2000) report that Chinook use is likely exploratory, and the system does
not support substantial use. The portion of Black River/Springbrook Creek within the
shoreline jurisdiction is very low gradient, and existing habitat is not likely to support
substantial spawning.
4.5.2.3 Instream and Riparian Habitat
4-54
In stream habitat in the Springbrook Creek shoreline is extremely uniform (Table 4-15) and
virtually identical across reaches. The Black River Basin plan (City of Renton 1993) notes
that under present conditions the lack of suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing
capacity due to degraded water quality, especially high temperatures during warm summer
months, provides little usable fish habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). These limiting
conditions remain today. The stream is constrained and channelized throughout the shoreline.
The stream gradient is very flat, sinuosity is very low, and the stream has been almost
completely straightened in Reach C, reducing channel surface area (usable habitat) thereby
limiting habitat creation.
Reach A has been impounded by the Black River flood control structure, and much of the
reach is contained in a large pond that is prone to increased temperature and corresponding
low DO. Temperature may present a barrier for migrating salmonids. Impaired temperature
and DO have degraded salmonid rearing and, in upstream reaches, have inhibited incubation.
The Black River Pumping Station (BRPS) can act as a barrier to migration of juvenile and
adult salmonids due to inadequate screening, fishway design, and operation schedule (Kerwin
and Nelson 200 I). The riparian corridor in this reach is primarily forested and more than 250-
feet-wide on either bank. However, invasive reed canarygrass is also dominant In areas,
particularly on the river's left shoreline where public access and a trail system exist.
Mllfch 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline ?v1asrer Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalYSIS
City ofRenlon
Table 4-15. Habitat Types in Springbrook Creek
Habitat Type Length (ft) Percent of Total
All Potential Habitat 30,645 100
Steps 40 <1
Pools 54 <1
Riffles 4174 13
Glides 0 0
Low Gradient Glides 25304 83
Habitats Not Delineated 1073 4
Source: Harza (1995)
Upstream of Oakesdale Avenue, the stream flows through a 100-to 150-foot-wide vegetated
corridor, bounded on either side by roads and industrial/commercial development. A
combination of deciduous forest and open canopy emergent areas extend 30 feet on the east
(left) bank and 80-100 feet on the west (right) bank.
In Reach B the stream then flows under two local streets and 1-405, which has caused a
highly disturbed riparian condition.
Portions of the riparian corridor in Reach C have undergone restoration and have a somewhat
natural character with a vegetated riparian corridor within in the Boeing Longacres Office
Park. The vegetated riparian corridor width in this area varies between 75 and more than 200
feet to either side of the stream. A wetland bank includes restoration of an extensive area
adjacent to the channel and involves several breaches of the existing berm and riparian
plantings of native vegetation in Units A, B, and E (Fibure 4-10). Over half of the stream in
Reach C is maintained as a straight bermed ditch by the Drainage District. The district
regularly removes vegetation within the channelized portions of the stream and the vegetation
cover is dominated by reed canarygrass. The character of the stream and maintenance
practices contribute to continuing cumulative trends of decline in ecological functions
through blocking of groundwater interflow that would otherwise contribute lower
temperature water inputs, lack of riparian vegetation necessary for shading to maintain
temperature, providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life including the food chain,
filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from groundwater and surface
runoff, regulating of microclimate in the stream-riparian corridors, and other functions.
4.5.2.4 Floodplain and Channel Migration
The Springhrook Creek floodplain has been delineated in Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) studies and maps (FEMA 2007) as well as additional studies by the City of
Renton (R W Beck 2006). Floodplains indicated on Map 4g include the areas flooded by the
Green River. The floodplain of Springbook Creek itself as indicated in the 2006 R W Beck
study is contained within the maintained channel except within the Black River Forest
wetlands, wetlands just north of the Panther Creek confluence, wetlands in the WSDOT
mitigation bank, some wetlands preserved as part of the Longacres Office Park south of 27th
Street and west of Oaksdale Avenue and a small area adjacent to the railroad south of the
BNSF automobile facility. The floodway is entirely within the maintained channel. Flood
events from the Green River at a level somewhat below the 1 percent or 100 year flood are
prevented from extending up Springbrook Creek by the Black River Pump Station. Large
floods from the Green River, however, are of greater depth than the Springbrook CreekIBlack
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-55
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
River floodplain and override the extent of the creeks floodplain and cover a much larger
area, The Green River floods, however, are from overtopping levees further upstream that are
carried down the valley and are not from lateral overtopping of the levees adjacent to Renton,
Under natural conditions, the channel migration zone for Springbrook Creek probably
included a meander zone across the valley, It is now constrained both by the channel
maintained by the Drainage District and by public streets and development. For all practical
purposes, the creek has no channel migration zone,
4.5.2.5 Other Natural Features
The entire shoreline is underlain by Green River alluvium that supports a shallow aquifer and
is at risk to liquefaction during an earthquake (see Map 4a). This land is not identified in the
City's critical areas mapping as an important aquifer recharge area (see Map 4c).
Downstream of 30th Avenue, frequently-flooded areas are extensive and are comprised of
primarily existing wetlands and other open space (see Map 4c). No erosional or landslide
hazard areas are present within the shoreline planning area.
4.5.2.6 Existing and Planned Land-Use
Existing Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of Black River/Springbrook Creek are a mix of
undeveloped lands, industrial, roadways, commercial/retail, parks, recreation and open space,
and government/institutional. Existing land-use was assessed using 2008 King County
Assessor's parcel data.
• Reach A: The majority of Reach A is designated as undeveloped (38 percent), with
the remainder as roadways (22 percent); parks, recreation, and open space (22
percent); government/institutional (12 percent); and commercial/retail (six percent).
The parks, recreation, and open space classification only partially includes the Black
River Riparian Forest and Wetland and the Metro Waterworks Garden Park. The
remainder of the Park is incorrectly classified as undeveloped. The King County
South Treatment Plant, classified as government/institutional, is a regional
wastewater treatment plant. It treats wastewater from properties located along the
east side of Lake Washington between Snohomish and Pierce Counties (King County
Natural Resources and Parks website 2008a).
• Reach B: This Reach is composed of largely of right of way as the stream crosses
Grady Way and 1-405. There is a small component of light-industrial and office park
west of the stream,
• Reach C: This Reach is composed of industrial (47 percent); parks, recreation, and
open space (29 percent); commercial (10 percent); roadway (nine percent); and
undeveloped (five percent) land-uses, In addition to Boeing Longacres Office Park,
the industrial and commercial land-uses are attributed to Springbrook Industrial
Center, an industrial office park. Located in between Southwest 27th and Southwest
34th Street, Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are incorrectly
classified as undeveloped. The Mitigation Bank is ajoint effort between WSDOT and
the City to enhance over 130 acres of wetlands. The enhancement site serves as
mitigation for impacts resulting from highway construction and City development
projects (WSDOT website 2008).
4-56 March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
I
<lTV
Of
TUtiWll,.
!
;:.i~n. tit"";
;_ .. "" MI"OItf. i'rtJ/7fN. ~... ~'1f" .'1 ~It 1-\
.'..,
UNIT C
Cltl
OF
RE~TOM
UNIT
d "
,
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory' and Analysis
City of Renton
UNIT B
UI,'I" , .--IIIH50LUlil
, ~'J.
SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLAND AND HABITAT
MITIGATION BANK : SUMMARY CONCEPT MAP
-n ___ NUU ----.. " ...... -
I , .... _ ... _-
E1 ... "--",,,,.
0-··-
--~, .. ,,"' .. ---___ II .. --PJ~·'OIiI __
---~-'-"
•• ____ -.1 ... ,.. ...... -.-..... ~--"' ...
Figure 4-10 City of RentonlWSDOT Wetland Mitigation Bank Site Map
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-57
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Drqft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renlon
Planned Land-Use
4-58
The City's zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use designations are Low Density
Residential, Industrial, and Commercial Uses (City of Renton 2008b).
figure 4-11 shows the proportions of current land-use, zoning, and Comprehensive Plan land-
use designations for each Black River/Springbrook Creek shoreline reach. The data for City
zoning and Comprehensive Plan land-use exclude roadways. Roads, categorized as
transportation, are included in the existing land-use data. City zoning is Resource
Conservation, Commercial Office, Industrial Light, Industrial Medium, and Industrial Heavy.
The Renton Comprehensive Plan designation for the entire Black River/Springbrook Creek
area is Employment Area -Valley. It is categorized as Commercial below for consistency
with the King County Assessor's land-use coding.
REACH EXISTING LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS COIIPII£HENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATIONS LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
HI~
~8%
REACH A
43% -::",2:
'00% (:~#,
29%
,,-
"~ i'i
REACHB ,0,; ;;..i' 100%
\. .• t!i ""
;~.;--_.../'
"
".,.~
REACH C HlO%
LEGEND
LO'k Deosit~ M!J1li-Fi:lffijjy Ivb:ed Use CORlrnercia!/ Industrial Goverrnnenl1 Park$lRccf TranspMation V~fJ Unt.flown
ResKiential Residemlcll Rebil hl!MfloJlIO!'I Open Space Undeveloped Parcels
Figure 4-11 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Black River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline Planning Area
March2010155J-I779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
The Black River/Springbrook Creek shoreline does not have any water-dependent uses. A
review of King County Assessor's data revealed that there are several commercial and
industrial properties along Black River/Springbrook Creek. The properties do not involve any
water-dependent or water-related uses. Public access is provided througb the Black River
Riparian Forest and Wetland, the Metro Waterworks Garden Park, and Springbrook Trail.
Undeveloped or Vacant Lands
Table 4-16 provides the percentage of undeveloped parcels and undeveloped area by reach.
As described earlier, a large portion of undeveloped area in Reach A is part of the Black
River Riparian Forest and Wetland and the Metro Waterworks Garden Park. Undeveloped
area in Reach C is, to a large extent, part of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat
Mitigation Bank.
Table 4-16. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along
Black River/Springbrook Creek
Reach
BRS-A
BRS-B
BRS-C
#of
Lots
45
9
58
% Undeveloped
Lots
47%
22%
21%
Source: King County 2008; City of Renton 2008a
4.5.2.7 Impervious Areas
% Undeveloped
Area
38%
1%
31%
Impervious areas were analyzed based on the City's GIS layer. Table 4-17 below shows the
total amount of impervious area for each reach within the Black River/Springbrook Creek
shoreline planning area. The impervious area only includes public ROWs and buildings.
Table 4-17. Impervious Surface in Black River/Springbrook Creek
Shoreline Planning Area
Roadway % of
Impervious Percent Total Impervious Building % of Total
Reach Total Acres Area (Acres) Impervious areas Impervious Areas
A 66 12 19% 99% 1 0/0
B 8 3 34% 76% 24%
C 130 18 14% 61% 39%
Source: City of Renton 2005
Because the data does not reflect parking for industrial and commercial properties along the
Black River/Springbrook Creek shoreline, the amount of impervious surface for some reaches
is more than shown in the table. According to the data in the table, the largest source of
impervious surface along Black River/Springbrook Creek is roadway.
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-59
Shoreline ,Haster Prowum
Revised f)raft Shoreline lnvenlory and AnaZvsis
City of Renton
4.5.2.8 Public Access
There are several opportunities along Black River/Springbrook Creek to access the shoreline
(City of Renton Parks and Recreation website 2008; King County Natural Resources and
Parks 2008b).
• Black River Riparian Forest and Wetland: Located in Reaches A and B, the Park
offers 92 acres of bird-watching and trails.
• Waterworks Garden Park: Located next to the King County South Treatment Plant
in Reaches A and B. The Park includes trails, public art, ponds, marshes, and access
to Springbrook Trail.
• Springbrook Trail: A two-mile pedestrian and bicycling trail that travels along the
entire length of Springbrook Creek.
Opportunities for enhanced public access by reach include:
• Reach A extends from the pumping station to Grady Way and is largely in public
ownership including the Black River Riparian Forest and Wetland and the Metro
Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). In addition to the Riparian Forest and
Wetland, Metro maintains the Waterworks Garden Park. There is a public access trail
adjacent to the stream adjacent to the WWTF. There also is a pedestrian sidewalk on
Oakesdale Avenue which is immediately east of the creek and adjacent to the wooded
buffer area.
• Reach B from Grady Way to SW 16th Street includes a trail system on WSDOT
right of way that crosses under 1-405. Opportunities for enhancement may be
presented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions.
• Reach C extends from SW 16th Street to city limits and includes two public trails that
are separated by industrial, office, and commercial uses. The first trail was developed
as part of the Boeing Longacres Office Park and parallels the stream from SW 16 th
Street under Oaksdale until 19th Street at the parking lot of a pre-existing industrial
building. From 23,d Street to the south, the City of Renton maintains a trail which
runs south through the entire corridor. The WSDOT wetland mitigation bank in the
drainage provides some interpretive access.
4.5.2.9 Infrastructure
4-60
Within City limits, Black River/Springbrook Creek is crossed by five bridges and culverted
or piped under five roadways. Most crossings occur in Reach C. Monster Road, a principal
arterial, crosses over the stream on bridges in Reach A. In Reach B Grady Avenue and 1-405
cross the stream on bridges. In Reach C, the stream is culverted under 16th Street, it is
crossed by Oakesdale Avenue on a bridge and is culverted at 27th Street, bridged at 34th
Street, culverted diagonally from the railroad at about 40th street across Oaksdale Avenue to
south of 41st Street and culverted under 43rd Street at the city limits. There are 19 stormwater
outfalls and two wastewater outfalls along Black River/Springbrook Creek recorded in the
City's inventory(Map 9b) (City of Renton 2008b; King County 2002). There are numerous
City water and sewer crossings of Springbrook Creek. King County sewer interceptors also
cross and are near Springbrook Creek. Seattle Public Utilities has a waterline crossing at
southwest 23rd Street. Olympic pipeline crossings are also in the area. The British Petroleum
Oil Tank Farm is also located adjacent to Springbrook Creek (Straka 2008). Finally, it is
likely that there are additional, unrecorded outfalls from both the street system and private
development.
Mat'ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
4.5.2.10 Historic and Cultural Resources
Shorelme Alasler Program
Revised Draft Shure line Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Native American and Euro-American historic use of the Renton area is detailed in Section
4.1.4.5 (Historic and Cultural Resources -Lake Washington). The heart of Duwamish
settlement was on the former Black River, where the Tribe had several winter houses on both
sides of the River. Many of the houses were built near fish weirs. This area was the densest
concentration of Duwamish villages in Duwamish territory until 1916, when the lowering of
Lake Washington eliminated the Black River. Tribe members that lived along the Cedar
River, White River, and Green River came to the Black River each year to harvest salmon.
This helped maintain the influential social and political status of the Black River villages
(LAAS I 996b, 2003a and 2004).
The Duwamish applied names to natural features, watercourses, and other places that were
important to them for geographic, spiritual, and economic reasons. There are a number of
ethnographic place names for areas within the Black River/Springbrook Creek shoreline
planning area. Swa'wa tix ted (now known as Surge Tank Hill) means isolated knoll or the
old ground. The Duwamish name for Springbrook Creek is bibticed, which means a burden
or load. This is a reference to a story about a woman who carried a load with a packstrap and
threw the packstrap away, forming a small hill (LAAS 2003a and 2004).
A search of the DAHP database indicated the following:
• There are no state-or federally-registered sites within the Black River/Springbrook
Creek shoreline planning area.
• There are five inventoried sites near the Black River/Springbrook Creek shoreline
planning area as described in Table 4-18.
• There are three ethnographic sites. An extensive trail system radiated from the
villages along the Black River to and from Snoqualmie Falls, Yakima Pass,
Muckleshoot Prairie, and Elliott Bay. The Duwamish village Sqoa'lqo meaning
'meeting of the rivers' was at the confluence of the Black and White River. This
village is partially-represented by the White Lake Site (described in Table 4-18
above). It was discovered during excavation for a King County utility project. A
swamp area west ofthe King County Waterworks project was an important source of
medicinal and edible plant materials and ·waterfowl for Native American people
(LAAS 1996a and 1996b).
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-61
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City ofRenlon
Table 4-18. Inventoried Sites near Black River/Springbrook Creek
Shoreline Planning Area
National Register
of Historic Places
General (NRHP) Eligibility
Name Location Date Description Determination
White Lake site Near Fort Nol Two shell-bearing cultural Eligible but cultural
(45-KI·438 and Dent Park, provided layers which had charcoal, fire materials were
45·KI·438A) west of the modified rock, fish and excavated to avoid
Black River mammal bone and lithic impacts from a King
artifacts. Fragment of modified County utility project
bone and two pieces of folded
copper believed to be
associated with fishhook
manufacturing were also
found.
Tualdad Altu (45-East olthe 1400 years Village with hearths, midden Excavated in the late
KI-59) Black River ago and artifacts 1970s and 1980s
Swa' wa tix tad Surge Tank 4,000 to Cobble tools, siltstone flakes Eligible
( 45-KI-267) Hill near 8,000 and chunks appearing to be
Monster years ago derived from an Olcott
Road occupation.
45-KI-2 West of the Not Shell midden/fish weir complex Destroyed
Black River provided
Historic Object Near Object may A concrete basin or trough. Not discussed
(45-KI-730) Springbrook have been Function unknown, but
Creek at SW associated possibly associated with
2ih Street with 1930s livestock or agricultural use.
and era
Oakesdale Longacres
Avenue Racetrack
Sources: LAAS 1996a, 1996b, and 2004; NWAA 2007; Cascadia Archaeology 2006; Kennedy 1985; Dampf et al. 2005
The Black River/Springbrook Creek area falls within the recognized usual and accustomed
fishing grounds and stations ofthe Muckleshoot Tribe.
4.6 LAKE DESIRE
4.6.1 General Conditions
Lake Desire is comprised of mixed and deciduous forest interspersed with residential lots.
Along the north and southeast reaches of the lake's shoreline are natural areas; the entire
shoreline has medium-high ecological function for LWD quality.
4.6.2 Hydrological and Biological Resources
4·62
Biological function is affected by residential development along the Lake Desire shoreline,
but significant areas of open space exist along the north and southeast lakeshore. These areas
provide important habitat and other ecological functions enhanced by their place in a larger
network of natural areas. Contiguous parks and protected areas include Lake Desire Natural
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
---------------------------
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Draji Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Area, McGarvey Park Open Space, and Petrovisky Park. These conditions help the Lake
Desire shoreline sustain a high level of ecological function (Table 4-19).
The Lake Desire watershed is designated by King County as a critical lake watershed due to
the annual whole-lake total phosphorus concentration of 49 mg/I, its status as a eutrophic lake
and modeling of future trophic status that indicates that the lake will become hypereutrophic
with a future summer whole-lake total phosphorus concentration predicted to be 114
micrograms/liter.
The King County Lake Desire Management plan goal is improving the lake's existing trophic
status through requiring that 50 percent of total phosphorus loading be removed from all new
development prior to discharge to any drainage that enters Lake Desire and construction of an
in-lake aeration system. (KCPNR 1996)
Table 4-19. King County Shoreline Ecological Function Ratings for Lake Desire
Wave
Shoreline Light LWD Nitrogen Pathogen Phosphorus Sediment Toxins Hydrology Energy
North 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5
East 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4
West 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4
1=Low; 2=Low-Medium; 3=Medium; 4=Medium-High; 5=High
Source: King County (2008).
4.6.2.1 Tributaries and Associated Wetlands
Lake Desire is fed by two small tributaries, one each on the western and northern shoreline
(see Map 3a). Both streams are rated in City critical areas regulations as ephemeral and non-
salmonid bearing. The northern tributary flows past a wetland just upstream of its mouth. The
northern wetland and stream delta are a unique hemlock-forested peatland, a highly sensitive
Category I wetland (Lower Cedar River #15 in the King County Wetland Inventory) that is
one of few remaining in the urbanizing Puget Sound lowlands (King Co. 10993). (Table 4-19;
see Map Ie). An area of hydric soil to the south of the Lake may be evidence of a historic
wetland. Other wetlands may occur in the area that have not yet been identified or mapped.
4.6.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Presence
No priority habitats are found within the Lake Desire shoreline, nor is the Lake accessible to
anadromous salmonids (see Map Sa). Lake Desire has historically been stocked with non-
native rainbow trout, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and largemouth bass, which all still
inhabit the Lake.
Lake Desire-Spring Lake Park serves as a wildlife corridor between the two lakes.
Contiguous natural upland areas ring Lake Desire to the east, north, and west, but residential
development along the lakeshore presents a barrier to wildlife movement to and from the
lake.
4.6_2.3 Nearshore and Riparian Habitat
Areas of residential land-use along the east, north, and west shorelines have degraded riparian
functions, but areas of mixed and deciduous forest are still present, interspersed with
residential lots and in natural areas along the north and southeast shoreline. In particular, the
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-63
4
4
4
Shorelme Master ProhTYum
ReVised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
stream corridor contains high-quality mixed and coniferous forest, although the lakeshore is
rimmed by shrub and deciduous trees (see Maps Ie).
King County (2008) indicates medium-high ecological function for LWD quality along the
entire shoreline. Aerial photography shows LWD and other organic debris along much of the
shoreline, including in residential areas. L WD is also apparent along the south lakeshore,
where parkland protects the riparian corridor from severe development impacts. The natural
stream delta at the north end of the Lake has little organic debris due to low recruitment-
potential of the shrub-dominated lakeshore.
Nearshore habitat is impacted seasonally by increased phosphorus loads that cause algal
blooms. In addition, the invasive Eurasian milfoil has established itself in the Lake. Both
conditions alter natural habitat conditions and limit access to important shallow-water habitat.
Shoreline Modifications
A review of aerial photography identified approximately 57 docks/piers. Thirty-eight of these
are along the western shoreline and 19 along the eastern shoreline. No quantitative data are
available for bank armoring, which is not discernible from aerial photographs. However,
substantial areas of native shrub/forest communities are interspersed with landscaped areas
with single family lots, suggesting that a majority of the shoreline remains unarmored,
particularly along the east shoreline, where single-family lot density is lower and parkland
abuts the shoreline.
4.6.2.4 Other Natural Features
No flood hazards, aquifer recharge areas, or seismic hazard areas are located within the Lake
Desire shoreline. Steep slopes along the southeast lakeshore present both erosion and
landslide hazards that would increase if the existing forest was lost (see Map 4a).
4.6.3 Built Environment
4.6.3.1 Existing and Planned Land-Use
EXisting Land-Use
Land-use patterns along the shoreline of Lake Desire are a mix of low density residential (59
percent) and undeveloped lands (35 percent). Existing land-use was assessed using 2008 King
County Assessor's parcel data.
Planned Land-Use
4-64
The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning land-use designations in the Lake Desire
shoreline planning area are low density residential (City of Renton 2008b).
Figure 4-12 shows the proportions of current land-use, zoning and comprehensive plan land-
use designations for the Lake Desire shoreline. The data for city zoning and comprehensive
plan land-use exclude roadways. Roads, categorized as transportation, are included in the
existing land-use data.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
REAoCH
LMF. OESIRE
~I:GEND
EXISTING lAIID USE
DESlGMATlONS
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Im·emory and Analysis
City of Renton
l(ltj1ltG DISTRICTS
l·,.... r::cr1i1~ tll.~Ii·n.miy tlio;oj list! O:.m1tnl.lTQlIl' "r.I,lsl;i;J1 :;tJtW1rnl;f"t' :Io-:f"h'Rilt:.' T~P\'"jt"Ir);1 V;,u.:;m(· Ur-knlJW!1
f(e:;iliErtial f;le-s03~1Ja, Rs~1! r:s:U1uIr'Jn ODen S!:-aa t..Rtro'Ek{:Ed Piln:&I~
Figure 4-12 Percentages of Existing, Allowed and Planned Land Use by Reach in the
Lake Desire Shoreline Planning Area
There are no water-dependent uses in the Lake Desire shoreline planning area. A review of
King County Assessor's data revealed that there are no commercial or industrial properties
along Lake Desire. Public access is provided at the north end of the Lake at the boat launch
(see Section 4.6.2.3 -Public Access).
Vacant Lands
Table 4-20 provides the percentage of undeveloped parcels and undeveloped area. The
undeveloped areas are designated for single family development.
Table 4-20. Existing Development of Waterfront Parcels along Lake Desire
# of % Undeveloped % Undeveloped
Reach Lots Lots Area
LD-A 139 38% 35%
Source: King County 2008; City of Renton 20088
4.6.3.2 Impervious Areas
The City's impervious area GIS layer does not have impervious building areas for Lake
Desire's shoreline planning area. Public ROW in the Lake is minimal (less than one acre).
The predominant type of land-use in the Lake is single-family residential. Therefore, the
impervious area due to buildings is expected to be similar to reaches in Lake Washington that
have single-family uses (e.g., Reach K; City of Renton 2008).
4.6.3.3 Public Access
There is a WDFW boat launch at the north end ofthe Lake that is maintained by King County
Parks and Recreation (Washington State Parks website 2008).
4.6.3.4 Infrastructure
Lake Desire Drive is located within the Lake Desire shoreline planning area. The City GIS
database does not include utility information for Lake Desire (King County 2002).
March20IO I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 4-65
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventury and Analysis
City of Renton
4.6.3.5 Historic and Cultural Resources
4·66
Native American and Euro-American historic use of the Renton area is detailed in Section
4.1.4.5 (Historic and Cultural Resources -Lake Washington). A search of the DAHP
database indicated that there are no state-or federally-registered sites and no inventoried sites
within the Lake Desire shoreline planning area.
March 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
5. ECOLOGIC MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION TOOLS
5.1 OVERVIEW
A wide range of options are available for management and protection of ecological
functions in shorelines. The discussion below covers several topics including:
• Designation, rating and classification systems
• Functional assessment options
• Classification based buffers
• No harm regulations
5.2 DESIGNATION, RATING, AND CLASSIFICATION
There is no universally accepted method for classifYing rivers, streams, and lakes or
related habitat areas for regulatory purposes. In the State of Washington, there are a
variety of classification systems used by different agencies based on specific regulatory
needs. For example, Ecology classifies water types for the purposes of meeting water
quality standards and employs a system that emphasizes the use of the water and the
requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, while DNR employs a system based on
forest practices needs (Figure BI-3).
5.2.1 Washington DNR Stream Typing System
The DNR classification system was developed for forest practices and generally is based
on the presence or absence of fish. The designation of shorelines of the state as a separate
classification is based primarily on the statutory limitations on forest practices within
shorelines of statewide significance in RCW 90.58.150 which allows only selective
timber cutting. In general, the designation of streams over 20 csf as a separate category
may be relevant because of the wider range of processes provided in streams with higher
flows, but the DNR designation is not based on the presence or absence of particular
geomorphic processes or ecological functions.
5.2.2 Fish Species and Lifestage Stream Classification System
The specific biological and ecological functions provided by individual streams differ
substantially. Therefore, one potential classification system classifies stream reaches
according to the fish species and lifestages present within the reach. The presence of
salmonids in various life stages within a stream or river reach can indicate or infer
information on the habitat quality and quantity of that specific reach. For example, if a
headwater stream reach supports bull trout, it may indicate that riparian buffer conditions
within that reach are relatively intact, and the buffers are of adequate size to provide for
adequate moderation of water temperature and sediment filtration capability, because
spawning bull trout require cool water and clean gravel. Likewise, a reach known to be
occupied by spawning chum salmon can be assumed to be accessible to all other salmon
species, because chum salmon are the least powerful swimmer of the salmon species.
This approach would use the WDFW Priority Habitat Species (PHS) database to assign
fish presence or life stage information. The database covers streams in the Renton UGA
that have been identified as having anadromous species and classifies stream reaches as
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 5-1
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
spawning, rearing, or migration habitat for each individual salmonid species. Other
reaches of stream, where site-specific information is lacking, could be classified based on
current knowledge as presumed or historical habitat for a species with the option that
more detailed analysis could be done at the project review stage to confirm or change the
presumption.
The primary advantages of this system are in its biological and ecological relevance,
coupled with a relatively complete, easily accessible database. However, there are several
potential drawbacks to such a classification system. First, the link between fish presence
and the quality or type of aquatic habitat is not complete. Dams, for example, can
completely block anadromous fish access to high-quality, productive, in stream habitat,
which may not be occupied for these reasons. Second, the quality of fish presence/life
stage information is currently incomplete, and may be biased toward easily accessed
valley-bottom reaches as compared to more isolated headwater tributary reaches.
In Renton, this option is not particularly valuable because most streams and lakes provide
habitat for a variety of fish species, however specific reaches vary greatly in the character
of the stream and adjacent uplands and the ecological functions provided.
5.2.3 Aquatic Habitat Quality Based Classification System
A third type of classification system is based on ecological functions using known
differences in habitat quality and limiting factors to classify streams. The relative quality
and quantity of individual geophysical or habitat parameters have direct correlation to the
ecological functions that a particular stream reach or subbasin provides. The presence of
particular species in various life stages within a stream or river reach can indicate or
imply information on the habitat quality and quantity of that specific reach. For example,
if a headwater stream reach supports bull trout, it may indicate that riparian buffer
conditions within that reach are relatively intact, and the buffers are of adequate size to
provide for adequate moderation of water temperature and sediment filtration capability,
because spawning bull trout require cool water and clean gravel. Likewise, a reach
known to be occupied by spawning chum salmon can be assumed to be accessible to all
other salmon species, because chum salmon are the least powerful swimmer of the
salmon species.
This approach would rely on review of available reports on habitat conditions and
limiting factors (e.g., LCFRB 2002) to assign a classification system based on the relative
ecological condition of a stream reach or subbasin. The primary advantage of such a
classification system is that ecological relevance is built into the system. However,
several major disadvantages are also present. For example, detailed, high-quality
information on habitat quality is not available for many stream and lake reaches within
the Renton UGA, and because different sources of information have used different
methods for habitat evaluation. Available information, therefore, is not directly
comparable. Furthermore, in many cases this approach would require reliance on best
professional judgment to combine information on mUltiple ecological functions in order
to classify a particular stream or subbasin. Most likely, the approach would be most
practical to apply at a larger spatial scale, such as the subbasin or subwatershed level,
which could potentially negate the benefits by blending ecological function.
5.2.4 Functional Assessment Options
5-2
The current practice in assessing ecological functions provided by streams and other
aquatic systems is to use a classification and rating system. Such systems focus on
March 2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Masler Program
Revi.~ed Draft Shoreline hrvenlory and Analysis
City of Renton
identifiable features and use rating systems to characterize factors such as sensitivity,
significance, rarity, functions, and opportunities for replacement.
While the use of the current WDFW IDNR stream rating system is understood as common
practice, it presents limitations that an ecosystem perspective can remedy. The current
rating system focuses on discrete identifiable features of streams that are roughly related
to functions important to aquatic species.
An alternative approach is to focus on the variety of functions provided by the landscape.
The rationale for focusing on functions rather than the stream classification is to shift
emphasis from a discrete element of the ecosystem, such as a stream, to a system of
indicators that are integrated with other aquatic resource and habitat evaluations. Further,
the current methodology relies on discrete stream evaluations. The alternative functional
analysis would utilize structural components rather than particular features, such as
streams, as the basis for units within sites. This also allows for a broader view of stream
values that provides opportunities for including other functions, such as flood
management functions, and evaluating water supply functions such as seeps and springs
that have an integral part in aquatic ecological functions.
This functional approach allows for a detailed understanding of the ecosystem services
provided by a natural or impacted site. Quantitative values can be developed for existing
conditions in a natural or altered state, and alternatives can be compared in both
restoration and impact scenarios. These values, or scores, allow for a clearer
understanding oftradeoffs under site selection, design, or mitigation analysis.
The analysis of specific stream reaches in this report provides a qualitative assessment of
these factors. It is not converted into a rating or other system because that intermediate
step is not necessary in an area as small as the City. The approach used in the Draft SMP
Policies and Regulations is to use all the relevant information about each reach in
developing regulations that specifY the application of the Shoreline Management Act's
competing priorities for water dependent use, public access and preserving or enhancing
ecological functions.
5.3 BUFFER OPTIONS
For protection of ecological functions in streams and lakes, wetlands and habitat areas, a
relatively narrow range of options have been used in Washington State. Most of the
regulations developed in Washington State have been related to Growth Management Act
(GMA) requirements to protect Critical Areas.
The predominant means of regulating uplands adjacent to water bodies and areas adjacent
to wetlands and critical wildlife habitat has been through buffers. The Shoreline
Management Act makes reference to buffers in RCW 90.58(2)(1)(ii) which allows
inclusion of buffers for critical areas in SMP jurisdiction
References to buffers in the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-36) are
numerous and include the following:
WAC 173-26-186(2)( c)(i)(D) Buffers. Master programs shall contain requirements
for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure
that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements
for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological
functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential
impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors.
March2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401) 5·3
Shoreline ,iv/aster Program
Revised Drafi Shoreline inventolJ! and Analysis
CIty of Renton
WAC 173-26-1 86(2)(5)(b ) Local governments may implement these objectives
through a variety of measures, where consistent with Shoreline Management Act
policy, including clearing and grading regulations, setback and buffer standards,
critical area regulations, conditional use requirements for specific uses or areas,
mitigation requirements, incentives and nonregulatory programs.
WAC 173-26-211(4)(t)(ii)(A) Standards for density or minimum frontage width,
setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation
conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental
limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and
services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
WAC l73-241(3)(j) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot
coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical
area protection, and water quality shall be set to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity
of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other
comprehensive planning considerations.
A wide range of buffer widths have been analyzed for a variety of functions. Variation in
recommendations or buffer effectiveness is frequently due to variation in site conditions
such as side-slope angle, stream type, geology, climate, etc. Design of riparian buffers
must consider the ecological, cultural, and economic values of the resource, land use
characteristics, and existing riparian quality throughout watersheds in order to address the
cumulative impacts on stream functions and the resources being protected (Johnson and
Ryba 1992; Castelle et al. 1994; 2000; Wenger 1999).
Appropriate buffer sizes will depend on the area necessary to maintain the desired
riparian or stream functions for the given suite of land-use activities. A wider buffer may
be desired to protect streams from impacts resulting from high-intensity land use while
narrower buffers may suffice in areas oflow-intensity land use (May 2000). It should be
noted though that opportunities for protection or improvement of buffer conditions in
areas of high-intensity land use are often effectively foreclosed by existing development,
or the existing habitat conditions are already highly altered. Under such conditions,
establishing buffers wide enough to provide an effective full-range of riparian functions
is likely unattainable; other actions may be required to improve habitat conditions beyond
what riparian buffers are able to provide. In addition, buffer vegetation type, diversity,
condition, and maturity are equally as important as buffer width, and the best approach to
providing high-quality buffers is to strive for establishing and maintaining mature native
vegetation communities (May 2000).
Potential riparian, lake wetland and habitat buffer frameworks include the following
types, which are discussed in greater detail below:
I. Standard Single-Zone Buffers -Fixed-distance stream buffers based on the
maintenance of individual aquatic functions. The buffer widths may be further
divided by land use (e.g., urban versus rural) or by other variables.
2. Dual-Zone Buffers -This approach employs two smaller adjacent buffer zones,
which, when combined, make up the overall riparian buffer. An inner "core"
zone, directly adjacent to the aquatic feature, consisting of an area where uses
are prohibited or severely restricted, and an outer riparian zone, adjacent to the
core zone, where uses are still restricted, but to a lesser degree.
5-4 March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
3. Reach Based Buffers -This approach is most relevant to streams and lakes that
have been altered by buman use. The approach focuses on "no net loss" of
existing functions as they currently exist.
All of the above approaches could potentially incorporate buffer averaging techniques, in
cases where the overall buffer area will be equal to un-averaged conditions, and it can be
clearly demonstrated that averaging will result in no net loss of aquatic functions.
5.3.1.1 Standard Single-Zone Stream Buffers
Single-zone buffers are the most common type of riparian buffer, with a designated
minimum buffer for each class or type of streamlhabitat as defined by the applicable
stream classification scheme.
The advantages of single-zone stream buffers are that they
• are the most common buffer type and have had extensive best available science
(BAS) and legal review;
• are relatively simple to understand from a public standpoint and lend themselves
to straightforward and efficient administrative processing; and
• allow for buffer averaging.
One disadvantage of such a system is that riparian buffers are not uniform in the
functions they provide relative to the width ofthe buffer, as discussed further below.
Table 5-1 developed by Parametrix scientists summarizes this information in relation to
the specific aquatic functions that are of greatest importance in maintaining conditions
suitable to support fish and other aquatic life (e.g., L WD recruitment, stream temperature,
sediment filtration). For each buffer width, the suitability of the buffer is rated by its
ability to maintain these aquatic functions. Although this evaluation is qualitative, it is
firmly based on BAS regarding ecological functions.
An example of a buffer recommendation based on a choice of a critical factor is the
recommendation by Pollack and Kennard (1998) of a minimum buffer width of 250 feet
on all perennial streams based on L WD recruitment and the height at maturity of trees in
Pacific Northwest forests. These buffer widths of one SPTH would reasonably provide
for a full range of riparian functions, and therefore, not contribute significantly to the loss
of salmonid habitat. May (2000) and other extensive reviews provide detailed summaries
of buffer width sizes necessary to achieve stream and riparian functions (Knutson and
Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993).
As mentioned above, the disadvantage of uniform buffers is that a single buffer is
designed to provide multiple functions. Depending on the stream and the adjacent use,
some functions may continue to be provided on adjacent land outside of the buffer with
appropriate management practices. For example, the riparian functions of bank stability
and litter fall are primarily provided for within a relatively short distance of a waterbody
(10 to 50 feet). Also, along highly managed streams such as in agricultural, residential, or
commercial areas, some functions normally provided (at least in part) by riparian buffers,
such as flow attenuation or filtration of pollutants, can be provided by application of
appropriate BMPs in combination with smaller buffers. In addition, uniform buffers do
not take into consideration the extent to which different vegetation communities in
different parts of the buffer contribute to specific riparian functions. For example,
impacts to the outer 25 feet of a 100-foot-wide buffer would likely have much less impact
March2010 I 553-1779.()JI (04/0401) 5-5
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Draft Sh()reline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Rc:nton
to bank stability and litter fall functions than would identically scaled impacts directly
adjacent to the stream.
Table 5-1. Comparison of Functions of Stream and Lake Buffer Widths
Buffer Width
Stream Function 15 Feet 50 Feet 150 Feet 300 Feet 600 Feet
Microclimate X X N P F
Wildlife Habitat X N P P F
LWD Recruitment X N P F F
Pollutant Removal N N P P F
Sediment Filtration X N P F F
Water Temperature X N F F F
Organic Litter X P F F F
Bank Stability X F F F F
KEY
F = Buffer width fully supports/maintains stream function.
P = Buffer width partially supports/maintains stream function.
N = Buffer width nominally supports/maintains stream function.
X = Buffer does not adequately support/maintain stream function.
In an urban setting, the range of activities adjacent to a resource may affect the size or
character of a buffer. Degradation of wildlife by domestic animals is difficult to address
by buffer size, no matter how extensive. Buffers also may become habitat for feral
domestic animals. In such a case, controls on domestic animals, such as fencing, may be
needed in addition to buffers.
Buffer enhancement, particularly at the margins, protection from invasive species and
other vegetation management is critical for effective buffers in areas dominated by
human influence.
5.3.1.2 Dual-Zone Stream Buffers
5·6
This approach, commonly used in forestry applications, is similar to the single-zone
stream buffer (see above). However, the overall stream buffer is composed of two smaller
adjacent buffer zones, which when combined make up the overall riparian buffer. The
two zones are:
• An inner "core" buffer zone, located directly adjacent to the aquatic feature. In
this area land uses are prohibited or severely restricted.
• An outer riparian zone, landward and adjacent to the core zone, where land uses
are still restricted, but to a lesser degree than within the core area.
Dual-zone buffers are not as common as single-zone buffers and are more complex from
a public understanding and City administrative standpoint, although buffer averaging
could still occur within the outer riparian zone.
The primary advantage of this type of buffer system is that the dual-zone system
incorporates BAS indicating that riparian buffers are not uniform in the functions they
provide relative to the width of the buffer. For example, for a relatively small stream that
supports salmonid rearing and has a mixed forest riparian buffer, a continuous buffer
width of 75 to 100 feet may be adequate to support the aquatic functions of LWD
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shorelme Im'entOfY and Al7a~vsis
City of Renton
recruitment, temperature regulation, and the provision of detritus and nutrients to the
stream. The segment of the buffer from 100 to 150 feet still supports important ecological
functions such as pollutant filtration and microclimate regulation,. but in this outer area a
solid homogeneous buffer may not be required to support these functions to a high
degree. In summary, as compared to a single-zone buffer, a dual-zone buffer may allow
for different impact types within different parts of the buffer.
Examples of specific ecologically relevant provisions that could be applied to the outer
buffer zone include:
• A limit to the amount of clearing allowed within the outer buffer zone.
• A minimum amount afforest required to be retained within the outer buffer zone.
• A limit to the amount of impervious surface allowed within the outer buffer zone.
• A limit to the development density allowed within the outer buffer zone.
In this system, the overall buffer width for the combined dual-zone buffers would be
wider tban for the single-zone buffer, because more uses are allowed within the outer
portion of the dual-zone buffer. This approach has the advantage that it is adaptable to a
wide range of land use activities, and gives the applicant choice on which approach is
best suited to their particular situation, while still maintaining equal levels of aquatic
habitat functions for the overall system. A disadvantage of tbe system is that it may be
more difficult to administer, as compared to a single-zone buffer approach.
Dual zone systems are implicitly recognized in tbe 21 I (4)(c)(ii) in reference "parallel
environments" that divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to
the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right of way. Such
environments may be useful, for example, to accommodate resource protection near the
shoreline and existing development further from the shoreline.
5.3.1.3 Specific Stream or Lake Reach Buffers
An additional approach to stream buffers that combines some of the advantages of both
the classification-based buffer system and a "no harm" approach are applying specific
buffers for specific reaches based on assessment of the functions currently being provided
by those reaches. This approach is particularly applicable to streams in areas of existing
high-intensity land use where parcels are small and few remain undeveloped, and there is
little practical opportunity to achieve buffers that will provide the full range of desired
riparian functions.
In this case, tbe objective of tbe management approach is to preserve the existing
functions and to improve, if possible, a limited range of functions such as improving
temperature and water quality. Improving temperature through providing effective
overhead shade can be achieved to varying degrees witb intensive management of smaller
buffers. Water quality improvements can be achieved by stormwater management and
control of fertilizer and other chemical applications near streams.
5.3.2 "No Harm" Regulatory System
This type of regulatory system is best known in Washington State in its application to
agricultural use in Skagit County. The approach was endorsed in challenges heard by the
Growth Management Hearings Board for Western Washington and the Washington State
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 5-7
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
5-8
Supreme Court (Swinomish v Skagit 2006). The "no harm" approach may be regarded as
an "adaptive management" approach to protecting critical areas.
The most succinct overview of a no-harm system is provided in a Growth Management
Hearings Board decision. Although not directly related to Shoreline Master Programs
developed under RCW 90.58, the rationale can be considered applicable.
"After careful consideration of all the arguments, and the entire record, we are no
longer convinced that the Act requires the County to mandate that regulation of
critical areas provide for all the functions in every watercourse that contains or
contributes to watercourses that contain anadromous fish in ongoing commercially
significant agricultural lands where some of those functions have been missing for
many years and where these functions are not required for a particular life stage of
anadromous fish. By reaching the above conclusion, we are not saying that farmers
do not need to alter their practices if they are continuing activities which will further
degrade the streams. Those activities must stop and practices must be implemented
which ensure no additional harm or further loss of function (Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community et al. v. Skagit County; 02-2-0012c)."
Essential elements for such a program are adequate monitoring, benchmarks, and the
ability to require changes to the program if benchmarks are not achieved. In assessing the
difference between a prescriptive approach such as buffers and a "no harm" approach,
both the hearings board and the court have held that local governments must either be
certain that their critical areas regulations will prevent harm, or be prepared to recognize
and respond effectively to any unforeseen harm that arises.
Implementation of a "no harm" approach in Renton is not likely to be effective in
regulating future development. Application to urban development is substantially
different than application to agriculture where changes in farming practices may be
developed. It would be difficult to meet a "no harm" standard if monitoring of a specific
buffer area determined that a functional criterion was not being met. If, for example, a
particular buffer dimension was not effective, the presence of physical improvements
such as roads or buildings would generally preclude its expansion. In addition,
developing performance standards, implementing a monitoring system, and taking action
to correct deficiencies would be very resource demanding both for property owners and
the City. To be practical, additional areas would likely need to be reserved from
development or land alteration to provide the opportunity for future change as well as
requiring substantial security deposits for monitoring and reporting and corrective
measures.
A "no harm" system also is likely to be much more difficult and expensive to implement,
especially the monitoring component, and provides little certainty to applicants of the
standards likely to be imposed on their development. It also introduces an element of
uncertainty to land owners in the continued use of facilities initially allowed, but subject
to adaptive management requirements.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shorelme Masler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
6. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Watershed-scale processes that have been altered by land-use degrade ecological function
in shorelines. This section summarizes the conditions within each shoreline and assesses
the potential for restoring ecosystem processes and improving shoreline ecological
function (see Table 5-1).
The City lies very low in all watersheds containing shorelines and is highly urbanized.
Combined with degraded ecological function, extensive development (expressed by lack
of forest cover and large impervious areas) generally limits the potential for the City to
implement projects within the City limits to restore processes at the watershed-scale.
Exploring other avenues to enhance ecological function within the shoreline, the City
could:
1. Pursue restoration opportunities as properties redevelop along the shoreline.
2. Partner with others in WRIAs 8 & 9 to implement salmon recovery actions that were
identified within the City. There is an urgent need to restore gently sloping beach
area with native vegetation along Lake Washington shoreline for juvenile Chinook
salmon and to remove or modify docks in water structures to reduce predation on
juvenile Chinook. The City could also adopt stringent stormwater standards and
rules that implement LID to reduce stormwater quality/quantity that routes to rivers
and streams and adversely affects shoreline functions discussed in Section 3.
3. Encourage water conservation and the use of native plants in all landscaping
applications to reduce water use.
4. Aggressively control invasive plants on all City-owned properties in the shorelines
and other areas and work with adjacent property to control these species on their
properties to reduce spread.
5. Work with King County to obtain a reduction in property tax for property owners
that voluntarily improve their shoreline (not required as mitigation) to improve
shoreline functions. There are technical resources available to help property owners
make improvements to their shorelines that would improve functions.
6. Launch a database that includes the number/type/location of shoreline restoration
actions and degradation actions within the City to determine if shoreline functions
are improving over time.
In addition, the City can implement projects outside the City limits either individually or
jointly with other government agencies. The City can also implement projects andlor
management actions within jurisdictional shoreline focused on enhancing specific
functions similar to the wetland mitigation bank in the Springbrook Creek shoreline
(Section 4.5.2.1).
Generally, restoration actions should be prioritized where multiple processes can be
enhanced. Floodplain areas in large river systems are a high priority because they are
important areas for all processes, including water movement, materials storage, and
shoreline-scale processes such as L WD recruitment and temperature regulation.
Restoring wetlands in floodplains augments the potential effect of restoration.
Riparian and floodplain areas in tributaries are also priority areas, particularly where
geologic deposits augment process function. Failing restoration and protection of these
areas, enhancement of single processes that may be limiting ecological function becomes
the priority.
The following sections describe specific conditions and opportunities within each
shoreline.
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-1
Shorelme Afaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline fnventory and Analysis
City ofRenlotl
Table 6-1. Influence of Watershed-scale Processes on Shoreline Ecological Function
Process Major Alterations Physical Functions Biological Functions
" ~
!E
C.
<I> " E en Cii '" " 0 ~ !§ " en $ 2 '" '., !§ 0 " .r:: '0 .a 1: J3 0 'c OJ i" '5 " " '" 0 "~ " .a >< 0 J3 I "" <I> 1! '" 3: '" <I> ~ W 0 '" ~ E I en '" '" t:: I Q; 'iii " c. <I> 3: " <I> " '0; "§ iii ::1' (f) 0:: <I> iii 0 ~ 'ij; "§ E " .a <I> c. '" > '" u::: -E " '" 0 1;) " " " " 1;) '" '" '" .r:: E 1t 0 0 0 "e "" " 0 1;) l'! .r:: ~ -l'! E E E ~ '" "' c. .a 1;) ,g "5 ~ E ~ " " '" >-=> 0 " " iii iii iii '" " 0-m I (f) E 0 0-...J f-f-(f) (f) (f) :;;; f-
Hydrology; Surface Forest cover loss; • • • • • • • • • Runoff impervious surfaces,
channelization and
hydromodification
Hydrology; Storage Wetland and floodplain loss • • • •
Hydrology; Recharge Forest cover loss; • • •
impervious surfaces
Hydrology; Wetland and floodplain loss, • • • • • Groundwater artificial drainage features,
Movement roads/embankments;
withdrawals
Sediment Input and Disturbed areas, channel • • • • • • Storage instability (peak flows),
wetland and floodplain loss,
channelization,
hydromodification
WQ; Inputs and All land-use types; wetland • • • • • • Storage and floodplain loss, riparian
disturbance
6-2 March 2010 I 553-1779-U31 (04/0401)
Shoreline ,lviasler Program
Revised Draft Shorelme In'lle11lory and AnalysIs
CIty of Renton
Table 6-1. Influence of Watershed-scale Processes on Shoreline Ecological Function (continued)
Process Major Alterations Physical Functions Biological Functions
c
~
~
Ci
Q) c E Cl iii "' c 0 :m c Cl ~ ~ '" ~ :§ 0 ~ c .c -" C 0 'c Cl '0 (,) c '" ~ -" ~ c .0 x 0 i'i I ~ Q) '" 3: 'iij Q) ~ w U '" :§ E I ,~ '" t I a; "' ~ ~ a. Q) ~ (,) c 'iii co :2 (/) c:: " (ij 3: 'iii .& E c i'i Q) a. ';:: > ';:: IT: 0 .c 1!? c '" 0 Q) 1n c c c c 1n 0= ~ '" '" .c E 0 0 0 0g
-'"' (I) 0 1n i" .c ~ -a. i" E E E i" '" "' a. -" 1n ,g "0 ~ E
(I) '" ,., :J 0 (I) Q; (ij co co '" Q;
"-en I (f) ~ 0 "-..J f-f-(f) (f) (f) :2 f-
Temperature Baseflow alteration I riparian • • disturbance
Riparian/Organic Riparian disturbance, channel • • • • • • • • • • Matter dredging and
hydromodification
Biotic Interactions Invasive species introduction; • • • • physical habitat alteration
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 6-3
Shoreline Alaster Program
RevISed Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renton .
6.1 LAKE WASHINGTON
Ecological function in lakes is facilitated primarily by water quality alterations in
tributary basins and water quality and physical alterations along the lakeshore (Table 5-
2), Most Lake Washington tributaries are highly developed. limiting restoration potential
(Kerwin 200 I), May Creek and the Cedar River are the least-developed basins draining to
Lake Washington and also support a high degree of watershed function (Kerwin 2001),
These watersheds have the greatest potential for management actions to protect and
restore ecological function in the lake (see Sections 3.2.4.2-3 for analysis of May Creek
and Cedar River),
6.1.1 WRIA Plans
6-4
The WRIA 8 Chinook Recovery Plan modeled the degree of land-use impacts and the
importance for Chinook productivity along the Lake Washington shoreline, The report
concluded that the City and its P AAs have the highest potential for restoration (King
County DNR 2005). However, due to the level of development along the lake-shore, the
number of potential restoration actions may be limited, Ecological function can be
enhanced along the shoreline in public areas such as Gene Coulon Park and in
redeveloping areas as evidenced by the Seattle Seabawks training facility and the Barbee
Mill redevelopment. Site-scale, incentive-based actions supplemented by community
outreach and education can also be an effective tool for voluntary restoration. These
include riparian enhancement, bank softening, and removal/re-engineering of overwater
structures. These actions would all improve nearshore habitat and potentially add
important shallow water habitat given the right site conditions,
March 2010 I 55).1779-031 (04/0401)
Shorelme .Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Table 6-2. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Lake Washington Shoreline
Process Scale
Hydrology: Watershed
Flow
Regime
City
Water Watershed
Quality:
Inputs
Water
Quality:
Storage
City
Watershed
City
Alterations
High
Regional management of water resources has
anered watershed hydrography and temporal
water level fluctuations
Not applicable
High
Urbanized land-uses contribute toxins and
nutrients from lakeshore and tributaries
Point-source inputs from industrial sources
High
Anhough the upper Cedar and May Creek
watersheds are rural, areas within the city are still
highly urbanized, The lakeshore is completely
built-out.
High
Disturbed riparian corridors in low-order streams
and loss of wetlands and floodplain connectivity
High
Remnant wetlands persist or have been restored
along the lakeshore; floodplain connection is very
minimal along the Cedar River; May Creek and
other low-order tributaries have some riparian
function
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Restoration Potential
Low
Human needs expressed in existing land-use and water resource
management limits potential for restoration of hydrologic processes.
Not applicable
Low
Lake Washington tributaries outside of the City are the most urbanized
in the state, limiting the potential for effective protection and
restoration,
Moderate
May Creek and Cedar River basins are less urbanized than other Lake
Washington tributaries and have potential for protection through Best
Management Practices (BMPs) along the lakeshore must focus on
limiting continuing degradation from existing development
Low-Moderate
Potential for wetland and floodplain restoration is low, but riparian
restoration/protection to attenuate nutrient cycling through biotic uptake
and improved hyporheic function is more feasible.
Low
Lakeshore naturalization would improve groundwater exchange and
potentially increase water quality in nearshore areas
See Sections 5.2 and 5.3 for management options in May Creek and
Cedar River
6-5
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shore/me Inventory and Ana{vsis
City of Renton
Table 6-2. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Lake Washington Shoreline (continued)
Process
Sedimenl
Quality:
Inputs
Scale
Watershed
City
Organic Watershed
Matter
City
Biotic Watershed
Interactions
City
6·6
Alterations
High
Hydromodification limits sediment cycling along
lakeshore; increased stormflow in tributary and
disturbed land contributes increased fine sediment
from tributaries
High
Hydromodification limits sediment cycling along
lakeshore; increased storrnflow in tributary and
disturbed land contributes increased fine sediment
from tributaries
High
Riparian disturbance along tributaries and
lakeshore limits LWD contribution; loss of
vegetated lakeshore limits natural cover preferred
by native fish
High
Riparian disturbance along tributaries and
lakeshore limits LWD contribution; loss of
vegetated lakeshore limits natural cover preferred
by native fish
High
Introduced aquatic flora and fish species affect
community dynamics through habitat alteration
and predator·prey relationships.
Hydromodifications typically increase invasive
species productivity to the detriment of native
species
Restoration Potential
Moderate
Naturalization of lakeshore is possible for re-development and
incentive-based management; potential for managing tributary inputs is
more limited
Low-Moderate
Restoration of shoreline banks is possible for re-development and
incentive-based management; potential for managing tributary inputs is
more limited
Low-Moderate
Restoration of lakeshore riparian vegetation is possible for re-
development and incentive-based management; potential for managing
tributary inputs is more limited
Low
Local areas of forested shoreline are almost non-existent within the
City. Management must be conducted primarily through re-
development and incentives.
Moderate
Existing faunal interactions are difficult to manage but watershed-scale
policies aimed at habitat-based management are possible at the site-
scale, including removal of invasive species and preferential habitat
restoration aimed at native species.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
6.1.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach
6.1.2.1 Lake Washington Reach A
Reach A lies between the Bellevue city limits and Renton city limits. It is entirely single-
family residential use, where bulkheads and docks predominate. Natural riparian
vegetation has been removed, and only a few residences have trees or shrubs that support
natural habitat functions. However, many of the bulkheads do not extend far into the lake,
leaving a small amount of shallow water habitat used by Chinook and other shallow
water fishes. Most of the docks in these reaches are narrow at the shorelines; therefore,
most are not likely to impede shoreline migration of young Chinook.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include:
• Restoring shallow water habitat to facilitate young salmon rearing and to include:
shallower shoreline depths and slope, greater substrate composition mix, and
alteration or replacement of bulkheads, to (a) sloped with shallow depths, or (b)
composed of logs or riprap, and (c) excluding concrete, riprap, or sheet pile
exposed below the OHWM (which eliminates the shallow water habitat).
• Replanting native shoreline vegetation overhanging at the shoreline edge to
provide shading, refuge habitat and enhanced prey resources (insects) for young
salmon and other fish, isolation of grass areas from the shoreline, and reduction
of need for fertilizers and pesticides.
• Limiting the total number of docks, the number of docks in shallow water (0-3
feet), and the number and size of piles supporting over-water structures.
• Upgrading to grated docks (or other means) to reduce potential predation and
facilitate shoreline migration of young salmon.
• Augmenting density of woody debris at the shoreline and embedding it, to
provide refuge habitat for young salmon and reduce habitat for smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu) prey.
Many of these may be required by USACE at the time of construction or replacement of
docks and bulkheads.
Constraints relate largely to the existing developed character of the shoreline and the lack
of necessity for bulkhead or dock replacement in most cases. Bulkheads made of durable
materials in this area are unlikely to fail and require replacement. Docks tend to have a
practical lifespan of about 20 years. Given this situation, it is unlikely that a substantial
portion of the shoreline would be upgraded over a 15-to 20-year period.
A regulatory approach that tied replacement of docks and bulkheads to major remodeling
or replacement of residences would provide additional opportunities to require upgrading
docks, bulkheads, and riparian vegetation. Under this approach, bulkheads, docks, and
vegetative cover not meeting current standards would be considered non-conforming.
Thresholds of percent of floor area or value added to a residence would trigger
compliance with new standards for the shoreline.
Regulations can also encourage this type of installation by:
• Allowing fill below the OHWM for shoreline protection and habitat enhancement
March20IO 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-7
Shoreline Ma~·ter Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
• Allowing regrading of existing shorelines without penalizing landowners if the
OHWM is moved back by allowing setbacks to be measured from the previous
bulkhead line
This is an area and a type of use where education programs for property owners and
voluntary programs are likely to be an important element, in addition to regulation. Such
programs are most likely to lead to changes in management of riparian vegetation.
However, it is unlikely that voluntary programs will lead to a result in changes 10
bulkheads and docks, unless they are failing or need replacement for other reasons.
6.1.2.2 Lake Washington Reach B
Reach B extends from the Renton city limits to the Seahawks Football Training Facility
and includes mostly single-family use with one large shoreline multi-family
development. The character is similar to Reach A and involves similar opportunities,
constraints, and regulatory options.
6.1.2.3 Lake Washington Reach C
Reach C extends from the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks headquarters and
training facility at the northernmost portion to the former Barbee Mill site at the
southernmost portion of the reach. The Quendall Terminals south of the Seahawks
headquarters has been designated a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The site is being studied by the EPA to determine the extent of the
pollution caused by coal tar and creosote application and the best course of action to
clean it up. A residential development is currently being built on the former Barbee Mill
site.
The shoreline adjacent to the Seattle Seahawks facilities have undergone recent regrading
and replanting in some areas, with retention of existing deteriorating wooden bulkheads
in others. Some overhanging vegetation and deciduous tree cover does exist, but existing
riparian areas generally have sparse vegetation.
The shoreline of the Quendall Terminals site retains substantial native vegetation in the
riparian zone mixed with a variety of deteriorating bulkheads and other structures along
the shoreline and in the water. At this time, it is unknown whether potential cleanup of
the Superfund site will extend to the shoreline areas.
The former Barbee Mill site has had extensive shoreline restoration along the western
half of the site where bulkheads were removed and the shoreline regraded to depend on
the beach grade and shoreline logs to provide shoreline protection. The area is required to
be revegetated, but full installation has not occurred to date. Planting plans include
largely shrubs with vine maple being the only tree. This will provide some benefits of
native riparian vegetation but will not provide the shading benefits of larger native trees
for temperature attenuation of the nearshore. The eastern portion of the shoreline is
largely sheet pile bulkheads retained from the former sawmill operation and riprap.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity relate to extensive
shallow habitat that is very productive for a variety of species. Existing and potential
actions include:
• Enhancement of shorelines through bulkhead removal and riparian plantings that
have been partially realized by restoration activities of adjacent uplands at the
Seahawks training facility and Barbee Mill subdivision. All of the items listed
6·8 March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and AnalysIs
CIty of Renton
above in Lake Shoreline physical attributes related to Chinook have been, or may
be applied to this reach.
• The delta of May Creek has the potential to provide extensive enhanced shallow
habitat if the natural process of deposition is allowed to continue. The delta was
formerly dredged periodically to accommodate log storage for the previous use
as a sawmill. A high priority for a productive nearshore should be allowing the
natural processes of delta formation to occur. The delta likely will extend to the
south and west over a substantial area during the next 20 to 40 years. This will
result in shallow habitat in areas dredged in the past, including adjacent to
bulkheaded areas of the Barbee Mill subdivision, as well as adjacent to
residences to the south. This natural deposition process will likely result in very
productive shallow habitat areas and a complex of wetland and upland areas.
• The productivity of the May Creek delta can be enhanced by speeding the natural
process of creating upland areas within the wetland with riparian vegetation. This
could be accommodated by (a) placing fill in the area once the natural delta
processes have produced shallow enough conditions to allow this to be practical
and (b) planting with upland riparian vegetation.
The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Plan Project C280 calls for the restoration of the mouth
of May Creek.
Constraints relate to:
• Existing moorage in the area that will be rendered less useful with shallower
water due to delta formation. There is one former boathouse previously used by
the sawmill and ajoint-use dock in the area. Limits due to shallow water could be
addressed by (a) extending docks into deeper water, (b) relocating further from
the delta, or (c) transitioning to use of mooring buoys in deeper waters. In that
case, docks would be used by small boats that provide access to mooring buoys.
Access to the former sawmill boathouse will be problematic with increased delta
deposition. This facility may be considered non-conforming as to its original
purpose related to the sawmill and may be considered ineligible for maintenance
dredging for access with the cessation of sawmill use.
• In the long term, delta formation will result in deposition within public aquatic
lands that eventually will provide upland areas having a variety of riparian
vegetation. This vegetation may obstruct open water views from upland
residences.
6.1.2.4 Lake Washington Reach D
Reach 0 extends from May Creek to Mountain View Avenue. This is a single-family
area on lots that are of limited depth, often less than 100 feet. Access to most lots is from
a private road on the BNSF (now Port of Seattle) railroad right-of-way. Many ofthe lots
are within a 1904 subdivision of Lake Washington bottomlands. These lots are very
constrained and have limited setbacks from the shoreline. The shoreline consists almost
entirely of bulkheads of large riprap or concrete. Most residences have docks that are
very close together. There is shallow nearshore habitat in the area, but the density of
docks may impede shoreline migration of young Chinook or force them to migrate to
deeper water away from food sources. The City's Kennydale Park is in this area and
includes concrete bulkheads and playground and lawn areas. The park is devoid of native
vegetation.
March 2010 I 55J.l779-031 (04/0401) 6·9
Shoreline A.fasler Program
ReVised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include all of the
items I isted above for Reach A designed to provide a more productive nearshore
environment. Many of these may be required by USACE at the time of construction or
replacement of docks and bulkheads. South of North 34th Street, there is a small area of
the shoreline that is part of the railroad right-of-way, now owned by the Port of Seattle,
that is relatively natural. The parcels to the south are also larger. As discussed under
Reach A, SMP regulations can lead to a gradual upgrade of bulkheads, docks, and
adjacent vegetation to reduce impacts on aquatic habitat. This is an area where education
programs for property owners and voluntary programs are likely to be an important
element, in addition to regulation.
Constraints relate largely to the existing high intensity of development on this reach. The
placement of residences close together and close to the water provides limited
opportunities to reduce dock coverage or provide an area of native vegetation adjacent to
the shoreline. In addition, the infrequent need to replace bulkheads and docks are not
likely to lead to much upgrading. The Kennydale Park theoretically could provide
opportunities for ecological restoration, but at the expense of active recreation and public
access, which is also an SMA goal.
6.1.2.5 Lake Washington Reach E
Reach E extends from Mountain View Avenue to Gene Coulon Park. It is entirely single-
family residential but has greater depth and width than most residential shoreline in
Renton, with greater setbacks of buildings from the shoreline. There is also more
vegetation along the shoreline, although most is ornamental. The shallow nearshore
habitat is used by Chinook and other shallow water fishes. The greater separation
between docks and the generally small size of docks in the area are not I ikely to impede
shoreline migration of young Chinook.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include all of the
items listed above for Reach A that has a similar character of development. Many of
these may be required by USACE at the time of construction or replacement of docks and
bulkheads.
Constraints relate largely to the existing developed character of the shoreline. The
infrequent need to replace bulkheads and docks is not likely to lead to a significant
number of replacements in the short term.
This is an area where a regulatory approach that tied replacement of docks and bulkheads
to major remodeling or replacement of residences would provide additional opportunities
to require upgrading docks and bulkheads as outlined under Reach A. Many of the
residences in this area, however, have been replaced or extensively remodeled in the past
decade. Regulations can lead to a gradual upgrade of bulkheads, docks and adjacent
vegetation to reduce impacts on aquatic habitat. Education programs for property owners
and voluntary programs are likely to be an important element, in addition to regulation.
6.1.2.6 Lake Washington Reaches F and G (Gene Coulon Park)
6·10
Reach F is the less developed northerly portion of the park and provides generally
favorable physical shoreline characteristics with productive shallow nearshore habitat.
However, native vegetation in the riparian zone is variable. From the north park boundary
to near Kennydale Creek, vegetation consists of lawn with a narrow fringe of grasses,
forbs, and bushes near the shoreline that consists of a deteriorating wooden bulkhead. In
March 2010 I 55J·1779-()J 1 (0410401)
Shoreline /."laster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
Cit} of Renton
the vicinity of John's Creek, there is an area with native evergreen and deciduous
vegetation, as well as several other small areas of largely cottonwood trees. The shoreline
from John's Creek to the aquatics center at the north extent of the parking area is cobble
beach. There is a riprap section of shoreline near the aquatics center, but most of the
shoreline to the south is gravel beach.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in Reach F relate
largely to the addition of more riparian vegetation with overhanging brush that would
improve shoreline refuge habitat for young salmon. Additional riparian buffer vegetation
would enhance prey resources (insects) for young salmon and other fish, as well as
isolate grass areas from the shoreline. Limiting public access (dogs, kids, and adults) to
specific areas would limit the disruption of young salmon rearing in shallow water, and
avoid impacts to the riparian vegetation.
See Reach G for discussion of Constraints.
Reach G is the more developed southerly portion of the park that includes activity areas,
restaurant uses, a large launch ramp and parking area, and the intensively used beach
area. The shoreline in this area is largely gravel beach, except where armoring has been
added to protect walkways and other features and the concrete bulkhead between the
restaurants and the launch area. Vegetation is primarily lawn. John's Creek enters the
park between the launch ramp and the swimming beach and provides shallow habitat and
replenishment of the beach.
Juvenile Chinook use throughout the park is very high. The gently sloping sand-gravel
beaches, including the swimming beach, provides shallow water habitat used extensively
by juvenile Chinook soon after they enter Lake Washington from the Cedar River.
Surveys of juvenile salmon use in the area have extended over several years. The
peninsula, at the south end of Gene Coulon Park, provides natural riparian vegetation
overhanging the natural shoreline (Tabor 2003; Tabor et al. 2006).
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in Reach G also
relate to addition of more riparian vegetation with overhanging brush that would improve
shoreline refuge habitat for young salmon; however, because of the more developed
character of the reach, the opportunities are fewer.
The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Plan Project C268 calls for enhancement of the mouth
and lower portion of John's Creek. The project would enhance the mouth, remove silt,
facilitate recruitment of sand and gravel, and protect shallow water habitat. Project C267
calls for enhancement of the mouth and Lower John's Creek channel to reduce predator
habitat, restore riparian vegetation, and protect water quality and quantity from
stormwater flows. The project would enhance the mouth, remove silt, and facilitate
recruitment of sand and gravel.
Constraints for Reaches F and G relate largely to the design goals of the park in
providing areas for picnicking and other active uses, as well as visual acceSS to the
shoreline. Additional native trees could be provided in areas of the shoreline that would
continue to allow substantial lawn areas and allow framed views of the water from upland
portions of the park.
6.1.2.7 Lake Washington Reach H
Reach H is the location of Southport mixed-use development. Long-term plans for the
site include 338 apartments, 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant use,
789,000 square feet of office use, and a luxury waterfront hotel (SECO 2008). About
March2010 I 553·1779'()31 (04/0401) 6·1\
Shoreline Afaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Invenrory and Analysis
City of Renlon
one-third of the 600-foot frontage is currently developed as a multi-family use; the
remaining area is vacant. The entire shoreline consists of a concrete walkway adjacent to
the shoreline, which incorporates portions of a previous wood bulkhead and pier built
originally for the Shuffleton Steam Plant. A sheet-pile channel for steam plant cooling
water extends into the lake.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity relate largely to (a)
preserving the movement of salmon fry and other aquatic species across the shoreline and
(b) mitigating impacts of development, including water quality and disturbance from high
levels of human use. Potential options include maintaining and restoring shallow habitat
and the potential addition of riparian vegetation with overhanging brush. Non-water-
oriented uses, such as the retail/restaurant uses contemplated, require provision of public
access andlor ecological restoration to comply with WAC 173-26-26-241 (3 )(d). This has
been accomplished in areas with extensive public walkways, as indicated in the photo
below.
ThEa Fo" bulk'1ead
City of Tacoma
Constraints relate largely to the design goals of the mixed-use development proposed for
the site. Incorporating a more ecologically productive waterfront for nearshore habitat
may limit some development options, but can be incorporated with appropriate design.
Opportunities also may be limited by the terms of current permits (which have an
expiration period).
6.1.2.8 Lake Washington Reach I
6·12
Reach I is the shoreline frontage of the Renton Boeing Plant immediately east of the
mouth of Cedar River. About half ofthe frontage is public aquatic lands. The public land
frontage of 1,200 feet is about half isolated from the water by the power plant outfall and
has about 600 feet of gravel and sand beach. Vegetation cover is largely shrubs and small
willows. The beach section of the waterfront has productive shallow nearshore habitat.
The section adjacent to the power plant outfall is deeper and has little habitat value at
present. The Boeing Company has an easement for wing overhang over the public lands.
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 (0410401)
Shorelme lvlaster Program
Revised Draft Shureline lnvenrory and Analysis
City of Rc:nton
The City of Renton has proposed the Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail, which would
connect the public access at the Southport development to the Cedar River Trail. The
Renton pier is located at the western edge of this reach. The Boeing Plant shoreline west
of the aquatic lands consists of concrete bulkhead or riprap and is largely devoid of
vegetation, although bounded by shallow nearshore habitat.
A portion of this reach consists of the Cedar River delta that provides a large amount of
natural shallow water habitat at the mouth of the river. In the past, the Cedar River delta
was periodically dredged. Renton has no plans to dredge the delta in the future for flood
control. The delta has not yet developed any areas of sufficient elevation to support
riparian vegetation but does provide a large amount of shallow water habitat where young
Chinook first enter the lake. Habitat at the river's mouth is particularly important because
it is the first low velocity rearing habitat encountered by salmon fry after they pass
through the rapid velocity migratory corridor of the lower Cedar River. As demonstrated
by Tabor et al. (2006), the use of shallow shoreline habitat by young Chinook is greatest
with proximity to the Cedar River mouth.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include:
• Maintaining and enhancing the productivity of the delta of the Cedar River. This
can be done by allowing the natural process of deposition to continue, which will
lead to continuing shallow habitat and eventual formation of uplands that will
support riparian vegetation.
• Hastening the natural process of the formation of delta islands by adding material
to the delta to raise the surface to elevations that will support native riparian
vegetation. This will allow opportunities for habitat improvement. Most of these
opportunities are in public aquatic lands. Large woody debris (LWO) may be
installed in this area if deeply embedded to stabilize shorelines. LWO can
provide habitat for prickly sculpins, which are substantial predators of young
salmon (Tabor et al. 1998).
• Enhancing shorelines through riparian plantings on the aquatic shorelines that are
natural beach areas, which would enhance the nearshore aquatic habitat.
• Removing the existing sheet pile outfall, or placing fill outside of the sheet pile
wall with the potential to extend the area of shallow nearshore habitat.
• Redeveloping or replacing the Boeing Plant shoreline in the future would provide
opportunities to provide a full range of restoration along this 1,1 OO-foot-long
shoreline.
The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Plan Project C269 calls for restoration of public aquatic
lands as part of the Sam Chisham Trail, including removing a portion of flume to create
shallow water habitat, protecting the existing cove, and planting overhanging riparian
vegetation along the shore.
Constraints relate largely to funding opportunities for enhancement. The Boeing Plant is
not likely to substantially change while airplane manufacturing continues. Any
enhancement activities are likely to be related to public projects like the Sam Chastain
Waterfront Trail, which is proposed along this reach, or through public funding for
salmon enhancement. The public aquatic lands that are about half the shoreline frontage
provide an opportunity for management of aquatic habitat that would connect the public
access at the Southport development to the Cedar River Trail. If the Boeing Plant should
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 6-13
Shoreline A1aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
Clty of Renton
be redeveloped in the future, tradeoffs between a variety of potential uses, public access,
and ecological enhancement must be weighed,
6.1.2.9 Lake Washington Reach J
Reach J is the shoreline frontage of the Renton Municipal Airport. Use as a seaplane base
and runway end requirements have led to management of riparian vegetation. Low-
growing forms have been used or no vegetation permitted to prevent birds from
becoming a hazard to aviation. There is some woody debris in the water near the end of
the runway that enhances shoreline habitat. The airport currently has concrete and rock
riprap from the Cedar River to the seaplane ramp and a vertical sheet pile bulkhead west
of the seaplane ramp.
Relocation of the seaplane dock to deeper water with associated dredging is proposed to
maintain seaplane access to that facility. A section of the shoreline dock is proposed for
relocation to an offshore position eliminating cover over a shallow water portion of the
shoreline.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include many ofthe
same measures applied for Reach H to the east including:
• Maintaining and enhancing the productivity of the delta of the Cedar River.
• Providing habitat improvement opportunities by hastening the natural process of
formation of delta islands that will support native riparian vegetation. Aviation
safety will limit opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the runway.
• Enhancing shorelines through placement of fill adjacent to the bulkheads, which
would provide for riparian plantings that will enhance the nearshore aquatic
habitat.
• Acknowledging that future redevelopment or replacement of the Boeing Plant
may affect the viability of the airport. Redevelopment would provide
opportunities for a full range of restoration along this 850-foot-Iong Lake
Washington shoreline, as well as about a mile of Cedar River shoreline.
• Placing substrate against the sheet pile to provide a narrow bench for low-
growing riparian vegetation.
Constraints relate largely to potential conflicts with the operation of the municipal airport
and funding opportunities for enhancement. The establishment of riparian vegetation in
the area has the potential of attracting increased popUlations of birds that are a potential
hazard to aviation. In addition, the airport is not likely to substantially change while the
Boeing Plant on the east side of the Cedar River is in operation. Some mitigation to
aquatic habitat is currently being developed as mitigation for alterations to the existing
seaplane dock on the shoreline. Other enhancement activities are likely to be publicly-
funded for salmon enhancement. If the airport should be redeveloped in the future, in
conjunction with redevelopment of the Boeing Plant, tradeoffs between a variety of
potential uses, public access, and ecological enhancement must be weighed.
6.1.2.10 Lake Washington Reach K
6-14
Reach K extends from the Renton Municipal Airport to the Seattle city limits and is
largely a P AA of the City of Renton. This area is similar in character to Reaches A and D
and consists of relatively small lots with limited depth and shoreline frontage largely
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shoreline lv/aster Program
Revised Drcift Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
CilY of Renton
bulkheaded. Lawn and ornamental vegetation predominates. Much of the water surface is
covered by docks and moored vessels. Many bulkheads in this reach extend to water
depths of several feet at the low lake elevation and there is limited shallow shoreline
habitat. There are two privately-owned undeveloped parcels in this reach with a total of
about 250 linear feet of unarmored shoreline. Existing development that has caused these
conditions continues to degrade conditions through ongoing landscaping practices and
shoreline modification, including installation of bank features and new overwater
structures.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include all of the
items listed above for Reach A that has a similar character of development. Many of
these may be required by USACE at the time of construction or replacement of the docks
and bulkheads. SMP regulations can lead to a gradual upgrade of bulkheads, docks, and
adjacent vegetation to reduce impacts on aquatic habitat. These regulations can (a)
designate bulkheads and docks not meeting current standards as non-conforming, (b)
allow fill below the OHWM for shoreline protection and habitat enhancement, and (c)
allow regrading of existing shorelines without penalizing landowners if the OHWM is
moved back by measuring setbacks from the previous bulkhead line.
Constraints relate largely to the existing high intensity of development on this reach. The
placement of residences close together and close to the water provides limited
opportunities to reduce dock coverage or provide an area of native vegetation adjacent to
the shoreline. In addition, the infrequent need to replace bulkheads and docks is likely to
lead to a slow pace of upgrading. This is a case where education programs for property
owners and voluntary programs are likely to be an important element, in addition to
regulation.
6.2 MAY CREEK
6.2.1 Overview
The upstream portions of the May Creek watershed lying within a number of tributaries in
Renton and Newcastle are highly urbanized. These upstream conditions, relating largely to
impervious surfaces and associated urban runoff, have altered hydrologic conditions that
lead to increased sediment inputs from erosion and scouring into tributary channels and, to
a lesser extent, May Creek. Upstream urban development also increases pollutant and
nutrient loads to the stream. Increased sediment inputs and impaired gravel quality are a
major concern because lower May Creek is an area of intensive salmonid spawning
activity.
The dominant process mechanism in May Creek is water storage (City of Renton 2001).
Protection and restoration of floodplains, depressional wetlands, and riparian forest cover
have the greatest potential for improving shoreline ecological function.
Areas located outside the UGA have a greater potential for protection and restoration
because they have a rural character. The May Valley floodplain is extremely important for
all processes, and restoration of the riparian corridor and associated wetlands will have the
greatest impact of process and ecological function.
In addition, planning in the upper watershed that protects existing sensitive areas (e.g.,
aquifer recharge zones) and establishes thresholds for impervious area and forest cover can
prevent further increases in stormflow, sediment inputs, and water quality degradation.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 6-15
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Drajt Shoreline Jnvent01Y and Ana{ysls
City of Renton
6-16
The portions of May Creek within the City have largely intact vegetated riparian corridors,
with the exception of short reaches with adjacent residential development and Reach A,
which was previously re-routed. Reach A is currently being revegetated as part of the
adjacent residential development. However, the 35-foot-wide buffer provides limited
habitat functions, and it will be many years before vegetation reaches a size sufficient to
provide substantial shade and temperature attenuation. The City of Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan includes a goal to provide a buffer and soft surface trail corridor from
Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain
Within the shoreline, potential also exists for functional enhancement. The existing
floodplain in confined by roads and development, but a substantial riparian corridor exists
upstream of Reach A (for example, there is potential for replacement of a culvert in Reach
0). Placement of L WO, in addition to riparian planting, would combine short-and long-
term enhancement potential for instream habitat complexity. Floodplain reconnection and
acquisition/easements in private property areas may also be possible and would protect
existing riparian areas.
Table 6-3. Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities for
May Creek Shoreline
Reach
Opportunity A B C o
Riparian • • • •
LWD Placement • • • •
Streambank •
FloodplainlOffchannel • • • Restoration
Passage Improvement
Acquisition •
Community Outreach • •
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
ShoreJme Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalySIs
City ofRelltull
Table 6-4. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, May Creek Shoreline
Process Scale
Hydrology: Watershed
Inputs
City
Hydrology: Watershed
Groundwater
Recharge
Hydrology:
Surface
Water
Storage
City
Watershed
City
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Alterations
Moderate
Loss of forest cover and increased impervious
area have contributed to altered peak flows which
in tum affects other processes such as sediment
inputs, water quality, and nutrient cycling
High
High degree of impervious surfaces have
increased stormflows by an order of magnitude
Moderate
Loss of forest cover is sUbstantial but impervious
surface area still moderate.
High
Little forest cover remains outside of May Creek
corridor and impervious surface area is very high
Moderate
Rural land-uses may have destroyed wetlands
and floodplain connectivity in May Valley and
tributaries as a result of actions undertaken to
prevent property damage. However, currently
there is evidence that maintaining wetland
functionality might protect property from flood
damage.
High
Loss of associated wetlands and floodplain
connectivity in Renton Highlands,
Depressional wetland loss in lowland areas
Restoration Potential
Moderate
High potential for protection and restoration of floodplain and
depressional wetlands in May Valley and other rural areas
Low
Build-out is already relatively high within the City limits, but strategic
protection of remaining sensitive areas is possible
High
Infiltrative areas on the upland plateau can be protected and restored
to ensure continued summer baseflow function
Low
Limited opportunity for restoring forest cover or removing impervious
surfaces in areas with high infiltration rates
High
Protection of existing storage and restoration of floodplain connectivity
and depressional wetlands is possible. Easements and acquisitions
are two appropriate management tools
Low
Engineering solutions are most appropriate, including BMPs for
stormwater management
6-17
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
Table 6-4. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, May Creek Shoreline (continued)
Process
Hydrology:
Groundwater
Movement
Sediment:
Inputs
Sediment:
Storage
Water
Quality:
Inputs
1r18
Scale
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
Alterations
Moderate
Roads and artificial drainage limit movement and
increase outflow, respectively; groundwater
withdrawals for both rural residential development
and City of Renton
High
Increasing stormflows have increased
stream bank erosion on upland plateau
Developing and other disturbed areas have
increase fine sediment inputs
High
Increasing stormflows have increased
stream bank erosion
High level of existing buildout limits amount of
disturbed areas
Moderate
Rural land-uses may have destroyed wetlands
and floodplain connectivity in May Valley and
tributaries. However, currently there is evidence
that maintaining wetland functionality might
protect property from flood damage.
High
Loss of associated wetlands and floodplain
connectivity on Renton Plateau.
Depressional wetland loss in lowiand areas
High
Increased nitrogen and fecal inputs from animal
and septic waste.
Increased phosphorus and toxins from roads and
agricultural and residential areas
Restoration Potential
Low
Limited ability to actively manage existing development and
withdrawals required for human drinking water. Agricultural water
easements may be possible.
High
See hydrology sections for management scenarios
BMPs for disturbed sites, particularly close to aquatic areas, including
artificial conveyances such as roads, ditches, and sewers.
Low
See hydrology sections for management scenarios
Bank stabilization projects in May Creek gorge can improve bank
stability and prevent further channelization.
High
Protect existing storage and restoration of floodplain connectivity and
depressional wetlands. Easements and acquisitions are two
appropriate management tools.
Restore buffers and add LWD to streams to increase roughness and
facilitate sediment deposition
Low
Engineering solutions are most appropriate, including BMPs for
stormwater management
High
Restore riparian function in headwater streams.
Restore historic wetlands on upland plateau with clay or organic soils
to improve removal of nitrogen and pathogens. Wetlands should be
located between sources and receiving water body.
Depressional wetlands in general support water quality through
adsorption and removal and sequestration 0
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory alld AnalysIs
ClIy orRenton
Table 6-4. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, May Creek Shoreline (continued)
Process
Water
Quality:
Storage
Organic
Malter
Other
Scale
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 (04/0401)
Alterations
High
Toxins and other contaminants from roads and
nutrients from residential areas
Moderate
Rural land-uses have destroyed wetlands and
floodplain connectivity in May Valley and
tributaries to augment land-use and prevent
property damage.
High
Loss of associated wetlands and floodplain
connectivity on Renton Plateau.
Depressional wetland loss in lowland areas
High
Deforestation of riparian corridors has decreased
LWD recruitment potential and degraded
instream habitat complexity.
High
Increased water temperature resulting from
riparian disturbance and to a lesser extent
decreased summer baseflows
Restoration Potential
Low
Protect/restore forested buffers and wetlands between sources and
aquatic habitat. BMPs and other engineered solutions may be the
most viable option
High
Protect existing storage and restoration of floodplain connectivity and
depressional wetlands. Easements and acquisitions are two
appropriate management tools.
Restore buffers in key areas between sources and aquatic habitat
Low
Restoration/enhancement possible in May Creek floodplain
High
Reach-scale reforestation of riparian areas throughout watershed.
Emphasize areas with streambank instability to increase bank stability
and instream sediment storage potential.
High
Reach-scale reforestation of riparian forest cover
6·19
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Draft Sh()reline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
6.2.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach
6.2.2.1 May Creek Reach A
Reach A extends from the mouth of the creek to the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge.
The stream was re-routed in the 1920s to accommodate industrial development and
moved from its central location across the alluvial fan/delta to the east edge. The stream
is completely straightened with little naturalized riparian, suggesting a high degree of
modification to prevent channel migration and flooding. The recent Barbee Mill
subdivision has included extensive vegetation planting in a narrow riparian corridor
extending about 3S feet on each side of the channel. There has been armoring associated
with the BNSF railroad crossing; however, the abutments are set back from the OHWM.
The replanting of the riparian buffer with native vegetation will result in mature
vegetation over time that will provide overhanging vegetation that will improve shoreline
refuge habitat for young salmon and other aquatic species, provide a source of food
(insects) for young salmon and other fish, as well as contribute to temperature control.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach are
limited to the narrow buffer area outside the adjacent residential lots. Because this area
has been revegetated, the major actions that can best provide the buffer functions within
the narrow corridor are to ensure survival of the plantings and control of invasive species.
If informal public use leads to trampling of vegetation and a network of informal trails,
fencing of the existing trails should be considered.
Constraints largely relate to the narrow width of the buffer, which is not likely to change
given the adjacent residential development.
6.2.2.2 May Creek Reach B
Reach B extends between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-40S within a S.S-acre
undeveloped parcel zoned for residential use. Armoring is associated with the Lake
Washington Boulevard and 1-405 grades where they cross the stream at each end of
Reach B. The stream section between the roads is relatively unaltered.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach relate
largely to ensuring that future private development preserve an intact buffer area of
native vegetation that will provide a variety of functions for aquatic and terrestrial
habitat. Future development also should consider water quality and increased flow.
Constraints largely relate to the placement of the stream in relation to topography and
future site layout for roads, lots, and public facilities such as stormwater control.
6.2.2.3 May Creek Reach C
6·20
Reach C extends from 1-405 to the alignment of Northeast 36'h Street and is bounded by
1-405 on the west and Jones Road on the east. The stream flows through the 1-405 EOW
of publicly-owned land in the majority of the reach. The stream flows through a large,
undeveloped privately-owned parcel just east of the 1-40S crossing and adjacent to three
residential lots just north of Northeast 36'h Street. A portion of streambank in upper
Reach C appears to be armored where it flows parallel to Jones Avenue (200 feet) and a
portion of the right streambank appears to be modified to protect a private residence (SOO
feet).
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shorelme Master Program
Revised Drafi Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach relate
to maintenance of existing natural vegetation, with the potential for enhancement where
clearing has taken place or where invasive species have hecome established. Future
development of the large privately owned parcel should preserve an intact buffer area of
native vegetation. Existing residential lots are of moderate size and generally with a depth
of 150 to 200 feet, which requires flexihility for location of homes while providing
riparian vegetation huffers.
Constraints relate largely to the existing residential lots that currently provide a narrow
buffer and may contribute storrnwater runoff that may include herbicides and pesticides
from lawns and ornamental vegetation. The opportunity to apply regulations to provide
enhanced buffers and remove bank arrnoring would occur only as major remodeling or
replacement of residences occurs. This likely would result in a slow pace of
enhancement. Education programs for property owners and voluntary programs are likely
to be an important element in leading to changes in management of riparian vegetation by
private property owners.
6,2.2.4 May Creek Reach D
Reach D extends from Northeast 36th Street to the City limits. It is largely bounded by the
King County May Creek Park or open space tracts set aside in residential subdivisions.
Near the end of the reach, four single-family residences (on lots of I to 5 acres in size)
have cleared an area relatively close to the stream. There are several road crossings to
serve these residences. Except for this area, buffers generally are in the range of 200 to
600 feet.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach relate
to maintenance of existing natural vegetation, with the potential for enhancement where
clearing has taken place or where invasive species have become established. Future
development of the privately owned parcel may provide the opportunity to relocate
development away from the stream with preservation and replanting of a buffer area and
elimination of road crossings. The existing residential lots are of a size that would likely
cause future subdivision.
Constraints relate largely to the existing residential lots that currently provide a narrow
buffer that (a) reduces wildlife habitat functions and (b) may contribute storrnwater
runoff that may include herbicides and pesticides from lawns and ornamental vegetation.
The opportunity to apply regulations to provide enhanced buffers and remove bank
armoring is likely to take place when these large parcels are subdivided. Educational and
voluntary programs are also likely to be an important element in leading to changes in
management of riparian vegetation by private property owners.
6.3 CEDAR RIVER
6.3.1 WRIA Recovery Plan
The WRIA 8 Chinook Recovery Plan used the Ecosystem Diagnostic Tool to assess the
degree of watershed function in Cedar River subbasins (King County DNR 2005). As
described above, processes are relatively intact in the upper watershed above the
Landsburg Diversion, suggesting these subbasins should be prioritized for protection.
Rock Creek, Taylor Creek, Peterson Creek, and the Walsh Lake diversion each contain
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-21
Shoreline A1aster Program
Ret.'lsed Draft Shorelme Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
6·22
extensive wetland complexes and provide high quality, intact riparian and aquatic habitat
(Kerwin 2001),
The middle and lower reaches of the mainstem (below the Landsburg diversion at RM
21,6) have a high degree of process function and a large capacity for ecological function,
Moderate land-use alterations make these mainstem reaches a high priority for restoration
(Table 5-5), Within the City, the high degree of build-out and existing alteration on the
Cedar River limits opportunities for floodplain restoration and riparian enhancement.
The main tributaries in the lower watershed (downstream of the Landsburg Diversion)
include Taylor Creek, Orting Hills Creeks, Rock Creek, Maplewood, Molasses, and
Madsen Creeks, These subbasins are highly altered and provide limited process and
ecological function relative to the mainstem, King County DNR (2005) rates them as a
low priority for restoration,
Within the City, floodplain connectivity is the primary limiting factor. While riparian
condition is also degraded, its potential influence is limited because water, sediment, and
other materials are not transported and stored in the floodplain,
Reaches A and B are highly-urbanized, and the channel is essentially a cana1. Spawning
does occur in these reaches, and both are used as salmon viewing areas, but habitat
enhancement potential is very low (Table 5-6), Open space in Reaches C and D provides
some limited opportunities for functional enhancement of the floodplain and riparian
corridor, Instream habitat projects may be possible, but would have to be implemented
giving appropriate foresight to concerns regarding potential flooding and property
damage,
Table 6-5. Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration
Opportunities for Cedar River
Reach
Opportunity A B C D
Riparian • •
LWD Placement • • • •
Streambank • •
Floodplain/Offchannel • •
Restoration
Passage Improvement
Acquisition • •
Community Outreach • •
March 2010 I 553-\779-03\ (04/0401)
Shoreline Masler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Invenlory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
Table 6-6. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Cedar River Shoreline
Process Scale
Hydrology: Watershed
Flow regime
City
Hydrology: Watershed
Groundwater
Recharge
Hydrology:
Surface
Water
Storage
Hydrology:
Groundwater
Movement
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
March 2010 I 553·1779-031 (04/0401)
Alterations
High
Forest cover exists in rain-an-snow zones
Extensive impervious areas in lower watershed increase
storm flows
System dammed and managed for drinking water
High
Impervious areas on upland plateaus and lowtand
floodplain limits recharge
Moderate
Forest conversion extensive but impervious surfaces
outside urban areas remains at a manageable level
High
Restoration Potential
Moderate
Protect existing forest cover in rain-an-snow zones
Restore forest and timit impervious development in areas of
high infiltration
Low
High impervious area and artificiat drainage limits potential for
restoration/protection. Stormwater BMPs are primary
management option.
High
Limit development and restore forest cover in aquifer recharge
areas
Low
High degree of forest cover loss and impervious surface Existing land-use limits potential for restoration. Likely some
areas with potential for protection in upland plateaus,
particularly areas of coarse outwash deposits
High
Loss of floodplain connectivity and associated wetlands
on the mainstem and tributaries below Landsburg
diversion limits storage short-term storage potential
High
Loss of floodplain connectivity and associated wetlands
on the mainstem and tributaries limits storage short-term
storage potential
High
Moderate
High
Wetland and floodplain restoration more feasible in rural areas
but must be reconciled with existing land-uses
Low
High level of urbanization limits restoration potential within the
City. Levee setbacks on the mainstem may be possible in
some areas
Moderate
Moderate
6-23
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Table 6-6. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Cedar River Shoreline (continued)
Process
Sediment:
Inputs
Sediment:
Storage
Water
Quality:
Inputs
Water
Quality:
Storage
6-24
Scale
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Alterations
High
Altered hydrology destabilizes tributary ravines.
Artificial stabilization of hillslopes adjacent to Cedar
River limits natural spawning gravel inputs.
Moderate
Build-out is extensive, limiting the number of disturbed
areas that could contribute fine sediment
High
Wetland and floodplain loss prevents fine sediment
storage in mainstem and to a lesser extent in tributaries
High
Residential and agricultural land-uses in lower and
middle watershed increase nutrient and pathogen inputs
High
Urban land-uses increase toxin inputs from roads and
industrial sites
High
loss of floodplain and wetlands decrease capacity for
contaminant storage
Restoration Potential
High
Priority management actions are to improve storage potential
and gravel inputs along the mainstem through floodplain
reconnection and protection of erosional hills lope areas
adjacent to the river.
To a lesser extent, the management of hydrology and
floodplain wetland restoration in tributaries in the lower
watershed can improve hydrology and reduce fine sediment
inputs
Protection of intact tributaries and associated wetlands will
prevent increases in fine sediment inputs downstream
low
Limit new development in erosional areas
Use BMPs for sediment control in developing areas
Moderate
Levee setbacks on mainstem to increase amount of storage
areas
Protection of existing riparian and wetlands in developing areas
low
No natural sources of pollution have been altered.
Anthropogenic sources of pollution can be reduced using BMPs
to reduce inputs from septic tanks, agriculture, and roads.
Reduction in fine sediment inputs would also reduce input of
absolved materials
low
limited potential for restoration/protection, but management of
fine sediment can prevent absolved contaminants from entering
water bodies.
High
Wetland and floodplain restoration more feasible in rural areas
but must be reconciled with eXisting land-uses
Moderate
Wetland and floodplain restoration are not as feasible as in
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shorefll7e Alaster Program
RevIsed Draft Shorefme Imo'entory and AnalySis
CIty of Renton
Table 6-6. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Cedar River Shoreline (continued)
Process
Organic
Malter
Other
Scale
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 (04/0401)
Alterations
High
Loss of high-quality mature mixed and coniferous forests
limits LWD recruitment potential
Loss of channel migration in mainstem and unconfined
tributaries limits LWD recruitment potential
High
Poor riparian conditions increase water temperature
Restoration Potential
rural areas due to level of development, but riparian restoration
in possible in low·order tributaries
High
Restore riparian corridors and channel migration in lower and
middle Cedar River reaches.
Restore riparian corridors in Maplewood, Molasses and
Madsen Creeks to improve hydrology, sediment, water quality,
and LWD processes.
Protect intact tributaries and mainstem reaches in upper
watershed.
Moderate
Potential for improving LWD recruitment potential is low on the
Cedar without both restoration of mature forest and channel
migration
High
Restore riparian corridors throughout watershed
6-25
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Sh{)reline Inventory and AnalysIs
Cit} of Renton
6.3.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach
6.3.2.1 Cedar River Reach A
6-26
Reach A extends from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the Logan Avenue bridge. The
river is constrained to a straight channel by the dikes and fill that provide the land on
which the Renton Airport and Boeing Plant are constructed. Reach A is a very low-
gradient, depositional area with substrate that has high levels of fine sediment. Reaches A
and B were channelized by watershed realignment following the decrease in Lake
Washington elevation in 1916. These reaches were routinely dredged in the past for flood
control with portions most recently dredged in 1998. The levees along the river are
certified by the Corps and are subject to restrictions on vegetation composition and size
to maintain the integrity ofthe structures.
The river is primarily run-type habitat with little habitat complexity and is used by
salmon ids primarily as a migratory corridor for returning adults and downstream
migrating juveniles. Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) also migrate and spawn in
this area. Resident fish such as prickly sculpin (COitus asper) are also common in these
reaches. The sculpins are substantial predators of juvenile salmon (Tabor et al. 1998).
Land use on the eastern shore of the river is the City of Renton Cedar River Trail Park.
The certified flood control levee is in the eastern portion of this linear park, which has
allowed plantings of trees and shrubs adjacent to the shoreline. The western shore of the
river is bounded by the municipal airport. This reach has flood control walls and levees
that are subject to restrictions on vegetation.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity range from minor
enhancements to riparian vegetation within the scope of the existing flood control
facilities; to removal of hardened shorelines, which would require substantial changes to
flood control facilities; to substantial reconfiguration of the river to provide more natural
stream character, which likely would take place only with substantial redevelopment of
adjacent uses.
Vegetation enhancement to encourage additional and more complex vegetation
communities with overhanging vegetation would provide increased refuge habitat for
young salmon and some food resources. This could be accomplished within the scope of
the existing flood control facilities along the shoreline of the park on the eastern bank, but
only within the area between the water's edge and the prism of the formal levee.
Vegetation enhancement adjacent to the municipal airport on the west bank would require
a plant community limited to shrubs and small trees and would probably require periodic
trimming.
Removal of hardened shorelines to decrease habitat favorable to introduced prickly
sculpins, which are a predator of native salmon, would require substantial changes to
flood control facilities.
More extensive natural channel conditions, that might include construction of low-
velocity embayments or side channels, could provide habitat that would allow juveniles
to interrupt their rapid migration through the lower reaches of the Cedar River. This
would allow this reach to function as a rearing area, rather than primarily as a migration
corridor. Sufficient space to accomplish this level of modification would require
substantial reconfiguration of the municipal airport, which probably would occur only
with redevelopment.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Invento!J; and Analysis
City of Renton
Constraints to maintaining a denser and more complex vegetation community on the park
shoreline relate largely to the design goals of the park in providing areas for picnicking
and other active uses, as well as visual access to the shoreline from the trail. Additional
plantings would tend to block views to the water. This could be accommodated by side
trails leading to viewing areas on the shoreline, but would involve additional capital and
maintenance expense. Under current rules for levee maintenance, the lawn areas on the
levee could not be replaced by native trees.
Constraints to providing additional vegetation on the municipal airport frontage relate
both to maintenance standards for flood control facilities and the potential aviation hazard
in attracting increased populations of birds.
Changes to the existing flood control levees could not occur without substantial changes
in surrounding uses, or modification of the North Boeing bridge, which is a partial
impediment to peak flood flows. Some changes to riprap materials to provide habitat less
suited to prickly sculpins habitat may be possible.
Existing development is the primary constraint to larger-scale enhancements associated
with a more natural channel including off-channel habitat. If the airport should be
redeveloped in the future, in conjunction with redevelopment of the Boeing Plant,
tradeoffs between a variety of potential uses, public access, and ecological enhancement
must be weighed.
6.3.2.2 Cedar River Reach B
Reach B extends from the Logan Avenue bridge to the 1-405 bridges. This portion of the
river is constrained to a straightened channel and has a low gradient with substrate that
has high levels of fine sediment. This reach is primarily run-type habitat with little habitat
complexity and is used by salmon ids primarily as a migratory corridor for returning
adults and downstream migrating juveniles. Some salmon spawning does occur in this
area.
The majority of Reach B is characterized by a narrow corridor of public ownership
managed by the City as successor to Commercial Waterway District No.2. The Renton
Senior Center is located on the north side of the river east of Logan Avenue with a park
maintenance facility adjacent to it that extends to Williams Avenue. The north side of the
river is generally bounded by public streets to Bronson Way. There is a paved public
pedestrian trail on the north side ofthe river a few feet above the OHWM between Logan
Avenue and Bronson Way with a narrow fringe of grasses and shrubs between the trail
and the river. The private land to the north of the public street is single-family residential.
Liberty Park is located on the north side of the river between Bronson Way and Houser
Way. The park is primarily active recreation fields. The banks of the river are heavily
vegetated and there are pedestrian trails beyond the top of the bank.
The south side of the river is largely bounded by single-family, multi-family, and
commercial uses outside of the narrow strip of public ownership. There is a continuous
public trail along the upper bank and a public street between Williams Avenue and Wells
Avenue. There is a small public playground east of Wells Avenue. The Renton Library
spans the river between Bronson Way and Houser Way. The majority of the riverbank on
the south side consists of deciduous trees and ornamental shrubs from the top of the bank
to the OHWM.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach are
largely limited to public lands along the river. Vegetation enhancement to encourage
March2010 1553.1779.031 (04/0401) 6·27
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Cily of Renlon
additional and more complex vegetation communities with overhanging vegetation would
provide increased refuge habitat for young salmon and some food resources. The location
where this would be most effective would be where the existing paved pedestrian trail is
located next to the water. Elsewhere, the vegetation community could be enhanced in
density and complexity and extended farther from the water's edge in areas such as
Liberty Park.
Constraints are present in the existing private development along both sides of the river
outside public ownership, as well as the public roadways. Extending vegetation into the
road rights-of-way would require alternative access for adjacent private parcels where the
roads are the exclusive access. Displacing the existing public trail involves tradeoffs
between the SMA goals of public access and ecological restoration. Public access along
the top of the bank would provide less immediate access to the water's edge.
6.3.2.3 Cedar River Reach C
6-28
Reach C extends from the 1-405 bridge to the SR 169 bridge. The south side of the river
is largely public open space. The Cedar River Trail on the old Milwaukee Road Railroad
right-of-way is set back from the river except near 1-405 and at the bridge crossing.
On the north side, the first 700 feet of river frontage are part of the City of Renton Cedar
River Park. The next upstream area of about 1,400 feet is a highly altered hardened band
from a former concrete batch plant with virtually no vegetation cover. The next 2,500 feet
is similarly altered multi-family and commercial sites. SR 169 fronts closely on the
shoreline for an additional 1,200 feet with little area for riparian vegetation. East of the
former railroad bridge carrying the Cedar River Trail, the north shoreline is single-family
residential for about 6,000 linear feet (1.13 miles) and immediately to SR 160 for another
1,000 feet. This portion of the reach is hardened to varying extents with minimal native
vegetation in most areas. Most of the residential lots have lawn or ornamental vegetation
extending to the water's edge.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity on the south side of
the river would include maintenance of existing natural vegetation, with the potential for
enhancement where clearing has taken place in the past near 1-405. Opportunities on the
north side include additional building setbacks, removal of hardened banks and provision
of a buffer area of native vegetation. There is a likely short-term opportunity to
accomplish this at the former concrete batch plant with consideration of tradeoffs
between public access and ecological enhancement required for location of non-water-
oriented mixed uses, including retail/restaurant, office, or multi-family uses. The
residential lots are of moderate size and generally with a depth of 150 to 250 feet, which
requires flexibility for location of homes while providing riparian vegetation buffers.
Constraints relate largely to the existing high intensity of development on this reach or
the location of a state highway adjacent to the stream. The residential lots provide
opportunities for native vegetation adjacent to the shoreline; however, the opportunity to
apply regulations would occur only as major remodeling or replacement of residences
occurs. This likely would result in a slow pace of enhancement. As for Lake Washington
Reach A, considering existing land cover as nonconforming would allow enhancement
when a threshold of percent of floor area or value added to a residence would trigger
compliance with new standards. Education programs for property owners and voluntary
programs are likely to be an important element in leading to changes in management of
riparian vegetation. However, they are not likely to result in substantial changes to
overall coverage of mature riparian vegetation. The large parcels with high intensity
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
Shureline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysi.~
City of Renton
zoning allowing mixed-use development can be expected to redevelop as market
opportunities dictate over the next decade or so.
6.3.2.4 Cedar River Reach 0
Reach D retains the most intact channel characteristics in the city. although the river
channel is constrained by flood control levees. The City owns all of the south side of the
river to the City limits as Maplewood Park or Ron Regis Park. The north side of the river
is owned by the City, is open space dedicated as part of subdivisions, or is large
undeveloped parcels. This reach is the least constrained reach within the City, allowing a
small degree of meandering, channel migration and development of gravel bars. It has a
significant amount of LWD due to the landslide caused by the Nisqually Earthquake in
2001, including log-jams adjacent to Ron Regis Park. Riparian vegetation width
generally ranges from about 100 to over 500 feet, although one fairway north of the river
comes within about 80 feet of the river. Three off-channel salmon spawning channels
have been constructed on the south side ofthe river adjacent to the golf course.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity throughout the
reach inclndes maintenance of existing natural vegetation, with the potential for
enhancement in a few cases to add density and complexity. Opportunities to allow
additional meandering and channel migration through relocating or eliminating flood
control facilities must be balanced with maintaining existing off-channel spawning
channels. Future development of the remaining privately owned parcels should
accommodate substantial riparian buffers.
Constraints relate largely to the existing high intensity of development on this reach or
the location of a state highway adjacent to the stream. The residential lots provide
opportunities for native vegetation adjacent to the shoreline; however, the opportunity to
apply regulations would occnr only as major remodeling or replacement of residences
occurs. This likely would result in a slow pace of enhancement. As for Lake Washington
Reach A, considering existing land cover as nonconforming would allow enhancement
when a threshold of percent of floor area or value added to a residence would trigger
compliance with new standards. Education programs for property owners and voluntary
programs are likely to be an important element in leading to changes in management of
riparian vegetation. However, they are not likely to result in substantial changes to
overall coverage of mature riparian vegetation. The large parcels with high intensity
zoning allowing mixed-use development can be expected to redevelop as market
opportunities dictate over the next decade or so.
6.4 GREEN RIVER
The Green River does not flow within the City, and shoreline area is limited to a small,
developed corridor separated from the River by levees and the BNSF railroad.
Reach A consists of the Black River below the pump station. It is the only portion of the
Green River Basin within the shoreline planning area that has a hydraulic connection to
the river. Although most of the historical floodplain was likely wetland, the channel has
been channelized and realigned and no wetlands are known to occur within the shoreline
planning area. The riparian corridor west of 68 th Avenue South Bridge is typically 80 to
150 feet wide on the south side and 50 to 100 feet wide on the north side. The riparian
buffer widens between the bridge and the pump station to about 150 feet. Vegetation
within the buffer is primarily small-to medium-sized deciduous trees and emergent
vegetation. East of 68 th Avenue, the riparian area is the City of Renton Black River
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-29
Shoreline ,Hasler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Riparian Forest and Wetland discussed in more detail under Black River/Springbrook
Creek Reach A.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach relate
to maintenance of existing buffer vegetation, with the potential for enhancement to
provide greater density and complexity or removal of invasive species.
Constraints relate largely to the existing industrial development with buildings and
parking lots adjacent to the buffer. The opportunity to apply regulations to provide
enhanced buffers and remove bank armoring would occur only as major remodeling or
replacement of buildings occurred and is not considered likely in the near future.
Education programs for property owners and voluntary programs or public funding may
lead to enhanced management of riparian vegetation.
6.5 BLACK RIVER/SPRINGBROOK CREEK
6.5.1 Overview
6-30
The extent of development in the Black River/Springbrook Creek watershed severely
limits the potential for restoration. Conditions are similar both within and outside of the
City; the Cities of Kent and Auburn comprise much of the remaining watershed.
Increased inputs of water, sediment, and contaminants are difficult to manage directly
using process-based restoration; restoration potential is probably higher for storage areas
in riparian corridors and wetlands. Wetland loss in the watershed is extensive, and any
existing undeveloped open space along the mainstem likely has potential for wetland
restoration or re-creation. Ongoing wetland enhancement and restoration is currently
occurring as part of a joint effort by WSDOT and the City to create a wetland mitigation
bank (see Section 4.5.2.1).
Because the stream gradient is virtually flat, morphologic complexity is highly dependent
on sinuosity and LWD that create habitat features through scour during bankfull flows.
Channelization and loss of forested riparian features have limited the potential for
creating complex habitat through this mechanism. A 200-foot stream corridor remains
essentially undeveloped throughout the shoreline, thus the potential for riparian
restoration/enhancement is high.
The potential for riparian ecological enhancement exists in most Reaches, and restoration
of the floodplain and associated wetlands is underway. More potential remains,
particularly for riparian enhancement and restoration. Reaches Band C have extensive
existing development, limiting restoration/enhancement opportunities to the streambank
as indicated in Tables 5-7 and 5-8.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Afa.~ter Program
Revised Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis
City of Renlon
Table 6-7. Summary of Protection, Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities for
Black River/Springbrook Creek
Reach
Opportunity A B C
Riparian • • •
LWD Placement • • •
Streambank restoration •
Floodplain/Offchannel • • Restoration
Passage Improvement • •
Acquisition •
Community Outreach •
6.5.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach
6.5.2.1 Black River/Springbrook Creek Reach A
Reach A extends from the pump station to Grady Way. Immediately upstream from the
pump station the reach is contained in a large pond. The riparian corridor in this reach is
primarily forested, and more than 250-feet-wide on either bani" However, invasive reed
canarygrass (Pha/aris arundinacea) is also dominant in areas, particularly in the
shoreline on the left bank where there is public access and a trail system. This area also
hosts a heron rookery with approximately 90 nests.
The stream then flows through a 100-to ISO-foot-wide vegetated corridor bounded on
the east by Oakesdale Avenue and on the west by the Metro Sewage Treatment Plant. A
combination of deciduous forest and open canopy emergent areas extend 30 feet on river
left and 80 to 100 feet on river right. The stream then flows under two local streets and 1-
405, with highly altered riparian conditions.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach relate
to maintenance of existing buffer vegetation, with the potential for enhancement to
provide greater density and complexity and removal of invasive species. Local
community groups have sponsored a series of work parties to restore native vegetation, in
cooperation with the Renton Parks Department (Herons Forever 2008).
Constraints relate largely to the surrounding development, roads that allow little
opportunity to expand buffers, and the crossings under city streets and 1-405 that include
bank armoring and little opportunity for riparian vegetation due to shading and lack of
water.
March2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-31
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft ShorelIne Inventory and Analysis
Clty of RentOlL
Table 6·8. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Black River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline
Process
Hydrology:
Inputs
Hydrology:
Groundwater
Recharge
Hydrology:
Surface
Water
Storage
Hydrology:
Groundwater
Movement
6-32
Scale
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Alterations
High
Impervious surfaces and artificial drainage
reapportions precipitation from infiltration to
surface runoff
High
Extensive impervious development coarse alluvial
deposits on the historic Green River floodplain
and infiltrative soils in headwater plateaus limit
recharge potential
High
Wetland conversion and channelization of both
Green River and Springbrook Creek reduce
floodwater storage potential
Moderate
Road embankments and extensive diking along
Green River likely modifies groundwater flow.
City of Kent groundwater withdrawals likely affect
groundwater movement and availability for
discharge to streams
Extensive diking along Green River likely
Restoration Potential
Low
Restoration potential is very low due to extensive build-out.
Stormwater BMPs are primary management tool
Low
Protect few existing upland areas underlain by soils with high
infiltration rates
Moderate
Restoration of floodplain and storage would improve flood attenuation
in Springbrook Creek and to a lesser extent the Green River
Low
In addition, groundwater flow patterns are not well understood Low
potential for restoring historic groundwater flow patterns.
Potential for levee setbacks on Green River to restore shallow
groundwater flow regime in floodplain is low
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Alasler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline fnvenlory and Analysis
Cily nfRcntoll
Table 6-8. Summary of Process Alterations and Management Potential, Black River/Springbrook Creek Shoreline (continued)
Process
Sediment:
Inputs
Sediment:
Storage
Water
Quality:
Inputs
Water
Quality:
Storage
Organic
Matter
Other
Scale
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
Watershed
City
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Alterations
modifies groundwater flow.
High
Build-out is extensive, but disturbed areas in
developing areas and high road density still
contribute large amounts of fine sediment
High
Wetland conversion and channelization of both
Green River and Springbrook Creek reduce
storage potential
High
Industrial land-uses have led to high
concentrations metals
High
Similarly to water and sediment storage, wetland
conversion and channelization of both Green
River and Springbrook Creek reduce storage
potential
High
Lack of LWD recruitment in conjunction with
hydro modification has limited instream habitat
complexity
Moderate
Although no mature forest exists, most of
Springbrook Creek has retained a modest
riparian corridor.
High
Impaired temperature resulting from lack of
riparian cover and reduced baseflow
Reed canary grass infestations limit recruitment
of native riparian vegetation
Restoration Potential
Moderate
Limit development in erosional areas, and use BMPs for sediment
input in developing areas
Protect and restore lowland floodplains and historic wetlands
Moderate
Restoration of floodplain and wetlands would improve storage capacity
Moderate
Protect and restore lowland floodplains and historic wetlands
Protect and restore riparian vegetation in low-order streams between
developed areas and streams.
Moderate
Restoration of floodplain and wetlands would improve storage capacity
Restore native cover in riparian corridors to improve biotic uptake of
contaminants
High
Riparian areas in streams with existing salmonid spawning and rearing
High
Enhancement potential for existing riparian corridor is high, including
removal of invasive species and long-term restoration of mature mixed
forest
Moderate
Riparian areas can be enhanced to provide shade.
Restoration of baseflows is more problematic due to low potential for
restoring groundwater recharge to historic levels
6-33
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shm'eline Inventory and Analysis
Cily of Renton
6.5.2.2 Springbrook Creek Reach B
Reach B extends from Grady Way to Southwest 16th Street, and is intersected by a major state
interstate corridor. It has not undergone restoration and has some natural corridor open space
between Grady Way and 1-405 and between 1-405 and Southwest 16th Street. Riparian width
varies from a minimum of 80 feet to a maximum of 180 feet, with an average width of 130
feet.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity in this reach are limited
to vegetative restoration and replantings. The publ ic access trail running along the southwest
edge of the riparian area could provide incentive for restoration to enhance public enjoyment
by augmenting vegetative cover and stream health.
Constraints relate largely to the reach being bounded by several high-capacity roadways.
6.5.2.3 Springbrook Creek Reach C
6-34
Reach C extends from Southwest 16th Street to City Limits. It has undergone restoration and
has a natural corridor open space in Boeing Longacres Industrial Park. Between 16th and 19th
Street, riparian width varies between 60 and 80 feet on the north bank of the stream. The
south bank is bounded by a 5-acre wetland restoration site.
From 19 th Street until City limits, the stream channel is owned and maintained by King
County Drainage District #1. Maintenance includes removal of most native vegetation from
the streambanks, except where the stream flows through wetland mitigation sites between
Southwest 23'd Street and Southwest 30th Street. A small stretch of the stream from Southwest
41" Street to Southwest 43'd Street has a moderate cover of small deciduous trees. Where
vegetation is removed by the drainage district, cover is dominated by reed canary grass and
provides little buffer function.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity relate to maintenance of
existing buffer vegetation where it is present with the potential for enhancement to provide
greater density and complexity and removal of invasive species. Where the drainage district
removes native vegetation from the stream banks, a vegetation management plan would
greatly enhance a range of buffer functions. The plan would provide for native vegetation
while allowing the drainage and conveyance functions of the channel. The buffer functions
would include refuge habitat for young salmon, food sources, and shading to control
temperature. The drainage district should examine their vegetation maintenance programs in
light of the mandate in RCW 90.58.340 for all state agencies, counties, and public and
municipal corporations to review administrative and management policies, regulations, plans,
and ordinances relative to lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines
of the state so as to achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the policy of this
chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of the state.
Constraints relate largely to the location of surrounding development, which often includes
buildings and impervious surfaces up to the drainage district ROW. This adjacent land,
however, can be expected to redevelop over the long term and provide opportunities for
additional vegetated buffer area.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401)
6.6 LAKE DESIRE
6.6.1 Overview
Shoreline Master Program
R('~'ised Draft Shoreline fnventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Priority restoration and protection areas are related to water quality. Protecting and restoring
existing wetlands between the Lake and residential developments in conjunction with riparian
restoration in tributary streams will improve precipitation of adsorbed phosphorus before
reaching the Lake and augment biotic uptake of nitrogen and fecal coliform.
Existing wetlands occur along tbe north and southeast shorelines but are not bordered by
residential land. Areas of residential development along the rest of the shoreline extend to the
lake edge and limit potential for restoration of lost wetlands. Sensitive peat wetlands also
exist on the northern shore of Lake Desire. Riparian areas both in tributary streams and along
the lakeshore. especially peat wetlands on the northern shore of Lake Desire, should be
prioritized for protection and restoration. Protection of existing migratory corridors
connecting Lake Desire shoreline to other natural areas is also a high priority.
6.6.2 Ecological Productivity: Opportunities and Constraints by Reach
6.6.2.1 Lake Desire Reach A
Reach A extends from 17408 West Lake Desire Dr. Southeast to 18228 West Lake Desire Dr.
Southeast. It is characterized by medium intensity residential development where most
natural riparian vegetation has been removed.
Opportunities include: replacing bulkheads with softer armor, adding substrate to the
nearshore environment, enhancing native vegetation along the shoreline, addressing runoff
through maximum impervious surface/treatment, educating existing and future adjacent
property owners to reduce impacts from herbicides and pesticides, and replacing docks (as
they deteriorate) with ones that are narrower in the nearshore areas and grated to allow for
light passage.
Constraints relate largely to the existing developed character of the shoreline and the lack of
necessity for bulkhead or dock replacement in most cases. Bulkheads made of durable
materials in this area are unlikely to fail and require replacement. Docks tend to have a
practical lifespan of about 20 years. Given this situation, it is unlikely that a substantial
portion of the shoreline would be upgraded over a 15-to 20-year period. This is a situation
where education programs and voluntary action may have more influence than regulations.
6,6,2,2 Lake Desire Reach B
Reach B extends from 17408 West Lake Desire Dr. Southeast to the Natural Area at the south
end of the Lake. It is characterized by high intensity residential development.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include all of the items
listed above for Reach A designed to provide a more productive nearshore environment.
Constraints relate largely to the existing developed character of the shoreline and include
consideration of issues listed under Reach A to provide a more productive nearshore
environment.
6.6.2.3 Lake Desire Reach C
Reach C includes the Natural Area at the south end of the Lake.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 6-35
Shoreline Master Program
ReV/sed Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analy.~is
City of Renton
Opportunities include maintenance of existing riparian vegetation and enhancement where
clearing has taken place or where invasive species have become established.
Constraints are few, but might involve competing with successional growth rates of invasive
species. There might also be some tradeoffs between public access in the Natural Area and
native vegetation enhancement.
6.6.2.4 Lake Desire Reach D
6-36
Reach D extends from the Natural Area to 17346 West Lake Desire Dr. Southeast. It is
characterized by medium intensity residential development.
Opportunities for maintaining and enhancing ecological productivity include all of the items
listed above for Reach A designed to provide a more productive nearshore environment.
Constraints relate largely to the existing developed character of the shoreline and include
consideration of issues listed under Reach A to provide a more productive nearshore
environment.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
7. REFERENCES
Shoreline Masler Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and AnalysIs
City of Renton
Adams, L.W. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective. University of
Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.
Beauchamp, D. A. 1990. Seasonal and diet food habits of rainbow trout stocked as juveniles
in Lake Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:475-482.
Brazner, J. C. 1997. Regional, habitat, and human development influences on coastal wetland
and beach fish assemblages in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 23: 36-51.
Cascadia Archaeology. 2006. Archaeological Investigations for Fifth and Williams
Apartments, Renton, King County, Washington. Prepared by Jana L. Boersema.
Castelle, AJ., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetlands and stream buffer size
requirements-A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.
Castelle, AJ., and A.W. Johnson. 2000. Riparian vegetation effectiveness. National Council
for Air and Stream Improvement. Tech. Bull. No. 799.
Chrzastowski, M. 1983. Historical changes to Lake Washington and route of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Dept. of the Interior, U.S.Geological
Survey, Water Resources Investigation, Open-File Report, WRI 81-1182.
City of Bellevue Parks and Community Services. 2003. Parks and Open Space System Plan.
Bellevue, Washington.
City of Renton. 2004. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 1, 2004.
City of Renton. 2005. Impervious Surface Geographic Information System (GIS) Data.
City of Renton. 2008a. City of Renton Municipal Code, Current through Ordinance 5387,
adopted June 9, 2008.
City of Renton. 2008b. GIS Data.
Collins, N. C., P. St. Onge, and V. Dodington. 1995a. The importance to small fish oflittoral
fringe habitat (Z<O.2m) in unproductive lakes, and the impacts of shoreline development.
Lake and Reservoir Management 11: 129.
Cooke, G. D., E. B. Welch, S. A. Peterson, and P. R. Networth. 1993. Restoration and
management of lakes and reservoirs. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Dampf, Steve and Dejoseph, D. 2005. Archaeological Isolate Form for Site #45-KI-730.
DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation) 2008a. Washington
Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data. Accessed from
http://www,dahp.wa.gov/pages/wisaardlntro.htm on May 13,2008.
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 7-1
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
CIty of Renton
7-2
DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2008b. Washington
Infonnation System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD)
Summary Report for Renton Fire Station (KI-209).
DAHP (Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2008c. WISAARD Summary
Report for Renton Substation, Snoqualmie Falls Power Company (KI-074).
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2009. Salmon Recovery Board, WRIA
8 Application, South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration (#3)
DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources) 2006. Withdrawal order for Barbee
Mill Beach, September 12,2006. Dough Southerland, Commissioner of Public Lands.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2008a. Water Quality 2002/2004
Assessments for Washington. http://apps.ecv.wa.gov/wats/WATSOBEHome.asp.
Accessed May 1,2008.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2007. Oblique photographs of Lake
Washington and Cedar River.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2006. Oblique photographs of Lake
Washington and Cedar River.
Eggers, D. M, N.W. Bartoo, N. A. Rickard, R. E. Nelson, R. L. Wissmar, R. L. Burgner, and
A. H. Devol, 1978. The Lake Washington ecosystem: the perspective from the fish
community production and forage base. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 35: 1553-1571.
ESA Adolfson. 2007a. City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Update: Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for: City of Tukwila, Tukwila,
Washington. 71 pages.
ESA Adolfson. 2007b. City of Sammamish Shoreline Master Program Update: Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for: City of Sammamish, Sammamish,
Washington. 97 pages.
Evennann, B. W., and S. E. Meek. 1897. A report upon salmon investigations in the
Columbia River Basin and elsewhere on the Pacific Coast. Bulletin of the United States
Fish Commission. 17: 15-84.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2007. Draft Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Map No. 53033C0664K
http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/wlr/tlood/dfirm/pdf/D53033C 0664.pdf accessed June20,
2009.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland Oregon.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline ,I."faster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Cily of Renton
Feist, B. E., J. J. Anderson, and R. Miyamoto. 1996. Potential impacts of pile driving on
juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. ketal salmon behavior and
distribution. Report No. FRI-UW-9603. Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries,
Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 58 p.
Ferguson, H.L., K. Robinette, and K. Stenburg. 2001 Chapter 12 Wildlife of Urban Habitats.
In Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.
Foley, S. 2009 WDFW Fisheries Biologist. Personal Communication July 20, 2009
Fresh, K.L., and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
salmonids in the Lake Washington Watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544
In E.E. Knudsen, C. R., Steward, D.D. Macdonald, J .E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser
(editors). Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca
Raton. Fresh, K. L. 1994. Lake Washington fish: a historical perspective. Lake and
Reservoir Management 9: 148-151.
Fuerstenberg, R.R., K. Nelson, and R. Blomquist. 1996. Ecological conditions and limitations
to salmonid diversity in the Green River, Washington, U SA: structure, function and
process in river ecology. Draft report prepared by King County Department of Natural
Resources, Surface Water Management Division. 31 p.
Galster, R.W., and W.T. Laprade. 1991. Geology of Seattle, Washington, United States of
America. August 1991. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. Vol.
XXVIII, No.3. College Station, Texas.
Gracie, James and Clar, Michael (2004): Issues in streams in restoration and protection in
Michael Clar et ai, edited "Protection and Restoration of urban and rural streams" ,
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Va.
Hall, J. L. 2002. Habitat selection by sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in off-channel
ponds of the Cedar River and the implications for restoration. Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Hampton. S.E, P.Romare, and D.E. Seiler 2006. Environmentally controlled Daphnia spring
increase with implications for sockeye salmon fry in Lake Washington, USA Journal of
Plankton Research February 2006 28(4):399-406;
http://plankt.oxfordjoumals.org/cgi/contentlabstractl28/4/399
Hendry, A. P., T. P. Quinn, and F. M. Utter. 1996. Genetic evidence for the persistence and
divergence of native and introduced sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) within Lake
Washington, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:823-
832.
Historical Research Associates, Inc (HRA). 2005a. Final Archaeological, Historical, and
Cultural Discipline Report for the /-405 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat
Mitigation Bank Project. Prepared by Denise Dejoseph and Steven Dampf.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 7-3
Shoreline A1aster Program
Revised Drqft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
7-4
HRA. 2005b. Literature Review and Archaeological Resources Field Survey BPA Covington-
Maple Valley No.2 Fiber Optic Project, King County, Washington. Prepared by Steven
K. Dampf and Gail Thompson.
Johnson, A.W., and D.M. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to
maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water
Management Division.
Kahler, T. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial
Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA-listed Salmon ids in Lakes. Prepared for
the City of Bellevue. Prepared by the Watershed Company. July, 2009
Kahler, T.H., P. Roni, and T.P. Quinn. 2001. Summer movement and growth of juvenile
anadromous salmonids in small western Washington streams. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1947-2637
Kauffman, J.B., M. Mahrt, L.A. Mahrt, and W.D. Edge. Wildlife of Riparian Habitats.
Chapter 14 in Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in
Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.
Kennedy, Hal. 1985. Master Site File for Site #45-KI-267.
Kerwin, J., 2008 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. WA. P 4.
http://www.govlink.orglwatersheds/8/reports/DOE-Grant-Report2008.pdf (accessed July 14,
2009).
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-
Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia. W A.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. S. (Eds). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report. GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRJA 9
and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources. http://salmon.scc.wa.gov
King County. 2009. GIS data.
King County et aI., 2008. King County Shoreline Master Program, Appendix A Shorelines
Protection and Restoration Plan. Third Draft, October 2008.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environmentlwaterandlandishorelinesIprogram-
update/draft3-shoreline-master-program-plan.aspx (Accessed July 20 2009).
King County. 2007. King County Aerial Photos. King County, Washington.
King County. 2005. King County Aerial Photos. King County, Washington.
King County. 2002. King County Aerial Photos. King County, Washington.
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). 2006. Land
Use 2004. Map prepared in November 2006.
King County DDES. 2008. King County Zoning Atlas. Map prepared June 23, 2008.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Mas/er Program
Revised Draft Shoreline InventO/}' and AnalysIs
City of Renton
King County et a!., 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8)
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, Volume I. July 2005, King County Department of
Natural Resources Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington.
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 1996 Lake Desire Management Plan, Document
No. PUT 8-9 (PR) Surface Water Management Division, July 18, 1996 Available at:
http://www . kingcountv. gov / operations/po I i c ies/ru les/uti I it ie s/ p u t89pr .aspx Accessed on
July 22, 2008.
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources
Division. 2003. Summary of Salmon Habitat Projects.
http://www .gov Iink.orglwatersheds/8/planningl srfb-proj ects/proj ect_ tab Ie .aspx (accessed
July IS, 2009).
King County GIS Center. 2007. Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila, Renton Parks and Trails Map.
King County. 2008. May Creek Water Quality. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/
WaterresistreamsdataiMay.htm. Accessed May 5, 2008.
King County Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Lake Desire Management Plan.
Seattle, Washington.
King County 1993 Cedar River Current and Future Conditions. Report. King County
Department of Public Works,. Surface Water Management Division,
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Final Lake Washington/Cedar/
Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: Volumes I, II and
III. July 2005. http://www.govlink.orglwatersheds/8/planninglchinook-conservation-
plan.aspx (accessed July 14,2009).
King, County of 2005, King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources, Flood
Management Division, 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management PlanKiyohara, K.,
and G. Volkhardt. 2007. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production in 2006
from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Report FPA 07-02, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 79 p.
King, County of 2007, Management Division, 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management
Plan
King, County of 2007, King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services, Shoreline Master Program, Appendix E: Technical Appendix Contains:
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: Methodology and Results May 2007
King, County of 2007, King County Flood Control Zone District (KCFCZD King County
Water and Land Resources Division of the King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks. Cedar Sammamish Basin Technical Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 25, 2007 Agenda package
http://your .kingcounty. gov / dnm/w Ir!flood/f1ood -con Ira 1-zone-d istrict/ cedar-samm am i sh/btc-
meeting-summaryI070425-cedar-meeting.pdf
March2010 1553-1779-031 (04/0401) 7-5
Shorelme Masler Program
ReVised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
7·6
Kiyohara, K., and G. Volkhardt. 2007. Evaluation of downstream migrant salmon production
in 2006 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Report FPA 07-02, Washington
Department of http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-Iand/shorelines/map-
folio/technical-appendixlalterations-analysis-sw-kc.pdf
Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats: Riparian. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 181pp.
Koehler, M. E., K. L. Fresh, D. Beauchamp, J. R. Cordell, C. A. Simenstad, and D. E. Seiler.
2006. Diet and bioenergetics of lake-rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake
Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1580-1591
LAAS. 1996a. Cultural Resources Monitoring Alki Transfer/CSO Facilities Project
Transfer/Interurban Project. Prepared by Jeffrey R. Robbins, Lynn L. Larson, and
Dennis E. Lewarch.
Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services (LAAS). 1996b. Cultural resource
monitoring of the Waterworks Project at King County's East Division Reclamation Plant,
Renton, Washington. Letter prepared by Eric W. Banks and Lynn L. Larson.
LAAS. 2003a. Carr Road Improvements (CIP #400898) Cultural Resources Assessment,
King County, Washington. Prepared by Leonard A Forsman, Kurt W. Roedel, Dennis E.
Lewarch, and Lynn L. Larson.
LAAS. 2003b. Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for Henry Moses Aquatic
Center Site (KI-686). Recorded by Yonara Carillho and Stephanie Trudel.
LAAS. 2004. South Treatment Plant Cogeneration Facility Archaeological Resources
Assessment, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Prepared by Stephanie E. Trudel,
Dennis E. Lewarch and Lynn L. Larson.
LAAS. 2005. Final Elliot Bridge Replacement, Renton, King County, Washington. Letter
prepared by Gretchen A. Kaehler and Lynn L. Larson.
LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2004. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery
And Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan: Volume II -Subbasin Plan, Chapter E -Cowlitz,
Coweeman and Toutle. 494pp.
May, C.W., R.R. Homer, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welsh. 1997. Effects of
Urbanization on Small Stream in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed
Protection Techniques, 2:483-494.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available
science. Prepared for Kitsap County Natural Resources Coordinator. July 2000.
Moshenberg, K. L. 2004. A Sediment Triad Analysis of Lakes Sammamish, Washington, and
Union. Prepared for: King County Dept. of Nat. Res. And Parks, Land and Water
Division. Seattle, W A. 109 pgs.
MIFTD (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division) 2009. Comment letter on City of
Renton Draft Inventory and Characterization. Letter dated January 23, 2009
March 2010 I 553·1779·031 (04/0401)
Shorelme Alaster Program
ReVised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
Mullineaux, D.R. 1970. Geology of the Renton, Auburn and Black Diamond quadrangles,
King County, W A. USGS Professional Paper 672. 92 pgs.
Naval Historical Center. 1997. The Wreck of the U.S. Navy Martin PBM-5 Mariner BuNo
59172: History and Archaeological Assessment. Prepared by Richard Wills.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2007. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for
Shoreline Protection Alternatives in Lake Washington, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112. December 13, 2007
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2009 Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation, Biological Opinion, Environmental Protection Agency Registration of
Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle,
Washington 98112. April 20, 2009 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prlpdfs/carbamate.pdf
Norman, L. 1996. Archaeological Site Inventory Form for Historic Debris Scatter (KI-542).
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc (NW AA). 2007. Cultural Resources Assessment
for the Proposed Lowe's of Renton, King County, Washington. Prepared by Charles M.
Hodges.
Nowak, G. M., R. A. Tabor, E. J. Warner, K. L. Fresh, and T. P. Quinn. 2004. Ontogenetic
shifts in habitat and diet of cutthroat trout in Lake Washington, Washington. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:624-635.
Nowak, G. M., and T. P. Quinn. 2002. Diel and seasonal patterns of horizontal and vertical
movements oftelemetered cutthroat trout in Lake Washington, Washington. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 131 :452-462.
Pollock, M. M., G. R. Pess, and T. J. Beechie. 2004. The importance of beaver ponds to coho
salmon production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 24:749-460.
Pollack, M.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers
needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington
State. The Bullitt Foundation, Washington Environmental Council, and Point-No-Point
Treaty Council.
Parametrix, Inc. 2003. Stream Inventory and Habitat Evaluation Report Including
Issaquah Creek, East and North Forks of Issaquah Creek, Tibbetts Creek, and the
Shoreline of Lake Sammamish, Final Report. Prepared for the City of Issaquah.
Puget Sound Biological Review Team (PSBRT). 2005. Status review update for Puget
Sound Steelhead. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Lateral Stream Habitats Middle
Green River, Washington: 2000 Data Report. Prepared for: U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle Division, Seattle, Washington.
Mru-ch 2010 I 553-1779-031 (0410401) 7-7
Shoreline Alaster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Renton
7-8
Renton, City of, and King County. 200 I. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan.
Renton, Washington. 107 pgs.
http://your . kin gcounty. gOY I dnrp/l ibrary II 99 8/kcr 726/F IN A L-May-Creek -Basi n -Plan -4-
16-01.pdf
Renton, City of 2003, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
prepared by Parametrix Inc., September 2, 2003, Renton, W A
RW Beck 2008. Hydraluli Analysis of Spring book Creek, FEMA Re-Mapping Study.
Prepared for the City of Renton, June 2006.
Reiser, D. W., E. Connor, and. K. Binkley, K. Lynch, and D. Paige. 1997. Evaluation of
spawning habitat used by bull trout in the Cedar River watershed, Washington. Pages
331-338 in Mackay, W. c., M. K. Berwin, and M. Monita (editors). Friends of the Bull
Trout Conference Proceedings, Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta.
Riley, Ann L. (1998): Restoring Streams in Cities, a Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and
Citizens, Island Press, Washington D.C.
Robbins, C.S. 1991. Managing Suburban Forest Fragments for Birds. Pages 253-264 in DJ.
Decker et aI., eds. Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources: a
Practitioner's Guide. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. Page 76 in Adams, L.W. 1994.
Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective. University of Minnesota Press.
Minneapolis, MN.
Stanley, S., J. Brown, and S. Grigsby. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A GUidefor
Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-027. Olympia, Washington.
Straka, Ron. 2008 City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, Personal
communication, September 2008
Tabor, R. A., M. T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, R. M. Piaskowski, D. L. Low, B Footen, and L.
Park. 2004. Predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by predatory fishes in three areas of
the Lake Washington basin. Unpublished report, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey,
Washington. 86 p.
http://www.fws.Qov/pacificiwestwafwo/fisheries/PublicationsIFP224.pd
Tabor, R. A., H. A. Geams, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2003. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2001 Report. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
Tabnr, R. A., H. A Geams, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use
by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems, 2003 and 2004 Report. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. 94 p.
Tolt, J.D. 2001 Shoreline and Dock Modifications in Lake Washington, University of
Washington, School of Aquatics and Fishery Sciences, Report No. SAFS-UW-OI06,
Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources, October 200 I
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997a Final Detailed Project Report and
Environmental Impact Statement -Cedar River Section 205, June 1997.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401)
Shoreline Master Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
City of Rcnlon
U,S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997b Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage
Reduction Study -Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 1997,
U,S, Geological Survey, 1998, Determination of Upstream Boundaries on Western
Washington Streams and Rivers Under the Requirements of the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971, Prepared by David L. Kresch, Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-
4208, Prepared in cooperation witb Washington State Department of Ecology,
Walter, Karen, 2009. Mukleshoot Tribe Fisheries Department, Email correspondence with
City of Renton,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI), 2008, GIS
data.
Western Shore Heritage Services, inc, 2005, Cultural Resources Assessment for the Duvall
Avenue NE / Coal Creek Parkway SE Road Widening Project, King County. Washington.
Prepared by Jennifer Chambers and Glenn D. Hartmann.
WSDOT (Washington State Dept. of Transportation). 2008, WSDOT Projects: 1-405 -
Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank. http://www.wsdot.wa,gov/
Projectsli405/Springbrooki. Accessed June 3, 2008,
The Watershed Company. 2006, Shoreline Analysis Report Including Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization for the City of Kirkland's Lake Washington Shoreline Tasks 3, 4
and 5. Prepared for: City of Kirkland, Kirkland, Washington. 75 pages.
Weitkamp, D. E" G.T. Ruggerone, L. Sacha, J. Howell, and B. Bachen, 2000, Factors
Affecting Chinook Populations, Background Report. Report Prepared by Parametrix,
Inc., Natural Resources Consultants, Inc, and Cedar River Associates. 224 p.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and
vegetation, Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of
Georgia.
Williams, R,W" R.M, Laramie and J.J, Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and
salmon utilization. Washington State Dept. of Fisheries, WRJA-09. 34 pp,
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney, 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press, Seattle, and London.
Websites
City of Renton. 2008a. City History. Available at:
http://rentonwa,gov/visiting!default.aspx?id~1216&mid=9. Accessed on May 13,2008,
City of Renton. 2008b, Port Quendall, Available at:
http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2062, Accessed on July 17,2008,
City of Renton. 2008c, South Lake Washington, Available at:
http://rentonwa,gov/bllsiness/default.aspx?id~2814. Accessed on July 17, 2008.
March 2010 I 553-1779·031 (04/0401) 7-9
Shoreline /o,,/aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis
Cl1y or Renton
)·10
City of Renton Parks and Recreation. 2008. Master Park Directory Website. Accessed from
http://rentonwa.gov/living/defaull.aspx?id=2328 on May 12,2008.
City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation. 2008. Parks and Recreation Department. Accessed
from http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/recreation/recmain.htmlon August 4,2008.
Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2006. Oblique photographs of Lake Washington and
Cedar River.
Departtnent of Ecology (Ecology). 2007. Oblique photographs of Lake Washington and
Cedar River.
Duwamish Tribe. 2008. The Duwamish Tribe. Available at: http://www.duwamishtribe.org/.
Accessed on May 13, 2008.
King County. 2007. King County Aerial Photos. King County, Washington.
King County. 2005. King County Aerial Photos. King County, Washington.
King County Department of Assessments. 2008. Parcel Viewer. Available at:
http://www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer/viewer/kinQcounty/viewer.asp. Accessed on May
12,2008.
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008a. South Treatment Plant. Available at:
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/southplantiindex.htm. Accessed on July 22, 2008.
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008b. Welcome to Waterworks Gardens
Website. Available at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/waterworks/. Accessed on May 13,
2008.
King County Natural Resources and Parks. 2008c. Lake Desire.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/desire.htm. Accessed on May 5, 2008.
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. 2008. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Website. Available at:
http://www.muckleshoot.nsn.us/. Accessed on July 25, 2008.
Tabor, R. A., and M. Celadonia 2008, Habitat use of juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lake
Washington, Washington Department of Ecology Website, Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) development, Regular SMP Coordination and Assistance Meetings, Summer 2008
meeting (July 24, 2008, Tukwila) PowerPoint presentation. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lacey, Washington. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/seaismaist guide/SMP/downloadihabitat use of chino
ok. pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004c. Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph.
1997-1999. Available: http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nws/bh/basins/lwscsh.html.
Accessed: January 2008.
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Wetlands On-line Mapper. Available:
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html. Accessed: May 2008.
March 2010 I 55),! 779-03 I (0410401)
Shoreline A1aster Program
Revised Draft Shoreline Inventory.' and Analysis
City of Renton
USGS (US Geologic Survey). 2008. USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics for Washington.
Available: http://wa.watcr.usgs.gov/. Accessed: May 2008.
Walters, Karen 2009. Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Fisheries Division, Comments on Renton
SMP Draft Inventory, Letter January 23, 2009
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. 1-405 Springbrook Creek
Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/Springbrook!. Accessed on July 22, 2008.
Washington State Parks. 2008. Washington State Accessible Outdoor Recreation Guide-
North Puget Sound Region. Available at: http://www.parks.wa.gov/ada-
recidetail.asp?region=NPS. Accessed on May 13, 2008.
March 2010 I 553-1779-031 (04/0401) 7-11
APPENDIX A
Reach Conditions, Unincorporated Lake Washington Shoreline
(Reach K)
Table A-1. Lake Washington Shoreline Ecological Function Ratings
II)
" ::J -" ~ " " -c .,
'" 0 " .I: '" .I: E '" ~ 0 0 '" ::i ~ :5 .. :;; -z .. 0 .,
"-.I: !/)
Shoreline "-
Reach K 2 1 3 4 2 3
l=Low; 2=Low-Medium; 3=Medium; 4=Medium-High; 5=High
Source: King County (2008),
>-'" II)
" 0 e 'j(
0 "CI I->-:J:
2 2
>-'" ~ .,
" w
~
~
2
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
o
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-H
_ Natural /Un-modified
Some Modification/Partia lly Vegetated
_ Hard Armoring Co nc rete
_ Hard Armoring Rock Wall
~ Hard Ar moring Other
Alternatively Modified and Natural
~ Commercial/Industrial Shoreline
~ Restored Shoreline
D O-NO Struct ure Pre sen t
I11III 1-Less than 20 Feet
D 2-20 to 50 Feet
D 3-More than 50 Fee t
C, Pri va t e Res id enti al Docks , Cove red
0 , Pri va t e Re sid ent ia l Docks
F, Floats
J, Jo int Use Private Resi den tial Do cks
L, Boat Lift
LC, Boa t Lift and Covered Private Dock
M, Marina
0 , Other Dock St ru ctu re
R, Maj or Boa t Ramp Fac ility
X , No Do ck
March 25 , 2010
0 .05
,Miles ~ 0 .1
1: 3 ,000 N
File Name H\.CEO\PLANNING\GIS\gls_projects\Shoreline_mgmtYfogram
mxds\6SMPI.EX11(A -H)ModlfiedShore mxd
Actual Data Source : City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfsol1.
This 1110lP d9PI(t~ tr'3' a;:>:XO>JTa·.~ l"calIO" 01"1" ~~I",.,t at i3'eas Sll!)jeCI le''''Io:: $MP The actua ,,'~:ent 0'
shore:" .) JUf~:: c:;:;-, "e~ .. :ff'S il S,I':-~p('C ',e ·,.nJ<Jl on 10 Illcen:lf." lh~ O'dLU;;'~ "'(;}h \','dter II"€' an(;l
d', aH,u:. .. ·~·; ,·,c·l~n.::~ I "e 10':';"0'-' 01 :1,,-20 c.'~ ,-,,1<; !lor USGS (12<'S:t ~lo,.q:.I;J '1 .11'1:: !l0:1;::'''3) t.:<.f1t
are tasej ,~" FEt.lA -'lr;> ~g ~';e:I;;-r: lo~"Y'!) 'I,e u;'P!:l)( 'I.~e d'll: tJ~(:{j 0', !:I).:"hn;: ~,\y:reglCna' 1-.s-c 1;;f<S-s.
3d::: 10':;1,;" ,',!:I:IJ'ljs Tat :.'e pr,=seo: :~al 3"e no: s.~" ... n o~ :"'e maps. al"lC ~ome c: the a'eas ~'Xl,m as
.... ".::;n.::!s Ma~ not Mee 1rOO! "~,,,tla.,d C""na
TIlls "~j: r"l.:l·,es n;:. :'9 rr as 10 '" ., ... :h'!f '10",1 a~ds a'Ee asso~lale1 wllh the ~"O"""lne :.r rot
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Renton Parks and Trails
Map 12-A
Trails
Surface Type
•••••• On Street Trai l
•••••• Paved Trail
~o •• o. Soft Surface Trail
J
Lake Washington
It\\~'~ ~ ~ I' ff~1\~f~ = Surface Unknown
r ,,,,,.,..., "\~, ,.. ", .• ~_"'..)\ <om ':,' :: _ ;'CR.A, ""'" " Ii _ L " ~'r = < D Black River/Springbrook Creek Reaches
D Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Reaches
D La ke Washington Reaches
D May Creek Reaches
Park Site
D City Limi t s
September 17, 2 009 Ii ________ -=========:' Miles
2 a
1: 50,000 N
File Name. ,HICEDIPLANNING\GIS\gisyrojectslshoreline_mgmtyrogram
165MPlmxds\ 12A_renton_parks_and_lr8!ls_11 x 17_0909 mxd
Actual Data Source, City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson
nl·~ moHo d~plcts the "pp'Ct I"ale loca:l)n an.:: ;;.:er : (I' 3';;as s,t>;;c: 'J l'"1e SMP The aCtual e,lenl ot ~~ore'lnE'
JlIW;dl~l:on rec;ul'6s a 5 'e-~;;,eclf:c .'01:'k1:':;:''' :::1 ,~(if:~:r)' :rc Jrj;na1' r: 3' watQr In ... and any 1ssooal"d w{"OII,:ncJs
The lo:atl,)r of thi; :0 c'~ 1 :"W IS fro'Y1 USGS i' ,"93: ~:::.~jp a n a~tj f o:J~."ay -a,,~O?1t aeo? bas8d or, FEMA mapping
C1~d ('hA'rcr Grenn R ',P.I f\1arpln~ SLa~~) '<1'1; C::ll.nt) \'.'e~I,;na ;o:a:,:;'-lS are a:::>pfDiill'a:e an:J based o~ eXlsllns;
clt)'.'Iegl:J·',ClII!I .. ~··t()I''''S adjlt,on2;' \~-a( a1CS m:3y be p'.:;~e~t that are rot s~,o\"'"n on the ("1:305 :3~d some <:I t"o3' areas
"w ';5 .' .. o?t!a~d5 Ira~ rol r"r,;e! :"e ',H"I ¥)8 C :211a Thl~ rr,ap r.a~2S ~c e(a,m as 10 whether wet lanes are a~soclate cl
with :"03' ""'orE: ine or no:
l"'~'1 I ~~ \,""~ <,,,j I n" rtL \ I 1 I '-
Youllg
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Channel Migration Zone -Cedar River
Map 13-A
-_ .. -i._ .. i City limits
--Cedar River Cha nn el 10 Yea r Ha zard Area
--Cedar River Channel 2006
--Cedar River Ch annel 2009
Floodway
ZONE, FLOODWAY
A , Inundated tOO Year flo od ing
A , FW Inundated 100 Year flooding that includes t he cha nnel of a river
X500 , Inundated by 500 Year fl ooding
Apri l 5, 2010 6
N
___ --=:====' Miles
o 0.05 0.1
1: 4 ,200
File Name
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson
Th,~ Inap ::lepli::ls Ih6-apYCKI(1a: .. Ic·:::aL(:n :o1d ei.ten: of ;r02:'; $,,:,8:110 It)e SMP The Bctual"~le·'t of s"ore Ine
I'. 'I~dlctlor r.,.qures il s.t",·Sp.2C ',~ e\'~ · .. all~'~ ::::-'~d"'1t~\· I-e C'r1 '1<1':< -'gh · ... ·a:er rr ar~ and any a~50claled \~eUal)d5
TI,,,,, IOC2!,OI' of :t~ 20 ~'5 h': ~ '~';'n LSGS ,1£,98, F :>O:::lp,a'~ a'lj fxod":ay exte~t a,-e based:)1 FEMATapp-g
a~d I'll? L::Jwer GrHm HI,-e-~,'appl-q SL.JC) ~', K .,g COClnty Vie:iand IO::.<lll::ns a'e a;::pr01.lmate snj bas~j or el',shn~
Cltj'ir"gl:Jnallrr .. mtorle~ 3;::dl:10··,:11 wel;,nds m:1:, ::;e preseni that 3'e "ut stl~' ..... n 0') the I'l:;p~ and SOI"l"! of the areCis
S-'O~:n 6S wet a~ds may 1C: ma~: t'lo?'~""tla-:: C't6f15 ThiS Mil:) '"'1a',es no C illir &S to , ... heth",( ""e:lands
ace ass:x: ated '.~ th t~", s-:)";:;h-b cr no: Thrs m<lp sh:J ..• d n:)1 ~p. ~sc~ as il d'1f.nl\I',(; source :X-ilssoclatcd \/Vetla",ds
",Il~( S'-'cre 11': 1'l1al~a~eT':·-'. A:: .... o3d,Cl:;::-S ...-~h a ce~e-'llnat'Jn wlii be crade 0'1 a case-b\··c3~e baSIS
AI<. r;....t.. CUI AIlnirI .... """ "_"'_~_.I".-.in.~ ..... 11
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Channel Migration Zone -Cedar River
Map 13-8
r=J Ci ty lim its
-Ceda r River Channell 0 Ye ar Haza rd A rea
--Ceda r River C hannel 2006
--Ceda r Rive r Channel 2009
Floodway
ZONE , FLOODWAY
A, In undated 100 Year flooding
A, FW Inundated 100 Year flooding that includ es the ch annel of a river
X500 , Inundated by 500 Year flooding
Hachure s
Value
High ' 254
Low' 0
Hillshade
<VALUE>
c=J 70.440 55 176 -73.06823252
D 73 06823253 - 7 569591 328
c=J 75.69591329 -7832359404
c:::!78.32359405 -80.95 12748
.. 80 .95127481 -8357895556
D 83 .57895557 -86 .20663632
CJ 86 .20663633 -88 .83431708
l1li 88 .83431709 -91.46199784
.. 91 4 6199785 -94.0 896786
l1li94.08967861 -96.717359 36
l1li96.7 1735937 -99.34504012
1119934504013 -101.9727209
c=J 101 .972721 -104,6004016
CJ 104 .6004017 -107.2280824
CJ 107 .2280825 -109.8557632
A pril 5, 2010
____ -====::JI Mile s
o
File Name
0 .05
1: 4 ,20 0
0.1
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
6
N
rh S Tap cIe:)I~IS 11'18 3:)prc".l1aI81:)~:'J-; 8'1: 8"t8~t 01 a'8as ~JbJac t: :'"18 SMP 'h8 actual ~x:8n t Of sho'e l,ne
ItrIS01~.t cn ("CUI res 'l ~ 18-SP.<lfl~ ,;· .. atuat on 10 Ir.:::",t·fy me or~,.,<l'~ :-"9h ' ... ater r1ark ,lnc an~' as$.Cc il1(ld \/.'etlands
T~e !o~a :l;;.n 'J! tll'?:::C cf~ wlil IS frOT USGS 11 S9:::. Fb';d::> aln a..,d flo:d"ay exlen1 :ore ba~ed on "'EMA rnapPlnq
and the LOVler Gretn ;.; v",' t,1a:J:J11"IQ Study by Kln~ C::)~"1) \"Je:la-c Ic::.atlons a'e apprc"ma te an:: tas",j on 61 stine;
C I'~'!!(o::,o",::JII!h'e'l1o!!es 3dclllo' :01 '.\.'tOt:a~l~S m:oy 1.o8 :)'t,,5 ~": l'lil1 ~'e n::>1 S'l(,wn [J', the rn:ops and ~OiTle of I"!: are::Js
shewn as '.vet lands -ray-':l "'''tt t'"8 W"lti"n(l2'IT",' 3 lr; map 1""13~2S no :tarn a s 10 whelh ?( wetlancs
ilre il5socla:ed "'~~ :'1" ~""')r21Ini;' cr -o! 1:" 5 m~p sh:lL c n:)' :yo, u~<;d a ~ a d"flnltl\'(' source on "sscclalcd ~V,::tilnds
ul1d'2r S"I:"elrlle r,1a~ agene"l: Ael )u'·sdl:ton 5.':11 ~ je·.~c:'1r aIIO ~'N t 'e nad~ :JIl a ca s ~·bv·c:!se !oasIs
... 1""1'I.. .. <h..c:rn~~Io . .".".
.-....-... 1 ............ 'iu.J\l .,. 1",,'0 ...... 11
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Channel Migration Zone -May Creek
Map 13-C
,_ .. -
1_ .. ": Cit y Lim its
-May Creek Channel 10 Year Hazard Area
Floodway
ZONE , FLOODWAY
A , Inundated 100 Year flooding
A , FW Inundated 100 Year flooding that includes the channel of a r iver
X500 , Inundated by 500 Year flooding
Apri l 5, 2010 6
N
______ IIIC=====~'Mi l es
o 0.1 0.2
1: 4,200
Fife Name' . HICED\PLANN INGIGISIgis""proJecls\shoreline ~ mgmCprogram
mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
TIll:; Ina: depicts !r,:. ape're',m,,:.:-1~:3:lcro a'ld ex1ent .:;' 2'-8as sub,ect Ie :~e SMP ~h.;. actual ext.,nt ·:1 sho"o? ne
Ill' sdl~IIO~ f-equlr% a s t"'-SIX': '.: e· .. all.a!lOn 10 Inaen:l'y :hB crdna-y high wOller f11ar~ a"ld any aSSOClCl"aC '.~etlanc ~
TI,e loc:lt:)[O of :he 20 ~'~ b': ~ f:::n USGS :1998.' ri:xldpla,n an:! flood'.\'3)1 extent are based on FEM.A,mapp;n~
ane:he _O'her G'E:".'1 R,ve' l"'app;~'9 Study b)' KJ1q Ceu~:',' ~'ie:an~ locat·ens are apP-oxlmate and based en mlshng
C !~·fm9Ion<lIIn..,f)ntor,co :1;)01:10'1<11 wet"Tlds 'f",3l' be ~resen! :t"l3: ere n:;.t s·'own 0" :ht 1!13pS ard sC1lIe cf :he JleelS
5";0,'1'1 c.5 wer::.~ds may nc: c"f .. .at :h8 w",t:anj (:~refla ThIS rrap m;-.€S no :Ia n as to whe:"'",r wella~ds
are assx;ated w.th t~e s-o-ell~e or 'XlI This map should not 00 uS8d as a acflnl!I"" source on il~~OCI<n:1;) V,fct <Inds
_ndel S'C!ell~ 1''''ana~erT;i?r: Ac! ju-isdl:l on SJ:"' a ,~elerT 1ati01 w b", nade on a case-:;,.'·ca~e wS'~
AI "" ""',1>, ern A .... i""""
"_,,, ,~ ........ Pt ... I"" T",,~.ici .. IT
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Channel Migration Zone -May Creek
Map 13-0
c:.::~ City limits
-May C reek C hann el 10 Year Hazard Area
Floodway
ZONE , FLOODWAY
A. Inundated tOO Year flooding
A , FW In un dated 100 Yea r flooding that incl udes the c hanne l of a river
X50Q , In undated by 500 Year flooding
Hachures -May Creek
Value
Hig h : 254
Low : 0
Hill Shade -May Creek
<VALUE >
D 25 .2219434 -32 .93 4 01603
D 32 .93401604 -4 0.6 4 608866
D 4 0 .64608867 -48 .358 16 13
D 48 .35816131 -56.07023393
.56.07023394 -63 .78230657
D 63.78230658 -7 1 .49 4 3792
D 7 1.4943 7921 -79.206451 83
.79.20645 18 4 -86 .9 1852447
.86 .91852448 -94 .630597 1
.94.63059 711 -102 .34 26697
.,02 .342 6698 -11 0 .05 474 2 4
.,,0.0547425 -117 .76681 5
D 117.7668151 -125.4788876
D 125.4788877 -133.1909603
D 133.1909604 -140 .9030329
Apri l 5, 2010 ______ ~=====~'M iles
0 .2 o 0 .1
Fire Name
1: 4,200
Actual Data Source: CIty o f Renton 2009
King County 2009 and ESA AdoJfson.
~
N
_mgmtyrogram
TIll ":.J: ·;':'pl.:l~ tt,~, :!~:J"C· m,,:e b:2'ocn il"ld ellP.~n~ c· ,'(.;J~ .:', ~'"I I: .•.• "' s.,>'? T'lo :1; __ """11 o::~tP.1: of ~ho::m ,n>:!
",r ~d-~!oJ '~qu'!s,3 ,,:,,"-S~~,r,: ",-.a!cJaII"~ to " •. kTl!f\ :'".;. oj .. , :<1, :, ... :". f'!.;,11. .. ·:u;)r:)' as"O::la·<2C'.~"'Il .. r).!~
TIl-'b",,· n of :~~:'O ~'~ I,or.: -':' ir~,.. USSS H'')8' F~.Jp a')', .. ', )')(k ~r ~>lf<n: <I-e :;,a~oo on FEM.'::' mar:p"g
.. r'J '~Itl _:r"et G'''''t:n R,,<!' 1,1:;::::,·"", Stu:i,. b)' K "g ':;O..rl~~ ' .... oe: :om.: (,J~,J!'~"~ J'e .Jp;>roil~:lle and based on e"lstln;
t:,t~·fr"Q'.Y\o3l'n"&cltones 03:1-1'1'0-al "€t;a7)j~ T af :€ cr .. sen' :".a~ a'e n:' ~..,:,", ~ C'1 t""lEo maps a-,~ some 01 :he 3fl;'>S
(lwt, 3S we! J"js m.Jy '0: Teel :'rE: 'o\dl.:;··,:; 0""'-""':> 7 h'5 '~,j~ ~'J"e~ ,·c ,~!;wn ;)S ':;' '''''"1eth"r ;'m!la"1ds
are assoc ",t~d '.\ Ih 1-.. $-:;'"';11-,,,, Of "lOt Thl~ 'tap 5h::O_'d not:>!! ",H:;:' 3$ .. d-;!',. ..... ~J~rce on aS50;:;lated \'oh?lia'1ds
.n'll.r S"'CH n·~ r'\ilril;;crn,,~~ ;..~: JlJrI~d'::I,:;J~ Sxh <l ,~Ci(.· ''',')'1 W to'! mi?;:lp. on a ~ase·by-case 00:;:;
",,.. ''''' .... cr.n "'''' ............ "c!r __ 1\.I ..... I'I ... JOIne:l ""~olci .. U
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-8
_ Natur al/U n-mo difi e d
Some Mod ification/Part ia ll y Vegeta ted
_ Hard Armo rin g Co ncrete
_ Ha rd A rm ori ng Roc k Wa ll
~ Ha rd A rmoring Oth e r
.~'::; Alte rn at ively Modifi e d an d Na tural
~ Co mmercia l/In dustrial Sho relin e
m Res to red S horeli ne
D O-NO Stru ctur e Presen t
5~""'1-L ess than 20 Feet
D 2-20 t o 50 Fee t
D 3 -More than 50 Feet
C, Pri vat e Res id enti a l Docks, Cove red
D, Priva t e Res iden ti a l Doc k s
F, Flo at s
J , Jo int Use Priva te Reside nt ia l Docks
L, Boa t Lift
LC, Boa t Lift and Covere d Pri vate Dock
M , Marina
0 , Other Dock Struct ure
R, Majo r Boa t Ra mp Facility
X , N o Dock
Ma rch 25 , 2010 6 ______ =====::::JI Mil es
0.05 0 .1 o
1 : 3,000 N
File Name H\CED\PLANNING\GIS\gis_projects\shoreline_mgm Corogram
mxds\6SMPIEX 11 (A -H)Modlfled$ hOre, mxd
Actua/ Data Source: City of Ren t on 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/fsoll.
ThIS map d8PI~IS the a::-prox,male o~atlon anj ey.to?~~ 01 aro?a~ s~ble:::l to Ih", SMf' !~e actl<al ""tent 'Y
shcrcl,n" JW sd,rl,cn rl'{]un~s Cl s !C-s=,c:;,f;[; "Ol .. all:"!'1 to l~d[''''Uy trle crd ";<11)' hi:]" "Nat!,r n~, ,W(j
any asso:,;;oed -.v.?tlancs The 10(:.;I\;on ::l'th,;. 2:) c's I''T'I IS iro" USGS 11~";;1 ~loo<1plaln and f loodwa\! ext"nt
'1"1: h:lsed on FrMA rl<:lpGmg '1lJet :md Gcatlons :re ~PP"GYIr:l3te :rd t:;<:I~e:J Gn ex ~:Ir'g city/reg on3 1 1[1 '1entor lOS
addlt 011<;1 we'.lall:Js 1'101,' be pese"t that .are r,CI sh::r.~'1 en the rna::>s "nd SClrne or :h-3 areas showf1 a~
'.'.et a~ds rray no: Tee! the wella'lJ Grlterla
Th!~ l""lap rn3ke~ ~o clalrl as:C) w""let~er wetl3nds ale 3ss;:,;:,a:ed'~ t'l the ~h~(el ne or Ilc):
;J: Ii <>
'" ;~ '" = 3 , ....
" ""'" ,"';
It:' ,
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
o
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-C
_ Natural/Un-modified
Some Modification/Partially Vege tated
_ Hard Armoring Concrete
_ Hard Armoring Rock Wa ll
~ Hard Armoring Other
~> Alternatively Modified and Na t ural
~ Comme rc ial /Ind ust rial Shore line
~ Restored Shoreline
DO-NO Stnuctu re Present
1i11 1-Less t han 20 Feet
D 2-20 to 50 Feet
D 3-More than 50 Feet
C , Private Resident ial Docks , Covered
D, Private Residential Docks
F, Floats
J, Jo in t Use Private Residential Docks
L, Boat Lift
LC, Boat Lift and Covered Private Dock
M , Marina
0 , Other Dock Stnucture
R, Major Boat Ramp Facility
X , No Dock
Ma rch 25, 2010 ~ I Miles
0 .05 0.1
1: 3 ,000 N
File Name HICEDIPLANNINGIGIS\gls_proJecfsl.shorelme_mgmfYfogram
mxds',6SMP\EX11(A ~H)ModifiedShore rnxd
Actua/ Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/lson.
T-'s T~p C8:) C:S --8 apprO)''rfl:iO' IJ(.~t:Qn ,yd e~t"n1 0' ar"as ~Llr)~8cT -:) the SMP The actua "''':8''( aT
~;,:Y~lne .... f'S::l C:FY ·e~.J ·~s a ~'le-5~'ec ',': V3:U3:lun t:) In::Jellllfv Ihe ord 11l 81'j h:gh waler Ir"e ard
arw :J~~cclale1 ·.'.8tl"nd~ The 10;:;1"1:)-orln;,:C c'~ ,'in:':S frr..., .ISGS" lJ"ifi ~ ood:"llfll~ ,m!': flo:'ldwa, i<x;"rl
3re tab!::: en lEMA T 9r-V 119 ','.'\:'tI<O'1G i08:1:J~~ d,e appfO~lma'.e <l'1d b~o.oo on e~15! 11g ~lty!reglcn~1 WV8-t:J118S
3dd: )r<.! ,~ella~d~ 'T'';;y ~.e p-"'Selit :"13\ a-e not S"1own 0'1 !'1e Taps alid som,;; :c' the areas S~O",n as
wf:t.~nj5 r-;;J;' n01 nl(;(01 --C ',\',-,1 i)-d C;rlTe-'i)
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-D
_ Natural/Un -modified
Some Modi fi cation/Partia lly Vegeta ted
_ Hard Armo ring Concrete
_ Hard A rm ori ng Rock Wall
~ Hard A rmori ng Othe r
'~"" A lternat ively Mod ified and Natural
~ Commercial/Indu stria l Sho re lin e
~ Restored Shoreline
D O-No St ructure Present a I -Less than 20 Fe et
D 2-20 to 50 Feet o 3-More than 50 Fe et
C , Private Resident ia l Docks, Covered
D , Private Residential Docks
F, Floats
J, Joint Use Priv ate Residential Docks
L , Boat Lift
LC , Boat Lift and Cove red P riva t e Dock
M , Marina
0 , Other Dock Structure
R, Major Boat Ramp Fa cility
X, No Dock
March 25, 2010
______ IIIIIIC=:=====~2IMil es
0 ,1 o 0 ,05
1: 3 ,000
6
N
File Name .. HICEDIPLANNfNG\GfS\gis_projecls\Shorefine_mgmtyrogram
mxds16SMP\EX 11(A-H)ModlfiedShore mxd
Actua/ Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/fson.
Ths T9p depICts t~e ap:W\I'ra:,. 10031:011 and e.dt.-nl~,' ar.:as &ub.ec to the SMP The a~tual .... te..,: of
s'l::>"ell-e jursd Ct,01 req_lres a SIle-specAlc valua:.cn to Injentlfy the ordlna'l '1 qh water line and
an)" assoClale~ ,·.eIJ.nds nle 108a:,o" of th,,:C ~'& 1,,11", IS frOr:l JSGS (18S8i ::-;00JpI91~ 3n~ r loo~way e~te~!
;Ire tased en FEcMA r:;app n;) We:la,e lo::a:lo~s are ap~rOilm.3"e and based on e~l~t:n;) ~Ity!reglo,alln,'e~:ones
add :100'-' wetocmds rray ~'e present :hat a"e not shewn 0, the milps mId some .:)' the areas shewn <IS
w02t1ands nay rot m",el :,e ', ... ",\ 3'ld cr:en3
'"
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
o
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-E
_ Natural/Un -modified
Some Modificatio n/Part ially Ve geta ted
_ Hard Armoring Concrete
_ Hard Armoring Rock Wa ll
~ Hard Armoring Ot he r
,~ Al ternat ively Mod ifi ed and Natural
~ Co mmercial/Industria l Shoreline
~ Restored Shorel ine
D O-No Structure Present
_ 1-Less th an 20 Feet
D 2-20 t o 50 Fee t o 3-More th a n 50 Feet
C , Priva te Residen ti a l Doc ks , Covered
D. Private Residentia l Docks
F. Floats
J, Joint Use Private Residentia l Docks
L. Boat Lift
LC, Boat Lift and Covered Pri va te Dock
M , Ma rina
0 , Oth er Dock St ruct ure
R, Ma jor Boat Ramp Facility
X, No Dock
March 25 , 2010 [\ IMiles ~/'/
0.05 0 .1
1: 3 ,000 N
File Name HICEO\PLANNfNGIGI$lgrs_projecfslshoreline_mgmC program
mxds\6SMP\EX11(A-H)ModlfiedShore mx d
Actuat Data Source . City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
Ths T~r (]~pins fhr, ;J;:'P':)','l'"«:" location a-j 8~t€')t 01 a'€as Sll:)le~t 10 Ire SMP lh" actual .;-'<"":ent Of
,h:)-e"~e Jur se,t\:en re:Ju,res '" S 'l€-S~'e( ',e va u~t ':In Ie ncen:lfy :he :Jrd lrlary high ,· ... llef line anj
,r, 3SSCclatc: ','ie·Jomes The lo::;n::n of thE<)O CiS '''',I 5 Ir;:m USGS (. ',;qR\ Flo:)Cpls n anfj lloodwa\' 8'<:2nl
are based en rEMA r-.ap:Jln;: VVe·.la~d io~t l:Jnf d!t' a~'",r:>)(I"TI:l\e a"l<.1 :;;J~",j m' ex '511119 c:r.y:·eglcn<l nmntcnr:s
acl:J :I'cna se:lan:J.s 1'1a," be pr,"s?n: 1"1a: a'e n:>: s~o",\'n or :~e rlapS a-·d sorr.a Of the a'eas shown as
','.'f:~i;]n:Js m;Ol>' not n.'i'" \h8 ""h:tiand crltena
[hiS map nares "'c ·:19 m a~ 10 w'1,;,th"W """.1 a-ds a'€' ass:)cl;:ed """It" th". 5horeline or not
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-F
_ Natural/Un-modified
Some Modification/Partially Vegetated
_ Ha rd Armoring Co nc rete
_ Hard Armoring Rock Wall
m§ Hard Armoring Othe r
Al te matively Modified and Natural
~ Commercia l/Industrial Sho re lin e
~ Re stored Sh oreline
D O-NO Structu re Present
_ I-Less tha n 20 Feet
D 2-20 to 50 Feet
D 3-More tha n 50 Feet
C , Private Reside ntial Doc k s, Cov ere d
D , Priva te Residential Do c ks
F, Fl oa t s
J , Joint Use Private Residential Docks
L , Boat Lift
LC, Boat Lift and Cove red Private Dock
M , Mari na
0 , Other Dock St ru cture
R, Major Boa t Ramp Facility
X , No Do ck
Marc h 2 5 , 2010 6 _____ -======1 Mi les
0 .05 0 .1 o
1: 3 ,000 N
File Name H\CEO\PLANNING\GIS\gls_proj':cts\shorelme_mgmfyrogram
mxds16SMP\,£X 11 (A-H)ModifiedSllore mxd
Actual Data Source . City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
Ttl.S Map O"!p':IS l:--o:! aov;)~ mat" ocal'I)'-and "~h?~' 01 ar",as ~lJ::;Jn:' 10 T"i: SMP T~n aCl,al ",Y1cnt of
~''1(":rc :,nc IB' 5.d.(.\ en re:::UI"f!S" s te s:leL,fc ,"u _;.1\,:)'110 ""Je":lf~ :he O'dlnal~' h':l" · ... dler ne ","U
ari ""~":"~~~1 ',\.:: ,,,n.::<; The l!)~.a'.:m -:' ,~c ;'0 ,~,~ ; 'T,1 IS froT USGS ,'9(lS:' Flo:.dpla,n ina fi=d .... aj [: .1,,",
TC t':!~d or. Fr'.;:, t"1U;C:"::';':: '.'Ie:.,nd I=! en:; ;j't. ::In''c,, T 31e a'd ca"":J 0' e~ ~:r g e~fifeilon31 n"",nlor ~
,}~j'l or.;. ·\e: 3nos M.a~ ~e p-ese~: l~a: are Ml 5'1:1'.\'1 en l~e naps a~,(1 SOTe 01 :h.e are3:S sh8' .... ~,:;S
w,,· an:~ "'''1 ny n'tl?,,1 In'1 \H:II<Jfld r.nlflflil
Th.$ t'1a:.> rlakes 'lC:la,m a~ 10 w'l,;,:~,!r wetla'ld~ a'e asso;:I,;:e-:: ..... r. ... Ih", sn:Yel"9 or n'z
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-G
_ Natura l/U n-modi fi ed
Some Mod ifi cation/Pa rt ia ll y Vege t ated
_ Hard A rmo ring Co nc rete
_ Hard A rm or in g Roc k Wa ll
§§§§§§ Hard A rm or ing Ot he r
~ A lt ernatively Modifi ed an d Na tural
~ Com mercial/Indu st rial Sho reline
~ Res tore d Shorelin e
D O-NO St ru ctur e Prese nt
[::J 1-Less th an 20 Feet o 2-20 to 50 Feet
D 3-More th an 50 Feet
C , Pri vate Resid en tia l Docks, Cove re d
D, Pri v at e Resid e ntial Docks
F, Floa t s
J, Jo int Use Pri vat e Resi dential Docks
L, Boa t Li ft
LC, Boa t Li ft and Covered Pri vate Dock
M , M arina
0 , Ot her Dock Str uct ure
R, Majo r Boa t Ramp Facili ty
X , No Dock
Ma rch 25, 2010 L\ ------11::=====::1' Mil es 0.05 0.1 o
1: 3 ,000 N
File Name. HICEDIPLANNINGIGfS\gls_proJecfs\Shorelme_mgmfyrogram
mxds\6SMPI£X11(A-H)ModifiedSllore mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renlon 2009 ,
King Counly 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
n~IS TJp ... k:plc!s n'e .J:J~'fOXIT<;:L' ,,,em'on ;ra C.<tC11 of <J'C;J<; s,]r,.n.c te ~'l", St.1P The <l8!ual 8.-1e'1: 01
$"'8'el'"8 Jur S':> 00'1 reCj_;re~ a $I\","s;.>ec ',e va W~:;C'l Ie 1l:J~,)tlr .. I",~ o'dlna')" "Igll waler Ime :md
<In.' d~~(;Cldte~ w(':I"mJs Tt,e kun:x' 01 HI";:C c'~ ,n"dts fren .I"'(;S ,1c-c,8) Flaojplo,,o ~n~ I loo:::' ... "y e~te'1t
Olre t8sej en I-EM':', r1appln~ \','e:la~'d lo:::a:I~"S 3'e 3~prO~1T13te an':' C3SC,j oc eX I ~tlng ~lty!lt;;lI:J'lallrW(n:::>'les
Cldj :',:;nil ,"."ctlimjs rrCly ':c rr;;~cnT :'1<1t :re no; s"own 0-:~e naps anc som,":! ,he areas s"1ev.n as
',',',,:I:lrI Js r "ILl~' not nec,' t~·e '.\(:II;:}nd c· 'cr;;:}
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Sanitary Sewer System
Map 9-C
... ·-1 1 ___ City Limits
D Service_Boundary
D Black River/Sp ri ngbrook Creek Reaches
~ Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Reaches
D La ke Washington Reaches
D May C reek Rea che s
--BrynMawrS ewer Ma ins
--Cedar_R iverSewerMains
--CoalCreekSewe rMains
--SoosCreekSewerMains
--Wastewat e r_mains
--KCMetroMai ns
Major Drainage Basins
Basin_Name
D BLACK RIVER BASIN
D DOWNTOWN BASIN
D EAST CEDAR RIVER BASIN
_ EAST LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN
D MAY VALLEY BASIN
_ WEST CEDAR RIVER BASIN
September 17 , 2009
a I Miles
2
1: 50 .000
6
N
Fife Name: .H\CEO\PLANNfNG\GfSlgls.J)roJects\sI1Ofel/lle~mgmrJJrogram
16SMPvnxdsl9C _ Santt81Y _ se\ver_ system_11x 17_0909. mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
T'll$ Map depicts me apprOXirale ocabO'1 and clClC1t of (Irea!'; !';U::ljCCI to the sr.1P Tne ad.!a! extent of shtyeille
I.!'i!>d,~t 01) r.:-qu"es a sile-s;::eClftC v"jual!oo 10 r)dent~y the ordllary h ~h water ''Ie aM ani asso.:;.c;!ed w.::1!ands
-he 1O':<lIOn ollhe ~O cis 111"1111 ~ !t OM U::;GS (lt1'-.Rl) Hoo:!ptan an11001way extent are tlas..,'<! on FELt:.. r·li~Jp.rI~
111'1 tl"l\'R.r Grr.t;n Rrver r.1ilp;my Slujy by KlIIg C')'lflty \h ..... tland locallcos are app'oXlM;;le a1d tlased on eXlstrng
c!y:reg,ona 'l1\,e~tone~, acldl~onal wct:,lrld~ I""la{ he prcr,cn t mil! ,·lfl~ nD! ·,tmwn on ti,e rJ'<l:JS an::! sor.,e of t1e a'eas
\"",HaMs fIlay not ~t he I'K"tand <;nt..:-ria -hiS map rr"lk..,s rIO di:lllll 1:lS tu I'rldher we~a n d s af: associat,;-d l
wt" the s10rellrle or not
;
Bellevue
\ Mercer Island
,
.-'
Lake ''fIashillg/oll
Seattle GJ.~
Tukwila
~'-AXd~ ~""';"
LD-A , Ke n t
Slullly Lake
La":e Young
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Sanitary Sewer System Structures
Map 9-D
D B lack River/Springbrook Creek R eaches
Q Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Reach es
D Lake V\lashington Reaches
~ May C reek Reaches
~J.service_BoUndary
L._J Crty Limits o PAA Boundary
• Wastewater Structures
• KCMetro8tructures
0 BrynMawrSewer Structures
0 CedarRiverSewe rStructu res
• CoalCreekSewerStructures
0 SoosCreekSewerS tructu res
Major Drainage Basins
Basin_Name
D BLACK RIVER BASIN
D DDWNTOWN BASIN
D EAST CEDAR RIVER BASI N
D EAST LAKE WASH I NGTON BAS IN
D MAY VAL LEY BASI N
D WEST CEDAR RIVER BASIN
September 17, 2009
~-------~======:::JI Miles a 2
1: 50 ,000
,6
N
File Name. ,HICED\PLAN NlNGIGISlgis "'projects\s/loreline _mgmtjJfogram
\6SMPvnxds\9D_sewer_mam_su-uc(ures_ 11x 17_ 0909.mxd
Actua/ Data Source, City o f Renton 2009 ,
/<Jng County 2009 and ESA Ado/fson ,
TItS (HI:) depicts Ille ap:Jroxlinale loca~on and extenl of areas subject to the StJlP ihe aclua extent uf sYlUrelhe
1.msaictlon requires a Sil0Spc-0flC valuation to ndentrty the ordi'1ary high waler line and any assoQaled wet,ands
The Ioc;:;llon 01 tile 20 cis limit IS from USGS (199R) Floodpt;m ilnd llondwily extent <lre h<lscd on FEMAmillpI1l9
end LoY/erGreen Kfller MapPI:1g Sludy by King Co..I1ty Wetland 'oc.atlO'1S are approximate and based on eXisting
Cltyh;~gona Invenl01es. addl~01al wellands may ;:Ie ~resenl t1al are not shawn on the raps and some of the areas wE:~ands may notll'leE:t the ......."lland cnteria Ths lnap makes no da'ill as to .",hettler ......."Uands ae aSSocialed l
with t1C shorc' flC w nOI
RENTON. AHEAO Of 11"IE CUR~'
CommuniI\' & E..."Onomic Dt'\'d~1.I'JIleJlt
"
\ Merc 'er Is I and
i .. o • ~
~
SE 1200 SI
,~
'" , " ,p ::''i-'!.~'''':> ~~r6
"
"
Lake Was"ingtoll
"' w
~
". ::
~<8 ... .i
Seattle l'! <
S !io,~d S!
~
s :\.t.,.n-':'~~
"
-11 0;1
I
~ • 4
~
• <
£ •
1, " ',. • ~
J
c
S 146tl SI
~
~
Tukwila
~ '% "< -1;", J' ~-?o;;>
f..!o S'
S 8ar>gor 51
S Leo S!
5 '''HI 51
" 1
/'''t",V
~
~
)"UkWiIil Pk'I.',
~
~
§
~
~'inkl., 5~'d
"' ,
\
~
w
,
~
~ g ,
S 1,4111 3t
Ke n t
,
~
ii
S 19611 SI
S 200tl 51
J
"
~
;;
:;:
,
"
~ Bellevue
.
" •
~
Lake Young
SE112U)5t
S.E..y~%
'.,
ii'iuiif.P.C
~ '2etli Sf ,
n
w
~
~
~ se
~
ill • <
sc. i2,stP'
~ SE 14O!n 51
~
Sf 144th SI
'"
iJ! • <
~
SE 12211,; St
~
" ,
~,
~
~
't
i
Q
:;:
~
f
i:i
'3. < t,
" ~
SE 1615\51
SE 1641~ 5,
!;; \ 70111 S"-'
~ , w
~ • ~
.,,'t. \ 7411\
0\?t Des ire "",,,,,,-
'" ,l
" f::'"
"e 5E
<
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Lake Washington and May Creek
Public Land, Vacant Land and Park Land
Map 10-A
----.. L._.i City limits
D PM Boundary
o Black River/Springbrook Creek Rea ches
Cedar River Rea ches
D Green River Rea ches
Lake Desire Rea ches
D Lake VVashington Reaches o May Creek Rea ches m Vacant used as parks
Parks in reaches
Other vacant parcels in shoreline jurisdictions o Public Land
Se ptember 24 , 2009 6 _____ -======,Mi"s
o 0.3 0.6
1: 18 ,000 N
File Name .· . HI CEOIPLANNING \G IS\g is .J)(oje cts \sh ore line _ mg mtyrogram 16SMP\
mxds\10A_Lk_w':-'Land_may_creekyubllc_vacancandyark_land_11 x 17 _0909mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson .
T'>s n'ap depicts the avvroA"na'e loca:o:ln ar)J exte~t 81 or-eas suc,':-Cl10 the SMP The 3<::1;3 extent or s h creille
J-r ~JlClIO(1 requires a ~Ite sp:,ctic .. aiu3:11)'1 Ie r1di:'""lh' t~e :xdir .. r)' r,,:;,tl water lioe s'ld 3~)' assocl"led welt:3nds
~he I0C<l11011 of:~ 2(: c's millS fr:;:m USGS':1~981 Floodplal1 a--.cl 100rJ,o.<I)' e>:lerl ",,"e based on '"[rl1A maocl~
a~~ Lo ... e,r Green RI',er ~.'ar:.:"r.;J S:';d. b, K ~'; C:Jl)' '/1":1 and locat,C(l S Cle a~ro/(rrate a~obasl2d OIl existing
~lt)"i'I?;>onalll·'verilofles. add~onal \,e:lar)j$ ..... 9) O€ :;res;rt that or; nOi shown on ;he ma::;s a->:;j som", of the io'"e3"S
&S wetlands <'lay not meE".:ne "",:Ia'd :::'19' 9 ThS rf9l) makes no Claw) as to wf")et'"l€' wetlands ar", assoclatedl
w(h the $hor~,(Je if (JOt
Admi niO!rolQr
Lake 1J'i,.ilillgtOIl
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Black River -Springbrook Creek & Green R
Public , Vacant and Park Land
0
Map 10 -B
_._ .... L._.i C ity Lim it s
D PM B oundary
D Black Ri ver/Springbrook Creek Rea c hes
D Cedar Rive r Reaches
D Gr een River Reaches
mI Vac ant used as parks o Parks in re aches
_ Ot her va can t parce ls in sho re line j uris di ctions
D Pu blic Land
September 24 ,2009 6 0.3
,Miles
0.6
1: 18 ,000 N
File Name HICEO\PLANN fNGIGIS\gls_projects\shorelme_mgmfyrogram
16SMPlrnxdsI10B_blkJive,_spnngbrook_creek_gree_'1_.FIve,_
pubJIc_vacant_andyark_land_11l< 17_0909 mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
IVng County 2009 and ESA Adolf SOil.
"rn' '4' d'l-ncb 'f,e ~:.""''';A 'al!! :X;~C' ::!' ~ !"~!tO'10f ;.,:e..,s S.J::>,,:'! tv lll~ S',l~ T"" a::f .. aI ",,'<len! a( shorelne
, . .I!I~dic!,(Jn 1l'q..JI't."i:l ;"::-~~;;f: ,'J_:!I,;y-Ie r'oo;;!.b'y ,. e OId'r ... ·)'· gol \' ... ~'., -'""Ie .,.-: :r'y "ssocl .. led we:bmb
T~ ;Ie;,' ~'1 cl I''C :::0 cfs In-,It I~ frorl I~:;G:; 1;2 -=;;::Y.l~ J" ~ 'lj '~:>O'.'.;" '~/t({11 ;;Ire Oill>lxl C'I FE ,-,\.\ m:lpplr>;j
alJ Lo,',t:r '~,f~"" ~I' .. e '.~dX _" SL:) ~.~. 1<".,:1 eQUity ' .. '.1Ot. ... r¥J lu~;HCKI~ .. HI ... ~·;;,o;rl;,le ;,ndtoaso::d "1 e)ls~ng
(;I'y;re'l0n.JII!I"~lf:;rI"'S ;jj:':I::":oJ ,o,el ;'"'0:::5 '--:;,y tJe [)1.;-<;"ntlh3' 3'" nO! ~"(),'.!I Qf) t n " T;;;)S ;,r,d SOMe d the ae"",
<.IS wHI<lITj, III;J, rI~~T~"tt·"" ,\·~I;;·X: CI'lel;:! -tiS I··ap m3~"S riO can as IC w":lI''le1 weU",ds <II" assooa:e
'~t' :",e ~'I;)'b'Ie;;or 1~'
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Cedar River
Public , Vacant and Park Land
Map 10-C
_._ ...
L._.i City Limits
D PAA Boundary
---, Cedar River Rea ches
D Lake Washington Reaches
1m Vaca nt used as parks
Parks in reaches
Other vacant parcels in shoreline jurisdictions
D Public Land
September 24. 2009
_______ ~:========:~ Miles
o 0.5 6
1: 26 .000 N
File Name H\CEO\PLANNING\GIS\gls.JJrojectstshorehne_mgmtyrogram
\6SMPlmxds\ 1OC_cedarJiver JJubllc_vacanCand...JJark_land_11 x 17_ 0909mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
·r • ., f"L4' tJ'4"t~~ j,e dpprc .... 'dIe X:?:.C· 3':: !'~:,,"I;;f ..:e"s ~ .. :"',:·I t. t~lt.: S"l~ T~e <:::t_a c',ten! of 5hcrc;l1(!
,...1I~diCI"-.l reer-II'.:'; 3 <;'I·~-~p.:~ f~ "",_:ll ':Y t~ r':;:t< tly ['!' ord:'''''i r ~ ","~"I '""Ie a~:: :r)' L1SS:-Jc'L1tcd wC1bod;
Tr,.~ ';le;.':1'1 d I~'e ~:, ~r~ hIm! I~ fiorl USGS ,1998 :",tH.ld~ J') ;!'lj '1:l~C'.'.;" cdCf11 ac based an :::::1,1A ma:r;:">;
(l)O lO;',,,r Gre"" ~I'{er "1.1~'~ Sl_:):~ f' ",: :::::: .... ,1) .'\l:;t .. rrJ '''l;;! .... ,~ ,Ie "~·;;f.n<Jle ;;-:b>l!;e:d en e Xlsbng
C"yirl:Q10'lalllh''''TI:cn~ aJ~:V;3 '<,>'el J"'1:::5 '~") ()€ ;;r"5,,nllhaT 3"" nlJl ~'1(),~11 on ,'1e T<.IPS af'j some: of .he deLlS
own,,~ wetl"II¥Js lila,. flU' <1,,,,,,,t," ~ ,\'~I ,,'1:: ~':l~'::! -~lS I' 3p 1'1::!~"S 'Iv: an ;J::; ~a w ",,1 ""I(!' well,tlds "r" assOCIate
l\tllth;:! ~rlQrt' le~' "IJ'
Luk~ Wushillgl,m
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Modifications
Map 11-A
_ Natural/Un -modified
Some Modification/Partially Vege t ated
_ Hard Armorin g Concrete
_ Hard Armoring Rock Wall
§§§§§§ Hard Armoring Other
_" A lt ernatively Modified and Natural
~ Commercia l/Indust rial Sho relin e
~ Restored Shoreline
DO-NO St ru cture Present
_ I -Less than 20 Feet
D 2-20 t o 50 Feet
D 3-More than 50 Fee t
C, Private Residen ti a l Docks, Covered
D , Private Residential Docks
F, Fl oats
J , J oint Use Pri va t e Residential Docks
L, Boat Lift
LC , Boat Lift and Covered Private Dock
M, Marina
0, Other Dock Structure
R , Major Boat Ramp Facility
X, No Dock
March 25 , 2010 6 ______ =====:::J'Miles
0.05 0.1 o
1: 3,000 N
File Name .. HICEDIPLANNINGIGISIgis_projectslshorelme_mgm fy(ogram
mxdsl6SMPlEX11 (A-H)ModifiedShore mxd
Actua/ Data Source. City 01 Renton 2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson
T:~ 0 1113:! ::e::J c:s nl€' <l;);X;;xwl ... le .;'C<lt':Jrl .om: ~f.~L'nt :,f ar._ClS ~'_IOJe(: 0::; the SMP The a~tua' .o,11e1: 01
s"1o-~;,n.; ,_:sd :t,or· requ res B S :e·s",e~lr,: valu3:lon '.:J Indent,!v Ihe Oram8) '1 9t1 walel Ime and
3:1)' 9~soc'aled • ... "'II"wJ~ P"e (,callon~; ItI"" 2'~ ~b I~I': IS fr::-m uSGS .1998'1 = OOjOICl'~ <l:1'l fIQ:;~"".Jf 6-.t"''11
are ~3se:; y ~ ~r.1A T 9ppln!) '\','etland ccallons a'e ap:xoxlrla:e ami b3SW oe, eXlsllIl;J ~lty;'l€gIJ'lal In,'t:·':J·I~~
a:id tl:1-<11 W(!:;~"":js "nay ~ ::r,;SC'1t t!'"l<l: <"Ire -01 Shewn on thE' Taps ano some ,=,' the ari?as shewn as
.... i:lI.rJs In'-ly "'(;\ n'~c;et me ' .... ',,\ <l:ld crlter'<1
T., S Tap ~l1av.",s no c alT as Ie) '""'-etM,,," wel~'"Ids are asscclat€'d With the S10'",If"I'9 ::,r ret
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Impa ired Water
Map 7
D CityLimns
D PAABoundary
D Bla ck. Ri ver/Springbroo k Creek Reaches
D Cedar Rive r Reaches o G reen Ri ve r Reaches
Lake Des ire Reaches
D Lake washington Reaches
D May Creek Re aches
Lis t of Impaired Waters
_ 4,4'-DD D
_4,4 '-DDE
D 4,4 '-DD T
_ALPHA-SH C
_Ammonia -N
D Dissolved oxygen
D Fecal Coliform
_ Temperatu re
_ TotalPCSs
_ Total Phosphorus
_PH
September 17 , 2009
_______ ~=====~~Mi l es
o 1 6
1: 50 ,0 00 N
FIle Name H\CEO'PLANNING\GfSlg,'syroJecls\Sf1ore/me_mgmtyrogram
\6SMPIJm:.ds\7 _impaired_ Ivafe,_ 11x17_0909.mxd
Actual Data Source .' City of Renton 2009, King County Water
and Land Resource Division, King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson
Thl~ 1'Iap deplc\~ the apVOII:Fate ocatJo'l and Cx1~1t oi arCiJS ,>ub)ccl to Ih!! SMF The mJJal elden! of shore ne
j.JlisJ ·:i'ull '~lu '"s a sit .. sp.;;al.c "3Iuat;)fl ." nd",1(tv ~ or<;lnary n'Qh will",r m.;! and <l'1Y assooated tM.::tlarvls
nl", 1cx:.'fJ(}TI ()t It"" :'0 cIs in)l! IS FOrl \..SGS (1 !J<Jf;IJ ~tOO'1pan and tloo-1way C)l1cn! me fJeSt...">f1 on FE rM 'lI'~il:'l'J
i?1I1l0\"'d 3r;"'''1 Rver r,1ap;;~lg Sru.:ly t:y t<.JII<) C\AUlty ·{.,,=Uand locallJls are apprOXiMate and based on €-)(lsbng
otyreglona ut.e~!OI"e5 a.:ld:llona: wel.a.,;1s '"l:ly. he ;1'r:"-P.~! th'll cn~ n:JI '1Hl\\WI 1m the Jl'3:JS afjd SOrle of the areas I
as \·,-..Ua115 rla~ I'){)I f"lei:1 n.:: I'..etand t;r k'liJ nls map '11.JI<.<.'5 flu :I;:],m <l~ I') W'ldt*" we~ands ace assooato:O
AIIIJI Pr_1sdI. "dmln ~a_
GIS AnoI1 ';' !
VII" the S10'eJrne or 10t
• ,
Seattle
~lIwllmis" lI 'lllerW(~r
Tu kwi I a
\
\
i Mercer Island
Lake If'ashjllgloll
~
Ke
'-
{ L{/~
New6astle
\ 0 I
\.:.. \
" ,
\ c. '\
'--
~
,~
'i
'-,
,
\
Bellevue
~ .........
V .'-./ ,
,
"-.J,
" ~
\
\,
~l.,
\~ ~.~~ ,", c
"Z-<
..l
I
Lake Youl1g
1.-,.11/( -, .••
r"ft.""",
~
'.
\
\
V
~
\ ~
""-....
\. '. ,
<
~
-'I f
..J
~,
\
t
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Renton Land Use
Map 8
r·_·! Crty Limrts
o PAA Boundary o Black RiverlSpringbrook Creek Reaches
rI Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lak e Desire Reaches
D Lake Washington Reac hes o May Creek Reaches
Land Use
_ CC-Commercial Co rrid or
_ C N-Commerdal Neighborhood
_ COR-Commercial-Offi ce -Re siden tial
CV-Center Village
EAI -EmploymentArea Industrial
EAV-Employment Area Val ley
RLD-Resident ial Low Density
RMD-Residentia l Me dium Density
RMF-Residenti a l Multi Fami ly
RSF·Residential Single Famity
UC-D-Urban Center Down t own
UC-N-Urban Center North
September 17, 2009
______ C====::::JI Miles ~ o 1 2
1: 55,000 N
FIle Name H\C=D'PLANNINGIGISIgls..JJroJccfs\Sllore/Ille_fIlgmlyrogram
16SMPvnxdsI8Jentol1_'ancl_use_11x17_0909 mxd
Actual Data Source: City o f Renton 2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/fson .
Ih sna: dep'ClS the app-exnateocab01 a'l::! extB-1t ot a"aas '.Utl ea t o l1e Sl.1[' '1e actual extent of shore ne
,..r,S\J<choll ·.:q.J1 '':$ a si!t: sp.:;<;:f.c -,,,tuaton 10 nd.,.nt!y til", O! JU1.lry h''OI'l wolle"-\" iJ"ld any dSSQo.)aled v..",II::lI1 d s
TI,,,,, ..... : .. '()II 011110:: 20 cl~ trlll l ~ 1-0''1 LSGS: 1s.981 nvvd~'drl ;j'lt! lIood'l'I;Jy exl",,\\ OJ'", bcl~d au FEMAm~~'lIg
,rd I fWlPr Gr('<~n RVef t.l ']p;Jn'J St lFtyhy KI''J Crt I.,,)' '.'\If>t1l'lrl IIr~l l'':t1s me' ilpprl"!)(lmnte and basCl1 on C)'I:s hn g
CIty, reQ,01a1 lno. e1tor es ajd,bonal .... el 31ds l1ay De p-esent that a-e not 5'10\'," on the maps a'ld some 01 \tie areas
as "'&1 ands may 'lot 1-";'0<-1 the ~~an(! Cr1;o1)a Th:s mao ma-:es no c~,m as to whether yte~ands ere assooate
\\'1Ih \'le sho-e "H! or not
Seattle
!
ti
.,
Me
% ., 1l
"",
....... s,J'
"~
~
! • •
Tukwila
5B ~n9)r SI.
<10, "'. '~.
~
~
j
'"
~ ~
~ j
~ ~ :>
~ • ~
5
"
Ken t
.,
SE5BlhSI ;'
""~ Bellevue ..
i
r c e,r , I s I and
, ., ., :::
• , ~
·.5
'lQ ~.
i
:5
~ • ,>'"
<J>' ,,~.
," I Jy"./
Lake Washington
~
!
tl
~~!f. 5 128f1~
(! I )
~
~
II
j It
~
B
~
S 191h51
S 231d 51 .,
~
:0 \ ~ • • ~ ~
~
se IJra PI
Sf 75rllPI Newcastle
N 8,. 5r
w z
~
i
SE8IJfn5f
w
~
w
~
0:
~
w
~
0:
~
$( 89th P\
",,~<t-
4-'
" ~
~
'ilo
SE. 91s15t
NE ~ .. _--
NE ZlrdSI
NE 12th 51
...
!Ii
!
f?
w z
~ /'IE 10th 51
8 NE9lhSr
i W Ni::&hSr C z
S,,,
., /~D,
'q~ ,£ ~ ~6JrdPI
,~~r",..,.L.
'!'
~ • 1
i:!
'(;,
z -. l.....)
J
.!-,fiE 7t1l Sl ~
Jl -~ NE 6th 51 ' 5
.'''' S, ~!....&U.L./<E " St .
.;
~ ,
~'!IIGS\, r...... PCJI.." "'" $, NE ~ ~ •
Sf 3~ 51 "
" '. <10, ". .. ~~
c:. :r.r1,ytI150r
<} /, .'"
Sf 1600!S!
...
"'SSIJ/&-! WaD!
se l60th 51
SE
SE 164th 31
~ " ~ q '11.
~
Sf 16~h S I
... :""51
w SE 1751:11 51
w
~
~
~
"
~
" ~
::\
113th 51
w
Z
" § ..
11611151
l
I!{
;
t
~<. ~ c·'t'Wlllro
',815151
~
~
~
~ SE 112nd PI
J~ SE 116th 51 5E 176~ .... , ~
Sf 18001 5 1 "
i!i
~
£
I!{
it
tf '" w
~
~
~
:0;'
i:! .
" ;
Sf: 112m 51
Stli'eo"
'"' $S~4"'Rd
SE 121srPI
--,SE '28th Sf
w
~L.
< 51: 134111 51 ~
Sf 140th SI
SE lHIIIS t
i:5
0:
§
i:5 • ~
Issaqua
Sf 122n" 51
+,
'" '" "~
\ 7~h 0,1'
i!i '
~
~ ..
%
~
" i
i
~
'" %
R'
';
~
\ q
%
" % ~~
«'
se l S1s lSt
w
~ w . ~
~ .
~ • " ~
SEI7~thSI
5 184,.51
SE 179~ SI
Sf 182nd PI 5E 1S.th 51
w Lake Dt ire
£..p\Sllrtl9'(
~
~
• • q
~
~
~
~
j
~
~
~
." £ . " ~ 0
~ -
5 196tl Sf
5200" Sf
5 208tl sr
555th51
51
~ • < ~
Sf 1861h 51
w
~
~ • <
~ " w
~ • ~ I SE 19&h SI
Pallther Lake
;
" %
w
~
~
~
se 1981h SI
SE 204m 51
SE 208t1l 51
~
~
%
i:5
0:
~
B -
Sf 19~d 51
Lake Yotlng
LD-A
SE 168th SI
se 1921d~
'!'
4
" ~
w ~
~ • <
~ SE 207111 SI
Shorel ine Master Program Update
City of Renton
King County Zon ing
Map 8-B
c=J O ty Limts c:::::J M-SO c=::J R-6-P
[=:J PM 80mday I:!:I MIT c=J R-6-P-SO o Back RIWlfISll'"in\tlrook Creek Reaches c::J N8 Neigltlortood Bu siness C=:J R-6-S0
Cedar R IWlf Reaches CJ NB·P c:J R.£! Resi den~~ B!1Jlacre
c::J Greoo River Reache s c::J NB-SO CJ R-8-P
lake Desire Roocnes .. 0 Office .. R-8-P-SO
c:::J Lake 'v\'ash lngtoo Reaches .. C -p c:J R-8-S0 o ""o3y Creek ReaChes l1li a ·p ·so c:J RA·10 Rural ldliae,:re
King County Zo ning c=J R-' Resldenlilt lo.uacre c=J RI\-lO-DPA
CURRZO NE D R-l-P 0 RA-lO-P
A-l0Agncultural ,ldlJl0 acres c=J R.',P ,SO c::J RA -lo.P-SO
A-10-P c=J R·l-5a c:J RA-10-S0
A·10·SO c=J R-12 ReSldel1.a112dliw;re c=J RA-2.5 Rural ldu'5 &:::res
F Fores t
.F-P
c=J I Ind ustrial
D'-p
O ,-P-SO o '-SO
c=J MMnerai
OM-P
c=J R-12·P c=J RA-25-DPA
c:J R-ll-p ·Sa c=J RA -2.5-P
c=J R-1S ResidertaallSdlioo-e c=J RA -2.5-P-SO
CJ R-' S-P CJ RA-2 .5-SO
~ R-lS-p-Sa CJ RA-5 RlJa l ldul5 acres
.. R-24 Resloenlial24dulacre c=J RA-5 -P
.. R·24-P c=J RA-5-P-SO
CJ R-4 ReSidennal 4dLiacre CJ RA-5 -S0
c=J R"':'-P CJ RB Regional Business
c=J R...:..P·SO [::J RB-P-SO o R~-SO c:l RB-SO
.. R-48 Resldenb~ 4 8dulacre c::J UR Urtlan Resel"oe
.. R-48-P
C:=J R-6 Re5lden~al6Q.jlacre
Septe mbe r 17 , 2009 ______ ======, Miles
0 1 2 Ii
1: 50 ,000 N
File Name· H\CEDIPLANNINGIGIS\glsJJfOjeciSl.Sllorelllle_mgm lyrogram
16SMPvllxdsl8B _ k1fl9_ coumy _ zomn9_ 11x 17_0909 mxd
Actual Data Source : City of Renton 2009 ,
/(jng County 2009 and ESA Adolfson_
~nls ma:') de: '0'" t'lC ar:::roxrTIat" location and erte11 of areas su~lect 10 tile St,IP ~he actual exle'll of shoreline
'un;,.Jlct'()r) feQJlf"'5 a sll':'-sp.:<::i'!C va Ja b01 to nd,,1:(y til,:, vr,jna~( h;l'1 watt-r III ..... and any aSSOCIaled v~tands
'1 ... k:>:Jl lon Of H1€-20 Cfs.lrr t IS frOO' USGS '. 1!d981 F100dp:an and f~»dway ... ~t.:I11 ar" baSt-d 011 n:M';!llalpUl9
iJd I. 'NYeI G'",,'l RIVel Md;:pUg Sludy ~y king Cu.mly ·\~""tli;Hd I<.><:ijlomli We fj:;pro~t!I;<jle dnd bas<':'d on <:x ;s tmg
C tl"rcg,on~ "lIIcn l o'e~:3dd tcna wetla'ljs n:1y he present th,lt are n;y ~hOl'1'l on t1e 'naps and sorre o f the a"eas
tiS l'I'o:~anjs m<J~ not me.::t the >'leI and cn te~a "IS r'ltlp n'ltlk(-s no c~ '11 tiS to whetller \ve~ands iJ'e assooale(!1
~'It' the s10rellne o' not
Seattle
i
~
!
~
S Bond St
~
~ ~ <
~ • <
'" ffi
~ ..
"'" "'"
MerC~H Island
Lake Washillgtoll
't ~.
~" ""
~. • ,
" ~
~
~ ,l .c' ~-#'
~
Sf ~
lS:I,Pi := " !
'i!-
SE &l:nSt " Sf", ~'1-:""S'
;;i t~ 1
<fly ~
lji • <
~ SC 88th?!
" ~
w m
" 'l5
~ p p
SS8a,,, ~ .... ~ ~I P/ 9-
'" P SE'3~\"\" "'.0
-;.
Newcastle
$,
-:?'ftDt
"" ~ .s-~S]'dP1 '\!,
~I SE.91!dSl.
'~
'i!-
\Al' I! <.
P
'i!-
w z
~
!
~
~
NE 23rd St
~e. ,otl\S',
NE 12th SI
!l' • <
~
c,llI'se! Slfj
~'-
~
NE 1 7t~ 51
w <
~
1
NE 121il 51 a
! N::: 1 11~ SI
> • I>.EHlo,trSt
7i. tE9'J'lSt
SE 10001 PI
!! • ~ ,
I SE 116lh SI
N8r. St \ ! i w z
~ NE IIlhsl
ill
•
Riper
~~nkler B~td
~
~
\
~
Ke n t
$)."'SUriSet'O\"~
s.v mSt
z
~
~
83m 51
S~\t1'1'\ S5t~St
S7th Sl
'5"G~'
S I<JtIlSt
~
~
"1
~
~
~ ~
'l-
~,
s~,,'1>'"
~ .
~ • "
."
~
~
~
'\
~
F ~~ SW4JrdS! Ii i 51: ;8T51S/
~
';
<
j
•
S)941'151
~
~
~
S 196rJ SI
\
."
• <
~
~
~ S 20dr 5t
~
~
s'OC1(\ 'i>1
S 19:1""51
'"
51
• ~
iJ
SA1t1'15t
lji
~
"
~
¥'
f )
i
~
t-\'C.)O S\
SE2n!1PI
of..
"" .. .. ,
4' <>' ~ <I'
SE _16001 5t
Ne S,II S,
'Ef.~\!IS\
$"
w z • <
~
j
NE 1'lhSI
H~&IlSI
Nf
N
~
~
SE 511)SI
~, ~I H \~Ol
Sf. \6'll PI
.•
" N.E 5ln 51
~
..: N:: 4'jj 51
/>IE 2nd PI
w
~
5n61~tS! SfI&1h~
SE 16~1\ 5t
lJ!
~
2
S£ 1761'1 51 ~
~ * ~ • = ~
~
51: 181dl 8\
S€ 165tiT 51
sc: 158th 51
~ll.?nCl"
SEHSIIlSl
SE ,&cit! 51
w
~
~
~
ill · • ~
i#
~
~
~
~
SE 12m 51
Nc~r.'
w z
~
j
t i~ \ \ ~.~
~\ ~ . ~
-.
" ,
'--. ..,,~ ~2IhSl......j. ~ .... -:--SE'~
• r.J f'rn ;; ~~""'~ ~h.,.~ ~~ .... ~hRd ~ wi
~
~
;j
r'
YoulIg
_I
L_
Vi
~
".
" ::;~
",'"
~
''i!-
~J/: ~t?', /-,"7-,r' /
~"""} sE
'\~
-\ r~~~)
l $l t
\
\j
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
King County Comprehensive Land Use
Map 8-C
C:=J Oly Llm !s
c:::J PM BOlJld~ o Bad< Rlverl$pnn!jll"()(j( Creek ReaChes
Ceda r RIver Reaches
~ Green River Reaches
Lake Des ire Reaches o Lake v..'asl'1 lngtc.n Reacnes
[=:J Ma1 Creek Reaches
King County Comprehensive Pianning08
CPLU
.. ac U nf1caporatedAct r.ity Certe!"
ag Agricuture
.. ct Comm.m ~y BUSiness Cerler
.. co Comm.mty OutsIde 01 Cerul'
_ fForestry
~ f1:; GreertleltlU'b<r1 Sepnlor
i lndustrial
m MlnlrlQ
rb NegmotHxxl Busiless Center
cp OCher Par1lsJIJIAl::!e mess
_ os Open SpacelRecreahon
m Rural Nogl"tJomood
If Rural ResKiertia l ldul2 S.,OAcr6s
r1 Rl.I"s J To.vn
I')( Ru ra l Clbes Ubill G rowth Area
1Il U rba n Resl(X!rtial High >12 du'acre
IJ Uroon Residerdia l LON lc1.1la cre
un UrbCW'\ Residential Medium 4-12 01J facre
_ l4XIlktIan Plamed Devel~mert
Sep tembe r 17 , 2009 ______ c::========::::J1 M iles ~ a 1 2
1 50 ,000 N
File Name: HIC EO lPLANNfNGIGISIgls..JJrOjeCISlsflorelllle_mgmtprogram
\6SMPlmxdsI8C_ klng_county_comp_plafl_11x 17_0909 m\'d
Actual Data Source: Cily of Renton 2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
TIl s map dep cts the approximate locaton and Cl(\c nl of ;JrC;J~ ~,.lhJ[~(;110 the SMP T'le actua extent of S10rene
J-msd io.ion r ... --cpiluS.J silt:' specific · .. alua~on 10 Ildenl~y the ordlf'lD.f'y nigh wate r !t')e a'ld any (lSSOO<Jt."d ..... d l(j·1US
TIl(" kJr~i{)11 uf tl~ 20 cfs limit 15 1'0'l1 USGS (lW!:l\ l-loodp'al'l and Ilooo1way el<t(;'lt ale bilSO'IJ Oil FEr,lJI.m~;;ln9
ind Lower Gre.en R'''~I t.l'IPp~l~ SI.Jay by KllH.I Cumty ',"J.,UaTld lo::aIICtls are aporoxlIT'I8te and ::ased on (;)'lShI11J
aty·reglo1a1lllVenlDres add,~o1al wel .ands 'll'¥:>c prc:oc1(1h:-r1 <lIe 1m shown 01 the rr.aos a1d SO'lle o' the areas
,·Ietands may 101 1lei."t ttli." wetla'la <::r kna This lll.'lp nl,J~t:s IlJ claim as 10 wtl.:-Iher ... ...,~anjs ere assOCIatedl
..... "rth the sho-ehne 0( 'lOl
Mercer
LlIke Washillgtoll
~ .. ,~,
,_~c_~"
",'t
U
<' o",_,.;~
,;,--,
Seattle -•
!
~
S&..·~~I
J
~~'
u kwi I
, •.
'<
•
' . " " J ."
~~, ~-
~l::OSl
""-.... "c',
s
~ ·i
~h~!"'SI
< • ~
• •
S 12~,," St
31·"'!1 !
~ ~
k
I nl\ ~
~ I~a-~ 51
~,~>.~~ "' "
..,--Sftl&
~
,~
S "'F 51 t
~
'!' .... :;0"
':"J -, d ~
:>l"'."'Q"1'I~
5 ~1::oa 51
~ ;
!
,.,'?,
} ~w j OuSI
~
1'~J 9'-'1
.,;,{, :ll
c •
Ke n t
; ,
"
• s't.::r-'"
•
~ l-,,-S,
S ,,,_'t,;,
~ 51'," :>I
~
:"'
~.,"
~
~ ,:
,
"
.
~
3
.
'''' . !
~
~ ... ,I"
S l'!nSI
" '!,c>ooI'l
S'II"' 51
S ZlnISI
.
1
f
\
t •
0' ~" ,
\~
• !
5$1',51 . , ,
$
S::tndSl
,
j
_A~ SEC"'?~
,C"
S ~l~S!
" " f
• ,
j
.
!i.e 'I_~'" Bellevue ".;
Newcastle t
· /---~ .. "' :....-..
'--'
l
J
.
!
f
.;
i ;
~-''';<1P'
Sf !:, :loI
.;
?' ':;"'''~t,r''
;;::~. ~ ~
So; ,-'--<0';
"£1l-HI
kE 2~~ 51
11£.,,,,,$1
NE Iii' 51
~ • ! 1
~,
/ "."
• • ~
Lflk~ore"
o
.i'~''''~)Cp. ::
~ .. ,~.-;
~
IOZ 1"11115,
'IE 121hSI
ljElil1hP'
~'f '~~St
IIt9flS:
NES,,"SI
!-IE I"SI
NE!',SI
£
]
~ ':
~
NE~Cr
t<<:'''I~S
Sf 10lfe
,
",.
;? " ..,
'\ ....
N£4ttS!
,~ '<Is,
":"'::""P'!I NI:
$'i.,\o.!>SI
~ ..... 0'.,.,."' .. 1\-... ,
",'
..
SE '£()f,51 ,-#'"
;;;
<
• i
Hi I ,,"~I
~\",,,,\
SZ'!~Sj SE I~~" 51
~ , •
~ 31.51
!it H'~ SI
!
~
SE HUlS;
~
!
• !
f
i ~laB~S!
• ! g
OCl~SIll ~1
~1HtlS!
·'WI),.\OS:::
!
~
Sf llt"S\
~
~
S~
,~ )'~f .
"V"'"
"
\,
"
• :
,~
't·t7..,~j..
,
'! ,
t
C) "
r---is: Itl:~St
SE 11S, St
.'fI:~'ttCI
Sf 162'~ P
Sf ";;'''__ Sf '6!1'l'" "0 ~d;.
'%--'",
~7,~
SE 11&1MI
'iI:: ~":'
1
i
Sf 1'1"."
" .'
'\~
". ';,
''" "<>"
" <
" ,
.,/"
f:,-
• ~
~
w
< ;
" ,;
"
",{\lor'''' '{:.
'if' 'l~n~1
• ,
• !
i
,
< • ;
SE '1 ..... SI
...
< >
'\0
Sf. '~I~P!
3' 'NflSI
J -"
~I"j'.-;"
::i: 1'4"5'
•
• ,
i •
~
i
<;-•• J!"~
• ~
<i
"
So I.: .. ,~,,\
SE 1l!Jd.,.
EiIIlIL"",
'\ ~ ,
;,
~ o
~
" • " '"
'. 'A
SEl~1&lst
Sf '!lilt! 51
S.t! j1~fISI
"
i"
I
Shoreline Master Program Updat e
City of Renton
Storm Surface Water System
Map 9 -8
_._ ....
L._.i Cit y lim its
D PM Boundary
D Black Rive r/Sp ringbrook C reek Re aches
L Cedar Rive r Reac hes
D Green Ri ver Reac hes
Lake Desire Reaches
D Lake Washingto n Reaches
D May Creek Reaches
• Cu lvert E nd
• Det RetPo nd
• Di tchE nd
• Inlet
0 Li ftStatio n
• Pon dE ntranceO utlet
• Sy ste mE n tran c eO utlet
Ditch L ine
Pipe
Cu lvert
Septe mber 17 , 2009 _______ =======.' Mil es
012
1: 50,000
Ii
N
File Name .. H\CED\PLANNfNG\G/Slgisyrojects\shoreline_mgmtyrogram
16SMPIJnxdsI9B_sfonn_slIrface_V1.:ate,_syslem_ 11x 17 _0909 .mxd
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/lson.
Th s rr.a~ dep CIS the apvox l'late locall01 and e>cte lll of 8'eas sub ect I::> Ule SMF T1e actJal exten t of sh:xel~le
}llfsdic:io'l r.::q.lires ,1 site-spl-afic"<JIUil~on to nd;;ntfy the orrllll,lry lugl' w;J1i:rlin.., ~md Ol'ly ;Js~.oc<ltcd v.r(:tI;;mds
The ~)r:~I{)l1l)f It...., 20 ds trlll!'~ rO:T1 USGS (l99Ai Fioodpidlrl enol floouw<lY c<xle'rt ell..: b<lSc:d cy\ FEIA'" ITli:flP ng
a10 Lower Gr;;-en RNer r.lap;::nQ Study by King Crxmty 'Nelland IOO....3tICl1S are approxima t e and based on eXls~ng
City' 'eg;Q-l<i Irr,enlo~es addlIJo1al wetlands 113)' ::>e presen t that a-e not SlOWTi on the Ira;:;s an·j SOI'le 01 the areas I
as ~Ietands may 'lOllneel the .......:;l,and cr lerra Ths map il1aO(es no claim as to whether w<2tands a<2assooal<2d
wrth tOle shore,lllc 0 1 lID!
"
,.i Bel I e vue
, \ ,M erce r I s land
,
Lake Borell
'. ". "
\''''-""
~. -."
Lak e Was hingto ll
Seattle
,
,
Lake U es/re l
LD-A
J Ke n t
Lake Young
Lake
0
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
May Cree k Floodplain
Map 4-G
D City Limits o PM Boundary
Shoreli ne Planning Area -Reaches
D Lake Washington Rea ches
D May Creek Reaches
D Fl oodplain
Sep tember 16 , 2009
JMiles
0.25 0.5
1: 12 ,000
~
N
I I
Fife Name, ,HICEOIPLANNINGIGIS'glsJjroJecfslshoreline_mgmtJjrogram
\6SMPVnxds\4G_may_creek_floodplam_11),,'17 _0909 mxd
2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
ThiS map oep>cts t1e 3:Jproxmate loca~on and CIdO'lt of ,1reJ~ SUllJed 10 the SMP -he actual eldenl of shoreille
J.Jrisd>c l >0I1 requ.r ... s a s.t ... ·sp...afIC va:.Jallo'l to ndentlfv Ih"ordnary r,'gh watet" IInC' rmd <lOy assoc;ated wellanrfs
The ioca.on ollhe :::0 cIs I~;t IS from USGS (li1"J8l Floodplall and IIiJo<:t.I/ZY ,-,xl C'n l arf-tmS<'<1on FEI.l·l, rn;~p '19
;rld t. O\M'!I GI.,.,n Rr,r.,-Ma;.:png Study oy Kmg Crunt y \I\k~and iocat ,(:rJS a'':' a;::prOl(lrr.ate and based on e)uSbng
City'l"eglona 1I .... 'e-:\One5: add t ona wetbnd5 rn)' 1m p'{!';Cnl th o t are nol shown 011 t·le naps and sor;e of Ine areas
as \...eU<I>'\1s rrItly not 11'1(;«;-1 the weI ,mel cll t",r11l '7l1!S nup mak.,s riO C~,111 as 10 Wh.,eler weUand s a-,:. assooat<X!1
w~h me ~'lorehne or not
ill' .' }..'G~(i ,,"
ercer Island
LlIhe '-flushing/on
N3 7111 SI
N 36/tl SI
N 351h SI
N 34th SI
N 33rd PI
N 33 ", SI
N 3 1s 1 SI
N 29 ~ SI
N 27111 PI
"""'i'\.
z • .!i
~
N 36th 51
N 34th St
N 28111 SI
N 26111 51
z
~
g
a:
~
N24111 51
N"
%
~
'" '§.
~ z en
w z
w
.!i
~
.&
Se:-">4thS'
~ SE 76 1h SI ~
~
d'",
~SlhP\ -;, ~ O'~
w
U>
1'",
~Ol.?
pi Nt
-S
8 s
~
z
"'
Jf
NE 361h SI
NE 261h PI
NE 24th 5t
w z
13
~
~ • c
~
w
'" ~
~
SE 80th SI
w
'" • .!i
~
"' "
SE 82nd 51
SE 771h PI
SE 84 th SI
Newcastle
SE 86th 51
SE 87th SI
w on
~
'" ~
'"
SE 88 lh SI
5E 891h SI
~
c!'
"" ff
ro
U> en
!#
11:
g
"
So 1811}SI
9
~ s
SE 88th SI
S088th PI
SE 91s1 SI
w
<n
1:
'" " ~
5f 92nd SI
S1'.93rd S \
NE 261h SI
NE 271h 51
w
Z
~ • ro
E
~
w z
NE 25th SI
~ NE 23rd SI
~
.!i
~ NE 22n d SI
5E 96 1hPI
......
::2 !:<
W. ....
'bo-
"lJ:
~
"*'
%
~
NE21sfSI ~ ~ NE 21s1 SI Q
NE 20th SI
w z w • z > • '" .!i c • • • c
" :§ .8 m
'"
g
'" 8
u w ~
I ~
KirkL "~'" .".
~ z on
NE 20lh 5t ,,0
"". 'c~ f'JE 19th SI ,,\~'$
~. '\
'" en
~
'" ~
'"
'%-~ %
;:;
~
" ~
'{l-
51'. 6O\h pi
'%-~ ~
"-
~
'" ~
'{l-
ro
U>
"'
cP6ft,
{o
"'" ""k '" <"
5E 951h PI
5E 981h 51
9
~ \ 3
"9.
~ ,
." \ • ~ i
;:;
~
'" ~ ro
if> on
\NE 21st SI
~ (,l
P ,\'
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Fish Distribution
Map 5-A
r-----' L_,_J City Limits
c=J PM Boundary
Fish Distribution
SPPCODE
........ CCT-Resident Cutthroat Trout
000 000 0 ' CHFA-Fall Chinook
........ COHO-Coho Salmon
O:[J:O:[ DBT-Dolly varden/Bull trout
~ .... m .. SOCK-Sockeye salmon
O:[J:O:[ STWI-Winter Steelhead
September 16 , 2009
------~z======~; Miles o 2,5 ~
1: 140,000 N
File Name H ICEO IPLANNINGIGISlqlsJ]rojects\shorefine_mgmtYf()gram
16SMPlfnxdsl5A J'sf1_(Jls(ributloll_ 11x17 _ 0909.mxd
Actual Data Source,' City of Renton 2009,
WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife , King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson
Th is rra,:; de:J 'C:s L'1 e app roxn lat€ locali on and extent of areas suoject 10 the SMP The actua' exle 'll of s'l orell ne
JUlisdiClio'l !&pilt:s a sil", sp,:,cifc va' Jation to Indenlrty the ordinary high waler lin.:. and any associated wet ends
nl€ loc<ii OJl of the 20 d~ Il mlls floll' USGS (1995) noodplall and floodway extent are based 01) FEMAIl10CP IllQ
md Lower Green RIVer Mappng Study by K'lg C (lmly Vlft,tlillld localiO"lS we Clpproxill;a\", and based 0"' «x1511119
clty.i-eg'ona ''lVenl01es: add t ena wetlands IT3).· be present t1al are not stHWI1 on tI1e "TlapS and some of the areas l'Ie~ands (Y'.cl'i not ~t the we~and C'ltena ThiS map makes no cta 'm as to whether wetlands iTe assooate<J 1
'·I~h the shore ' 1e 0' not
Im'''IH J ~.·'i':r ~.,.!' ,,#,1/&
Conunuwty & Lmnoillk D("vdorment
Resident Cutthroat Trout
,
'.
(
I
I
,/j
"
\,
"~'~/
( I ,.
'-
r"n'~" rok
""'~. ". '.",.
'It., •• ,
0;;"
I
-;-~, ';'"
',~
\ .J
~ I"_ L.J\
• j ':-! .1. ,., """, ',' '~" ,_I _... L·
\.
'."
> '. !~ ..... "",,j, -~
f.d~ I,,~n~
Dolly Varden/Bull Trout
.'
~
I . I ~"d )
f
',-,
/Mc Ie ~,
\
", ...... /
"
, '(I
(t (:\\
>
Jlcll::UC
'~r~ C(
I.d~ 11~"n
,~ ,
,. '~.
, -.,. -::-
'j,,"' ,'" " '" '" 1''''0:
" .•• r
"r ~ L.
J
\ ~ %. ~ r-'l ,"] "l,o v "", .J 7 ., 1 ~ .. ",,-, "-U;C> _, <:-, ---..;
:;:t!. '-, \~'t'-<>~',~' L , _'~'
'\ ".. (:'/"
I . -.....:: ...-.
(',·I1"Ri." ~. ~N _-
I l"-" ff_J L . ....!
,
': ~
'~~. "'~
11 " ,5·
i
'~i ,
;'-,'
i
I",
l' '<"", -l "'_ ,"-,
{ 1-( rt,-"\. '\:.~' " ) ~\ J, ~ ~
.,l", ',e
1 j '. \r
"
", {
'..>-\ 'j.
,
F '"~ , lM~ )"""t
J "
~
Fall Chinook
,..
('
/' .. , ,
(Jq r ee r 1.1~"4
" \,
.......... _ ... '
'. r., .. Il~,~;,r~"",
~ v ~ t II w
.,.
r
I\.,~nl
'<~
,.'
8 ~ II e' ,,~
,
~~
~4
;",-" --"1
1'0,,01, ... 1 ~l,
!~l_IJ."""
-, ~ .. '.
/
Sockeye Salmon
/ I ~
/" J' \
(r~~r "e, 1~13,,~j
'~ 8"II~vU~_
• .. ··v c
, :'-'1'
L~A~ J .... nG
--,
\ ....
-...... ".'
" .... /i""'~
'~wc3<t l ~ , (;"'/('nd T.,1,'!",.,
'~
\'-.... I,"~ U~,~inl!lv"
i 3.atll~ ,
-' ..
\ .... ,
."J' I\.~n t $(
~''"'
"
(~
\ <
!'
~ /;. " ~ ~t
,
~
'-'~ , '
ol ,}..,
~
) ,
-; 1'--,,-,
~ r
! .-:. .,_.-
;;;.;.,.!
i \ "".....,
-'-
" '.
I
-'
[' L •.•. rl ~"'" --1 " .0......:: • •
<:Y' , 1
\~k ~-" '-L.:
'~d.,R;"
r'
l 'l
/~
r?-,...l " ,~
" ~
" ;r' r---' >",0,.,..,;"
(
o
1..1eo I .... ~J'
Coho Salmon
S~~It1e
,/
J /' \
i I
,.I !
(~''''<~' J .I~"d J
\ / " '
,.~.'
I ... , IIq"M"Gw"
"~ ......
r
eo" II c ,." c
';;"'->""
t.j~ II,,,,,,
f
I •• a qua II
" .. <,~'.
'f ... " ,,,.,,,,
, ' .... ~ G'J.'R:~\.)""",,; ,~
\. ",-,""J ..... _
L j '" "
IJ" \ , ~ ",__ \ 1,.I~o.-"
'~"1 r ,l ,~'" ~~-
!'~",Ir,.. r .. ~
1"'_ );>WH.\'
Winter Steel head
,
I ,.' \ 6~II~VU"_.
!Mc .o : _-f"'~('IJ.ur~"
,
1«3quah
.:;..' ... (~~,./ ''''':':'''j """o'J ~ _
l.., . "' i'le''''ca<tI ~
'............// i '/ ,,"~ . '7v;('".,J,. Fr ;'~~'\
' rU"l"",_ r--...l!.
~ , /pk r Ji"1l,hin!!itJ n
'~
'"'-
~
, (J
't ,....~-r-:~
"",",A .u .• " II i '/("""1" ~~ ,
'&
'(:,I ,~
,I
(f3
~,-'Y'
\'-;Jr"'
... ."
r",.:."
:;
tIi "-,,-1 -,
\:\
" \~ . L • ..r '~ ~nJ:.-1. L.; '~h; C:-' ,'LJ ~ ...... :J, ............ (;;, '-..... . ;:. . ~ V"..J.,~"'" II '';j ..... ~. ,. ;~ ''i; G ,." ~'('-
'"' "':. .... O .... t.,. ~ '-
? '~: cruarRJi.:.I!"V\,.,'=I.-, _ :: .. . I,. ~ -.-l~ .-.~ '-r.::;:
') . :..... .~, l J j J \\~
,
'~
'\
'" 1 '\ r "
i
IA~·t lk.
I ~ rj--'
~ '~l
l~e l ilung
? 1\ "
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Spawning , Rearing or Presence of Salmonids
& Salmon Stock Inventory
Map 5-8
""-'1 l._ . ..i City Limits
D PAA Boundary o Black R ive r/Sprin gb ro ok C r eek Reaches o Cedar Rive r Reaches o Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Reaches o Lak e Wash in gt on Reaches o May Cree k Reaches
Salmon Stock Inventory
SASISTKNUM
1144 -1160
11 6 1 -3140
••••• , 3 14 1 -5400
••••• , 5401 -6 17 5
••••• , 6 176 -7380
Migration -Spawning -Known Juvenile Rearing
USE_TYPE
1 -Presence Migrati on
t ore -Known Spawning
3 -Known Juven il e Rearing
Septembe r 16, 2009
______ c:========::::::J1 Miles ~ o 1 2
1 50 ,000 N
File Name ,H\CED\PLANNINGIGIS\gisyrOjectslslwreline_mgmfyrogram
\6S MP'omxds\S8 _ spawnin9_rearin9_ or yresence_ ol safmonids_
salmOf7_ stock_ill ven tory _ 11 x 1 7_0909. mxcl
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009 ,
WA Dept of Fis/J & Wil d/ife. King County 2009 and ESA Adolfso n.
TIl,s 11',8::; de~ CIS Ule ap::;roxl'1ale tocaton 81d exte;)\ of areas subject lothe SMP The actua extent 01 s'10relme
1msaictlon requires <l site-spedfic ''';J llJation to u)denl~y the ordinary hig'll'lal.:r line and any associale<l wet ands
The ioC;:!l lOIl of the 20 c!s hrTlllls f'o'n USGS (1995) nooeplilin al!'..! floodwilY .;,xlent al~ ta:;",d on n::M,Am~plllg
ald Lower Gr;;,en Rrver Map;:lng SUdy by King Coonty Wetfc:nd oc.~Lcns <lre <lppromr.<lIe ;md b'ISI.>Q 0'1 e Xlslmg
utyl'eglona Invenlo1es. addl~o1al weHands m~ be ;Jresenl t1al are not shown on the naps and SOl1e of the areas
weUands may nol n",,*1 thE' weHand cnl~na Th!s map makE'S no claim as to l...netner weUands ore assOCIated l
wrth the shorel :1e or not
\
"
Seattle
1f{Uel'w({r
Tukwila
Green Rit'er
!
\
\ Mercer I s I and
" , ,
..... , .''/
" / .... ,,'
La/,;e 1t'as/tingtoll
,
!l
;,
i Kent
JI, ("r",:< " ,
" " C • ~
" "
~ ,
~
1.
"
~ q
';-
Lake BoreJl
Newcastle
,I·f"/,Ir~ "",I Crctk
,
'"
~
.~
'.
'"
Lake
....... "
J;"\ r.;..".;.-
~/
r:r.
~ '-'~
'<
"'r,
"i;,.,...
Bellevue
(·".dC"·'··
,
""/ r'i>"l Tnil'.' ... ·
Lake Desire!
Lake Youllg
.... \'"
,
" C'
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Wildlife Heritage Points
& Bald Eagle Nesting Areas
Map 5-C
---" ... L._.i City Limits o PAA Bo undary
Wildlife Heritage Points
COMNAME
o BALD EAGLE
o GREAT BLUE HERON
• OSPREY o Bald Eagle Nest Area
D Black River/S pringbrook Creek Reaches
r-:J Cedar R iv er Reaches
D Green Ri ver Reaches
Lake Desire Rea c hes
D Lake Washington Reaches
D Ma y Creek Reach es
September 24, 2009
______ -======:::J1Miles
012
1: 50,000
6
N
File Name HICEOIPL ANNINGIGISIgls_projectslshorelme_mgmtyrogram
16SMP\rnxds \5C _ wildlife _ hentage yomts_
and_bofd_e agle _nestin9 _areas_11x 17_ 0909.mxd
Actual Data Source . City of Renton 2009,
WA Dept of Fisil & Wildlile , King County 2009 and ESA Adollson.
Th s map depicts tile apprOJ<l1l13le location and ex !" 11 of areas sub~i:ct to 1he SMI-'. 1 he a::tual extent 01 shoreline
ju risdiction r'cquircs a ~~lc·spcc:ifir valuiJtion to Inoentify the-Drdin~ly Ilig'l waler ~fle and Clny ClsS(lClatE.-d ... elland~
The l0C3ticn 01 tile 20 c's lirnil is from USGSI1998l Floodplam and fiooctwayeX':en l are based on FEMAmapplng
,nd Lower Glccn Rive r Mapping St ol dy :.>y King COUiIIy \'Vetland loca~olls al e appr:Jxlrnale and !::ased 011 existllig
CltytrcgionallnvcntOlle~: arJdltcnal ~I Hllds may be ,llesellt th",1 ale rlul shown on II Ie lIIaps and some 01 Hie aleas I
as wetlands rray not meelltle wet and erttena lhls map ma~es no cl aim as to vlhether weUa1cs are assOCIate::
.....,th the sholeline or not
RENTON AHf..AD OF "THE C\J~o
Cllmlllunit~ & F.u:lIlomi.:: D(..,\·dvpmcilt
Seattle
I
i
\
\.
\
"
\::.ry~/H'aJ11/\" JJ lllerlt'lIY
Tukwila
.,
(,"i'c
Mercer Island I
" ,
"~ .....
/
".
~.'
Lake UlashingroJl
o
Ken t
o
~
"-
"
~ o
" " 1;,.
h
(C.
0>,
~r.
'" ~ \
() '"<
;,.. Q
-F ~
'-I
Lake Borell
Newcastle
Lake
,
~
s:
~.
~
MUp/l'lt'{Jod Ow:/-;
Bellevue
-', '. '-,. ..0\
I \. (
q,/,
')
<;'1(
,C rro,o'; 1/({,i":>
d\ C'~
-::;~ ;:-1<"
~
" \0 <
Co
~'}-
J
Lake }'ollllg
(\",1 (n,ek
(0 1(l1" O~/I ClOd. rrtllll
Lake Desire!
LD·A
,,-'< ,
,~
c"
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Permits 2003-2009
Map 6
-.-.~
... " ", City L imits ._. D PM Boundary
_ Shoreline permits/Issued -2003-2009
_ Parks
D Pa rcels
September 17 ,2 009
o IMiles
2
1: 50 ,000
~
N
File Name .. HICEOIPLANNINGIGISlqisyrojects\shorefme_mgmt...Program
\6SMP'vnxdsI6_shoreftneyenmfs2003_2009_ 11x 17_0909 mxd
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson .
TIl ~ w3:>dc:.>:ClS t:le a;):JrO~nlale locabon 31d extent of a-eas $ubled tot1e SMP T1e 3ctua eXlc110f
shorene I .... sdcllon "CqJlfCS a ste-spedl(:\ alU:lIlOll 10 u'Qen t lfy t"le oro na-y h gh water I "Ie aOO
<II}' aSsooilt;:><1 weU.:m<1s lIe kJ.c:8l1orl of ttl", 20 Cis l.mllS from USGS \ 1998) F100dplan and lIoodway exten t
Ji' based on fl:MAnapP;1g V'ktlanj localons a"« a~ro)'\n-.JI'· an,l ba!;e(l un t!xlst:119 Cl l y'ft:()ona' mvent()(I"s
'-.ld'lu131 wet::mds 'TIay be pceS€1t t,al a"e 'lot $10\''" on the mtI:lS and Scr-l€ 01 the areas S10' .... n <IS
~'I'3lands rr ay not meet the weUand ct~enn
thiS map m<l~es nod;;im;]s towtld'lel wdlandsar ... associated w,L'1 the shoreline or not
u." Pi.1Uh,. AdmlrlilffolOf
Adriana A. .lohuan" GIS Anal,.;. S.,...ic ~
Lake Washingtoll
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Permits 2003-2009
Map 6-A
_'_1" L._.j
[-----~J --D
City Limits
PAA Bo undary
Shoreline permitsllssued -2003 -20 09
Pa rks
Pa rce ls
September 17 , 2009
_____ -=====::::JI Miles 6 o 0.3 0.6
1 18,000 N
Fife Name" .HICEDIPLANNfNG\G/SV;;isyrojectslshoreline_mgmt..JJrogram
16SMPlmxds\6A _shorelineyem)i(s2003_2009_Lk_"'\:aslJrngton _11 x 17_ 0909 mxeJ
Actual Data Source.' City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and E SA Adolfson.
lh s map depicts the aporO(11"Iate loca~on 81d extent 01 aceas subject to the SMP fhe actua extent 01
shorelAH~ ju-sdlCbon 'eqJlres a s~e specific \;<Juston to irdentify ti l e o~dinay high water ine and
illy assoaat",d wetlands 1 1-= ic-:::abon o f lhi?:;';:' cIs ImillS from LSGS (1998) rloodp,all1 al\d Ik>odvlay «xlerlt
;Je b;~ed on FFMA l,liJPPlng \~ie~imd 1(I(",.iltKl"lS are il~roxinklte ,met tmsed on e xisting otylreglOIl OJ 11lventOlles
a:1dltlOnal wetands may be ;:;rese1t t lat a-e not shovll1 on the :naps and S011e 0 1 the a-eas snovll1 as
W€tlands IT ay not meet me we~and cr l ena
TIlis Illap 1ll3"",S no dailll as 10 I'net1er wetlands are associa t",d wi th Ihe shor",hne or not
Lake Wasltingtoll
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Topography
Map 3
_._ . ., L._.i Ci ty Limits
D PAA Boundary
Hi llshade
Value
High : 10000
Low:O
D Black Rive r/Sp ringbrook C reek Reaches
r-Cedar Rive r Reaches
D Green Ri ver Reaches
Lake Desire Rea c hes
D Lake Washington Reaches
D May Creek Rea ches
Sep tembe r 15, 2009
______ -=======, Miles
o 1 2
1: 50 ,000
~
N
F,le Name HICED\PLANNINGIGIS'qlsJJrojecfs\shorelme_mgmfyrogram
\6SMP\m).dsI3_topograpJly_11x 17_ 0909.mxd
Actual Data Soutee : City o f Renton
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson .
'h, s rrae dC:J'ds L"le ap:Jrox o-)ate localo1 a..,d e.:tcnt of a-cas SUtl:CCI. to t'1C SMP Tne adua elCle'1t 01 .,1ore ,'Ie
,\Jnsd,ctIO'l fe<:j;.llfo?S a SIIE--sp,:-.:;fr. ~'aluanvn to n<lenlty th.;-ordmary hog' watef Ime and any associated w<:tands
Trle Ioo:",on 0: It"" :;oc~s Imll '5 1'"0'11 USGS (1996:1 Floodclan and loodway extent are cased on FEMAmaJpulg
aid LOWt-f G'el::11 Rr~el t.lap;:;Jlg SI.Jdy by King C UJ'lly 'Ait:tand 'O<:'jl·(I'I~ ill" !l>lPIUXI'IIdI l:: and based 0" eXlStmg
fJTy'mg on;i""cntOlC~ Jdd'1101al wcllands m<t,' :JC :JfC5ent t"1<1t (Ire not shown on Ihe naps and SO'f1e 01 the a-eas
;;IS YlCn;;lnds may nolrneet the .....::Haw1 (;rJt"na Th s ma~ I'lOIKes no ck1rm <IS 10 wh(:tr1er wetlands ae assooat€
with t1e shore 1e 0" not
Lake Wa'/lillgtOIl
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Water Bodies and Wetlands
Map 3-A
.--.-. L._J City Li mits
D PAA Boundary
Fl ood Control Facimy
t222) \o""o.etlands Invent ory o Black Riv e r/Sp ringbrook Cree k Reaches o Cedar Riv er Rea ches o Green R iv e r Reaches
Lake Des ire Rea ches o Lake Washington Reaches o May Creek Re aches
Se pte mbe r 15 , 2009 _______ -=======t Miles
0 1 2
1 50,000
6
N
File Name HICEo\PLANNINGIGISlglsyrojecls\shorelme_mgmlyrogram
\6SMPl.mxds\3A_f7ydrology_11x 17_0909.mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adollson.
ThIS map de r',J~ the a~~rc ,male ~G<'I: 0'\ ard e,\"nl 0' "",as .~bJecl 10 Ihe Stl P T~e ;;chJal exter I 01 shor .. r ''''
JW,SCIC:,01 requ ~e~ a Slle-5n~c"lC ',J' ~Jt,or Ie ,nee nllt)' I"~ Yd'''<lry hl~' ",ale r line a1d any a~sacoat~d ",,,,~lancs ~hi!
lo~a:I~'1 o· :h~ 2C ~r~ 'nn <S ff~rT' ~ISGS "90;8.:-FloOOpl",,) ",.,J fIo~j .... a)· ~"'efll a·e ~a~~~:m "Ef,.\A rTldPP'flg ,,,d
_ower Gr~en R,.,er Ma;;;;ng S:Jdy by K.ng County W""tl;;ndlce;;~'~n~ "re apprc"lmale an::! ~se(l en e"lshng CJ\y.'
re')lo~al ~ .... nV)rlH a1d'h~na · ... elland, rna, be pre~enl:rat are n~l.';(lWIl on the n'''p, and son-.e of the area, &hown
as weiand, may ~c I r1""CCllt e ,,-et~ nj C1te',a -~!s ma~ 'l1ake, ~) da'm as ·0 ....... ether .... -ellands are a,soc,a~ed 'Nth
1he ~ho'\'I'~e or n01
/'
..
•
-I
Se a tt le
~
'"
\
I
¢ ~ ~ ~'n
, :\
.. \ \,.
~ \
').
\)
'-,
Tu kw"i ~JI
,
---'
"
('
~
MercElr ~
U
Lake Washillgtoll
F'"77, i::0j
• ~ffc ~ \l
() .,
i ~
~ <>
~ o <),
K e n t •
?
~
T-
~~
~'-
-.
.. -;,.
%
~ >. ;.,.
'~
~ ~
~ ?:
~. ~
S ~
~ Q
~
0;;'
~
::'6.--'" ~~
" " ,0
z.. c>"
~
0
I
D
La~"ell
N e wcast l e "'
\~ ~
, "~, I~ ,
,
\l
/
\} /£1
. ~:_ (Xi ~
\I'I'I''''~ ~
\;,
~
~ < :,:.
~
<-
e1l
= 0
\~<::
'9'
""
~
Bell e vu e
~~
~
~. " "-
C
C;;"I ("e.,.; 1" I
/7 i"fr,~
~
'1-
<;'''0, -
ftb .-rift '~'5;)
"'<"j>
8. .-:;
r;
'";.
~ ,
'1
,
,
~ '~ "
~. ~";.;--Lake Desirel
p
"
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Water Bodies and Wetlands
Map 3-A
D Bl ack River/Sp ri ngbrook Creek Reaches ~ Duwamish R iver o C eda r River Reaches I7mZl East Lake Washin gton -Bellevue South
D Green R iver Reaches ITIIIIll East Lake washin gton -Rento n
Lake Desire Reaches !Z2J Lower Cedar River
D Lake Was hington Reaches mIIll lower Green Rive r -East
D May Creek Reaches ~ lower G reen Rive r -West
L.J Ci ty Limits cz:a May Creek o PM Bou n dary c:J Mercer Is land
Flood Control Facility ~ M iddle Green River
c=J Soes Creek ~ VVetiands In ventory
Hydrobasin Name
BASIN_NAME
I I Black River
~ Water -lake Washington
~ Wate r -Lake Young
~ \Nest Lake Samma mish
I==:J Coal Creek (Cedar) ~ West Lake Wash in gton -Seattle South
Septembe r 24 , 2009
_______ -========1 Mi les
012
1 50,000
6
N
File Name: :HICEDIPLANNING\GJSIgis.JJrojecrs\shoreline_mgmCprogram
\6SMP\mxds\3A_hydro{ogL 11x17 _0909,mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009.
King County 20 09 and ESA Adolfson.
-hiS m:lp dep,ct~ Ire :I~prc~lrrJ:e Icc<!t,on and e~len: or areas ",cJe~t t~ :ne S\1P Th;: actual e;'len~ of ,~'J'e Ire
unsolcl,or --equ,'es ~ s.te zpeo"c v~ ~Jt_" to Ifl::lerl:r'y :he 'Jrd ra)' h'~~ wa~er .me and ar~ aSSQcL3~ed wei a~js Tne
loca"on of the 2~ ds l,mlllS f,,,,r JSCS ,:trySS: FloClCp a.n anc (c,od,.-ay C'1cnl a'c b,;;,;ec on FEMA mapp,ng and
Lv",er G· ... :n R ,,,,r r.t~rp'ng $ILd, ~y kong '.Ounty W&ll~nd 1o::~lIOn~ ilr~ dPPro~ male d,.,d basej on eXIst 19 c,ty!
reglon~lln',-e1Icr>e~ ;lOci t:on~1 well~~o5 m~y te ~r~sent Ih3tar;: net ~rO''''n on th~ m",p~ ",nd ~')'''~ ,,11~ ~rea5 stO'''T1
as .... ~I J'l1s n~v ~ot rleet :~e · ... el "nd c"~~n~ ThiS m3:'> m"l<es.,o dalm 35 t'J ","emer w;;.tl(;nd~ 3re assoe,,,,te<;l wilh
'~e sho""I.,,, o' rot
\\
\\\ ,\'\ '~
'\' \." I', ~ . ')' ., \
-'
, ". .~.
,
<' >' ,,,-"-:<-:
'" J-
p:'~:'-]/{,:)
~';':
L9wer Green River -West'
M;?tcer Island
f"
?
Lllke Wa .\"h ingfon
Water· Lake Washington
5005 Cree rJ:1J'
cV
/>//; ",,,",//,/
/,///""
.//
///
'-""
Coal Creek (Cedar)
" ";:..
i
'" " ~
9 t
/ ,/'./'
.11,' y;/" .... \v/, \ /""/~"'; />/>~// / >' .... ,/ ,/«// ,/ ," ./ / './ , ././
//;;,/ /0///
, "/
>
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Topography, Water Bod ies and Wetlands
Map 3-B
_.-L._J City Limits o PM Boundary
~ W::!tlands In ventory
Hillshade
Value
High :500
Low :O o Black River/Springbrook Creek Rea c hes
Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Rea ches
D Lake Wash ington Reaches
D May Creek Reaches
Sep te mbe r 15, 2009
______ .. ======::Jt Mi les
012 ~
1: 50 ,000 N
File Name. ,I-fICEO IP LANNINGIGIS\glsyroJects\shorelme_mgmtyrogram
\6SMPvnxds\3B_iopographLwaler _bodles_ and_ wetlands_11x 17_0909 mxd
Actual Data So urce: City of Renton 2009 ,
King Counly 2009 and ESA Adolfson .
-h!$ map :I'·P.CI~ t-,~ ~pp~~rrJ:~ I:,ca",o", ar~ t',le-.::.1 ~'t'a5 5;.1:1 ... ~t to tr,e ~ \,P TI,t a~tuB ".I .. nt,,' sh)ft'~"t'
IJ"'SOIC: ,m 't'QuntS /I 5 t,,·s:>o<~( .• ~IU~:'" •. ,rOf.rhl)' the :;ord,oar, ., JIl .... ~tt'· I '''' ;lr,c ~n1I1u'()(''''I''<l _ll.;nc~
T">iJ o-;.'.;)n oft~<l 2J ,:'. "roll~ !rYl1 .JSGS '~<jg, "Iooepla,r an:! ~od"'.1i e~~rt are I),)se:l on FEtI;. rraopo~g
.. , <:I to ..... , :;'''''' ? r.e-'J;or :>-'1'.1 St~:ll' !,)" V"'l; C'Jur '1 '.\'e: a-.d oc;;°oo"s Me ao:)r;l/lf'l'laoe and oased en e/,s~,'g
rJly'fe:J :ma n.e":one~ a':l1lCJla ... e!l.1J1'ls ITa, ~e '~se,: :.aI3'e "0\ ~tcwr on I~e 1T'8:)$ arQ ~e"'e ol!~ a'ea5
~10\"'~ 3S we: a1ds rlil) ,';1 '1~e: :"e w<c>II,W'1 ~'~~'13 Th. , ... p " 'I<~, no cla,'1',,~ to w'H'lt", "'t'lawh 8'" a!>&oc-a: .. >1
....... Pl aw;t., Admin istrator
GIS """I.,. ... ~
:;lIl1lh ~ lh~,el,e cr n,,:
Lake Washington
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Landslide, Erosion and Seismic Hazard Areas
Map 4-A
D Black Rive r/Springbrook Creek Reaches
Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Reaches o Lake Washington Reaches
D May Creek Reaches
Landslide Area
Severity
~ VERY_HIGH
_HIGH
L MODERATE
_ UNCLASSIFED
Erosion
Severity
_HIGH
Seismic Hazard _._ .... L._.i City Limits
D PM Boundary
September 15, 2009 6
______ -=======::::JIMiles
012
1 50 ,000 N
File Name.· HICEOIPLANNINGIGfSlgisyrojects\shoreline_mgmcprogram
\6S MPvnxdsl4A _landslide _ e rosion_ and _ seisrmc_hazarcL areas_ 11 x 17_0909. mxd
Actua/ Data Source: City 01 Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/lson .
TIlis ma>J deIJlcls t'le a~plOximale loca~ol1 and extent 01 areas sU~Jecl tu Ule SMP The ac.1ual extent of sho'elfic
jc!risdlcll0n fe<]ulfes a s te·sp':'-QflC 1I"luahOll to Indcnlrty the ordinary high ",,,Ier line and any assOCIated W€Uands
The iocalo'l of the 20 cf~ 111"'11115 from USGS (19<'.J8) R()()(1pi;::l1l1 .1nd floodwoy extent are baso1 on FEJ.\A, m'llp.ng
<1111 LO\'1er Green RIVe' Mappng Study ~1' King Co.Jnly I,~.!enand locatl(f1S are apprOXimate and based on eXls~ng
City/region" irNentones, additona wetlands 1"'1<Jj1 be present that are not show" on the 1-.apS and some 01 the areas I
as wetlaflds may nol meet the w"'! and cntena rlls map makes no cLaim as to whether wellands a-e assoaalo2{j
wt'l the S"lorellnp. or 101
Admln islr(Ilor
ellevue
Lake Washington
Seattle
'''"
'''t'''erw(~r
,-~
i'
Ken t
Lake Youllg
'....... :.J'" , I Panther LaAe
,
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Surficial Geology
Map 4-8
B-atyLmilS
I PAA8oll1dary
- -stack RM!rl Springbfoo4< Cree~ Reaches
Cedar RIVer Readies
C Green R ,v'!r Re~,n.e5
~ke Desire Reaches c:::J Lake wasnngton RUd'le5
c:::J May Cre e ~ Rea ches
Uthology _ Geologoy Units -Ages
GUNIT_ TXT, AGE1, LlTHOlOGY1
D Ec(2pg), •
D Ec(2\'"), Eocene , conbneniai secrnentary deposrts or rocks
D Ec(2lJ , Eocene con l,nerul sedmenlary deposits or rodo:s
D~n.
D "'<2'. o Ew.;:(I), Eocene wk;.,.d n tic deposits or rocks
D MJc(2). . o OEm, Olgocene-Eoce,.... ma'lI'I e sed men\;lry rods
D oen,
D OEva,
D Oian, Oligocene, I1 truaiYe andesite
D Oa , Quatemary. alkMum
DOl>.
Do<· o Of i-kJIoce ne an,feal m IIlcklcmg modJied land
D Oga. Pleis tocene, advarn::e conbnental gl&oal oulWash, fraser.age
D ago ·
D ao ..
D ago . PleIStocene . eon ln el'lt.:ll gl aaal outwash, Fl3ser-age
W Ogp{S),
Da" .. D Ogpe, Pleistocene , continen1il 1 gl.ilQlI1 dnft, pre. Frase r, and nongLaeial depoSIts
D Qgt, Pleistocene , contnel'ltal glacial t., Fraser-age
D Ogu ,
D O!s HoIoeene-Pleisloc_ ITIiss-wastJngdeposils. mos l r l a"l(ls~es
D Cp, I-b looene , put a:oous
D -..(rVVater
September 16, 2009
_______ C========;'Miles
2 a 1 ~
1: 50 ,00 0 N
File Name H\CED\PLANNlNG\GfS\gisyrOjecfs\shorefine_lngmtyrogram
16SMPvnAdsI4B_surficial_geology _11x 17 _0909.mxd
Actuat Data So urce :
King County 2009 and ESA Adotfson .
-'Ii!> m;m (Ie:; "'s the ap:;tI»)(mate loca~on and extent 01 areas suoled \0 the St"P: he actua exte1t of 5horclnc
.on!>dlctIO'l reQ~IJ"'S a slle-spe<Jfic va-.J<lbon t.) rl(i<:nldy lilt: ordillary h igh water hn", and any aSSOCIa ted w.?tands
~ne Iocillon of the 20r:15 1m 115 from USGS! t<h8) noodplan and lbodv/ay ext",nt are based 00 FEMAmalplng
31d Low.:-r Gr,;.en R1v",r t.la::png Stud)' ny K,19 Co.mly VVe~<ln.j il)<',<1 \'0'15 ;1Tt! a;:pU)(ltIldte dlKf bast:<! 011 <:x sl,toJ
::.r)"~g onal ~eflto~es add lO'la wetlands rT<f)' be presen t t1al are not 5h0\.'In on t1C rups and SiYfTC OII'1C <l"C<lS
as "'''''~':lIlds may riot Il",*! tho:-waa1d C1t",ra This map mall",s no cia,", as to .... octler l'l'Cftands i.H: associat;""1
w(h the s'lore! 'Ie 0' not
ClEn
Lake Wa.,/rillgloll wtr
" ~ ...
l D
~
\
VC)\j
.~
\ ~a _
~o \)
O'erk
Mople>l'·ood • ~J
~~"' ". ."
~ o
Ec(2r)
~ coQ/ ~f
t J
~
<J
~
t o
~
of)
~t
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
Map 4-C
_._ ...
," ." City Limits _._. o PM Boundary
D Black River/Springbrook Creek Reaches
C Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
Lake Desire Rea ches
D Lake Washington Rea ches
D May Creek Reaches
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
CAT CODE
LJ 1 _2
0 3
Wria Boundary
_ Du wam ish-Green
LJ Cedar-Sammamish
September 16 , 2009 _______ -========:' Miles
2 o 1 6
1: 50,000 N
Fife Name ,H\CEO\PLANNINGIGISlglsyrojecfs\shoreline_mgmtyrogram
\6SMPlmxdsI4C_critlcal_aqutfler_recl7arge_area_ 11x1 Z-0909. mxd
Data Source : City 01 Renton 2009,
J<jng County 2009 and ESA Ado/lson .
Tnls rra~ dep CIS the ilpDroxlmalc locm on Clnn C)(fent of Clrc<l5 sutJic(~ lothe SMP -118 actua eKt8"li 01 "tloreli'\8
JUrisdiction r€'q.lires a SII02-Spt-aflC valuabon to ndenlrty tile ()(d lnal)' 111gn water hne and any assoaaled wetands
lhe 1ocallon oi the 2U cis 1m II IS tram USGS': lYUl:l) I-ioodplarn and tlooct'.o'lay extenl are base<j on FEMArr.~plng
and Lower Gre.=n River Mapp~lg Siudy by KI1g Ccu11y Wd,and loca t lCf1S are approxima te and based on eX lstng
CJtyl-cg:ona IrlVcn tOlCS additional wetl<lnd;; rr~' tiC :lIc'ienl tll(l t (lre nut stlOWfl un tile r'1ilps an d some of the areas
as wetlands rnay nol meet the w;.:tland c:ilcrin Th 's 11;;)j) 1 1.jk",~ 110 claim as 10 I'/hettler wellands a" associated l
w'llh l'1e Shore 'ne or not
/
,
\
" Seattle
'ihiwlz.JJiish Waterway
i ,
\ \Mercer
'.
\ ..... ,,-.
'-
"-,
Lake JJlasllinglol1
a
~
~ ..
/'. D a
Ke n t
I s I and
./
/
,.
/
I
s = ~
~ 0 •
" ';:l'i.-
;;-,
>;.
~
C'.
."
'"
\ ,
l
,
'--
Lake Borell
Newcast l e
,
'.: t
~ :.;
s:
~.
Q
>-
t(1l',k
~l (lpl~'~O()'
\
"
l -< -
'-F--l Bel I e vue
'~-...... i
L,~ .....
'2
'-
.0
9
"-
~ l ain", .. IJ 1",,,,,,,,>
Lake Ueslfel
LD-A
\ \.
Lake Young
\
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
0
Black River, G reen River,
Springbrook Creek Floodplain
Map 4-F
_._-..
L" ", City Limits "-" o PAA B ou n dary
~ Wetl an d s In ventory
D LG FEM A fl oodway
~ Fl oo dway
D LG FE MA floodp la in
September 16, 2009
l M il es
0.3 0.6
1: 18,000
6
N
File Name. :H\CED\PLAN NlNG \G IS\gis yrojecrs\shorc fine _mgmtyrogram
\6SMPlrnxds\4F_green_({ver_floodpi'a//)_11x 17_0909 mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
n1S Ira;) dep'C\s the ap:Jroxll1ale locaton a1d extei'\ of areas sU~Jecl to the SMP The actual exte1t 01 s'loreline
JUlisdictio'l r",q.Jil<:s d ~;it",-spe<'ik v:JIIl'-ltiun tu ;Ildeillify th", ()rd~la:y hgh ~"'LlI"'1 lille dud allY aSS(>ClalL--d ' .... ellands
nle bcallon of lilt.' 20 cis Ilnlls from USGS ': 199B) Floodpkm cmd floodw<.JY e xtent die b<Jst.-d 0 11 FEMAlll~pl llg
Clld LOYler Green River Ma::png Study b)' K.1g Ccunly Wenan::1locatloos are apvoxnnale and based 01 eXls~n'J
clty"eQ'ollai Illvenlo1es add \;ol1a: wetlands IT 3).' be present mal are not shown on the rnaps and some of the areas
as we~ands lna'f not nl€'el the wella1d c1ter a This map n-.ako?s no ,:!alm as to whetho?r wo?tlands ct'o? assooalo?d l
1N~t) the snmelille or :101
"' • ~
" M
~
.-
~
~
~
~
'J, (,
':.i
.
/
/
"' • > « = " ~
(j '" • > «
= i15
~
'3
S 144th SI
'" • ~ = '" '"
"' • ~
=
S 1501h 51 "';,<t;
~, ~ S 152nd SI
% ~ {<
aCildJl"flf/
dO'
'is
'" ..
v~f::J~ rWY
\j
Tukwi l a
'" • > « = a;
'"
'" ~
'" ;;; ,:;
m
N
il.
'" ~
'"
'" • ~ = ii:
Tuk , .... i!a Pkwy
~
~
:2
'"
/ ,./ / .
'IJ.
" " ~ ,"
Baker Blvd
Strander Blvd
Tr eck Dr r-->//·' '~ --/~/:>/> S168~St ~~~ '1 w
'" ro Q Q.
~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~ c « .s
Mink ler Blvd
Midl and Dr
"' \ Saxo n Dr
'. %:
! Trilalld Dr
Segale Pa r k 0 Dr
C5
'" J" ~'~ to ( • PJ'R
/ ;::!:l Q~ .
-" i j I !f '" f ent .§. TOdd BlVd .z E , &
rr l.~ .f., z
" 0
~
" '" I " I f bI
G g' '~J
{~
~~
, ~
~
'" " >
'"
sw su nse t Blvd
sw 5th Ct \{o,-_ r...:,'S-~ -ro S~ "Ji. ~
~ ~
'" ~.
if'
~ if'""
S 7th 5t
~ « sw 7th St
]
3: 3: "' '" • ~ • >
"
«
l ~
E
0 = S'l'J \O\'n S\
~
s'l'J Grao~ 'l'Ja~
S G(ao,/~a'l
S~ \2" $\ SW \,\\\st
S 4th St
S 6t~ St
if'
i,';
Z <;>
'" ~
<P
S 5l~ S.
A
~. . ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o/v
S Ren ton Village PI
"' 34th St • ~ c
.~
" '" • > «
c
0
E • '"
S 9th
" SlOth
~
~.
%
<)
'"
1-405 Fwy
'!'
:/ \.405 ~amp S \4\'(\S\
~ -3:
;,.. ~ «
§
15 , '" . '. i ~~ ,.
~~\'r',A:"=---~'~I !MI'
G ~~ hY All JUl.;) v..t!....LI!)Iiil-'x""2:JA'r..{/ /A l1 Y /1{
I\" })f /~~~~/'..I",,_~~L~·). tru. VlX'"\,"..-"J,
S 15t h SI
'" • ~
~ u ~ = • = '"
a • <
~.
:,-
~.
'"
S 17th SI
S 19t h St
S21st SI
S 2,rd St
S 25th 5t
S"
6/-1)51
S S 1.1\\\ S\ <'~
t
~
~'%
~
<P
=. oft
::: 1)
::.,S -~ -. ~ ~g
S 1.'2.nO'
S2
'a
.,;.
'" " ~
if' ~-9-
'0 1..~\\\ C\
'" ~
'I
S 31slS1 0:2
if'
S 32nd SI
S 181;"
SI J
~
'" ~
5 271h St
" ';!,
~ ..,,,
'0'
w
'" ~
~ = "' '"
S 35th 51
123 ",
~
"" if
fl
'" 'g.
" ~
~
~
'<
J;
Q
w
"' EC
'0 '1!,
'5\
~
sc;o~~~o. of' ~~
>-~
= "' '"
ct
io
'" m
SE 181st'S!
l,-
W-/A-/A v ,>a\\~r--~~~/ /\ ('MI, i I S 45th PI e 1-st \8,ro'Pt
~ i
1 ~#J/J", ~~VKj'% '" ~
-/f ~ ~
'-~~~/,', '" " : ~ ~
I'
S 471h 51
So 185 th PI
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Shoreline Planning Area
Map 1
_._ . ..,
i_o_.i City Limits
D PAA Boundary
~ Shoreline Jurisdiction
:!) Data Points 20cfs
Wria Boundary
WRIA_NM
_ Duwamish-Green
D Cedar -Sammamish
September 24 , 2009
________ c:======~I M i le s
2 a
1: 50 ,000
~
N
File Name . H\CEOIPLANNING \GIS \gisyroJecfs \Shoreline_m gmtyrogram
\6SMP\mxdsI 1_shorelme_plan nmg_area_ 11 :.:17_090 9 m xd
Actua/ Data Sou rc e: City of Re nton 2009 .
King County 2009 and ESA Ado/IsD n .
-'1 S ('lap d~p'(;.\$ t"lli!IIp:::'on'lal", 'ocal,O., iinJ ~~I~.,t o· .n.a~ Sc.t'lli!CI 10 the :'1/::> Th; aCl.Jal exltn! 0( S'l(;f;:!l,ne
j ... ',sCloctcr re1wre' a s :e-~(Ie;.f c '"al .. at 0'1 10 l'ICIel".'ty t he Of~lra/)' ";1-w::!:C' ,"c 3!'d ;,.. ... , ::!5~o:.a ~e= ..... el 2ndS
ThA Ot.O'I h(l(l ;'lIThe Xl ds ,(1".: s "C'I"' l.s(;S '1!'1i/b) FIO:lCpa n ard 100:0'.3 \' e,:,,'11 are :;:l!!Se\!::;r :::E\1; "Tl 2 ::::::":;!
an:llo.'-e' {;re(;n R vel Ua~;;onc :':;.10,. by .. "Q :our·'t '/""'~''''-':lI:;:.;a[I::A' S J"" 3;:VO. "',3!" ;Jrd ~ase d::" e . st,rg
CI ty '"gon,,1 '''''"'W''I!!. "dd,:,::r.., we!l,lfIOS -nay ba p'I!~",r: t~;l' 'I 'e ..,::~ S·"'''''''''' on 1"& 'lii;lS ;;rd SOmi! ::!ne areas
$"'00"," as · ... ":lWl::n ,..,ay "10: 'l'"e! t"'" , ... H ,nd!;( :,,"8 Th,~ map f'Hl ke$ 'l:;' Cla,n-;l~ 10 '"~l'el'Ter "'iet ~ands a re ilss oc,ated
,.,,:1' :'1C srto-eh"e 0 ' not
Se a l II e
Tukwila
-------1
L _________ ,
~.--.
i
~.;..
(
Me rc e r I s l and
Lake Wa s hin gto n
,,, . .,.
'1:'\\\\ L.
Ken t
• lie ~ ,
0
~
':,
\
~
...
a
---..
~ Lak ~re "
N e wcas tl e -"R
\\ .. ~3
,
~
~
r O
-)
0/
~ B ellev ue
~; ;b'D ...... l);'
J
~
"~
'rO
, f~1 ~~;
/P::1'J,.,
~ ~)
6'-? .. ~ ~ ~~! I
~
a
~~ol rJ
I 1.-0_ :-o_o_i
"01 i.._
o
_
~@
~
Lake Youllg
\
'\.
o
(> ~l
1'"
)j ,
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Lake Washington & May Creek Reaches
Map 1-A
_._ ... L._.i City Li mits
[ 1 PM Boundary
~ Wetlands Inventory
----1 Cedar River Reac hes o La ke Was hi n gton Reaches o May Creek Reaches
September 24 , 2009
_____ c::===:::::J1 Mil es
o 0.3 0.6
1: 18 ,000
6
N
Fife Name HICED\PLANNINGIGISIgisyroje-;ts\Shorelme_mgmcprogram
\6SMPlmxds\ 1A_shoreline ""'planning_area _fk('18 _may_creek 11 x 1 7_0909 .mxd
Actual Data Source: City of Renton 2009,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
T'1 S. 'TI.lp 'K~,":I·'1 1<· il::::V'C>U'1a:<\ I<>:a:,:n iI'ld (<If">! d ;y"a~ ~.,i'>t"~t to t'>{' St.·~ The ~::".,al (01':'l1 of """"',""flE'
f..f ~1 n,1)f' ren,me!.a :S.1:e-~p2C1r.c , .. luall~n m rdil'llll, l'le ~"~ "a~, ~,~ """I&r I<~~ an~ ~'l~ olSSOC'~I,;.c: "ii' a"o::!~ -h~
k>t:ato".-"r I.,., 20 ~'$ "".\,~ "'~rl LSGS . g.,;,e'· F 001'>""'" ","I~ 1100;1 ..... 4) e <I .. ·,' o..@ :;.~~:l 0'" FEr ... '; ""'pp,nOl and
.O· ... 'e( (,reen ~'ver \l<lPPln;j 3:,,:1)' t~ '-mil CO'.,rty ,\et;ar::! 1(I~3":>rs I!'~ app-e"f"\ale a'1~ :lasec ,m e~:~l ~>I <;;;1\'
LQ ':'1011 '1'i!ntO(,e ~ ad:!,t,ona W{:!lolr:!~ 'lloly b", prC$c"~ lha~ are ret Sr.o",1 01'\ the "",oos and s~rr" cf t'le a·eas sh:y",,'n
a~ ,.,'Ct:ancs 'l"kl)' rot 'l1('ct tho w~l.ln:! cn:N a T~'$ Ma~ mi.heS n{ ::l~,r\ ~~ Ie '''''~i:IM'r ",c!lar js arc a$s.cclaled wlln
tht! 1h:n~h'':! or n~l
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Cedar River Reaches
Map 1-8
-.-.~ L._.i City Limits o PAABoun dary
~ Wetlands In ven tory
!) Data Points 20cfs
D Cedar River Reaches
D Lake Washington Reaches
D May Creek Reaches
September 24 , 2009 _____ ======::::11 Miles
° 0,3 0,6
1: 24 ,000
D
N
File Name . H1CEO\PLANN1NGIGIS\gisyrojects\Shorelme _ mgmt_program
\5SMPlmilds\ 1 B_shoreliney,'annmg_are8_ceda'_rlver_11 x 17 _0909.mxd
Actual Data Source : City of Renton 2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
This map depICts I,e ,mpffix..mate IocClhon ilnd eJ(It:lll 0' ,lIeas subJ~ to the SMP nit' 3(.1U31 exlem of sh[)feli"ll!
Juri5(j,cllon reql,llreo;. a S.11!-SpeG,f;C valua:.on to ,ndent,1y the ordinary JlIg'l waler ~ne anc: any dssocla:ed vJE-llants
r,e Ioc."l:ioo of the 20 cfs 'mit is {,Olll USGS f 1998). Fluodp,aill arK! floWWdY ext",r:l dl'" bdst:d on FEt.1.4.lI1dPp.ny
ane Low~r Green R ve t tAap;>Ing Study t>y Kmg COUl)ty V~:land loca')ons are ap::lrox 11ale and base:1 on exist.ng
o:y:re;;Jloral ,nlfE,nlOfeS addbooaIO'.i?tlands may be presenl thai ale not shoo.vo en tne maps ana soma of 11E' a'eas
as \Yellands "TIay 'lei ''leel In!:: weiland Or.efl3 TillS nul' n-ak!::s no d:mTI 3S to \....,elherwe~and5 ale a:;:;ocla!e'dl
WI"I the Shc>rehne Of nOI
AJ.,. Pi.IX '" ..... d"'rn l .. 'ala r
..... d 'lona ...... lohman, G-lS """IYl k ~rvt Wl'
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Black River, Springbrook Creek
& Green River Reaches
Map 1-C
--_ ... L._.i City Limits
D PAA Boundary
~ Wetlands Inventory
D Black River/S pringbrook Creek Reaches
CJ Cedar River Reaches
D Green River Reaches
September 24 , 2009
_____ -======1 Miles 6
N
0 .3 0 .6
1: 18 ,000
o
Fife Name' 'HICE D\PLANN ING\G ISlglsYfo)ects\slioreline _ mgmLprogram
16SMP\mxds \ 1 C _ shoreline ""pfanning_ area_
black_river .... splingbrook_creek_9reen_river_ 11 x17 _0909 mxd
Actual Data Source .' City 01 Renton 2009 ,
King County 2009 and ESA Adollson .
Thi~ map depicts tile approximate location and ex tent of areas subJee. to the SMP. The actual ex1ent of shoreline
JL.nsd,cjIOI1 requires a Slte·spe~ffic valuation 10 Indent f)' the ordinary hlgn water hne ane any <is50c .ated wcHands
r,,, k.>'.:<ltim of th" 20 cts ~Illit is from USGS (1998). F locdlJ'ain and floodway extent are based on F E ~M mapping
and ~o ... er Green River MapPing Study by King County ',',t:land loc<I,lOns <lrc ilpprox T1ilte ilnd b<lscd on cxisting
o:yireglonallnwrtorles: addlbcnal l'letlands may be present thilt are not shown on the milps and some of the areil5 I
as wetlands may not -nee! the wetland cr~e!la This map makes no daliTI ~s to l¥helher we~ands arB assOCIate::i
w t1 the shoreline or not
Acmin l1.Ifa lor
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Lake Desire Reaches
Map 1-0
_"_I"
I' I' City Limits _._. o PAA Boundary
~ Wetlands In ven tory
Lake Desire Reaches
September 24, 2009
____ ====.Miles
o 0.125 0.25
1: 10,000
~
N
File Name . HICED\PLANNlNGIGIS\gisyrojecrs\shoreline_mgmCpmgram
16SMP\mxds\1 D_shorelineylannm9_area_'k_desire_11x 17 _0909.mxd
Actual Data Source: City 01 Renton 2009 .
King County 2009 and ESA Adollson .
nlis map depicts 11e a:lproXllllate ;ocalion and exlent o' areas subject l:l Ihe S~AP _ The actua l extent of sh0feline
lurisd iction requires 3 site-specific valU3tl0l1 to indent f)' the ordinary high water line and any <Is50c Lated ..... -e l lands
T18 loru:ion of the 20 ::fs limit is I~om USGS 11998). Floodplain and fbocjy.,tay extent are baS€d on FE tM lIlappin~
and Lower Green R vcr Mapping Study by King County Wetland locauons arc ap:Jroximatc and bas<:d on existing
atylre;;lorallnventores. addl~ona l wetlands may b€ present Iral are not shCM'l'l en the maps and soma of the areas
as l'letlands 'nay not meet the wet land criteria . This map makes no ::Ialm as to l'lhelher we!Jands are sssx;atedl
wIn 1r1e shoreline or not
Shady Lake
Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Renton
Regional Context
Map 2
_.-L._J C rt y Li m its
D PAA Boundary
Wria Boundary
WRIA_NM
D Duwamish -Green
D Cedar-Sammam ish
September 24 , 2009
o 'Mi~s
2
1: 55,000
~
N
File Name: :HI CEO\PLANNING IGIS\gisyrojectslshoreline_mgmCprogram
\6SMPlrnxdsl2_regiona/_contexC 11x17 _0909.mxd
Actual Data Source. City of Renton 2009.
King County 2009 and ESA Adolfson.
! hiS map deolc ts ("IE' a::tprCXlmata ocallo:l and extent 01 areas %!)Jectlo the-SMP, Tne actual extent 01 sho'ell r.e
jurisdldlon re'::UI I P-S a ~ile-spe~rfic valu<lliorl tD irldentlfy the mdinilry high water bne and <lny ,lssociill(:q wet~lndS
The location of the 20 os lilT'll IS from USGS (\998). Floodplain and flooc!y·,.ay extent are baS€d on f-EMo;mapping
ami LOWi!1 Green River Mapping SUdy by Kiflg County. V~lland locations ale approx mate "nd b,lsej (HI el<istmg
~!yl!e!Jl{Jlla ·1I1t:ll!olle~ add 11e na 'Het arld~ may be present ttl'it ~re not stmwn Oil Hl~) rnap~ and !;~)lfle Df the area~
as "'I€tands may !'lot 'neet t"le wet and crrcena [hiS map ma~es no clsim as to whether 'Netlands are
I'It'l the shoreline or not
JVaterway
Lake Wa,~/';llgtoll
a
~
~
C
:l
" ~
~ Lake Borell
Panther LlIke
~
Lllke YOllng
/'
V ,~/
}J
{
~
\
./
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REVIEW DRAFT
March 2010
Prepared by
Parametrix
411108th Avenue N E, Suite 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004-5571
T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363
www.parametrix.com
and
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
www.shoreline.rentonwa.gov
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010)
DLO.-O;Y{
[J4 IO~02~
r
SECTION I.
SECTION II.
SECTION III .
Findings of Fact.
Amendment to the Renton Comprehensive Plan to add a new element
Shoreline Management
Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 3 ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS Section RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline
Master Program Regulations
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS
A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS
B. REGULATED SHORELINES
C. SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICTS
1. Natural Environment Overlay District
2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District
3. Single-Family Residential Overlay District
4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District
5. Shoreline High Intensity-Isolated Lands Overlay District
6. Aquatic Overlay District
D. General Development Standards
1. Applicability
2. Environmental Effects
3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects
4. Public Access
5. Facility Arrangement-Shoreline Orientation
6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
7. Standards for Density, Setbacks and Height
8. Private Property Rights
9. Treaty Rights
E. USE REGULATIONS
1. Shoreline Use Table
2. Aquaculture
3. Boat Launching Ramps
4. Commercial and Community Services
5. Industrial Use
6. Marinas
7. Piers and Docks
8. Recreation
9. Residential Development
10. Transportation
11. Utilities
F. SHORELINE MODIFICATION
1. Vegetation Conservation
2. Landfill and Excavation
3. Dredging
4. Shoreline Stabilization
5. Flood Control
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 2
6. Stream Alteration
SECTION IV. Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 8 PERMITS-GENERAL
AND APPEALS Section 4-8-120C Submittal Requirements for Land Use
Applications
SECTION V.
SECTION VI.
SECTION VII.
Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 8 PERMITS-GENERAL
AND APPEALS Section 4-8-120D Definitions of terms used in submittal
requirements for Building, Planning, and Public Works permit
applications
Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 9 PERMITS-SPECIFIC
Section RMC 4-9-190 Shoreline Permits
Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 10 LEGAL
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, USES, AND LOTS Section 4-10-095
Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures
and Sites
SECTION VIII. Amendment of Renton Municipal Code Chapter 11 DEFINITIONS to add
the definitions specific to the Shoreline Master Program
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 3
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58) by a vote of the people in 1971; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies of
the shoreline management act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the Growth
Management Act without creating an order of priority among the fourteen goals and the goals
and policies of a shoreline master program for a city shall be considered an element of the city's
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) provides a timetable that
requires Renton to amend its master program by December 1, 2009, and the City received a
grant from the Department of Ecology to support the update process; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a comprehensive public involvement plan that provided
widespread public notice and held periodic public workshop meetings and Public Hearings with
the Planning Commission between Spring 2008 and Spring 2010 and City Council Meetings in
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document and
distributed it for agency and public review and compiled and responded to comments and
issued a Final document in March 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a series of Technical Memoranda on specific topics relevant
to the Shoreline Master Plan and held a series of public workshops on the documents and
compiled and responded to comments; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Shoreline Master Program in July 2009 and considered
and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised Draft
Shoreline Master Program in October 2009, December 2009, February 2010, and March 2010;
and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis in July 2009 and
considered and responded to government agency and public comments and prepared a Revised
Cumulative Impacts Analysis in October 2009 and a Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis in March
2010; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft Restoration Plan in October 2009 and considered and
responded to government agency and public comments and issued a Final Restoration Plan in
March 2010; and
WHEREAS, the documents considered by the City in its Shoreline Master Program
regulation update are listed in Section III; and
WHEREAS, such modification and integration ofthe Shoreline Master Program is in the
best interest ofthe public;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I The above findings are true and correct in all respects. This ordinance is
also supported by the following conclusions based on the adopted findings.
1) The City followed its established public participation program;
2) Revisions are needed to the Shoreline Master Program;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 4
3) All development standards within these sections were reviewed and found to be in
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act; and
4) The amendments to the Shoreline Master Program in this Ordinance are intended to
provide for the management of the shorelines of the City by planning for and fostering all
reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of these
shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the
navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates
protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife,
and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
5) The Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Shoreline Master Program in this Ordinance
demonstrates that the program will make a positive contribution to maintaining and enhancing
the ecological functions of the shoreline in Renton, particularly in reference to near-shore
habitat that is critical for an early life-cycle stage for Chinook salmon that are currently listed
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
6) Projects vested to the regulations and development standards prior to the adoption of
this Ordinance are not subject to these standards unless substantial modification ofthe project
is proposed which result in new application for development ofthe project.
SECTION II. The Renton Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to provide a new
Element: Shoreline Management
Shoreline Management Goals
The City adopts the goals and principles of the Shoreline Management Act as provided in RCW
90.58.020 and as particularly relevant to Renton.
1. The shoreline jurisdiction is one of the most valuable and fragile of the City's
natural resources. There is appropriate concern throughout the watershed and
the greater Puget Sound Region relating to the utilization, protection,
restoration, and preservation of the shoreline jurisdiction.
2. Ever increasing pressures of additional use are being placed on the shoreline
jurisdiction, which in turn necessitates increased coordination in its management
and development.
3. Much of the shoreline jurisdiction and the uplands adjacent thereto are in
private ownership. Unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly
owned shorelines is not in the best public interest; therefore, coordinated
planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the
shoreline jurisdiction while recognizing and protecting private property rights
consistent with the public interest.
4. There is a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort,
jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the
inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the City's
shoreline jurisdiction.
5. It is the intent of the City to provide for the management of the shoreline
jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses.
The Shoreline Master Program is designed to ensure the development in a
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 5
manner that, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the
navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest.
6. The City's shoreline policies are intended to protect against adverse effects to
the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the
state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation
and corollary rights incidental thereto.
7. In the implementation of the Shoreline Master Program, the public's opportunity
to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines shall be
preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest
of the state, the county, and the people generally. To this end, uses shall be
preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of
damage to the natural environment or are unique to or dependent upon use of
the state's shoreline.
8. Alterations of the natural condition of the shoreline, in those limited instances
when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their
appurtenant structures; ports; shoreline recreational uses including but not
limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public
access to shorelines; industrial and commercial developments that are
particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shoreline jurisdiction;
and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers
of the people to enjoy the shorelines.
9. Permitted uses in the shorelines zone shall be designed and conducted in a
manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology
and environment of the shoreline jurisdiction and any interference with the
public's use of the water.
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the
philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural
resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public
interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful
effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our state's shorelines.
Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as
marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial
and industrial uses.
The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act
recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable
and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive
industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research
and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and
chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct.
Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition of
all use of shorelines also could eliminate their human utility and value. Thus, the policy goals of
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 6
the Act relate both to utilization and protection of the extremely valuable and vulnerable
shoreline resources of the state. The act calls for the accommodation of "all reasonable and
appropriate uses" consistent with "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the
land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and
consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as
distinguished from the development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, only
one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and
easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert
with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any
public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited
to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects,
and incentive programs.
Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration,
and preservation of "fragile" shoreline, "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its
vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the
Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal
consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological
functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial
development permit requirement ofthe Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and
development that is exempt from the Act's permit requirements. The principle regarding
protection of shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in several ways,
and in the context of related principles.
Local Responsibility
Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary
responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory
requirements of the Act, with the Washington State Department of Ecology acting in a
supportive, review, or approval capacity depending on the particular shoreline proposal and
regulatory requirements.
As set forth in the provisions of the Act, local governments must fulfill the following basic
requirements:
• Use a process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of
current and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines.
• Include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological
functions, including:
o Regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will
not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
o Local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation
standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal
limitations on the regulation of private property.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 7
• Include goals and policies that provide for restoration of impaired ecological functions
that include identifying existing policies and programs that contribute to planned
restoration goals, as well as any additional policies and programs that local government
will implement to achieve its goals. This Master Program element considers established
or funded non-regulatory policies and the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory
or non-regulatory programs.
• Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future
development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered
by the policy goals of the Act, address adverse cumulative impacts, and fairly allocate
the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities.
Development of the Master Program
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) directs all local
governments to develop a Master Program for the management of all shorelines of the state
and associated shore lands that are under the local governments' jurisdictions.
Shoreline management is most effective and efficient when accomplished within the context of
comprehensive planning. The Growth Management Act requires mutual and internal
consistency between the comprehensive plan elements and implementing development
regulations (RCW 36.70A).
This Master Program has been prepared and updated to comply with the requirements of the
Shoreline Management and Growth Management Acts and to formulate guidelines that will
regulate the utilization and development of the shorelines within the City of Renton. As part of
this Master Program, the City of Renton has established administrative provisions, including a
permit system for any substantial development, as well as review provisions to ensure that all
development complies with the policies and regulations of the program.
The City of Renton has conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics,
present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's shoreline that provides a
substantial information base for understanding ecological functions and other considerations
for the development of this Master Program update.
The City of Renton, with the involvement of its local citizens, agencies, and interested parties
has developed this Shoreline Master Program to serve as both a planning guide and resource
for specific regulations pertaining to development and use of the shorelines in Renton.
Included is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and
provisions for variances and conditional uses.
The basic intent of this Master Program is to provide for the management of shorelines of the
state within Renton's jurisdiction by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate
uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote
and enhance the best interests of the general public. This Master Program has further been
composed to protect the public interest and general welfare in shorelines and, at the same
time, to recognize and protect the legal property rights of owners consistent with the public
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 8
interest. The goals and policies of this Master Program are formulated so as to enhance the
public use and enjoyment of the shorelines. It is recognized that the Shorelines of the State
found in Renton are located within a major urbanized area, and that they are subject to ever
increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management
and development of the shorelines. The Shoreline Master Program is a planned, rational, and
concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the Shorelines of the State
in Renton.
Regulated Shorelines
Overview: Over 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning area are under the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By statutory standards, the Green River
and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance, and comprise
approximately 5.8 miles of the Shorelines of the State regulated by City of Renton. In addition,
the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines
within the City. These 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are an extremely valuable
resource not only to the City of Renton, but also for the watersheds of which they are part and
for the greater Puget Sound community of which Renton is an integral part.
Shoreline Jurisdiction: In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the
Act:
Applicability: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which
includes Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in Renton Municipal
Code (RMC) 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington
b. Green River (The area within the ordinary high water mark of
the Green River is not within the Renton City Limits, but
portions of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are within city
limits.)
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st
Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 32-24-5E WM
c. Black River
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW
43rd Street on the south
e. Lake Desire (in the city's future annexation area)
Extent of Shoreline Jurisdiction: The jurisdictional area includes:
1. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the
ordinary high water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways,
whichever is greater;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 9
2. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
3. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams,
lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State
Shoreline Management Act.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance: Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which make it
valuable, particularly Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which in Renton include Lake
Washington and the Green River. Preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in
descending order of priority (as established by Chapter 90.58.020 RCW) for Shorelines of
Statewide Significance:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for
Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
Development, redevelopment, and use of Lake Washington shall recognize and
protect the statewide interest in terms of providing for benefits to the general public
in terms of:
• Preserving and enhancing the natural character and ecological functions of
the shoreline to provide long-term public benefits to fish stocks, many of
which depend on south Lake Washington for a key phase of their lifecycle.
• Increasing public access to the shoreline and integrating public access on
individual sites with an integrated non-motorized trail system to allow access
to persons not living or on near the shoreline.
• Ensuring that impacts of development are mitigated to ensure the long-term
benefits of a productive environment over short-term economic benefits.
• Providing a variety of recreational opportunities for the public in multiple use
development on the shoreline.
• Providing high standards for design and aesthetics in the shoreline site and
building design to address the visual character and quality of the range of
public use of the lake and shorelines. Design and review standards shall
achieve high-quality landmark developments that are integrated with the
natural environment, that provide appropriate transition to areas of less
intense development, and integrate building height, bulk, setbacks,
landscaping, and signage into a cohesive whole.
• The redevelopment of former industrial areas on the Lake Washington
shoreline will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community
providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to
the region. Multiple use projects will take advantage of the amenities of the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 10
lake while providing opportunities for water-oriented uses, public access
and/ or ecological enhancement.
Geographic Environments: Shorelines are classified into separate geographic areas known as
"use environments" based upon current development pattern, biophysical capabilities, and
other factors. Policies, standards, and regulations can be customized by the use environment,
shoreline, and other uses depending on need. Generally, regulated shorelines include the
water bodies and their shore lands extending landward from the floodway or ordinary high
water mark for 200 feet in all directions. This jurisdictional area increases to include all
marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with the regulated Shorelines of the State.
The total of this area is subject to shoreline use classification and regulation.
The overlay districts in the Renton Shoreline Master Program are classified as zoning overlay
districts and include six districts:
1. Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and
preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically
intact as close to their natural state as possible. The natural environment is
intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation.
Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment: A Natural Area designation is
assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply:
• The shoreline retains the majority of natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by
the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but
not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline
modifications, structures, and intensive human uses.
• Shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and
terrestrial environments, which could be lost or significantly reduced by human
development.
• The shoreline represents ecosystems that are of particular scientific and
educational interest.
• Shorelines with large areas of relatively undisturbed areas of wetlands.
• Shorelines that support specific important wildlife habitat, such as heron
rookeries.
• The shoreline is unable to support new development, extractive uses, or physical
modifications or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions.
2. Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District
Objective: The purpose of the Urban Conservancy environment is to protect,
conserve, restore, and manage existing areas with ecological functions of open
space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed
settings, while allowing compatible uses.
Areas to Be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 11
• Areas of high scenic value.
• Areas of open space, floodplain, or other sensitive areas such as wetlands or
geological hazards that should not be more intensively developed.
• Areas that retain important ecological functions, including areas, which, even
though they are partially developed, provide valuable wildlife habitat or essential
aquatic habitat functions.
• Areas with the potential for ecological restoration.
• Areas that cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development.
• Areas with unique or fragile features.
3. Shoreline Single Family Residential Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are
consistent with this chapter.
Areas to Be Designated: The Single-Family Residential Shoreline Overlay District is
applied to and characterized by single-family use and zoning.
4. Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for
large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multi-family
residential use and public services. This district provides opportunities for water-
dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions
and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
Development will also provide for public use, especially access to and along the
water's edge.
Areas to Be Designated: The Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District is designated
in areas characterized by: commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning or use, but
not meeting the criteria for conservancy or natural designation.
Management Policies:
Water-Oriented Activities: Because shorelines suitable for high-intensity urban uses
are a limited resource, development opportunities are largely limited to
redevelopment. Existing industrial and commercial uses on the shoreline are not
water-dependent. It is unlikely that the Renton shoreline will provide opportunities
for a commercial port, or other major water-oriented industrial uses. However,
there may be opportunity for some types of water-dependent uses to be integrated
into existing mUltiple-use developments or redevelopment projects, particularly on
Lake Washington. Opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses are
likely to be oriented to recreation, public enjoyment, transportation, and moorage.
Emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and
particularly to water-oriented industrial and commercial uses.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 12
Non-water-oriented Activities: Non-water-oriented uses should be permitted as part
of development that also include water-oriented use. Non-water-oriented uses
should be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit
opportunities for water-oriented uses, or on sites where there is not direct access to
the shoreline. Non-water-oriented uses allowed in the shoreline should provide
ecological restoration and/or public access along the full length of shoreline
frontage.
Public Access: Priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access
to water in the High Intensity Overlay District. Identifying needs and planning for
the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water is addressed
in Public Access regulations in 4-3-090.E.4.g Table of Public Access Requirements by
Reach. Public access is one of the primary public benefits necessary to locate
development on the shoreline.
Ecological Restoration: Providing for restoration of ecological functions is one of the
public benefits necessary to locate non-water-oriented development on the
shoreline. Ecological restoration opportunities are limited in Renton due to the
developed nature of much of the shoreline. Generally, new development and
redevelopment should remove and replace shoreline armoring that does not meet
standards of this code, restore native vegetation and wetlands, as well as restore the
aquatic substrate. Public access may be required to be set back from restored areas
with controlled access to the water's edge at locations that are less ecologically
sensitive.
Aesthetics: Aesthetic objectives shall be implemented by appropriate development
siting, building bulk, design standards, screening, landscaping, and maintenance of
natural vegetative buffers.
5. Shoreline Isolated High-Intensity Overlay District
Objective and Areas to be Designated: The objective of the High Intensity Overlay-
Isolated Lands overlay is to provide appropriate regulations for areas that are within
shoreline jurisdiction but are with separate parcels effectively isolated from the
water by intervening elements of the built environment, largely consisting of
railroads and roads or intervening private parcels. In most cases, these areas
function as parallel designations with other designations applied to the area
adjacent to the water.
6. Aquatic Environment Overlay District
Objective: The objective of the Aquatic designation is to protect, restore, and
manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 13
Areas to be Designated: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area
waterward of the ordinary high water mark of all streams and rivers, all marine
water bodies, and all lakes, constituting shorelines of the state together with their
underlying lands and their water column; but do not include associated wetlands
and other shorelands shoreward ofthe ordinary high water mark.
Management Policies: Development within Aquatic Areas shall be consistent with
the following:
• Allowed uses are those within the adjacent upland shoreline overlay, limited to
water-dependent use or public access.
• New uses and over-water structures are allowed only for water-dependent uses,
single-family residences, public access, or ecological restoration and only when
no net loss of ecological functions will result.
• The size of new over-water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary
to support the structure's intended use. In order to reduce the impacts of
shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple-
use of over-water facilities is encouraged and may be required.
• All developments and uses on navigable waters or their beds shall be located and
designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts
to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and
wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.
• Shoreline uses and modifications shall be designed and managed to prevent
degradation of water quality, minimize alteration of natural conditions and
processes, and result in no net loss of ecological functions
• Uses and modification of Public Aquatic Land shall incorporate public access and
ecological enhancement, except where inconsistent with the operation of water-
dependent uses.
• Fish and wildlife resource enhancement, including aquaculture related to fish
propagation are allowed and encouraged.
Goals and Policies
Shoreline Uses and Activities Policies
Objective SH-A. Provide for use of the limited water resource consistent with the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act by providing a preference for water-oriented
uses.
Objective SH-B. Provide that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program ensure that new uses, development, and redevelopment
within the shoreline jurisdiction do not cause a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
Objective SH-C. Ensure that the policies, regulations, and administration of the Shoreline
Master Program are consistent with the land use vision of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy SH-l. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 14
Policy SH -2.
for:
1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be
evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance
the natural functions of shorelines, including reserving appropriate
areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control
pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public
health.
3. Provide for the following priority in shoreline use and modification of
the shoreline:
(a) Water-dependent and associated water-related uses are the
highest priority for shorelines unless protection of the existing
natural resource values of such areas precludes such uses.
(b) Water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible
with ecological protection and restoration objectives,
provided that adequate area is reserved for future water-
dependent and water-related uses.
(c) Multiple use developments may be allowed ifthey include and
support water-oriented uses and contribute to the objectives
of the act including ecological protection and restoration
and/or public access.
(d) Limit non-water-oriented uses to those locations where access
to the water is not provided or where the non-water-oriented
uses contribute to the objectives of the Act, including
ecological protection and restoration and/or public access.
(e) Preserve navigational qualities, and the infrastructure that
supports navigation, to support water-oriented use.
4. Recognize existing single-family residential uses and neighborhood
character and ensure that existing uses, new uses, and alteration of
facilities:
(a) Do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(b) Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas.
(c) Are provided with adequate public services including water,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater management.
S. Future shoreline subdivision, multi-family developments, and planned
urban developments of four or more units should provide public
benefits, including ecological protection and restoration, and/or
pUblic access.
6. New residential developments should provide open space areas at or
near the shoreline through clustering of dwellings.
Aesthetic considerations should be integrated with new development,
redevelopment of existing facilities, or for general enhancement of shoreline
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 15
Policy SH -3.
areas and should include:
1. Identification and preservation of areas with scenic vistas and areas
where the shoreline has high aesthetic value as seen from both
upland areas, areas across the water, and recreational and other uses
on the water.
2. Appropriate regulations and criteria should ensure that development
provides designs that contribute to the aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline for a substantial number of people and provide the public
with the ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and view
the water and shoreline.
3. Regulations and criteria for building siting, maximum height, setbacks,
screening, architectural controls, sign regulations, designation of view
corridors, and other provisions should ensure that development
minimizes adverse impacts on views of the water from public
property or views enjoyed by a substantial number of residences.
All shoreline policies, regulations, and development shall recognize and
protect private rights consistent with the public interest and, to the extent
feasible, shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy
of adjacent property owners. Shoreline uses and activities should be
discouraged if they would cause significant noise or odor or unsafe
conditions that would impede the achievement of shoreline use preferences
on the site or on adjacent or abutting sites.
Conservation Policies
Objective SH-D. The resources and amenities of all shorelines and the ecological processes
and functions they provide, such as wetlands, upland and aquatic
vegetation, fish and wildlife species and habitats, as well as scenic vistas and
aesthetics should be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by
present and future generations. Natural shorelines are dynamic with
interdependent geologic and biological relationships. Alteration of this
dynamic system has substantial adverse impacts on geologic and hydraulic
mechanisms important to the function of the water body and can disrupt
elements of the food chain.
Policy SH-4.
Policy SH-S.
When necessary, Shoreline modifications should emulate and allow natural
shoreline functions to the extent feasible and where needed utilize
bioengineering or other methods with the least impact on ecological
functions.
Native shoreline vegetation should be conserved to maintain shoreline
ecological functions and mitigate the direct, indirect and/or cumulative
impacts of shoreline development, wherever feasible. Important functions of
shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 16
Policy SH-6.
Policy SH-7.
Policy SH-S.
• Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by
salmon ids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota.
• Regulating microclimate in riparian and nearshore areas.
• Providing organic inputs necessary for aquatic life, including providing
food in the form of various insects and other benthic macro
invertebrates.
• Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and reducing
the occurrence/severity of landslides.
• Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment by minimizing
erosion, aiding infiltration, and retaining runoff.
• Improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of
nutrients and pollutants.
• Providing a source of large woody debris to moderate flows, create
hydraulic roughness, form pools, and increase aquatic diversity for
salmonids and other species.
• Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and
migration corridors.
Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and non-
regulatory means that may include regulation of development within the
shoreline jurisdiction, ecologically sound design, and restoration programs,
including:
1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to
permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable
forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs.
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected,
improved and, when feasible, increased to the fullest extent possible
to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed salmon stocks
and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks.
3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible,
increased.
4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open
space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for
education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if
necessary, for the conservation of these areas.
Existing and future activities on all Shorelines of the State regulated by the
City of Renton should be designed to ensure no net loss of ecological
functions.
The City of Renton should work with other responsible government agencies
to assure that surface water management in all drainage basins is considered
an integral part of shoreline planning.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 17
Policy SH-9
Policy SH-l0.
Policy SH-ll.
Policy SH-lZ.
Policy SH-13.
Policy SH-14.
1. Soil erosion and sedimentation that adversely affect any shoreline
within the City of Renton should be prevented or controlled.
2. The contamination of existing water courses should be prevented or
controlled.
Shoreline stabilization should be developed in a coordinated manner among
affected property owners and public agencies for a whole drift sector (net
shore-drift cell) or reach where feasible, particularly those that cross
jurisdictional boundaries, to address ecological and geo-hydraulic processes,
sediment conveyance and beach management issues. Where erosion
threatens existing development, a comprehensive program for shoreline
management should be established.
Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational, or scientific value
should be identified and protected.
1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site
identification, preservation, and protection.
2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from
intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined.
Critical areas in the shoreline should be managed to achieve the planning
objectives of the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and
ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory provisions for critical areas should
protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. In
protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City should
integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including
the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development
regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.
The City shall implement the Restoration Plan provided as an adjunct to The
Shoreline Master Program in coordination with other watershed
management agencies and groups, and shall manage public lands and may
acquire key properties and provide for off-site mitigation on city or other
public or private sites.
Preservation of natural shoreline areas can best be ensured through public or
non-profit ownership and management. Therefore, where private
development is proposed in areas so designated, the City should require
dedication as necessary.
Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that
prevents or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological
condition does not become worse than the current condition. This means
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 18
Economic Policies
Objective SH-E.
Policy SH-15.
Policy SH-16.
Policy SH-17.
ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development
and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in
so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment
(RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that should be protected
include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support,
and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be
protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion
and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment
delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic
matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel
formation/maintenance.
Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be recognized
and economic uses or activities that are water-oriented should be
encouraged and supported.
Shoreline uses should be integrated with the land use vIsion of the
Comprehensive Plan. Harbor areas in Renton do not have reasonable
commercial accessibility and necessary support facilities such as
transportation and utilities to warrant reservation for commercial ports and
related uses, but may support other water-dependent uses such as a marina
or passenger ferry service. Water-oriented uses should be encouraged in
multiple use development to provide opportunities for substantial numbers
of people to enjoy the shorelines. Multiple uses should prove a significant
public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives
such as providing ecological restoration and/or public access to and along the
water's edge.
Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline to achieve
the use and other goals of the Act and The Shoreline Master Program,
including:
1. Economic uses and activities should locate the water-oriented portion
of their development along the shoreline.
2. New over-water structures should be limited to water-dependent use
and the length, width, and height of over-water structures should be
limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions.
3. Shoreline developments should be designed to maintain or enhance
aesthetic values and scenic views.
Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels
may be allowed in appropriate locations within residential, commercial, and
other areas, provided they are located and designed to result in no net loss
of ecological functions.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 19
Policy SH-18.
Policy SH-19.
1. Shared moorage is encouraged over individual single family docks.
2. Commercial docks and marinas should meet all health standards.
Marinas and other economic activities should be required to contain
and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating
activities.
3. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other
vessels should be developed in size and location when it would not
impair unique or fragile areas, or impact federal or state-listed
species.
All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of
ecological functions during construction and operation.
Festivals and temporary uses providing public benefits such as recreation or
public access, and which are compatible with ecological functions, including
water quality, water flow, habitat, or unique and fragile areas, may be
permitted with appropriate review and conditions.
Public Access Policies
Objective SH-F. Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the
natural amenities.
Policy SH-20.
Policy SH-21.
Policy SH-22.
Policy SH-23.
Policy SH-24.
Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the
shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and
visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction
with the following policies.
Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout
publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's
edge may be restricted to protect shoreline ecological values. Public access
shall be provided over all public aquatic lands leased for private activity,
consistent with compatibility with water-dependent uses.
Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property
and may be acquired by easement or other means over intervening private
property.
Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial,
and industrial developments shall provide physical and visual public access
along the water's edge consistent with the policy provided in Policy SH-26
Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach Policy SH-26.
Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 20
Policy SH-25.
Policy SH-26.
Policy SH-27.
Policy SH-28.
Policy SH-29.
Policy SH-30.
maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline
ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible
with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural
processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to
which public access is provided, including trail systems.
When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing commercial,
industrial, multi-family planned unit developments, or subdivisions, and
public facilities, public access to and along the water's edge should be
provided if physically feasible.
Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided.
In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking
should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way
and may be required on private development.
In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle
paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than
roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable.
Physical or visual access to shorelines should be required as a condition of
approval for open space tax designations pursuant to RCW 84.34.
Development and management of public access should recognize the need to
address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should
recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just
compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for
public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall be
provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with
the public.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 21
Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
Lake Washington
From Bellevue city This developed primarily single-family area currently provides no public
limits to Renton city access. The potential for provision of public access from new
limits development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
Lake Washington agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
Reach A public trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the
residential lots; however, views may be limited by topography and
vegetation. Access to the water should be pursued at an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way, including parcels used for utilities and
potential acquisition of parcels, with emphasis on parcels that are not
currently developed because they do not currently have roadway access.
From the city limits to This is primarily a single-family area with one multi-family development
the Seahawks training immediately south of the Sea hawks Training Center. There is currently no
facility public access. There is a public trail along 1-405, but it does not have views
of the water. The potential for provision of public access from new
Lake Washington development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
Reach B is not likely, but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
trail development along the railroad right of way inland of the residential
lots (however, views may be limited by topography and vegetation) and
potential acquisition of opportunities for public access to the water.
From the Seattle This reach includes the recently constructed Seattle Seahawks
Sea hawks headquarters and training facility to the north and the Barbee Mill site to
Lake Washington headquarters and the south. The Quendall Terminals parcel between the Seahawks and
Reach C training facility Barbee Mill sites is a Superfund site contaminated with coal tar and
through the former creosote. There is public access along a portion of the shoreline at the
Barbee Mill site. Seahawks site and adjacent to May Creek at the Barbee Mill site. Public
harbor lands are along about a third of the subdivision water frontage. The
-~
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 22
SHORELINE REACH
Lake
Reach 0
Lake
Reach E
Washington
Washington
Location
From May Creek to
Mountain View
Avenue
From Mountain View
Avenue to Gene
Coulon Park
Public Access Objectives
potential for provision of public access from new development will occur
after cleanup of the Superfund site with multi-use development that
should offer shoreline access across the entire property, consistent with
vegetation conservation. Provision of public access from future
redevelopment of the Sea hawks and Barbee Mill site is possible under the
existing zoning, which allows higher intensity use and provides an
opportunity for continuous public access parallel to the shoreline. Public
access should be provided to shared or commercial docks. Public agency
actions to improve public access should include visual access from a future
trail along the railroad (views may be limited to the northerly and
southerly portion of the reach because of distance to the water and
potential blockage by intervening buildings); enhancement of the May
Creek trail to public streets; access on public aquatic lands; and potential
acquisition of public access to the water.
This reach is a single-family area with no public access except Kennydale
Beach Park. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and
bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and
possible public acquisition of access to the water including an existing
undeveloped railroad right of way adjacent to the water; and potential
public right of way and potential public acquisition of selected parcels,
including undeveloped parcels with development constraints.
This reach is a single-family area with no existing public access. The
potential for provision of public access from new development is low
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include visual access from public trail
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 23
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
development along the railroad right of way; pedestrian and bicycle access
on Lake Washington Boulevard; public viewing areas and possible public
acquisition of access to the water including an existing undeveloped
railroad right of way adjacent to the water; possible public street ends;
and potential public acquisition of selected parcels.
The less developed Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park and a
northerly portion of variety of primarily passive recreational facilities, a fishing pier, and a
Gene Coulon Park moorage dock. Public access is one element of park functions that should
Lake Washington be continued and incorporated in future plans and balanced with goals for
Reach F providing recreation and improving ecologic functions. Other public
agency actions to improve public access should include visual access from
public trail development along the railroad right of way, and pedestrian
and bicycle access on Lake Washington Boulevard including addition of
public viewing areas.
The more developed Public access is currently provided by a trail system through the park
southerly portion of together with a variety of passive and active recreational facilities, a boat
Lake Washington Gene Coulon Park launch, over-water facilities, and concession facilities. Public access is one
Reach G element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
future plans, as well as balanced with goals for providing recreation and
improving ecologic functions.
Southport multiple Public access is currently provided along the waterfront and should
Lake Washington use development continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the remainder
Reach H of the property. The design should include supporting water-oriented uses
and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Boeing Plant and to This reach is about one-third state-owned aquatic lands designated as
the Cedar River Harbor Area and managed by the Washington State Department of
Lake Washington Natural Resources (DNR) and two-thirds is the Boeing Company's site.
Reach I Landward of the inner harbor line, ownership is entirely the Renton Boeing
Plant. Public access in this area includes the Cedar River Boathouse located
on pilings in Lake Washington and accessed from the west from the Cedar __
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 24
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives -
River Trail. The boathouse includes a public fishing area and provides
canoe and kayak rentals, classes, and guided trips. Public access is
currently not feasible on the three acres of state owned aquatic lands
managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped public
access should be provided, balanced with goals for ecological restoration.
Public agency actions to improve public access should include a waterfront
trail, which would connect the public access at the Southport development
to the Cedar River Trail. This action should be implemented when
environmental and security issues can be resolved, as well as public access
to public lands, balanced with the goals of preserving ecological functions.
Renton Municipal Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the
Airport Will Rogers, Wiley Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be
maintained if the goal of public access is not in conflict with the
Lake Washington aeronautical use ofthe property .. Public agency actions to improve public
Reach J access should include enhancing opportunities for the public to approach
the water's edge from the existing lawn area. Public access may
necessarily be limited by safety and security limitation inherent in the
primary use of the property for aeronautical purposes.
From the Renton This reach is predominantly single-family area with no existing public
Municipal Airport to access. Public visual access is provided from Rainier Avenue. The potential
the Seattle city limits for provision of public access from new development is likely limited to
future redevelopment of a small mobile home park in the easterly portion
Lake Washington of this reach and from redevelopment of existing multi-family uses. Public
Reach K agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Rainier Avenue as well as enhanced pedestrian facilities or
view points. This effort may include acquisition of several undeveloped
parcels to provide access to the water's edge, consistent with goals for I preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
May Creek
May Creek A I From the mouth of the I This reach is bounded by open space dedicated as part of a subdivision I
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 25
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
creek to Lake and includes public access prov'lded by a trail along the creek. Public
Washington Boulevard agency actions to improve public access should include enhanced public
views from Lake Washington Boulevard including enhanced pedestrian
facilities or view points, improved connections of the May Creek trail to
public streets, and to the potential trail to the east across or under the
railroad right of way and Lake Washington Boulevard.
From Lake There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of re-
Washington Boulevard development, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the
May Creek B to 1-405 water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include
provisions to cross 1-405 to connect with trail systems to the east.
From 1-405 to NE 36th This reach includes discontinuous public ownership with some private
Street ownership. At the time of development of private lands, public access
should be provided from a trail parallel to the water together with public
May Creek C agency actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development
should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of
ecological functions.
From NE 36th Street This reach is largely King County May Creek Park. Public access is informal
to the city limits and discontinuous. There are some private holdings along the creek. At
the time of development of private lands, public access should be
May Creek 0 provided from a trail parallel to the water coordinated with public agency
actions to develop a trail on public land. All trail development should be
set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to the water,
balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological
functions.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Mouth to Logan A public trail is provided on the east side of the river in the Cedar River
Avenue Park. No public access is provided on the west side of the river adjacent to
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 26
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives -
the municipal airport. Public physical access from a trail parallel to the
water should be provided if the Renton Municipal Airport redevelops in
the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
Logan Avenue to 1-405 A public trail is provided on the north side of the river and a variety of
bridges public access is provided on the south side, including small city parks.
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public
lands adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not
Cedar River B separated by public streets should provide active open space and other
facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to
relocate further from the water's edge to allow revegetation should be
considered in the future as part of public park and river maintenance
plans.
1-405 to the SR 169 A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. Public access
is provided at a public park on the north side immediately east of 1-405.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided
as private lands on the north side of the river redevelop, integrated with
vegetation conservation, and with controlled public access to the water's
edge, balanced with goals of enhancement of ecological functions. The
Cedar River C single-family residential area on the north side of the river provides no
public access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include additional
interpretive trails and trail linkages through public lands on the south side
of the river, if consistent with ecological functions and public acquisition of
access to the water in existing single-family areas, where appropriate.
SR 169 to UGA A public trail is provided on the former Milwaukee railroad. It is generally
Cedar River 0 boundary at a distance from the water's edge. Most of this reach is under public
ownership or dedicated open space. The primary goal for management of
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 27
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional public access to
the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions.
The small residential area at the east end of the UGA provides no public
access. The potential for provision of public access from new
development is low because further subdivision and non-single family use
is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public
agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual
access from the existing trail and possible public acquisition of access to
the water.
GREEN RIVER
The Green/Black River The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
below the pump access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
station lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
Green River include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system
Reach A to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
From the City Limits to The area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical
Grady Way access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private
lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should
include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green
River Trail and Fort Dent Park.
Black/Springbrook A The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River
Forest where interpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should
occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails are ,
present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur
only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on
lhe west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 28
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
should be retained and possibly enhanced.
From Grady Way to A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under 1-405.
Springbrook B SW 16th Street Enhancement should be implemented as part of future highway
improvements or other public agency actions.
From SW 16th Street A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing
to the City Limits Longacres Office Park and extends from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale.
Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking lot
of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this
area, a continuous trail system connecting to the continuous system to the
south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
There is no trail system along the stream from SW 19th Street to the
approximate alignment of SE 23rd Street. A continuous trail system is
Springbrook C provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through the
Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. If future development occurs in the
area of the missing trail link, a trail system connecting to the continuous
system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of
ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public
actions should include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which
may include interim trails or routing on public streets and sidewalks. In
the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor
and adjacent lands, relocation of the trail farther from the stream should
be considered with controlled access to the water's edge.
Lake Desire
! A trail system is present in public open space in parks around the lake but there is no trail system adjacent to the lake.
Entire Lake Public access is provided by a WDFW boat launch. There is currently no
formal public access to the water at the natural area. Interpretive access
Lake Desire should be implemented in a manner consistent with ecological values.
Existing single-family residential development provides no public access.
The potential for provision of public access from new development is low
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 29
SHORELINE REACH Location Public Access Objectives
because further subdivision and non-single family use is not likely but
should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to
improve public access should include public acquisition of access to the
water where appropriate. Access for interpretive purposes may be an
element of public acquisition of wetlands.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 30
Recreation Policies
Objective SH-G. Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public should be
encouraged to the extent that the use facilitates the public's ability to reach, touch, and enjoy
the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline.
Policy SH-32.
Policy SH-33.
Policy SH-34.
Policy SH-3S.
Policy SH-36.
Policy SH-37.
Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged.
1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved in existing parks
and new development, substantial alteration of existing non-single
family development, and intensification of existing uses where
consistent with maintaining ecological functions.
2. A balanced choice of public recreational opportunities should be
provided on Lake Washington as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance
that recognizes and protects the interest of all people of the state as
well as Renton residents. Recreation use includes enjoyment and use
of the water from boating and other activities. Shoreline park and
recreation areas should be increased in size and number and
managed for multiple uses including shoreline recreation and
preservation and enhancement of ecological functions.
3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed at locations
where physical and ecological conditions are appropriate.
4. Both passive and active recreational areas should be provided.
Recreational boating and fishing should be supported, maintained, and
increased.
Public agencies, non-profit groups, and private parties should use
cooperative and innovative techniques to increase and diversify recreational
opportunities including incorporation in development as well as public
purchase of shoreland. Public agencies should establish the intent to acquire
lands by incorporation of such policies in their plans and declaring public
intent.
Public land, including city parks and public aquatic lands, should be managed
to provide a balance of public recreation, public access to the water, and
protection and enhancement of ecological functions.
Subject to policies providing for no net loss of ecological functions as well as
local, state, and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to
foster recreational aspects.
Provision of recreation facilities and use shall be consistent with growth
projections and level-of-service standards established by the comprehensive
plan.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 31
Circulation Policies
Objective SH-H. Minimize the impacts of motor vehicular traffic and encourage non-
motorized traffic within the shorelines as part of achieving no net loss.
Policy SH-38.
Policy SH-39.
Policy SH-40.
Policy SH-41.
Policy SH-42
Policy SH-43
Roadways within shorelines should be scenic boulevards, where possible, to
enhance the scenic views of the shoreline and provide opportunities for
public visual access to the shoreline. Existing arterials on the shoreline should
incorporate substantial plantings of street trees or other landscaping and
emphasize enjoyment of the shoreline.
Viewpoints, parking, trails and similar improvements should be considered
for transportation system projects in shoreline areas. Bridge abutments
should incorporate stairs or trails to reach streams where appropriate.
Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to shoreline
recreation areas.
Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance,
operation and security, should be developed.
l. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by
pedestrian and bicycle pathways.
2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new
or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines.
3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in
publicly financed transportation systems or rights of way, consistent
with public interest and safety.
4. Public access provided in private development should be linked to
pUblic pathways.
5. Public access and non-motorized access to shorelines should be
considered when rights of way are being vacated or abandoned.
Rail lines within the shoreline should provide opportunities for public access
and circulation:
l. The rail line along the east shore of Lake Washington should be
reserved for use as a public trail if rail use ceases. If rail use
continues, joint trail and rail use should be explored.
2. Rail lines adjacent to the Green River should provide means for
public access across the rail lines to access shorelines and public
trails where this can be accomplished safely through bridges or
undercrossings.
Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the
shoreline:
l. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 32
Policy SH-44.
Policy SH-4S.
non-motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and
Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the
Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for
low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline.
2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links
together shoreline public access into an interconnected network
including active and passive parks, schools, public and private
open space, native vegetation easements with public access,
utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities.
3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with
upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system
that provides non-motorized access throughout the City.
4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets
should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along
shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River,
the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River.
Road standards should meet roadway function and emergency access
standards and provide for multiple modes, while reducing impervious
surfaces, where feasible, and managing surface water runoff to achieve
appropriate water quality.
Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be encouraged
as they relate to water-dependent uses and should be limited to commercial
and industrial areas.
Shoreline Historical/Cultural/Scientific/Education Resources and Activities Policies
Objective SH-1. Provide for protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having
archaeological, historical, cultural, scientific, or educational value.
Policy SH-46.
Policy SH-47.
Policy SH-48.
Sites with archaeological, historical, cultural, and scientific or educational
value should be identified and protected or conserved in collaboration with
appropriate tribal, state, federal, and local governments as well as private
parties.
Such features may be integrated with other shoreline uses if appropriate to
the character of the resource.
Include programs and interpretive areas in recreational facilities in or near
identified shoreline areas with historical, cultural, educational, and scientific
value.
Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement Policies
Objective SH-J. Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 33
Policy SH-49.
Policy SH-SO.
ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of
public and private programs and actions. This Master Program includes a
restoration element that identifies restoration opportunities and facilitates
appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal of
this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions.
A cooperative restoration program among local, state, and federal public
agencies; tribes; non-profit organizations; and landowners should be
developed to address shorelines with impaired ecological functions.
The restoration plan incorporated by reference into The Shoreline Master
Program is based on:
1. Identification of degraded areas, areas of impaired ecological
functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration.
2. Establishment of overall goals and priorities for restoration of
degraded areas and impaired ecological functions.
3. Identification of existing and ongoing projects and programs that are
being implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented,
which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals.
4. Identification of additional projects and programs needed to achieve
restoration goals.
5. Identification of prospective funding sources for those projects and
programs.
6. Identification of timelines and benchmarks for implementing
restoration projects and programs.
7. Development of strategies to ensure that restoration projects and
programs will be implemented according to plans, periodically
reviewed for effectiveness, and adjusted to meet overall restoration
goals.
SECTION III. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY
DISTRICTS Section RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations is hereby amended to
read as follows:
4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REGULATIONS
4-3-090. A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The Renton Shoreline Master Program consists of the following elements:
1. The Shoreline Management Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan
2. This Section RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations which are subject to
review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW
90.58.090.
3. RMC Chapter 4-11 Definitions which are subject to review and approval by the
Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that
they relate to Section RMC 4-3-090 or are defined by RCW 90.58.030.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 34
4. RMC Section 4-9-190 Shoreline Permits which are subject to review and approval by the
Washington State Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that
they relate to specific procedural mandates of RCW 90.58.
5. RMC Section 4-10-095 Shoreline Non-Conforming Uses, Activities Structures and Sites
which are subject to review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology
pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 to the extent that they relate to specific procedural mandates
of RCW 90.58.
6. The Shoreline Restoration Element of the Shoreline Master Plan, of which one printed
copy in book form has heretofore been filed and is now on file in the office of the City
Clerk and made available for examination by the general public, shall not be considered to
contain regulations but shall be utilized as a guideline for capital improvements planning
by the City and other jurisdictions undertaking ecological restoration activities within
Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction.
7. The Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, of which one printed copy has heretofore been
filed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk and made available for examination by the
general public, and another printed copy of which is available at the Department of
Community and Economic Development. An electronic copy may also be posted online at
the City's website www.rentonwa.gov.
4-3-090. B. REGULATED SHORELINES
The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which includes
Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines as defined in RMC 4-11 and as listed below.
1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance:
a. Lake Washington
b. Green River (The area within the ordinary high water mark of the Green River is not
within the Renton City Limits, but portions of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are
within city limits.)
2. Shorelines:
a. Cedar River
b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st Street in the southeast
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM
c. Black River
d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south
e. Lake Desire (in the city's potential annexation area at the time of adoption of the
Shoreline Master Program.)
3. The jurisdictional area includes:
a. Lands within 200 feet, as measured on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high
water mark, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater;
b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and
c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal
waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act.
4-3-090. C. SHORELINES OVERLAY DISTRICTS
4-3-090. C.1 Natural Environment Overlay District
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 35
a. Designation of the Natural Environment Overlay District: The objectives and criteria
for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay
Map, see RMC 4·3·090.A.6, and shall include:
i. That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence with
Springbrook Creek.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
4-3-090. C.2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District
a. Designation of the Shoreline Urban Conservancy Environment Overlay District: The
objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline
Management Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay
Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
• That portion of the Lake Washington shoreline within Gene Coulon Park
extending from 100 feet north of the northerly end of the northernmost
driveway to the northerly end of the park.
• May Creek east of Lake Washington, including the open space area within the
Barbee Mill site.
• That portion of the south bank of the Cedar River extending from 350 feet east
of 1-405 right of way to SR 169.
• The Cedar River, extending from SR 169 to the easterly limit of the Urban Growth
Area.
• That portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street
on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the creek in the vicinity of SW
38th Street abutting the City's Wetlands Mitigation Bank shall be designated
conservancy.
• Per WAC 176-26-211(2)(e) all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not
designated within the Shoreline Master Program are automatically assigned to
be in the Urban Conservancy Overlay District until the shoreline can be
redesignated through a Shoreline Master Program amendment approved by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
4-3-090. C.3. Single-Family Residential Overlay district
a. Designation of the Single-Family Residential Overlay: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay
Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
• Those shoreline areas with residential zoning and use located on Lake
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 36
Washington, the Cedar River and Lake Desire. Publicly owned park and open
space areas with residential zoning shall be excluded.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations.
4-3-090. C.4. Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District
a. Designation of the High Intensity Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay
Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
• The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning designation generally north of
May Creek.
• The southerly portion of Gene Coulon Park, generally south of and including the
over-water walkway, concession areas, parking areas, boat launch areas, and the
swimming beach.
• The Urban Center North-l(UC-N1), Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2), and
Industrial-Heavy zoned (IH) areas along the south shoreline of Lake Washington,
the Municipal Airport, and adjacent COR designated areas.
• The Cedar River from the mouth to 1-405.
• The north side of the Cedar River east of 1-405 within areas of COR zoning
designation.
• Areas of Springbrook Creek not in Natural or Urban Conservancy overlays.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations, which allows
land uses in RMC 4-2 in this overlay district, subject to the preference for water-
dependent and water-oriented uses. Uses adjacent to the water's edge and within
buffer areas are reserved for water-oriented development, public access, and ecological
enhancement.
4-3-090. C.S. Shoreline High Intensity -Isolated Lands -Overlay District
a. Designation of the High Intensity -Isolated Lands -Overlay District: The objectives
and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management
Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay
Map, see RMC 4-3-090.A.6 and shall include:
• Areas within shoreline jurisdiction of the Green River but isolated by the
intervening railroad right-of-way.
• Areas immediately north of the Cedar River (right bank) and north of Riverside
Drive between Williams Avenue South and Bronson Way North.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Allowed uses are detailed in RMC 4-3-090E.1 Shoreline
Use Table. The shoreline regulations that apply within this overlay are the land use
regulations of Title IV, Development Regulations of the Renton Municipal Code, subject
to the permit and procedural requirements of the Shoreline Master Program. In most
cases, the performance standards in this section do not apply to development or uses in
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 37
this overlay.
4-3-090. C.6. Aquatic Shoreline Overlay District
a. Designation of the Aquatic Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the
designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Application: The Aquatic Overlay District is defined as the area waterward of the
ordinary high water mark of all streams and rivers, all marine water bodies, and all lakes,
constituting shorelines of the state together with their underlying lands and their water
column; but do not include associated wetlands and other shorelands shoreward of the
ordinary high water mark. This designation is not found on the Shoreline Environment
Map, but shall be assigned based on the description above.
c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Subject to RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations. Water-
dependent uses and a limited range of water-oriented uses are allowed in the Aquatic
Overlay, subject to provision of shoreline ecological enhancement and public access.
4-3-090. D. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
4-3-090. D.l. Applicability
This section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. Items
included here will not necessarily be repeated in RMC 4-3-090E Use Regulations, and shall be
used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits.
Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title 4 Development Regulations, Chapter 4 City-wide
Property Development Standards (RMC 4.4) contain regulations and standards governing site
development of property city-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such
provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards
set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the
Shoreline Master Program shall prevail.
4-3-090. D.2. Environmental Effects
a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions:
i. No net loss required. Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a
manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are
designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to
the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that
shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain
support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be
protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion;
infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and
storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and
pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance.
ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological
functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 38
and mitigated on-or off-site.
iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or
approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide
sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological
functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order:
(1) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of
an action, or moving the action.
(2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by
taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.
(3) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment.
(4) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(5) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact
and taking appropriate corrective measures.
b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the
proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master
Program and the Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to
provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological
functions.
c. Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated
in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations, adopted
by reference except for the provisions excluded in Subsection 2, below. Said
provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline
jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is
required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located,
extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance
with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within
shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed
together with the Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Act. If there is a conflict or
inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline
Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
(1) Aquifer protection areas.
(2) Areas of special flood hazard.
(3) Sensitive slopes, twenty-five percent (2S%) to forty percent (40%), and protected
slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater.
(4) Landslide hazard areas.
(5) High erosion hazards.
(6) High seismic hazards.
(7) Coal mine hazards.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 39
(8) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats.
(9) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2
through S only.
ii. Inapplicable Critical Area Regulations: The following provisions of RMC 4-3-0S0
Critical Area Regulations shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction:
(1) RMC 4-3-0S0-N Alternates, Modifications and Variances, Subsections 1 and 3
Variances, and
(2) RMC 4-9-2S0 Variances, Waivers, Modifications and Alternatives.
(3) Wetlands, including shoreline associated wetlands, unless specified below.
iii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas: Regulations
for fish habitat conservation are;lS Class 1 Streams and Lakes, pertaining to water
bodies designated as shorelines, are contained within the development standards
and use standards of the Shoreline Master Program, including but not limited to
RMC 4-3-090. F.1 Vegetation Conservation, which establishes vegetated buffers
adjacent to water bodies and specific provisions for use and for shoreline
modification in sections 4-3-090E and 4-3-090F.
iv. Alternate Mitigation Approaches: To provide for flexibility in the administration of
the ecological protection provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, alternative
mitigation approaches may be applied for as provided in RMC 4-3-0S0-N Alternates,
Modifications and Variances, Subsection 2. Modifications within shoreline
jurisdiction may be approved for those critical areas regulated by that section as a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where such approaches provide increased
protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes over the standard
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are scientifically supported by
specific studies performed by qualified professionals.
d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction:
i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.17S and 90.S8.380. Unless otherwise provided for in
this chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State
Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual, (Ecology Publication 96-94)
regardless of any formal identification are hereby designated critical areas and are
subject to the provisions of this chapter.
ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect
the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the
criteria provided in the Washington State wetland Rating System for Western
Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication #04-06-02S). These
categories are generally defined as follows:
(1) Category I Wetlands: Category I wetlands are those wetlands of exceptional
value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood and storm water, and/or
providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of 70 points or
more. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often
provide documented habitat for critical, threatened or endangered species,
and/or have other attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if
altered.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 40
(2) Category II Wetlands: Category II wetlands have significant value based on their
function as indicated by a rating system score of between 51 and 69 points. They
do not meet the criteria for Category I rating but occur infrequently and have
qualities that are difficult to replace if altered.
(3) Category III Wetlands: Category III wetlands have important resource value as
indicated by a rating system score of between 30 and 50 points.
(4) Category IV Wetlands: Category IV wetlands are wetlands of limited resource
value as indicated by a rating system score of less than 30 pOints. They typically
have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are
isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems or high quality upland
habitats.
iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall
be required.
iv. Wetland Buffers:
(1) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated
activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or
enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include
the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored or
enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as
surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and
effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other
substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics
such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed,
relocated or restored to provide buffer functions.
(2) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this chapter presume
the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect
the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the
director may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or
enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging.
(3) Minimum Buffer Width:
Moderate Wildlife
Low Wildlife Function Function
(less than 20 points) (20 -28 points)
High Wildlife Function
(29 or more points)
Wetland Category Buffer Width (feet)
Category IV 50 50 50 1
Category III 75 125 150 '
Category II 100 150 225
Category I 125 150 225
1. Habitat scores over 26 points would be very rare for Category III wetlands and almost impossible for Category IV wetlands that have a total rating
of 30 or less.
(4) Buffer Requirements for Wetland Mitigation Banks: Where wetland mitigation
sites or wetland banks have been approved, required buffers shall be as
specified in the mitigation site or wetland bank approval.
(5) Increased Buffer for Steep Slopes: Where lands within the wetland buffer have
an average continuous slope of 20 percent to 35 percent, and the required
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 41
buffer width is less than 100 feet, the buffer shall extend to a 30 percent greater
dimension. In all cases, where slopes within the buffers exceed 35 percent, the
buffer shall extend 25 feet beyond the top of the bank of the sloping area or to
the end of the buffer associated with a geological hazard if one is present,
whichever is greater.
v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be regulated regardless of
size, provided that the director shall assure that preservation of isolated wetlands
and associated buffers of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of combined
wetland and buffer shall maintain effective wetland functions, or be mitigated as
provided below.
(1) Wetlands and associated buffers of one thousand (1,000) square feet or less may
be displaced when the wetland meets all of the following criteria, as
documented in a wetland mitigation plan:
(a) The wetland is not associated with a riparian corridor;
(b) The wetland is not part of a wetland mosaic, or collection of small wetlands
that are hydrologically related to one another;
(c) The wetland does not contain habitat identified as essential for local
populations of priority species identified by Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife;
(d) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection x,
below.
(2) Category 3 and 4 wetlands and buffers between 1,000 and 4,000 square feet
may be displaced provided that all of the following criteria are documented in a
wetland mitigation plan:
(a) The wetland does not score 20 points or greater for habitat in the 2004
Western Washington Rating System;
(b) The wetland is depressional and is recharged only by precipitation,
interflow or groundwater and adjacent development cannot assure a
source of recharge to maintain its hydrologic character through stormwater
infiltration, or other means;
(c) The wetlands does not have a potential to reduce flooding or erosion or
has the potential to maintain or improve water quality as evidenced by a
score of at least 10 points on the applicable criteria of the Wetland Rating
Form for Western Washington;
(d) The total area of the combined wetland and buffer is 10,000 square feet or
less and:
(i) It does not achieve a score of at least 20 points on the Habitat
Functions criteria of the Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington;
and
(ii) The wetland and buffer is not connected to a larger open space
complex which may include, but is not limited to a stream buffer, a
buffer associated with a geological hazard, or other designated open
space buffer sufficient to allow movement of terrestrial wildlife to and
from the wetland and buffer complex without interruption by roads,
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 42
paved areas or buildings within 50 feet.
(e) Impacts of displaced wetlands are mitigated pursuant to subsection x,
below.
vi. Wetland Buffer Averaging: The director may average wetland buffer widths on a
case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates through a wetland study to the
satisfaction ofthe director that all the following criteria are met:
(1) The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat
functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded
emergent component or a "dual-rated" wetland with a Category I area adjacent
to a lower rated area;
(2) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or
more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower
functioning or less sensitive portion;
(3) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally
parallel to the wetland edge;
(4) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width.
vii. Reasonable Use: Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may
be permitted when all of the following are met:
(1) There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished
without buffer averaging;
(2) The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and
values as demonstrated by a wetland assessment study;
(3) The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without
averaging and all increases in buffer dimension for averaging are generally
parallel to the wetland edge;
(4) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 3/4 of the required width
except where the director finds that there is an existing feature such as a
roadway that limits buffer dimension, or an essential element of a proposed
development such as access that must be accommodated for reasonable use and
requires a smaller buffer.
viii. Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed: The director may increase the width of the
standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis, based on a critical area study, when a
larger buffer is required to protect critical habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050. K, or
such increase is necessary to:
(1) Protect the function and value of that wetland from proximity impacts of
adjacent land use, including noise, light and other disturbance, not sufficiently
limited by buffers provided above;
(2) To maintain viable populations of priority species offish and wildlife; or
(3) Protect wetlands or other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other hazards.
ix. Allowed activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and activities may be
allowed in wetlands or buffer areas by the reviewing official subject to the priorities,
protection, and mitigation requirements ofthis section:
(1) Utilities: Utility lines and facilities providing local delivery service, not including
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 43
facilities such as electrical substations, water and sewage pumping stations,
water storage tanks, petroleum products pipelines and not including
transformers or other facilities containing hazardous substances, may be located
in Category II, III, and IV wetlands and their buffers and/or Category I wetland
buffers ifthe following criteria are met:
(a) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland
buffer based on analysis of system needs, available technology and
alternative routes. Location within a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a
location within a wetlands;
(b) The utility line is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a
manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation;
(c) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum
necessary to install the utility line, which may include boring, and the area is
restored following utility installation;
(d) Buried utility lines shall be constructed in a manner that prevents adverse
impacts to subsurface drainage. This may include the use of trench plugs or
other devices as needed to maintain hydrology;
(e) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with subsection x,
below.
(2) Roadways, Railways, and Bridges: Public and private roadways and railroad
facilities, including bridge construction and culvert installation, if the following
criteria are met:
(a) There is no reasonable location or route outside the wetland or wetland
buffer based on analysis of system needs, avanable technology and
alternative routes. Location within a wetland buffer shall be preferred over a
location within a wetland;
(b) Facilities parallel to the wetland edge are located as far from the wetland
edge as possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and
vegetation;
(c) Clearing, grading, and excavation activities are limited to the minimum
necessary, which may include placement on elevated structures as an
alternative to fill, where feasible;
(d) Impacts on wetland functions are mitigated in accordance with subsection x,
below.
(3) Access to Private Development Sites: Access to private development sites may
be permitted to cross Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers, pursuant to
the criteria in B above, provided that alternative access shall be pursued to the
maximum extent feasible, including through the provisions of RCW 8.24.
Exceptions or deviations from technical standards for width or other dimensions,
and specific construction standards to minimize impacts may be specified,
including placement on elevated structures as an alternative to fill, if feasible.
(4) Existing Facilities: Maintenance, repair, or operation of existing structures,
facilities, or improved areas, including minor modification of existing serviceable
structures within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 44
wetland functions, and subject to the provisions for non-conforming use and
facilities in RMC 4-10.
(5) Stormwater Facilities: Stormwater conveyance or discharge facilities such as
dispersion trenches, level spreaders, and outfalls may be permitted within a
Category I, Ii, Iii, or IV wetland buffer on a case by case basis if the following are
met:
(a) Due to topographic or other physical constraints, there are no feasible
locations for these facilities to discharge to surface water through existing
systems or outside the buffer. locations and designs that infiltrate water
shall be preferred over a design that crosses the buffer;
(b) The discharge is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a
manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation and avoids long
term rill or channel erosion.
(6) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational
activities which do not Significantly affect the function of the wetland or
regulated buffer (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor
scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted
within a Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I
wetland buffer if the following criteria are met:
(a) Trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or
pervious material, including boardwalks;
(b) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer
area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is
required for interpretive purposes;
(c) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in manner that minimizes
disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall
be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill;
(d) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection x, below.
x. Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or
wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland
function and values in accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7and this section.
Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alternation and shall re-
establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland
functions and values.
(1) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the
prioritized order provided for in RMC 4-3-090D.2.a.ili.
(2) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation
requirements shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and
assessment in Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.s. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -
Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, WA, except in cases
when this code provides differing standards.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 45
(3) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the
following order of preference:
(a) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
(b) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural
and/or historic functions.
(c) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting
primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species.
(d) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands.
(e) Preserving Category I or II wetlands that are under imminent threat,
provided that preservation shall only be allowed in combination with other
forms of mitigation and when the director determines that the overall
mitigation package fully replaces the functions and values lost due to
development.
(4) Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Impacts: Compensatory mitigation for
wetland alterations shall be based on the wetland category and the type of
mitigation activity proposed. The replacement ratio shall be determined
according to the ratios provided in the table below. The created, re-
established, rehabilitated, or enhanced wetland area shall at a minimum
provide a level of function equivalent to the wetland being altered and shall
be located in an appropriate landscape setting.
Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio·
Wetland Creation Re-Re-Enhancement
Category establishment habilitation Only
Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 2:1 3:1
Category III 2:1 2.1 3:1 4:1
Category II 3:1 3.1 4:1 6:1
Category I 6:1 6:1 8:1 Not allowed
'Ratio IS the replacement area: Impact area.
(5) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland
buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation
for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting
native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers,
and other measures.
(6) Special Requirements for Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banks shall not be
subject to the replacement ratios outlined in the replacement ratio table
above, but shall be determined as part of the mitigation banking agreement
and certification process.
(7) Buffer Requirements for Replacement Wetlands: Replacement wetlands
established pursuant to these mitigation provisions shall have adequate
buffers to ensure their protection and sustainability. The buffer shall be based
on the category in subsection c.ii, above, provided that the director shall have
the authority to approve a smaller buffer when existing site constraints (such
as a road) prohibit attainment ofthe standard buffer.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 46
(8) Adjustment of Rations: The reviewing official shall have the authority to
adjust these ratios when a combination of mitigation approaches is proposed.
In such cases, the area of altered wetland shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio
through re-establishment or creation, and the remainder of the area needed
to meet the ratio can be replaced by enhancement at a 2:1 ratio. For example,
impacts to 1 acre of a Category II wetland requiring a 3:1 ratio for creation can
be compensated by creating 1 acre and enhancing 4 acres (instead of the
additional 2 acres of creation that would otherwise be required).
(9) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the
location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest
likelihood of success, provided that mitigation occurs as close as possible to
the impact area and within the same watershed sub-basin as the permitted
alteration.
(10) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on-or off-site shall be permanently
protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of
critical area functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall
be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in
accordance with RMC 4-3-050E.4.
(11) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season
based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible
after the permitted alteration.
(12) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be
prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050-M.16. All compensatory mitigation
projects shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but generally not for a period less
than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and
annually for the next five (5) years following construction and subsequent
reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes,
problems, and contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The
director shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period
and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of
the following conditions apply:
(a) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the
mitigation plan;
(b) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and
values of the impacted critical area;
(c) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which
require longer time for establishment.
xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent
development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland, and shall include:
(1) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area
outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented
whenever feasible to provide a rear yard of at least 20 feet between the
buffer area and buildings;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 47
(2) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to
limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas;
(3) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far from the wetland and
buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots and loading areas,
mechanical or ventilating equipment shall be located on sides of buildings
away from the wetland, or separated by noise attenuating walls;
(4) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetlands shall be limited by
locating areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary,
or limiting light mounting heights to a maximum 4 of feet. Windows that
will be lit at night should be minimized on the side of buildings facing
wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below;
(5) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the maximum extent
feasible, to provide groundwater interflow recharge to wetlands and/or
water bodies and to limit overland flow and erosion;
(6) Surface or piped storm water should be routed to existing conveyances or
to other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where storm water is
routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and
sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible;
(7) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from
entering the buffer, and to prevent washing of fertilizers, herbicides and
pesticides into the buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed 15%, a 10
foot wide swale to intercept runoff or other effective interception facility
approved by the director shall be provided at the edge of the buffer;
(8) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including
limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within 25 feet of the
buffer.
xii. Vegetation Management Plan Required: In order to maintain effective buffer
conditions and functions, a vegetation management plan shall be required for all
buffer areas, to include:
(1) Maintaining adequate cover of native vegetation including trees and
understory; if existing tree cover is less than a density of 20 trees per acre,
planting shall be required consisting of seedlings at a density of 300 stems
per acre or the equivalent;
(2) Provide a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the
buffer. If existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing adjacent
development from within the buffer. Planting shall be required equivalent
to two rows of 3' high stock of native evergreens at a triangular spacing of
15 feet, or three rows of gallon containers at a triangular spacing of 8 feet.
Fencing may be required if needed to block headlights or other sources of
light or to provide an immediate effective visual screen;
(3) Provide a plan for control of invasive weeds, and remove existing invasive
species;
(4) Provide for a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least five
(5) years, except this provision may be waived for single family residential
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 48
lots at the discretion of the reviewing official.
e. Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat
i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management
facilities including water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in
accordance with the current stormwater management standards. Water quality
treatment facilities shall be provided for moderate alteration of non-conforming
structures, uses and sites as provided for in RMC 4-10-095.
ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for
control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in
shorelines through approved temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or
administrative conditions.
iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize
interference with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine
directly onto the water. Exterior lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices
such that glare or direct illumination does not extend into water bodies. Lighting
shall include timers or other switches to ensure that lights are extinguished when
not in use.
4-3-090. 0.3. Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects
a. General: Shoreline use and development activities shall be designed and operated to
allow the public's visual access to the water and shoreline and maintain shoreline scenic
and aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural features, such as shoreforms and
vegetative cover.
b. View Obstruction and Visual Quality: The following standards and criteria shall apply to
developments and uses within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program:
i. View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi-family
and/or multi-lot developments are proposed, primary structures shall provide for
view corridors between buildings where views of the shoreline are available from
public right-of-way or trails.
ii. Maximum Building Height: Buildings shall be limited to a height of no more than 35
feet above average finished grade level except at specific locations specified in
Shoreline Bulk Standards Table RMC 4-3-090.0.7.
iii. Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential or Park
Uses: All new or expanded commercial development adjacent to residential use and
public parks shall provide 15 ft. setbacks from adjacent properties to attenuate
proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare, and may address scale and aesthetic
impacts. Fencing or landscape areas may be required to provide a visual screen.
iv. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed and
operated so as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby properties used for
non-commercial purposes, and to prevent hazards for public traffic. Methods of
controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to, limits on the height of light
structure, limits on light levels of fixtures, light shields, and screening.
v. Architectural Features Required: Buildings shall incorporate architectural features
that reduce scale such as stepbacks, pitched roofs, offsets, and recesses.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 49
vi. Reflected lights to be limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall
employ materials that limit reflected light.
vii. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical
equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched
roofs, to the maximum extent feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be
incorporated into architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent
with bUilding exterior materials that obstructs views of such equipment.
viii. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to be Minimized: Facilities not
incorporated into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires, lights, and other
free-standing structures shall be designed to minimize visual prominence.
ix. Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located within shoreline
vegetated buffers shall not exceed 4 feet in width; provided that, where ADA
requirements apply, such facilities may be increased to 6 feet in width. Stairways
shall conform to the existing topography to the extent feasible.
x. Other Design Standards: Any other design standards included in community plans or
regulations adopted by the City shall be incorporated.
c. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other
structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided
or mitigated.
d. Design Requirements: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns, and
other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be in conformance with urban design
and other standards contained in RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations, and other
applicable provisions of RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, as well as specific
policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
e. Screening Required: The standards in RMC 4-4-095 concerning screening of mechanical
equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall apply within shorelines with the
additional criteria that the provisions for bringing structures or sites into conformance
shall occur for minor alteration or renovation as provided in RMC 4-9-190.
4-3-090.D.4. Public Access
a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access to
shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would
either generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing
legal access opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access
for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy
SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH-31 with provisions
for public access, including off-site facilities designated in the table Public Access
Requirements by Reach in RMC 4-3-090.D.4.f.
b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the following development,
subject to the criteria in subsection d.
i. Water-dependent uses and developments that increase public use of the shorelines
and public aquatic lands, or that would impair existing legal access opportunities, or
that utilize public harbor lands or aquatic lands, or that are developed with public
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 50
funding or other public resources.
ii. Non-water-dependent development and uses.
iii. Developments of more than four (4) single-family residential lots or single-family
dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned
parcel.
iv. Development of any non-single family residential development or use.
v. Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single-family residential use of
the shoreline, including docks accessory to single-family residential use.
vi. Publicly financed or subsidized flood control or shoreline stabilization shall not
restrict public access to the shoreline and shall include provisions for new public
access to the maximum extent feasible.
vii. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights of way
shall not be diminished by any public or private development or use (RCW 35.79.035
and RCW 36.87.130).
c. Criteria for Modification of Public Access R~quirements: The requirements for public
access may be modified as a Shoreline Conditional Use for any application in which the
following criteria are demonstrated to be met in addition to the general criteria for a
shoreline conditional use permit. In cases where a Substantial Development Permit is not
required, use of this waiver or modification may take place only through a shoreline
variance. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met.
As a condition of modification of access requirements, contribution to an off-site public
access site shall be required.
i. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that cannot be prevented by
any practical means.
ii. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the
application of alternative design features or other solutions.
iii. The cost of providing the access, or mitigating the impacts of public access, is
unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term development and operational
cost over the life-span of the proposed development.
iv. Significant environmental impacts will result from the public access that cannot be
mitigated.
v. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the
proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated.
vi. Prior to determining that public access is not required, all reasonable alternatives
must be pursued, including but not limited to:
(1) Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of
use;
(2) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-
way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and
(3) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing
platforms that may be physically separated from the water's edge, but only if
access adjacent to the water is precluded.
d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following
location and design criteria:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 51
i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where
vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public
pedestrian walkway parallel to the ordinary high water mark of the property. The
walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from
the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive
features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to
control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where
appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to 4 to 6
feet in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.
ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space: Public access on
sites or portions of sites not including vegetated open space shall be not less than
ten (10) percent of the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three
thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is greater, on developments including non-
water-dependent uses. For water-dependent uses, the amount and location may be
varied in accordance with the criteria in Subsection 4-3-090.F.3. Public access
facilities shall extend along the entire water frontage, unless such facilities interfere
with the functions of water-dependent uses. The minimum width of public access
facilities shall be 10 feet and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the
design of the development provided that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle &
Trails Master Plan shall be developed in accordance with the standards of that plan.
iii. Access Requirements for Overwater Structures: Public access on over-water
structures on public aquatic lands, except for docks serving a single-family residence,
shall be provided and may include common use of walkway areas. Moorage
facilities serving five (5) or more vessels shall provide a publicly accessible area of at
least 10 feet at or near the end of the structure. Public marinas serving 20 or more
vessels may restrict access to speCific moorage areas for security purposes as long as
an area of at least 10 percent of the over-water structure is available for public
access and an area of at least 20 square feet is provided at or near the end of the
structure. Public access areas may be used in common by other users, but may not
include adjacent moorage that obstructs public access to the edge of the water or
obstructs views of the water.
iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where city trail or transportation plans and
development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections i, ii,
or iii, above, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing
constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions shall prevail.
v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public
access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan,
Shoreline Management Element, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by
Reach and in subsection f-Table of Public Access Requirements by Reach (RMC 4-3-
090D.4.f):
(1) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in applying
these provisions to individual development sites.
(2) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in planning
and implementing public projects.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 52
vi. Fund for Off-Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for off-site public
access and may assess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of
their public access requirements. Such a fund and charges may be part of or
coordinated with park impact fees. Off-site public access shall be developed in
accordance with the reach policies for public access.
e. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the
following design and other features.
i_ Relation to other facilities:
{I} Preferred location:.Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas,
accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and
include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where
feasible.
{2} Parking Requirements: Where public access is within 400 feet of a public street,
on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private
developments required to provide more than 20 parking spaces, public parking
may be required in addition to the required parking for the development at a
ratio of one {I} space per 1,000 square feet of public access area up to three {3}
spaces and at one space per 5,000 square feet of public access area for more
than three {3} spaces. Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces
nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the
public access area is handicapped accessible.
(3) Planned Trails To Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City'S
transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided
within shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site.
ii. Design
(I) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with
opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water
and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and
vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible, provided that public access does not
adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction
in ecological functions.
(2) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding
locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential
open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques.
iii. Use and Maintenance
(I) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully
developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or
activity or in accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation
through a monetary performance assurance.
(2) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be
maintained over the life of the use or development. Future actions by successors
in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required
public access areas and associated improvements.
(3) Public Access Must be legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private land
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 53
shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an
easement, or as a dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal
instruments shall be recorded prior to the time of building occupancy or plat
recordation, whichever comes first.
(4) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall be
the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or non-
profit agency through a formal recorded agreement.
(5) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public 2.4 hours
per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline
permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial
permit approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use.
(6) Signage Required: The standard state-approved logo or other approved signs
that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be installed and
maintained by the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations at
public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off-site public right of
way.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 54
4-3-090. D.4.f Public Access Requirements by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
Lake Washington
Lake Washington Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
Reach A and B occurs consistent with standards ofthis section.
The potential for provision of public access from new development will occur after cleanup of
the Superfund site with multi-use development, which shall include shoreline access across the
entire property, with controlled access to the water's edge, consistent with requirements for
Lake Washington vegetation conservation and ecological restoration and provisions for water-dependent use,
Reach C consistent with standards of this section. Provision of public access from future redevelopment
of the Seahawks and Barbee Mill site shall include a continuous public access trail parallel to the
shoreline with controlled public access balanced with provisions for ecological restoration, as
well as to shared or commercial docks, consistent with standards of this section.
Lake Washington Public access shall be provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development
Reach 0 and E occurs consistent with standards ofthis section.
Lake Washington Public access is one element of park functions that should be continued and incorporated in
Reach F and G future plans and balanced with goals for recreation and improving ecologic functions.
Lake Washington Public access should continue in the future as part of multi-use development of the balance of
Reach H the property consistent with standards of this section. Development should include supporting
water-oriented uses and amenities such as seating and landscaping.
Public access is currently not feasible on the three acres of upland state-owned aquatic lands
Lake Washington managed by DNR. In the future, if the Boeing site is redeveloped, public access should be
Reach I provided parallel to the shoreline along the entire property, consistent with standards of this
section, together with goals for ecological restoration and water-dependent and water-oriented
use.
Lake Washington Public access to the Lake Waterfront is provided from the lawn area of the Will Rogers, Wiley
Reach J Post Memorial Sea Plane Base and should be maintained if such access is not in conflict with the
aeronautical use of the property.
Lake Washington If redevelopment of non-single-family use occurs, public access shall consist of a public
Reach K pedestrian walkway parallel to the shoreline along the entire property frontage with controlled
access to the water's edge, consistent with standards of this section and requirements for
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 55
SHORELINE REACH Public Access I
vegetation conservation and ecological restoration. Public access shall be provided when lots are !
subdivided consistent with standards ofthis section.
May Creek
May Creek A If development occurs adjacent to the streamside, open space standards for vegetation
conservation and public access shall be met consistent with standards of this section .
. At the time of re-development, public access should be provided consistent with standards of
May Creek B
this section from a traH parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public
access to the water consistent with standards of this section, and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions.
At the time of development of private lands, public access should be provided consistent with
standards of this section from a trail parallel to the water consistent with trails on public land.
May Creek C and D All trail development should be set back from the water's edge with controlled public access to
the water and consistent with standards of this section and goals of preservation and
enhancement of ecological functions ..
Cedar River
Cedar River A Public physical access from a traH parallel to the water should be provided if the Renton
Municipal Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration.
Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands adjacent to the
river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated by public streets should provide active
Cedar River B open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment,
together with water-oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the
water's edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part of public park and
river maintenance plans.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands on the
north side of the river redevelop, integrated with vegetation conservation, and with controlled
Cedar River C public access to the water's edge, balanced with goals of enhancement of ecological functions.
Public access shall be provided when residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards of
this section.
Cedar River D The primary goal for management of this reach should be ecological enhancement. Additional
public access to the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions. Public
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 56
SHORELINE REACH Public Access
access shall be provided when residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards of this
section.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
Green River Reach A redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail
rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. Expansion of public
access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions.
Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands
Black redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if
River/Springbrook A consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream
adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to
connect to the Lake to Sound trail.
Springbrook B Enhancement of the trail system on the WSDOT right of way that crosses under 1-405 should be
implemented as part of future highway improvements or other public agency actions.
If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting to the existing
Springbrook C trails system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of
wetlands and streamside vegetation.
Lake Desire
If the existing boat launch area is altered in the future, public access other than boating facilities
should include a viewing area. There is currently no formal public access to the water at the
Lake Desire A Natural Area. Interpretive access should be implemented consistent with standards of this
section and goals for preservation and restoration of ecological values. Public access shall be
provided when lots are subdivided or new non-residential development occurs consistent with
standards of this section.
---
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 57
4-3-090. D.S. Building and Development Location-Shoreline Orientation
a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and
water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and
use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive
portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces
and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and
habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic
values.
b. Design and Performance Standards
i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that
directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site.
ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions
provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall
accompany development proposals, provided that an individual single-family
residence on a parcel less than 20,000 square feet shall not be subject to this
requirement. Such assessments shall include the following general information:
(1) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear
designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement,
and other features.
(2) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other
features, together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on
shoreline ecological functions.
iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites
with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria:
(1) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing,
grading, and alteration of topography and natural features.
(2) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use
of under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible.
(3) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights of way wherever
feasible.
(4) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural
shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made
for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses,
particularly water-dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available
and no net loss of ecological functions will result.
iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does not
require a shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless
such development is required to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or
developments or unless otherwise allowed in a High Intensity designation. When
sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or developments such as parking,
service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and storage of materials shall
be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of water-
oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the
water is reasonably necessary.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 58
v. Navigation and Recreation to be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive other
uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-related recreation
shall be preserved.
4-3-090. 0.6. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
a. Detailed Cultural Assessments may be Required: The City will work with tribal, state,
federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical,
cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and federal laws
protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments
may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the
presence of cultural resources.
b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable
historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance
of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes,
and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the
potential for cultural resources.
c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development
in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site
assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional
and ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups.
d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts
are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be
stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the
reviewing official. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected
tribes. The reviewing official shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified
professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in
coordination with appropriate agencies.
e. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are encouraged to provide
access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of
public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property.
4-3-090.0.7. Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height
a. Shoreline Bulk Standards: This table establishes the minimum required dimensional
requirements for development including all structures and substantial alteration of natural
topography. Additional standards may be established in Section RMC 4-3-090E, Shoreline Use
Policies and Regulations and Section RMC 4-3-090F, Shoreline Modification.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 59
Table 4-3-090. D.7a Shoreline Bulk Standards
~ > a:o :!:
c ~ ~ Ci .-'iii ~
I: U') c: ....
~ ~ ~ c " c ... --c ... '" c~ => c: OJ'-~ CLI Q,I_ ........ ::::s ra ~ ~ .-~ ra fU
... .cC oE 011 fc-:::I ru ~o ~tO ._ ._0 0"
Z ::l 1,,1 11\ .... J: J: ~ c(
Setbacks and Buffers
Structure Setback from Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM)-
Minimum
Water-dependent Use 100 ft. 100 ft. None 1 None 1 None
Water-related or Water 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.2 100 ft. 3 None
Enjoyment Use
Non-Water-oriented Use 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.2 100 ft: None
Front Yard: Side Yard, and Rear Governed by underlying zoning in RMC 4-2 except in cases where specific
Yard Setbacks shoreline performance standards provide otherwise. Variance from the front
and side yard standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the
established setback from OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard
variance criteria are met.
Vegetation Conservation Buffer 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 2 100 ft. 3,4 None
Building Height-Maximum
In water Not Not 30 ft.5 35 ft.5 35 ft.5
allowed allowed
Within 100 feet of OHWM Not Not 30 ft. 35 ft.5 Governed by
allowed allowed underlying
zoning in RMC
4_27
More than 100 feet from OHWM 15 ft. 35 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft.6 Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 60
Accessory Building
Coverage Standards
Impervious Area within 100 feet of
OHWM-Maximum
Lot Coverage for Buildings within
100 feet of OHWM-Maximum
Lot Coverage for Buildings more
than 100 feet from OHWM-
Maximum
[!!
:::J ... ... z
15 feet
Not
allowed
5%9
5%
~ c::
~ c:: QI
... II) .c c:: ... 0 ::>u
15 feet
5%/10%8
5%.9
15%
QI
00 c::
Vi
QI c:: .:: > QI -.... -o E
..c: ...
III ....
15 feet
5%/50%8
25%9
35%
~
'iii c::
QI ... c::
..c:
0.0
:i:
Same
above
5%/50%8
None9
as
Governed
by
underlying
zoning in
RMC4-2
> ...
'iii c::
QI ... c::
'tl
QI ... ..c: ... 0.0-._ 0
:I: II)
4-27
Governed
underlying
u :;::; ...
:::J
0-«
by
zoning in RMC
4_27
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
Governed by
underlying
zoning in RMC
4-2
(1) Setback shall be the maximum determined by the specific needs of the Water-dependent Use and shall not apply to a structure
housing any other use.
(2) Building setback and buffer may be based on lot depth as provided in RMC 4-3-090.F.l.c.
(3) Water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.l and shall be no closer than 50 feet, except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior
to the adoption of this Section.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 61
(4) Non-water-oriented uses may be established closer to OHWM only in cases where the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied
in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.l and shall be no closer than 75 feet, except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved
prior to the adoption ofthis Section.
(5) Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use, except as consistent with a Master Site
Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
(6) Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water-dependent use. Height up to that established in RMC 4-
2 may be allowed for non water-dependent in the following reaches:
Lake Washington Reach C -Additional height may be allowed subject to a transition for height greater than 35 feet equal
to a slope of 1 horizontal to 2 vertical from the point 100 feet from OHWM to the point at which maximum height
is reached, provided that if the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied to be less than 100 feet, the transition
may occur at the edge of the buffer, and provided no additional floor area is allowed by additional height in the
area within 100 feet from OHWM compared to that allowed by a 35-foot height.
Lake Washington Reaches H and I -Additional height may be allowed for a multiple use structure containing a water-
oriented use, provided a transition is provided equal to a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from a height of 35
feet from the building closest to the OHWM, provided that if the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied to be
less than 100 feet, the transition may occur at the edge of the buffer and the transition slope provided within 100
feet of OHWM shall be at a maximum slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, and provided no additional floor area is
allowed by additional height in the area within 100 feet from OHWM compared to that allowed by a 35-foot
height, except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Lake Washington Reach J -Additional height may be allowed in the Renton Municipal Airport for any structure for which
additional height is essential for airport operation and there is no feasible location outside the shoreline.
Cedar River Reach A -Additional height may be allowed in the Renton Municipal Airport for any structure for which
additional height is essential for airport operation and there is no feasible location outside the shoreline.
Cedar River Reach B -Additional height may be allowed for multiple use containing water-oriented use, provided a
transition is provided equal to a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from the elevation ofthe OHWM.
Cedar River Reach C -Additional height may be allowed for multiple use containing water-oriented use, provided a
transition is provided equal to a slope of 1 vertical to 1 horizontal from a height of 35 feet from the building
closest to the OHWM, provided that if the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied to be less than 100 feet, the
transition may occur at the edge of the buffer and the transition slope provided within 100 feet of OHWM shall
be at a maximum slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, and provided no additional floor area is allowed by additional
height in the area within 100 feet from OHWM compared to that allowed by a 35-foot height.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 62
Black River A -Additional height may be allowed for multiple use containing water-oriented use, provided a transition is
provided equal to a slope of 1 vertkal to 1 horizontal from a height of 35 feet from the building closest to the
OHWM, provided that if the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied to be less than 100 feet, the transition may
occur at the edge of the vegetated buffer and the transition slope provided within 100 feet of OHWM shall be at a
maximum slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, and provided no additional floor area is allowed by additional height
in the area within 100 feet from OHWM compared to that allowed by a 35-foot height.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D -Additional height may be allowed, provided a transition is provided equal to a
slope of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal from the elevation of the OHWM and provided no additional floor area is
allowed by additional height in the area within 100 feet from the OHWM compared to that allowed by a 35-foot
height.
(7) Height is governed by the underlying standards in RMC 4-2, provided that if a property is separated from OHWM by an
intervening parcel in separate ownership and the distance from OHWM is less than 100 feet, the height adjacent to the
intervening parcel is limited to an increase over the maximum allowed use of the intervening parcel at a slope of 1 vertical to 1
horizontal.
(8) Up to 5% impervious surface is allowed in Vegetation Conservation Area buffers for access to the shoreline, or a pathway up to 6
feet wide, whichever is greater, provided that in cases where the depth of the Vegetation Management Buffer is varied in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.l that portion of the first 100 feet from OHWM upon which development is located may be
permitted a maximum of 50% impervious surface, unless a different standard is stated below:
Lake Washington Reaches Hand 1-Up to 75% impervious surface, except as consistent with a Master Site Plan approved
prior to the adoption of this Section.
Lake Washington Reach J -No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach A -No limit is provided for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Cedar River Reach B -No limit to impervious surface.
Cedar River Reach D -No more than 5% impervious surface.
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D -No more than 65% impervious surface.
(9) No building coverage is allowed in Vegetation Conservation Area buffers. If the buffer depth is varied in accordance with RMC 4-
3-090.F.l that portion of the first 100 feet from OHWM upon which development is located may be permitted the following
coverage:
Lake Washington High Intensity Overlay District-Up to 50% building coverage, except as consistent with a Master Site
Plan approved prior to the adoption of this Section.
Cedar River Reach A -Up to 20% for the Renton Municipal Airport.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 63
Cedar River Reach B -No limit on building coverage
Cedar River Reach C -Up to 50% building coverage
Cedar River Reach D -No more than 5% building coverage
Green River A -Up to 50% building coverage
Springbrook Creek Reach A -No more than 5% building coverage
Springbrook Creek Reaches B through D -Up to 50% building coverage
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 64
b. City-wide Development Standards: Table RMC 4-3-090.D.7 replaces the standards of the
underlying zone in RMC 4-2for those specific standards enumerated. All other standards
ofthe Renton development regulations, flood control regulations, subdivision regulations,
health regulations, and other adopted regulatory provisions apply within shoreline
jurisdiction. In the event the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program conflict with
provisions of other city regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail.
c. Measurement
i. Horizontal measurement shall be measured outward on a plane and in the direction
that results in the greatest dimension from property lines, or from other features
specified.
ii. Height is measured consistent with the definition of "Building Height" in RMC 4-11-
020.
d. Activities Exempt from Buffers and Setbacks: The following development activities are
not subject to buffers and setbacks, provided that they are constructed and maintained in
a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and provided
further that they comply with all the applicable regulations in RMC Title 4:
i. Water-Dependent Development: Those portions of approved water-dependent
development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark of
streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, marine shorelines, associated wetlands, and/or within
their associated buffers.
ii. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities, including stormwater outfalls and
conveyance pipes.
iii. Modifications Necessary for Agency Compliance: Modifications to existing
development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any
agency, when otherwise consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, provided
that the reviewing official determines that:
(1) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for
which it is intended;
(2) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional
standards to the maximum extent feasible; and
(3) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non-conforming
development and uses.
iv. Necessary Access: Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must
cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-dependent
development subject to development standards in Section E-Use Regulations.
v. Stairs and Walkways: Stairs and walkways not greater than S feet in width or 18
inches in height above grade, except for railings.
vi. Essential Public Facilities: An essential public facility or public utility where the
reviewing official determines that:
(1) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for
which it is intended; and
(2) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional
standards to the maximum extent feasible.
vii. Shared Moorage: Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 65
located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project
proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been
executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility.
viii. Flood Storage: Approved compensating flood storage areas.
4-3-090.0.8. Private Property Rights: Regulation of private property to implement any
Program goals such as public access and protection of ecological functions must be consistent
with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to,
property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State
Constitution, applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328,
43.21C.060, and 82.02.
4-3-090. 0.9. Treaty Rights: Rights reserved or otherwise held by Indian Tribes pursuant to Treaties,
Executive Orders, or Statues, including right to hunt, fish, gather, and the right to reserved water, shall
not be impaired or limited by any action taken or authorized by the City under its Shoreline Master
Program, and all rights shall be accommodated.
4-3-090. E. USE REGULATIONS
4-3-090.E. 1 Shoreline Use Table
Uses specified in the table below are subject to the use and development standards elsewhere in this
section and the poliCies of the Shoreline Master Program.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 66
KEY: X= Prohibited. P= Permitted. AD= Administrative Conditional Use Permit. H= Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit -
Natural Urban Single-Aquatic High Intensity High Intensity
Conservancy Family Isolated
Residential
RESOURCE
Aquaculture X X X P P X
Mining X X X X X X
Preservation and pl P P P' Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Enhancement of table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
Natural Features or zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
Ecological Processes overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
Low intensity Scientific, P' P P P' for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
Cultural, Historic, or underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
Educational use administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
Fish and wildlife pl P P p' (H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
resource enhancement zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
RESI DENTIAL
Detached dwellings X p4 p' X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Attached dwellings X X X X table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
Accessory Dwelling X AD AD X zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
Units overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
Group Homes I X X X X for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
Group Homes II (for six X X P X underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
or fewer residents) administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
Group Homes II (for X X H X (H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
seven or more zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
residents) conditional use permit.
Adult Family Home X X H X
CIVIC USES
K-12 Educational X X P X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Institution (public or table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
private) zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
Roads (not providing X X H X overlay district, subject to the preference __ table, land uses
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 67
direct access to for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
permitted or underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
conditional uses) administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
(H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
COMMERCIAL USES
Home occupations X P AD X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the la nd
Adult Day Care I X X AD X table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifica Ily
Adult Day Care II X X H X zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
(H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
RECREATION
Parks, neighborhood H' H' P p8 Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Parks, H' H' AD' P' table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
regional/community zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
Passive Recreation H' P P P' overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
Public hiking and H' p' P p8 for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
bicycle trails, including underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
overwater trails administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
Active Recreation X p2 P p' (H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
Boat launches X P X p8 zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
Mooring Piles X P P p8 conditional use permit.
Boat moorage X P P p8
Boat lifts X X p7 p8
Boat houses X X X X
Golf courses X H' H X
Marinas X X AD' p8
INDUSTRIAL --
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 68
Industrial Use X X X H' Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land i
table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
for water-oriented uses. La nd uses in the allowed in the
underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
(H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
UTILITIES
Structures for H' P P p' Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Floodway table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
Management, including zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
drainage or storage overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
and pumping facilities for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
Local service utilities X p3 p3 p' underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
(H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
ACCESSORY USES
Parking areas X p3 p3 X Except for the land uses specified in this Except for the land
Roads X p3 p3 X table, land uses allowed in the underlying uses specifically
Bed and Breakfast X X AD X zoning in RMC 4-2-060 are allowed in this prohibited in this
House overlay district, subject to the preference table, land uses
Sea Plane Moorage X X P p' for water-oriented uses. Land uses in the allowed in the
Helipads X X P p' underlying zoning that require an underlying zoning in
administrative (AD) or Hearing Examiner RMC 4-2-060 are
(H) conditional use permit in the underlying allowed in this
zoning, require the corresponding shoreline overlay district.
conditional use permit.
USES NOT SPECIFIED X X H9 H' H9 X
--
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 69
Table Notes
1. Provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area.
2. Use is allowed, but structures shall not be placed within the shoreline jurisdiction.
3. Allowed only to serve approved or conditional uses, but should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction if feasible.
4. Limited to existing lots, or clustered subdivisions that retain sensitive areas.
5. Includes uses customarily incidental to and subordinate to the primary use, and located on the same lot.
6. Existing use is permitted, but new use is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit.
7. Allowed as accessory to a residential dock provided that: all lifts are placed as far waterward as feasible and safe; platform lifts are fully grated.
8. Only allowed if the use is water-dependent.
9. If the unspecified use is prohibited in the underlying zoning it is also prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 70
4-3-090. E.2 Aquaculture
a. No Net Loss Required: Aquaculture shall not be permitted in areas where it would result
in a net loss of ecological functions and shall be designed and located so as not to spread
disease to native aquatic life, or establish new non-native species which cause significant
ecological impacts.
b. Aesthetics: Aquaculture facilities shall not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of
the shoreline.
c. Structure Requirements; All structures over or in the water shall meet the following
restrictions:
i. They shall be securely fastened to the shore.
ii. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the natural systems of
the waterway including, for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and
aquatic plant life.
iii. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as
swimming and/or boating.
iv. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses, if potential
conflicts exist.
4-3-090. E.3 Boat Launching Ramps
a. Boat Launching Ramps Shall be Public: Any new boat launching ramp shall be public,
except those related to a marina, water-dependent use, or providing for hand launching
of small boats with no provisions for vehicles or motorized facilities
b. No Net Loss Required: Choice of sites for boat launching ramps shall ensure no net loss of
ecological functions through assessment of the shoreline conditions and impacts of
alteration of those conditions, as well as the disturbance resulting from the volume of
boat users.
c. Consideration of Impacts on Adjacent Uses: Launch ramps location shall consider
impacts on adjacent uses including:
i. Traffic generation and the adequacy of public streets to service.
ii. Impacts on adjacent uses, including noise, light, and glare.
iii. Hours of operation may be restricted to assure compatibility.
iv. Potential impacts on aquatic habitat, including impacts of disturbance by boats using
the facility.
d. Water and Shore Characteristics:
i. Water depth shall be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats without
maintenance dredging.
ii. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp
activity.
e. Topography: The proposed area shall not present major geological or topographical
obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Site adaptation such as dredging shall
be minimized.
f. Design to Ensure Minimal Impact: The ramp shall be designed so as to allow for ease of
access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface.
g. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 71
hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders, will not be used.
The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions:
I. Soil characteristics
ii. Erosion
iii. Water currents
iv. Waterfront conditions
v. Usage of the ramp
vi. Durability
vii. Avoidance of contamination of the water
h. Shore Facilities Required:
i. Adequate on-shore parking and maneuvering areas shall be provided based on
projected demand. Provision shall be made to limit use to available parking to
prevent spillover outside designated parking areas.
ii. Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate
City department.
4-3-090. E.4 Commercial and Community Services
a. Use preference and priorities: New commercial and community services developments
are subject to the following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: Water-dependent commercial and community service uses
shall be given preference over water-related and water-enjoyment commercial and
community service uses. Prior to approval of water-dependent uses, the reviewing
official shall review a proposal for design, layout, and operation of the use and shall
make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water-dependent use. Water-
dependent commercial and community service uses shall provide public access in a
manner that will not interfere with the water-dependent aspects of the use. The
portion of a site not required for water-oriented use may include multiple use,
approved non-water-oriented uses, ecological restoration, and public access. All
uses shall provide public access in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.D4.f Table of Public
Access Requirements by Reach. On Lake Washington, multiple use development that
incorporates water-dependent use within 100 feet of the OHWM may not include
non-water-oriented uses at the ground level.
ii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related commercial and community service uses shall
not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of
a water-related commercial or community service use, review of the design, layout,
and operation of the use shall confirm that the use has a functional requirement for
a waterfront location, or the use provides a necessary service supportive of the
water-dependent uses, and/or the proximity of the use to its customers makes its
services less expensive and/or more convenient. Multiple use development within
100 feet of the OHWM that incorporates water-dependent use may not include non-
water-oriented uses at the ground level except as consistent with a Master Site Plan
approved prior to the adoption of this section. On Lake Washington, allowed water-
related commercial and community service uses shall be evaluated in terms of
whether the use facilitates a state-wide interest, including increasing public access
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 72
and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iii. Water-Enjoyment Uses: Water-enjoyment commercial and community service uses
shall not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent or water-related
uses or if they occupy space designated for water-dependent or water-related use
identified in a substantial development permit or other approval. Prior to approval
of water-enjoyment uses, review of the design, layout, and operation of the use
shall confirm that the use facilitates public access to the shoreline as , or the use
provides for aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for substantial number of people
as a primary characteristic of the use. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,
the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within
the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline
enjoyment.. On Lake Washington, development within 100 feet of the OHWM that
incorporates water-enjoyment use may not include non-water-oriented uses or
activities at the ground level. Allowed water-enjoyment commercial uses shall be
evaluated in terms of whether the use facilitates a state-wide interest, including
increasing public access and public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented commercial and community service
uses may be permitted where:
{1} Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private
property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for
water-oriented use is precluded, provided that such conditions were lawfully
established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master Program, or
established with the approval of the City.
(2) Where proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited, the commercial
or community service use provides a significant public benefit such as providing
public access and ecological restoration.
(3) Where the use is part of a multiple use project that provides significant public
benefit with respect to the objectives ofthe Act by:
{a} Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and upland
environments that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to
the standards for the specific reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090.F.1
Vegetation Conservation and in accordance with the Restoration
Element of this plan and other plans and policies including the WRIA 8
Salmon Restoration Plans.
(b) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration
and associated buffers shall be provided as public access.
b. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of
water-dependent commercial uses that require over-water facilities or for public
recreation and public access facilities. Non-water-dependent commercial uses shall not
be allowed over water except in limited instances where they are appurtenant to and
necessary in support of water-dependent uses.
c. Setbacks: Setbacks for non-water-oriented commercial buildings shall provide for public
access adjacent to the water and shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the
ordinary high water mark; provided this requirement may be reduced in accordance with
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 73
the provisions of the Shoreline Bulk Standards Table in RMC 4-3-0900.7, or through the
conditional use process for specific designs that improve the overall quality of public
access to and along the water's edge and maintain the ecological functions of Vegetation
Conservation buffers in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.F.1.
d. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: All new or expanded commercial and community services
developments shall take into consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline and compatibility with adjacent uses as provided in RMC 4-3-090. 0.3, Use
Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects and RMC 4-3-090.0.S, Facility Arrangement-Shoreline
Orientation.
4-3-090. E.S Industrial Use
a. Use Preferences and Priorities: Industrial developments shall be permitted subject to the
following:
i. Water-Dependent Uses: New industrial uses in new structures within the required
setback of the shoreline must be water-dependent.
ii. Existing Non Water-Dependent Uses: Existing non water-dependent uses may be
retained and expanded, subject to provisions for nonconforming uses activities and
sites, provided that expansion of structures within the required setback between the
building and the water shall be prohibited unless it is demonstrated that the impacts
of the expansion can be mitigated through on-site measures such as buffer
enhancement or low impact stormwater development. Changes in use are limited to
existing structures.
iii. Water-Related Uses: Water-related industrial uses may not be approved if they
displace existing water-dependent uses. Prior to approval of a water-related
industrial use, review of the design, layout, and operation of the use shall confirm
that the use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location, or the use
provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses, and/or the
proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more
convenient. Allowed water-related commercial uses shall be evaluated in terms of
whether the use facilitates a public interest, including increasing public access and
public recreational opportunities in the shoreline.
iv. Non-water-oriented Uses: Non-water-oriented industrial uses may be permitted
where:
(1) Located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another private
property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for
water-oriented use is precluded, provided that such conditions were lawfully
established prior to the effective date ofthe Shoreline Master Program; or
(2) On a site that abuts the water's edge where navigability is severely limited and
where the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives
ofthe Act by:
(a) Restoration of ecological functions both in aquatic and upland environments
that shall provide native vegetation buffers according to the standards for
the specific reach as specified in RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation
and in accordance with the Restoration Element of this plan and other plans
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 74
and policies including the WRIA 8 and 9 Salmon Restoration Plans; and
(b) The balance of the water frontage not devoted to ecological restoration and
associated buffers shall be provided as public access in accordance with RMC
4-3-090. D.4 Public Access.
b. Clustering of Non-water-oriented Uses: Any new use of facility or expansion of existing
facilities shall minimize and cluster those water-dependent and water-related portions of
their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water-
dependent.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures are allowed only for those portions of
water-dependent industrial uses that require over-water facilities. Any over-water
structure is water-dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is
subject to Shoreline Conditional Use approval.
d. Materials Storage: New industrial development may not introduce exterior storage of
materials outside of buildings within shoreline jurisdiction, except by approval of a
Shoreline Conditional Use subject to the additional criteria that exterior storage is
essential to the use.
e. No Discharge Allowed: Each industrial use shall demonstrate that no spill or discharge to
surface waters will result from the use or shall demonstrate in the permit application a
specific program to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with
the industrial use and activity.
f. Offshore Log Storage: Offshore log storage shall only be allowed only to serve a
processing use and shall be located where water depth is sufficient without dredging,
where water circulation is adequate to disperse polluting wastes and where they will not
provide habitat for salmonid predators.
g. Scenic and Aesthetic Qualities: New or expanded industrial developments shall take into
consideration the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline and compatibility with
adjacent uses as provided in RMC 4-3-090. D.3 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects
and 4-3-090.D.S Facility Arrangement-Shoreline Orientation.
4-3-090. E.G Marinas
a. Applicability: The standards specified for marinas shall be applied to all development as
described below:
i. Joint use single-family docks serving four or more residences.
ii. Any dock allowed for multi-family uses.
iii. Docks serving all other mUltiple use facilities including large boat launches and
mooring buoy fields.
b. Lake Washington: Marinas on Lake Washington shall be permitted only when:
i. Detailed analysis of ecological conditions demonstrate that they will not result in a
net loss of ecological functions and specifically will not interfere with natural
geomorphic processes including delta formation, or adversely affect native and
anadromous fish.
ii. Future dredging is not required to accommodate navigability.
iii. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the size and character of
moorage facilities provided in accordance with the parking standards in RMC 4-4-
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 75
080F. Parking areas not associated with loading areas shall be sited as far as feasible
from the water's edge and outside of vegetated buffers described in RMC 4-3-
090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
iv. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities
provided.
v. The location of the moorage facilities is adequately served by public roads.
c. Location Criteria:
i. Marinas shall not be located near beaches commonly used for swimming unless no
alternative location exists, and mitigation is provided to minimize impacts to such
areas and protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
II. Marinas and accessory uses shall be located only where adequate utility services are
available, or where they can be provided concurrent with the development.
iii. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be designed so that lawfully existing
or planned public shoreline access is not unnecessarily blocked, obstructed, nor
made dangerous.
d. Design Requirements:
i. Marinas shall be designed to result in no net loss of ecological functions.
ii. Marinas and boat launches shall provide public access for as many water-dependent
recreational uses as possible, commensurate with the scale of the proposal.
Features for such access could include, but are not limited to: docks and piers,
pedestrian bridges to offshore structures, fishing platforms, artificial pocket
beaches, and underwater diving and viewing platforms.
iii. Dry upland boat storage is preferred for permanent moorage in order to protect
shoreline ecological functions, efficiently use shoreline space, and minimize
consumption of public water surface areas unless:
(1) No suitable upland locations exist for such facilities; or
(2) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would result in fewer impacts to ecological
functions; or
(3) It is demonstrated that wet moorage would enhance public use of the shoreline.
iv. Marinas, launch ramps, and accessory uses shall be located and designed with the
minimum necessary shoreline stabilization.
v. Public access shall be required in accordance with RMC 4-3-090.D.4 Public Access.
vi. Piers and docks shall meet standards in RMC 4-3-090E.7 Piers and Docks.
vii. New covered moorage for boat storage is prohibited. Covered over-water structures
may be permitted only where vessel construction or repair work is to be the primary
activity and covered work areas are demonstrated to be the minimum necessary
over water structures.
e. Operation Requirements:
i. Marinas and other commercial boating activities shall be equipped with facilities to
manage wastes, including:
(1) Marinas with a capacity of 100 or more boats, or further than one (1) mile from
such facilities, shall provide pump-out, holding, and/or treatment facilities for
sewage contained on boats or vessels.
(2) Discharge of solid waste or sewage into a water body is prohibited. Marinas and
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 76
boat launch ramps shall have adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities
in compliance with applicable health regulations.
(3) Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the operator
at locations convenient to users.
(4) Disposal or discarding of fish or shellfish cleaning wastes, scrap fish, viscera, or
unused bait into water or in other than designated garbage receptacles near a
marina or launch ramp is prohibited.
(5) Public notice of all regulations pertaining to handling and disposal of waste,
sewage, fuel, oil or toxic materials shall be reviewed and approved and posted
where all users may easily read them.
ii. Fail safe facilities and procedures for receiving, storing, dispensing, and disposing of
oil or hazardous products, as well as a spill response plan for oil and other products,
shall be required of new marinas and expansion or substantial alteration of existing
marinas. Handling of fuels, chemicals, or other toxic materials must be in
compliance with all applicable federal and state water quality laws as well as health,
safety, and engineering requirements. Rules for spill prevention and response,
including reporting requirements, shall be posted on site.
4-3-Q90.E.7 Piers and Docks
a. General Criteria for Use and Approval of All New or Expanded Piers and Docks
i. Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize interference with the public use and
enjoyment ofthe water surface and shoreline, nor create a hazard to navigation.
ii. The dock or pier shall not result in the unreasonable interference with the use of
adjacent docks and/or piers.
iii. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those
areas where scenic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational
boaters and fishermen will not be created.
iv. The expansion of existing piers and docks is preferred over the construction of new.
v. The responsibility rests on the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate the need for the
proposed pier or dock in his/her application for a permit, except for a dock accessory to
a single-family residence on an existing lot.
vi. All piers and docks shall result in no net loss of ecological functions. Docks, piers, and
mooring buoys, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall avoid, or if
that is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to shoreline ecological
functions such that no net loss of ecological functions results.
vii. Over-water construction not required for moorage purposes is regulated as a recreation
use.
viii. New or expanded piers and docks allowed for water-dependent uses shall be consistent
with the following criteria:
(1) Water-dependent uses shall specify the specific need for over-water location and
shall be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed
water-dependent use.
(2) Water-related, water-enjoyment and multiple uses may be allowed as part of a dock
or pier to serve as water-dependent use structures where they are clearly auxiliary
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 77
to and in support of water-dependent uses, provided the minimum size requirement
needed to meet the water-dependent use is not violated.
(3) Public access is required over all docks utilizing public aquatic lands that serve
water-dependent uses, water-enjoyment uses and multiple uses, provided it does
not preclude the water-dependent use.
(4) The dock or pier length shall not extend beyond a length necessary to provide
reasonable and safe moorage.
b. Additional Criteria for New or Expanded Residential Docks:
i. Single-Family Docks:
(1) Single-Family Joint Use Docks: A pier or dock which is constructed for private
recreation moorage associated with a single-family residence, for private joint
use by two or more single-family waterfront property owners, or a community
pier or dock in new waterfront single-family subdivision, is considered a water-
dependent use provided that it is designed and used only as a facility to access
watercraft owned by the occupants, and to incidental use by temporary guests.
No fees or other compensation may be charged for use by non-residents of
piers or docks accessory to residences.
(2) Individual Single-Family Docks: The approval of a new dock or pier or a
modification or extension of an existing dock or pier shall include a finding that
the following criteria have been met:
(a) A new dock providing for private recreational moorage for an individual
lot may not be permitted in subdivisions approved on or before January
28, 1993, unless shared moorage is not available, and there is no
homeowners association or other corporate entity capable of developing
shared moorage.
(b) A new dock shall not be allowed for an individual lot in cases where a
joint use dock has been constructed to serve the subject lot.
(c) Prior to approval of a new dock for private recreational moorage for an
individual lot, the owner should demonstrate that adjacent owners have
been contacted and they have declined to develop or utilize a shared
dock. Such information should be provided in the project narrative at the
time of permit submittal.
(d) A new dock should be approved only in cases where use of a mooring
buoy is demonstrated to be impractical for reducing over water coverage.
ii. Multi-Family Docks: Multi-family residential use in not considered a water-
dependent use under the Shoreline Management Act and moorage for multi-
family residential use shall be provided only when the following criteria are met:
(1) The dock provides public benefits in the form of shoreline ecological
enhancement in the form of vegetation conservation buffer enhancement in
accordance with section RMC 4-3-090F.1 Vegetation Conservation and/or
public access in accordance with section RMC 4-3-090D.4 Public Access;
(2) Moorage at the proposed dock shall be limited to residents of the apartments,
condominiums, or similar developments for which the dock was built;
(3) Multi-family moorage serving more than four vessels meet the criteria for the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 78
approval of marinas is section RMC 4-3-090.E.6 Marinas.
iii. Shared Docks Required for New Development: Shared moorage shall be
provided for all new residential developments of more than two (2) single-family
dwelling units. New subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat
prohibiting individual docks. A site for shared moorage shall be owned in
undivided interest by property owners within the subdivision. Shared moorage
facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for community
access and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of
the facility. If shared moorage is provided, the applicant/proponent shall file at
the time of plat recordation a legally enforceable joint use agreement. Approval
shall be subject to the following criteria:
(1) Shared moorage to serve new development shall be limited to the amount of
moorage needed to serve lots with water frontage. Shared moorage use by
upland property owners shall be reviewed as a marina.
(2) As few shared docks as possible shall be developed. Development of more
than one dock shall include documentation that a single dock would not
accommodate the need or that adverse impacts on ecological functions would
result from the size of dock required.
(3) The size of a dock must consider the use of mooring buoys for some or all
moorage needs and the use of all or part of the dock to allow tender access to
mooring buoys.
(4) Public access shall be provided over all shared docks utilizing pUblic aquatic
lands that accommodate five (5) or more vessels.
c. Design Criteria -General
i. Pier Type: All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except that
floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to
an ecosystem, where scenic values are high and where one or more of the following
conditions exist:
(1) Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling.
(2) A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling.
(3) Bottom conditions that render it not feasible to install piling.
ii. Construction and Maintenance: All piers and docks shall be constructed and
maintained in a safe and sound condition.
iii. Approach: Approaches to piers and docks shall consist of ramps or other structures
that span the entire foreshore to the point of intersection with stable upland soils.
Limited fill or excavation may be allowed landward of the OHWM to match the
upland with the elevation of the pier or dock.
iv. Materials: Applicants for the new construction or extension of piers and docks or
the repair and maintenance of existing docks shall use materials that will not
adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term.
Materials used for submerged portions of a pier or dock, decking, and other
components that may come in contact with water shall be approved by applicable
state agencies for use in water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave splash,
rain or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other similarly
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 79
toxic materials is prohibited. Pilings shall be constructed of untreated materials,
such as untreated wood, approved plastic composites, concrete or steel.
v. Pilings: Pile spacing shall be the maximum feasible to minimize shading and avoid a
"wall" effect that would block or baffle wave patterns, currents, littoral drift, or
movement of aquatic life forms, or result in structure damage from driftwood
impact or entrapment. The first piling set shall be spaced at the maximum distance
feasible to minimize shading and shall be no less than 18 feet. Pilings beyond the
first set of piles shall minimize the size of the piles and maximize the spacing
between piling to the extent allowed by site-specific engineering or design
considerations.
vi. Minimization of Nearshore Impacts: In order to minimize impacts on nearshore
areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level:
(1) The width of piers, docks, and floats shall be the minimum necessary to serve
the proposed use.
(2) Ramps shall span as much of the nearshore as feasible.
(3) Dock surfaces shall be designed to allow light penetration.
(4) Lights shall avoid illuminating the water surface. Lighting facilities shall be
limited to the minimum extent necessary to locate the pier or dock at night for
docks serving residential uses. Lighting to serve water-dependent uses shall be
the minimum required to accommodate the use and may not be used when the
water-dependent aspects of the use are not in operation.
vii. Covered Moorage: Covered moorage is not allowed on any moorage facility unless
translucent materials are used that allow light penetration through the canopy, or
through the roof of legal, pre-existing boat houses. Temporary vessel covers must
be attached to the vessel. New boat houses are not allowed.
viii. Seaplane Moorage: Seaplane moorage may be accommodated at any dock that
meets the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Other Agency Requirements: If deviation from the design standards is required by
another agency with permitting authority, it shall be allowed.
d. Design Standards
Single-Family Joint Use and Commercial and Non-water-
Community Docks Industrial Docks-dependent uses
Water-dependent
Uses
WHEN ALLOWED:
Maximum of A joint use dock Water-dependent Docks are not
one pier or may be commercial and allowed unless
dock per constructed for industrial uses may they provide
developed two or more develop docks and public access or
waterfront lot contiguous water piers to the extent pUblic water
or ownership. front properties that they are required recreation use.
and may be for water-dependent Such docks and
located on a side use. Public access piers are subject
property line, or shall be provided in to the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 80
LENGTH-MAXIMUM
Docks and Minimum
Piers needed to
provide
moorage for a
single vessel
and up to two
personal
watercraft
(e.g. jet skis).
Maximum: 80
ft. from
OHWM.2
straddling a side
property line,
common to both
properties or be
provided with an
access easement
for all lots
served.'
Joint use docks or
piers are allowed
1 vessel moorage
consisting of an
ell, finger pier, or
float for each
owner. Joint use
docks or piers
serving more than
four vessels shall
be regulated as
marinas.
Minimum needed
to provide
moorage for a
single vessel and
up to two
personal
watercraft (e.g.
jet skis) for each
waterfront lot
served.
Maximum: 80 ft.
from OHWM. 2
accordance with RMC performance
4-3-090.D.4 Public standards for
Access. over-water
structures for
recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Minimum needed to Docks are not
serve speCific vessels allowed unless
or other water-they provide
dependent uses public access or
specified in the public water
application. recreation use.
Maximum: 120 ft. Such docks and
from OHWM. 2 piers are subject
Facilities adjacent to a to the
designated harbor performance
area: The dock or pier standards for
may extend to the over-water
lesser of: structures for
a} The General recreation in
standard, section RMC 4-3-
above; or 090E.8 Recreation.
b) The inner
harbor line or
such point
beyond the
inner
line
harbor
as
allowed
is
by
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 81
formal
authorization
by the
Washington
State
Department of
Natural
Resources
(DNR) or other
agency with
jurisdiction.
Ells and 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. Minimum needed to
Fingers serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Floats 2.0 ft. 2.0 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
WIDTH
Docks and 4 ft.' 6 ft." Maximum walkway: 8 Docks are not
Piers ft., but 12. ft. if allowed unless
vehicular access is they provide
required for the public access or
approved use.3 public water
recreation use.
Such docks and
piers are subject
to the
performance
standards for
over-water
structures for
recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Ells and 6 ft.' 6 ft.' Minimum needed to
Floats serve specific vessels
or other water-
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 82
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Fingers 2 ft. 2 ft. Minimum needed to
serve specific vessels
or other water-
dependent uses
specified in the
application.
Ramp 3 ft. for 3 ft. for walkway, Minimum needed to
connecting walkway, 4 ft. 4 ft. total serve specific vessels
a pier/dock total or other water-
to a float dependent uses
specified in the
application.
PILINGS-MAXIMUMS
Mooring 2 piles, up to 4 piles, up to 12 Minimum needed to Docks are not
Piles 12 in. in in. in diameter, serve specific vessels allowed unless
diameter, installed within 24 or other water-they provide
installed ft. of a dock or dependent uses public access or
within 24 ft. pier and out of specified in the public water
of a dock or the nearshore application. recreation use.
pier and out area. Such docks and
of the piers are subject
nearshore to the
area. performance
standards for
over-water
structures for
recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
SETBACKS-MINIMUMS
Side No portion of No portion of a No portion of a pier or Docks are not
Setback a pier or dock pier or dock may dock may lie closer allowed unless
may lie closer lie closer than 5 ft. than 30 ft. to an they provide
than S ft. to to an adjacent adjacent property line. public access or
an adjacent property line and public water
property line may not interfere recreation use.
and may not with navigation. Such docks and
interfere with piers are subject
navigation. to the
performance
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 83
standards for
over-water
structures for
recreation in
section RMC 4-3-
090E.8 Recreation.
Table Notes:
1. A joint use ownership agreement or covenant shall be executed and recorded with the
King County Assessor's Office prior to the issuance of permits. A copy of the recorded
agreement shall be provided to the City. Such documents shall specify ownership
rights and maintenance provisions, including: specifying the parcels to which the
agreement shall apply; providing that the dock shall be owned jointly by the
participating parcels and that the ownership shall run with the land; providing for
easements to access the dock from each lot served and provide for access for
maintenance; providing apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses;
and providing a means for resolution of disputes, including arbitration and filing of
liens and assessments.
2. Maximum length is 80' (80 ft.) unless a depth of 8' (8 ft.) cannot be obtained. In such
circumstances the dock may be extended until the water depth reaches a point of 8' (8
ft.) in depth at ordinary low water, or to a maximum of 120' (120 ft.), whichever is
reached first.
3. Additional width may be allowed to accommodate public access in addition to the
water-dependent use.
4. For piers or docks with no ells and fingers, the most waterward 26' (26 ft.) section of
the walkway may be up to 6' (6 ft.) wide.
e. Maintenance and Repair of Docks: Existing docks or piers that do not comply with these
regulations may be repaired in accordance with the criteria below.
i. When the repair and/or replacement exceeds thirty percent (30%) of the surface
area of the dock/pier, light penetrating materials must be used for all
replacement parts and components. For floating docks, light penetrating
materials shall be used where feasible, and as long as the structural integrity of
the dock is maintained.
ii. When the repair involves replacement ofthe surfacing materials only, there is no
requirement to bring the dock/pier into conformance with dimensional
standards of this section.
iii. When the repair/replacement involves the replacement of 50% of the pilings, or
more, the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these
regulations. For floating docks, when the repair/replacement involves
replacement of 50% of the total supporting structure (including floats, pilings, or
cross-bars), the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these
regulations.
iv. When the existing dock/pier is moved or expanded or the shape reconfigured,
the entire structure shall be replaced in compliance with these regulations.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 84
f. Buoy and Float Regulations:
i. Buoys Preferred: The use of buoys for moorage is preferable to piers, docks, or
floats and buoys may be sited under a Shoreline Exemption instead of a Substantial
Development Permit, provided they do not exceed the cost threshold.
ii. Floats: Floats shall be allowed under the following conditions:
(1) The float is served by a dock attached to the shore for use of only a tender. The
dock shall be the minimum length to allow access to a tender and may not
exceed a length of 40 feet.
(2) Floats shall be anchored to allow clear passage on all sides by small watercraft.
(3) Floats shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet in size. A
float proposed for jOint use between adjacent property owners may not exceed
one hundred and fifty (150) square feet per residence. Floats for public use shall
be sized in order to provide for the specific intended use and shall be limited to
the minimum size necessary.
(4) A single-family residence may only have one (1) float.
(5) Floats shall not be located a distance of more than eighty (80) feet beyond the
ordinary high water mark, except public recreation floats.
g. Variance to Dock and Pier Dimensions
i. Requests for greater dock and pier dimensions than those specified above may be
submitted as a shoreline variance application, unless otherwise specified.
ii. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed subject to findings
that a variance request compiles with:
(1) The general criteria for shoreline variance approval in RMC 4-9-190F.4.
(2) The additional criteria that the allowed dock or pier cannot reasonably provide
the purpose for which it is intended without specific dimensions to serve specific
aspects of a water-dependent use.
4-3-090. E.8 Recreation
a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when:
i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on-and off-site mitigation.
ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and
are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be
appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment.
iv. State-owned shorelines shall be recognized as particularly adapted to providing
wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational uses for the
public in accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4).
b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must
bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to
the shoreline.
i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should
be located on the shoreline.
ii. Water-related recreation as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 85
the shoreline.
iii. Non-water-related recreation facilities shall be located inland. Recreational facilities
with large grass areas, such as golf courses and playing fields, and facilities with
extensive impervious surfaces shall observe vegetation management standards
providing for native vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline.
c. Over-water Structures: Over-water structures for recreation use shall be allowed only
when:
i. They allow opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines
of the state.
ii. They are not located in or adjacent to areas of exceptional ecological sensitivity,
especially aquatic and wildlife habitat areas.
iii. They are integrated with other public access features, particularly when they
provide limited opportunities to approach the water's edge in areas where public
access is set back to protect sensitive ecological features at the water's edge.
iv. No net loss of ecological functions will result.
d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only
when the following criteria are considered:
i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of
the shoreline are protected.
ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and
in consideration of natural features.
iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of
demands ofthe local community.
iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and
uses are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses.
v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact
on the adjoining property.
vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the
designed public use.
vii. Effects on private property are consistent with all relevant constitutional and other
legal limitations on regulation or acquisition of private property.
viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a
balance between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and
enhancement of the shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only
after a master planning process that provides for a balance ofthese elements.
e. Private Recreation
i. Private recreation uses and facilities that exclude the public from public aquatic
lands are prohibited. Private recreation uses that utilize public aquatic lands shall
provide public access in accordance with criteria in RMC 4-3-090.D.4 Public Access.
ii. Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the
following standards are met:
(1) There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on-and off-site.
(2) There is reasonable public access provided to the shoreline at no fee for sites
providing recreational uses that are fee supported, including access along the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 86
water's edge where appropriate. In the case of Lake Washington, significant
public access shall be provided in accordance with public access criteria in RMC
4-3-090.D.4 Public Access.
(3) The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent
parcels and uses.
(4) Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from
pedestrian paths are provided.
(5) Recreational uses are encouraged in multiple use commercial development.
4-3-090. E.9 Residential development
a. Single-family Priority Use and Other Residential Uses: Single-family residences are a
priority on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020). All
other residential uses are subject to the preference for water-oriented use and must
provide for meeting the requirements for ecological restoration and public access.
b. General Criteria: Residential developments shall be allowed only when:
i. Density and other characteristics of the development are consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
ii. Residential structures shall provide setbacks as provided in Section RMC 4-3-090.D.7
Standards for Density, Setbacks and Height.
iii.
iv. Buffers are provided consistent with the vegetation conservation provisions of RMC
4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation.
c. Public Access Required: New residential developments, including subdivision of land for
more than four (4) parcels, shall provide public access in accordance with Section RMC 4-
3-090.D.4 Public Access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or
environmental concerns, new multi-family, condominium, planned unit developments,
and subdivisions except short plats of four or fewer units, shall provide public access
along the water's edge; in the case of subdivisions adjacent to public waterways shall
provide access to a point that abuts the water and provide physical access to public
waterways.
d. Shoreline Stabilization Prohibited: New residential development shall not require new
shoreline stabilization. Developable portions of lots shall not be subject to flooding or
require structural flood hazard reduction measures within a channel migration zone or
floodway to support intended development during the life of the development or use.
Prior to approval, geotechnical analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics shall
demonstrate that new shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot
to support intended development during the life of the development or use.
e. Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions for critical areas
including avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs, landslide hazard areas, seismic
hazard areas, riparian and marine shoreline erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable
development standards. Setbacks from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures
during the life of the structure (100 years).
f. Vegetation Conservation: All new residential lots shall meet vegetation conservation
provisions in RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation, including the full required buffer
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 87
area together with replanting and control of invasive species within buffers to ensure
establishment and continuation of a vegetation community characteristic of a native
climax community. Each lot must be able to support intended development without
encroachment on vegetation conservation areas, except for public trains and other uses
allowed within such areas. Areas within vegetation conservation areas shall be placed in
common or public ownership when feasible.
g. New Private Docks Restricted: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on new
private docks on the face of the plat. An area reserved for shared moorage may be
designated if it meets all requirements of the Shoreline Master Program including
demonstration that public and private marinas and other boating facilities are not
sufficient to meet the moorage needs of the subdivision.
h. Floating Residences Prohibited: Floating residences are prohibited.
4-3-090. E.I0 Transportation
a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to
achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent
feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and
facilities:
i. Located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction; and as far from the land/water
interface. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of
system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline
jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface.
ii. Located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or
cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts.
iii. Designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of
groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals
over the life of the facility.
iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a
way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified
in submittal materials.
v. Avoid the need for shoreline protection.
vi. Provide for passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by
providing bridges with the longest span feasible and when bridges are not feasible,
providing culverts and other features that provide for these functions
vii. Designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but not
limited to: utilities, view pOint, public access, or trails.
b. Roads
5. New public or private roads and driveways shall be located inland from the
land/water interface, preferably out of the shoreline, unless:
(1) Perpendicular water crossings are required for access to authorized uses
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; or
(2) Facilities are primarily oriented to pedestrian and non-motorized use and
provide an opportunity for a substantial number of people to enjoy shoreline
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 88
areas, and are consistent with policies and regulations for ecological protection.
6. Road locations shall be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in order
that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary.
7. RCW 36.87.130 prohibits vacation of any right of way that abuts a freshwater
except for port, recreational, educational or industrial purposes. Therefore,
development, abandonment, or alteration of undeveloped road ends within
Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction is prohibited unless an alternate use is
approved in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program.
c. Railroads
i. New or expanded railroads shall be located inland from the land/water interface and
out of the shoreline where feasible. Expansion of the number of rails on an existing
right of way shall be accompanied by meeting the vegetation conservation
provisions for moderate expansion of non-conforming uses in RMC 4-10-095 Non-
conforming Uses, Activities, and Sites.
d. Trails
i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and
maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline
ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be
a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails.
ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent
property owners including privacy and noise.
iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where:
(1) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other
water bodies.
(2) For interpretive facilities.
(3) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at
grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of
surface and groundwater movement.
iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow
soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of
the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced
trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas.
e. Parking
i. When Allowed: Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be
allowed only as necessary to serve an authorized primary use.
ii. Public Parking:
(1) In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be
provided at frequent locations on public streets, at shoreline viewpoints, and at
trailheads.
(2) Public parking facilities shall be located as far as feasible from the shoreline
unless parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved
recreation and public access. In general, only handicapped parking should be
located near the land/water interface with most other parking located within
walking distance and outside of Vegetation Conservation buffers provided in
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 89
RMC 4-3-090.F.1. Vegetation Conservation
(3) Public parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse
impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view.
iii. Private Parking;
(1) Private parking facilities should be located away from the shoreline unless
parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved uses and/or
developments. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, parking shall be located
inland away from the land/water interface and landward of water-oriented
developments and/or other approved uses.
(2) Surface parking areas shall be located and designed to minimize visual impacts as
viewed from the shoreline and from views of the shoreline from upland
properties.
(3) Parking structures shall be located outside of shoreline Vegetation Conservation
buffers and behind or within the first row of buildings between the water and
the developed portions of a site and designed such that the frontage visible from
the shoreline accommodates other uses and parked cars are not visible from
that frontage.
(4) Parking lot design, landscaping and lighting shall be governed by the provisions
of RMC Chapter 4-4 and the prOVisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
f. Aviation
i. Prohibited Near Natural or Urban Conservancy Areas: Aviation facilities are
prohibited within 200 feet of a Natural or Urban Conservancy Shoreline Overlay
District
ii. Airports:
(1) A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline; however, an
airport already located within a shoreline shall be permitted.
(2) Upgrades of facilities to meet FAA requirements or improvements in technology
shall be permitted.
(3) Facilities to serve seaplanes may be included as an accessory use in any existing
airport.
(4) Helipads may be included as an accessory use in any existing airport.
(5) Aviation-related manufacturing shall be permitted in an airport.
(6) New or upgraded airport facilities shall be designed and operated such that:
(a) All facilities that are non-water-dependent shall be located outside of
shoreline jurisdiction, if feasible. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction,
uses and/or developments such as parking, hangars, service buildings or
areas, access roads, utilities, signs, and storage of materials shall be located
as far from the land/water interface as feasible. The minimum setback
shall be twenty (20) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the
shoreline and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport
activities from the area along the water's edge.
(b) New or upgraded airport facilities shall minimize impacts on shoreline
ecological functions, including control of pollutant discharge. The
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 90
standards for water quality and criteria for application shall be those in
current stormwater control regulations.
(c) New facilities dispensing fuel or facilities associated with use of hazardous
materials shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
iii. Seaplanes:
(1) Private:
(a) Operation of a single private seaplane on waters where FAA has designated
a Seaplane Landing Area is not regulated by the Shoreline Master Program.
(b) Moorage of a seaplane is addressed in RMC 4-3-090.E.7 Piers and Docks.
(2) Commercial: New commercial seaplane facilities, including docks and storage
area bases may be allowed in industrial areas provided such bases are not
contiguous to residential areas, and provided they meet standards in RMC 4-3-
090.E.7 Piers and Docks.
iv. Helicopter Landing Facilities:
{l} Private: Establishment of a helipad on a single-family residential lot is allowed
subject to the standards of RMC 4-2-080.A.lll adopted by this reference.
{2} Commercial: New commercial heliports, including those accessory to allowed
uses are allowed by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, subject to the standards
ofthe Shoreline Master Program.
v. New Seaplane Facilities and Heliports-Criteria for Approval:
{l} Review shall include consideration of location approval in terms of compatibility
with affected uses including short and long-term noise impacts, impacts on
habitat areas of endangered or threatened species, environmentally critical and
sensitive habitats, and migration routes.
(a) On adjacent parcels
(b) On over flight areas
{2} Conditions may be imposed to mitigate impacts within the shoreline and also
non-shoreline over flight and related impacts.
4-3-090. E.l1 Utilities
a. Criteria for All Utilities
i. Local utility services needed to serve water-dependent and other permitted uses in
the shoreline are subject to standards for ecological protection and visual
compatibility.
ii. Regional utility systems shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, to the
extent feasible, except for elements that are water-dependent and crossings of
water bodies and other elements of shore lands by linear facilities.
iii. New public or private utilities shall be located inland from the land/water interface,
preferably out of shoreline jurisdiction, unless:
{l} Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or
{2} Utilities are necessary for authorized shoreline uses consistent with the
Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, cables and other facilities on land running
roughly parallel to the shoreline shall be located as far from the water's edge as
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 91
feasible and preferably outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
v. Linear facilities consisting of pipelines, sewers, cables and other facilities on aquatic
lands running roughly parallel to the shoreline that may require periodic
maintenance that would disrupt shoreline ecological functions shall be discouraged
except where no other feasible alternative exists. When permitted, provisions shall
assure that the facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions
or significant impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
vi. Utilities shall be located in existing rights of way and corridors, whenever reasonably
feasible.
vii. Utilities serving new development shall be located underground, wherever
reasonably feasible.
viii. Utility crossings of water bodies shall be attached to bridges or located in other
existing facilities, if reasonably feasible. If new installations are required to cross
water bodies or wetlands they should avoid disturbing banks and streambeds and
shall be designed to avoid the need for shoreline stabilization. Crossings shall be
tunneled or bored where reasonably feasible. Installations shall be deep enough to
avoid failures or need for protection due to exposure due to stream bed
mobilization, aggregation or lateral migration. Underwater utilities shall be placed in
a sleeve if reasonably feasible to avoid the need for excavation in the event the need
for maintenance or replacement.
ix. In areas where utility installations would be anticipated to significantly alter natural
ground water flows, a barrier or conduit to impede changes to natural flow
characteristics shall be provided.
x. Excavated materials from construction of utilities shall be disposed of outside of the
Vegetation Conservation Buffer except if utilized for ecological restoration and shall
be specified in submittal materials.
xi. Utilities shall be located and designed to avoid natural, historic, archaeological or
cultural resources to the maximum extent feasible and mitigate adverse impacts
where unavoidable.
xii. Utilities shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to result in no net loss
of shoreline ecological functions with appropriate on-and off-site mitigation
including compensatory mitigation.
xiii. All utility development shall be consistent with and coordinated with all local
government and state planning, including comprehensive plans and single purpose
plans to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate
growth.
xiv. Site planning and rights of way for utility development should provide for
compatible multiple uses such as shore access, trails, and recreation or other
appropriate use whenever possible. Utility right of way acquisition should be
coordinated with transportation and recreation planning.
xv. Vegetation Conservation
(1) Native vegetation shall be maintained whenever reasonably feasible.
(2) When utility projects are completed in the water or shoreland, the disturbed
area shall be restored as nearly as possible to the original condition
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 92
(3) All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of
service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs.
xvi. A structure or other faCility enclosing a, telephone exchange, sewage pumping or
other facility, an electrical substation, or other above ground public utility is built in
the shoreline area, the facility shall be:
(1) Housed in a building that shall conform architecturally with the surrounding
buildings and area or with the type of building that will develop as provided by
the zoning district and applicable design standards.
(2) An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not
conform with the standards above, shall be sight-screened in accordance RMC4-
4-095 with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in
sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years.
(3) An unhoused installation of a potentially hazardous nature, such as an electrical
distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight (8)-foot-high open wire
fence, or masonry wall. Such installations shall be sight-screened in accordance
RMC 4-4-095 with evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping materials planted in
sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance
gate(s), within five (5) years.
b. Special Considerations for Pipelines
i. Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of
adjacent water courses and shorelines.
ii. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of aquatic life nor shall water
quality standards be violated.
iii. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff
valves at each side of the water crOSSing.
iv. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with
the regulations of the Washington State Transportation Commission and subject to
review by the City Public Works Department.
c. Major Utilities -Specifications
i. Electrical Installations:
(1) Overhead High Voltage Power Lines
(a) Overhead electrical transmission lines of 55 kV and greater voltage within
the shoreline shall be relocated to a route outside of the shoreline, where
feasible when:
• Such facilities are upgraded to a higher voltage.
• Additional lines are placed within the corridor.
(b) Structure of overhead power lines shall be single-pole type with insulators
and other facilities in as compact a configuration as feasible.
(2) Underwater electrical transmission lines shall be located and designed to:
(a) Utilize existing transportation or utility corridors where feasible.
(b) Avoid adverse impacts to navigation.
(c) Be posted with warning signs.
(3) Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution substations shall be:
(a) Located outside of the shoreline, where feaSible, and may be located
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 93
within a shoreland location only when the applicant proves no other site
out of the shoreland area exists.
(b) Located as far as feasible from the land-water interface.
(c) Screened as required by in the criteria for all utilities, above.
ii. Communications: This section applies to telephone exchanges including radar
transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio,
wireless communication facilities and any other facility for the transmission of
communication signals.
(1) Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when
there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area.
(2) All structures shall meet the screening requirements in the criteria for all
utilities, above.
(3) If approved within the shoreline, such installations shall reduce aesthetic impacts
by locations as far as possible from residential, recreational, and commercial
activities.
(4) Cellular communication facilities may be located in the shoreline only when
mounted on buildings and screened by architectural features compatible with
the design of the building.
iii. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground
projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in the shoreland or a
shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration.
Underground utility installations shall be permitted only when the finished
installation shall not impair the appearance of such areas.
iv. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian public
access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to
the public. Where utility rights of way are located near recreational or public use
areas, utility companies shall be encouraged to provide said rights of way as parking
or other public use areas for the adjacent public use area. As a condition of location
of new utilities within the shoreline, the City may require provision of pedestrian
public access.
v. All-inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than one (1) major
utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a single utility right of
way is strongly encouraged. It wou Id be desirable to include railroad lines within
this right of way also.
d. Local Service Utilities, Specifications
i. Electrical distribution: New electrical distribution lines within the shoreline shall be
placed underground, provided that distribution lines that cross water or other
critical areas may be allowed to be placed above ground if:
(1) There is no feasible alternative route.
(2) Underground installation would substantially disrupt ecological functions and
processes of water bodies and wetlands; horizontal drilling or similar technology
that does not disturb the surface is not feasible.
(3) Visual impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
(4) If overhead facilities require that native trees and other vegetation cannot be
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 94
maintained in a Vegetation Conservation buffer as provided in Section RMC 4-3-
090.F.l Vegetation Conservation, compensatory mitigation shall be provided on
or off-site.
ii. Waterlines:
(1) New water lines shall not cross water, wetlands or other critical areas unless
there is no reasonably feasible alternative route.
(2) Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in
accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) gUidelines.
iii. Sanitary Sewer:
(1) The use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. Self-contained outhouses may be
allowed for temporary, seasonal, or special events.
(2) All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no septic tanks
or other on-site sewage disposal systems.
(3) Sewage trunk lines, interceptors, pump stations, treatment plants, and other
components that are not water-dependent shall be located away from
shorelines unless:
(a) Alternative locations, including alternative technology, are demonstrated
to be infeasible.
(b) The facilities do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(c) The facilities do not result in significant impacts to other shoreline
resources and values such as parks and recreation facilities, public access
and archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, and aesthetic
resources.
(4) Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system.
(S) During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be
allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed.
(6) All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton
Public Works Department.
iv. Stormwater Management:
(1) The City will work with private property owners, and other jurisdictions to
maintain, enhance and restore natural drainage systems to protect water
quality, reduce flooding, reduce public costs and prevent associated
environmental degradation to contribute to the goal of no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
(2) All new development shall meet current storm water management requirements
for detention and treatment.
(3) Individual single-family residences may be subject to water quality management
requirements to ensure the quality of adjacent water bodies.
(4) Storm water ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as far from the water's
edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservation buffers.
(5) The location design and construction of storm water outfalls shall limit impacts
on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, state, and federal
requirements. Infiltration of storm water shall be preferred, where reasonably
feasible.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 95
(6) Storm water management may include a low impact development storm water
conveyance system in the vegetation buffer, if the system is designed to mimic
the function and appearance of a natural shoreline system and complies with all
other requirements and standards of RMC 4-3-090F.l Vegetation Conservation.
v. Solid Waste Facilities:
(1) Facilities for processing, storage, and disposal of solid waste are not normally
water-dependent. Components that are not water-dependent shall not be
permitted on shorelines.
(2) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies has the potential for
severe adverse effects upon ecological functions, property values, public health,
natural resources, and local aesthetic values and shall not be permitted.
(3) Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as an
accessory use to a primary permitted use, or for litter control.
4-3-090. F. Shoreline Modification
4-3-090. F.l Vegetation Conservation
a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in this
section, water bodies defined as Shorelines shall have a minimum 100-foot vegetation
management buffer measured from the ordinary high water mark of the regulated
shoreline of the state. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured
perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark from the end of the pipe along the open
channel section of the stream.
b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The reviewing official may apply the
following vegetation buffers provided for in Table RMC 4-3-090.F.1.I Vegetation
Conservation Standards by Reach as an alternative to the Standard Vegetation
Conservation Buffer for sites for development that implement water-oriented use and
public access as provided in the table for each reach.
c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single-Family Lots
i. Reduced Requirements Based on Lot Depth: The reviewing official may apply the
following vegetation buffers and building setbacks for existing single-family
residences and existing single-family lots consisting of property under contiguous
ownership without a variance. Lot depth shall be measured from the ordinary high
water mark in a perpendicular direction to the edge of the contiguously owned
parcel or to an easement containing existing physical improvements for road access
for two or more lots
Lot Depth Building Setback Vegetated Buffer
Greater than 180 feet 60 feet 25 feet
Greater than 130 feet, up to 180 45feet 20 feet
feet
100 feet, up to 130 feet 35 feet 15 feet
Less than 100 feet 25 feet 10 feet
ii. Reductions for Narrow Lots: For such lots with a lot width of less than 60 feet,
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 96
setbacks and buffers may be reduced by ten (10) percent, but no less than:
(1) Building setback: 25 feet
(2) Vegetated buffer: 15 feet
iii. Other Setbacks May be Reduced: Variance from the front and side yard standards
may be granted administratively if needed to meet the established setback from
OHWM, as specified in this section and if standard variance criteria are met.
d. Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width
i. Reviewing Official May Reduce: Based upon an applicant's request, the Reviewing
official may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where the
applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsections below. Buffer
enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat
sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics.
ii. Water-dependent Uses:
(1) Areas approved for water-dependent use or public access may be excluded from
vegetated buffer if the approval is granted through review of a Substantial
Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Variance, provided that the
area excluded is the minimum needed to provide for the water-dependent use
or public access.
(2) Access to private docks through a vegetated buffer may be provided by a
corridor up to six (6) feet wide.
iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Specific vegetated buffers
specified for areas enumerated in Table RMC 4-3-090.F.1.I, Vegetation Conservation
Standards by Reach, may be applied in accordance with those provisions.
iv. Buffer Reduction Standards: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance
of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the reviewing official may approve a
reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks by up to 20 percent, except when
the buffer widths/setbacks are established by subsection 4-3-090.F.l.c, above,
where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria in the
subsections below and any mitigation requirements applied as conditions of
approval.
(1) The abutting land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees
and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species cover and
has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; or
(2) The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native
species and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; and
(3) The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake ecological functions,
including those of anadromous fish or non-fish habitat; and
(4) The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and
(5) No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated
water bodies will result from a regulated activity. The Reviewing official's
determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts,
pursuant to RMC 4-9-190 E.4.
v. Buffer Reductions for the Conversion on Non-Conforming Uses: Based upon an
applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental Stream or Lake Study, the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 97
reviewing official may approve a reduction in the standard buffer in a case where an
existing non-conforming site is not re-developed and the proposal includes removal
of existing over-water structures or removal or reconstruction of shoreline
protection structures or other restoration of shorelines or buffer areas in a manner
that meets the standards of the Shoreline Master Program, to a vegetated buffer a
minimum 10 feet from existing buildings or impervious surface such as parking areas
and driveways in current use to serve the non-conforming buildings or uses.
e. Increased Buffer Widths: Vegetated buffers may be increased by the reviewing official as
required or allowed by the criteria below.
i. Areas of High Blow-down Potential: Where the stream/lake area is in an area of
high blow-down potential as determined by a qualified professional, the buffer
width may be expanded up to an additional fifty (50) feet on the windward side,
when determined appropriate to site circumstances and ecological function by the
Reviewing Official.
ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slopes or Very High landslide Areas: When the
required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide
hazard area or buffer, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of
the protected slope or the very high landslide hazard buffer.
f. Averaging of Buffer Width:
i. Authority: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a Supplemental
Stream or Lake Study, the Reviewing official may approve buffer width averaging.
ii. Criteria for Approval: Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(1) The water body and associated riparian area contains variations in ecological
sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body
and associated riparian area;
(2) Buffer width averaging will result in no-net loss of stream/lake/riparian
ecological function;
(3) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging;
(4) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 feet;
(5) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available
science as described in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-195-905; or
where there is an absence of valid scientific information; the steps in RMC 4-9-
250F are followed.
g. Buffer Enhancement: Buffer Enhancement as a separate action may be proposed on any
property and may be implemented without full compliance with the standards of this
Section, provided that the project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native
vegetation and provides documentation that the enhanced buffer area will maintain or
improve the functional attributes of the buffer. Any change to existing non-conforming
facilities or use on a site shall meet the provisions for non-conforming sites.
h. Exemption Criteria: As determined by the Reviewing official, for development proposed
on sites separated from the shoreline by intervening, and lawfully created public roads,
railroads, other off-site substantial existing improvements, or an intervening parcel under
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 98
separate ownership, the requirements of this code for a vegetation buffer may be waived.
For the purposes of this section, the intervening lots/parcels, roads, or other substantial
improvements shall be found to:
i. Separate the subject upland property from the water body due to their height or
width; and
ii. Substantially prevent or impair delivery of most ecological functions from the
subject upland property to the water body.
i. Vegetation Management: Vegetation adjacent to water bodies in the Shoreline shall be
managed to provide the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with these
standards.
i. Streams and lakes and with Vegetation Conservation Buffer areas that are largely
undisturbed native vegetation, shall be retained except where the buffer is to be
enhanced or where alteration is allowed in conformance with this Section for a
specific development proposal.
ii. In the absence of a development proposal, existing, lawfully established landscaping
and gardens within a Vegetation Conservation Buffer, may be maintained in its
existing condition including but not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, removal of
noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and
replacement planting of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to
maintain the condition and appearance of such areas as they existed prior to
adoption of this code, provided this does not apply to areas previously established
as native growth protection areas, mitigation sites, or other areas protected via
conservation easements or similar restrictive covenants.
iii. Removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species may be allowed without permit
review in any Vegetation Conservation Buffer area provided that removal consists of
physical uprooting or chemical treatment of individual plants or shallow excavation
of no more than 1,000 square feet of dense infestations.
iv. New development or redevelopment of non conforming uses shall develop and
implement a vegetation management plan that complies with the standards of this
code. Unless otherwise provided, a vegetation management plan shall preserve,
enhance or establish native vegetation within the specified vegetation buffer. If a
low impact development storm water system is proposed in accordance with RMC 4-
3-090E.ll.d.iv(6), it must be included in the vegetation management plan. When
required, vegetation management plans shall be prepared by a qualified
professional, provided that the reviewing official may establish prescriptive
standards for vegetation conservation and management as an alternative to
requiring a specific plan for a development. Vegetation management plans shall
describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide
ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the
extent possible. Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use
and/or development. For private development a conservation easement or similar
recorded legal restriction shall be recorded to ensure preservation of the vegetation
conservation and management area.
v. The reviewing official may approve, in cases of redevelopment or alteration of
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 99
existing single family residential lots, a vegetation management plan that does not
include large native trees, if such trees would block more than 30 percent of existing
water views allowed from the existing residence on a lot. Native vegetation
consisting of groundcover, shrubs and small trees shall be provided to provide as
many of the vegetation functions feasible. This provision shall not apply to new lots
created by subdivision or other means.
j. Documentation:
i. For application of provisions of Section RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation
applicable to existing single family residences and lots determinations and evidence
shall be included in the application file.
ii. For all development requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, findings
and determinations regarding the application of increased or reduced buffer width
shall be included as specific findings in the permit.
iii. For development not requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
approval of a reduced buffer width shall be require review as a shoreline variance by
the Land Use Hearing Examiner per RMC 4-9-190. The setback provisions of the
zoning district for the use must also be met unless a variance to the zoning code is
achieved.
k. Off-site Vegetation Conservation Fund: The city shall provide a fund for off-site provision
of areas for Vegetation Conservation and may assess charges to new development that do
not fully meet the standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer requirement of 100 square
feet of vegetated area per linear foot of shoreline. Credit shall be given for areas of
vegetation buffer on the shoreline provided by development. Expenditures from such a
fund for provision of areas where the functions of shoreline vegetation conservation
would be provided shall be in accordance with the Restoration Plan or other watershed
and aquatic habitat conservation plans and shall be spent within the WRIA in which the
assessed property is located.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 100
Table 4-3-090.F.1.I. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Standards by Reach
SHORELINE REACH Vegetation Conservation Objectives I
Lake Washington
Lake Washington This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
Reach A and B vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Lake Washington If areas redevelop, the full 100 foot buffer of native vegetation shall be provided, except
Reach C where water-dependent uses are located.
Lake Washington This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
Reach D and E vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Lake Washington Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
Reach F management, balanced with opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to
the shoreline. The city may fund shoreline enhancement through fees paid for off-site
mitigation from development elsewhere on Lake Washington.
Lake Washington Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
Reach G management, while recognizing that in this portion of the park is oriented primarily to
opportunities to provide public visual and physical access to the shoreline including over
water structures, supporting concessions, boat launch and public beach facilities.
Lake Washington Buffers for vegetation management are not required in this reach. This site has an
Reach H approved Master Site Plan that includes significant public access. Opportunities for
public access along the waterfront and the development of water-oriented uses are the
designated priorities for this reach.
Lake Washington The area of vegetation on public aquatic lands should be enhanced in the short term.
Reach I Upon redevelopment, vegetation buffers shall be extended into the site adjacent to
vegetated areas along the shoreline. Vegetation restoration shall be balanced with
--__ p.tJblic; access andlA/ater-oriented use on the balance of the site. Public access shall not
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 101
impact any restored lands on this site.
Lake Washington Enhanced riparian vegetation shall be provided in a manner consistent with maintaining
Reach J aviation safety as part of airport management.
Lake Washington Redevelopment of multi-family sites shall provide vegetation buffers at the full standard,
Reach K with possible employment of provisions for averaging or reduction. Single-family
development in this reach provides primarily lawn and ornamental vegetation at the
shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts shall be implemented through
providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water based on the standards
related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation.
May Creek
May Creek A and B Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with development of this
property.
May Creek C and 0 Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with existing
private lots, subject to buffer standards related to lot depth, together with replacement
of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Cedar River
Cedar River A Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of park
management, balanced with needs of flood control levees and opportunities to provide
public visual and physical access to the shoreline.
Cedar River B Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of flood control
management programs that may be integrated with opportunities to provide public
visual and physical access to the shoreline. Vegetation management and public access
should be addressed in a comprehensive management plan prior to issuance of
shoreline permits for additional flood management activities. This developed single-
family area shall implement vegetation management based on the standards related to
lot depth together with replacement of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline
protection incorporating vegetation as provided for alternation of non-conforming uses,
structures, and sites.
Cedar River C Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of management
of public parks. Full standard native vegetation buffers should be maintained on the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 102
public open space on the south side of the river, subject to existing trail corridors and
I other provisions for public access. Full standard buffers shall be provided upon
redevelopment of the north shore, subject to public access set back from the water's
edge and may provide for water-oriented use adjacent to the water's edge. The
vegetation conservation buffer may be designed to incorporate floodplain management
features including floodplain compensatory storage.
Cedar River D Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided on this reach with existing
private lots subject to buffer standards related to lot depth together with replacement
of shoreline armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation.
Green River
Green River Full standard native vegetation buffers shall be provided with redevelopment of this
Reach A property in this reach, balanced with provisions for public access. Vegetation
conservation within railroad rights of way shall not be required within areas necessary
for railway operation. Vegetation preservation and enhancement should be encouraged
in areas of railroad right of way not devoted to transportation uses. Expansion of
railroad facilities may require specific vegetation preservation and enhancement
programs, consistent with the standards of the Shoreline Master Program.
Black River / Springbrook Creek
Black Public open space that exceeds buffer standards should be maintained and native
River/Springbrook A vegetation enhanced. Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land, recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Springbrook B Full standard buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of adjacent land,
recognizing the constraints of existing transportation and public facilities.
Springbrook C and D Vegetation enhancement should be implemented within the drainage district channels
in conjunction with management plans including adjustments to channel dimensions to
assure continued flood capacity with the additional hydraulic roughness provided by
vegetation. Full standard vegetated buffers should be provided upon redevelopment of
adjacent land presuming re-vegetation of the stream channel. Vegetation management
should retain a continuous trail system that may be relocated further from the stream
edge.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 103
Lake Desire
Lake Desire A This developed primarily single-family area provides primarily lawn and ornamental
vegetation at the shoreline. Opportunities to limit ongoing adverse impacts should be
implemented through providing for native vegetation in buffers adjacent to the water
based on the standards related to lot depth together with replacement of shoreline
armoring with soft shoreline protection incorporating vegetation. Shoreline vegetation
enhancement should take place at the WDFW boat launching site balancing values of
riparian vegetation with public access. Existing shoreline vegetation in this publicly
owned natural area should be preserved with some accommodation for interpretive
access to the water as a part of park management plans, subject to the primary objective
of protecting ecological functions.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 104
4-3-090. F.2 Landfill and Excavation
a. Minimum Necessary: Landfill and excavation shall only be permitted in conjunction with
an approved use or development and allowed with assurance of no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions. Excavation below the ordinary high water mark is considered
"dredging" and is addressed in a separate section.
b. Criteria for Allowing Landfills and Excavations below OHWM: Landfills and excavations
shall generally be prohibited below the ordinary high water mark, except for the following
activities, and in conjunction with documentation of no net loss of ecological functions as
documented in appropriate technical studies:
i. Beach or aquatic substrate replenishment in conjunction with an approved
ecological restoration activity;
ii. Replenishing sand on public and private community beaches;
iii. Alteration, maintenance and/or repair of existing transportation facilities and
utilities currently located within shoreline jurisdiction, when alternatives or less
impacting approaches are not feasible;
iv. Construction of facilities for public water-dependent uses or public access; when
alternatives or less impacting approaches are not feasible and provided that filling
and/or excavation are limited to the minimum needed to accommodate the facility;
v. Activities incidental to the construction or repair of approved shoreline protection
facilities, or the repair of existing shoreline protection facilities;
vi. Approved flood control projects;
vii. In conjunction with a stream restoration program including vegetation restoration;
viii. Activities that are part of a remedial action plan approved by the Department of
Ecology pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or otherwise
authorized by the Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other
agency with jurisdiction, after review of the proposed fill for compliance with the
policies and standards of the Shoreline Master Program; and
c. Review Standards: All landfills and excavations shall be evaluated in terms of all of the
following standards:
i. The overall value to the public of the results of the fill or excavation site as opposed
to the value of the shoreline in its existing state as well as evaluation of alternatives
to fill that would achieve some or all ofthe objectives ofthe proposal.
ii. Effects on ecological functions including, but not limited to functions of the,
substrate of streams and lakes and affects on aquatic organisms, including the food
chain, effects on vegetation functions, effects on local currents and erosion and
deposition patterns, effects on surface and subsurface drainage, and effects on flood
waters.
iii. Whether shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect materials placed or
removed and whether such stabilization meets the policies and standards of the
Shoreline Master Program.
iv. Whether the landfill or excavation will alter the normal flow of floodwater, including
obstructions of flood overflow channels or swales.
v. Whether public or tribal rights to the use and enjoyment of the shoreline and its
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) \05
resources and amenities is impaired.
d. Performance Standards: Performance standards for fill and excavation include:
i. Disturbed areas shall be immediately stabilized and revegetated, to avoid or
minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial work and over time.
Natural and self-sustaining control methods are preferred over structures.
ii. Landfills and excavation shall be designed to blend physically and visually with
existing topography.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: All fill and excavation below the OHWM not
associated with ecological restoration, flood control or approved shoreline stabilization
shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
4-3-090. F.3 Dredging
a. General: Dredging and dredge material disposal, when permitted, shall be done in a manner
which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts and impacts which cannot be avoided
should be mitigated in a manner that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
b. Dredging Limited: Dredging is permitted only in cases where the proposal, including any
necessary mitigation, will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and is limited to
the following:
i. Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins
where necessary to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational
uses. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins shall be
restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth,
and width.
ii. For flood control purposes, when part of a publicly adopted flood control plan.
iii. For restoration or enhancement of shoreline ecological functions benefiting water
quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat and approved by applicable local, state and
federal agencies.
iv. For development of approved water-dependent uses provided there are no feasible
alternatives.
v. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of
public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which the public is provided access.
Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided.
vi. Maintenance dredging for access to existing legally established boat moorage slips
including public and commercial moorage and moorage accessory to single family
residences, provided that dredging shall be limited to maintaining the previously
dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. Dredging shall be
disallowed to maintain depths of existing private moorage where it results in a net loss
of ecological functions.
vii. Minor trenching to allow the installation of necessary underground pipes or cables if no
alternative, including boring, is feasible, and:
(1) Impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are avoided to the maximum extent possible.
(2) The utility installation shall not increase or decrease the natural rate, extent, or
opportunity of channel migration.
(3) Appropriate best management practices are employed to prevent water quality
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 106
impacts or other environmental degradation.
viii. Dredging is performed pursuant to a remedial action plan approved under authority of
the Model Toxics Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or pursuant to other authorization by the
Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other agency with jurisdiction,
after review of the proposed materials for compliance with the policies and standards of
the Shoreline Master Program.
ix. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and water quality,
when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas.
c. Dredging Prohibited; Dredging shall be prohibited in the following cases:
i. Dredging shall not be performed within the deltas of the Cedar River and May Creek
except for purposes of ecological restoration, for public flood control projects, for
water-dependent public facilities, or for limited maintenance dredging in conformance
with this section.
ii. Dredging is prohibited solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material.
Dredging which is not directly related to those purposes permitted in subsection b,
above, is prohibited.
iii. Dredging for new moorage is prohibited.
iv. Dredging may not be performed to maintain facilities established for water-dependent
uses in cases where the primary use is discontinued unless the facility meets all
standards for a new water-dependent use.
v. Dredging of public aquatic lands is prohibited unless approval is granted from the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
d. Review Criteria
i. New development, including the development of associate piers and docks, should be
sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and
maintenance dredging. Where alternatives such as the utilization of shallow access to
mooring buoys is feasible, such measures shall be used.
ii. All proposed dredging operations shall be designed by an appropriate State licensed
professional engineer. A stamped engineering report and an assessment of potential
impacts on ecological functions shall be prepared by qualified consultants shall be
submitted to the Renton Planning Division as part of the application for a shoreline
permit.
iii. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the
proposed dredging operation.
iv. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate that:
(1) There will be no net loss of ecological functions including but not limited to
adverse effect on aquatic species including fish migration.
(2) There will be no adverse impact on recreational areas or public recreation
enjoyment of the water.
v. Adjacent bank protection:
(1) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be
disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant
to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 107
(2) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the
dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry
out a method of restoration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing
erosion and siltation.
vi. Avoidance of Adverse Effects: The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate
the proposed dredging will avoid conditions that may adversely affect adjacent
properties including:
(1) Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
(2) Damage property in or near the area.
(3) Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or
near the area.
(4) Endanger public safety in or near the area.
vii. The applicant shall demonstrate control of contamination and pollution to water, air,
and ground through specific operation and mitigation plans.
viii. Disposal of Dredge Material: The applicant shall demonstrate that the disposal of
dredged material will not result in net loss of ecological functions or adverse impacts to
properties adjacent to the disposal site.
(1) The applicant shall provide plans for the location and method of disposing of all
dredged material.
(2) Dredged material shall not be deposited in a lake, stream, or marine water
except if approved as habitat enhancement or other beneficial environmental
mitigation as part of ecological restoration, a contamination remediation project
approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies, or is approved in
accordance with the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis evaluation
procedures for managing in-water-disposal of dredged material by applicable
agencies, which may include the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits,
and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project
Approval.
(3) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a shoreland area that
would result in the clearing of native vegetation. Temporary stockpiling of
dredged material is limited to 180 days.
(4) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall
propose and carry out a method of disposal that complies will all regulatory
requirements.
(S) Permanent land disposal shall demonstrate that:
(a) Shoreline ecological functions will be preserved, including protection of
surface and ground water.
(b) Erosion, sedimentation, floodwaters or runoff will not increase adverse
impacts to shoreline ecological functions or property.
(c) Sites will be adequately screened from view of local residents or passersby
on public right-of-ways.
(d) The site is not located within a Channel Migration Zone.
e. Shoreline Conditional Use Required: Dredging shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 108
unless associated with existing water-dependent uses, habitat enhancement; a remedial
action plan approved under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Model Toxics Control Act, or
public recreation facilities or uses.
4-3-090. F.4 Shoreline Stabilization
a. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures:
i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization
should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New
development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure
that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the
structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.
ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline
stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to approve new
water-dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent uses that would
require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or
down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed.
iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization
measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, non-structural
methods such as vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering
have been determined infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should
be based on the following hierarchy of preference:
(1) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building
setbacks, and relocate structures.
(2) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures
such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment,
protective berms, or vegetative stabilization.
(3) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described
below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line.
(4) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexibly defense works,
as described above.
(S) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete.
iv. limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization
measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of
the following situations:
(1) To protect existing primary structures:
(al New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an
existing primary structure, including residences, should not be
allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a
geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline
erosion caused by currents, or waves within three years, or where
waiting until the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity
to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Normal
sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 109
a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need.
The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues
and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before
considering structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a
cause of shoreline instability at the site in question.
(b) The erosion control structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii above.
(c) The erosion control structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
(d) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone
(CMZ) require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington licensed
geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license
plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments.
Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that:
the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a
natural condition; the measure does not interfere with fluvial
hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting in
natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation
of impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream.
(2) New Development: In support of new development when all five of the
conditions listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical
analysis:
(a) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the
loss of vegetation and drainage.
(b) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further
from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage
improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
(c) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion
is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be
caused by natural processes, such as currents, and waves.
(d) The erosion control structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii, above.
(e) The erosion control structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory
agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(f) The proposed new development is not located in a channel
migration zone (CMZ).
(3) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the
restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation
projects pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW when all three of the
conditions below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis:
(a) The erosion control structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 110
agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(b) The erosion control structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii, above.
(4) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor
area when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a
geotechnical report:
(a) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site
drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.
(b) The erosion control structure together with any compensatory
mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory
agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
(c) The erosion control structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in
subsection a.iii above.
v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this section
that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall
address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and
rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation.
The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the need and effectiveness of both hard
and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential damage to a primary
structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of other
agencies with jurisdiction.
vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on
streams should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural
stream processes. The reviewing official shall review the proposed design for
consistency with state guidelines for stream bank protection as it relates to local
physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master
Program, subject to the following:
(1) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and
downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character and
hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches
upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity of the stream
corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and
that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or
valuable shoreline resources.
(2) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel
bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish
or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration.
(3) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated
wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such
features would not adversely affect ecological functions.
(4) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend
of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) III
existing structures.
(5) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank
protection guidelines.
(6) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to
protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in
streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream
and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-water structures are
not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological functions
that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss.
b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any
structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the
following design criteria shall apply:
i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed by
a qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to
ensure that installation meets all design parameters.
ii. General Requirements: Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum
necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to
protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency
permitting conditions.
iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized
shoreline erosion control measures do not restrict appropriate public access to the
shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of
incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public
access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4). Where feaSible, incorporate ecological
restoration and public access improvements into the project.
iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be
permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with
other appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or
private recreation and Indian treaty rights.
v. Aesthetic Qualities to be Maintained: Where pOSSible, shoreline stabilization
measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline.
vi. Public Access to be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access should
be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization
structures for public or quasi-public developments whenever safely compatible with
the primary purpose. Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be
allowed to decrease long term public use of the shoreline.
c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline stabilization structures not in
compliance with this code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the
applicable criteria below:
i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be
repaired as long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization function for a
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 112
legally established land use, but shall be subject to the provisions below if the
land use for which the shoreline stabilization structure was constructed is
abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-conforming Uses, or changed to a new use.
ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size of existing
shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.
iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to
serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060 Non-conforming Uses,
discontinued, or changed to a new use may be retained or replaced with a
similar structure if:
(1) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis
to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents
or waves; and
(2) An evaluation ofthe existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation
to the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in
subsection a.iii, above, shows that a more preferred level of shoreline
stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing shoreline
stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives 1-3 of
the hierarchy in subsection a.iii would be infeasible then the existing
shoreline stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a
similar structure.
iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting Residences:
Replacement walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach waterward of the
ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the residence was
occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or
environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the
existing shoreline stabilization structure.
v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft shoreline
stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions
may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Replenishment
of substrate materials to maintain the specifications ofthe permitted design may
be allowed as maintenance.
vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical
habitats would occur by leaving an existing structure that is being replaced, the
structure shall be removed as part of the replacement measure.
4-3-090. F.5 Flood Control
a. Permitted Flood Control Projects: Flood control works shall be permitted when it is
demonstrated by engineering and scientific evaluations that:
i. They are necessary to protect health/safety and/or existing development;
ii. Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and
iii. Measures are consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management
plan that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.
b. Prohibited Flood Control Projects: New or expanding development or uses in the
shoreline, including subdivision of land, that would likely require new structural flood
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 113
control works within a stream, channel migration zone, or floodway shall not be allowed.
c. Long Term Compatibility: New or expanded flood control works and in stream structures
should be planned and designed to be compatible with appropriate multiple uses of
stream resources over the long term, especially in shorelines of statewide significance.
d. Criteria for Allowing Flood Control Projects: New flood control works should only be
allowed in the shoreline if they are necessary to protect existing development and where
non-structural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible.
e. Native Vegetation: Flood control works should incorporate native vegetation to the
extent feasible to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance,
improve ecological functions, and provide more flexibility for long term shoreline
management.
f. Consideration of Alternatives: To minimize flood damages and to maintain natural
resources associated with streams, overflow corridors and other alternatives to
traditional bank levees, revetments and/or dams shall be considered. Setback levees and
similar measures should be employed where they will result in lower flood peaks and
velocities, and more effective conservation of resources than with high bank levees. On
Cedar River Reach D, setting back existing levees to provide for enhance natural stream
processes may be pursued when adequate provisions are made for protecting existing
public and private uses.
g. Public Access Required: Flood control works shall provide access to public shorelines
whenever possible, unless it is demonstrated that public access would cause unavoidable
public health and safety hazards, security problems, unmitigatable ecological impacts,
unavoidable conflicts with proposed uses, or unreasonable cost. At a minimum, flood
control works should not decrease public access or use potential of shorelines.
4-3-090. F.6 Stream Alteration
a. Definition of Stream Alteration: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow
of a river, stream or creek.
b. Alterations to be Minimized: Stream alteration shall be minimized, and when allowed
should change natural stream processes as little as possible.
c. Allowed if No Feasible Alternative: Unless otherwise prohibited by subsections RMC 4-3-
090.E.l0 Transportation and RMC 4-3-090.E.ll Utilities, stream alteration may be
allowed for transportation and utility crossings and in-stream structures only where there
is no feasible alternative.
d. Allowed for Flood Hazard Reduction: Stream alteration may be permitted if it is part of a
public flood hazard reduction program or a habitat enhancement project approved by
appropriate State and/or Federal agencies.
e. Prohibited Alterations: Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the
developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of
land is prohibited.
f. Detriment to Adjacent Parcels Prohibited: Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be
significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels.
g. Applicant's Responsibility: The applicant has the sole responsibility to demonstrate the
necessity of the proposal and compliance with the criteria of the Shoreline Master
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 114
Program.
h. Professional Design Required: All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an
appropriately state-licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted with a
supplemental lake/stream study to the Planning Division as part of the application.
i. Impacts to Aquatic Life to be Minimized: The design timing and the methods employed
will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life Including minimizing erosion,
sedimentation and other pollution during and after construction.
j. Flow Levels to Be Maintained: The project must be designed so that the low flow is
maintained and fish escapement is provided for.
k. Conditional use required in a CMZ: Stream alterations within a channel migration zone
require a shoreline conditional use permit.
SECTION IV. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 8 PERMITS-GENERAL AND APPEALS Section RMC
4-9-120C Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications is hereby amended to read as
follows: Note, only the portions of this table that are subject to chonges are being shown:
Submittal Requirements Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline
Exemption Substantial Conditional Variance
Development Use Permit
Permit
10% Notice of Intent to Annex
60% Petition to Annex
Affidavit of Installation of
Public Information Sign
Applicant Agreement
Statement (for wireless
communication facilities)
Applicant's Confirmation of
Condition Compliance
Application Fee per RMC 4-1-X X X
170
Assessment Information
Authorization for Abatement
Binding Site Plan Map
Business License Application
for Home Occupation
Calculations, Survey
Colored Display Maps 1 1 1
Construction Mitigation 5 5 5
Description
Draft Deed for Any Proposed
Dedication of Land for Public
Purposes
Draft Homeowners'
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 115
Association Documents, if
applicable
Draft Restrictive Covenants, if
any
Drainage Control Plan 5 5 5
Drainage Report 4 4 4
Elevations, Architectural 12 12 12
Elevations, Grading 4 4
Environmental Checklist 12 12 12
Existing Covenants (recorded 5 5 5
copy)
Existing Easements (recorded 5 5 5
copy)
Final Plat Plan
Flood Hazard Data, if 12 12 12
applicable
Floor Plans 5 5 5
Geotechnical Report 5 5 5
Grading Plan, Conceptual 12 12 12
Grading Plan, Detailed
Habitat Data Report 12 12 12
Hazardous Materials
Management Statement
Inventory of Existing Sites (for
wireless communication
facilities)
Justification for the
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, and, if
applicable, Rezone
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
(nonconforming structure)
Justification of the Rebuild
Approval Permit
(nonconforming use)
Justification for Conditional 12
Permit Request
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
(nonconforming structure)
Justification for the Rebuild
Approval Permit
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 116
(nonconforming use)
King County Assessor's Map
Indicating Site
Landscape Plan, conceptual S 5 5
Landscape Plan, Detailed
Lease Agreement Draft (for
wireless communication
facilities)
Legal Description 4 12 12 12
Letter Describing Proposed
Home Occupation
Letter from Property Owner
Letter to Examiner/Council
Stating Reason(s) for Appeal
per RMC 4-8-110C3
Letter Explaining Which
Comprehensive Plan
Text/Policies Should be
Changed and Why
Letter of Understanding, 5 5 5
Geologic Risk
List of Affected Property
Owners within Annexation
Area Boundary
List of Surrounding Property 2 2 2
Owners
Lot Line Adjustment Map
Mailing Labels for Property 2 2 2
Owners
Map of Existing Site Conditions
Map of View Area (for wireless
communication facilities only)
Master Application Form 4 12 12 12
Master Plan
Mobile Home Park Plan
Monument Cards (one per
monument)
Neighborhood Detail Map 4 12 12 12
Nonconformity Relationship
and Compatibility Narrative
Parking, Lot Coverage, and 5 5 5
Landscaping Analysis
Photo Simulations (for
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 117
wireless communication
facilities only)
Plan Reductions (PMTs) 1 1 1
Postage X X X
Plat Certificate
Pre-application Meeting 1 5 5 5
Summary, if any
Preliminary Plat Plan
Project Narrative 4 12 12 12
Project Sequencing Plan
Proposal (non-project, e.g.,
draft ordinance, plan, or
policy)
Proposal Summary (non-
project)
Public Works Approval Letter
Routine Vegetation
Management Application
Form
Screening Detail, 12 12 12
Refuse/Recycling
Service Area Map (for wireless
communication facilities only)
Short Plat Plan
Short Plat Plan, Final
Site Plan 12 12 12
Site Plan, Shoreline Permit 4
Site Plan, Single Family
Siting Process Report for Use
permits for SCTF
Source Statement, Fill
Material, Aquifer Protection
Areas
Statement for Addressing 5 5 5
Basis for Alternate and/or
Modification
Statement Addressing the 4
Basis for the Shoreline Permit
Exemption Request
Statement Addressing the
PUD's Relationship to the City
Comprehensive Plan
Stream/Lake Study (8) 4 12 12 12
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 118
Survey
Title Report or Plat Certificate 5 5 5
Topography Map (5' contours) 12 12 12
Traffic Study 5 5
Tree Removal/Vegetation 4 4 4
Clearing Plan
Urban Design District Review
Packet
Utilities Plan, Generalized 5 5 5
Vegetation Management Plan 5 5
(Shoreline)
Wetlands Delineation Map 12 12 12 12
Wetland Mitigation Plan-3 3 3 3
Preliminary
Wetland Mitigation Plan-Final 3 3 3 3
Wetlands Assessment 3 3 3 3
Table 4-8-120C Legend
Note: Only note 8 from the legend is included in this draft because the other notes are not applicable to
shoreline permits
8. A standard stream or lake study is required for any application proposal. A supplemental
study is also required if an unclassified stream is involved, or if there are proposal results in any
impacts to or alterations of the water body or buffer, as identified in the standard stream or
lake study. A stream or lake mitigation plan will be required prior to final approval for any plans
or permits that result in impacts to or alterations of the water body or buffer.
SECTION V. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 8 PERMITS-GENERAL AND APPEALS Section RMC
4-8-120D Definitions of Terms Use in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning, and Public
Works Permit Applications is hereby amended to read as follows:
Note: Only the submittal requirement definitions that are proposed for change are shown
below.
Elevations, Architectural: A twenty four inch by thirty six inch (24" x 36") fully dimensioned
architectural elevation plan drawn at a scale of one-fourth inch equals one foot (1/4"=1') or
one-eight inch equals one foot (1/8"=1')( or other size or scale approved by the Building
Official) clearly indicating the information required by the "Permits" section of the currently
adopted International Building Code and chapter 19.27 RCW (State Building Code Act,
Statewide amendments), including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Existing and proposed ground elevations,
b. Existing average grade level underneath proposed structure,
c. Height of existing and proposed structures showing finished rooftop elevations
based upon site elevations for proposed structures and any existing/abutting
structures,
d. Building materials and colors including roof, walls, any wireless communication
facilities, and enclosures,
e. Fence or retaining wall materials, colors, and architectural design,
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 119
f. Architectural design of on-site lighting fixtures, and
g. Cross-section of roof showing location and height of rooftop equipment (include
air conditioner, compressors, etc.) and proposed screening.
h. Required for the Urban Design Overlay District review packet:
i. Identify building elevations by street name and orientation, i.e., Burnett
Ave. (west) elevation.
ii. Show the location of rooflines, doors and widow openings.
iii. Indicated typical detailing around doors, windows and balconies
indicating finishes, color and reflectivity of glazing.
iv. Indentify offsets in walls intended to meet the minimum requirements
for building modulation indicating the amount of offset.
v. Show on each elevation any roof top elements such as mechanical and
elevator penthouses that protrude above the parapet or penetrate the
roof and would be visible from other buildings of the same height.
vi. Photographs of proposed materials from manufacturers' catalogues. A
materials board showing actual materials and colors reference on the
architectural elevations is recommended.
i. Required for shoreline permits:
i. Include measurements of the existing and proposed elevations of the
stream, river, or lake bottom in relationship to the proposed structure, if
the proposed structure is located fully or partially in, or over, the water.
Geotechnical Report: A study prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
practices and stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington which
includes soils and slope stability analysis, boring and test pit logs, and recommendations on
slope setbacks, foundation design, retaining wall design, material selection, and all other
pertinent elements. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the
report shall be reviewed and approved by a geologist. Further recommendations, additions or
exceptions to the original report based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data
shall be signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer who
reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical
report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications,
express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the geotechnical
report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. If
the site contains a geologic hazard regulated by the critical areas regulations or is within a
regulated shoreline, the preparation and content requirements of RMC 4-8-1200, Table 18 shall
also apply. If the site is within a channel migration zone, within shoreline jurisdiction, the
geotechnical report shall also include a geomorphic assessment by a Washington licensed
geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in
conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments.
Table 18-Geotechnical Report- Detailed Requirements
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 120
REPORT PREPARATION/CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS :I:
~ t!) ~ V>
::l :I: ::l 0 a::
0 :I: >-0 :I: <1:
UJ t!) a:: UJ t!) N
V> ~ UJ Z ~ <1:
UJ :I: > 0 , :I: :I:
"-, , , ,
UJ UJ UJ V> UJ UJ UJ
0 0 0 0 0 Z Z U Z
...J
V> ::::; ::::; ::::; a:: u ~ ~ Z ::::;
V> V> V> UJ <1: UJ "-0 0 0 ~ ...J ...J U a:: UJ Z Z :I: !!1 <1: <1: ...J 0 UJ Z t!)
I-<1: <1: <1: UJ 0 0 0 :I:
V> ...J ...J ...J :I: V> U U > V>
1. Characterize soils, geology and X X X X X X X X X X
drainage.
2. Describe and depict all natural and X X X X X X X X X X
manmade features within on hundred
fifty fee {ISO'} ofthe site boundary.
3. Identify any areas that have previously X X X X X X X X X X
been disturbed or degraded by human
activity or natural processes.
4. Characterize ground water conditions X X X X X X X X X
including the presence of any public
or private wells within one-quarter
{1/4} mile of the site.
5. Provide a site evaluation review of X X X X X X X X X X
available information regarding the
site.
6. Conduct a surface reconnaissance of X X X X X X X X X
the site and adjacent areas.
7. Conduct a subsurface exploration of X X X X X X X X X
soils and hydrologic conditions.
8. Provide a slope stability analysis. X X X X X X X
9. Address principles of erosion control in X X X X X X X X
proposal design including:
• Plan the development to fit the
topography, drainage patterns,
soils and natural vegetation on
site;
• Minimize the extent of the area
exposed at one time and the
duration of the exposure;
• Stabilize and protect disturbed
areas as soon as possible;
• Keep runoff velocities low;
• Protect disturbed areas from
stormwater runoff;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 121
• Retain the sediment within the
site area;
• Design a thorough maintenance
and follow-up inspection program
to ensure erosion control practices
are effective.
10. Provide an evaluation of site response X
and liquefaction potential relative to
the proposed development.
11. Conduct sufficient subsurface X
exploration to provide a site
coefficient (5) for use in the
International Building Code to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
12. Calculate tilts and strains, and X X
determine appropriate design values
for the building site.
13. Review available geologie hazard X X
maps, mine maps, mine hazard maps,
and air photographs to identify any
subsidence features or mine hazards
including, but not limited to, surface
depressions, sinkholes, mine shafts,
mine entries, coal mine waste dumps,
and any indication of combustion in
underground workings or coal mine
waste dumps that are present on or
within one hundred feet (100') of the
property.
14. Inspect, review and document any X X
possible mine openings and potential
trough subsidence, and any known
hazards previously documented or
identified.
15. Utilize test pits to investigate coal X X
mine waste dumps and other shallow
hazards such as slope entry portals
and shaft collar areas. Drilling is
required for coal mine workings or
other hazards that cannot be
adequately investigated by surface
investigations.
16. Provide an analysis of proposed X X X X X X X X X
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 122
clearing, grading and construction
activities including construction
scheduling. Analyze potential direct
and indirect on-site and off-site
impacts from development.
17. Propose mitigation measures, such as X X X X X X X X X X
any special construction techniques,
monitoring or inspection programs,
erosion or sedimentation programs
during and after construction, surface
water management controls, buffers,
remediation, stabilization, etc.
18. Critical facilities on sites containing X
areas susceptible to inundation due to
volcanic hazards shall require an
evacuation and emergency
management plan. The applicant for
critical facilities shall evaluate the risk
of inundation or flooding resulting
from mudflows originating on Mount
Rainier in a geotechnical report, and
identify any engineering or other
mitigation measures as appropriate.
19. Address factors specific to the site, or X
to the proposed shoreline
modification, as required in RMC 4-3-
090 Shoreline Master Program
Regulations
Landscaping Plan, Conceptual: A fully dimensioned plan, prepared by a landscape architect
registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified
professional, drawn at the same scale as the project site plan (or other scale approved by the
Reviewing OffiCial), clearly indicating the following:
a. Date, graphic scale, and north arrow,
b. Location of proposed buildings, parking areas, access and existing buildings to remain,
c. Names and locations of abutting streets and public improvements, including easements,
d. Existing and proposed contours at five foot (5') intervals or less,
e. Location, size, and purpose of planting areas, including those required in RMC 4-4-070,
Landscaping, and those required in RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
f. Location and height for proposed berming,
g. Location and elevations for any proposed landscape-related structures such as arbors,
gazebos, fencing, etc.,
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 123
h. Location, size, spacing and names of existing and proposed shrubs, trees, ground covers,
and decorative rockery or like landscape improvements in relationsh ip to proposed and
existing utilities, and
i. The location, size and species of all protected trees on site. Protected trees shall have
the approximate drip line shown (see RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing
Regulations).
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan: The mitigation plan must ensure compensation for impacts
that result from the chosen development alternative or from a violation as identified in the
impact evaluation. A mitigation plan must include:
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch equals
twenty feet (1" =20') (unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director):
i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundred
feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies)
flow(s);
ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a
qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050L1b (the OHWM must also be
flagged in the field);
iii. Stream or Lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water
Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see
"Supplemental Stream or Lake Study");
iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and
its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are
less than ten percent (105), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten
percent (10%) or greater;
v. One hundred (100) year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including
one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water
body(ies) flow(s);
vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major
drainage flow;
vii. Top view and typical cross-section views ofthe stream or lake bed, banks,
and buffers to scale;
viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake,
banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one
hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line.
Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten inches (10")
average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100') ofthe OHWM;
ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed
structures, roads, storm water management facilities, wastewater
treatment and installation in relation to the stream/lake and its/their
buffer(s); and
x. Location of site access, ingress and egress.
xi. Location of where all proposed mitigation or remediation measures have
taken place on the site;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 124
b. Mitigation narrative: Mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper that includes the
following elements:
i. Description of the mitigation plan, which includes a summary of
mitigation proposal required in the supplement stream or lake study;
ii. Performance standards with specific criteria provided for evaluating
whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved.
iii. Documentation of coordination with appropriate local, regional, special
district, state, and federal regulatory agencies.
c. Monitoring and Maintenance Plan: The plan shall be on 8.5" x 11" paper that
includes the following elements:
i. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of
the site;
ii. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring
standards and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly);
III. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation.
d. Surety device must be filed with the City of Renton.
Stream or Lake Study, Standard: A report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist unless
otherwise determined by the Administrator, and include the following information:
a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch equals
twenty feet (1'=20') (unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director):
(1) The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one
hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water
body(ies) f1ow(s);
(2) The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a
qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-050Llb (the OHWM must also
be flagged in the field);
(3) Stream or Lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water
Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see
"Supplemental Stream or Lake Study" below);
(4) Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s)
and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes
are less than ten percent (105), and of five feet (5') where slopes are
ten percent (10%) or greater;
(5) One hundred (100) year floodplain and flood way boundaries, including
one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the
water body(ies) flow(s);
(6) Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major
drainage flow;
(7) Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed,
banks, and buffers to scale;
(8) The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake,
banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 125
hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line.
Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten inches (10")
average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100') of the
OHWM;
(9) The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed
structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater
treatment and installation in relation to the stream/lake and its/their
buffer(s); and
(10) Location of site access, ingress and egress.
b. Grading Plan: A gradating plan prepared in accordance with RMC 4-8-120D7, and
showing contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are less than ten percent
(10%), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater;
c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report on 8.5" x 11" paper
shall be prepared to accompany the site plan and describes:
(1) The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton
Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090;
(2) The vegetative cover of the site, including the stream or lake, banks,
riparian area, wetland areas, and flood hazard areas extending one
hundred feet (lOO') upstream and downstream from the property line,
including the impacts of the proposal on the identified vegetation;
(3) The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake and
existing riparian area and the impacts of the proposal on the identified
ecological functions;
(4) Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area
including, but not limited to, salmonids, mammals, and bird nesting,
breeding, and feeding/foraging areas, including the impacts of the
proposal on the identified fish and wild life;
(5) Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11-200, and
vegetation; and
(6) For shorelines regulated under RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program,
the study shall demonstrate if the proposal meets the criteria of no net
loss of ecological functions as described in RMC 4-3-090D2. If the
proposal requires mitigation in order to demonstrate no net loss of
ecological functions, a supplemental stream or lake study is required.
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental:
a. Unclassified Stream Assessment: If the site contains an unclassified stream, a
qualified biologist shall provide a proposed classification of the stream(s) based
on RMC 4-3-050Ll and a rationale for the proposed rating.
b. Analysis of Alternatives: A report on 8.5" x 11" paper prepared by a qualified
biologist that evaluates alternative methods of developing the property. The
following alternatives shall be analyzed, including justification ofthe feasibility of
each alternative:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 126
i. Avoid any disturbances to the stream, lake, or buffer by not taking a
certain action, by not taking parts of an action, or by moving the action;
ii. Minimize any stream, lake, or buffer impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate
technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or
reduce the impacts;
iii. Rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected area;
iv. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation
and maintenance operations over the life of the action;
v. Compensate for any stream, lake or buffer impacts by replacing,
enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and
monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures;
c. Impact Evaluations
i. An impact evaluation for any unavoidable impacts prepared by a
qualified biologist, to include:
(a) Identification, by characteristics and quantity, of resources
(stream, lake) and corresponding functional values found on the
site;
(b) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modification, or
alternative methods of development to determine which
options(s) reduce(s) the impacts on the identified resource(s) and
function values of the site;
(c) Determination of the alternative that best meets the applicable
approval criteria and identify significant detrimental impacts that
are unavoidable;
(d) To the extent that the site resources and functional values are
part of a larger natural system such as a watershed, the
evaluation must also consider the cumulative impacts on that
system;
(e) For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, evaluation of how the
preferred alternative achieves the standard of no net loss of
ecological functions under RMC 4-3-090D2.
ii. For a violation, the impact evaluations must also include:
(a) Description, by characteristics and quantity, of the resource(s)
and functional values on the site prior to the violations; and
(b) Determination of the impact of the violation on the resource(s)
and functional values.
d. Mitigation Proposal shall include the following:
i. Site Plan, at a scale approved by the City, containing all the elements of
the site plan required in the standard stream and lake study, and the<
following:
(a) Indication of where proposed mitigation or remediation
measures will take place on the site;
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 127
(b) Separate indication of areas where revegetation is to take place
and areas where vegetation is anticipated to be removed; and
(c) Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and
extent of impact indicated on site plan.
ii. Mitigation narrative on 8.5" x 11" paper addressing all ofthe following:
(a) Resource(s) and functional values to be restored, created, or
enhanced on the mitigation site(s);
(b) Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to
be achieved by mitigation;
(c) Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for
the proposed stream/lake alteration or buffer reduction or buffer
averaging, and a discussion of conformity to applicable
mitigation plan approval criteria;
(d) A review of the best available science supporting the proposed
request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact
mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to
date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed;
and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation
project; and
(e) Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for
purposes of calculating surety device.
iii. For shorelines regulated by RMC 4-3-090, discussion of how the proposed
plans meet or exceed the standard of no net loss of ecological functions
under RMC 4-3-090D2.;
iv. Proposed construction schedule.
Vegetation Management Plan: A plan prepared by a qualified professional that details how to
preserve, maintain, enhance, or establish native vegetation within a Vegetation Conservation
Buffer required by the Shoreline Master Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090. The plan shall
describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological
functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the greatest extent possible. It
shall also specify what is necessary to maintain the required vegetation over the life of the use
and/or development, consistent with the provisions of RMC 4-3-090F .l.i, Vegetation
Management.
Wetland Assessment: A wetland assessment includes the following:
a. A description of the project and maps at a scale no smaller than one inch equals
two hundred feet (1"=2.0'), unless otherwise approved by the City, showing the
entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the wetland boundary surveyed
by a qualified wetlands ecologist, and pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M3;
b. A description of the vegetative cover of the wetland and adjacent area including
identification ofthe dominant plant and animal species;
c. A site plan for the proposed activity at a scale no smaller than one inch equals
two hundred feet (1"=2.0'), unless otherwise approved by the City, showing the
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 201 O) 128
location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads,
storm water management facilities, sewage treatment and installations within
the wetland and its buffer;
d. The exact locations and specification for all activities associated with site
development including the type, extent and method of operations;
e. Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the wetland and its buffer at
contour intervals of no greater than five feet (5') or at a contour interval
appropriate to the site topography and acceptable to the City;
f. Top view and typical cross-section views of the wetland and its buffer to scale;
g. The purposes of the project and, if a wetland alteration or a buffer reduction or
averaging proposal is being requested, an explanation of how applicable review
criteria are met;
h. If wetland mitigation is proposed, a mitigation plan which includes baseline
information, an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the
wetland area and wetland functions, environmental goals and objectives,
performance standards, construction plans, a monitoring program and a
contingency plan.
i. Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the
applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using
the following criteria in this order:
i. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
ii. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
iii. Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts;
iv. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily;
v. Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
vi. In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an
existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values.
j. Such other information as may be needed by the City, including, but not limited
to an assessment of wetland functional characteristics, including a discussion of
the methodology used; a study of hazards if present on site, the effect of any
protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards; an assessment
of the hydrological connection of the wetland to shorelines within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, and any other information
deemed necessary to verify compliance with the provisions of this Section.
SECTION VI. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 9 PERMITS-SPECIFIC Section RMC 4-3-190
Shoreline Permits is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-9-190 SHORELINE PERMITS
4-9-190. A. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to ensure consistency with the State Shoreline Management Act
and with the City's Shoreline Master Program.
4-9-190B. Shoreline Development Approval
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 129
4-9-190B.1. Development Compliance: All uses and developments within the jurisdiction of
the Shoreline Management Act shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent
with the Shoreline Master Program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1),
regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or
shoreline conditional use permit is required. The reviewing official shall assure compliance with
the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program for all permits and approvals processed by the
city.
4-9-190B.2. Shoreline Overlay: Shoreline regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to
Development Regulations, including but not limited to zoning, environmental regulations,
development standards, subdivision regulations, and other regulations established by the City.
a. Allowed uses shall be limited by the general polices and specific regulations regarding use
preferences for water-dependent and water-oriented uses. Allowed uses may be
specified and limited in specific shoreline permits. In the case of non-conforming
development, the use provisions of this code shall be applied to any change of use,
including occupancy permits.
b. In the event of any conflict between Shoreline policies and regulations and any other
regulations of the City, Shoreline policies and regulations shall prevail unless other
regulations provide greater protection of the shoreline natural environment and aquatic
habitat
c. All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect
to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master
Program policies, found in the City's Comprehensive Plan, establish intent for the
shoreline regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington
Administrative Code 173-26 and 173-27.
4-9-190B.3. Substantial Development Permit: A substantial development permit shall be
required for all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically
exempt pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). An exemption from obtaining a shoreline substantial
development permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act, the Shoreline Master
Program, or from any other regulatory requirements.
a. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise
terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the
substantial development permit process.
b. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt is on the applicant/proponent
ofthe exempt development action.
c. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial
development permit is required for the entire project.
4-9-190B.4. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit: A development or use that is listed as a
shoreline conditional use pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program or is an unlisted use, must
obtain a conditional use permit even if the development or use does not require a substantial
development permit.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 130
4-9-190B.5. Shoreline Variance: When an activity or development is proposed that does not
comply with the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the Program, such
development or use shall only be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance even if the
development or use does not require a substantial development permit.
4-9-190B.6. Land Division: In the case of land divisions, such as short subdivisions, long plats
and planned unit developments, the reviewing official shall document compliance with bulk
and dimensional standards as well as policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program
and attach appropriate conditions and/or mitigating measures to such approvals to ensure the
deSign, development activities and future use associated with such land division(s) are
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program.
4-9-190B.7. Approval Criteria: In order to be approved, the reviewing official must find that a
proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation
and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and
dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial
compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these
policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Reviewing Official that the
proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline
Master Program.
c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding
shorelines of statewide significance, and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline
Master Program shall be also be adhered to.
4-9-190B.8. Written Findings Required: All permits or statements of exemption issued for
development or use within shoreline jurisdiction shall include written findings prepared by the
Reviewing official, including compliance with bulk and dimensional standards and policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. The Reviewing official may attach conditions to
the approval of exempt developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the
project with the Act and the Program.
4-9-190B.9. Building Permit Compliance: For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the
BUilding Official shall not issue a building permit for such development until compliance with
the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a shoreline substantial development
permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired.
Any permit issued by the Building Official for such development shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit.
4-9-190B.10. Restoration Project Relief: The City may grant relief from Shoreline Master
Program development standards and use regulations when the following apply:
a. A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward shift in the ordinary
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 131
high water mark, resulting in the following:
i. Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the
restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
ii. Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required
shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable Shoreline Master Program;
and
iii. Application of Shoreline Master Program regulations would preclude or interfere
with use of the property permitted by local development regulations, thus
presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
b. The proposed relief meets all of the following criteria:
i. The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
ii. After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the
restoration project;
iii. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline
restoration project and consistent with the Shoreline Master Program; and
iv. Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a
development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is
not eligible for relief under this section.
c. The application for relief must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for written
approval or disapproval. This review must occur during the department's normal review
of a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no
such permit is required, then the department shall conduct its review when the local
government provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting information
necessary to conduct the review.
i. Except as otherwise provided in Subsection d of this section, the Department of
Ecology shall provide at least 20-days notice to parties that have indicated interest
to the department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post
the notice on to their web site.
ii. The department shall act within 30 calendar days of close of the public notice
period, or within 30 days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if
additional public notice is not required.
d. The public notice requirements of Subsection c of this section do not apply if the relevant
shoreline restoration project was included in a Shoreline Master Program or shoreline
restoration plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as follows:
i. The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable
Shoreline Master Program guidelines; and
ii. The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the Shoreline Master
Program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the
Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from
shoreline regulations; and
iii. The Shoreline Master Program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the
nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied.
4-9-190C. Exemptions from Permit System
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 132
The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master
Program and are exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP).
An exemption from an SSDP is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline
Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements.
1. Governor's Certification: Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to
chapter 80.50 RCW.
2. Projects Valued at $5,000 or less: Any development of which the total cost or fair market
value does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), if such development does not
materially interfere with the normal public use ofthe water or shorelines of the state.
3. Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or
developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements.
a. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or
cessation from a lawfully established condition.
b. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original
condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and
external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction,
except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or
environment.
c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such
replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or
development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the
original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape,
configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment.
4. Emergency Construction: Emergency construction necessary to protect property from
damage by the elements.
a. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or
the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow
for full compliance with the Shoreline Master Program.
b. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent
protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective
structures are deemed to be the appropriate means to address the emergency
situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation, the new structure shall be
removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency,
pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 17-27 WAC or this Shoreline Program shall
be obtained.
c. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58
RCW and the Shoreline Master Program.
d. In general, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur,
but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
S. Agricultural Construction or Practices: Construction and practices normal or necessary
for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and
utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures,
including, but not limited to, head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 133
feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration
of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling, other than that which results from
normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching
activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for
feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for
growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal
livestock wintering operations.
6. Construction of Single-Family Residence and Accessory Buildings: Construction on
shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his
own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet
above average grade level as defined in WAC 173-27-030 and which meets all requirements
of the State agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than
requirements imposed pursuant to this Section.
a. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by
one (1) family including those structures and developments within a contiguous
ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily
connected to the use and enjoyment of a single family residence and is located
landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland.
b. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the
ordinary high water mark.
7. Construction of Non-Commercial Docks: Construction of a dock including a community
dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner,
lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multi-family residences.
a. This exception applies if
the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00);
however, if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2.,500.00) occurs within five (5) years of completion
of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a
substantial development permit; and
b. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include
recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances.
8. Construction Authorized by the Coast Guard: Construction or modification, by or under
the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of
navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
9. Operation, Maintenance, or Construction Related to Irrigation: Operation, maintenance,
or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or
are hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose
of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater
for the irrigation of lands.
10.Marking of Property Lines on State-Owned Lands: The marking of property lines or
corners on State-owned lands when such marking does not interfere with the normal public
use of the surface of the water.
11. Operation and Maintenance of Agricultural Drainage or Dikes: Operation and
maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 134
September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an
agricultural drainage or diking system.
12.. Activities Necessary for Permit Application: Site exploration and investigation activities
that are prerequisites to preparation of an application for development authorization under
the Shoreline Master Program, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters.
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including,
but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic
values.
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of
the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to
conditions existing before the activity.
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under the Shoreline Master
Program first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial
responsibility to the Planning Division to ensure that the site is restored to pre-
existing conditions.
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
13. Removal or Control of Aquatic Noxious Weeds: The process of removing or controlling
an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of a herbicide or
other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the
Department of Ecology jointly with other State agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
14. Watershed Restoration Projects: Watershed restoration projects as defined below:
a. "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the
sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the
plan and consists of one or more of the following activities:
i. A project that involves less than ten (10) miles of stream reach, in which less
than twenty five (2.5) cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported,
disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except
as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings.
ii. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs
the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization
only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native
vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water.
iii. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or
reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource
available for use by all of the citizens of the State, provided that any structure,
other than a bridge or culvert or in stream habitat enhancement structure
associated with the project, is less than two hundred (200) square feet in floor
area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream.
b. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by a state
department, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a city, a county or a conservation
district, for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter
43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. The watershed restoration plan
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 135
generally contains a general program and implementation measures or actions for
the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources,
character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed.
15. Projects to Improve Fish and Wildlife Passage or Habitat: A public or private project,
the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all
of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as
necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed
and sited to accomplish the intended purpose.
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and
Wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW.
c. The Planning Division has determined that the project is consistent with this Master
Program.
16. Hazardous Substance Remediation: Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to
WAC 173-27-040(3).
17. Projects on Lands Not Subject to Shoreline Jurisdiction Prior to Restoration: Actions on
land that otherwise would not be under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act
except for a change in the location of OHWM or other criteria due to a shoreline restoration
project creating a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark that brings the land under
the jurisdiction ofthe Act.
4-9-1900. Exemption Certification Procedures
1. Application Required: Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of
this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section shall make
application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Planning Division in the manner
prescribed by that division.
2. Consistency Required: Any development which occurs within the regulated shorelines of
the state under Renton's jurisdiction, whether it requires a permit or not, must be
consistent with the intent of the state law.
3. Conditions Authorized: The City may attach conditions to the approval of exempted
developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the
Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program.
4. Permit Required if Project Not Exempt in Part: If any part of a proposed development is
not eligible for exemption, then a shoreline permit is required for the entire proposed
development project.
4-9-190E. Shoreline Permit Application Procedures
1. Information Prior to Submitting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Application: Prior to submitting an application for a shoreline permit or an exemption from
a shoreline permit, the applicant should informally discuss a proposed development with
the Planning Division. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the
requirements of this Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and enforcement
procedures.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 136
2. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required: No shoreline development shall be
undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial development
permit" from the Planning Division.
3. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Forms and Fees: Fees shall be as
listed in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees Submittal requirements shall include the
materials listed in RMC 4-8-120C as well as other related requirements specified in RMC 4-
3-090.
4. Secondary Review By Independent Qualified Professionals: When appropriate due to
the type of critical areas, habitat, or species present, or project area conditions, the
Reviewing Official may require the applicant to prepare or fund analyses or activities
conducted by third party or parties selected by the Reviewing Official and paid for by the
applicant. Analyses and/or activities conducted under this Subsection include, but are not
limited to:
a. Evaluation by an independent qualified professional of the applicant's analysis and
the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any
recommendations as appropriate; and
b. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington State Department of Ecology, or the local Native American Indian Tribe
or other appropriate agency; and/or
c. Analysis of detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent
or abutting to the site.
S. Public Notice: Three (3) copies of a notice of development application shall be posted
prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three
hundred (300) feet thereof. The notice of development application shall also be mailed to
property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the subject property.
The required contents of the notice of development application are detailed in RMC 4-8-
090B, Public Notice Requirements.
6. Standard Public Comment Time: Each notice of development application shall include a
statement that persons desiring to present their views to the Planning Division with regard
to said application may do so in writing to that Division and persons interested in the
Planning Division's action on an application for a permit may submit their views in writing or
notify the Planning Division in writing of their interest within fourteen (14) days from the
date of the notice of application.
7. Special Public Comment Time: Notice of development application for a substantial
development permit regarding a limited utility extension as defined in RCW 90.58.140
(ll)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family
residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall include a fourteen
(14) day comment period. Such notification or submission of views to the Planning Division
shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on the application.
8. Review Guidelines: Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional
use permit provisions of this Master Program, no substantial development permit and no
other permit shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent with the
provisions of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules
and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology there under.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 137
9. Conditional Approval: Should the Planning Division Director or his/her designee find that
any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program
and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he/she may deny such application or attach
any terms or condition which he/she deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose
and objective of this Master Program.
10. Notification: It shall be the duty of the Planning Division to timely furnish copies of all
applications and actions taken by said division unto such other officials or departments
whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed development, including
any state or federal agencies and Indian tribes.
4-9-190F. Review Criteria
1. General: The Planning Division shall review an application for a permit based on the
following:
a. The application.
b. The environmental checklist or environmental impact statement, if one is required.
c. Written comments from interested persons.
d. Information and comments from all affected City departments.
e. Evidence presented at a public hearing.
f. No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be
granted by the Responsible Official unless upon review the use or development is
determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program.
2. Additional Information: The Planning Division may require an applicant to furnish
information and data in addition to that contained or required in the application forms
prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for
the proposed development by another agency, the City's Environmental Review committee
shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when the State
Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement.
3. Procedural Amendments: In addition to the criteria hereinabove set forth in this Section,
the Department of Community and Economic Development may from time-to-time
promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when
reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the
Department of Ecology.
4. Burden of Proof on Applicant: The burden of proving that the proposed substantial
development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted
shall be on the applicant.
4-9-190G. Surety Devices
The Planning Division may require the applicant to post a surety device in favor of the City of
Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on
any shoreline permit. Said surety device shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City
that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated and in accordance
with RMC 4-1-230 Surety and Bonds.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 138
4-9-190H. Administrative Appeals
The Department of Community and Economic Development shall have the final authority to
interpret the Master Program for the City of Renton. Where an application is denied or
changed, per Subsection E6 of this Section, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or
changing a "substantial development permit" to the Shoreline Hearings Board for an open
record appeal in accordance with RMC 4-8-110. See RMC 4-8-110H for appeal procedures to
the Shoreline Hearings Board.
4-9-1901. Variances and Conditional Uses
1. Purpose: The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a
manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to
utilize his property in a fair and equitable manner.
2. Authority
a. Conditional use permits: conditional use permits shall be processed either by the City
Hearing Examiner or administratively in accordance with the provisions to RMC 4-2-
060 Zoning Use Table, provided that:
i. Additional requirements for conditional use permits may be provided within
shoreline jurisdiction in this section and will prevail over the provisions of RMC
4-2-060.
ii. If an administrative process is not specified, a conditional use permit shall be
processed by the Hearing Examiner.
iii. Proposed uses not specified in this Section or in RMC 4-2-060 and not prohibited
may be allowed by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit.
b. Variances: The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant
conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master
Program.
c. State Department of Ecology Decision: Both variances and conditional use permits
are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for
approval or denial.
d. Time Limit, Permit Validity, and Appeals: Conditional permits and variances shall be
deemed to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt by
the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office unless written
communication is received by the applicant and the City indicating otherwise.
i. Conditional use permits and variances shall be filed with the State in accordance
with RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
ii. Permit validity requirements of Subsection J of this Section shall apply to
conditional use and variance permits.
iii. Appeals of conditional use or variance permits shall be made in accordance with
RMC 4-8-110H.
3. Maintenance of Permitted Uses Allowed: It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the
time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance
and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit.
4. Variances:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 139
granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master
Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of
property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in
the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or
practical difficulties.
b. Decision Criteria: The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his
property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself,
sufficient reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of
the following:
i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject
property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other
properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other
properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this Master Program.
v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to
the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by
denying it, the variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be
entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use
and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program.
vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170.
5. Conditional Use
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use
permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a
conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing
the regulations of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable
effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to include many uses.
b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after
consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use
compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit
may be granted subject to the Reviewing Official determining compliance with each
of the following conditions:
i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master
Program.
iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's
Master Program.
v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 140
4-9-190J. Time Requirements for Shoreline Permits
1. Applicability: The time requirements of this Section shall apply to all substantial
development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or
conditional use permit authorized under the Shoreline Master Program.
2. Unspecified Time Limits: Where specific provisions are not included to establish time
limits on a permit as part of action on a permit by the City or the Department of Ecology,
the time limits in Subsections J6 and J8 of this Section apply.
3. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Substantial Developments: If it is determined
that standard time requirements of Subsections J6 and J8 of this Section should not be
applied, the Planning Division shall adopt appropriate time limits as a part of action on a
substantial development permit upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements
and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of
this Master Program and RCW 90.58.143.
4. Discretionary Time Limits for Shoreline Conditional Uses or Shoreline Variances: If it is
determined that standard time requirements of Subsections J6 and J8 of this Section should
not be applied, the Hearing Examiner, upon a finding of good cause and with the approval
of the Department of Ecology, shall establish appropriate time limits as a part of action on a
conditional use or variance permit. "Good cause" means that the time limits established are
reasonably related to the time actually necessary to perform the development on the
ground and complete the project that is being permitted.
5. Extension Requests: Requests for permit extension shall be made in accordance with
Subsections J6 and J8 of this Section.
6. Standard Period of Validity: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline
permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and Subsection J2 or J3 of this Section, construction
activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master
Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline
permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary.
However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed
one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the
Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties
of record and the Department of Ecology.
7. Certification of Construction Commencement. Construction activities or commencement
of construction referenced in Subsection J6 of this Section means that construction
applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must
be approved and completed before the end of the two (2) year period.
8. Time Allowed for Construction Completion: A permit authorizing construction shall
extend for a term of no more than five (5) years after the effective date of a shoreline
permit, unless a longer period has been specified pursuant to RCW 90.58.143 and
Subsections J2 or J3 of this Section. If an applicant files a request for an extension prior to
expiration of the shoreline permit the Planning Division shall review the permit and upon a
showing of good cause may authorize a single extension of the shoreline permit for a period
of up to one year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate. Notice of the proposed permit
extension shall be given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. To maintain
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 141
the validity of a shoreline permit, it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain valid
construction permits in accordance with adopted Building Codes.
9. Effective Date of Filing:
For purposes of determining the life of a shoreline permit, the effective date of a substantial
development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit shall be
the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.S8.140(6). The permit time periods in Subsections
J6 and J8 of this Section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not
actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions, or due to
the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that
authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or
legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
10. Notification of City of Other Permits and Legal Actions: It is the responsibility of the
applicant to inform the Planning Division of the pendency of other permit applications filed
with agencies other than the City, and of any related administrative or legal actions on any
permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to
the Division prior to the expiration date established by the shoreline permit or the
provisions of this Section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the effective date of
the shoreline permit.
11. Permit Processing Time: The City shall issue permits within applicable time limits
specified by state law. Substantial development permits for a limited utility extension as
defined in RCW 90.S8.140(1l)(b) or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to
protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall
be issued within 21 days of the last day of the comment period specified in RMC 4-9-190E3.
12. Construction Not Authorized Until Proceedings Completed: No construction pursuant
to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction
permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until 21 days from the date the permit was
filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General, or until all review
proceedings are completed as were initiated within the twenty one (21) days of the date of
filing. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.S8.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130.
13. Special Allowance for Construction: If the granting of a shoreline permit by the City is
appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board, and the Shoreline Hearings Board has approved
the granting of the permit, and an appeal for judicial review of the Shoreline Hearings Board
decision is filed, construction authorization may occur subject to the conditions, time
periods, and other provisions of RCW 90.S8.140(S)(b).
4-9-190K. Rulings to State
Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this
Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall, with the transmittal of the ruling to
the applicant, be filed concurrently with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General
by the Planning Division. Filing shall occur in accordance with RCW 90.S8.140(6) and WAC 173-
27-130.
4-9-190L. Transferability of Permit
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 142
If a parcel which has a valid shoreline permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may
be transferred to the new owner.
4-9-190M. Enforcement
All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the Planning Division. For such
purposes, the Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police
officer.
4-9-190N. Rescission of Permits
1. Noncompliance with Permit: Any shoreline permit issued under the terms of this Master
Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Planning Division of the City upon a finding
that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the permit.
2. Notice of Noncompliance: Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall
be initiated by serving written notice of noncompliance on the permittee, which notice shall
be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the
application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee may have advised the
City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in
the same manner as service of summons as provided by law.
3. Posting: In addition to such notice, the Planning Division shall cause to have notice
posted in three (3) public places of which one posting shall be at or within the area
described in the permit.
4. Public Hearing: Before any such permit can be rescinded, a public hearing shall be held
by the Land Use Hearing Examiner. Notice of the public hearing shall be made in accordance
with RMC 4-8-0900, Public Notice Requirements.
5. Final Decision: The decision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision
of the City on all rescinded applications. A written decision shall be transmitted to the
Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other
departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the
City.
4-9-1900. Appeals
See RMC 4-8-110H.
4-9-190H. Violations and Penalties
1. Prosecution: Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable under conviction by a fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or
by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day's violation shall constitute a separate
punishable offense.
2. Injunction: The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as
are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the State within the City's
jurisdiction which are in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program
or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this
Section and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 143
3. Violators Liable for Damages: Any person subject to the regulatory program of this
Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a
permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property
arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition
prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection
on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under
this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons Similarly situated. If liability
has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation, the Court shall
make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at
the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the
Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing
party.
4-9-190Q. Shoreline Moratorium
1. The City Council may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and
appropriate to implement the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act.
2. Prior to adopting such moratorium or other interim official controls, the City Council
shall:
a. Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control within 60 days of adoption;
b. Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to, justifications for
the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely
outcomes; and
c. Notify the Department of Ecology of the moratorium or control immediately after
its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public
hearing held.
3. Said moratorium or other official control shall provide that all lawfully existing uses,
structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and
may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not
expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at
the time of the moratorium.
4. Said moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six
months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the
moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or
control may be renewed for two six-month periods if the City Council complies with
Subsection 4-9-190.Q.2.a. before each renewal.
5. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed Master Program or
amendment is submitted to the Department of Ecology, the moratorium or control must
remain in effect until the department's final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the
moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken
final action.
SECTION VII. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 10 LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES,
AND LOTS Section 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities,
Structures and Sites is adopted as follows:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 144
4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites
A shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the
effective date of the applicable Shoreline Master Program, or amendments thereto, but which
does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program, may be continued
provided that:
4-10-095A. Nonconforming Structures: Nonconforming structures shall be governed by RMC
4-10-050.
4-10-0958. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses shall be governed by RMC 4-10-060.
4-10-095C. Nonconforming Site: A lot which does not conform to development regulations on a
site not related to the characteristics of a structure including, but not limited to, the vegetation
conservation, shoreline stabilization, landscaping, parking, fence, driveway, street opening,
pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the district in which it is located due to
changes in Code requirements, condemnation or annexation.
4-10-0950. Pre-Existing Legal Lot: Reserved.
4-10-095E. Continuation of Use: The continuation of existing use and activities does not require
prior review or approval. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing legally established
structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, or drainage systems,
that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not modify the character, scope, or
size of the original structure or facility or increase the impact to, or encroach further within,
the sensitive area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the
proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation
management performed in accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing
maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or utilities, provided that such management actions
are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the sensitive area, are
not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an
endangered or threatened species.
4-10-095F. Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of Nonconforming Structure or Site:
The following provisions shall apply to lawfully established uses, buildings and/or structures and
related site development that do not meet the specific standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. Alteration or expansion of existing structures may take place with partial compliance
with the standards of this code, as provided below, provided that the proposed alteration or
expansion will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. In no case shall a structure
with a non-conforming setback from the shoreline be allowed to extend further waterward
than the existing structure.
4-10-095F.1. Partial Compliance for Non-Single-Family Development:
The following provisions shall apply to all development except single family:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 145
Alteration of a Non-conforming Structure Compliance Standard
" "
Expansion or remodel that does not change No site changes required. o _
0 the building footprint or increase impervious ~ => ·Vi
'" 0 " surface. ~..c: '" '" -0. ~3: x w
Expansion of building footprint by up to 500 • Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation
sq.ft. or up to 10% (whichever is less); or provisions of RMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation
" Expansion of impervious surface by up to Conservation consisting of revegetation of a native
0 1,000 sq. ft. or up to 10% (whichever is less); community of at least 50% of the area between an .;:;
'" or existing building and the water's edge, provided that :v -Remodeling or renovation that equals less the area to be revegetated does not exceed 10 -.;:
~ than 30% of the replacement value of the feet, unless a greater area is desired by the 0
" :2' existing structures or improvements, applicant.
excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical • Remove over water structures that do not provide
systems and normal repair and maintenance. public access, or do not serve a water-dependent
use.
Expansion of building footprint by more than • Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation
500 sq. ft. or between 10.1-25% (whichever is provisions of RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation
less); or Conservation consisting of revegetation of a native
community of at least 80% of the area between an
existing building and the water's edge, or at least 10
Expansion of impervious surface by more feet. " 0 than 1,000 sq. ft., or between 10.1-25% • Remove over water structures that do not provide .;:;
(whichever is less); or '" :v public access, or do not serve a water-dependent
~ -.;: use.
'" • Piers and Docks shall be required to replace any -'" :v solid surfaces with light penetrating surfacing
-0
0 Remodeling or renovation that equals 30.1-materials. :2'
50% of the replacement value of the existing • Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming
structures or improvements, excluding to, or otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this
plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems code shall be replaced with conforming shoreline
and normal repair and maintenance. stabilization structures in accordance with the
standards for new shoreline stabilization structures
in RMC 4-3-090F.4 Shoreline Stabilization.
Expansion of building footpiint.bymore than Full compliance required with' aU development
c 25%; or , standards for new structures, including, but not
0 Expa nsion of impervious surface by more limited to: primary and accessory structures, docks, ~
'" than 25%; or and shoreline stabilization structures if such ~
'" ~ Remodeling or renovation that equals more structures are not otherwise permitted by the -.;:
0 than 50% of the replacement value of the proviSions of RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master
.iii' existing structures or improvements, Program. :2'
excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical
systems and normal repair and maintenance,
4-10-09SF.2. Partial Compliance for Single-Family Development: The following provisions
shall apply to Single-family development:
Alteration of a Non-conforming Structure I Compliance Standard
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 146
Expansion or remodel that No site changes required.
c c
0 ~ 0 does not change the building :;:; " '0;
ro 0 c footprint or increase ~-'" ro '" ~ c. impervious surface. ~n: x w
Expansion of building footprint • Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of
c by up to 500 sq.ft. or up to 10% RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation consisting of 0 :;:; (whichever is less): or revegetation of a native community of at least 50% of the area ro
W Expansion of impervious between an existing building and the water's edge provided that ~ <;: surface by up to 1,000 sq. ft. or the area to be revegetated shall not be more than 10 feet, unless
~
0 up to 10% (whichever is less) a greater area is desired by the applicant. c
:;; • Remove over water structures that do not provide public
access, or do not serve a water-dependent use.
Expansion of building footprint • Partial compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of
by more than 500 sq. ft. or RMC 4-3-090.F.l Vegetation Conservation consisting of
between 10.1-25% (whichever revegetation of a native community of at least 80% of the area
is less): or between an existing building and the water's edge, or at least 10
c feet, provided that the area to be revegetated shall not be more 0 Expansion of impervious . .,
than 25% of the lot depth feet. '" ~ surface by more than 1,000 sq. (I) • Remove over water structures that do not provide public -<;: ft., or between 10.1-25% access, or do not serve a water-dependent use. (I) (whichever is less) ~ • Piers and Docks shall be required to replace any solid surfaces '" W
'0 with light penetrating surfacing materials.
0 :;; • Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming to, or
otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this code shall be
replaced with conforming shoreline stabilization structures in
accordance with the standards for new shoreline stabilization
structures in RMC 4-3-090F.4 Shoreline Stabilization.
c Expansion of building footprint Full compliance required with all development standards for new
0 by more than 25%; or structures,including, but not limited to: primary and accessory ~ -o ~ '-'" Expansion of impervious structures, docks, and. shoreline stabilization structures if such ro ~ :;; & surface by more than 25% structures are not otherwise permitted by the provisions of RMC <;:
4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program.
SECTION VIII. Renton Municipal Code Chapter 11 DEFINITIONS is amended to add the following
definitions specific to the Shoreline Master Program
SHORELINE DEFINITIONS IN RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4-11
Note: only the definitions pertaining to the SMP are included in this section.
4-11-010 DEFINITIONS A:
ACT, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW as
amended.
ACTIVITY: A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or
pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fishing, swimming,
boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities
necessarily require a shoreline location.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 147
AQUACULTURE: The culture of farming of aquatic animals and plants.
4-11-020 DEFINITIONS B:
BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP: A facility with an inclined surface extending into the water which
allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers.
BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose of protecting the
shoreline or harbor area from wave action.
BUFFER, SHORELINES: A strip of land that is designated to permanently remain vegetated in an
undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic, riparian, or wetland site from
upland impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access. Uses and
activities within the buffer are extremely limited.
BULKHEAD: A vertical wall constructed of rock, concrete, timber, sheet steel, gabions, or patent
system materials. Rock bulkheads are often termed "vertical rock walls." Seawalls are similar to
bulkheads, but more robustly constructed.
BUOY: A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc., to warn of rocks, shoals, etc., or used for
boat moorage.
4-11-030 DEFINITIONS C:
CIRCULATION: The movement of passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a transportation
corridor.
CONDITIONAL USE, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
conditional use or is not classified within the applicable Master Program.
CORRIDOR: A strip of land forming a passageway between two (2) otherwise separate parts.
4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D:
DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling;
dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing
of obstructions; or any other projects of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes
with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any
state of water level.
DOCK: A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water.
DREDGING: The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 148
4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F:
FLOOD CONTROL: Any undertaking for the conveyance, control, storage, and dispersal of flood
waters.
FLOOD, ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR: The maximum flood expected to occur during a one-
hundred (100) year period.
FLOODPLAIN: The area subject to a one hundred (100) year flood.
FLOODWAY: For purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program in
conjunction with the definition of "shore land," "floodway" means the area, as identified in a
Master Program, that either: (i) Has been established in federal emergency management
agency flood insurance rate maps or flood way maps; or (ii) consists of those portions of a river
valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are
carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not
necessarily annually, said flood way being identified, under normal condition, by changes in
surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition,
topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with reasonable regularity, although not
necessarily annually. Regardless of the method used to identify the flood way, the floodway
shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood
waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal
government, the state, or a political subdivision ofthe state.
4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H:
HEARINGS BOARD: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by the Act.
4-11-120 DEFINITIONS L:
LANDFILL: Addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other
material to an area waterward of the ordinary high water mark, in wetlands, or on shorelands,
in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
LOCAL SERVICE UTILITIES: Public or private utilities normally servicing a neighborhood or
defined subarea in the City, e.g., telephone exchanges; sanitary sewer; stormwater facilities;
distribution lines, electrical less than fifty five (55) kV, telephone, cable TV, etc.
4-11-130 DEFINITIONS M:
MAJOR SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities which provide services beyond the City's
boundaries, i.e., pipelines, natural gas, water, sewer, petroleum; electrical transmission lines
fifty five (55) kv or greater; and regional sewer or water treatment plants, etc.
MARINA: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.) A
use providing moorage for pleasure craft, which also may include boat launching facilities,
storage, sales, and other related services.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 149
MASTER PROGRAM: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton and the use
regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, and a
statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated
in Section 2 ofthe Act.
MOORAGE: Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but which
is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks, pilings, or buoys.
MULTIPLE USE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) The combining of compatible uses within one development, in which water-oriented and
non-water-oriented uses are included.
4-11-140 DEFINITIONS N:
NONCONFORMING SITE: A lot which does not conform to development regulations not related
to the characteristics of a structure but to the facilities provided on a site including but not
limited to, the vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization, landscaping, parking, fence,
driveway, street opening, pedestrian amenity, screening and other regulations of the district in
which it is located due to changes in Code requirements, or annexation.
NON WATER-DEPENDENT USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent.
NON-WATER-ORIENTED USE: Those uses which are not water-dependent, water-related, or
water-enjoyment.
4-11-150 DEFINITIONS 0:
OPEN SPACE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by
buildings, paved areas, or other manmade structures.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM): On lakes and streams, that mark 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 all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character
distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists as of
the effective date of regulations, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change in
accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following criteria clarify this mark on
lakes and streams:
A. Lakes. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean
high water.
B. Streams. Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of
mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark is found on the banks
forming the outer limits ofthe depression within which the braiding occurs.
4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 150
PARTY OF RECORD: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) All persons, agencies or organizations who have submitted written comments in
response to a notice of application; made oral comments in a formal public hearing conducted
on the application; or notified local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final
deCision on a permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such notice by mail.
PERMIT, SHORELINE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations,
use only.) Any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized
under chapter 90.58 RCW.
PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating
platform extending from the shore over the water. This definition does not include overwater
trails.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program
Regulations, use only.) Special contractual agreement between the developer and a
governmental body governing development of land.
PUBLIC AQUATIC LANDS: Land managed by the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) located inside the designated inner harbor line.
PUBLIC ACCESS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general public.
This may also include visual approach.
PUBLIC INTEREST: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the affairs of
government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not
limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a
use or development.
4-11-180 DEFINITIONS R:
RECREATION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The
recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be
passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. This definition
includes both public and private facilities.
4-11-190 DEFINITIONS S:
SETBACK: (For purposes of the Shoreline Master Program.) A required open space specified in
the Shoreline Master Program, measured horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the
ordinary high water mark.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 151
SHORELAND or SHORELAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet
(200) in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from ordinary high water mark;
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet (200) from such
floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas, associated with streams, lakes and
tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State Shorelines Management Act. For
purposes of determining jurisdictional area, the boundary will be either two hundred feet (200)
from the ordinary high water mark, or two hundred feet (200) from the floodway, whichever is
greater.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION: Structural and nonstructural methods to address erosion impacts to
property and dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by natural processes, such as currents,
floods, tides, wind, or wave action.
SHORELINES: All of the water areas of the State regulated by the City of Renton, including
reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except:
1. Shorelines of statewide significance.
2. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is
twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments.
3. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such
small lakes.
SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE: Those shorelines described in RCW 90.58.030(2)(e).
SHORELINES OF THE STATE: The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide
significance" regulated by the City of Renton.
STRUCTURE: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)
A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or
composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or
below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels.
SUBDIVISION: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use
only.) A parcel of land divided into two (2) or more parcels.
SUBSTANTIAL DEVElOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value
exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000) or any development which materially interferes with the
normal public use of the water or shoreline of the State. Exemptions in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)
and in RMC 4-9-190C are not considered substantial developments.
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The shoreline management substantial development
permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140).
4-11-220 DEFINITIONS V:
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 152
VESSEL: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)
Ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for navigation and
do not interfere with the normal public use of the water.
4-11-230 DEFINITIONS W:
WATER-DEPENDENT USE: Referring to uses or portions of a use which cannot exist in any other
location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.
Examples of water-dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and
passenger terminals, barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas,
aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer outfalls.
WATER-ENJOYMENT USE: Referring to a recreational use, or other use facilitating public access
to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational
use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general
characteristic of the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the
public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify
as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-
oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that
fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to,
parks, piers and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state;
and general water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums,
aquariums, scientific/ecological reserves, resorts/hotels and multiple use commercial/office;
provided that such uses conform to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
WATER-ORIENTED USE: "Water-oriented" refers to a use that is water-dependent, water-
related, water-enjoyment, or a combination of such uses.
WATER-RELATED USE: Referring to a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent
on a waterfront location, but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location
because:
1. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of
materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial
activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or
more convenient. Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that
transportation becomes a significant factor in the products cost, professional services serving
primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water-transported foods.
Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water,
seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by
barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker, and log storage.
WETLANDS: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use only.)
Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 153
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. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and
drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,
that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion
of wetlands.
Renton Shoreline Master Program PC Recommendation Review Draft (March 2010) 154