The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1.0. PARTIES OF RECORD Lake WA Shoreline Restoration LUA11-020, SME Molly A. Lawrence GordonDerr LLP 2025 First Avenue ste: #500 Seattle, WA 98121 tel: (206) 382-9540 eml: mlawrence@gordonderr.com (party of record) Updated: 07/26/11 (page 1 of 1) Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:51 PM To: 'SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR)' Subject: RE: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project Monica, Based on the identified need for removal mentioned in the tree memorandum dated May 28, 2014 and DNB's commitment to keep the trees on site as LWD the City is agreeable to the removal and placement of LWD under the existing shoreline exemption. The tree removal does not change the scope of the project nor the conclusions identified in studies submitted with the original application. Thank you for keeping the City involved in the restoration process. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) [mail,to,:MONICA.SHOEMAKER(8dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 9:26 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project Hi Vanessa, DNR will require that the trees stay on site once they are cut down. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: 5/29/2014 11:07 AM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Subject: RE: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project I understand the need to remove the trees. What I need to know is that by removing the trees there will not be a reduction in the functions and values of the shoreline habitat. Typically if the trees are left down as LWD it would be safe to assume the functions and values stay the same. Either a note from the project biologist identifying that the removal would not impact shoreline habitat function and values (i.e. no net loss of ecological functions and values) or a commitment to keep the trees as LWD. Let me know what works for your team. Vanessa Dolbee CED, x7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) , ,Ito:MONICA, SHOEMAKER2dnr.wa.QovJ Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:26 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project Hi Vanessa, At this point I wa going to leave it up to the contractor since there may be an added cost. Does Renton have a preference? Sent from my Windows Phone From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: 5/28/2014 11:01 AM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Subject: RE: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project Monica, What is DNR's plan for the trees? i.e. will they remain on site as LWD? Or some other plan? Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR)[mailto:MONICA.SHOEMAKER@dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:04 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project Hello Vanessa, We have another issues with some trees out at the South Lake Washington site. DNR would like to remove a cluster of black cottonwood trees from the South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration site because they are located in the line of a new stormwater outfall. We need to make a decision quickly on this because the contractor is placing the new manholes next Monday. I've attached a memo describing the situation that is occurring out at the site along with some photos. Please let me know if the City has any comments or concerns regarding the removal of these trees. Thanks for your help. Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Nato, el Resources (206)799-2949 monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.gov www.dnr.wa.gov as WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF §6;FNA* Natural Resources May 28, 2014 To: Permit Agencies From: Monica Shoemaker, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Subject: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Tree Removal PETER GOLDNIARK Comrissloner of Public L&nds While surveying for the location of the new 18" outfall we have become aware of cluster of black cottonwood trees that are growing in line with the new 18" outfall. It is a cluster of4 trees with a DBH from b to 18 inches. The design drawings show one existing tree that was supposed remain. DNR would like to keep the pipe in its current location and remove the trees. Changing the design would be difficult to complete in the field and costly. There are many large black cottonwood trees as well as condi ;rs and willows on site that are % SLOPE TO h(EE7 /,,,, f' E%LSTING GRADE Vi s r✓ _.- �' F . PROPOSED OLWM PRDPDSED OHM ..� ..r PROP0563 4r SO BUrFALL SIE -5.2 J s` t! '.4%ii r A-; THE WEING hVUWAEN EASTING CO.'VANY DRAINAGE AWAY FROM aOEJNG PROPERTY yv : •• `- PROPOSED SO MANHOLE OONNECT E)R=NO DUTFALL _ PIPE AND 124N SD PIPE �r IE- 16.5 a--r-� j�� 3 Out EtlI pipe shown as red line. C; rem circle is the cluster of black cottonwood trees. Other circles and shaded areas are native shrubs and trees that will remain on site. The location for the pipe was chosen because it is the shortest distance needed to reach the required depth The ouffill pipe is already on site and has been fused together. Moving the pipe to miss the tree cluster would require roving it a large distance to avoid the root systems as well as other trees located 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE • MS 47001 • OLYWPIA,WA98504.7001 TEL: (360) 902-1000 • FAX (360) 902.1775 • TRS: 711 • TTY: (360) 9D2.1125 • WWWDNR.WA.GOV EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER nearby. Moving the pipe to a different location would also require additional pipe to be ordered and fused onto the current pipe that is onsite. The new manhole has also already been constructed and the holes have been cut out for the cun-ent location. DNR would also like to avoid any possible damage to root systems and potential for trees to rot and fall over to avoid damage to the neighboring Boeing property. Cluster ofblerk cottonwood that is in the line ofthc 18" outfall. Trees to the lel and right of cluster will not be disturbed. 1111 WASHINGTON 5T SE • PO BOX 47000 • OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 FAX: (360) 902-1775 • TTY: (360) 902-1125 • TEL: (360) 902-1000 Equal Opportunity Ertployer/Afrrretive Action Enployer Ph - Y .L Y - a7� _ f MP. � Y - % lY._� •q 1 Lit Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:14 PM To: 'SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR)' Subject: RE: Hazard Tree (LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project) Monica, Thank you for the e-mail and attachments related to the Shoreline Exemption and the DNR restoration project. After review of the hazard tree and internal conversation we believe the current Shoreline Exemption would cover the removal of this tree, provided the tree remains on the property (above and/or below the OHWM). Furthermore RMC4- 4-130C1. and 2, allow tree removal in both Emergency Situations (when completed by a public utility) or for dead, dangerous, or diseased trees. The tree identified would classify as dangerous considering the damage from the Beaver. The City approves DNR to cut this tree down and leave the snag on site as a part of the permitted shoreline restoration permit LUA11-020. Let me know if you have any questions. Vanessa <Do(6ee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR)[mailto:MONICA.SHOEMAKER@dnr.wa.govI Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:11 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Hazard Tree (LUA11-020 Shoreline Exemption -South Lake Washington Restoration Project) Hi Vanessa, Thanks for talking with me today. As we discussed a beaver has created a hazard tree on the state-owned property we will be restoring within the next month under shoreline exemption 11-020. The tree was not going to be removed as part of the project, however now that a beaver has bitten through half of the trunk we want to make sure we fell it before there is the potential for it to fall onto the Boeing site. We would like to cut the tree this coming Monday. We will fell it so that it falls into the lake and leave it as is. Attached are a couple photos of the tree. I have also attached one of our design sheets showing the approximate location of the tree. Thank you for your assistance. Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Natural Resources (206) 799-2949 monica. shoe maker@dnr.wa,gov www.dnr.wa.gov ] LA AmpliM � ry , "''ilii Ir �1 y • ✓ ,,l r�^R"w• � '�dr� t� h r ' r 1 y t� � +� � a � T � L I � i �• Aj •1 4 I t ] LA AmpliM � ry , r CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: October 4, 2012 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subiect: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's_ Office. Project Name: Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration LUA (file) Number: LUA-11-020, SME Cross -References: ! AKA's: C Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: May 5, 2011 Applicant: owner: Contact: PID Number: 0723059105 ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Approval: September 17, 2012 Appeal Period Ends: October 1, 2012 Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant, DNR Is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline as well as 3 acres of upland in the southern region of Lake Washington. The main goal is to improve and restore water quality as well as migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. Location: North of Boeing property adjacent to Lake Washington. South Lake Washington In the NE 1/4 section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. { Comments: I Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Same as Applicant Monica Shoemaker, DNR Tt�City ODEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J� PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER/APPLICANT: CONTACT (if other than Owner): PROJECT LOCATION: September 17, 2012 LLIA11-020, SME Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner !pof�et ? `th-L(. WA State Department of Natural Resources/950 Farman Ave N, Enumbclaw, WA Monica Shoemaker, 950 Farman Ave N, Enumclaw, WA There is no address. The Project site is located north of the Renton Boeing property adjacent to Lake Washington. The proposal is located on south Lake Washington in the NE 1/4 section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. The project includes lake shorelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of upland property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FOR HARBOR AREA DAF - BEG N 1/4 COR STIR 8-23-5 TH N 88-49-55 W ALG N LN SD SEC 1720.88 FT TH N 43- 07-31 W 680.02 FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S 46-52-27 W 607.89 FT TO POB TH N 43-06-57 W 1.01 FT TH S 71- 31-33 W 833.16 FT TH S 29-50-20 E 22.98 FT TH S 43-07- 35 E 326.17 FT TO SD INNER HARBOR LN TH N 46-52-27 E ALG SD LN 762.50 FT TO POB TGW "DOLPHINS" AREA DAF - BEG N 114 COR SD SEC 8 TH N 88-49-55 W ALG N LN SD 1720.88 FT TH N 43-07-31 W 680.02 FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S 46-52-27 W ALG SD LN 572.72 FT TH N 44-08-52 W 1.28 FT TO CTR OF "DOLPHIN" (BEING PTA) TH N 44-08-52 W 63.14 FT TO CTR OF "DOLPHIN" (BEING PT B) TH 44-08-52 W 68.64 FT TO CTR OF City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: September 17, 2012 LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: LUA11-020, SME PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner OWNER/APPLICANT: WA State Department of Natural Resources/950 Farman Ave N, Enumclaw, WA CONTACT (if other than Owner): Monica Shoemaker, 950 Farman Ave N, Enumclaw, WA PROJECT LOCATION: There is no address. The Project site is located north of the Renton Boeing property adjacent to Lake Washington. The proposal is located on south Lake Washington in the NE 1/4 section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. The project includes lake shorelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of upland property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: POR HARBOR AREA DAF - BEG N 114 COR STR 8-23-5 TH N 88-49-55 W ALG N LN SD SEC 1720.88 FT TH N 43- 07-31 W 680.02 FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S 46-52-27 W 607.89 FT TO POB TH N 43-06-57 W 1.01 FT TH S 71- 31-33 W 833.16 FT TH S 29-50-20 E 22.98 FT TH S 43-07- 35 E 326.17 FT TO SD INNER HARBOR LN TH N 46-52-27 E ALG SD LN 762.50 FT TO POB TGW "DOLPHINS" AREA DAF - BEG N 1/4 COR SD SEC 8 TH N 88-49-55 W ALG N LN SD 1720.88 FT TH N 43-07-31 W 680.02 FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S 46-52-27 W ALG SD LN 572.72 FT TH N 44-08-52 W 1.28 FT TO CTR OF "DOLPHIN" (BEING PT A) TH N 44-08-52 W 63.14 FT TO CTR OF "DOLPHIN" (BEING PT B) TH 44-08-52 W 68.64 FT TO CTR OF City of Renton Department of CommL Economic Development Certificate of Exer. i from Shoreline Substantial Development Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration J LUA11-020, SME DATE OF PERMIT: September 17, 2012 Page 2 of R "DOLPHIN" (BEING PT C) BEG AT PT A SD LEASE AREA IS A CIRCLE RAD 7.5 FT TH INCLUDING A CIRCLE SD RAD FOR PTS B & C DNR LEASE #20-90016 SEC-TWN-R: Legal SEC- 7, TWN-23N, R -5E WATER BODY/WETLAND: Lake Washington PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: DNR originally submitted for the subject application on April 20, 2011, subsequently the project was placed on hold June 13, 2011 as DNR withdrew their SEPA threshold determination. On January 10, 2012, DNR made a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance. Between the original submittal date of April 20, 2011 and today, portions of the project have been adjusted based on additional analysis included in the update SEPA documents and negations with surrounding property owners and stake holders. Based on the potential for there to be differences between the original submittal documents and the final 100 percent design drawings, the subject approval is based upon the assumption that the 100 percent drawings would be implemented as a result of the subject exemption. Please find the 100% Design Submittal attached to this determination. Additionally it should be noted, that based on the date of application, the subject project is vested to the 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and not the recently adopted 2011 SMP. The applicant, DNR is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline as well as 3 acres of upland in the southern region of Lake Washington. The main goal is to improve and restore water quality as well as migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. There are a series of actions proposed to meet this restoration objective. These are as follows: y bw1 %Y • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of -i mr flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round Coble and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat 0 Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (EU) along the shoreline 0 Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters Following the proposed restoration project, DNR has proposed to withdraw the lands from leasing with a Commissioner's Order as well as maintain the property under a conservation easement. Pursuant to the provided project narrative, the project is listed as project number City of Renton Deportment of CommL 4 Economk Development Certlfleate of Exer. i from Shoreline Substantial Development Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration LLlA31-020, SME DATE OF PERMrT: September 17, 2012 Page 3 of 4 C266 on the three year work plan under the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Furthermore, DNR has mentioned that the project is a Tier 1 priority under the WRIA 8 Plan due to the project's location in a migratory and rearing corridor for Chinook salmon and that this project would accomplish priority actions under the Conservation Plan by increasing overhanging vegetation and reducing bank hardening by restoring important shallow water habitats closest to the mouth of the Cedar River where such habitat is most heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon. Like the WRIA 8 plan and the Conservation Plan, the City has adopted Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and a Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan. In both the recently adopted Plans, a trail connection between Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the Cedar River Trail has been identified as a priority project. At some time in the future when the City pursues the construction of the planed trail segment, the subject project shall not exclude the potential of such development. The proposed trail has been included in the JARPA application drawings on page 8 of 9 under a "note" stating that the current proposal does not preclude the potential for a trail in the future. Based on community need and the City's adopted Plans, staff recommends a condition of approval that the subject project not preclude the possibility of a future unpaved trail connecting Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the Cedar River Trail, as mentioned on Sheet 8 of the JARPA application. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by Anchor QEA dated October 18, 2010, and a Habitat Report and Lake Study prepared by DNR, dated April 8, 2011. The Wetland Delineation identified one wetland on the subject site, identified as Wetland A, herein. Wetland A is categorized as a lake fringe and slope wetland and is approximately 0.29 acres in size. The OHWM defines the lakeside boundary of the subject wetland. Included in the stream study is an impact evaluation of the proposed restoration project. The evaluation concluded that the projects construction would temporarily affect sediment, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, and refugia but would result in long-term improvements to other target indicators including large woody debris, refugia habitat, and function of riparian reserves. The report continues to state that the short term impacts of the project construction are not likely to adversely affect the priority species that utilize the area. Furthermore, the report identifies that Best Management Practices (BMP's) would be utilized and that all in water work would occur during the WDFW permitted fish window. Lastly, the habitat and stream study concludes that with completion of this proposal the habitat would be improved for all of the priority species. The subject project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The ecological benefits of the restoration project are being applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological lift as mitigation would be negotiated within the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program. An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project subject to the following conditions and in accordance with the vested April 2011 code section RMC 4-9-1900 16 for the following reason (s): City of Renton Department of Comrrma & Economic Development Certificate of Exen., n from Shoreline Substantial Development Lake Washlogton Shoreline Restoration LUA11-020, SME DATE of PERMIT: September 17, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Condition of Approval: The subject restoration project shall not preclude the possibility of a future unpaved trail connecting Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park to the Cedar River Trail, as mentioned on Sheet 8 of the DARPA application. XX 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. The Development Services Division has determined that the project is consistent with this Master Program. The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one): CONSISTENT IEK1 INCONSISTENT Policies of the Shoreline Management Act. N/A The guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or adapted by the Department. XX DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: r The City of Renton 1983 Shoreline Master Program. C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator/Planning Director Planning Division Attachments: 100% Design Submittal, 16 sheets 3ARPA Drawings, 9 sheets cc: Owner/Applicant Contact Molly. Lawrence/Party of Record City of Renton Official File X12 Date r x sill Hill R l �. wrr7rn m��v wn� o � V� LL g Wz ~ WLU Z W z w 0 LU Z U3 0 YJ U L] z a 0 0 ow w ca u o� y Z c� L z o =Iz a Cl) Lu e� LV w z� c� o F- W z ooQ r .� 81! 9 —. 4 I II 11 1 II II II II II I +I II II 11 11 II I II I R R I (IM VW I Lia! NI NGUVArI B R I iNo wN�ix�m�Lr ,I I �I r 6 11 N w I U � a 11 l II II II 1 i L I II II I. 4II NOMMI Lia! NI NOILVM1f N N g� a s IIW R I ,I I �I I ( 11 I 1 11 l II II II 1 i L I II II I. 4II NOMMI Lia! NI NOILVM1f R _ ww�aio N � e V I I } 43' ui YW __-1— = o 43 � .1 Iwa"NJ L331 N1 NCNIVALls � I 41JI I 8 W��4€ I � � c II• �3 yiy�� S iI ;` J {pj2y I 3 F m r II I f 1wMV741 Lul NI NOUWA 1 I i�1, a Q R o sg a o g I jn, 1I I 1 I o e1 � (MAVNI LMU NI NOLLVNIi 0 lwwVN) L!!! MI NIVAIll 1wMVN)13iJ NI NOLLVAi13 � > | v � � � § -- - ■ � || k� ■ 7 � | � /BK |Eli � �|'•�| � » § � ¥ | | ||� �§ ■§ ( � � , / |[ | LU f - -- -- •� • � P:` � tl F. |�§| ■ � f ^ ;� ! �� ■|| | . 17 :E O �| �� | ■� � 13UNI&4XLVA319 _.__3 q n 5 x dD goo L Wit yy 0 H: U ZOI Z a w I U 2 O U q n 5 x dD I ap 4Q r � 1 r� `'ir twls�t� r!l�irl t �, �►sssrr � �z �tisss ssti� • ass lsssa. 1mm �•� • �assssFs��: ss�.smrr 6 I} 1, 5 5 1 I l - 15` 5,5,1 5 111 ,1 � U �15'j41 9 ypI 1 l S k LU Y W O F u u i o U Y i cscgs�a I} 1, 5 5 1 I l - 15` 5,5,1 5 111 ,1 � �15'j41 . ■fi llw_ II iI�T�IY IV r s yyy ��d02 IV gR zlull4 LULU \ 5 1 l I kli •�caa�oa R LA Fqctr ys ] u 4 ` J ip d9Q O S tip i t,P;� Pill N Ali m Ill 'l 1 $$$ gaaa $a A •.•-� 9$aBlAA t �413'11 VA `1`� ,,may•.:.:.. �S•►,, ti ,..�, ata • .► �,s 'lis �►.��::� iuwui ► �il� i �; {��•iiii' ��RL►i t �413'11 VA W N rr� u4�Ix a 9 0 AIJRI I ti i z w N z i � _. MR L � dtitm J Y.y a8a °'SI apd•� W ja W N rr� u4�Ix a 9 0 AIJRI I OH a1 EIi lTb 1Y i z w N z i � _. MR L J Y.y a8a °'SI apd•� W ja B b l � OH a1 EIi lTb 1Y i z J 9 b l � y O \ cry 4 g z v L 6 $66 L z b l � y O \ �R g b g m lm 4- PURr'dr-'2IJ* AVX I Fr.r1� � -111 W SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAPS S r0 0 1/2 SCALE IN MILE VICINITY MAP c PURPOSE: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION NAME: SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE R RESTORATION m m VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 ENAME OF APPLICANT: WASHINGTON STATE LgNGITUDE: -122'1122'-31.31,71"W a LATITUDE: 4730'0DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) N S -T -R: 7 -23N -5E a SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: N 1- BOEING RENTON, WA 2 - SOUTHPORT, LLC City of Renton Planning Division Imo- 11�# NWS -2011-376 PROPOSED: REMOVE PORTION OF FLUME STRUCTURE, CREATE HABITAT BENCH FOR MIGRATING JUVENILE SALMON, RESTORE SHOR EIn HABITATS IN: LA I NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE: WASHINGTON DATE: JANUARY 2012 SHEET: 1 OF 9 t m O o w Jr z w p 0- C N z 3 u N w w s -,LM W O- 3 w a LL o er CZ, �' a z ` o � � WN ' W W s u =` n z < S F =0 Lo C) z Z O irx � __ i 7 6 N = gr ¢ 7 U w W W 1 m 0 us N_ tK �[ O z W ~ y w Oi u� u-! O iS O +u Z w LL w v S z rc m ¢ w a a rc a na �i j a wrr Qi7¢ 0 • 4 c 0000 °~ O I N h ♦ ap _ ccZ Z JI I I I I CL w2o zZ z "' O a ff O o LN - i ♦ O p ZQzz r �Yx a w ? � $J �, _�� w�Q3 a a N - �e�s+ �r = :iiL 2 z Un p �+.lrimr�w rrt e ]� y � J N z :f o LD �a O - w 12= s a w z p o W F- 0 N 2 3 ~4 a O z b O 1 J ~ Z VS �1 Ln s `u w r } 0 C] UJ Z Uu g 5 - It ° ° o LD z Z r aaQa0 •�'y4�'�j � �I � aa a o Z z z a eti N 1uj z _ N 4y r O 9x Z V) a %a }III N b In CD f Ips W 2 % i. - Z flWi a a Y a 00 CO \ v. 3 m o z > m � 2 M�KY7 F a K N u ZOCO,p (�� Q 2oNZ h.r a aaz o a rnz �F 17 s W O AH H Z W � a 7wvi en s Zf 6mp'(nwgn nNcm )(a) zoo-f-L09C9OOtWZ-Lo-ZLOZ jauoodse wdz4:M ZIOZ 'CZ uej 1 l 1 1 1 1 i i iY �� 000006 I`� � 00D0000 P I=1IVIN) MO-f-LOS£900kOZ-40-UOZ`dda• MvAA-aIei-S LO-9£9001%HNOM-8f40641BQOn'A 0 n o Q U P L) LO � zO O m a U U-) U 0 10 U 0 N U 1--,o U LO z z Wg 5 u p LO Z M n Q o=z Z Lij is o J m o IL LP) w _ Z x wm � g0¢q- W AC oCL [T] °aaF-� ? z�� 0ao.J Z C OTO aw rl o jr > cc a cn z O Q F ? Y Q �= O omo 3Q�a Q � o m= c� w X p0.x W W O O U1 �r CD uX ►- -J a W m V X W XX- LLl U _ O •C 7 N ? ~ ..iii,ilit .i ±IiT_{. l LL m z o � o �r �� 000006 I`� � 00D0000 P I=1IVIN) MO-f-LOS£900kOZ-40-UOZ`dda• MvAA-aIei-S LO-9£9001%HNOM-8f40641BQOn'A 0 n m M N LL O ti w CC m 3 �O U w W w Z M n a ]Z 0 �F- Z CC Q 4 r In F- � J m w _ Z x >Z W AC oCL ? z�� 0ao.J Q�zC=== z O 0 <P. n acc0 z z jxZ' a o C) pg r rl o 2w��'i pzz ac Z > cc a Q F ? Y Q Q omo 3Q�a w p cc F- Z ZULn O c g z a 3 K 0 a '^ w W O d w O Cc CL 0 ca z 0 l7 Z z_ )C 3 W w , Y gr a p W ^ z z LL O z z W r w w r H z z Z 0 J c 3 Z O D Lo p w z S Vl Z n LD a ccZ w O r w 7 J N v1 CC r wdL L Y Z LOZ '£Z uer o _ coo �� v o r o z r�73 a o Y w m ❑ N (r d l7 A d W J p � V w u+ m m m d J W p Z a w y -� Z w N a z = S ❑ rn w c? C� w w Z Ho M � - F a z o cr C+°gam m 5 z oZ a a o ❑ o o¢ ❑a z a ? r FWo o ��w i oz ;L'-7 a¢a w O 4 W� p 7 C3 m ix s U Z z 2 L) LLIWW l i j r 0 O or o w w w z z p z Q w co m p O X pa ir m L) > v v m 0 Q U 0 U 2 m [7 a� y� P H U � Z ELLJ r 'r a u u aU 'u� w IL a aa..0 CL a gap g m wwa wa EL En 0 I�w. W w ! i oo atm Z n CJ? o O I { a o w 2 N j W H p 1 d Z w 0rC7 N v wU 0XC�2 aC F Y Q 3"0 a Ln F- X a a i}.T.•. m.l.'»., a app Q Q Z -� amo ate¢ S Wm ?zou~n o •Lo7I• •m] 1WN 711 z Z / 7 u-1 S z o o G H r' r W tnx w w a t ac a c z Z z o a Jw F 1 K a F- CL o LA kn z Z o W o� a � z z �C a .} H U F- U o o 1 � _ ,aw a o 1 e o a� N�7a n o Q Z z r S 4 _ jai w �W.1 m O iY - II'lll'lll 1 1 a a a a z Z LU 0 * II�I1 mow: Illlli �. rll II \ •I z - f N O o R z u1 z „, s at r. s u `♦ '�'0. �T = ~ OY_ Z z Z hm a W N � 111 3�Op� z 4x11,1 w Z z}mc u Zmc��1 O 4b �zuQO n• p tD '•� H F 6 N z , ia F- .+ trn� z x \w 6 �t �� N 2 0 a D :3 r` U Z N l CC r o U !md o •\� `r Wx>vi� ��LD Z�Z zz-Nm a wga� W tz z 1 4f BA%P (S'IVI831VW) 400-C'10989OO \OZ-LO-ZLOZ Vd8VIWM-Q�L'S'LO-8£900W3NGM-8£9o0Llsgo('\:)4 aau-d- WdLL:y ZLOZ 'EZ Uor 3 z u z N 14 R o l92GAVNI IaU MI NOLLVA313 er 8 J I S � J a� n z� z� � U $' 3 u J 7F w aa4 LL r w Y ww� $ 3 z u z N 14 R o l92GAVNI IaU MI NOLLVA313 er 8 { W z Ld F N z F- i m z m a 00 m Qz 3 > ¢ z °, LA '� o Lz z N � z i� Q �awm F J X; K F. Z� W Z i�ri 4 7 �Z9 in cn 2 LOD-P-LG9C9DMWZ-W-ZWZ joUoodn wdC4:4 ZLOZ '6Z Uaf J LL o � $' 3 u J 7F w LL z w a Y ww� N Z LL Om O IL FO Idol d,odAo,. W ZK ac �zz u �5ui! 19q�i Q J z LL 7 a S� O Ua Q O 0174 r 0p Zz� p J z C .N acIq p 5 7 CD a- z o Q ; n W © M4 F- a LD O f 9'LL F- Vi oWG p W w d .I .... - z -a :� i. Z "i4 Gz C 1{. t o f1 luul Fz_ti• • •, - �p s� ACJ v, a s F- } O W J Q T C � _ W a aZ� ZZ 2 0 Sao Z ora F- j n LL - .ti O Q — h +— N NW LA o C,D R LL RA Q C:LLP } p lal q z x a.•+ C > Z a�a ZzodWc Pgi z C [uul OC7a d a Q z z z Fob o LL�U) N w s O Z 2 x cr �Z3 �Y= a ULL� QmL }i Z NF? Ya3 a , Ul oc �W-z CL — w D a2$i ~i a xO yU ?z vuuv O W j S O Ix 'x LCK Z LL LL Z Occ zr �� W a ttZ CC o� a Ix S $ zCg� u z a ua o w Q $ G O F- Z 0 -., yj0. W z C) o F - __ gIx LD LO ? i O9 n= i z 3 v a 30 3 a 'ice J i F W O u O W'� 44 cc a w a Irr ;.1 0 x U `,dam = o w x �O O F- F d a OS z w �� d O O 4 a ru= z W 301 w� wa 0~ a 1O� ch c o UJ ti w zzr "' "' u LU o ` < as a �'� Cc 3` a as Amen a �a a=N o z z z LL (880AYN) 1.33d NI NOUVA313Ld i Z O z O F TN h D N z W Z cc Z a F m z � 2 a v Cc a 3 z ;. c Qz� z a`o ^n z 3 a ZmN o a = � F, a �W0 3 y oo - z`� W DDS 2 " c— z O w~ O ~ W `! d J lA V1 d� LP 5mG'(SNOLL03S)100-f WRC900MIC-IO ZLOZ Vd2lYnV/M-)19-1•$'40-OC900tk8N(lm-eC900t\Wr1.,A AQUOodim Wdg4:4 Z60Z'£Z uBf yw w <Lnz20S) m O * d w y t oOUWw wO p Q a: a0 rar ¢ �~�gZaz o N 0: z N Z Z m Z a 3 L9O � w m T eLD -I Z W V1 � p %cn z A� A u��aa0r�S U- a¢¢ oN a w z o' zr Duj uiz L)w U" �Okw r nH 7< wa r z A a w� 2i wv Wr rc LL �� ¢aLi Wim ip "tp i 0 z 3 0 w� u'u� nm w[�i z nma e�w 2zz 03 Fa Oa r r S 0 ON LL� iu5 a� �r = r �Ft�rrz� � ? W z a r, tw w m x z0 F w Cs C) z rn vNiz¢UZLa- LL�< 4 W 0. S W O a a Q 0 0 w r C ? oc iU uk Z as as w a0wLITz RFW P 0l7 as a d Z \, 00 �0 10 O 00"zgzrr Z Z_Z0 a� ` cr 0 cil L,w) VL Z0 V �wQ cc 0 b<sWc�?[a$a0 zO z�za > wx� = x �Z3 �Y a U omw 3 O"� i W H y 7 Q ac -:- C)a0 waw a o e l z w 0 O H z o W Q ��- w w \ z -- W Cl g az a 1 (' N z O LD o r �. r 0 z z vs w ` g 2 ¢z Z 0 4 3 3N o ' O Y ZU U A O `yi 3 � � 1 o x a 0 a ct Q 2 a ` Q w J x p z �� t„ a zr �00 tii ` 4i O� Uwe 1 O (D ?md 1 a as o z z z a . r4 1 r Z 0 ` w a z O .. O O 0 ¢ (7 \ wx r wm� ` z DU N a oa\wa 2 os o �� z°¢ aN a 7 � = m m IXca:+ � F Liu o� a qmN Q \�� I �zms zaH p Z ooa >r a�mpr ¢� as �4ww']N0¢jr a gp0 D `.` 11 •� Ox�uf� � wHOr � � z.�rr r; v a 7 vi +ncc AP bMp'(f)1U1I NV1.11 FOB-f-LOpf.A00 L50Z-tL]-7L6T.'d.S?11iRHMaMeI-S-LO-Rf.900LWNMh-RF.90{]LICOORSI 30lJOOdSB w07G�p 7L07 /0 Q94 0 O I WETLAND RESTORATION COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE COMMENTS WILLOWS HOOKER WILLOW Salix hookeriana LIVESTAKES USE ONLY DURING DORMANT SEASON: MID -OCT TO MID -MAR PACIFIC WILLOW Salix lasiandra LIVESTAKES SCOULERS WILLOW Salix scouleriana LIVESTAKES SHRUBS RED -TWIG DOGWOOD Comus sericea LIVESTAKES SEE WILLOWS BLACK TWINBERRY Lonicera involucrata 1 GALLON PLANT IN GROUPS OF 10-12 BY SPECIES PACIFIC NINEBARK Physocarpos capitatus 1 GALLON DOUGLAS SPIREA Spiraea douglasii 1 GALLON TREES OREGON ASH Fraximus latifolia 2 GALLON BLACK COTTONWOOD Populus balsamifera spp. POLES SEE WILLOWS RIPARIAN COMMUNITY TREES BIG LEAF MAPLE Acer macrophyllum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS RED ALDER Alnus rubra 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS SITKA SPRUCE Picea sitchensis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS W1=STERN RED CEDAR Thuja plicata 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS WESTERN HEMLOCK Tsuga heterophylla 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS VINE MAPLE Acercircinatum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS SNOW13ERRY Albus symphoricarpos 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS SALAL Gautheria shallop 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS OCEANSPRAY Holodiscus discolor 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS INDIAN PLUM Oemleria cerasifonnis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS WESTERN SWORDFERN Polystichum munitum 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS RED -FLOWERING CURRANT Ribes sanguineum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS NOOTKA ROSE Rosa nutkana 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS CONIFER WINDROW GRAND FIR Abies grandis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS DOUGLAS FIR Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS LOW NATIVE SHRUB COMMUNITY SNOW13ERRY Albus symphoricarpos 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS THIMBLEBERRY Rubus parvitlorus 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS TALL OREGON GRAPE Mahonia aquifolium 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS KINNICKINNICK Artcostayphylos uva-ursi 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS PLANTING SCHEDULE NWS -2011-376 PURPOSE: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION NAME: SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE PROPOSED: REMOVE PORTION OF FLUME RESTORATION STRUCTURE, CREATE HABITAT BENCH FOR MIGRATING JUVENILE SALMON, RESTORE VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 NAME OF APPLICANT: WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE, WETLAND, AND RIPARIAN HABITATS LATITUDE: 47'30'08.39"N LONGITUDE: -122'12'31.71"W DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES {DNRI IN: LAKE WASHINGTON S -T -R: 7 -23N -5E NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: STATE: WASHINGTON 1- BOEING RENTON, WA 2- SOUTHPORT, LLC DATE: JANUARY 2012 SHEET: 9 OF 9 Denis Law Of Mayor ' J ICY. 0 f�J L� September 12, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Monica Shoemaker. WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 950 Farman Avenue -North Enutriclaw, WA 98022 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Lake Washington Shoreline' Restoration / LUA12-020 " Dear Ms. Shoemaker Thank you far submitting the additional materials requested in the June 13, 2011 letter from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration project. If you'have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430=7314 Sincerely, - Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner CC! DNR / oWner(s)/Applicant Ms. Lawrence / Party(les) of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:23 AM To: 'mchrist@secodev.com' Subject: Shoreline Exemption Michael, Have you had an opportunity to review the changes to the Shoreline Exemption for the DNR shoreline restoration project? I spoke to you about this the week before last when you were in California, and you mentioned you would have an opportunity to look at the documents last week. Please let me know if you have any concerns about the new proposal. We would like to issue the Shoreline Exemption as soon as possible. Thank you, Vanessa (DoC6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:39 PM To: 'mchrist@secodev.com' Subject: DNR Shoreline Exemption Michael, DNR has indicated that they have updated their design to address your concerns about their Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project. Monika Shoemaker provided me with an updated set of plans and has indicated that you have received this plan sets as well. Prior to moving forward with the Exemption, please let me know if you have received these documents and if you have any remaining issues with DNR's project. Thank you, Vanessa Ooffee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 Vanessa Dolbee From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) (MONICA.SHOEMAKER@dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 3:49 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Final South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Design for Permit LUA11-020 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, I sent the plan to Michael Christ today. The note about the trail is only on the JARPA drawings not our construction plans. We did not Include a note about the trail on the construction plans because we do not want to confuse the contractor since a trail will not be built as part of this contract. Let me know if I can answer any more questions that come up. What are the steps for the shoreline exemption? Is there a set timeline for how long the process is? Thanks and hope you enjoy the 80 degree weatherl Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Natural Resources (206) 799-2949 monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.goY www.dnr.wa.goy From: Vanessa Dolbee [ o o bee e o 0 Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 3:44 PM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Subject: RE: Final South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Design for Permit LUAU -020 Monica, I received the documents thank you. After a brief look at the plan set I did not see the note about the trail. Is this note still on the plan set? Secondly, has this plan set been sent to Michael Christ? Enjoy your weekend. Vanessa 0of6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) rmailto:MONICA.SHOEMAKER d r.wa.gov Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 12:32 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Final South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Design for Permit LUA11-020 Hello Vanessa, I just left you a voicemail and am following up with sending our final design drawings for the South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration project. I would like to continue the process for the shoreline exemption for the project (LUAi1-020). I believe with these final drawings we should have a complete package. Please give me a call at your convenience so I can check in with you about the remaining process. I will be out of the office on August 6th Thank you, Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Natural Resources (206) 799-2949 monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.aoy www.dnr.wa,ci From: Vanessa Dolbee rm_ailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.Qovl Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:05 PM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Subject: RE: Latest Plan Set for Lake Washington Project Monica, Thank you so much for re -sending me these plan sets. It is very much appreciated. I will keep an eye out for the updated plans, showing the change to the rock. Vanessa Dol6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) wa Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:45 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Latest Plan Set for Lake Washington Project Hi Vanessa, Attached is the final ]ABPA plans. I've also attached the sketch that shows the change to the rock at the flume opening. I'm still waiting on the official plans that show this change. Our detailed design plans will show the cross sections as well. Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Natural Resources (206)799-2949 Mon ica.shoemakerOdnr.wa.gov www.dnr.wa.gov From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee0 RentonW@.gov1 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:38 PM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Subject: Latest Plan Set for Lake Washington Project Monica, For some reason I am missing the e-mail where you attached the updated 1ARPA plan set with the note for the trail. Is there a way you could please re -send this information. Thank you, Vanessa Dol6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation April 17, 2012 Engineering and Regional Operations SR 520 Bridge Replacement and MOV Program 600 Stewart Street. Suite 520 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-770-3500 Fax: 206-770-3569 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR5208ridge LTR -2335 RECEIVED Honorable Denis Law APR 18 2012 Mayor, City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 MAYOR'S OFFICE RE: SR 520,1-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement Project and HOV Project Area of Potential Effects Additions Dear Mayor Law: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, as well as a Programmatic Agreement Implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the SR 520, I -S to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (PA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is providing you with an Area of Potential Effects (APE) update including elements within your jurisdiction. WSDOT has a number of proposed locations which will be developed as aquatic and wetland mitigation sites for the SR 520,1-5 to Medina project overall. The attached graphics show the complete list of mitigation sites. At this time, WSDOT, on behalf of FHWA, proposes to amend the Area of Potential Effects (APE) to address these locations. Two of the mitigation sites, the Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Area and the South Lake Washington Restoration Mitigation Area fall within the City of Renton's jurisdiction. 1. Elliott Bridge Reach Mitigation Area. The Elliott Bridge Reach mitigation area is located on the floodplain along the Cedar River between State Route 169 (SR 169) and Southeast Jones Place within the City of Renton. Activities in this area will include river margin and aquatic off -channel creation, as well as riparian and floodplain restoration, wetland establishment and buffer enhancement. This work is being done in coordination with King County. 2. South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Mitigation Area. Project boundaries for this project have not changed. As noted in the treatment plan, the Department of Natural Resources has conducted an Executive Order 05-05 analysis identifying no adverse effects to historic properties as result of this project. Therefore, no further review or treatment under Section 106 is merited. Please note however that FHWA has acknowledged lead federal agency status on this project under Section 106 of the NHPA and 36CFR800. Should project conditions change, including unanticipated discoveries, further Section 106 coordination will be WSDOT's responsibility on behalf of FHWA. Therefore, this project is being added to the I-5 to Medina Section 106 APE as per the attached graphic. Also note that some earlier iterations of 1-5 to Medina APE graphics inaccurately denote the Taylor Creek (see below) mitigation area as "South Lake Washington." We regret any confusion this may cause in reviewing earlier documents. Mr. Denis Law April 17, 2012 Page 2 of 2 WSDOT will be conducting subsurface archaeological testing at the Elliott Bridge Reach mitigation area, as well as evaluating nearby built environment properties for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. As noted above, cultural resources inventory for the South Lake Washington Shoreline project has already been completed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources under Executive Order 05-05, and no potential historic properties or associated adverse effects have been identified at that location. However, in the event of project changes or unanticipated discoveries, WSDOT, on behalf of FHWA, will assume responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA as the project progresses, should further coordination become necessary. Should our cultural resources inventory and evaluation efforts identify historic properties or adverse effects, WSDOT will consult further with the City of Renton on next steps related to this action. We request any comments you may have on the APE no later than May 17, 2011. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 805-2895, e-mail archersAwsdot.wa.gov or Allison Hanson, ESO Mega Projects Environmental Director, at (206) 805-2880, e-mail hansona(@wsdot.wa.gov. . Sincerely, Steve Archer WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialist Attachments: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Graphics cc: Randy Everett, FHWA Allison Hanson, WSDOT Scott Williams, WSDOT Alt ■ c E 1 C: 's 411. a 'S i. v �1 I ®!t 's 4 •4 �1 I ®!t f+. , •�i � ti.'- i � y �A+ �, * `��1�� `��{/ ' �t 4 ��1� VII 1 �1` f r.��! I�' i j � `` - --.. \ �/ 5 \ � t � � i- .%J �,\ \' `, � _err--- �� .✓"'� Nkr'. - e � I'�h • . _ 4.\ � it , X �.� �► 16. �"-- � y3�H/ l p ! t � a �l • ... -. �. d zi n o o m 7S m mi �D N ► P r - s a X D 2 LY z= o FF N , O •1 N.Yll ew�i:rt Q u lij- w i'• r— 17 - — -- ;.. \ \ ` - ; `;�`t�5ti`� } ''•51. ` ' , '1';11':. 1'.• l I� � `' - "v ' �I Q _ rt� ` � �.: , `.^ ��%: "�. \E +1'!4;44 5.\ •�� F'\ ,�- 1 �` ' \�`'.5. lip � m � -am. \\ V 1 1 \ tia _ 1 7 c � � F \ rr� o ♦, ML 4A /MOI VSE a- A d a n � I � � 8 � - 6 � n o .�tiumr.nr oc wcn�crS.cSC�Y +L ♦♦ll��—N� ELEWITION IM FEET ieMYOEfI � I a I I I !I +I �I a- A d a n � I � � 8 � - 6 � n o .�tiumr.nr oc wcn�crS.cSC�Y n a ELEYATIM IN FEET iNAYGEtl} � n a I !I �I I I , I I � I .iBlJj I' II a � , I� � I aI�Y p B I� S�S F _ Ln R 'O Z A � - _ " I 0 m 4 I a � f n a T ELE W1TON M FEET IIM40BE� a A m a n m2 n m Am m ELEVATION IN FEET �MAYM M* A o* y yz Cy7 6 1 I iii ?1 � b 00 I� y� 11 jai Q ?o a tl 0 b N a 4 ' � �.•� x e a,rNUNnlrlolo+a I 8 rm ` 1� m g N C Q y XII m a s o m2 n m Am m M* m o* y yz � b 00 jai Q ?o a tl 0 b N a a - li � �.•� x e a,rNUNnlrlolo+a XII ELEWON IN FEET WAT s tl a I'1 1 1 � 1 jai N a a - li � �.•� x I 8 ` � m XII `I Za a IOeeele• . hili!*• � :' fT�►� illiiil!\ ,r �� Ieililiii �� `iOlillilli!!i. 1�s9 s� iARiiiieililles rl\!liilOeiiii�w �Y*'s53;L�d�i''! i �tvltliieiiiei!!S , it �i9leeiiiiiii!* „• u p4� •ias •iiia!!+�l +� ;�'��s esaseiisiws�i• .•�.k• saeissss e;• +Ilii• !la ;vsK� `viii! ei►_^•. • }r�r ii liiN st;.,: ♦Aileiil iar�; eiilie! Nililt�:� •!lift a., •ssl� ,Fa,,, y+ssr1,4 f s m G1 tl Till Y3 P O jj� •�11U1�Olf •' l!•CmYPWL� _ _ 4j � ~ O � O >n �t k §� || k| ■[ JMWA @ .2 5 § `| )( � §f �f 0 || �k �} I �■ §§§ |q■ g §\§ ,§ . | | |! �7 � ■ � | > ' -w » R$ ` 6, k k} �n 4 x z C' v. 9PA CA m ,� c` N� 1 1 ,11 1 I Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Chip Vincent Tuesday, March 01, 20114:41 PM Vanessa Dolbee Judith Subia Fw: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project VA Follow up Flagged Let's discuss the following with Monica at DNR. ffy\ From: Alexander Pietsch To: 'Michael Christ' Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey; Chip Vincent Sent: Tue Mar 01 16:30:14 2011 Subject: RE: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project We'll share this concern with DNR From: Michael Christ [mailto:mchrist@secodev.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20114:10 PM To: Alexander Pietsch Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey; Chip Vincent; Michael Christ Subject: RE: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project --------- - ---- What is not being shown in this is the 28" outfall which connects to the flume which will go straight out the front of my flume if they remove the sheet pile as shown and over time lead to siltation in the harbor. The conveyance is serving an enormous area, hundreds of acres, which then was directed to the area near the mouth of the cedar, through the very flume they are proposing to remove. The flume now directs the outfall to the preferred location which is where the fisheries hoped the siltation would occur for habitat for smelts at the rivers intersection with Iake,Washington. This outfall serves not only Boeing, PSE, but much of the roads and parking lots etc at the Landing. This will effect Boeing, the City, PSE and myself unless they have a alternative conveyance not described. From: Alexander Pietsch [mailto:Apietsch@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20113:05 PM To: Michael Christ Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey; Chip Vincent Subject: FW: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Michael... thank you for the copies of your letter to PSE. We've been digging in to your concerns about DNR's shoreline restoration project in front of Boeing. As you will see from the correspondence below, they have no intention of messing with the stormwater outfall and impacting Southport's harbor. From: Chip Vincent Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 20114:08 PM To: Alexander Pietsch Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey; Neil R. Watts Subject: FW: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Alex, following is the explanation from Monica Shoemaker from DNR regarding their restoration project and how it relates to Southport. Also, attached is a survey that describes the relationship between Southport and DNR's property. Monica shared that it is not their intent or belief that their project will impact Southport's harbor. Chip From: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR)[mailto:MONICA.SHOEMAKER@dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 20113:44 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent Cc: HAWKINS, VIVIAN (DNR); TOBA, DERRICK (DNR) Subject: RE: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Hello Chip, As you are aware, DNR is working on a restoration design to restore the 3 acres of state-owned aquatic lands adjacent to the Boeing site. We received a SRFS grant to help fund the design. DNR hired Anchor QEA to complete a feasibility and final design for the project. We are currently working on putting together a 30% design for the site. A lot of coordination is currently underway and once this is complete I hope to move forward with SEPA, submittal of the ]ARPA, as well as an application to the City for the local permits. DNR has been in communication with the owner of Southport regarding the restoration proposal. We met with Mr. Christ on March 4, 2010 to discuss the general restoration proposal and listen to any concerns he had as a neighbor of the site. Since that time we have kept in touch via email regarding the status of the project. It is my intention to meet with Mr. Christ once we have an internally reviewed design to discuss. My hope is that this will happen within the next month and before we submit our permit applications. Mr. Christ will also be on our SEPA distribution list. During our feasibility and design process we have taken into consideration Mr. Christ's concerns and it is our intention that the restoration project will not have any impacts to Mr. Christ's property. Feel free to contact me at 206-799-2949 if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Aquatic Restoration Program Washington State Department of Natural Resources (206) 799-2949 monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.Qov www.dnr.wa.gov From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 20112:51 PM To: SHOEMAKER, MONICA (DNR) Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Monica, Per our conversation, please send Chip Vincent, Planning Director (cvincent@rentonwa.eov), an e-mail addressing the subject project and its relationship to the Southport development's harbor. Thank you, Vanessa {Doffee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email n'Ix,icu. Phone Cod n'3/za/��.a��Z,671Mie-hh�c wrl�h MicktA U(iEJ 0eX/ moYlCke� CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Vanessa FROM: Stacy SUBJECT: New Land Use Routing/Application Acceptance Please complete the following information to facilitate routing of green folders and application acceptance. if you have special form requirements or instructions, please write them in the "Comments" section. Project Name: Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Reviewer: ILUA (File) Number: LUA11-020 Applicant: Department of Natural Resources Submittal Date: April 20, 2011 cceptance Circ �lation Date: Cam ents Due: Slie[ I (Project Description: Enter directly into Permits Plus. Site \Uo.'(DOosq. ft. ;Area: acre(s) Idg, Area Existing: Proposed: (Gross) sq. ft. 1� acre(s)-�R Project Location: 'Other Permits IReq'd: Studies/ Reports Req'd: 1Publlc Approvals: Land Use/Zoning: IlDev. Regs (RMC Sections): (Tentative ERC Date: Tentative HEX Date: Categories: 0 Single -Family D Commercial 0 School/Utilities/Public Project 0 Church/Daycare 0 Industrial 0 Multi -Family 0 Wireless DOT Notification Required: 0 NOA only 0 TIA Boeing Notification: 0 YES School Letter: 0 Renton / 0 Issaquah / 0 Kent Airport Notification; 0 YES Send Lake & Stream Study to 0 YES Muckleshoot Tribe: Comments: QAW J Chip Vincent From: Alexander Pietsch Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:53 AM To: Chip Vincent Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey Subject: FW: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Attachments: amp_sepa_agr slakewashington_map.pdf; amp_sepa_agr_slakewashington_check.pdf; amp_sepa_aqr—slakewashington_desc.pdf; amp_sepa_agr_slakewashington_design.pdf; amp—sepa_agr slakewashington_dns.pdf; amp_sepa_agr_slakewashington_cvr.pdf Chip, Does this make any sense to you? From: Michael Christ [mailto:MChrist@secodev.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:20 AM To: Alexander Pietsch; Suzanne Dale Estey Subject: FW: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Dear Suzanne and Alex I sent a similar note to PSE I am trying to get the outfall serving PSE and Boeing to be preserved. The notion of just filling it with rock is not a long term solution — nor does it make sense to both allowing greater flexibility to Boeing, the redevelopment to PSE nor the preservation of the harbor ... I suggested a little bigger buffer and maintaining the 20' conveyance before placing the rock to maintain this unique outfall. Boeing has a 36" outfall directly connecting to it, and PSE has only this and Johns Creek for their 11 acres. I want habitat improvements but the last 20' is not significant in the 1100 feet of improvement proposed. If you have any ideas I would love to hear from you. Michael From: Michael Christ Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:10 AM To: 'Sahlinger, Steven E'; 'Pitzer, Lori L' Subject: FW: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Dear Steve and Lori, The issue here that I wish to bring to your attention in the DNR Sepa— the flume is the second largest outlet your conveyance at the Boeing 737 Renton facility is tied to. DNR is going to fill the front of the flume with rock and assume this will allow the conveyance to function. It serves a 36" outfall or yours — outfall 12. Over 50 cubic feet per second is the current capacity of outfall 12! Overtime the fines in the outfall will inevitably start blocking this conveyance if it is to rely on working its way through the rock dam.. This is an important route other than Johns creek to drain much of the 737 facility. Johns creek is already failing during the heavy storms, and that is the only other conveyance to the east of your site. Your 2003 EIS places a lot of importance on this outfall, up from 25% of the site to 65% if my memory serves me, and when I asked about the inclusion of the increased use by Boeing proposed in the EIS (between now and 2030), Monica Shoemaker of DNR stated they will have to deal with the reality of the outfall at that time... If you wish to learn more about this, I will be meeting with DNR again next week, but they are fairly committed. I was hoping for them to,keep the 20' opening before placing rock at the mouth of the flume to serve PSE and Boeing. I would be nervous about this modification to your storm outfall. You have storm water conditions now which may not be possible over time if you lose the functionality of this outfall. Michael Christ From: Molly Lawrence [mailto:mlawrence@GordonDerr.com] f� Sent: Friday, November 11, 20114:38 PM To: Michael Christ Cc: William Appel; Brent Carson Subject: FW: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Dear Michael, Well, they have certainly tried to "paper" our concern — i.e., there is a fair bit of discussion in the SEPA checklist regarding the flume, the stormwater coming from the flume, and the sediment from the flume and project — and DNR's conclusion that this all presents no problem for the flume or the adjacent shorelines (both upland and in water). Michael, what are your thoughts/desires at this point? Note that the comment deadline is November 28th. The appeal period typically runs an additional 7 days past the end of the comment period, but I can confirm that if you want to take this any further. Let me know. Cheers and thanks. Molly A. Lawrence I GordonDerr LLP 12025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140 1 mlawrence@GordonDerr.com l Phone: 206-382-9540 j Fax: 206-626-0675 l www.GordonDerr.com This e-mail is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it Is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please call (206) 382-9540 and return this e-mail to GordonDerr at the above e-mail address and delete from your files. Thank You. From: Knust, Rochelle (DNR) [mailto:Rochelle.Knust@dnr.wa.gov] On Behalf Of DNR RE SEPACENTER Sent: Thursday, November 10, 20114:34 PM To: DNR RE SEPACENTER Subject: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration SEPA File No. 11-111008 SEPA LEAD AGENCY & DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE This is to advise you that pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922 through 948), the Department of Natural Resources has determined that it is Lead Agency for the following: Restoration of approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and the migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook Salmon. Withdraw 7.36 acres of state-owned aquatic lands from leasing. Located in Section 07, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M., King County. Information about this proposal including the Threshold Determination and SEPA Checklist can be viewed on DNR's website at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchSciencefFoRies/Pages/AguatieResources ALP.aspx Pursuant to WAC 332-41-504, this proposal was filed in the department's SEPA Center at the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, P.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington, on November 10, 2011. We will consider comments on this proposed DNS received by 5:00 p.m. on November 28 2011. Comments should be submitted to the SEPA Center at, sepacenter(i4dnr.wa.goy or P.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington 98504-7015 for distribution to the responsible official. Please include the file number listed above on all comments. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagetabs.com/email i, VfSEATIFLIEENTON f WASHINGTON NOT TO SCALE AF J � � LOCATION - � PROJECT � I - -rr Q / EO 16 O SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAPS A City of Renton 0 Y D 112 Planning Division S LE IN MIL VICINITY MAP Nw5-2011-376 c PURPOSE: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION NAME: SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE PROPOSED: REMOVE PORTION OF FLUME RESTORATION STRUCTURE, CREATE HABITAT BENCH FOR MIGRATING JUVENILE SALMON, RESTORE m VERTICAL DATUM: NAVA 88 ENAME OF APPLICANT: WASHINGTON STATE SHOREL'=HABITATS _a LATITUDE: 47°30'08.39" N LONGITUDE: -122°12'31.71"W DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) IN: LAX= A I coil 5 -T -R: 7 -23N -5E NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF'. KING SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: STATE: WASHINGTON I - BOEING cPATE: JANUARY 2012 SHEET: 1 OF 9 m RENTON, WA 2 - SOUTHPORT, LLC 4 u ❑ r+ F W 'r Ln ¢ ¢ W Q wu N = i 2 ` tJ Ln w W iw-, a S W Z 4 Z Q�JJJ Q z Cr N O ggO m Q N 2 Q ¢ 0< 3 i Ing cl w z z a �M F F viLL w m o w z 0 a a H F F a �� a = r F w [�� N ❑ g #= D O O P r O� 1Q~j Q p D Z Z W X 5N{ O Q¢ ¢ (Q� jN� a P = az C] 1 W tilQ ¢ J 7 Z W W U Sa T' S LL 4 LLI w LL N OU 115 Z ¢ m ¢ ¢ ¢ a iC 1 ¢ f1 LL R a 1L A' Q QUA 0. 4. 0000 ° Z Z N M � Q � � Z 1 1 I I G W O W Z CV 1 O � 2 o ZD L N J 4 o a C 'U) 3 `' o Z �` �...� O Ya23 a �;. c • 3 Z O O N O_ ¢ W o i O N a - W C Cc A 6 W W z F- Z N z 3 p z 0 Lo vj w 1 ~ oC Z r� z S W N w Z ia z 0 i2� D $ r ry U 3 N O O , wZ a W r Vk U 1 Z � U 7 � J 1 O O s,sJ a w n O x0 W N O Q z z F u W F- Q Om z z z _ i f Z O t o L z w? w w r z _ \ ¢ .i Z � 3 — „i• m, a Q a m ry O ac w av z a pN ECKJ W F- L a W F- * � w F- 0 F'- h% w C4 J N ✓f tY Zf t5mP'fOW30 QNOO X3i Z00-f-L08£900i1OZ-LO•Z�OZ VdaVf' VM-GABI-S`�"£900L1'dN(]AA-9¢900419(10f) A iauwdse wdZL.6 Z4OZ '£Z ulOf � � a X d � � O n O O= m m ' o LZ] Q z w1 ~ Z ° :3 on zm O o O ❑~ S a LU EX a U' N c7 ❑ ❑ C7 C) a u P a h a a s F a 0 O 'XxLa O 2% a O a Ln O IL a W W U a L) w d x a a � tT `A a, 0 1;\ 00000 00 coo oo00ao 5 ql 4 � i w NiII IIYN q W � 0 o w W ~¢ a m ooaoo o ul Q � , 1 'ooaoa i w m W � 0 o w W ~¢ m ooaoo o 4 7u ? ✓1 U LLL a W z wi w y = n c Eo G2v; LLI EnY �- DJr Oz N Baa r v1 H N N J m z w w z W _ Q �zx� C > a pro) C Ln zz�� _} or o o oar ©.� crz O o -1 C + Qzz o Y CSS Z 7 Y Q U wW amZ uQ 0 � a LA or r3 Q � LO cL0 �wzr h F- 0 m 0 a2vZi W p a Q ZUvri z J ✓� z g00 J r r ?i W c W a a y) � W w z o o Ln LA z z o O U' 0 Lo z Z z _� w W �� w �++ a o 3 CL 5 a u�r Q a[ as O a z z~ W O LI; wa W W 1 CA �� am i a a a o „ z z a" ul Q � , 1 'ooaoa i w 000000 W W m a m ooaoo 4 , a 00 4mo y n LLI EnY �- z�ri�: Oz N N z w w z ul Q � , 1 Y = a _ i w m W m a m 4 , Y w ' 4mo LLI EnY z�ri�: voo-r-Lof3C9ooL1oz- L O -Z LoZ dd�JVF',VM-Mel-s- l"CSOD LiaNOM1-B£soo LlsPon A 3 W +'y ❑ Z n 7 m u Z z m v a D O D �oN Q Z z x a v z 0 a rn W O N ~~ aarrr U Z U tz LD ii O 0 W�zF z �3o W N VI K Ludt L -v ZLOZ 'CZ uef h W m O W C, to W U Z h 0 aZ w 0 �- w a 0 0 CU 0 ?� J a v'F- u w m —003 En x O umWI O O Z w -a, :� [u < A Z u, °C frit 2 m N `w � 7 x ~ 4 O W p Z w0 t � w fn a 0 a0 OpO 7 N Z Zvi zm o f tl h i¢ w 3 a w m 0 W-y,l LL o z �¢4 W 0 0 U z 0 f/l 0 z z u ZTi w r - J O 0 w W a z Z p O OLLJ v~ w m 03 p u~_i� Qff �_ m Uq a um ¢ ¢ ¢a u� E 3 'ni 0uj u �Z ll Q a 'u50 Cc u� ut 4L (a aL a a a'� �°d m w"I wX L!L y CV) 0 0 t 1 po 00 Cc 0 ar z I 1 �sa a �] z 0 Q W Z N 02 �z �Qzz r Li a[ s a V om 3w0 a p a aT0 z ZULn D ire � w..ba3lowsn� w�K s n-. / v z / s w w LA p o _ r a Z a Z o acLLI Q) Q) Ef ' W Y Z J 1 5 au a C, CG mCc CL a CK z Z a 00 `0 11 ( °ul rll 11111 [ z Z Z Q rl N ull I I III ti i I I I I r W N O w 2 W Z K It Li gx1,3 r m L '' �' .p W f/1 'w� Q uy O Z Im Ct En �\ �v Z m a m 3 h z , z Ramo ¢ Qm;� � o z p n o' o l~7 0 Z r h vi Z F Ir a avu;z o \ 6W�N o 3 ai� F= F l7 1 Or O w AGrZt� w uz.1 w .4 z�w�< a r 7gdv; .n a 6f F)mp isTd123g1VW} 40D'f'L08£goo MZ-LO-ZOZ VdHVnVM-ONEI-S-LO;R£9001\6NOM'8£90QLlsgo(, A jauoodse Ludt 4 V ZLOZ '£Z uef K # ■ a (99aYN) J.33:1-mivA313 S ■ R k�,u E b \ 4z: \ § m 0 k\ § §( ® R i z §� / \ / M z \ K LLA § 0 § rte, _� b G 4 = \\} § § § % 3S ° GR §d} k \ § § ) ) a>z ❑ A\< | J / z E§& -- C.@ i Ll �»° 0§J z e o cc z ) 5 K § kms § /\g) G _ ��e 2 �)\ 2[y= # \ §ca 42&2 ) 3 �«z 0 G§2 . �<Z) k )in§ CLf3 /ZSQ v k�,u E b #eMP(mOII 2$ 2« -ME goo GZ- � O -Z IEVd »m«`DV TS- L O-RG@ ,aMas OCIOM A ,—ood_ ke* _= euer \ 4z: \ B §( § ) } / \ / M K - § § w § k b G 4 = cr 6 » § § § % 3S § GR k \ § § ) ) | z z : � i Ll ( K § _ § § » 0 k Lu ( f J ) § ` § � f\ }§ LA 3 )%j / k ! � / c) %)§%) § k§ C 7 �! 2 2'r Z o « °° ) §(§\7 K §k/z z 2�w } « it sgQ� » #eMP(mOII 2$ 2« -ME goo GZ- � O -Z IEVd »m«`DV TS- L O-RG@ ,aMas OCIOM A ,—ood_ ke* _= euer w `^ 0 Q O M 0 O W O ' K O O Jy) 9 C jW- y lyl } = W Q w W CSIE 1nul�u'^II Z D O �` ��j�� _• i1 MwgMrR1�W 7A tom! Vl � VJ1 a Oi O w m i_ iz_ W U a 0 (9D a z9 a�OZa �z ad aZ Z N >Irz °� 0 2 x W rO Z Z >1 KZ - --- Z O m W u O a Z Z - v w F- Q a w —= U3 'W-0 N � � 0m0 0W d2.n zULA 0 z h z ~ w � O w ¢ w `4 o a a z z N u, _x- w w gr �= a ai F- w W Og0 x N a - Lu qp z z W U d' O L I- WwIn O W Q Y Q Lo Z w O w cc GW 0 = m jo Z 0 2 Z O O i,'j l7 F- z vi V LU > o LLI c Q 3 O i U�U N i lJ1 Q ¢ `a}S w Z W u s rc o d 0 Scc m y �o a c7 a� w w N = Q w O z P rc d Q z 3 :3a a 0 LL z= 1 OuU n 0. O i a� z .. Qd Ww w w� a00 Doi z z z Qm N I L) am U. 44 I �I O z C, I Vii w 'oNm LL 5 m W ❑ �w k z a CL 0 I itI a I ir ° Ln 1 z cc l z w � 5 W = 19BQAYN) 1333 NI NOIl Vh3l d N3 z Z Q O 2 Q L7 z 1 co a m r' ¢� Lo 0 O z z >b�m Z 3 � f z a 'ZI z 0 u Z CIO o LO aaN a `5 z x a o a J a 0 a A N J yJ Ln O r O Z yftiF V ~ J W Fa O= Z E 1% z W N a w N C N N 9f BMP'(SNO1133S) LOO-f-L08£90MOZ-LO-ZLOZ VdaVI'\VM-aHeI-S'LO-O£9001\4NOM-e£80DLlsgoR)4 jauoodse wdgL 4 ZLOZ 'CZ uef o, LL M O c m Q W n s ry Q a0 CYO W LPI a w Z W N •OYtlAVN £ Z r a o �, G a Baa . a►+•o.�wrn u �- r O0 WJa .� z = C N �>a M� a L�J a ~ O P9z z O0 z L°uJ z ro >ccz Ow O U Q' rRp d0� z rWoo fV CZZ � S Q way uii! 7 omZ a3 z W O m g w CL ab 0~ 0 Z Q o diH wo zuuv�, o vj U zui ZyZyo'W0 L s w LLJ~ Z O LL S N o r v� a a z W 4 M O b7 4A S yrLu z W W W LU 6a z Z o O o ra- LLz to U LA z O U z z LD z i O R Z z _ w LL 3 o w 3Z 3 0 0 g �� J ^- r _ ' 0- z J ❑ o V U ° w Z x a 0 Q 0 LU o = >N w o D a u� d O z ° O Q cr Lo= v oa WzF z Cr LU o w CL mo w rcg 3 a as Quo z0.' Z z z Q 0U❑ a o� g W (990AVN) 133.1 NI NOUVA313 z w 0 z 0 g W Z w a t m N z Q_ � � 3 z^ o a 6 `v� 3 Q z'I,m,� cc O z � 0vUj m O Jy�QN a z g� 7 U �' i IL a z z.:NaWJ s �g-4 N w LfBMp'(SNOIl335)[OO-f`L08C900110Z-40-ZWZVddVf"�VM-0'lel-S-L0-VC900L18NOM-SE90ol5sgo(%}{ jouoodsewdgj:4ZIgZ'fZuBf z Z � 2 ry Z j wi a �W � J Q(w R O y dd W J 4 a 2 �Ea d 4 � l o� ar BAwla w I Nvid) soo-r-L08C900L10Z-LO-un Hd2lVf)VM- lel-S-40-8S800L1MNOM-BB940LIsgoll:N jouoodse weZq:q Z�oZ 'LO qa_ Z s w a gU ¢ w��z$, Z � lfNl7 � N W m rrZ Z (YU� W1 wSp yU ap r C.1�=7 zZ z V 0 r W > 2 2 j 7� z O �p jop�m cc cc i n mN O<Z i OLj N a �n a r w z n ;z DH u� din ❑- v � w cnF 7 �q o4 uj r z¢ S U Q,w� =w ❑s x W `��¢LLT`F 4n ug ��d wpm w F� R� z F 5 ❑i�iV Z F Uz �r N 72 a 'u5ci acs u] 3 �c� u� zrna as a w u� Z W F� Q a❑'=i�o❑ aQ LLQ¢ O17d i Y 1 0o D 1 ao p ® w Z -ICIz p -? r z O�m F Q n Z R 1S70. O z I 1i • l 1 W m V J m U�i�� a G Q W jrcz r z O N , zx40 im-Fi x 0 z rii Z } .�tQ 2 t� Y cr z Y = d QS W 0 W CO 2 W H Q d J Y Q yy 3 z Q T II cc 5 to— nS✓=i 2QU�n D / } z LL - 44 z m O a W W ZC.+ z zC Q 16 h ~ z ' g 30 O a W VL M 11 a J 1 g s LLI O F 1 1 Q 141. c ~K a aw N LL X170- z= z h �O�O O� �H vOO aurin a 1 z z z 1 1 � i ' O Ul O O ^+ O r N z z ov It 0 0 03 a 00 3iYmo \ \ v 2 r-4 A F „ a GaLliZ z O >>4 L�RJW yi Q Wa• M1 U Z 2 `•i ��NW!/1y QQ H yn lW3 r` O ofo Z r N l d♦ ? O d `i J V I ar BAwla w I Nvid) soo-r-L08C900L10Z-LO-un Hd2lVf)VM- lel-S-40-8S800L1MNOM-BB940LIsgoll:N jouoodse weZq:q Z�oZ 'LO qa_ WETLAND RESTORATION COMMON NAME BOTANICAL. NAME SIZE COMMENTS WILLOWS ❑n❑ HOOKER WILLOW Salix hookeriana LIVESTAKES USE ONLY DURING DORMANT SEASON: PACIFIC WILLOW Salix lasiandra LIVESTAKES MID -OCT 70 MID -MAR SCOULERS WILLOW Salix scouleriana LIVESTAKES SHRUBS + + RED -TWIG DOGWOOD Comus serrcea LIVESTAKES SEE WILLOWS BLACK NUINBERRY Lonicera involucrata 1 GALLON PLANT IN GROUPS OF PACIFIC NINEBARK Physocarpos capifatus 1 GALLON 10-12 BY SPECIES DOUGLAS SPIREA Spiraea douglas!! 1 GALLON OCEANSPRAY Holodiscus discolor 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS INDIAN PLUM Oemleria cerasiformis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS WESTERN SWORDFERN Polystichum munitum 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BiOPAKS RED -FLOWERING CURRANT Ribes sanguineum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS NOOTKA ROSE Rosa nutkana 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS CONIFER WINDROW GRAND FIR Abies grandis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS DOUGLAS FIR Pseudofsuga menziesii 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS LOW NATIVE SHRUB COMMUNITY SNOWBERRY Albus symphoricarpos 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS THIMBLEBERRY Rubus parvltlorus 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS TALL OREGON GRAPE Mahonia aquifolium 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS KINNICKINNICK Artcostayphylos uva-ursi 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USE BIOPAKS WETLAND RESTORATION COMMON NAME BOTANICAL. NAME SIZE COMMENTS WILLOWS ❑n❑ HOOKER WILLOW Salix hookeriana LIVESTAKES USE ONLY DURING DORMANT SEASON: PACIFIC WILLOW Salix lasiandra LIVESTAKES MID -OCT 70 MID -MAR SCOULERS WILLOW Salix scouleriana LIVESTAKES SHRUBS + + RED -TWIG DOGWOOD Comus serrcea LIVESTAKES SEE WILLOWS BLACK NUINBERRY Lonicera involucrata 1 GALLON PLANT IN GROUPS OF PACIFIC NINEBARK Physocarpos capifatus 1 GALLON 10-12 BY SPECIES DOUGLAS SPIREA Spiraea douglas!! 1 GALLON TREES O OREGON ASH Frnximus latifolia 2 GALLON 0 BLACK COTTONWOOD Populus balsamifera spp. POLES SEE WILLOWS RIPARIAN COMMUNITY TREES BIG LEAF MAPLE Acer macrophyllum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS RED ALDER Alnus rubra 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS SITKA SPRUCE Picea sltchensis 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS ' ,=n WESTERN RED CEDAR Thuja plicata 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS z 0 z o WESTERN HEMLOCK Tsuga heterophylla 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS a 0 SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS m VINE MAPLE Acer circinatum 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS co SNOWBERRY Albus symphoricarpos 2 GALLON USE BIOPAKS 0 a SALAL Gautherra shallon 3 EACH, 1 GALLON USEBIOPAKS 'o N O N d a a 3 3 G 0 z A M n Y PLANTING SCHEDULE NWS -2011-376 PURPOSE: AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION NAME: SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE PROPOSED: REMOVE PORTION OF FLUME RESTORATION STRUCTURE, CREATE HABITAT BENCH FOR MIGRATING JUVENILE SALMON, RESTORE m VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 LATITUDE: 47'30'0$.39"N r. LONGITUDE: -122'12'31.71"W DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) IN: LAKE WASHINGTON a S -T -R: 7 -23N -5E NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON o SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF: KING STATE: WASHINGTON `^ N RENTON, WA 1- BOEING 2 - SOUTHPORT, LLC DATE: JANUARY 2012 SHEET: 9 OF 9 City of Renton Planning Division RECE V ED ®, y WASHINGTON. STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources PatarGoldmark- Comtnissionerof NblICL.ands January 10, 2012 Notice.of Final Determination Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration SEPA File No. �i- i11DoF Caring for your natural resources ... now and forever The,Department of Natural Resources issued:a [ X]Determination of Non -significance (DNS), [ ] Mitigated Determination of Non-signi ficance (MDNS), [.] Modified DNS/MDNS on November 10, 20.11. for this proposal under the -State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)'and WAC 197-11-340(2). This threshold determination is Hereby: [ ] Retained. [ X ] Modified. Modifications to this threshold determination include the following: DNR is completing additional engineering work to investigate the areas of the inner sheet pile wall that are most susceptible to additional loads as a result of the removal of the outer sheet pile wall. This investigation will determine il'therc arc other options to reinforce the inner sheet pile wall besides the current proposal to place quarry spall in and near the proposed new flume opening. Based on the results of the inspection, a repair will be designed to reinforce the inner sheet pile wall. As noted below, these upland options would involve less or no work in the water, and less or no quarry spalls in the water at the flume outlet. Accordingly, any such options will not result in probable significarit adverse environmental impacts. [ ] Withdrawn. This threshold determination has'been withdrawn due to the following: [ ] Delayed. A final threshold determination has been delayed due to the following: Summary of Comments_ and Responses Cif applicable): Comment: Concerned about impact of the project on the deep water harbor northeast ofproject site. Response;,As addressed in the SEPA checklist, the type of materials and slope grades of the habitat bench were designed based on a wind -wave hindcast (fetch-limitcd). This analysis forms the basis for helping design a habitat bench that will be stable. Specific elements of the'design have been included to help stabilize the new habitat bench as well as provide, habitat features. Three engineered log jams are placed strategically along the shoreline to help protect the beach fromwave action. The southwest structure is intended to roughen the shoreline and minimize longshore transport.from the west -to cast wind waves. Moreover, a five foot flat bench will be located 20-40 feet from the ordinary -high water mark to help break up high wave action. Please also see Section 8.1. of the SEPA checklist for further details. Comment: SEPA documents fail to fully recognize the current anis future drainage functions provided by the flume. AQUATIC RESOURCES DIVISION 11111 WASHINGTON 5T SE :1 MS 47027 1 OLYMPIA, WA 99504-7027 _441DO. TEL(360)902-1100 I FAX(360)902-1786 I TTY(360)902-1`125 1 TR5 711 I W W W.DNR.WA.GOV ntcrcuu WER EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Vanessa Dolbee From: Knust, Rochelle (DNR) [Rochelle. Knust@dnr.wa.gov] on behalf of DNR RE SEPACENTER [SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:34 PM To: DNR RE SEPACENTER Subject: SEPA Notification, South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Attachments: amp_sepa_agr slakewashington_map.pdf; amp_sepa_agr slakewashington_check.pdf, amp_sepa_agr_slakewashington_desc.pdf; amp_cepa_agr_slakewashington_design.pdf; amp_sepa_agr slakewashington_dns.pdf; amp_sepa_agr_slakewashington cvr.pdf SEPA File No. 11-111008 SEPA LEAD AGENCY & DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE This is to advise you that pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922 through 948), the Department of Natural Resources has determined that it is Lead Agency for the following: Restoration of approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and the migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook Salmon. Withdraw 7.36 acres of state-owned aquatic lands from leasing. Located in Section 07, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M., King County. Information about this proposal including the Threshold Determination and SEPA Checklist can be viewed on DNR's website at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Tnpics/Pages/AguatieResources ALP.aspx Pursuant to WAC 332-41-504, this proposal was filed in the department's SEPA Center at the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, P.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington, on November 10, 2011. We will consider comments on this proposed DNS received by 5:00 p.m. on November 28, 2011. Comments should be submitted to the SEPA Center at, sepacenterndnr.wa.gov or P.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington 98504-7015 for distribution to the responsible official. Please include the file number listed above on all comments. r �4IWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF 1_ Natu ra I Resources v MEMORANDUM November 10, 2011 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Rochelle Knust, SEPA Center File No. 1 1-11 1008 PETER GOLDMARK Commissioner of Public Lands SUBJECT: SEPA LEAD AGENCY & DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE This is to advise you that pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922 through 948), the Department of Natural Resources has determined that it is Lead Agency for the following: Restoration of approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and the migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook Salmon. Withdraw 7.36 acres of state-owned aquatic lands from leasing. Located in Section 07, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M., King County. Information about this proposal including the Threshold Determination and SEPA Checklist can be viewed on DNR's website at: http://wrww.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchSciencc/Topics/pates/AguaticResourees ALP.aspx Pursuant to WAC 332-41-504, this proposal was filed in the department's SEPA Center at the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, P.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington, on November 10, 2011. We will consider comments on this proposed DNS received by 5.00 p.m. on November 28, 2011. Comments should be submitted to the SEPA Center at, sepacenter(5_),d_nr.wa.1!ov or F.O. Box 47015, Olympia, Washington 98504-7015 for distribution to the responsible official. Please include the file number listed above on all comments. 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE • PO BOX 47015 • OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7015 FAX: (360) 902-1789 • TTY: (360) 902-1125 • TEL: (360) 902-2117 Equal Opportunity Employer 0 ®� WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT of Caring for wrd$II,dral Resources your natural resources Fetor Goldmark • Commissioner of Public Lands ... now and forever DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and the migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook. Salmon. Withdraw 7-36 acres of state-owned aquatic lands from leasing. Proponent: Washington State Department of Natural Resources Location of proposal, including street address, if any: South Lake Washington in the 1/4 section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range SE. Lead agency: Washington State Department of Natural Resources The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency: This information is available to the public on request. 11 There is no comment period for this DNS [XI This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from 4Verrlb ' .&IjComments must be submitted bN• Mo ULfrl )::1Lt- �sj a-01 t . Responsible official: Kristin Swenddal Position/Title: Division Manager Phone: 360-902-1124 Address: 1111 Washington Street SE Mailstop 47027 Olympia, WA 98504-7027 Dater �% �' . •� / Signature: There is no DNR administrative SEPA appeal. AQUATIC RESOURCES DIVISION 1 I111 WA5HINGTON ST SE 1 NIS 47027 t OLYMPLA, WA 98504-7027 IEL (360) 902-1100 1 FAY(360)902-1786 I TTY {360) 902-1125 1 TP5 711 1 WWW,DNR.WA.GOV ;EC1 GtE7 PcPlr: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DESCRIPTION FOR A PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF HARBOR AREA AND FILLLED HARBOR AREA FROM A PORTION OF SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON: From survey information documented on that certain Record of Survey filed under Auditor's file #20060622900003 for DNR Aquatic Leases 51-074812 and 51-051811 the following description is derived: That portion of the Harbor Area according to the Commissioner of Public Lands as shown on Supplemental Map of Lake Washington Shore Lands as Filed on September 14, 1965 in the Office of Commissioner of Public Lands, Lying in front of Section 7, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, located in King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian; thence N88050'24"W along the North Line of said Section 8 and such line produced Westerly for 1720.66 Feet to a Concrete Monument marking an angle point in the North Line of Lot "B" noted as "FND PSP&L MON" on that certain Record of Survey filed in Book 127 of Surveys at page 171, King County Records; thence N43°07'42"W for 679.52 Feet to a Brass Disk in Concrete marking the Inner Harbor Line of said Lake Washington Shore Lands; thence S43°53'06"W along said Inner Harbor Line for 607.64 Feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing S46°53'06"W along said Inner Harbor Line for 373.37 feet to the intersection of said Inner Harbor Line and the Northeasterly Corner of a Wing Tip Clearance Easement of Usage (proposed as Wing Tip Clearance Easement #6 on sheet three of that certain Record of Survey filed under Auditor's file 420060622900003 for DNR Aquatic Leases 51-074812 and 51-051811) being a point on a Curve to the Left from which the center bears S 16'08'11 "E for 151.50 feet; thence Southwesterly along the Northerly Line of said Wing Tip Clearance Easement following said curve to the left, through a central angle of 28°53'38" for 76.40 feet to a point of tangency; thence S44'58'1 I "W for 369.05 feet to a point of curvature of a curve to the right having a Radius of 114,70 feet and a Central Angle of 43°03'33; along said curve to the right for 86.20 feet to a point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left from which the center bears S01 *58'1 5"E for 878.40 feet; along said curve to the left for 237.71 feet to a point of a Compound Curve to the left from which the center bears S17°28'34"E for 165.00 feet; along said curve to the left for 113.85 feet to the intersection of said Inner Harbor Line; thence N18°01'01"W for 80.06 feet; thence N27°00'00"E for 440.00 feet; thence N50°00'00"E for 200.00 feet; thence N70°00'00"E for 600.00 feet; thence S45°00'00"E for 150.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 7.36 acres. WAC 1197-11-960 Environmental checMist. ENNTRONMINTAL CI{ECKIIST Purpose cif checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43210 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a propcnal before asking decisions. An envirorunental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the envimrmtertt. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required Instructions far applk4W: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. GovetmnentaI agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best descriptim you can You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer fire questions from your own observations or project plans without the aced to hire experts. if yon really do not know the answer, or if question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problem the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe ycRw proposal or its env¢onrneuW etTbcis. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if theta may he significant adverse impact. Use r f ehm-RE t for naqmjeci proposals. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADonioN, complete the supPI_EmwrAL sn= FOA NONPRomcr AGTroNs (part D). For nonprojecx actions, the references in. the checklist to the words "project," "applicatit," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKOR0Ut D 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Department of Natural Resources South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration and Withdrawal. 2. Name of applicant: Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 3. Address and phone number of applicain and cont xi person: Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Washington State Departm mt of Natural Resources 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw. WA 98022 monita.shacma new v 2011-799-2949 4. We checklist'prepaied: November 1, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist Washington State Department of Natural Resources 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The construction is proposed to occur from July 2012--Mnreb 2013. Work occurring below the Ordinary High Water Mark is proposed to occur between July 6`h -August le and November 6" — January.10'*. DNR has requested an extension anboth ends of the restrictive in water work windows dae to tete need for additkmal.time to complete all of the in-water work. Scheduled maintenanceand monitoring of the site will occur following the construction for ten yen rs. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The construction of this project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT� The ecological benefits of this restoration project will be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the eeologicat lift as mitigation will be negotiated within the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program. 8. List any environmental infortnation you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Data Report South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration (Anchor QEA 2010) Wetland Delineation Report South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration (Anchor QEA 2010) General Characterization of PC$s in South Lake Washington Sediments (Ecology and King County 2010). Outfall, Shoreline, and Nearshore Sediments Investigation Report (Weston 1999) Final Remedial Action Report (Wineman 1994) DNR Parcel Offshore Sediment-Iovestigatlon Report (Weston 1997) Cedar River Delta Sediment Assessment Report (SEACOR 1993) These documents are available -for review from 8:00 am — 4:30 pm Monday through Friday at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources office located at: 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw, WA 98022 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for goventmeriml approvals of other proposals directly affecti g the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No other applications are pending at this site_ 10. List any govetnment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Hydraulic Project Approval, Department of Fish and Wildlife Shoreline Exemption Permit, City of Renton Construction General Stormwater Perm it Section 10 Permit Work in Navigable Waters, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Discharge of Dredge or Hifi Material into Water, Army Corps of Engineers 401 Water Quality Certification, Department of Ecology NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, Department of Ecology Section 106 Review, Dgiartment ofAmheoiogy and Historic Preservation 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checi dist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your pz£i KwL You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies mq modify this fano to imbuie additional specific infoniurtion on projed drscxiptim): DNR is proposing to restore appro:®ately 1,100 lineal fed of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lame Washington with the goal to.improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives • Remove approximately 5% linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated crass beams • Remove approximately. 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of flue gravel, scud, round cobbles and sredbaeat along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat Remove nounative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will Ung over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetland • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake eanwsting of approximately 21 creosote-treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Piece three Engineered Lag Jams (ELJ) alonk the shoreline * Extend'two starmwater outfalls into deeper waters DNR is proposing to withd row the project area lands from leasing. A legal description and map of the withdrawal area is attached. Withdrawal of the lands is part of this project proposal. The withdrawal will occur with a Commissioner's Order following the completion of the SEPA process. The Withdrawal Order will be subject to the current Boeing easements, an easement for maintenance and monitoring of the restoration site granted to,the Washington State Department of Transportati m (WSDOT), and a potential future public access path. The construction of this project is being funded by the WSDOT, The ecological benefits of the restoration project nil! be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological lift as mitigation will be negotiated within the environmental permit ft process of the SR 520 Program. WSDOT will sign an easement with DNR for the site: The current Boeing easements will be amended to Identify the new loeati m of two outfalls that will be relocated as a part of this proposal. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient "information for a person to cul the precise location of your proposed project,including a street address, if any, and section, township, and ram, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,.provide sherange or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate reaps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location of the proposal is in south Lake Washington In the NE Y. section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range M The project Includes lake sborelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of replaced property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the DNR TO Br CC MPLt TED BY APPI K:&NT EVALUAMON FOR AC4D,X'Y USE ONLY B. LNvwoNmPwrAi. rt.F]mnTfrs 1. Barth a. General description of the site (circle ogre): ffiib rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mounsah*us, other ...... b. What is the steed slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% c. What general types of soils art found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? if you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime faun fund. Soils:.3 acres of upland is fill material that consists of sand,' loam, and sandy gley. Sediments: Sandy with gravel and silt. d. Are there surface indications or hisuny of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no known history of unstable soils or surface indications of any unstable soils in the proposal area The site is not designated as a landslide hazard on the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance map. e. Describe the prepost:, type, and appnoximatc quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the fill and grading along the shoreline is to create a habitat bench to restore shallow water habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook salmon. The grading and placement of topsoil and soil amendments will remove the invasive seed stock and improve the quality of solls for new native plants to grow in. See sheet number G3 of the restoration design for the location of this fill. Tvne Estimated Quan Source Clean Dredge Material 3 CY Lake Washington Or -edging Project Quany spall 4,00 Tons Clean commere€al roduct Fine Gravel Substrate 3 CY Clean commercial product Course Sand/Pea Gravel 122M CY Clean commercial roduct 4-6" Washed Round Cobble 360 CY Clean commercial product Topsoil 1900 CY Clean commercial product Soil Amendments 5"Cy Clean commercial product Mulch 900 CV Clean commercial product TO BE COMPLEMI-D BY APPLICANT I<VAWAnON FMR AGENCY USE ONLY f Could erosion occur as a result of cicmtw, construction, or use? I fso, gcncraily describe. Portions of the 3 aces of upland will be cleared, graded and replanted in order to remove invasive species. This has the potential to cause erosion. Localized disturbance may occur as a result of removing pilings and the flume walls that arra embedded in the sediments. Moreover some turbidity may occur during trenching o€ the sediments to extend two outfalls, and placement of cobble, sand and other materials along the shoreline. All efforts will be taken to minimize this temporary disturbance. As described in B3.c.1 of this cheeldist stormwater is released into the Hoorne structure and flows tbrougb the flume. Set sheet number D -I of the restoration design for the location of the flume. Most of the flume structure, including the flume walK cross beams, whalers and tie backs wiD be removed from the state-owned lands and a habitat bench wiEl take its place. An engineered log jam will be placed near the new flume opening. Stormwater efilumt that flows through the flume may cause some erosion to the new habitat beach. The landeover of the drainage basins for these outfalls does not provide any significant source of sediment. The starmwater all cantles from impervious areas with pavement and buildings, a grassy lawn, and undeveloped lands that consist of gravel, grass, and weeds. These types of landcover do not generally produce much sediment. Over time the sediment plated to create the habitat Dench akmg the shoreline coetd shift doe to littoral drift. g. Abotd what percent of the site will be covered with impervkpz surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This proposal will not create any impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, i£arry: This project is assumed to be covered ander the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDF,S) Coustroction Stormwater General Permit. Before coW*Vction DNR win appty and obtain this permit. A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead wiD be on site to complete compliance monitoring and reporting. Turbidity monitoring may occur as required under the stermwater permit. A stormwrater pollution prevention plan will be in place for the project. Sediueent, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures will be implemented during the project. Some of the Best Management Practices (BMN) that will be implemented to control and reduce erosion include; a floating sediment control curtain that will be pieced in Lake Washington surrounding the worst arta. Construction fencing will be placed around the site. Erosion control fabric wW be used around the upland site to control erosiom live stakes will be planted along the sborrline to belp stabilize the shoretlne A buried log edge will rtes along the whole project shoreline above the ordinary high water mark. This lag edge will heap keep the new soils and mulch in place while plants become established_ Moreover, BMPs will be followed during the removal of the creosote -treated pile.+ to control tarbidity'and sediments re -catering the water column during pile removal. Fast projects have shown that with the use of the BMPs removal of'piiiegs does not create a high level of turbidity and that the holes fill in when the piles are palled nod the Inkebed will remain at its. current location. Stormwater discharging from the shortened flume is not expected to cause habitat bench material placed along the shoreline to move. This is because the velocity of the darmwater flow, even under the extreme I Ott year storms, does not have the capacity to move the material. The habitat bench east of the eastern In jam is made up of quarry spall. Quarry spall should stand up to the stDrmwater flows even when combined with wind waves and or vend wakes. This project will not cause any artificial sedimentation on property that is ant owned by the sbde and managed by DNR 1`0 BE COMPL.ETM BY APPLICAWr EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The type of materials and slope grades of the habitat bench were designed based on a wind -wave hindcast (fetclr- limited) that was completed using longterm wind records at Seattle Airport. Methodologies developed by van der Meer (CEM, 2002) where used and are outlined in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Manual (21102). This .nave analysis forms the tussis for helping design a habitat bench that will be stable. There may be some alteration to the pattern of sedimentation resulting from the change from vertical hardened shoreline to the sloped shoreline. Such change however, is expected to be negligible. Specific dements of the design have been included to help stabilize the new habitat bench as well as provide habitat fes Inres. Three engineered log jatlls are placed strategically along the shoreline to help protect the beach from wave action. The southwest structure is intended to roughen the shoreline and minimize longsbore transport from the west to east wind waves. Moreover, a five foot flat bench will be located 20-40 feet from the ordinary high water mark to help break up high wave action. The quarry spall located on the outside edge of the habitat bench will absorb more and reflect less of the wave energy than the vertical sheet pile wall. Large woody debris will be located along the shoreline for habitat benefits as well as helping to reduce erosion. Sec sheet number C-3 and Ca of the restoration design for the Location of these design elements. 2. Air a- What types of emissions to the air would resuh frmn the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known_ There will be a temporary increase in localized emissions from the equipment that will be used to complete the project, however effects are expected to be minimal and will stop once the project is complete. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally descn'be. There are no off-site soutres of emission or odor that will affect the proposal. c, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if arty Equipment used at the site will meet King County emission requirements. 3. Water a Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stern or river it flows into. The project is occurring adjacent to and in Lake Washington. The Cedar River flows into Lake Washington approximately 0.4km west of the project site. lake Washington flows into the ship canal through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hiram M. Chitteaden Locks and into Puget Soon& 2) Will die project require any work over, in, or 4acent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? 1f yes, please describe and ariach available plans. All of the.work proposed for this project will require work within, over, and adjacent to Lube Wasbiagko. Work will include: • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile mall and associated crass beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of tuner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along flu slorcline to create shallow. water habitat + Remove nonnative invasive.plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will hang aver the shore!rne • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetland Remove three derelict dolphins from the take consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles TO BE COMPI.E - BY APPLJCANC • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (ELf) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters See the attached plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the arca of the site Shat would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Approximately 71,500 square feet of shoreline will be improver) with the placement of fine gravel, sand, cobble, quarry spall, and fine material. This material will create shallow water habitat along the shoreline of the property. lype Estimated Quantyy Source Clean Dredge Material 3,200 CY Lake Washington Dredging Project quarry Spall 4 050 Tons Clean Commercial Product Fine Gravel Substrate 3L950 CY Clean Commercial Product Course Sand/Pea Gravel Im CY Clean Commercial Product 4-6" Washed Round Cobble 360 CY Clean Commercial Product Approximately 750 cubic yards of material will be removed from a 0.29 acre lake fringe and slope wetland in order to remove the invasive plants that currently occupy a large percentage of the wetland. The material will be removed and transported off site by truck and disposed of as regulated. T Estimated Quantity Source Topsoil 1,900 CY Clean Commercial Product Soil Amendments 580 CY Clean Commercial Product Mulch 900 CY Clean Commercial Product 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantitiesif known. The proposal will not require surface water withdrawal or diversion. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? if so, note location on the site plain This proposal does not lie within the 100 -year flood plain. The proposal is located within Lake Washington where the water level is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No waste materials will be discharged to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn. or will water be discharged to ground water`) Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources„ if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or hturnam the systcm(s) arc cxpccted to serve. Does not apply. TO BE COMPLETED BY APP11CANT c. Water runoff (including stormwater): E'AWAT!ON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, irany (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flout? Will this water flow into other waters? if so, describe. The small amount of runoff generated on the site drains to tate lake by overland flaw. Four (4) oatfalls discharge stormwater from adjacent upland properties onto the site. The City of Renton does not discharge any stormwater onto the project site. Two stormwater outfalls, owned by the Boeing Company and authorized by DNR, run through the site's three acres of upland and release stormwater into the lake at the shoreline. One outfall is 33 incites and has a capacity of 26 cubic feet per second (cis). Its drainage basin is approximately 22.73 acres. The second outfall is 12 inches and has a capacity of 12. cfs. Tice drainage basin for this outfall is approximately 3035 acres. Approximately 95% of both drainage basins are impervious surfaces. The outfalls currently discharge stormwnter right at the shoreline. Both outfalls will he extended into the lake in order to move the stormwater discharge into deeper water away from the juvenile Chinook salmon migratory corridor. See sheet number Gl on the restoration design for the outfalls' new locations. Three properties apparently drain stormwater into outfalls at the beginning of the flume structure. Stormwater is released into the flume from the following properties: Boeing, Southport LLC, and Paget Sound Energy. The stormwater effluent passes through two outfalls into the flume shmeture located on the Southport LLC property, where it mingles with the lane water, then through the portion of the flume on state -awned aquatic land and project site, then ultimately discharging at the end of the flume" DNR has not authorized this point source discharge of stormwater onto state owned lands. The outfall awned by Boeing is a 36 inch pipe with n peal discharge of 2668 cfs for a 100 -year storm. Its drainage basin is approximately 22.73 acres of impervious paved areas and buildings. A second 12 inch outfall discharges stormwater from the Southport UC property and Puget Sound Energy property. The SouHtport LLC properties make up a total of approximately 17.1 acnes Approximately 11.11 acres of drainage runs into the 12 inch pipe and out through the flume structure. This drainage basin is approximately 2 acres of grass, approximately 2 acres of pavement, and approximately 4 acres of gravel and weeds. During a 25 -year storm, approximately 6 cis of stormwater is estimated to discharge through this system. Approximately 75. acres of Puget Sound Energy (PSE) property drains into the Rome structure with a peak flow of 7.05 cis. The PSE property is impervious paved arras and buildings. The velocity orstormwater discharging at the end of the flume in the 100 - year storm is approximately 0.2 feel per second. The proposal inctndrs removal of over 5ti0 feet of flume wall causing the efnueat to dmdmrl a into the lake at a new flame opening apprn hustely 550 feet northeast or its current location. The placement of new material and an engineered log jam will decrease the water depth at the new flume opeuin& During construction storm water well be contained with sift fences along the shoreline and a turbidity curtain located within the lake surrounding the construction area The storm water from the site will be infiltrated an site. 2) Could waste.materiais enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No- d. a d. Propoeed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff'water impacts, if any: Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plaits will be developed with the selected contractor. The SPCC Plan will outline measures to be taken to prevent release or spread of discharged materials including those the contractor may store, use, or generate during construction activities. These items include, but are not limited to gasoline, oils, a" chemicals. Pilings, sediment, racks, concrete debris, and flume wall will be transferred directly onto the barge atter removaL Any debris that is associated with the project will be picked up and placed in containers and disposed appropriately. Removal of the 21 creosotertreated pile will improve water quality. Best ManaVatent Practices will be is ptaex during the removal to contain and collect any oil %been that may occur. Each dolphin is made up of approximately 7 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY creosote -treated piles making up approximately 10 square feet of area. Due to their small surface area removal of the dolphins should not affect currents and movement of the lakebed. During removal and extension of the two outfalls the contractor will be required to maintain conveyance during the construction using pumps and other rodbods to bypass the worts area. Design of the proposal takes into account the flow from the two outfalls that release stormwater into the flume. The flume opening is wide enough to accommodate the stormwater. The maximum velocity of about 0.2 feet per second during a 100 year storm is not a significant enough flow to treats a flooding risk doe to stormwater hacking up into the drainage basin. Weep holes will be placed in the sections of the inner flume wall remaining in place on the state property. The intent of the weep holes is to facilitate now between the lake and land on the other side of the inner flume wall. The weep holes will allow wave wash over the flume wall to flow back towards the take and prevent ponding behind the flume walL In addition, DNR wi3l work with the owners of the outfalls that release siormwater into the flume to authorize the discharge to state-owned aquatic lands 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: iduous tree: Pacific willow, pacific madro e, pacific ninebark, black cottonwood evergreen frac: -<!;5r_ub'D red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, yellow twig dogwood, Scot's broom, red elderberry, sa Imon berry __4D Creeping bentgrass paste crop or grain wet soli plants: reed canarygrass, yellow -flag iris, yellow garden loosestrife, native soft rush, field mint, Northern Bugleweed, purple loosestrife, common tansy, Western Canada goldenrod water plants: milfoil er types of veg-e—W o . urled dock, bitter nightshade, common dandelion, long -stalked clover,. veronica, ng glory, pacific silverweed, English ivy, small duckweed, lupine, forget me not,, narrow - leafed plantain, Japanese knotweed, California aster, field mustard, buil thistle, common horsetail b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be'removed or altered? All of the invasive plants will be removed from the 'acre upland site including but not limited to Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, loosestrife, Scot's broom, and knotweed. The area of invasive vegetation - el. I is approximately 64,000 square feet. During construction the native trees that are currently growing on the site will'be protected. c. List threatened or endangered species kno" to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known at this site. d. Proposed Landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to pmurve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The objective of the proposal is to plant a native shrub community, multi -layered mixed deciduous/conifer riparian community, as well as native wetland phots in the 3 acres of property. All of the invasive plants will be removed eliminating competition for the native plants. The existing trees will be protected during constrtwOm and remain on the site. TO BE CIONHILL•MD BY APAXANI' 5, Animals EVALUA'TEON FOR AOENC:Y USE ONLY L Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the'site: birds: t� cru eagle songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. Ssh: sa o o erring, shellfish, other sculpin, threespine stickleback, yellow perch, freshwater shrimp b. List arry threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as lbreatened in March 1999 ander the Endangered Species Act. Puget Sound cobo salmon are considered a species of concern, with a potential for future listing, and Puget Sound steelhead were listed Threatened ESA in May of 2007. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This site is part of the Pacific Flyway, a major north -south seasonal migration route for many bird species. This site is also a migratory and rearing corridor for Chinook salmon, and Lake Washington contains the largest population of naturally occurring sockeye salmon in. Washington State. Most spawning and fry production occur to the Cedar River, just west of the project site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The purpose of this project is to restore habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook salmon. During construction Best Management Practices will be in place to reduce disturbance to wildlife. Construction timing will take place as authorized by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Following the completion of the project there will be a need far water to irrigate the new vegetation for 3 years. DNR is working with Boeing to secure a temporary source of water to ensure the sustainability of the plants. b. World your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of encTgy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Not applicable. 7. Environmentai health a_ Are there any environmental health hazards,.including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The pilings that will be removed from the site are treated with creosote. Some of the sediments have high concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyl, 8is(2-ethyiheKyQ phthalate, arsenic, and nickel. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required_ The need for emergency services is not expected. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Til BE COWIZ i BY APPl.1CAN"r EiVALUA'IlON FOR AGENCY USE Omly Rest Management Practices will be in place during the construction to prevent environmental health hazards. The contractor will be required to have a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan in place and take steps to prevent exposure to the chemicals and other environmental health hazards while working on the site. All hazardous materials will be disposed of at an approved Hazardous Waste Landfill. b. Noise l) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply. 2) What types and .levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site, Noise will result from the equipment that will be used to construct the project. The equipment needed to complete this project includes; trucks, barge, crane. vibratory hammer, excavator, and conveyor belt. This noise is short term and will only occur during the construction of the projecL 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise inspects, if any: Noise will only occur during the construction and well only be temporary. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the site consists of approximately 650 linear feet of hardened shoreline that is made up of a derelict flume structure. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Three dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Approximately three acres of upland are overgrown in many areas with Himalayan blackberry and other invasive plants. Boeing has two easement agreements with DNR for stormwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the property. The site is bordered by Boeing, which is south of the DNR property The Boeing property Is used to manufacture planes. To the cast of the project proposal is the Southport property. Its uplands are developed ror residential use and the shorelands (aquatic lands between the inner harbor line and the Rte of ordinary high water) are developed with a dock and used for moorage of vessels and transportation for waterway cruises. Adjacent to the Southport property is Gene Coulon Park. Gene Coulon Park is used by the public for various types of recreation. b. Has the sits boort used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structrmes on the site. The property was created In 1965 when Puget Sound Power and Light (PSPL) was permitted to place 150,000 cubit yards of fill into the taker The fill was placed alongside a flume made of two sheen-pHe walls that PSPL used to release cooling waters from the Sbuffleton Steam Plant. The Shuffleton Steam Plant has been deeommissioned; however the flume Is still located on state property. DNR has two easements with Boeing that run across the property. The easements consist of a 33 -inch concrete stormwater outfall, a 49 -inch storm dram, manhole, 4 -inch PVC foreemain, 12 -inch concrete storm drain, utility vault and sump pump, various utilitics, aspdalt towpath, and an airplane wing overhang: Three dolphins made up of approximately twenty ow creosote -treated pilings are located on the property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. Approximately 550 Tett of the outside flume wail and approximately 371 feet of the Imide flume wati and all associated cross beams that make up the flume that runs along a portion of the property shoreline will be removed TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLJCAM' The twenty one creosote -treated pilings will be removed from Lake Washington. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is adjacent to property zoned as Urban Center North 2. f What is the current comprehensive pian designation of the site? Urban Center North. g, if applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline High intensity. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The City of Renton has listed the site as a high liquefaction susceptibility arca. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the compacted project? No people would reside or work in the completed project site. j. Approximately how marry people would the completed project displace? No people would be displaced due to this project k_ Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Docs not apply. EVALUATLON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any, This project is listed as project number C266 on the three year work plan under the Water Resource Inventory Arca (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plate This project is a Tier 1 priority under the WRIA 8 plan due to the project's location in a migratory and rearing corridor for Chinook salmon. This project will accomplish priority actions,under the Conservation Plan by increasing.overhanging vegetation and reducing bank hardening by restoring important shallow water habitats closest to the mouth of the Cedar River where such habitat is most heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon (Tabor 2006). The City of Renton's Shoreline Master Plan Update Restoration Plan lists this proposal as a potential restoration project along Luke Washington. The City of Renton has proposed Southport as a location for a future water taxi. The water taxi proposal has not been formally adopted in a plan. The Southport LLC properties are currently using their private shorelands for twat moorage and ingress and egress of vrssels. As discussed In questions above, the project proposal will not have any significant impacts on tate existing or propmed moorage and vessel access to the adjacent private sharelands. Sediment. materials are not expected to move beyond the project arca onto private shoreiands due to the outfall discharge and the slope grades and materials arc designed. to build a stable habitat bench,. The properties that release stormwater into the flume may release fine sediment into the take, due to the composition of the surfaces generating the stormwater runoff (mostly impervious surface), the amount would be very small If these fines exiist, the restoration project will change the location of where they are released into the lake. The restoration design leaves i oo feet of the outer flume wall in place as shown in the design drawings on sheet fill. One of the r+easm for leaving this portion of flume wall in place is to direct the stormwater and potential fine.sediments to the west away from the neighboring property. Additionally, fine sediment does not settle in the water column as quickly as larger matertats, It may settle over a much larger area, and is even less able to accumulate and change lake bed depth at any location, For these reasons, drams the location of where the stormwater is released from the fume will not cause a measurable change in the take bed depth on the neighboring properties. The proposal is improving the current Boeiug outfalls that crass the state property and discharge sturtnwater into the )sire. The outfalls will be new high density polyethylene pipe and the effluent will discharge further away from the shoreline, improving water quality. TO BE COMPI IM BY APPIICAN'r EVALUAMON FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The proposal is only making changes to the state-owned property and improvements on the state-owned property. This restoration proposal is compatible with the uses that occur and may occur in the future at the neighboring properties. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable b. Approximately how many units, if arty, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structurc(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable b_ What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Not applicable 11. fight and glare a. What type of tight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Constructionidemolition will be short term and occur during daylight hours. There wiii be no other activitics at the site. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The finished project will be covered with vegetation or be sunder water. There will be no light or glare from it. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing off-site sources of light or glare (e.g. residences, recreation boats, Boeing facility lights) should not affect the planted native vegetation or shoreline use by jmmaite salmonids. A conifer windrow, as shown on sheet number Ll of the design drawings, is proposed to block the Boeing facility fights that currently shine light along the shoreline. d Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Reereation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Gene Coulon Park is located 600 feet cast of the site and the Cedar River Trail is located 1,300 feet west of the site. Lake Washington is open to the public to recreate on. The three acres of upland property of the proposed restoration site is closed to public access b_ Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No TO BE COMPL -0 BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The three acres of upland are currently not available for recreational use. Lake Washington is available for normal recreational activities such as boating. This proposal will not change the current recreational activities at the site and surrounding the site 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? I f so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. la. Transportation a. identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This site is not accessible by public streets or highways. The property is landlocked by the Boeing property to the south and Lake Washingtnn to the north. The construction of the restoration project wits mostly occur from a barge located on Lake Washington fronting the proposed restoration site. Depending on where the contractor is based out of they may have to travel from Puget Sound through the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Ballard and into South Lake Washington. A few trips of large construction equipment may access the site through the Boeing property from Interstate 405 and Logan Avenue North in Renton. The construction workers will access the site through the Boeing property. b. is site currently served by public transit? Ifnot, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. c, How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Flow many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streds, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occarr in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air ttanspnrtatinn? if so, generally describe. This project will use water transportation to access and complete the work The contractor will be responsible for providing this transportation to the project site. The City of Renton Airport is located approximately 1,700 feet to the west of the project site. Recreational boats may use the lake in the project vicinity. Boat cruises are based out of the Southport property to the east. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The completed project wnot create any vehicular trips. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. The equipment in Lake Washington and few trills on local streets and highways should not cause any impacts to transportation. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable - 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, naturalgas, water, refuse serv- ice,. telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No utilities will be heeded for the long term. Water will be needed for three years following the completion of the project to assure the survival of the vegetation and trees that arc planted on the site. DNR is working with Hoeing for access to a water line. C. SIC,NATUU. The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. i undetd that the lead agency is relying on th make its decision. signature; . .................................................................................................................................................................. Dale.submitted. -°.i.l..................................................................................................................................... fig a 0 r 1 P�. o d W y OC � W z w Of _g oco� J z 11 Ir� b oQ z c� L Z = z �a I m W w z O � = z • Cl) �c 1 ac i e j ; 1 • • Q � i� 1 � j y� � [� � �4 .4 tkYA 1 _ �.. ~� _ j ll, •,� c`iii 11 Flip ,• � ---..•tip 1 f I � � \ 1 ti 1µM ` i - ,• � ---..•tip 1 f I � � \ 1 ti 1µM n tit ,• � ---..•tip 1 f I � � \ 1 ti 1µM R x10000000 r,, R a 1�'7: �M {YM IIQ.{pyl� IMOM111111 M M11tMM s I �u r JJ E �Q V Y f s � ' 1yy Q s I �u s siinwivarrwwvr � I r' y k �aonwo W I r .aunrr I V Y f s � j � � W J i Ri0hIM11111r.d1Mili S � 1 I Lo i V � T S nnnn siinwivarrwwvr � I r' y k �aonwo W I r .aunrr 0 &—_m m iiiii �MM�M• l! k m N inr CC dhWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Peter Goldmark.Commissionerof Public Lends November 4, 2011 Caring for your natural resources ... now and forever City of Renton Planning Division Michael Christ SECO Development, Inc. NOV 0 4 'loll 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N Suite 50 Renton, WA 98054-6458 CaMVED Subject: South Lake Washington Restoration Project nu EC Dear Mr. Christ: This letter addresses the topics of your October 13 l letter as well as your email from October 121h. Below I have addressed the Boeing drainage, PSE drainage, and City of Renton drainage discussed in your letter. Lastly, I have addressed your proposed changes to the 90% design drawings. Boei ng Drainage The information DNR has regarding the Boeing drainage was provided by Boeing and is the most up to date information on their drainage into outfall #12. Various alternatives described in the Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from 2003, referred to as 2003 Boeing EIS, describe the possibility of an increase in the flow to outfall #12. They also describe shutting down drainage to outfall #11. Outfall #11 is one that will be replaced and extended out into the lake under the DNR restoration proposal. Any proposed modifications or improvements to Outfall #12 must be analyzed and designed for the total tributary runoff based upon current or future land use conditions assuming direct discharge to Lake Washington in accordance with the City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City. The City of Renton will need to review and approve the construction plans and drainage analysis for modifications or improvements that are proposed for Outfall #12, along with issue a City construction permit for the any work on the outfall. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Drainage The 2003 Boeing EIS states that the eastern 50% of the PSE property drains into Johns Creek and the western 50% of PSE property drains by a system of catch basins and is routed to an 8" diameter PVC line running along the northern boundary of the property. This line has a gate valve 'to prevent any potential spills from entering the system and Lake Washington. The document states that this line was designed to convey the 25 year 24 hour storm event and has a capacity of approximately 0.3 cfs. The 2003 Boeing EIS goes on to state that the line directs the runoff to a holding pond and pump station location on the property owned by the SECO SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1950 HARMAN AVE N 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-9282 TEL (360) 825-1631 1 FAX: (360) 825-1672 1 TTY (360) 902-1125 1 TAS 711 1 WWW.DNR.WA.GDV ~�y EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 09CYQED Puu e Michael Christ November 4, 2011 Page 2 of 3 development and is then pumped to Lake Washington. The 2003 Boeing EIS does not state where in Lake Washington this water is pumped to from the SECO property. Based on the information from the 2003 Boeing EIS, DNR is assuming that 7.5 acres of the FSE property drains into flume with a peak flow of 7.05 cfs. The 2003 Boeing EIS shows various alternatives for the drainage of the PSE property if it is redeveloped. The alternatives include increasing the drainage to outfall # 12, to removing the drainage to outfall #12 completely. As is the case for the other subareas, if this area is redeveloped the developer will need to present a plan for the drainage and it will need to go through the regulatory process and property owners before any changes are approved. City of Renton Drainase The City of Renton verified the following information: 1. Subareas A and B of the 2003 Boeing EIS have been redeveloped. The PSE property and subareas C through G have not been redeveloped. 2. The drainage systems for the redeveloped subareas A and B have been redeveloped according to the plans shown in the 2003 Boeing EIS. These subareas release stormwater into a 60 -inch pipe that becomes a 48 -inch pipe before it releases stormwater into Johns Creek. 3. The City of Renton does not direct any stormwater into outfall #12. 90% Desi n Discussion Based on the concerns expressed in your May 9`' letter DNR updated the restoration design. One of these changes included pullinthe habitat bench further away from your property line. Your current request from October 12' to move the habitat bench an additional 100 feet west would reduce the amount of habitat and increase the cost of the project. The current design makes an efficient use of the existing bathymetry in order to place the least amount of material and receive the most habitat gain. Moreover, leaving an additional 220 feet of the outer flume wall in place would not benefit juvenile Chinook salmon. The focus of this project are the juvenile Chinook salmon that migrate through the site from the Cedar River to Puget Sound. Studies show that juvenile Chinook salmon are most likely to congregate close to the shores near the mouth of the Cedar River in the beginning of February to the end of May. The preferred habitat is sand and cobble with water depths less than 0.4 meters. The more flume structure that remains in place the less habitat there is for the fry. The placement of quarry spall near the mouth of the proposed new flume opening serves a couple functions. First, it will help stabilize the inner flume wall once the outer wall is removed. Second, the placement of the material to create a habitat bench is designed to meet the existing bathymetry and create a stable bench with gentle slopes. The placement of quarry spall at the opening of the flume was designed so that it would not impede stormwater flow through the Michael Christ November 4, 2011 Page 3 of 3 flume. The restoration design for the flume opening is wide enough to accommodate the current stormwater from Boeing, PSE, and Southport. The velocity of the stormwater during a 100 year storm is not a significant enough flow to create a flooding risk due to stormwater backing up into the drainage basin. Moreover, the 4"-6" quarry spall is the only material located to the east of the eastern Engineered Log Jam (ELJ). This material should stand up to the flows of the stormwater even when combined with wind waves or vessel wake. Lastly, the most easterly ELJ structure is proposed at its current location in order to act as a barrier to prevent material from moving east. All of the fine silt material, which stays in the water column longer and may move around in the system, are being placed in the habitat bench and covered with larger material (i.e. quarry spall and cobble). Please feel free to contact me if you have any other comments or questions Sincerely, Monica Shoemaker Restoration Manager c: District File 4" City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ADDRESS:950 Farman Avenue North CITY: Enumclaw ZIP: 98022 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-799-2949 APPLICANT if other than owner NAME:DNR COMPANY (if. applicable): DNR ADDRESS: 950 Farman Avenue North CITY: Enumclaw ZIP' 98022 TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON NAME: Monica Shoemaker COMPANY (if applicable): DNR ADDRESS: 950 Farman Avenue North CITY: Enumclaw ZIP: 98022 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 206-799.2949 monica.shoemaker@dnr.wa.gov City of Renta Planning Division APR, 2 a lion F---% �-- PROJECT INF PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: DNR South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Site does not have an address. The Project site located north of the Renton Boeing property adjacent to Lake Washington. KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0723059105 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Urban Center North PROPOSED LAND USE(S): NA EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Shoreline High Intensity PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NA EXISTING ZONING: Urban Center North 2 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA SITE AREA (in square feet): Approximately 188,000 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA C kDocumenu and SettingAdtob49MLoul Seuinpc'femporary Inlernet Flles�Clmlent.outlook'iUQF5IV5R1mastempp,doe I PROJECT INFORMAT NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):NA SQUARE'FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL_ 13UELDINCiS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable):NA ION continued PROJECT VALUE: Approximately $2 million dollars IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): , ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft, ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES _ -38.000 sq. ft. © WETLANDS -12.632 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descrl tion on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 7 , TOWNSHIP _M_ , RANGE 5E IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Shoreline Exemption 3. Z. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) TocrL4" u4— declare under penalty of perju under the laws of the Stale of Washington that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved In this application or , & the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary apt for the uses and purposes mentioned in the Instrument. (Signa(ure of OwnetlRepresentative) (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Notary (Print) My appointment expires: of ui tX C Mmumcnia and Scttingskttob490U-ocu1 SettingslTcmporary Intcme FileslContcnt.OutlooklUQFSlVSRlmasterapp d/EiEf/� t%dd�t "L�.!�� 2 - 0 February 28, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Bridget Moran, Deputy Supervisor FROM: Kristin Swenddal, Manager Aquatic Resources Division SUBJECT: Signature Authority on Non Material Items Per the department's delegation order dated March 10, 2010, I request to delegate certain signature authorities: To Assistant Division Managers: • JARPA Landowner Si nature - On the supplemental ownership information of the JARPA form is a place for the landowner's signature (DNR). This does not commit the state to allowing the use, it only states who owns the land. • Shoreline Permit Land Owner — There is a form for county shoreline permit exemptions for mooring buoys that states that the area is state land. If the form does not commit DNR to approving the project or issuing an authorization, I recommend that the ADM is allowed to sign off on the form. • SEPA Permit - SETA checklist, including all permit applications (i.e. City permits, exemptions, etc.) should be signed by whoever fills out the form or the ADM. • Acknowledgements - We are often asked to sign off on letters acknowledging certain items that have been completed pursuant to the agreement. Most often, these are approval letters relating to major maintenance, per various lease clauses (which say something along the line that of "lessee can't do something unless DNR approval is given.) To District Managers: County Real Estate Excise Tax „(REE':) forms - Some counties ask us to sign off on the real estate excise tax forms indicating that we are exempt from the taxes. These do not commit the state to anything, but are needed by those that need to fill out this form. Performance Securities - This is primarily signing off on the security forms. This does not change the agreement; rather it acknowledges the security meets the conditions of the agreements. If there are any questions, it is sent to Jim Smego or AAG for review. If you agree withthe delegation of these items to the positions stated above, please sign and date: Z22 � h ---Ll-- 4- 2oll Bridget Moran Date �— Deputy Supervisor Iwo '-1!oMfffIJ MAMA 21—M ail of Renton ivision APR 2, Lu IN ED NOT 1AM `\ ' � r4►�raAr.� �� AMAr'wIr't wl [ • dqIh �.� • 16 �y it, ' ry ` • ll W; =-.1.j!tA "µ■ •'.'l' id` �iM .L.L �w ,1� a� , i ■ ..�� r VAIN, ! L 11 y`' 7M�r aTo 'Vill � RAS■��,. VW AM Ir c u o q T'm N 2 N 2 Z N 0 O iz. F F Z F 'o w w w W W d St A u. '= w u. N U m IC K 0. 4! J K a. LU �ile.¢o � i 7.f 1 LNIP1,41i � r, 1 , ��ui►. :ice �i f Z q _0 rOr 2 0 aF w 0 rl J w cr LL U z � a w a0 O G w z a cc ce G 0 ur WJ w Q Z x 0 z w 2 O w � � 01,4 Oz f -,, i 0 cc z� J z o 0L4 R z o �Oz FL 0 Z O o Y l9 Y 'Z- cc ;2 ;2 N S WYa cc K Z a- TLn J W z cc �LDa u+ z zuU ✓A O Z q _0 rOr 2 0 J w cr LL o � a iw W w z a N ce G 0 ur Z 0 z 0 O F- Oz f -,, i d z� J 0 �2 �' o ^3 r 4 l9 Y 'Z- ;2 ;2 C 0 x O a p j/1 !� a:,:3 5 a uk arc z cc �LDa u+ to LL z z c O g wW� a as a. z z z -t LL 57 ^3 r 4 f r Lo x 4 1 (]tr Y m LL 4 (N( �gj7 S 0100 o? r z LM \\ 0. rf r �v z \"\ yy a W M a r 3 wo W lS ? r+ 4 Z O- Ox�Nm rH Z O H W~ O~ a 7 4J - Ln L .n W � lXaI7.ARf`LORC9OAL5RRZ.RLLO.7vdNNfSNM-e,4el-G•Lo-RCAnnL4)ANnAA-RrgnnL4SQOM:A woouewdLs:LLLnr'T7.ORA • w • • • i i • • • ■ r • rn ow • • \j • • • CC LIU 4A m •LLA 42. uj V000, 0 uses p l�sei� teerrre� t �'y*rrrrrrra V ill0�rrQz rer' �errrsssls a�A �r#i'r#r#rit• �relrresit}►s :C �ti }�0 rerNiNz}r. e+ We 0000 • :+ arfrrrrrrrrrs ,sa �+eerrnrerrra. �}sssussssss.as. �ssussrrsrrses. • !�;''saes •srssssHr�.cc r' •r.rrrrr�ssrsr.► 'Ei" � �sassss►ssssar++ r a�rsirssssrs► y � �"!/r►VFr�ri• •Aorerrrrr. 0*000 CG � X1.4•, ��• �• rr#erre! . ��• . •ssrrssssrs . sisirre04090ri . �� - ' `�sssrsssp • srrrrr l sssss•• �` - �• �sssrvss �arss.r •errs 1 , iriise, y1 '110 ti }erR sees+ t brerrre };� X04. A1► +SIM he _ £fBMP'(STfINgIVWIonO-M09F.A00LM-70-LLOZ.V�IHVfIHM-BHB'}S-LOif£900LI)4NOM-QP900L4000f`;)4 HOOLIBWdt0LLLOZ'ZZ QQA 0 0 o 0 0 ((,�� Y u 4 W W iYE- W = N � W Z � � 4 (9gaAVS)1334 NI NOIIVA313 C a v .. z0 a AWoN r � 5 1= LD d r �ry a >5°� 4P WIGN011099) L00 -f L09E8004490-ZO-Lwz HdEIVRVM-eNwi-s-LO-BE90041'dNOM-BE9006kegOR:N Moo4B Wd6E�L LLOZ'ZZ 4eA 0 u 4 W LL z W d' a = = N � W Z � � 4 W O F= oc rr0 `LW �p2Cz QQ< W o5 0 z w Dx � rr o W Gjcoz O Lnra= R�Lu a LL 3� a� O Z ii Z p N (9gaAVS)1334 NI NOIIVA313 C a v .. z0 a AWoN r � 5 1= LD d r �ry a >5°� 4P WIGN011099) L00 -f L09E8004490-ZO-Lwz HdEIVRVM-eNwi-s-LO-BE90041'dNOM-BE9006kegOR:N Moo4B Wd6E�L LLOZ'ZZ 4eA W rr0 `LW �o O 4 z z a 0 ® ® O W o � 0 a G Q z z ? i— ofd �� o u,cn CIC V Inc W J O F-:' � oe a r a g W 0 W Lu uj Z Z? om9 r4 I I z 0 I O o 2 W � 4 m a a= N a 3 0 c a z 3 a z< owc 0 � W p P, z a x (9gaAVS)1334 NI NOIIVA313 C a v .. z0 a AWoN r � 5 1= LD d r �ry a >5°� 4P WIGN011099) L00 -f L09E8004490-ZO-Lwz HdEIVRVM-eNwi-s-LO-BE90041'dNOM-BE9006kegOR:N Moo4B Wd6E�L LLOZ'ZZ 4eA 1 LL O o N cr 0 �. K O W LL D Z W t50 �a4p � M4t ao - - -- o Wua �zx W • Q4tlo Z LLj4 i 0tD4 3 Z?� �� Nx ��z z _ J Nm ® Oda a o z W z G z F- 0 0 O O Q ly V•.• N U. LD Q9 2 z z K 3 zz3 �2 "$ d m z U 0� 3 m Ln Y a o.0 g<?a a=� ?a°t o $ R x W o Co G�G77 17 p cr O k s 0 LMUJ o W m vl zo o LD- 3. � U)� 8 l7 l7 z � - - W y ? z Z $ W t mS W 'a O m �Z z 3d o ,I 7 x� a I C w x Q e U � • Z W ... �- # H N lY 7 Q Z QzQ l U LL x J 0 0 J I !v L 0 0 a � a¢ a a g I I Odz? � 0 M 4CCJ 0 1 CWC � ' I [aUalr CU1 lll,�I uy _ I Z z z Q.tiN I I 10 ' o zO z O N ~ I I F 0 H N o 2 � � I � T ~ cc a o � � CL 0 C3 O Ln z W N r,� o ' �6m 0�W 2 (96QAVN)133� NI NOIIVA3i3 S z �1 q o v .. m 0 a 3 g `��~ z � 0 N r M z � H 0 a >� 0� x SP 5MP'(SNO11O3S) 10O-['L09£900L19o-Z0 L LOZ Vd4VfldM-$X18TS-W-9£90OLIilN IWK9000sgo(' H 40040 w80O:OL LLOz'£z qe3 R � R (MAVN)133A NI NOIIVA319 9r PISNOU39S1 LpPh(08C9Q6Nea ZO LW LIQ � c5 x LL Q L WMA z o z W o � a U zti `d G �_ G z z X 2 = x oc a 3 3a IS R a a w o ax LL 0 z z z - a 3 0 S c � z-4 a 2 z E�_ Z [ © W M 0 ? J W h L WMA z o z W o � a U zti `d G �_ G z z X 2 = x oc a 3 3a IS R a a w o ax LL 0 z z z - a 3 0 S c � z-4 a z Ili Z [ © W M 0 ? J W h o J M-46 wftc:L bwvzz Qe-A Q Zv W [J aa4 w 0 4 n Y a w s w0 LA ui to 3 o $orC iso W LU Cc �n G z Z 5 w� � w? Gi h W u O u O R R l7 h N w 9 Z x rc si S2 x �� aaw ELS Mg z Ra LL ;4 a a a w w i vw zwrc as as w w Q w 8 LL 3 00< I J I o 1 OZ 9, �er¢ ~Z z 0 1 I I 1 p 1 a z z j z l0~9 � O v W5 w = Z0700 w=z � of- 0ca z 3 " 0 m w z Y a ^aJ EL g a w flora a�a w cc ? zo F- o p O a z � w . Z � Ln z 1 z - z o 0O l7 = w g �Z. z CL a 1 o 3 a 0.o c d"4 Q ox w ~ �+ u 4z � 14 j a J Y U O�0 11`+ \ pro � g un zz= 1 a °m a 1 g \ z z ••' • O� 1 N _ � z \ w$ O Q w? � cr Qo w m 0 z _ Mam Z >e}m 'n z 4 ¢ m iV O a �AOx> ¢ ~� O_ Q � � ¢a•:iz 3 w Ow0N ~ wa 0 O O� v1 �N CC `Lr BAAP'(JNIINVld) fi00-I-LOBEBOOL48Q-Z0•LLOZ VdkIVr\HM-Mul•S-lO-VE900L1HNOM-BE9QOL\89of'l N k-Uo Wd09:1 LOZ 'ZZ 4e� Denis Law Mayor Cl' J 0 A Department of Community and Economic Development June 13, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Monica Shoemaker WA State Department.of Natural Resources (DNR) 950 Farman Avenue North • Enumclaw, WA 98022 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration / L.UA11-020 Dear Ms. Shoemaker: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for, review on April 20, 2011. On June 13,'2011 a letter was received from DNR indicating that the SEPA threshold determination for the subject project will be withdrawn, a new., SEPA checklist will be prepared and a new determination will. be completed. - Due to the withdrawal of the SEPA determination the subject application will be placed on hold until 'a new SEPA determination is issuedand-the associated appeal period has elapsed. Once a new SEPA threshold. determination has been issued, please provide three copies for the project file, Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 12:4,1Jl`-� Vanessa Dolbee ' Senior Planner cc: DNR/Own erisf/Applicant File Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 11 o� WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Caring for Nalt rag Resources your natural resources Pater Goldmarr- Commissioner of Public Land% ... now and forever June 13, 2011 Notice of Final Determination Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration SEPA File No, 11-031403 The Department of Natural Resources Issued a [X] Determination of Non-signilicanee (DNS), on March 14, 2011 lair this proposal under t11e State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and WAC 197-11-340(2). This threshold determination is hereby: [ "[ Retained. [ J Modilied. Modifications to this threshold determination include the following: [X] Withdrawn. This threshold determination has been withdrawn due to the following: Additional information is being gathered regarding outfalls near the site. A new SEPA checklist and determination will be completed following the review of -the infimrmation. [ ] Delayed. A final threshold detenmmination has been delayed duc to the following: Summary of Comments and Responses if applicable): Responsible Official. Kristin S%venddal Position/title: Division Manager Address: 1 1 I Washington St. SE Mailstop 47027 Olympia, WA 9804-7027 Date: Signature: -1-herc is no DNR administrative SETA appeal. Phone: 360-902-1124 AQUATIC RESOURCES DIVISION 1 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE i M547027 1 OLYMPIA, WA 98504707 ---112-3—TEL(360)902-1100 1 FAX(360)902-1786 1 TTY(350)902-1125 1 TR5711 # WWW.DNR.WA.GOV p(CVC.Es PAPERAft EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1W WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Peter Goldmark-Commissioner of Public Lands June 13, 2011 Caring for your natural resources ... now and forever City of Renton Planning Division JUN 13 2011 Michael Christ, President "c rC+ 2O❑ V Enn SECO Development, Inc. 151y l5 L5 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N Suite 50 Renton, WA 98056-6458 Subject: South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project Dear Mr. Christ: Thank you for sending your letter dated May 91h and meeting with me on May 61h to discuss the South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project. We are currently researching the concerns you outlined in your letter. I am writing to inform you that the Washington State Department of Natural Resources will be withdrawing the current SEPA threshold determination that was made on March 14, 2011. A new SEPA checklist will be prepared and a new determination will be completed. As we work through this process I will be in contact with you, moreover you will receive the official SEPA notifications. I look forward to continuing to work with you on our restoration proposal. Sincerely, Monica Shoemaker, Restoration Manager cc: Kristin Swenddal, DNR Vivian Hawkins, DNR Suzanne Dale Estey, City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN AVE N 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-9282 TEL: (360) 925-1631 1 FAX: (360) 825-1672 1 TTY: (360) 902.1125 1 TRS 711 1 WWW.DNR.INA.GOV _qw. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER racvcssD PAPER State Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Location Shoreline Restoration City of Renton Planning Division APR 2 D "Nil Project Narrative ,�ECOVE© The proposal is Iodated in south Lake Washington in the NE % section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. The project includes lake shorelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of upland property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Proposal DNR is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives. • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round.cobble, and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat • Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote - treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (EU) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters Following the restoration this property DNR proposes to withdraw the lands from leasing with a Commissioner's Order as well as maintain the property under a conservation easement. See the attached 30% design for additional information on the project. Basis for the exemption request This proposal is exempt per the "watershed restoration projects" category. The projects is primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove impediments to migration of fish, and enhance the fishery resource aJailable for use by all of the citizens of the state. (This project is listed as project number C266 on the three year work plan under the Water Resource `Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan: This project is a'Tier 1 priority under the WRIA 8 pian due to the project's location in a migratory and reari.ng corridor for Chinook salmon. Thi's project will accomplish priority actions.under the Conservation Plan by increasing overhanging Project Narrative DNR South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Page 1 of 3 M iv_egetation and reducing bank hardening by restoring important shallow water habitats closest-t6-the- mouth losest-tothe- mouth of the Cedar River -where such habitat'is-most heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon'(Tabor 2006). — - Work Schedule The construction is proposed to occur from July 2012 –March 2023. Work occurring below the Ordinary High Water Mark is proposed to occur between July S'n - August 10'h and October 22nd – January 10'h DNR will be requesting a ten day extension on both ends of the restrictive in water work windows due . the need for additional time to complete all of the in -water work. Required Permits SEPA determination, DNR Hydraulic Project Approval, Department of Fish and Wildlife Shoreline Exemption Permit, City of Renton Construction General Stormwater Permit Section 10 Permit Work in Navigable Waters, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material into Water, Army Corps of Engineers 401 Water Quality Certification, Department of Ecology NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, Department of Ecology Section 106 Review, Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation Current use of the site Currently the site consists of approximately 650 linear feet of hardened shoreline that is made up of a derelict flume structure. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Three dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Approximately three acres of upland are overgrown in many areas with Himalayan blackberry and other invasive plants. The site is bordered by Boeing, which is south of the DNR property, and is currently unavailable for public access. Boeing has two easement agreements with DNR for stormwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the DNR property. Special site features This project is taking place within and adjacent to Lake Washington. A 0.29 acre lake fringe and slope wetland is located on the property. Currently the wetland is crowded with invasive species such as reed canarygrass, yellow -flag iris, and yellow garden loosestrife. The activities proposed in the wetland include removing the vegetation and grubbing down 6 inches. This area is approximately 12,450 square feet. Approximately 954 cubic yards of wetland topsoil will be placed over the area. Once the area is cleared it will be replanted with live stakes, emergents, and shrubs. The purpose of these activities are to remove the invasive plants, control their continued growth, and then plant native vegetation. The activities in the wetland are all intended to improve the current conditions. Project Narrative DNR South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Page 2 of 3 t addressing soil type and drainage conditions The upland soils located on the three acres is fill material that consists of sand, loam, and sandy gley. 0.29 acres of the property is wetland with slow draining soils while the remaining 2.7 acres is made up of regular draining soils. Total estimated construction cost The project is estimated to cost $2 million to construct. Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Approximately 71,500 square feet of shoreline will be improved with the placement of fine grave, sand, cobble, quarry spall, and fine material. This material will create shallow water habitat along the shoreline of the property, Type Estimated Quantity Source Clean Dredge Material 3,200 CY Lake Washington Dredging Project Quarry Spall 4,050 Tons Clean Commercial Product Fine Gravel Substrate 3,950 CY Clean Commercial Product Course Sand/Pea Gravel 1,500 CY Clean Commercial Product 4-6" Washed Round Cobble 360 CY Clean Commercial Product Approximately 754 cubic yards of material will be removed from a 0.29 acre lake fringe and slope wetland in order to remove the invasive plants that currently occupy a large percentage of the wetland. This area will then be covered with 1 inch of wetland topsoil and planted with native vegetation. Type Estimated Quantity Source Topsoil 1,900 CY Clean Commercial Product Soil Amendments 580 CY Clean Commercial Product Mulch 900 CY Clean Commercial Product Number, type and size of any trees to be removed The trees currently located on the site will not'be removed. The trees will be protected with fencing during construction. Distance from closest area of work to the OHWM of the shoreline Work will be occurring within Lake Washington. Nature of the existing shoreline The flume structure covers over six hundred feet of the shoreline and acts as a bulkhead. The remaining shoreline consists of a cove with natural shoreline features and rip rap. The natural features will be preserved while the rip rap and portions of the flume will be removed, Project Narrative DNR South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Page 3 of 3 an WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources April 20, 2011 To: Permit Reviewer From: Monica Shoemaker, Restoration Manager PETER GOLDMARK Commissioner of Public Lands City of Renton Planning Division APR 2 0 A011 I��.CCIVCD Subject: DARPA Application for the South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is submitting this JARPA to begin the permitting process for the South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project. The South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Project is a priority for DNR and for WRIA 8. As part of efforts to restore this parcel, Washington DNR has pursued and received $154,000 in planning and design funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (grant 09-1534) as well as matching contributions from Washington DNR. Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has agreed to contribute construction funding for the project as one part of the overall aquatic mitigation plan for the SR 520,1-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Funding for planning and design is separate from funding for construction and adaptive management and no grant funds are being used for construction or long-term stewardship of the site. WSDOT intends to apply the value of ecological uplift achieved as part of this project to offset the mitigation requirements for the SR 520 Project as described in the SR 520,1-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Conceptual Aquatic Mitigation Plan which accompanies that project's JARPA application dated March 28, 2011 (Corps of Engineers Reference NWS -2008-1246). WSDOT is also responsible for monitoring and adaptive management of the site as described in the SR 520 Conceptual Mitigation Plan. Please find attached to this memo the JARPA, Design Drawings, Wetland Delineation Report, Notice of Final Determination, Site Photos, SP1F, and SR 520,1-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Conceptual Aquatic Mitigation Plan. 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE • MS 47001 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7001 TR -13AM AMA lfl 0 FAX- 1,16M 0f17-1775 • TRR. 711 • TTY- (Iffil0A?_1175 • WWW.f1NR.WA.(Af1Y 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) Form' USE BLACK 4R BLUE INK To ENTER ANSWERS IN WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1 -Project Identiflcation --------------------------------, AGENCY USE ONLY i Date received: USA City of Renton or an0inaars'� , � Division Agency reference?laflrttng Tax Parcel #(s): AP -011 , , =---------------At 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) LbWW2 Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Part 2 -Applicant The person or organization responsible for the project. hal 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (If applicable) Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 2b. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 950 Farman Avenue North 2c. City, State, zip Enumclaw. WA 98022 2d. Phone (1) 2e. Phone (2) 2f. Fax 2g. E-mail Part 3 -Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b. of this application.) n[ el�j 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (Ifapplicabte) Shoemaker, Monica DNR 3b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 950 Farman Avenue North tAdditional forms may be required for the following permits: . If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 784-3495, • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Speclflc Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http:llwww.nws. u sace.army. mtUPublicMenulMenu. crm?sitename=REG& pagenameamainpage_ESA • If you are applying for an Aquatic Resources Use Authorization you will need to fill out and submit an Application for Authorization to Use State- owned Aquatic lands form to DNR,which can be found at http:l/www,dnr.wo.gov/Pubileationsiogr use_auth_opp-doc *Not all cities and wunlles accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits, If you think you will need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they will accept.the JARPA. �To access an online JARPA farm with [help) screens, go to htip:ltwww.epermitting.wa,govtsitelallas_resourcecenterljarpajerpa_torml90641jarpa_form,aepx . For other help, contact the Govemol's office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-9170043 or help@ora.wa.gov. PA006 9n1n,A 3mmmnln 0- 4 M 1j; A 3c. City, State, Zip Enumclaw; WA 98022 . Phone ( 206)799-2949 3e. Phone(2) 3f. Fax { ) ( ) 3g. E-mail monica.shoemaker@dnr,wa.gov Part 4 -Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. balm ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. 4a, Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) 4b. Mailing Address (street or PO sox) 4c. City, State, Zip 4d. Phone 4e. Phone(2) M. Fax 4A. E-mail Part 5 -Project Locations) Identifying Information about the property or properties where the project will occur. MW ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g., linear projects), Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply,) [bom ® State Owned Aquatic Ladd (if yes or maybe, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at (360) 902-1100) ❑ Federal ❑ Other publicly owned (slate, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc,) ❑ Tribal ❑ Private 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box, If there Is no address, provide other location Information In Sp.) 01q t}j There is no address for this property. King County parcel number 0723059105. 5C. City, State, Zip (if the project is not In a city.or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) JLejaj Renton, WA 5d. County [W King 1A00A 1114n,,l O1Qn77n1n _ Dann '] n1 1 R 0 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. hal % Section Section . Township Range NE 7 23N 5E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [ho • Example; 47.03922-N lat. / -122.$9142 W long. (NAD 93) 47.502464 N lat/. -122.208712 (NAD 83) 5g. List the tax parcel. humber(s) for the project location. ,el • The local county assessor's office can provide thls Informstlon. 0723053105 5h. Contact Information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) hey pi Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) The Boeing Company 737 Logan Ave N 0723059001 Renton, WA 98055 SouthPort One LLC 1083 Lake Washington Blvd North #50 0523059075 Renton, WA 98056,��._..-------.-------.�,.___...___ 51. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. Lel A 0.29 acre lake fringe and slope wetland is located on the property. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. h[ elp Lake Washington 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100 -year flood plain? hellpi ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. ib l� The shoreline Is a mixture of sand, cobble, concrete and other debris, rip rap, and hardened structure. There is a mix of native and nonnative species on the property. Tree and shrub vegetation are dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), with Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp.Trichnocarpa). Additionally, red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) often occur along the wetland boundary and encroach into the wetland. Dominant emergent species include small reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), yellow -flag iris (Iris pseudoacorus), yellow garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris), native soft rush (Juncus effuses), and field mint (Mentha arvensis). The habitat Is currently degraded due to the debris, hard shoreline, and invasive species described above. This projects aims to improve the habitat conditions at the site. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. h[ elpj iaaoa min m imni" mon 0— 1 ,.r is Currently the site consists of approximately 650 linear feet of hardened shoreline that is made up of a derelict flume structure. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Three dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Approximately three acres of upland are overgrown in many areas with Himalayan blackberry and other invasive plants. Boeing has two easement agreements with DNR for storrnwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the property: The site is bordered by Boeing to the south and Is currently unavailable for public access. 5rt. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. ft] Boeing is located south of the site. Boeing manufactures planes. South Port One LLC is located to the east of the site and includes vacant property, condominiums, public access, and a dock. 50. Describe the structures (above and -below ground) on the property, Including their purpose(s). M The property was created in 1965 when Puget Sound Power and Light (PSPL) was permitted to place 150,000 cubic yards of fill into the lake. The fill was placed alongside a •flume made of two sheet -pile walls that PSPL used to release cooling waters from the Shuffleton Steam Plant. The Shuffleton Steam Plant has been decommissioned; however the flume is still located on state property. The derelict flume Is approximately 650 linear feet and made up of two sheet pile walls that are approximately 20 feet apart and held together with steel cross beams. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Three dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Boeing has two easement agreements with DNR for stormwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the property. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. b2ipi This site Is landlocked. Access to the site can occur by boat from the Gene Coloun Park boat ramp. The site Is located just west of the park. Access by car can occur through the Boeing property however special permission is needed from DNR and Boeing. Take WA -900 E exit 5 off of 1-405 toward Park Ave N/Sunset Blvd NE. Take ramp toward Park Ave. N Turn slightly right onto NE Park Ave. N Stay Straight to go onto Logan Ave. N Boeing access is on the right at 737 Logan Ave North. IADCA -Imn'A '1MnfOfl1/1 0- Ani 44 Part 6—Project Description 6a. Summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in Gd. h[ elPJ DNR is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives. • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat • Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native,vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetland • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles • Remove rlp-rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (ELJ) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters Following the restoration of this property DNR proposes to withdraw the lands from leasing with a Commissioner's Order as well as maintain the property under a conservation easement. The construction of this project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The ecological benefits of the restoration project will be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological lift as mitigation wilt be negotiated within the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program, The construction of the stormwater outfall extensions is being funded by, Boeing. 6b. Indlcate the project category, (Check all that apply)e( II ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ® Environmental Enhancement 6c. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) Iheip] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert.- ❑ Float ❑ Road ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike 1 Levee / Jetty ❑ Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Launch Ditch Marina 1 Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Piling ❑ Utility Line ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway (upland) ® Other: Bulkhead removal, creosote -piling removal, outfall extension, wetland restoration, shoreline plantings, shallow water habitat creation 6d. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6c. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used, Lejpj iapoA )mn,,i vnnnnin 0— 9 M IF • Identify where each element will occur In relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year flood plain. Permit conditions, Best Management Practices (BMPs), project access, and contractor selection will all help determine the methods of construction and equipment that will be used to construct the project. All of the activities are occurring within Lake Washington or within 200 feet of the lake. All work below the Ordinary High Water Mark will occur during the approved in-water work windows. DNR would like to request that the July and November in-water work window be extended 10 days on both ends of the window to allow enough time for all of the in-water work to be completed within the one year construction schedule. Allowing for this extension will provide enough time to complete the project in one year versus having to remobilize equipment and continue the construction for a second year. This will help minimize Impacts to the aquatic environment. Below Is a short description of methods and equipment that may be used. Remove flume walls: Work will occur from the water. Equipment may include barge, crane, and vibratory pack. Remove two storm drains and extend, In-water and land based methods will most likely be utilized. Contractor will be required to complete the outfall work during the dry season to minimize erosion and other impacts. A crane, clamshell bucket, and coffer dams are some of the equipment that may be used. Clear/remove invasive plants: The soil will be grubbed to 6 Inches. Methods could Include the use of excavators and other earthwork machinery. Remove creosote-treated pilings: Removal of the piles will occur from the water. A barge that Is equipped with a crane and vibratory hammer will be used to remove the piles. DNRs BMPs for the removal and disposal of creosote piles will be required. Remove existing debris and place quarry spall, cobble, gravel and sand along shoreline: In-water and land based methods may be utilized. Equipment may include a barge, loader, dredge bucket, and conveyor belt. Place Engineered Log Jams along shoreline: Equipment may include the use of excavators with thumb and other attachments. 6e. What are the start and end dates for project construction? (month/year) Ltmm • If the project will be constructed In phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: X201.2_ End date: March'2013 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6f. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform It. (M The objective of the project is to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline habitat and approximately 3 acres of upland habitat with the goal to improve and restore the water quality of the lake and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as Threatened in March 1999 under the Endangered Species Act. Puget Sound coho salmon are considered a species of concern, with a potential for future listing, and Puget Sound steelhead were listed' Threatened ESA in May of 2007. This project provides a unique restoration opportunity along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington that will markedly improve rearing conditions for juvenile salmonids outmigrating from the Cedar River. Current conditions along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington Include extensive shoreline armoring, paving, and buildings in close proximity to the shoreline which together limit the opportunities to provide improved shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon rearing. The project site is in close proximity to the mouth of the Cedar River and provides a relatively long stretch of shoreline where shallow water and riparian conditions can readily be enhanced to support juvenile salmon rearing. The proximity to the Cedar River is a key attribute of this site because fish utilization research has documented the greater outmigrating salmon use of shorelines closer t0 the river (Tabor et al. •2004 and 2006). Tabor et al. (2006) documented a logarithmic relationship between the distance to the Cedar River and the density of juvenile Chinook salmon between February and May. This restoration project will address the habitat limiting factors identified In the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Pian by providin2sandy shallow-water habitat, overhangIng vegetation, and large woody debris IADMA 7nIn .A IMAMAln (WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan). Restoration sites close to the mouth of the Cedar River are likely to have a higher chance of success than northern sites because juvenile Chinook salmon are substantially more abundant near the mouth of the Cedar River than at more northerly sites (Tabor 2008). Additionally, once the restoration of the site is complete, DNR proposes to protect the shoreline from future development with a Withdrawal Order, 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. agipj Approximately $2 million 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? bolpi • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Part 7-Wetiands: Impacts and Mitigation ® Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) .jpj 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse Impacts to wetlands. 1129i2l ❑ Not applicable Currently the 0.29 acre lake fringe slope wetland located on the site is crowded with invasive species such as reed canarygrass, yellow -flag iris, and yellow garden loosestrife. The activities proposed in the wetland include removing the vegetation and grubbing down B Inches. This area is approximately 12,450 square feet. Approximately 954 cubic yards of wetland topsoil will be placed over the area. Once the area is cleared it will be replanted with live stakes, emergents, and shrubs. The purpose of these activities is to remove the invasive plants; control their continued growth, and then reestablish the area with native vegetation. The activities in the wetland are all intended to improve the current conditions. 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? ht. 2M ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? Leu] ® Yes {] No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland dellheation report been prepared? [�iei • If yes, submit the report, including date sheets, with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? fga . • If yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? Md • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • tt No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation pian should not be required. JAPDA'')ntin,n sPantmin 0.,.,d'1 of IA ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable A wetland mitigation plan Is not applicable to this project. The purpose of the disturbance to the existing wetland is to remove the invasive plants that are currently within the wetland and replace them with native vegetation. The impact will be short term and once complete will provide an improved wetland. 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. helps NIA 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted; the extent and duration of the Impact; and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan, el Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact9 mitigation mitigatlon area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type' (sq. ft. or category= Acres) acres) Scour top 6 A III 0.29 Approx. 1 R NIA inches of soil acres week Place wetland A III 0.29 Approx. 1 R NIA topsoil acres I week If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1"), The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. 2Ecology watland category based an current western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 'indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably Impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. `Creation (C), Re-estabilshment/Rehabllitatian (R), Enhancement (E), Presenratlon (P), Mitigation BanWIn•lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: NIA 71. For all tilling activities identified iii 7h., describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used and how and where It will be placed into the wetland. bg Wetland top soil will be placed over approximately 8,600 square feet of area where the vegetation Is removed and the soil is grubbed. The new top soil will be 1 foot deep and approximately 954 cubic yards. The top soil will be a commercial product with high organic content and low permeability. The soil may be placed as determined by the contractor which could Include dump trucks and other earth work machinery. 7J. For all excavating activities identified in 7h., describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. hei IA ODA On4n „4 IMAMn4n - 0— a „f 4a Approximately. 750 cubic yards of topsoil will be removed and disposed of at a landfill due to the need to dispose of the Invasive seed source. The soil will be excavated as determined by the contractor, which could include a variety of earth work machinery including excavators, loaders, etc. Part 8—Waterbodles (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.)eAi ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (if there are none, sklp to Part 9.) Ba. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. ftm ❑ Not applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be in place to help minimize impacts to the aquatic environment. A turbidity curtain will be placed in the lake surrounding the construction area. A fence will be installed on the upland separating the Boeing and DNR construction site. The contractor will be required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan in place during the project. The DNRs BMPs for the removal of creosote -treated piles will be used during the removal of the three dolphins. The contractor will be required to control erosion, runoff and turbidity. An erosion and sediment control plan will be In place during the construction of the project. BMPs such as the following may be in place to minimize disturbance. Stabilized construction entrance • Designated layout area • Buffer zones for native vegetation that will remain • Stabilize exposed soils The final outcome of the project will provide a benefit to the aquatic environment through the removal of debris, creosote -treated piles, and hard shoreline. 8b. Will your project Impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? Lg2i i ® Yes ❑ No 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies? fta !: • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan -should not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No : Z Not applicable The impacts to the aquatic environment will be short in duration. The steps described above will be taken to avoid and minimize the short term impacts. The overall purpose of the project is to improve the condition of the aquatic environment by removing hardened shoreline, debris, creosote -treated piles, and extend the outfalls into deeper water. Onpon 'MIA,A own1,7n V% oono 0, r 1R 1A00A 7nlA,,i'IMANMn 0— In nF IA 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan Is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g., you do not need to restate your answer here. hal NIA 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. ll Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile names iocationx of impact' to be placed in or linear ft.) of drive,, etc,) removed from waterbody waterbody directly affected Beach Lake In and Approx. 1 Place approximately Approximately nourishment and Washington adjacent to week 10,800 cubic yards of 71,500 sq ft. regrading material Pile removal Lake In Approx. 2 Remove 21 creosote- Approximately Washington da s treated iles 600 sq. ft. Flume removal Lake In Approx. 2 Remove Approximately Washington weeks approximately 921 12,000 sq, ft, feet if sheet pile wall Debris and Lake In Approx. 1 Remove Approximately cobble removal Washington week approximately 1,940 11,500 sq. ft. cubic yards Outfall extension Lake In Approx, 2 Place approximately Approximately Washington we 245 feet of pleeline 570 sq. ft. If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1 ") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. Indicate whether the Impact will occur in or adjacent to the Waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100 -year flood plain. 'Indicate the days, months or yeaLis the waterbody will be measurably im acted by the work. Enter'ermanent' If aRellcoble, Of. For all activities identified in 8e., describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. LgJp1 . Approximately 2,700 cubic yards (approximately 4,050 tons) of quarry spall, 3,250 cubic yards of fine gravel substrate, 1,315 cubic yards of sandlpea gravel, 300 cubic yards of 4-67 washed round cobble, 3,200 cubic yards of clean dredge material. All of this material will be placed along the shoreline of the property, See sheet 3, Material Plan on the attached design plans for the approximate locations. The source of the material is not yet determined. Materials will be a commercial project with high quality suitable for fish restoration projects in the lake environment. Materials may come from approved dredging projects that are occurring within Lake Washington and are approved for beneficial reuse within the lake. The material will be placed along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat and to meet the existing slope. 1A00A 7nlA,,i'IMANMn 0— In nF IA 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities Identified in 8e., describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. LeJPJ Approximately 40 cubic yards of material will be excavated waterward of OHWM during the installation of the outfall extensions. The material may be removed with a crane and clamshell bucket or as determined by the contractor. The material will be used to backfill after the outfall pipe has been placed. Approximately 1,940 cubic yards of material will be excavated during the shoreline regrading. The material will be reused on the site. Part 9 -Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok If you cannot answer a question. , 9a, if you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below, hei Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact Department of Ecology Brad Helland/Grant (425)649-713B/(425)649- 1212912010 &111812010 Yang/Rebekah Padget 71261 (425) 649-7129 City of Renton Erika ConklingNanessa (425) 430-65781(425) 430- 3/30/2011 Dolbee 7314 DFW Stewart Reinbold (425) 313-5660 1/20/2011 USACE Lori Lull (206) 766-6438 9/2412010 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies Identified In Part 7 or Part 8 on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? MW • If yes, list the perameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water quality Assessment tools at: http:Llwww.ecy.wa.gov/progMM§ /Mro 303d1. Yes No Category 5 Water. Fecal Coliform. 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project In? ftift1w • Go to http:LlcfpLjb,opp.gov/swrfnocatel'ndox,cfM to help Identify the HUC. 17110012 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? lei] Go to ht1piMoMg;X.0,2gyilgryjcegtais/mal3stwHo/wria.htm to find the WRIA #. moon Win „A a11nronIn 0— 11 .+t is 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? p>q1W • Go to httg://www.ecy.wa,gov/programetm/swmstcriter[a.-,html for the standards. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? t ell • If you don't know, contact the local planning department, • For more information, go to: btto:l/www,ecy,wa.gov/a /s aws rul s 17 -26121 des to s ❑ Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ® Other High intenslty 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? LgW • Go to httwjAm r.dnf,wa aov/BusinessPermga r'ooics/ForestPmcticesAgolicatione/Pagga/fa Practices Water Typing System. y, tarty_ oina.aspx for the Forest ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? ell e • tf no, provide the name of the manual your project Is designed to meet. ® Yes ❑ No Name of manual: 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington 9i. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. Ih&J The property was created in 1965 when Puget Sound Power and Light (PSPL) was permitted to place 150,000 cubic yards of fill into the lake. The fill was placed alongside a flume made of two sheet -pile. walls that PSPL used to release cooling waters from the Shuffleton Steam Plant. The Shuffleton Steam Plant has been decommissioned; however the flume is still located on state property. 9j. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? • If yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No 9k. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work, b2.1pJ Status Common Name Scientific Name T Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorh nchus tshaw tscha T Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorh nchus m kiss T Bull Trout salvellnus con uentus 91. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. MV IAOOA IniA „1 I)IMMAIn Oahe 19 of I Species: State Status Federal Status Common Name Sclent)flc Name Candidate Threatened Bull Trout — Dolly Varden Salvelinus confluentus - S. malma Candidate Threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawyrscho Candidate Concern Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch Candidate Threatened Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Candidate None Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka None None Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Endangered Concern Pacific Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorato None None - Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Sensitive Concern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at httn://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@ora.wa.ao_v. • For a list of agency addresses to send your application, click on the "where to send your completed JARPA" at httpalwww.epermitting.wa.gov. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.)hell • For more information about SEPA, go to env nv�.ramslsea/aena/e-review.html. ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below .in 10b.)h[ eip� ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA Is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) �elpj LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ' ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Watershed Restoration Project Other city/county permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance iaooaonin,,i vimmnin D.—,zni 1R Priority Habitats: Freshwater Weiland Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at httn://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@ora.wa.ao_v. • For a list of agency addresses to send your application, click on the "where to send your completed JARPA" at httpalwww.epermitting.wa.gov. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.)hell • For more information about SEPA, go to env nv�.ramslsea/aena/e-review.html. ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below .in 10b.)h[ eip� ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA Is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) �elpj LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ' ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Watershed Restoration Project Other city/county permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance iaooaonin,,i vimmnin D.—,zni 1R STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption Washington Department of Ecology: ® Section 401 Water Quality Certification Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Resources Use Authorization FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges Into waters of the U.S.) ® Section 10 (work In navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) Part II -Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. (hgM 11a. Applicant Signature (required) MpJ I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Information provided in this application Is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry Out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby aLgLorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (Initial) By Initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencles e t ring the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Appllcant Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature Ckl I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application Is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and .I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. A y Authorized Agent Printed Name horiz ge Ignature Dat 1600A lnir1..1 714rkmnin 0— 1A nl 1f 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant). tbkid Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the.project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the Jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falslfies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing some to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. It you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can tali 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -019-09 iaoae onIn"I 'MAMIn D— ia.,f is k5l City of Renton Planning Division HABITAT REPORT AND LAKE STUDY South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration APR 2 0-21011 Prepared by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources April 8, 2011 R"EC EOVED Proposal The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The proposal is located in south Lake Washington in the NE'/. section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. The project includes lake shorelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of upland property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the DNR. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives. • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume .sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat • Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres,of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetland • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (ELJ) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters Following the restoration of this property DNR proposes to withdraw the lands from leasing with a Commissioner's Order as well as maintain the property under a conservation easement. The construction of this project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation.' The ecological benefits of the restoration project will be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological lift as mitigation will be negotiated within the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program. The construction of the stormwater outfall extensions is being funded by Boeing. Current Site Conditions The property was created in 1965 when Puget Sound Power and Light (PSPL) was permitted to place 150,000 cubic yards of fill into the lake. The fill was placed alongside a flume made of two sheet -pile walls that PSPL used to release cooling waters from the Shuffleton Steam Plant. The Shuffleton Steam Plant has been decommissioned; however the flume is still located on state property. The derelict flume is approximately 650 linear feet and made up of two sheet pile Habitat Report and Lake Study 1 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration walls that are approximately 20 feet apart and held together with steel cross beams. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Approximately three acres of upland are overgrown in many areas with Himalayan blackberry and other invasive plants. Three dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Boeing has two easement agreements with DNR for stormwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the property. Current Habitat Conditions There is a mix of native and nonnative species on the property. Tree and shrub vegetation are dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), with Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp.Trichnocarpa). A 0.29 acre lake fringe slope wetland located on the site is crowded with invasive species such as reed canarygrass, yellow - flag iris, and yellow garden loosestrife. Additionally, red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Himalayan blackberry.(Rubus armeniacus) often occur along the wetland boundary and encroach into the wetland. Dominant emergent species include small reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), yellow -flag iris (Iris pseudoacorus), yellow garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris), native soft rush (Juncus effuses), and field mint (Mentha arvensis). The objective of the proposal is to plant a native shrub community, multi -layered mixed deciduous/conifer riparian community, as well as native wetland plants in the 3 acres of property. All of the invasive plants will be removed eliminating competition for the native plants. The existing trees and native vegetation will remain on the site and be protected with fencing during construction. The lake reach in the project location is classified as Class 1 according to the City of Renton Water Class Map. There are no priority species listed as located in the project location in the Natural Heritage database. This site is part of the Pacific Flyway, a north -south seasonal migration route for many bird species. South Lake Washington is also a migratory and rearing corridor for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyfscha). Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Puget Sound coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are also found at the site. Juvenile Chinook salmon are found in the littoral zone of Lake Washington between January and July and will most likely congregate close to the shores near - the mouth of the Cedar River in the beginning of February to the end of May (Tabor 2006). The project site is approximately 1,300 feet away from the mouth of the Cedar River. The shoreline of the project site has the potential to provide important rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon due to its close proximity to the mouth of the Cedar River. Other wildlife found at the site include; sculpin, threespine stickleback, yellow perch, freshwater shrimp, bull trout, blue heron, and bald eagle. Below is a table that lists all of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Species. A freshwater wetland is found on the site and is a WDFW priority habitat. Habitat Report and Lake Study 2 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration State Status Federal Status Common Name Scientific Name Candidate Threatened Bull Trout — Dolly Varden SalveUnus confluentus - S. malma Candidate Threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Candidate Concern Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch Candidate Threatened Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Candidate None Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka None None Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Endangered Concern Pacific Pond Turtle Aatinemys marmorata None None Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Sensitive Concern Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus According to the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan the following are habitat limiting factors for Chinook salmon in Lake Washington. • shoreline complexity • shoreline vegetation • degraded water quality • introduced plant species The habitat at this site is currently degraded due to the concrete debris, hard shoreline, creosote -piles, and invasive vegetation described above. Water circulation between the flume walls is limited leading to poor water quality conditions through the year. The two outfalls release stormwater directly into the shallow water habitat, the prime habitat for rearing juvenile salmonids. There are twenty-one creosote -treated piles on the site. Creosote is a sticky, tar -like substance that contains more than three hundred chemicals. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the chemicals of most concern found in a creosote pile. PAHs leach from piles into the water and surrounding lake sediment. Proposed Alterations Remove flume walls Approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams and approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall will be removed. Work will occur from the water. Equipment may include barge, crane, and vibratory pack. Work will occur during the in water work window approved by WDFW. Remove two storm drains and extend This project proposes to remove one 33 -inch concrete stormwater outfall and a 48 -inch stormwater outfall and replace and extend them with a 36 -inch and 12 -inch outfalls as shown in the 30% design drawings. In -water and land based methods will most likely be utilized to complete this portion of the project. A crane, clamshell bucket, and coffer dams are some of the equipment that may be used. Approximately 40 cubic yards of material will be excavated waterward of OHWM during the installation of the outfall extensions. The material may be removed with a crane and clamshell bucket or as determined by the contractor. The same material will be used to backfill after the outfall pipe has been placed. All in water work will occur Habitat Report and Lake Study 3 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration during the in water work window approved by WDFW. The contractor will be required to complete the outfall work during the dry season to minimize erosion and other short term impacts. Clear/remove invasive plants All the invasive plants on the three acre site will be removed. The soil will be grubbed to six inches. Approximately 1,940 cubic yards of material will be excavated during the shoreline regrading and reused on site. In the wetland the soil will also be grubbed to six inches. Approximately 750 cubic yards of wetland topsoil will be removed and disposed of at a landfill due to the need to dispose of the invasive seed source. The soil will be excavated using a variety. of earth work machinery including excavators, loaders, and other equipment. Plant site Once the invasive plants are removed from the three acres of property some topsoil will be placed over the area and native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs will be planted. Once the wetland area is cleared approximately 954 cubic yards of wetland topsoil will be placed over the area with a one foot depth. This top soil will be placed over approximately 8,600 square feet of area where the vegetation is removed and the soil is grubbed: The top soil will be a commercial product with high organic content and low permeability. The soil may be placed with equipment as determined by the contractor however may include dump trucks and other earth work machinery. This are will be replanted with native live stakes, emergents, and shrubs. Remove creosote -treated pilings Removal of 21 creosote -treated piles will occur from the water. A barge that is equipped with a crane and vibratory hammer will be used to remove the piles. DNRs BMPs for the removal and disposal -of creosote piles will be required. Remove existing debris and place quarry spall, cobble, gravel and sand along shoreline Approximately 1,940 cubic yards of debris and cobble from approximately 11,500 square feet of shoreline will be removed. Approximately 2,700 cubic yards (approximately 4,050 tons) of quarry spall, 3,250 cubic yards of fine gravel substrate, 1,315 cubic yards of sand/pea gravel, 300 cubic yards of 44' washed round cobble, 3,200 cubic yards of clean dredge material will be placed along the shoreline of the property. In -water and land based methods may be utilized to complete the placement of the material. Equipment may include a barge, loader, dredge bucket, and conveyor belt. The source of the material is not yet determined. Materials will be a commercial project with high quality suitable for fish restoration projects in the lake environment. Materials may come from approved dredging projects that are occurring within Lake Washington Habitat Report and Lake Study 4 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration and are approved for beneficial reuse within the lake. The material will be placed along -the shoreline to create shallow water habitat and to meet the existing slope. Place Enginee_r_ed_L_og_Jams and Large Woody Debris along shoreline Approximately 56 logs will be placed along the shoreline to build three engineered log jams and large woody debris along the shoreline. Equipment may include the use of excavators with a thumb and other attachments. The engineered logs jams will minimize longshore transport from west to east wind waves by roughening the shoreline. The wood will create a more complex area of refuge for migrating juvenile Chinook. Impact Evaluation The purpose of this proposal is to restore the habitat at the site. In order to restore the area there will be short term impacts during the construction. The projects construction will temporarily affect sediment, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, and refugia but will result in long-term improvements to other target indicators, including large woody debris, refugia habitat, and the function of riparian reserves. The short term impacts of the project construction are not likely to adversely affect the priority species that utilize the area. Water quality will be improved with the removal of the flume structure by allowing greater circulation of water. Additionally with the removal of the 21 creosote -treated piles a direct source of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) into Lake Washington will be eliminated. Studies suggest that short-term exposure to PAHs may be associated with reduced growth and altered immune function in anadromous fish species (Johnson 2008). The extension of the two outfalls will allow the stormwater to be released at a greater depth outside of the juvenile Chinook rearing habitat. The removal of invasive plants and grading on the upland portion of the site will reestablish the area with native vegetation and immensely improve the current habitat conditions. The short term impacts of placing the beach material will provide long term benefits by creating shallow water habitat for migrating salmon that rear along the projects shoreline. Methods will be developed to avoid impacts or minimize the short term impacts. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be in place during construction. In water work will only occur during the WDFW permitted windows. A turbidity curtain will be placed in the lake surrounding the construction area. A fence will be installed on the upland separating the Boeing and DNR construction site. The contractor will be required to have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan in place during the project. The DNRs BMPs for the removal of creosote -treated piles will be used during the removal of the three dolphins. Extension of the stormwater outfalls will occur in the summer during the low rain season to minimize the need to control the incoming water. The native vegetation will remain on site and be protected during construction. The contractor will be required to control erosion, runoff and turbidity. An erosion and sediment control plan will be in place during the construction of the project. BMPs such as the following may be in place to minimize disturbance: Habitat Report and Lake Study 5 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration • Stabilized construction entrance • Designated layout area • Bufferzones for native vegetation that will remain • Stabilize exposed soils. • Piling removal requirements • Spill Prevention and Control Plan • Fencing • Turbidity Curtains • Coffer Dams Current conditions along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington include extensive shoreline armoring, paving, and buildings in close proximity to the shoreline. Over 70 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is retained by either rip -rap or bulkheads. Moreover, elimination of large woody debris and the introduction of nonnative species are impacting the lake's ecosystem (Kerwin 2001). This common development along the lake has caused the loss of gently sloped beaches, woody debris, and overhanging vegetation that provide important habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook salmon. Studies have shown that higher numbers of juvenile Chinook are found along unarmored shorelines versus armored shorelines (Tabor 2006). All of these uses Along the lake limit the opportunities to provide improved shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon rearing. This project provides a unique restoration opportunity along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington that will markedly improve rearing conditions for juvenile salmonids outmigrating from the Cedar River. The project site is in close proximity to the mouth of the Cedar River and provides a relatively long stretch of shoreline where shallow water and riparian conditions can readily be enhanced to support juvenile salmon rearing. The proximity to the Cedar River is a key attribute of this site because fish utilization research has documented the greater outmigrating salmon use of shorelines closer to the river (Tabor et al. 2004 and 2006). Tabor et al. (2006) documented a logarithmic relationship between the distance to the Cedar River and the density of juvenile Chinook salmon between February and May. The project site is 0.4 km (1,300 feet) from the mouth of the Cedar where Chinook densities increase sharply. Site monitoring conducted in April 2010 documented juvenile Chinook densities of 0.24 fish/M2 (Anchor QEA unpublished data). According to the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan the following are habitat limiting factors for Chinook salmon in Lake Washington. • shoreline complexity • shoreline vegetation • degraded water quality • introduced plant species The South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration Project is addressing the Lake Washington habitat limiting factors by designing a project that will provide a more complex shoreline with overhanging native vegetation, woody debris, and shallow beach habitat. These Habitat Report and Lake Study 6 South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration shoreline habitat conditions are particularly important for juvenile Chinook from the Cedar River population (WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan). The proposed sloped shoreline will provide an area for juvenile Chinook salmon to rear in and reduce the risk of predation along the hardened shoreline, areas with rip rap, and deep water that currently exists at the site. Restoration sites close to the mouth of the Cedar River are likely to -have a higher chance of success than northern sites because juvenile Chinook salmon are substantially more abundant near the mouth of the Cedar River than at more northerly sites (Tabor 2006). Various surveys of Lake Washington indicate that overhead vegetative cover with or without small woody debris is an important habitat feature for juvenile Chinook salmon. Currently the site does not provide this type of habitat feature. The project will increase the overhead cover along the shoreline which may provide juvenile Chinook visual refuge from fish and bird predators (Tabor 2006). With the completion of this proposal the habitat will be improved for all of the priority species. Once the shoreline is restored it will provide components that create functional salmon habitat conditions with a naturally sloped shoreline, native vegetation, large woody debris, and appropriate sized substrates. All of these functions help meet the goals set in the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, which states that the restoration of Lake Washington is a high priority for regional restoration efforts and the remaining areas with sandy shallow -water habitat, overhanging vegetation, and large woody debris should be protected and maintained. References Final Lake Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. 2005. Johnson, L. Lyndal, Mary R. Arkoosh, Claudia F. Bravo,Tracy K. Collier, Margaret M. Krahn, James P. Meador,Mark S. Myers, William L. Reichert, and John E. Stein. The Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fish from Puget Sound, Washington. The Toxicology of Fishes. 2008. Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar- Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Tabor, A. Roger, Howard A. Gearns, Charles M. McCoy III, and Sergio Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Annual Report, 2003 and 2004. 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. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington. Habitat Report and Lake Study 7 South lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration Restoration Programmatic for the State of Washington Specific Project Information Form U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch July 29, 2008 version City of Renton Planning Division APR 2 0 7LOII 9999 E D Use this form to notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps) of a proposed restoration project that falls within the range of the nine restoration activities considered by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during its Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation (NMFS Reference No, 2008103598; USFWS Reference No. 13410-2008-F-0209). You may also use this form if your project slightly deviates from the description and scope of the nine project categories addressed in this consultation. However, should the resulting impacts exceed those considered in the NMFS and USFWS Biological Opinion you will need to consult individually (which generally takes longer) and potentially provide additional information. The Corps is responsible, in most cases, for ensuring that a project complies with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Table of Contents 1 GENERAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................ :1-11111-111.11-111 11 EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR FISH SPECIES USFWS & NMFS......................................................... 8 III EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES .................................................... 15 IVSIGNATURE..... ..................... ................... ......... ............................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX A: DEWATERTNG AND FISH CAPTURE PROTOCOL.......................................................................21 I GENERAL INFORMATION A. Date: February 15, 2011 Corps reference no.: B. Applicant name (same as in JARPA): Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Address 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw, Washington 98022 C. Agent Name (same as on JARPA); Monica Shoemaker, WDNR Address: 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw, Washington 98072 D. Location(s) of activity: Section: 7 Township: 23N Range: 5E Latitude (xxx° xx' xx.x"): 47.03922 N tat. (NAD 83) C Longitude (xxx° xx' xx.x"); -122.89142 W (NAD 83) UTM; Zone 10 559566E, 5261305N Waterbody: Lake Washington ESU or IRU: Puget Sound Chinook salmon County: King E. Project elements, In the table below, fill in the maximum length of each project element proposed and the number of structures where applicable. This information will be used by the Services for calculating. your take exemption: Action Category Project Length and Width where applicable Number of Structures 1. Fish Passage: a. Culvert Replacement and Relocation b. Retrofitting Culverts c. Culvert Removal d. Tidegate Removal e, Removal or Modification of Sediment Bars or Terraces f. Temporary Placement of Sandbags, Hay Bales and Ecology Blocks g. Construction of Structures to Provide Passage over Small Dams 2. Installation of Instream Structures: a. Placement of Woody Debris b, Placement of Live Stakes c. Placement of Engineered Log Jams d. Grade Control ELJs e. Trapping Mobile Wood f. Placement of Boulders 2 Action Category Project Length and Width Number of where applicable Structures g. Boulder Weirs and Roughened Channels h. Gravel Placement Associated with Structure Placement 3. Levee Removal and Modification 4. Side Channel/Off Channel Habitat Restoration and Reconnection 5. Salmonid Spawning Gravel Restoration b. Forage Fish Spawning Gravel Restoration 7. Hardened Fords and Fencing for Livestock Stream Crossings 8. Irrigation Screen Installation and Replacement 9. Debris and Structure Removal Approximately 400 -by -50 feet Three areas of of angular rock and debris debris; three removal; approximately 921- structures by -25 feet of structure removal F. Description of the proposed work; The project will restore approximately 1,100 linear feet of shoreline habitat and approximately 3 acres of upland habitat to improve and restore the water quality of the lake and migratory habitat for juvenile federal threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon. This project provides a unique restoration opportunity along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington that will markedly improve rearing conditions for juvenile salmonids out - migrating -from the Cedar River. Current conditions along the southern shoreline of Lake Washington include extensive shoreline armoring and paving and buildings in close proximity to the shoreline; together, these conditions limit the opportunities to provide improved shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon rearing. The project site is in close proximity to the mouth of the Cedar River and provides a relatively long stretch of shoreline where shallow water and riparian conditions can readily be enhanced to support juvenile salmonid rearing. The proximity to the Cedar River is a key attribute of this site because fish utilization research has documented the greater out -migrating salmon use of shorelines closer to the river (Taboret al. 2006). This restoration project will address the habitat -limiting factors identified in the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan by providing sandy shallow -water habitat, overhanging vegetation, and large woody debris. Restoration sites close to the mouth otthe Cedar River are likely to have a higher chance of success than northern sites because juvenile Chinook salmon are substantially more abundant near the mouth of the Cedar River than at more northerly sites (Tabor et al, 2006). Once the restoration of the site is complete, WDNR proposes to protect the shoreline from future development with a Withdrawal Order. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives. • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat • Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 -acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 -acre upland property Restore a 0.29 -acre wetland • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three engineered log jams (E1..J) along the shoreline • Extend two existing stormwater outfalls into deeper waters 4 The equipment needed to complete this project includes trucks, and a barge, crane, vibratory hammer, excavator, and conveyor belt. Turbidity curtains will be used during in - water work to isolate the work area and reduce impacts to salmonids. Construction of this project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The ecological benefits of the restoration project will be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological benefits as mitigation will be negotiated as part of the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program. A map of the project vicinity and draft 30 percent designs are included in Attachment 1. References: 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. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities. G. Project timing: Start date: 2011 Date In -water Work: End date: 2012 July 15 to 31, 2011 and 2012; November 1 to December 31, 2011 and 2012 H. Anticipated cubic feet per second (CFS) of stream at time of construction: Not applicable. The project is within Lake Washington, 1. How much area do you propose to clear for temporary access? ApproNdmarely 1 acre. J. How many trees and what sizes will be felled for temporary access? None. K. Will your temporary access traverse across slopes steeper than 30%? No, 5 L. How many temporary stream crossings do you propose? List all best management practices (BMPs) proposed to avoid and minimize Impacts from stream crossings. None. M. Culvert replacements: Nat applicable. I . Append the applicable "Summary Form for Fish -Passage Design Data" that can be found in the WDFW Culvert Manual ((Hates et al. 2003) Appendix F). 2. Append maintenance plan that shows that culvert will be in design condition prior to each fish passage season. 3. if your project is in gradients 6 — 10 % and a bridge is not feasible, use stream simulation option and provide annual monitoring data of substrate, invert elevation, and channel form (elements of roughened channel: boulders, pools, low flow channel) including a picture prior to each migration season. 4. If your culvert is longer than 150 feet include tribal comments. If you discussed your design with WDFW, include WDFW comments or a record of your conversation with WDFW. 5. Are you increasing the amount of rip -rap. If so, by how much? 6. Describe how proper ecological functions (bedload movement, debris movement, flood flows) in addition to fish passage will be met. 7. If you are increasing the length or width of a road: a. Quantify the increased impervious surface created as a result of this activity. b. List measures that you propose to use to avoid impacts to resources and water quality. Note. Permanent road improvements that result in increased traffic or development are not permitted under this PBA. N. Rock grade control structures: How much combined rock is proposed for structures? Not applicable. O. Removal or modification of sediment bars or terraces: Not applicable. Has there been previous removal of sediment at this location? if yes when and how much? Between 1966 and 1967, approximately 150,000 cubic yards of material was placed on the site to create the existing uplands and wetland. P. Side Channel/Off Channel Habitat Creation: Not applicable. 1. Has a reach assessment or analysis been conducted for this project? 2 How many years will the project take to complete? 3. Demonstrate sufficient hydrology for a self-sustaining channel. Q. Will you be isolating the work area? Turbidity curtains will be used to isolate the work area during in -water work. This will minimize impacts to salmonids by reducing any turbidity created during construction as well as reducing potential changes in water flow that can be created by coffer dams. R. Give a maximum estimate for the duration and length of downstream turbidity impacts. The Services will use this estimate for giving you your take exemption, (During construction you will be monitoring downstream sedimentation every 20 min to verify/refine your given estimate.) A full-length turbidity curtain will be used to isolate the project area. The use of this type of curtain has proven to be highly effective in Lake Washington., and measurable turbidity impacts are expected to occur outside the curtained area. The maximum estimate for duration.and length of turbidity impacts will be -the duration of the in -water work, between July 15 and 31, 2011 and 2012 and November 1 and December 31, 2011 and 2012. S. Explain what equipment will generate noise above ambient levels and for what period during the day and for how many days. Noise will result from the equipment used to construct the project, which includes trucks, a . barge, a crane, a vibratory hammer, a excavator, and a conveyor belt. Construction noise will be short term and will only occur during allowable construction hours. T. Please attach HPA or explain why you do not need one. The Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) application requesting an HPA is attached. "The final HPA will be provided to the Corps when received from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U. If your project does not meet all of the criteria outlined in the PBA, but is a restoration action of similar scope and impacts, contact the Services with the project's description, conservation measures and reason(s) it may not currently fit under the PBA. Provide below any supporting conversations with NMFS and/or USFWS staff, including a list of the PBA criteria your project won't meet. This project meets all of the criteria outlined in the PBA. I1 EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR FISH SPECIES USFWS & NMFS Each project should have the appropriate effect determination. The PBA allows for No Effect (NE), Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA), or Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) determinations for listed species. Each determination must be adequately documented in this form, if you need assistance in determining the appropriate effect determination, consult the Corps, USFWS, and NMFS staff. Check all cgMenfly listed evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) or Interim Recoyea Units -IRUs that may occur in the fifth field watershed where the nrolect Is located. Endanaered Upper Columbia River Spring -run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Snake River Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) Upper Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Threatened X Bull trout, Coastal/Puget Sound IRU (Salvelinus confluentus) Bull trout, Columbia River IRU (Salvelinus confluentus) Coho salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU (0. kisutch) Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) X Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chinook salmon, Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chinook salmon, Snake River Fall -run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chum salmon, Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus keta). Chum salmon, Hood Canal summer ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) Steelhead trout, Lower Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead trout, Middle Columbia River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) X Steelhead trout, Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Steelhead trout, Snake River ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Deslinated X Critical habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout IRU Critical habitat for. Columbia River bull trout IRU Critical habitat for Columbia River chum salmon ESU Critical habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon ESU Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU Critical habitat for Upper Columbia River Spring -run Chinook salmon ESU Critical habitat for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook salmon ESU Critical habitat for Snake River Fall -run Chinook salmon ESU L Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead trout ESU Critical habitat for Upper Columbia River steelhead trout ESU Critical habitat for Middle Columbia River steelhead trout ESU Critical habitat for Snake River steelhead trout ESU Lake Ozette Sockeye salmon are not covered by this programmatic at this time Directions: Use the Notes section under each question to document your rational and decision making process for presence or absence of the fish, and the effect determination. FILL OUT THIS SECTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ESU THAT OCCURS IN THE FIFTH FIELD WATERSHED Effect Determination by Species: ESU and critical habitat: Puget Sound Chinook salmon 1) is the project in'a fifth - field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain Pu eft Sound Chinook salMon? YES X If yes, list fifth field watershed, and go to question 2. Fifth -field watershed: East Lake Washington NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Go to question 5. Notes: 2) Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon Yes. For bull trout use Tables 1 & 2 of Appendix A and/or the draft recovery plans (available at: htt://www,fws. o.v/ acificlbulltrout/recov .hunt and a distribution map the USFWS posted at http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/index.html to determine if your project is within critical habitat for bull trout. For other salmon you may use the NMFS critical habitat web page at http://www.nwr.noag, ov/Salmon-Habitat/Critical-Habitat/CH-Maps, cdetermine -if your project is within critical habitat. YES X If yes, what type of habitat is present? Spawning _ Rearing X Migratory Corridor X Not known Go to Question 3. NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Pu et Sound Chinook salmon. Go to question 5. Notes 3) Approximately how far is the project from the nearest suitable habitat (in river miles, upstream or downstream) for Puget Sound Chinook salmon? The project is within suitable habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Go to question 4, Notes: 4) Does the proposed activity have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators: temperature, sediment, chemical contamination/nutrients, physical barriers, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off -channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage network, disturbance history, function of riparian reserves, or disturbance regime? YES X If yes, briefly explain which habitat elements will be affected and indicate if the effects will be short term or long-term. For example, many activities will have increased levels of turbidity during project implementation, but are expected to result in long-term improvements to the target indicators. The project will temporarily affect sediment, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, and refugia during construction but will result in long-term improvements to other target indicators, including large woody debris, refugia habitat, and the function of riparian reserves, NO If no, the project will have "No Effect' on Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Go to question S. Notes: 5) Provide rationale for effect determination. Effect Determination: Not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Note: If you are dewatering an area, electroshocking in an area, or are doing major in -water work where listed salmonids are likely to be present during the work window, you will probably have a LAA effect determination. 10 Effect Determination by Specie's: ESU and critical habitat: Puget Sound steelhead 1) Is the project in a fifth - field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain Puget Sound s e d? YESX_ If yes, list fifth field watershed, and go to question 2. Fifth -field watershed: East Lake Washington NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Puget Sound steelhead. Go to question 5. Notes: 2) Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Puget Sound steelhead? For bull trout use Tables I & 2 of Appendix A and/or the draft recovery plans (available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/recoveEy.htmi) and a distribution map the USFWS posted at httpa/www.fws, ov/westwafwo/index.html to determine if your. project is within critical habitat for bull trout. For other salmon you may use the NMFS critical habitat web page at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon.;Habitat/Critical-Habitat/CH-Maps,cfrn determine if your project is within critical habitat. YES X If yes, what type of habitat is present? Spawning _ Rearing 7L Migratory Corridor X Not known _ Go to Question 3. NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Puget Sound, steelhead. Go to question 5. Notes: 3) Approximately how far is the project from the nearest suitable habitat (in river miles, upstream or downstream) for Puget Sound steelhead? The project is within suitable habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. Go to question 4, Notes: 4) Does the proposed activity have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators: temperature, sediment, chemical contamination/nutrients, physical barriers, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off -channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage network, disturbance history, function of riparian reserves, or disturbance regime? YES X If yes, briefly explain which habitat elements will be affected and indicate if the effects will be short term or long-term. For example, many activities'will have increased levels of turbidity during project implementation, but are expected to result in long-term improvements to the target indicators. The project will temporarily affect sediment, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, and refugia during construction but will result in long-term improvements to other target indicators, including large woody debris, refugia habitat, and the fanction of ri2arian reserves. NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Pugq>gpnd steelhead, Go to question 5. Notes: 5) Provide rationale for effect determination. Effect Determination: Not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead. Note: If you are dewatering an area, electroshocking in an area, or are doing major in -water work where listed salmonids are likely to be present during the work window, you will probably have a LAA effect determination. Effect Determination by Species: ESU and critical habitat: Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 1) Is the project in a fifth - field watershed that contains or has the potential to Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS? YES X_ If yes, list fifth field watershed, and go to question 2. Fifth -field watershed: East Lake Washington ' NO If no, the project will have "No'Effect"'on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Go to question 5. Notes: 12 2) Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Coastal/Pu et Sound bull trout DPS? Yes. For bull trout use Tables 1 & 2 of Appendix A and/or the draft recovery plans (available at: gip%/www,fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/recovery,html) and a distribution map the USFWS posted at httn://www.fws.gov/wgstwafwo/index.bttnl to determine if your project is within critical habitat for bull trout, For other salmon you may use the NMFS critical habitat web page at htt ://www.nwr.noaa. ov/Salmon-Habitat/Cri is 1-H bitat/CH-Ma s cfm determine if your project is within critical habitat. YES X If yes, what type of habitat is present? Spawning Rearing X Migratory Corridor X— Not known Go to Question 3. NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Go to question 5. Notes; 3) Approximately how far is the project from the nearest suitable habitat (in river miles, upstream or downstream) for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS? The project is -within suitable habitat for Coastal/Muget Sound bull trout DPS. Go to question 4. Notes: 4) Does the proposed activity have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators: temperature, sediment, chemical contamination/nutrients, physical barriers, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off -channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage networj , disturbance history, function of riparian reserves, or disturbance regime? YES • X If yes, briefly explain which habitat elements will be affected and indicate if the effects will be short term or long-term. For example, many activities will have increased levels of turbidity during project implementation, but are expected to result in long-term improvements to the target indicators. The project will temporarily affect sediment, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, and refugia during construction but will result in long-term improvements to other target indicators, including large woody debris, refugia habitat, and the function of riparian reserves, 13 NO If no, the project will have "No Effect" on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Co to question S. Notes: S) Provide rationale for effect determination. Effect Determination: Not likely to adversely affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. Note: If you are dewatering an area, electroshocking in an area, or are doing major in -water work where listed salmonids are likely to be present during the work window, you will probably have a LAA effect determination. 14 III EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES To determine which listed species may occur in the project area follow the steps below: a. Obtain a county species list from the USFWS web page. http://www.fws.gov/westwgfwo/sOSE-.List/endangeTed S ecies.as http://www.fws,gov/eastemwasbingign/county%20sjRecies%201ists.htm b. Site-specific information of listed species occurrences in Washington State may be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm and from the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program at http://www.dnr.wa. og y/nhp/. c. Remove species from the species list when habitat is not available for the species in the project area or "vicinity of activity" (generally I mile radius around the project site. The area that may be affected by any project impacts including noise and turbidity.) 2. When filling out the information below consider: Each project should have the appropriate effect determination. The PBA allows for NE or NLTAA determinations for terrestrial species, and NE, NLTAA or LTAA for aquatic species. Each determination must be adequately documented in this form. If you need assistance in determining the appropriate effect determination, request help from a Corps ESA Coordinator or the USFWS. The USFWS contact is Tom McDowell at 360-753-9426. a. For information on species biology, range and'critical habitat use the USFWS web site: http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/index.html b. Conservation Measures are listed in Appendix B c. If you do not implement all conservation measures related to the species present please explain. LISTED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES Please refer to.the PBA for actions that may affect these species and conservation measures to protect terrestrial species. For information on the listed terrestrial and aquatic species that occur in Washington, visit the following website: ecos.fws.gQv or contact the following FWS field offices: Western Washington Office in Lacey: Central Washington Office in Wenatchee: Eastern Washington office in Spokane: COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS (360) 753-6044 John Grettenberger (509) 665-3508 Jessica Gonzales (509) 891-6839 Suzanne Audet Listed Species: Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyla), and Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nlvosus): a) Will the activity occur in Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum, Pacific, Jefferson or Clallam Counties? No X Put NE under "Effect Determination" for these three coastal species. Yes If yes go to b) lS b) Will the activity alter sand islands or coastal dunes and meadows in Grays Harbor or Pacific County? No X Yes If yes, contact the FWS office in Lacey for coordination. c) Conservation Measures to be applied: Not applicable. d) Effect Determination for coastal species and rationale: NE LOWER COLUMBIA Listed species: Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) a) Will the activity occur on islands or in the floodplain of the lower Columbia River (Wahkiakum and Cowlitz Counties) and include installing fence? No X Yes If yes, apply conservation measures for the Columbian white-tailed deer b) Effect Determination and rationale: NE CARNIVORES and CARIBOU 1. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) — The range of the grey wolf includes the Blue Mountains, northeast Washington (Rocky Mountains) and the Cascade Mountains. There are no confirmed records of wolves west of the Cascade Crest and no documented den sites in the state. 2. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arclus horribillis) — The grizzly bear recovery plan identifies high alpine areas in the North Cascades (north of Interstate 90 to the Canadian border) as important for recovery of this species in Washington. 3. Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) - This species occurs in high elevation forests (generally above 4,000 feet) in the North Cascades and northeast Washington. 4. The woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) occurs in high elevation forests (generally above 4,000 feet) in northeast Washington (Pend Oreille County). a) Will the activity be conducted in or near mountain meadows or forest openings, high elevation forests, or ungulate wintering or calving sites in the geographic areas where these listed species may occur? No X Yes If yes, apply the appropriate seasonal restrictions identified in the PBA to minimize disturbance If you do not know whether your project will affect suitable habitat or feeding areas for these species, please contact the USFWS office in Spokane. a) Effect Determination for these species and rationale. Document any supporting conversations with USFWS staff: NE 16 Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 1. The pygmy rabbit historically was found in dense, tall sagebrush areas east of the Columbia River (Douglas, Adams, Lincoln, Grant and Benton Counties). a) Will the activity occur in native sagebrush areas of the central Columbia Plateau? No X Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species. Yes If yes, contact the USFWS. d) Effect Determination and rationale: NE MATURE FORESTS in the CASCADE and OLYMPIC MOUNTAINS: Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoraius) For information on the marbled murrelet, see httv-L//www.l'ws-govlr)acifLc/ni(irbieLimuacigt/index.htm a) Are you within 50 miles of marine water? No Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species Yes X b) Is there suitable habitat (mature conifer -dominated forests over 80 years old) within 200 feet of the project vicinity? No X Yes Not known c) Will the activity generate noise above ambient levels within 200 feet (1.0 mile if blasting, low - elevation aircraft operations, or pile driving) of potential suitable nesting habitat? No X Yes If yes, apply conservation measures to minimize disturbance. d) Does the activity include low elevation operation of aircraft, pile driving, or blasting within 1 mile of suitable or occupied nesting or foraging habitat? No X Yes If yes, apply seasonal restrictions to minimize disturbance. Activities in the marine environment that include pile driving or blasting may need to go through individual consultation. Contact the USFWS office in Lacey for specific restrictions related to underwater sound in marine areas. e) Will the project affect suitable nesting habitat or designated critical for marbled murrelets? No. Activities that remove or kill trees with suitable platforms, remove suitable platforms, or reduce the suitability of the stand as nesting habitat are not covered under this PBA. f) Notes: g) Conservation Measures to be applied: h) Effect Determination and rationale: NE 17 Northern spotted owl (Stria occidentalis caurina) For information, including critical habitat designation see htto.//eros.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode= H08B a) is there suitable habitat (mature conifer forests over 80 years old) within 200 feet of the project vicinity? No X Put NE under "Effect Determination" and proceed to next species Yes Not known b) What type of forest habitat is present in the vicinity of the activity? nesting or foraging habitat dispersal habitat designated critical habitat none d) Will the activity occur in nesting or foraging habitat? No Yes If yes, apply seasonal operating restrictions to minimize disturbance. e) Will the activity generate above ambient noise within 200 feet (1.0 mile if blasting, pile driving or aircraft operations) of suitable nesting habitat? No Yes If yes, apply seasonal restrictions. f) Will the activity occur in or remove trees from spotted owl designated critical habitat? No Yes If yes, explain how/if this will affect the function of the stand. g) Notes: h) Conservation Measures to be applied: i) Effect Determination for northern spotted owls: NE Effect Determination for designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl: NE 18 Listed Plants: No herbicide use, mechanical vegetation management, or construction activities are permitted in areas that could support listed plants under this programmatic. Information on these species can be found at: http./Iecos.fws.gov,'the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program at (360)-902-2543 or their website at www,wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phgpagee.htm, or the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage.Program at (360) 902-1667 or their website at www.dnr.wa.pov/nh /. 1. Hackella venusta (showy stickseed) this species occurs in Chelan County, between 984 and 1,600 feet in elevation, in the Ponderosa Pine zone 2. Lomadum bradshawii (Bradshaw's desert -parsley) -- this species occurs in wetlands, prairies and grasslands in Clark County 3. Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains checker -mallow) - this species is found in the Peshastin Creek watersheds in Chelan County. Information on critical habitat for this species can be� found at: http.//ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3793.pdf 4. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) - this plant occurs in Island, San Juan, and Thurston Counties and is found in open grasslands, prairies, and grass dominated coastal bluffs. 5. Howellia aquatilis (water howellia) — this aquatic plant is found in and around seasonal wetlands in Mason, Pierce, Thurston, Clark, and Spokane Counties. 6. Lupinus sulphurous ssp. kincaidii '(Kincaids lupine) - this plant occurs near Boistfort, Lewis County in native upland prairie habitat. 7. Sidalcea nelsoniana (Nelson's checkermallow)- this plant is found in wetlands, stream corridors, or wet prairies in Lewis or Cowlitz Counties. 8. Silene spaldingii (Spalding's slienelcatchfly)— this plant is also associated with native prairies and occurs in Asotin, Lincoln, Spokane, and Whitman Counties. 9. Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies' -tresses) — this plant grows on the margins of springs, wet meadows, floodplains, and riparian areas in Okanagan and Grant County Please document conversations with USFWS staff and provide adequate information on botanical surveys and/or habitat analysis to support your effect determination. Effect determination for listed plants: NE 19 IV SIGNATURE I hereby verify that this work will comply with all applicable requirements of the above. referenced Biological Opinion should a Department of the Army authorization be issued for this work. Certain categories of activities require the permittee to submit -post construction reports to the Corps and/or the Services, These reports are identified in the PBA. For projects deviating from PBA criteria, the Services may require additional past -construction reporting. These additional reports will be clearly identified and agreed upon by the Services and applicant during the coordination process. By signing this form, the applicant agrees to submit within the required time frame all applicable post -construction reports. Signature of Applicant:~ Date: Signature of Agent: 20 Date: APPENDIX A: DEWATERING AND FISH CAPTURE PROTOCOL Work to facilitate habitat restoration may occur in isolation from flowing waters or in flowing water depending on site conditions to minimize impacts to salmonids, If bull trout or other listed salmonids could be present in the vicinity of the project use the following dichotomous key to determine which dewatering protocol and timing window you need to implement for your project. This key references information within the Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal - Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout Volumes I and II (USFWS 2004x; USFWS 2004b), and the Draft Recovery Plan for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (USFWS 2002). httpJ/www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/recovery.htmi, If you have questions, contact the USFWS. 1. Is the project located within a documented or potential bull trout Local Population Area that is excluded from coverage under this programmatic consultation (see Table 1)? a. Yes -- Dewatering in a documented or potential buil trout Local Population Area in eastern Washington is not covered under this programmatic consultation, Complete an individual section 7 consultation for the project, Please contact the USFWS office in Spokane or Wenatchee for assistance. b. No — go to 2 2. Is the project located within a water body where any listed salmonids are likely to be present? For specific bull trout areas where projects are permitted see Table 2, a. Yes — go to 3 b. No - use "Protocol for Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas"; 3. Is the stream flow at the time of project construction anticipated to be greater than or equal to S cubic feet per second and is the dewatered stream length (not including the culvert and plunge pool length, if present) greater than or equal to 33 ft? .a. No -use "Protocol for Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas"; b. Yes -use "Protocol I Dewatering Within High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas"; and consult with a USFWS bull trout biologist staff on appropriate timing window. Table 1: Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Areas that are Excluded from the Programmatiel (Listed in order of WRIA number) Management or Core Area Spawning and Rearing Areas Excluded Recovery Unit no in -water work Is permitted in these areas Umatilla -Walla Walla Walla Core Mill Creek and tributaries Walla River Basin Area Wolf Fork above Coates Creek WRIA 32 N Fk Tuuchet and tributaries upstream of Wolf Fk confluence S Fk Touchet River and tributaries above Griffin Creek Snake River Basin Asotln Creek N Fk Asotin Creek including Charley and Cougar Creeks — above confluence with Charley Cr Tucannon River Tucannon River from confluence with Little Tucannon Upper Tucannon River and tributaries above confluence with WRIA 35 Hixon Creek Cummings Creek Middle Columbia Yaklma Rlver Core WRIA 37 River Basin Area N and MFk Ahtanum Creek - above the confluence of S Fk S Fk Ahtanum Creek — above confluence with N Fk Ahtanum WRIA 38 Rattlesnake Creek — upstream of confluence with Naches River WRIA 39 Taneum Creek — upstream of Tancum Campground Upper Yakima — upstream of Lake Easton Dam Cie Elum River — upstream of confluence with Yakima River N Fk Teanawa — upstream of confluence with Yakima River Upper Columbia Wenatchee River Core Upper Wenatchee and tributaries above confluence with the River Basin Area Chiwawa, including Nason Cr, Little Wenatchee, White and the WRIA 45 Chiwawa Rivers Chiwaukum Creek and Icicle Creek— upstream from confluenco with the Wenatchee River In calls Creek- upstream of confluence with Peshastin Creek Entiat River Core Entiat River — above confluence with the Mad River Mad River — above confluence with Ential River Area WRIA 46 Methow River Core Upper Methow tributaries - Lost River, Early Winters Cr, W Fk Area Methow, Goat Cr, and Wolf Cr WRIA 48 Chewack River — u stieam of Twent mile Cr Twisp River and tributaries above confluence of, and including, Little Bridge Creek ' Gold Cr — upstream of confluence with Methow River Northeast Pend Oreille River Le Clerc Creek — upstream of mouth Washington WRIA 62 '-Spawning and rearing area on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management are not listed because these lands are not included in this Programmatic 22 Table Z List of streams and marine areas that important for bull trout recovery where in -water work is permitted Management Unit Bull Trout Areas Olympic Peninsula.- Hood Canal and independent tributaries Marine Strait of Juan de Fuca and independent tributaries (includes Bell, Morse, Ennis, Siebert Creeks) Pacific Ocean and independent coastal tributaries (includes Goodman, Mosquito, Cedar, Steamboat, Kalaloeh and Joe Creeks, Raft, Moclips and Copalis Rivers) Lower Chehalis River/Grays Harbor and independent Tributaries (includes Humptulips, Wishkah, Wyncochee and Satsop Rivers) Dungeness River —mouth to RM 10 Olympic Peninsula - Freshwater Skokomish River — mouth to head of Cushman Reservoir Hoh River -- mouth to headwaters Queets River — mbuth to headwaters Quinauit River - mouth to headwaters Puget Sound - Marine All marine shorelines including North Puget Sound, Main Basin, Whidbey Basin, and South Puget Sound Samish River, Whatcom Creck, Squalicum Creek, Duwamish and lower Green Puget Sound - Freshwater River, and Lower Nisqually River including the Nisqually River estuary and McAllister Creek (FMO areas outside of core areas) Lake Washington including the following: lower Cedar River; Sammamish River; Lakes Washington, Sammamish, and union; and Ship Canal Nooksack River — mouth to National Forest boundary (North and South Forks) Skagit River — mouth to National Forest boundary Stillaguamish River — mouth to headwaters of N Fork; peer Creek — mouth to National Forest boundary; S Fork and Canyon Cr — mouth to National Forest boundary Snohomish/Skykomish — mouth to confluence of Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers; Pilchuek River; Snoqualmic River to falls; Toll River; Skykomish River — mouth to National Forest boundary, including Sultan River, Woods Creek and Wallace River; S Fk Skykomish to National Forest boundary Puyallup River — mouth, including Mowich River, to National Park boundary; Carbon River — mouth to National Forest boundary; White River — mouth to National Forest boundary Lower Columbia Lewis River — mouth to PM 75 (Upper Falls), including Swift, Yale, and Mervin Reservoirs Mickitat River — mouth to confluence of W FK Klickitat 23 Management Unit Bull Trout Areas Mainstems of the Columbia, Snake, Walla Walla, Pend Oreille, and Grande Ronde Rivers Middle Columbia River Ahtanum Creek — mouth to confluence of and S Forks Hasan Naches River — mouth to confluence of Little Naches and Bumping River Tleton River — mouth to Rimrock Lake Yakima River—mouth to Easton (RM 203) and Teanaway River Upper Columbia River Wenatchee River — mouth to confluence of the Chiwawa; Peshastln Cr — Basin mouth to confluence of Ingalls Cr; Chewack River — confluence with Wenatchee to RM 20; Beaver Cr — mouth to Blue Buck Cr Entlat River — mouth to confluence with Mad River Methow River — mouth to confluence of Lost River Northeast Washington Pend Oreille Rlver; Tacoma Cr - mouth to Little Tacoma; Small Creek — Pend Oreille River mouth to forks' Sullivan Creek to and including Sullivan Lake Walla Walla River Touchet River— mouth to forks; Basin S Fk Touchet River — to confluence of Griffin Cr N Fk Touchet to Wolf Fork; Wolf Fork to confluence of Coates Cr Mill Creek and tributaries Snake River Basin Mainstem Snake and Grande Ronde Rivers; Asotln Creek — mouth to confluence of N Fk Asotin and Charley Cr; Tucannon River — mouth to confluence of Hixon Cr 24 ' Protocol I Dewatering Within Nigh Likelihood Listed Fish Areas A. Fish Capture — General Guidelines 1. Fish Capture Methods a. Minnow traps. Optional. Traps may be left in place prior to dewatering and may be used in conjunction with seining, Once dewatering starts, minnow traps should only be used if there is someone present to check the traps every few hours, and remove the traps once the water level becomes too low. b. Seining. Required. Use seine.with mesh of a size to ensure entrapment of the residing ESA -listed fish and age classes. c. Sanctuary dip nets. Required: Use in conjunction with other methods as area is dewatered. d, Electrofishing. Optional. Use electrofishing only after other means of fish capture have been exhausted or where other means of fish capture are not be feasible. Applicants shall adhere to NMFS Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines (NMFS 2000), 2. Fish capture operations will be conducted by or under the supervision of a fishery biologist experienced in such efforts and all staff working with the capture operation must have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure the safe handling of all ESA -listed fish. 3. The applicant must obtain any other Federal, State and local permits and authorizations necessary for the conduct of fish captureactivities. 4. A description of any capture and release effort will be included in a post -project report, including the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist, methods used to isolate the work area and minimize disturbances to ESA -listed species, stream conditions before and following placement and removal of barriers; the means of fish removal; the number and size of fish removed by species and age class; condition upon release of all fish handled; and any incidence of observed injury or mortality. 5. Storage and Release., ESA -listed fish must be handled with extreme care and kept in water at all times during transfer procedures, The transfer of ESA -listed fish must be conducted using a sanctuary net that holds water during transfer, whenever necessary to prevent the added stress of an out -of -water transfer. A healthy environment for non -ESA listed fish shall be provided by large buckets (five gallon minimum to prevent overcrowding) and minimal handling of fish. The water temperature in the transfer buckets shall not exceed the temperature of cold pool water in the subject stream. Retain fish the minimum time possible to ensure that stress is minimized; temperatures do not rise, and dissolved oxygen remains suitable. Release fish as near as possible to the isolated reach in a pool or area that provides cover and flow refuge, 25 B. Dewater Instream Work Area and Fish Capture Fish screen. Except for gravity diversions that have gradual and small outfall drops directly into water, all water intake structures must have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with NMFS Guidelines (NMFS 1997; Chapter l 1 in NMFS 2008). The sequence for stream flow diversion will be: Note: this sdquence will take one 24-hour period prior to construction to complete (of which 12 hours are for staged dewatering with 6 hours overnight). We suggest you start in the morning the day before project construction is scheduled and leave the reach dewatered overnight according to instruction below. 1. Install flow conveyance devices (pumps, discharge lines, gravity drain lines, conduits, and channels), but do not divert flow. 2. Install upstream barrier. Allow water to flow over upstream barrier. 3. Install block net at upstream end of work area. Block'nets will be checked every 4 hours, 24 hours a day. If any fish are impinged or killed on the nets they will be checked hourly. 4. Reduce flow over upstream barrier by one-third for a minimum of 6 hours. 5. Inspect as discharge is diminishing and in dewatered areas for stranded and trapped fish and remove them with sanctuary dip nets. 6. Reduce flow over upstream barrier by an additional one-third for a minimum of 6 hours. 7. Again, inspect dewatered areas for stranded and trapped fish and remove them with sanctuary dip nets. 8. Leave the project area in a stable, low flow (one third of flow) condition, overnight, allowing fish to leave the area volitionally. 9. In the moming, remove any remaining fish from the area to be dewatered using seines and/or hand held sanctuary dip -nets. 10. Divert upstream flow'completely. 11. Install downstream barrier if necessary (only in low gradient, backwatered reaches). 12. If water remains within the work area; seine, dip net, and lastly electrofish (if using this technique), the project area until catch rates have reached no fish for 3 consecutive passes. Move rocks as needed to flush fish and effectively electrofish the work area. 13. If needed, pump water out of isolated pools within the project area to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas and filter through vegetation prior to reentering the stream channel. Continue to seine, dip net and electrofish while pumping. 14. If fish continue to be captured, shut pump off before average water depths reach one foot. Continue to seine, dip net and electrofish until no fish are caught for 3 consecutive passes. 15. Pump dry and check substrate for remaining fish. 16. Continue to pump water from the project area as needed for the duration of the project. The diversion structure is typically a temporary dam built just upstream of the project site with sand bags that are filled with clean gravel or stream/floodplain rock and covered with plastic sheeting. A portable bladder dam or other non-erosive diversion technologies may be used to contain stream flow. Mining of stream or floodplain rock can be used for diversion dam construction if it does not result in significant additional floodplain or stream disturbance. Often gravel has to be moved to key in logs in which case it makes sense to use this gravel for the diversion structure. 26 The temporary bypass system must consist of non-erosive techniques, such as a pipe or a plastic -lined channel, both of which must be sized large enough to accommodate the predicted peak flow rate during construction. In cases of channel rerouting, water can be diverted to one side of the existing channel. Dissipate flow at the outfall of the bypass system to diffuse erosive energy of the flow. PIace the outflow in an area that minimizes or prevents damage to riparian vegetation. If the diversion inlet is a gravity diversion and is not screened to allow for downstream passage of fish, place diversion outlet in a location that facilitates gradual and safe reentry of fish into the stream channel. C. Rewater Instream Work Area Remove stream diversion and restore stream flow. Heavy machinery operating from the bank may be used to aid in removal of diversion structures. Slowly re -water the construction site to prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden increase in stream turbidity. Look downstream during re -watering to prevent stranding of aquatic organisms below the construction site. All stream diversion devices, equipment, pipe, and conduits will be removed and disturbed soil and vegetation will be restored after the diversion is no longer needed. 27 Protocol I1 Dewatering Outside High Likelihood Listed Fish Areas If bull trout or other listed salmonids are captured at any time during the dewatering process, immediately notify a USFWS bull trout biologist or NMFS biologist and obtain guidance to either continue to dewater and remove fish or stop activities and re -water the project site. Normal guidance; 1. If you encounter listed fish at or prior to step 3 switch to Protocol 1 2. if you encounter listed fish after step 3, continue to dewater and remove fish, paying close attention to presence of additional listed salmonids. A. Fish Capture — General Guidelines 1. Nish Capture Methods a. Minnow traps. Optional. Traps may be left in place prior to dewatering and may be used in. conjunction with seining. Once dewatering starts, minnow traps should only be used if there is someone present to check the traps every few hours,, and remove the traps once the water level becomes too low. b. Seining. Required. Use seine with mesh of such a size to ensure entrapment of the residing ESA -listed fish and age classes. c. Sanctuary dip nets. Required. Use in conjunction with other methods as area is . dewatered. d. Electrofishing. Optional. Use electrofishing only after other means of fish capture have been exhausted or where other means of fish capture are not be feasible. Applicants shall adhere to NMFS Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines. 2. Fish capture operations will be conducted by or under the supervision of a fishery biologist experienced in such efforts and all staff working with the seining operation must have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure the safe handling of all ESA -listed fish. 3. The applicant must obtain any other Federal, State and local permits and authorizations necessary for the conduct of fish capture activities. 4. A description of any seine and release effort will be included in a post -project report, including the name and address of the supervisory fish biologist, methods used to isolate the work area and minimize disturbances to ESA -listed species, stream conditions before and following placement and removal of barriers; the means of fish removal; the number and size of fish removed by species; conditions upon release of all fish handled; and any incidence of observed injury or mortality. Storage and Release. Fish must be handled with extreme care and kept in water to the maximum extent possible during transfer procedures. A healthy environment for the stressed fish shall be provided by large buckets (five gallon minimum to prevent overcrowding) and minimal handling of fish. The temperature of the water shall not exceed the temperature in large deep holding pools of the subject system. The transfer of any ESA -listed fish must be conducted using a sanctuary net that holds water during transfer, to prevent the added stress of 28 an out -of -water transfer, Retain fish the minimum time possible to ensure that stress is minimized, temperatures do not rise, and dissolved oxygen remains suitable. Release fish as near as possible to the isolated reach in a pool or area that provides cover and flow refuge. B. Dewater Instream Work Area and Fish Capture Fish screen. Except for gravity diversions that have gradual and small outfall drops directly into water, all water intake structures must have a fish screen installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the NMFS Guidelines (NMFS 1997; Chapter 1 I in NMFS 2008). The sequence for stream flow diversion would be as follows: 1. Install flow conveyance devices (pumps, discharge lines, gravity drain lines, conduits, and channels), but do not divert flow. 2. Install block net at upstream end or work area. 3. Seine and dip net through the entire project area in a downstream direction, starting at the upstream end; thereby moving fish out of the project area. Then, ifnecessary electrofish. 4. Install upstream barrier and divert upstream flow completely. 5. Capture any remaining fish using hand held dip -nets. b. Install downstream barrier if necessary (only in low gradient backwatered reaches). 7. If water remains within the work area; seine and dip net, if necessary electrofish the project area until catch rates have reached no fish for 3 consecutive passes. 8. Pump water out of isolated pools within the project area to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland areas and filter through vegetation prior to re-entering the stream channel. Continue to seine, dip net, or electrofish while pumping, 9. If fish continue to be captured, shut pump off before average water depths reach one foot. Continue to seine, dip net, or electrofish until no fish are caught for 3 consecutive passes. 10. Pump dry and check substrate for remaining fish and remove them. 11. Continue to pump water from the project area as needed for the duration of the project. The diversion structure is typically a temporary dam built just upstream of the project site with sand bags that are filled with clean gravel or stream/floodplain rock and covered with plastic sheeting. A portable bladder dam or other non-erosive diversion technologies may be used to contain stream flow. Mining of stream or floodplain rock can be used for diversion dam construction if it does not result in significant additional floodplain or stream disturbance. Often gravel has to be moved to key in logs in which case it makes sense to use this gravel for the diversion structure. The temporary bypass system must consist of non-erosive techniques, such as a pipe or a plastic -lined channel, both of which must be sized large enough to accommodate the predicted peak flow rate during construction. In cases of channel rerouting, water can be diverted to one side of the existing channel. Dissipate flow at the outfall of the bypass system to diffuse erosive energy of the flow. Place the outflow in an area that minimizes or prevents damage to riparian vegetation. If the diversion inlet is a gravity diversion and is not screened to allow for downstream passage of fish, place diversion outlet in a location that facilitates gradual and safe reentry of fish into the stream channel. 29 C. Rewater Instream Work Area Remove stream diversion and restore stream flow. Heavy machinery operating from the bank may be used to aid in removal of diversion structures. Slowly re -water the construction site to prevent loss of surface water downstream as the construction site streambed absorbs water and to prevent a sudden increase in stream turbidity. Look downstream during re -watering to prevent stranding of aquatic organisms below the construction site. All stream diversion devices, equipment, pipe, and conduits will be removed and disturbed soil and vegetation will be restored after the diversion is no longer needed. Literature Cited NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids. NMFS Southwest Region, (January 1997). 12 p. hitp.//.s-wr.=fs.noaa.gov/hcd/fishscm,pf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Guidelines for ElectroFshing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under the ESA. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Regulations- Permits/4d-Rules/upload/clectro2000.pdf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). February 2008. ANADROMOUS SALMONID PASSAGE FACILITY DESIGN, http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon- Hydropower/FERC/upload/Fish_Passage_Design.pdf USFWS (USFWS). 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. Chapter One, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 137 pp. USFWS (USFWS). 2004a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus conjluentus). Volume I (of 11): Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp. USFWS (USFWS). 2004b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume lI (of 11): Olympic Peninsula Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 277 + xvi pp. 30 LITERATURE CITED Bates, K., B. Bernard, B. Heiner, J.P. Klavas, and P.D. Powers, 2403. Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. t ://w fw.w v len t e /cin/cu[yG[l Wgnual Pna . df NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2000. Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act. 31 REPORT ,oX Pill fr, f kifANCHOR --v 0 E A WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE RESTORATION Prepared for Washington State'Department of Natural Resources Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101 October 2010 j . t TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Review of Existing Information......................................................................................1 2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. 2 2.l Topography.......................................................................................................................2 2.2 Soils...................................................................................................................................2 2.3 Hydrology.........................................................................................................................3 2.4 Plant Communities...........................................................................................................3 3 WETLAND DELINEATION FINDINGS............................................................................... 4 3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods........................................................................................4 3.1.1 Vegetation...................................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Soils.............................................................................................................................6 3. l .3 Hydrology...................................................................................................................6 3.1.4 Wetland Classifications..............................................................................................7 3.1.5 Wetland Ratings.........................................................................................................7 3.1.6 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements..........................8 3.1.7 Wetland Functions Assessment...............................................................................10 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results.........................................................................................10 3.2.1 Wetland A.................................................................................................................10 3.3 Regulatory Framework..................................................................................................11 3.3.1 USFWS Classification...............................................................................................11 3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores .........................12 3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance...................................................13 3.3.4 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations........................................................13 4 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................14 Wetland Delineation Report South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration i October 2010 100638-01.02 List of Tables Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions................................................................... 6 Table 2 City of Renton Wetland Regulations................................................................. 10 Table 3 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water .............. 12 Table 4 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands RatingSystem....................................................................................................... 12 Table 5 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores ............................. 12 Table 6 City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Puffer Distance ...................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Study Area Figure 3 Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Figure 4 USFWS National Wetlands inventory Map Figure 5 Wetland Delineation Results List of Appendices Appendix A Sample Plot Summary Data Appendix B Field Data Sheets Appendix C Ecology Wetland Rating Forms Appendix D Study Area Photos Wetland Delineation Repon October2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration ii 1001638-01.02 1 INTRODUCTION On August 20, 2010, Anchor QEA, LLC, performed a wetland delineation of an approximately 2.70 -acre study area located in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. This Wetland Delineation Report is intended to support shoreline restoration activities proposed in coordination with the Washington' State Department of Natural Resources 1 (WDNR) Engineering Division. The objectives f the restoration project is to restore approximately 1,300 lineal feet of shoreline habitat and approximately 3 acres of upland habitat with the goal to improve and restore the water quality of the lake and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). This report provides information regarding the presence of wetlands within the study area, as defined in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Section 4-3-050 (City of Renton 2010), and by state and federal agencies (Corps 2010). A vicinity map showing the boundary of the study area is shown on Figure 1. The following sections of this report describe the methods used in the field investigation and Anchor QEA's findings, A description of the study area is included in Section 2. A summary of the findings of the wetland delineation are included in Section 3. A summary of data collected at each sampling plot during the wetland delineation is presented in tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wetland rating forms are included in Appendix C. Photos of the study area are included in Appendix D. 1.1 Review of Existing Information As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field observations: • Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey(USDA 2009x; see Figure 3) • Sail Survey ofKing County, Washington (USDA 1973) • Hydric Soil List for Washington State (USDA 2009b) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory (AWI) Map Information (USFWS 2009; see Figure 4) • Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-3-050 (City of Renton 2010) Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 1 100638-01.02 2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The approximately 3 -acre study area is located in the City of Renton, King County, Washington (Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Section 7; see figure 1). Land use within the study area includes undeveloped area with upland and wetland habitats associated with tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation communities. The study area is positioned to the north of the Boeing aircraft heavy manufacturing and production facility. The study area is bordered on the north, south, and east by Lake Washington. An approximately 650 -foot -long flume made of two sheet pile walls defines the northeast portion of the study area. The Shuffleton Power Plant was operated by Puget Sound Power and Light Company (currently operating as Puget Sound Energy [PSE]) from 1929 until operations ceased in 1989. In 1966 and 1967, the shoreline was altered when 150,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged from Lake Washington was used by ASE to fill a portion of the nearshore area owned by WDNR. At that time, the current flume was constructed to replace an older flume. An aerial photograph of the study area is shown on Figure 2. 2.1 Topography The topography of the study area slopes from the south to north towards Lake Washington and is relatively level (0 to 5 percent). Stormwater runoff collected on the Boeing parcel is conveyed through a series of storm drains, possibly discharging through a culvert passing through the study area and into Lake Washington. 2.2 Soils The Natural.Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009a) identifies one soil series in the location of the study area: "Urban." The "Urban Soils" series designation was not observed on the property, This soil series is not classified as hydric soils according to Hydric Soil List for Washington State (USDA 2009b). Figure 3 shows soil series in the study area. This landscape within the study area was physically created in 1966 and 1967 when Puget Sound Power and Light was permitted to place 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material from the lake along the shoreline to create new uplands. The Fill was placed between the shoreline and the landward side of the flume described. above. Over time, it is likely that in some areas the fill material has developed hydric characteristics through the establishment of vegetation and the natural topography and hydrology of the study area. Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 2 100638-01.02 ti Study Area Description Sample plot soil profiles are described in Section 3.2. A summary of soils data collected at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. 2.3 Hydrology The study area is located in the Cedar/Sammamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (Ecology 2010). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are influenced by direct precipitation and fluctuating levels of Lake Washington (high water table). As described above, it is not known to what extent stormwater conveyed from the Boeing parcel contributes to the overall hydrology of the study area. Stormwater collected on the Boeing parcel is conveyed through a series of storm drains discharging to Lake Washington. 2.4 Plant Communities The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory Map Information does not identify wetland habitat within the study area (USFWS 2010). As described in Section 3, Wetland A includes the wetland habitats identified in the study area during the investigation. Wetland vegetation community types identified during the delineation include palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), and lacustrine emergent (LEM). 'free and shrub vegetation are dominated by Pacific willow (Salixlasiandra), with Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. Trichnocarpa) occurring. Additionally, red osier dogwood (Cornussericea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus) often occur along the wetland boundary and encroach into the wetland. Dominant emergent species include small reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), yellow -flag iris (Inspseudoacorus), yellow garden loosestrife (hysimachia vulgaris), native soft rush (%uncus effuses), and field mint (Mentha arvensis). Wetland and upland vegetation in the study area are described in Section 3.2. A summary of vegetation data collected in the study area and at each sampling plot is presented in the tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 3 100638-01.02 I I % 3 WETLAND DELINEATION FINDINGS On August 20, 2010, Anchor QEA ecologists performed a wetland delineation and wetland rating analysis of wetland habitat in the study area. One wetland, Wetland A, was found. A complete description of the wetland is provided in Section 3.2. Wetland delineation results are shown on figure 5. A summary of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in the tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. 3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods This section describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, including the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as.well as local jurisdiction requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer widths. As specified by the RMC (City of Renton 2010), this wetland delineation was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual• Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2010), and Ecology's Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 2004). Soil colors were classified by their alpha -numerical description, as identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), and the RMC all define wetlands as: "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (Environmental Laboratory 1987; Access Washington 2010; City of Renton 2010). Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 4 100638-01.02 Wetland Delineation Findings The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters; hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is "the. macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." Hydric soils are "formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part," Wetland hydrology "encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 2004). Data collection methods for each of these parameters are described in the following subsections. Four data plots were sampled at the approximately 3 -acre study area (figure 5). Sample plots are identified numerically as wetland or upland plots (SP1 -Wet, SP1 -Up, etc.). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each of the plots and recorded on field data sheets. A summary of sample plot data is presented in Appendix A. The field data sheets are provided in Appendix B. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon plot data and visual observation of the study area. 3.1.1 Vegetation Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data sheets, one data sheet per plot (Appendix B). Percent cover was estimated in the.plot for each plant species and dominant species were determined. At each plot, trees within a 30 -foot radius, shrubs within a 15 -foot radius, and emergents within a 3 -foot radius from the center of the plot were identified and recorded on a data sheet. A plant indicator status, designated by the USFWS (Reed 1988 and 1993), was assigned to each species and a determination was made as to whether the vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter, more than 50 percent of the dominant species must have an indicator of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW),•or facultative (FAC). Table 1 shows the wetland indicator status categories. Wetland Delineation Report October 1010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 5 100638-01.02 Wetland Delineation Findings Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions Indicator Status Description obligate wetland Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated (Ogt) probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions. Facultative wetland Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 (FACW) percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in non -wetlands. Facultative Plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands (FAC) (estimated probability 34 percent to 66 percent). Facultative upland Plant species usually occur in non -wetlands (estimated probability (FACU) 67 percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in wetlands. Obligate upland Plant species occur almost always in non -wetlands (estimated (UPI,) probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions. 3.1.2 Soils Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were excavated to a depth of 18 inches or greater. Hydric soil indicators include low soil matrix chroma, gleying, and redoximorphic or redox features. Redox features are spots of contrasting color occurring within the soil matrix (the predominant soil color). Gleyed soils are predominantly bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. Soils having a chroma of 2 (with redox features) or less (with or without redox features) are positive indicators of hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory 1987; Corps 2010). 3.1.3 Hydrology Evidence of wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it "encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 2004). The mesic growing season in western Washington is generally March through October, Field observations of saturation and inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such as water -stained leaves and drainage patterns in wetlands, were recorded. Wetland Delineation Report October2010 South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 6 100638-01.02 .. Wetland Delineation Findings 3.1.4 Wetland Classifications Wetland community types are discussed in this report according to the USFWS classification developed by L.M. Cowardin and others (1979) for use in the NWI. This system, published in 1979 by a team of USFWS scientists led by Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on their physical characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees, shrubs, grass, etc.) and how much, and where, water is present in the wetland. The Cowardin classification system provides a classification for every known wetland type that occurs throughout the United States and, under this system, a wetland can be classified as having one or more wetland classification types. The community types found during this investigation were: • PSS — These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet high • PEM and LEM — These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season in most years 3.1.5 Wetland Ratings Wetland ratings were determined using the most current version of Ecology guidance in Washington State Wetland Rating System -- Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington, Version 2 (Ecology 2008), and according to City of Renton wetland rating criteria, as defined in the RMC (City of Renton 2010). The Ecology system was developed to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide to society. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect specific information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. Three major functions are analyzed: water quality improvement, flood and erosion control, and wildlife habitat. Ratings are based on a point system where points are given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland's potential and the opportunity to provide certain benefits. Per Ecology's rating system, wetlands are categorized according to the following criteria and on points given: Weiland Delineation Report October 7010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restdrarion 7 100638-01.02 U Wetland Delineation Findings • Category I wetlands (70 to 100 points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or are more sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime. • Category I1 wetlands (51 to 69 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. • Category II1 (30 to 50 points) wetlands have moderate levels of functions. They have been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other .natural resources in the landscape than Category 11 wetlands. • Category IV wetlands (0 to 29 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are often heavily disturbed. 3.1.6 City of Renton Wetiand Rating System and Buffer Requirements Wetlands in the study area were also rated according to the City of Renton (City) Critical Area Regulations that establish local regulatory requirements for wetlands and their associated buffers (City of Renton 2010). Wetlands in the study area were assigned a local rating category based on the applicable City critical areas regulations and the associated regulatory wetland buffer widths. Section 3.3.3 provides wetland information contained in the RMC (City of Renton 2010). The full text of the city's critical areas regulations was consulted during this analysis. Category 1 Wetlands are wetlands that meet one or more of the following criteria: • The presence of species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species • Wetlands having 40 percent to 60 percent permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two or more vegetation classes • Wetlands equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and having three or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water • The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence Category 2 Wetlands are wetlands that meet one or more of the following criteria: Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Luke Washington Shoreline Restoration 8 100638-01.02 Wetland Delineation Findings • Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands • Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands • Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category l wetlands Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, or channelization Category 3 Wetlands are wetlands that meet one or more of the following criteria: + Wetlands that are severely disturbed; severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands that meet the following criteria: - Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human -related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization, and/or outlet modification - Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal, and/or compaction of soils - May have altered vegetation • Wetlands that are newly emerging; newly emerging wetlands are: - Wetlands occurring on top of pill materials - Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife; these wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin • All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands According to the RMC Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5, wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge as delineated in the field and are sized depending on the wetland category. Table 2 provides a summary of the City's wetland buffer requirements. Wetland Delineation Report Octobcr2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 9 100638-01.02 Wetland Delineation Findi Table 2 City of Renton Wetland Regulations Wetland Classification Buffer Requirement Category 1 100 feet Category 2 50 feet Category 3 25 feet 3.1.7 Wetland Functions Assessment The functional values of wetlands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating System — Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington, Version 2 (Ecology 2008). Using Ecology's system, wetlands were rated based on a point system where points are awarded to three functional value categories: water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating forms, is provided in Appendix C. 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results One wetland (Wetland A) was found within the study area. The jurisdictional boundary of Wetland A was flagged in the study area. Wetland delineation results are shown on Figure 5. A summary of vegetation, soils, and.hydroiogy data collected at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix A and in the field data forms in Appendix B. 3.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A is an approximately 0.29 -acre lake fringe and slope wetland. Only the portion of Wetland A bound by upland habitat was delineated during the investigation. The Ordinary High Water Mark, surveyed by Duane Hartman & Associates (2002), defines the lakeside boundary of Wetland A. The location of the OHWM was confirmed in the field by Anchor QEA biologists using the criteria set forth in WAC 173-22-030. Wetland A contains PSS, LEM, and PEM habitats. Within the wetland, tree vegetation is dominated by Pacific willow, but limited to the northeast corner of the wetland and the southern boundary. Dominant shrub species Wetaand Delineation Report 'October2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 10 100638-01.02 LO - k Wetland Delineation Findings include red osier dogwood. Himalayan blackberry often occurs along the wetland boundary and encroaches into the wetland in some areas. Dominant emergent species include reed canarygrass, yellow -flag iris, yellow garden loosestrife, native soft rush, and field mint. Soils observed in the wetland plots generally consisted of an A horizon of very dark gray to black overlain by a very dark greenish gray sandy gley within the li horizon. The sandy gleyed matrix within the top b inches of the surface meets the definition of hydric soils. Soil texture ranged from loam near the surface to sand. Upland plots consisted of a dark brown to very dark brown (75 YR 32 and IOYR 312) with no mottles. Gleyed soils were observed in the upland plots at depths beyond 10 inches and therefore not considered hydric. The gleyed characteristics are consistent with the fact these soils originated from dredged sediments. Within the wetland plots, evidence of a high water table was observed between 3 and 8 inches. Saturation at the surface was also noted in both wetland plots. There was no evidence of wetland hydrology in the upland plots. Data were collected at four sample plots: SP1 -Wet, SP1 -Up, SP2-Wet, and SP2-Up (Appendices A and 13). The wetland plots (SP1 -Wet and SP2-Wet) contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plots (SP1 -UP and SP2-Up) did not exhibit any indicators of hydrophitic vegetation, hydric soils, or hydrology. 3.3 Regulatory Framework Guidance from US17, WS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland classifications. Information and excerpts from the specific guidance language are provided in the following sections. 3.3.1 , USFWS Classification The wetlands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by Cowardin and others (1979) for use in the NWI. Table 3 lists the USFWS classifications for the wetlands and their connections to surface waters. Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 11 1001538-01.02 Wetland Delineation Findings Table 3 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water Wetland USFWS Classification Connection to Surface Water A PSS, LEM and PEM Lake Fringe wetland associated with Lake Washington 3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores Wetland ratings are determined using Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System — Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2008). Under the Ecology system, Wetland A is rated as a Category III wetland. Table 4 lists the Ecology wetland ratings and classifications. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values for Wetland A are shown in Table 5. A summary of the wetland rating scores and the Ecology wetland rating forms are included in Appendix C. Table 4 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System Wetland Area (acres) Hydrogeomorphic Classification State Rating (Ecology) Wetland A 0.29 Slope/Lake Fringe III Table 5 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores Notes: 1 Calculated as: (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential Score plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score Wetland Delineation Report Octoher 2010 South .Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 12 100638-01.02 Water Quality Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat Functions Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Total Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Functions Wetland Score (Yes/No) Score (yes/No) Score Score Score' Total No = 1 No= 1 Maximum 16 16 18 i8 100 Score Yes = 2 Yes = 2 Wetland A 1 2 2 2 8 10 36 Notes: 1 Calculated as: (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential Score plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score Wetland Delineation Report Octoher 2010 South .Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 12 100638-01.02 0 41 M Wetland Delineation Findings 3.3.3 City of Renton Weiland Classification Guidance Wetlands were also rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the RMC (City of Renton 2009). The City classifies wetlands into three categories (Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3) based on the City critical areas regulations. Appropriate wetland buffers have been identified according to the current RMC (City of Renton 2010). City ratings and buffer widths are provided in Table 6. Table 6 City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance Study Area Size State Rating Local Rating Buffer Width Wetlands (acres) (Ecology) (City of Renton] (feet) Wetiand A 0.29 III 3 25 feet Total 0.29 3.3.4 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often occur between trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency. Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in hydrology or land use, In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a physical change occurs in the basin or 3 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken, another wetland survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed in this report represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the information available. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Wetland Delineation Report South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 13 October 2010 100638-01.01 4 REFERENCES Access Washington, 2010. Washington State Growth Managemen Act. Accessed online at http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/default.aspx on October 6, 2010. City of Renton, 2010. Renton Municipal Code. Accessed online at http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ on October 5, 2010. Duane Hartman & Associates, Inc., 2002. DNR Shoreland Exhibit. Prepared for Boeing Realty Corporation Heartland, Inc U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (version 2.0), ed I.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, ERDC/EL TR -10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System -- Western Washington: Revised Publication #04-06-25. Olympia, Washington. Ecology, 2008. Washington State Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington, version Z Olympia, Washington, Ecology, 2010. Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Maps. Olympia, Washington. Last accessed on October 6, 2010 at http://www.ecy,wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm, Environmental Laboratory, 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Munsell, 1994, Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B., )r., 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occurin Wetlands:1988National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 .South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 14 100638-01.02 to References Reed, P., Jr., 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report -88 (26.9). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. USDA -Soil Conservation Service (SCS). USDA, 2009a. Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app on October 6, 2010, USDA, 2009b. Hydric Soil List for Washington State. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Last accessed on October 6, 2010 at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UST -WS), 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands InventoryMap Information. Last accessed on October 6, 2010 at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov Wetland Delineation Report October 2310 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 15 103638-01,02 FIGURES s , H c o zw ¢c L � a A Lu a, aA w Q a, O C L q! CL 0 O �r V) Q o c c zw ¢c is w- , - ! a s• '1- Y d Q 3 � co 2!' a 'i a c a 4� C p C a 4 a 4� C 3 �Q �(A o (^ o z S vn c m .a a m r w S N 7 t b EAM o�z Zw Qc 15 r ` 'a, APPENDIX A SAMPLE PLOT SUMMARY DATA Appendix A Sample Plot Summary Data Table A-1 Plant Species Observed During the Investigation Grass, Herbaceous, and Ferns Agrostis stolonifera Aster chilensis -Brassica rapa Cirsium vulgare Creeping bentgrass California aster Field mustard Bull thistle Indicator Scientific: Name Common Name Status' Trees Common horsetail English ivy N/L N/L Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone FACU Physocarpus copitatus Pacific ninebark FACW Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC Salix losiandra Pacific willow FACW Shrubs Purple loosestrife Mint FACW FACW Cornus sericea Red osier dogwood FACW Cornus sericea Flaviramea Yellow twig dogwood FACW Cytisus scoporious Scot's broom N/L Rubes armeMacus Himalayan blackberry FACU Sambucus racemosa =Red elderberry FACU Grass, Herbaceous, and Ferns Agrostis stolonifera Aster chilensis -Brassica rapa Cirsium vulgare Creeping bentgrass California aster Field mustard Bull thistle FAC FAC N/L FACU Convolvulus arvensis Morning glory N/L Equisteum orvense Hedera helix Common horsetail English ivy N/L N/L Iris pseudocorus luncus effusus Yellow -flag iris Soft rush OBL FACW Lemno minorSmall duckweed OBL Lupinus sp. Lycopus unifloris Lupine Northern Bugleweed N/L N/L Lysimochio vulgaris Yellow garden ioosestrife FACW Lythrum solicoria Mentha arvensis Purple loosestrife Mint FACW FACW Myosotis laza Forget me not FAC-FACW Pholoris orundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW Plantago lancelato Narrow -leafed plantain FACU Polygonum cuspidotum Japanese Knotweed FACU Potentilla anserine Pacific silverweed OBL Rebus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC Rumex crispus Curled dock FAC Solanum dulcomoro Bitter nightshade FAC Solidago canadensis Western Canada goldenrod I FACU Wetland Delineation Report October2010 South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration A-1 100638.0102 Appendix A Sample Plot Summary Data 1 These categories, referred to as the wetland indicator status' (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows: obligate wetland (OBL) plants, facultative wetland (FACW) plants, facultative (FAC) plants, facultative upland (FACU) plants, and obligate upland (UPL) plants. N/L = not listed Table A-2 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data Wetland A Sample Plot SP1 -UP Scientific Name Rubus armeniacus Common Name Himalayan blackberry Indicator statusl FACU Cover (percent) 100 SP1 -Wet SP2-Wet iris pseudacorus Yellow -flag iris OBL 20 Phalaris orundinocea heed canarygrass FACW 40 Mentha arvensis Mint FACW >5 Lysimochia vulgaris iris pseudacorus Yellow garden loosestrife Yellow -flag iris FACW OBL 40 20 !uncus effusus Soft rush FACW 35 Phalaris orundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW 15 Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 15 Lemna minor Small duckweed OBL 30 Lycopus unifloris Northern Bugleweed N/L 10 Lythrum solicaria Purple loosestrife FACW 5 Cornus sericea Red osier dogwood FACW 5 SP2-Up Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC 10 Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 5 Plontogo lonceoloto Narrow -leafed plantain FACU 40 Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy N/L 5 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass FAC 5 Solidogo conodensis Western Canada goldenrod FACU 20 1 These categories, referred to as the "wetland indicator status" (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows: OBL plants, FACW plants, FAC plants, FACU plants, and UPL plants. Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration A-2 10016.38-01.02 Appendix A Sample Plot Summary Data Table A-3 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Hydrology Data Wetland Hydrology A No evidence of wetland hydrology in the upland plots. Wetland plots exhibited depth to the water table ranging from 3-8 inches and saturation at the surface. Table A-4 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Soils Data Wetland Sample Plot Soil Horizon (inches) Matrix Color Redox Color Redox Abundance (percent) Texture Wetland SP1 -Up 0 to 6 7.5YR 3/2 None None Loam 6-10 10YR 3/2 None None Sandy 10-18 Gley 1 3/10Y None None Sandy SP1 -Wet 0 to 4 10YR 2/1 None None Thick organic surface 4-10 Gley 13/10 GY None None Sandy A SP2-Wet 0-10 10YR 3/1 None None Loam 10+ Gley 1 3/10GY None None Sandy SP2-Up 0-6 7.5YR 3/2 None None Loam 6-10 10YR 3/2 None None Sandy 10-18 Gley 13/10 GY None None Sandy Table A-5 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Data and Wetland Determination Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Soils Hydrology Determination SP1 -Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland SP1 -Up Not Hydrophytic Non -Hydric Negative Upland A SP2-Wet Hydrophytic Hydric Positive Wetland S132 -Up Not Hydrophytic Non -Hydric Negative Upland Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration A-3 100538-01.02 APPENDIX B FIELD DATA SHEETS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: , South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration City/County: _--King County Sampling Date: _ 8/2010 ApplicanVOwner: _Washington State Dena ment of Natural'ResourcasStafe: _ WA Sampling Point: SP1 Uri ` Investigator(s): John Small.da I Section, Township, Range: _S 8 T N R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): -LakQ_Erinao. slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): cgncav_e Subregion (LRR); A - Lat: 47-502461* Long: -122 0 2° Datum: Dei at Dearees Soil Map Unit Name, Urban Land NN classification: nonce_ Ara climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N ,Soil _ N ., or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ^X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology__N •naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No _X,_ Is tho Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Wetiand Hydrology Present? Yea No X within a Wetland? Yea No _� Remarks: No evidence of Welland hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation - the site is not within a wetland. VEGLTATIDN - Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: } ° Cover�SAg_cles? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC; 0 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species �plinalShrub Stratum (Plat size: } = Total Cover That Are 013L, FACW, or FAC: 0 (AIB) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2• _ Total % Cover of; Multi[21y by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3- = Total Cover FACU species 1Q0 x 4 = 400 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1� 5 i}PL species x5= 1. _ Ru6u armenracus 100_ 1� Yds FAQ_ Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Dominance Testis ?50% 5. 6. _ Prevalence Index Is 53.0' 7. — Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. — Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and Welland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100% Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: } 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation Present? Yes No X = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks:Hyrdophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP1 -up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary ors fminimurn of one requiredhI (inches) __ Color (moist) % Calor (moist) % _ �Tvpe �jg+` Texture gernaft 0.6 7.5YR 312 100% _ loam 6-10 10YR 311 100% _ High Water Table (A2) sandy 10-18 Gley 1 3110av __ t00% sandy 'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: .(Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solla : Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Glayed Matrix (172) Iron Deposits (135) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (176) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gtoyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Sandy gelyed matrix below 10 inches -- not hydric includes ca ills fringe) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators. Primary ors fminimurn of one requiredhI Indicators or more _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA — Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) — Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) — Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerlal Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (63) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reductlon In Tilled Soils (C6) — FAC -Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) — Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) „ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No X includes ca ills fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite:_South-Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration City/County: King County SamplingDate:. _$12012010„ Appiloant/Owner: ---1 (-shlnktorLState DepartMent of Natural Resources State: WA Sampling Point: SP1 -wet Investigator(s): John Small, Adam Gale, Section, Township, Range: S38 T§.N B3W _ Landform (hiilsiope, terrace, etc.): lake fringe slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): _ concave Slope (%): 0-5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.592484° Long: --122208712* Datum: Decimat 09grees Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: none Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ) No (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation N , Soil N_, or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ No Are Vegetation, Soil Nor Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes,,,,_,,, No Is the sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (Plot size: 1 Remarks: Wetland meets all three wetland characteristics — wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 ° over Species? Sl ta(y§ Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2' Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (AIB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Piot size: 1 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total ,% Cover of: Multiply bw 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb S m (Plot size: _j UPL species x 5- 1. Phaiaris arundinacea _ 40% ves FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2.J ysfMgchigyglaarrs 40%_ e�L s FACW 3. Iris vseudscorus _ — 40_. % V05 _QBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.._ Mentha arvenSj§ >5% no _ FAQW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5, J( Dominance Test Is X50% 8, _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7, Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9 _ 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 01 0°10 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ] 1 • Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes X No = Total Cover Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP1 -wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Calor (moist)-- % Calor (moist)Sym LoC� Texture_ Remarks _ 0-4 10 YR 211 --100"x° clay loam 4-10 _ _ GLY 1 3110Y _ 100% Sandy 'Type: C -Concentration, D=De lelion RM=Roduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location; PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis': — Histosol (A1) _ _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) ____ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) r Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) �. Redox Dark Surface (176) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, X Sandy Gteyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tifled Solis (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Type: _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) — Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Depth (Inches): _ Other (Explain in Remarks) , Hydric Soil Present? Yes X _ No Remarks: The sandy gleyed matrix within the top 6 inches of the surface meets the definition of hydric soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicat9rai i um of one reguiredG check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) X Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _— Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) X Sediment Deposits (62) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) ._ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tifled Solis (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) — Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) , Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (inches): 8 inches Saturation Present? Yes X No_ Depth (Inches): Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X -- No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: South Lae a l t o 'ne s i CIty/County: !Song County. Sampling Date:8120/2010 Applicant/Owner: Washiogton State Department of„(natural Resources State: WA Sampling Point: _ 5P2-uo Investigator(s): John Sman, Ad ale. Section, Township, Range: Q8 TON R3W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): -Aake fdV92 slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):a —Slope Subregion (LRR): A Let: 47.502464 Long: -122.208712 ncayDatum: _ Decimal Degrees Soil Map Unit Name: -Urban Land NWI classification: none Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation IN Soil - N ., or Hydrology __N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetalion,_Soil N or Hydrology_ N _naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No r X _ Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No _ X _ within a Wetland? Yes No X VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: ?Le Stratum (Plot size: 15615 1 % Cover _SStatus 1. P u1 ba e ° Number of Dominant Species 10 /° Yes _FAC _ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Sa�nalShrub 5�tratum (Plat size; — ) = 10% Total Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. rb tr u (Plot size:/$ 5 } = Total Cover 1. _Plantago lanceolata _ JQ % Yas _FACU 2. olida o c na en ' 20% _ Yes FACU 3. a e u v a 5% _ _ No ,_NL _ 4. A ros is stgfonifera a FAC 5. B. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11, = 70% Total Cover WoodyVine Stratum (Plot size: �� 1. Rubus armeniacus 5% Ng_ FACU 2, Bare Ground in Herb Stratum _= % Total Cover Remarks:Hyrdophytic vegetation not present. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A16) Prevalence index worksheet: Tota % QQVer of: Multiply bV' _- CBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species _ 15 x 3 = 45 FACU species 65 x 4 = 280 UPL species X5 = Column Totals: - 80 _ (A) 305 (B) Prevalence index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is X50% Prevalence Index is s3,0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2,0 SOIL Sampling Point: , SP2-LID Profile Description: (Doe cribe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the abeence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix— (inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features Calor (moist) % Sygg_ oc Texture Remarks 0 6 7.5YR 3/2 100 _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, loam 6-10 10YR 312 100% 4A, and 4B) sandy _ 10-18 Gley 1 3110ay 100%_ — Drainage Patterns (B10) —sandy— 'Type: C=Concentration D=De Lebon RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains, 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls : Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) — 2 cm Muck (At 0) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) — Red Parent Material (7F2) _ _ Black Histic (A3) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) — Other (Explain In Remarks) T Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ! Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (0) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Hydric soil below 10 inches -- not hydric HYDROLOGY Wotland Hydrology Indicators: rima Indicators um of one recluereds chechthat a Secondary Indicators (2 or ore rgilUired). Surface Water (Al) — Water -Stained Leaves (99) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) — Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) — Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) — Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO) FAC -Neutral Test (135) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Surface Water Present? Yas No C1__ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes , No X Depth (inches): I Wotland Hydrology Present? Yes No _X — Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, , if available: US Army Carps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 f .' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: South Lake &qshmagtori shoreline Bestorallon CilylCounly: King County, Sampling Date: _ 812012010 AppiicanVOwner: _. Washington State Oeoagment of Natural Resources State: WA Sampling Point: SP2-we Investigator(s): Small, Adam Gale,Section, Township, Range: __ _838 TO R3W • Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): _ lake fdlige slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope Subregion (LRR): {j,,,,,_ Lal 4 0 4° Long: 22.2 87 ° Datum: WA State Plane North NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land _ NWI classification: nQne Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation �Soil _ N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N . Soil N , or Hydrology_ N_ naturelty problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes _A No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _X_ No within a Wetland? Yea X No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: All three wetland parameters present', sample plot is within a wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants, US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tsge Stratuin (Plot size: 1 % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant Species 1 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant ' Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) a. Percent of Dominant Species Sa lin I5b Stratum (Plot size: _ ] = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% _ (AIB) 1, Coraus s rices 5%_ �N o FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2• Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4• FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = __5% = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1�2 ]�_} UPL species X5= 1, ernna nort)3 % — Yes OBL Column Totals, (A) (B) 2. Jungus esus _ YRS 3. In rusp3 %__ _ o Q8L Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Phalaris arundinacea 15- % No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. c uni 10% NoNIL X Dominance Testis X50% 8. __Lythrurn sal aria 5 0/p _ No FACW _ Prevalence Index is 53,0' 7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. X25% Total Cover Modv Vine Stratum (Plot sizer 1. Rubus armaniacus15% No FACU Hydroptiytic 2, Vegetation Present? Yea X No 15% _ = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks:Hyrdophylic vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP2-wet _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Calor (moist) % Color (moist) _ % Tvpe �4 � Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 311 100% tram 10+ Giav 1 311 Davy _100% sand _ 'Type: C= Concentration, DaDe letion, RM -Reduced Matrix CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocalion: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls': _ Histosol (Al) r Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hislic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) (X Thick Dark Surface (At 2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, X Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (If present): FAC-Noutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Type: Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (37) Depth (inches): Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: The sandy gleyed matrix within the top 6 inches of the surface meets the defInitlon of hydric soils HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pdmary Indicators (minimum of one required@ check flII 1hat floply) Secondary Indicators Q or more required) _ Surface Water (A1) — Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA — Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, X( High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) X Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) — Drainage Patterns (B10) X Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheros along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (133) _ Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Noutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (37) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No_ Depth (Inches): 3 inches Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X_ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Ramarks. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 APPENDIX C ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS Wetland name or number A WETLAND RA'Z'ING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (i f known): A Date of site visit: enonoso Rated by Adam Gale Trained by Ecology? Yes ✓ No_ Date of training May 2007 SEC: 7 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 5E Is SIT/R in Appendix D? 'Yes No ✓ Map of wetland unit: Figure 4 Estimated size 0.29 acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I Il III IV Category I =Score >=70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II w Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Cateaory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I If Does not Apply ✓ Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit 14 4 18 1736 Wetinnd "Umt;has Characteristics_ �. m .1 use4 f r Rating r Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Sloe Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the aboveCheck if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number A Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. } n,r-:5 it -o -w ' �,,F ..r .. iq's �' f t•f j -+d+- ✓ r..+i-ti Y1cN-� ,�,-v"F'. $ Check I;><st4fQr Wetlands That�M�a,,,y Nee ddi ionA,alwProtechon.,I-,`E-yS �Y'�f i �1s..., NO bp'..Y ,+n q v} .�" fn'yh� Z #-.+u.1.,� I -x - n--. dd><hon: ta�theotection recommende3d for><tsccate k. Sg';�� e s SPI . Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIEspecies)? ✓ For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Herita a Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SPI Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFWfor the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master ✓ Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the jdrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form westem Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WIDFW definitions Oct. 2009 Wetland name or number A Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 0fJthe hydi oto is<i-tter aAlasfecl in ;each question do not apply` to the entir unit being rated, youxprohably have a:unit'with,muitipic.HCM classes . In�thrs cases �dentifyr -hieh ! - - > _ quf ek —tio.ansl7applyhydoogic critetiatu .k L �Qeton 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? QD— go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low' flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) if your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. ff it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the I- lydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does My entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria`? J The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ✓ At least 30% the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO —go to 4 YE — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ✓ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ✓ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Swftice water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3f1 diameter and less than I foot deep). NO - go to 5 YE — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number A 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the aver is notflooding. �- go to 6. YES -- The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland ®- go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 1. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ( - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10%.or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. „HGM,Classes "vu thin_ i€he__w��t_la_ rrd_un_it lielri =tat d r moi. HG1l%lClass:ta Us; in,R_ a_tin` Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake-frin e Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional De ressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Fonn — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number A inge-eitanas , s �'��` 1��rr{ y 'AP©ints LMLakeFrVl yk WATER QUALITY F[JNCTT4NSlr#dteators that the wGlnd intt i'unctttlns ro t�' t"amore wf :, er.ba%l a . f. P ,,. 4t�tT1 rUVe ViWater` l all L L 1. Does the wetland unit have theotteen,tial to improve water quality? (see p. 59) L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Figure _ Vegetation is more than 33ft (10m) wide points = 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than Eft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = i 3 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 Mae of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description Figure _ that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or, forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE. Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 113 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 213 unit points = 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 113 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 213 of the unit points = 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation types L Add the points in the boxes above 7 L L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would quay as opportunity. — Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland multiplier -- Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland — Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 2 150 ft, of lake shore) — Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake .L Other Wetland borders large manufactoring plant. YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is L TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L1 by L2 14 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 9 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct, 2009 Weiland name or number A L' Uhke .ftih Wet atnds Y x r °3 s - t r. i �IiYDRQLprIC FUNCTIC)INS nchcators thane Wetland matt functions tv ,RY {only 1 ecora z ..,I L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? :.(see p. 62) L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do Figure _ not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) >'/, of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (l Om) wide points = 6 >'/, of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 2 > '/a distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points = 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points = 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes L Record the points from the box above 2 L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportune to reduce erosion? (see p. 63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes?' Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and.activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. — There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g, mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion --- Other multiplier YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is t 2 L TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments 0 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1. . 14 Wetland name or number A '»i_ � S �These< uestruns apply to wetlan`ds�bf all HC1Vl�classes:� `q w NS indicators functigns ortanfi pErE x) .HABITAT4FUNGTI that unit to provide rml ab tats � ; H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1. I Vegetation structure (see p. 72) Figure _ Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is '/. acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) lf'the unit has a.forested class check f 1 The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualijv. Ifyou have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 I structure points = 0 H 1.2. H dr�ds (seep. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text jar descriptions ofhydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 2 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adiacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland f Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2, (different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mifoil, reed canarvgrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted; > 19 species points = 2 List species below if:vou want 1o: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 1 Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 4 + t Wetland name or number A H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H l.l), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. erP None = 0 points Low = I point Moderate = 2 points I'J 7 .. 3 v ,�.�J :. � � - y�'tL. LL�•y_ y�.p. ,,y;�xc [riparian braided channels) High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long), Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned greylbrown) At least %4 acre of thin -stemmed }persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (struetures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scoresfrom 1-11. 1, If]. 2, Hl. 3, H1.4, H1, 5 Comments Wetland Rating Fonn — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 t • y Wetland name or number A H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that hest represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to he used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturhed. " --- 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = S — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (l 70ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 4 ---- 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50%, circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 --•-- No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (b.bft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -- Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) 1.12.2.1 is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 15011 wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 2 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page b Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 4 -' f Wetland name or number A H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report htt ✓d w. w,a, ovAtab/ hslist.htnr ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (I 00m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). Y(Biodlversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PIIS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old -Growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature_ forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 em (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%, decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland bating Fonn - western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 -! . Wetland name or number A H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = S The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within '/2 mile points = S 3 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 'h mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within ''/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat I 1 O Add the scores rum 112.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 —. ... TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 8 Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. I 18 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WQFW definitions Oct, 2009 ! •, f Wetland name or number A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland. Type Category g ry Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle.the. Category when the a ro riate criteria are met:.. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 . NO ✓ SC 1. l Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat..I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I ---- The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. 1I cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp, are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (1/I1). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in 1111 determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features, tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Welland name or number A SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO ✓ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category l NO not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs`? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES= Category I No V is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating form -- western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. 1 Cat. 1 T . r 1 1". f Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its functions. --- Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, fonning a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -- 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category 1 NO ✓ not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. 1 SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all -of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to he measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -- At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. Cat. 1 — The wetland is larger than 1110 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category 1 NO = Category II Cat. 11 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number A SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO — not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas; a Long Beach peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shares-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO – go to SC 6.2 Cat. 11 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of wotland'l�ased;on' Special GharRcteristics'� �; ,' '*'�; �`' ce the KhYkh-est" rating" fve116ii?efgI i Into s &R�fa1-641 0j' s,�and recardion , 'Ch6o Pj. You ansnterntAlGb- onNO+ Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 APPENDIX D STUDY AREA PHOTOS I r Studv Area Photos Photo 1. looking south towards Wetland A. Photo taken from flume extending into lake Washington Photo 2. Northern portion of wetland looking north. Appendix D - Wetland Delineation Report October 2010 South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration D -I 100638-01.02 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONM17NTAL to IF.t'KLIST 1'ur p(ise of rhecklist: City of Renton Planning Division APR 2 01011 The State Environmental Policy Act (SFPA), chapter 43.210 RCW, requires all governmental agenciRECENED environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (FIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on die quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide rm infoation to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an FIS is required. Instructionsfor appliruntc: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal_ Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an FIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge_ fit most cases, you should be able to answer tate questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on ditcrent parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its envirotimental elTects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use uJ'chccklisi for nonprgieci proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the Sl lPPLtiM I.'aKt'A[, Si ll -l-. I' FOR NONI'Rt)JIiC'F A(, IIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal." "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. flame of proposed project, if applicable: Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration 2. Name of applicant: Washington Slate Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: \lonica Shoemaker Restoration Manager Washington State Department or Natural Resources 950 Farman Avenue North Fnumclaw, WA 98012 monica choemakcr(a�dnr,Fva.QOV 106=799-1949 4, Date checklist prepared: March 8, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington State Department of Natural Resources 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The construction is proposed to occur from July 1011—March 2013. Work occurring below the Ordinary High Water Rdark is proposed to occur between July 5th - August 101h and October 22" -- January 10th. DNR will be requesting a ten day extension on both ends of the restrictive in water work windows due the need For additional time to complele all of the in -water work. 7. Do you have any plaits for future additions, expansion. or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. s L ; IlNE2 is pirnpos.ing to withdraw the lands from leasing following the completion of the restoration project. Withdrawal of the lands 6'part of this project proposal. The withdrawal will occur with a Conunissioner's Order once the restoration is complete, The construction of this project is being funded by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The ecological benefits of the restoration project will be applied as mitigation for the SR 520 Corridor Program. The allocation of the ecological lift as mitigation will be negotiated within the environmental permitting process of the SR 520 Program. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Data Report South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration (Anchor QEA 20 10) Wetland Delineation Report South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration (Anchor QEA 2010) General Characterization of PCBs in South Lake Washington Sediments (Ecology and King Count' 2010) Outfall, Shoreline. and Nearshore Sediments Investigation Report (Weston 1999) Final Remedial Action Report (Wineman 1999) DNR Parcel Offshore Sediment Investigation Report (Weston 1997) Cedar River Delta Sediment Assessment Report (SEACOR 1993) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? lfyes, explain. No other applications are pending at this site. 10. list any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, irknown. SEPA determination. DNR Hydraulic Project Approval, Department of Fish and Wildlife Shoreline Exemption Permit, City of Renton Construction General Stormwater Permit Section 10 Permit Work in Navigable Waters, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material into Water, Army Corps of Engineers 401 Water Quality Certification, Department of Ecology NPI)ES Construction Stormwater General Permit, Department of Ecology Section 106 Review, Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation 11. Clive brief', complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There arc several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page, ( I.ead agencies stay modify this forni to include additional specific inforttuntion on project description.) DNR is proposing to restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washington with the goal to improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The following actions are proposed to meet the restoration objectives. • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer Flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams + Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cubic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along the shoreline to create shallow water habitat + Remove nonnative invasive plants from the 3 acre upland property • Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetiand • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Log Jams (EU) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters Following the restoration this property DNR proposes to withdraw the lands from leasing with a Commissioner's Order as well as maintain the property under a conservation easement. 12. Location of the proposal. Clive sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a streot address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the sitc(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity Wrap, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate Wraps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location or the proposal Is in south Lake Washington In the NE'/, section of Section 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. The project includes lake shorelands, with approximately 1,250 feet of shoreline, and 3 acres of upland property along Lake Washington and in King County, parcel number 0723059105. The property Is owned by the State of Washington and managed by the DNR. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT INA I.IIA'l ION FOR AUENC'Y Iltili ONLY 13. IiNVIRONMI:N'1'AL Iil.liM1tliNlti I.- Furth a. General dcscription.of the site (circle onc):(90 rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other..... b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% c. What general types of soils arc found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, nnuck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them mid note any prime farmland. Soils; 3 acres of upland is fill material that consists of send, loam, and sandy gley. . Sediments: Sandy with gravel and silt. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no known history of unstable soils or surface Indications of any unstable soils In the proposal area. This site Is not designated as a landslide hazard on the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance map. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the fill and. grading along the shorcline.is to create a habitat bench to restore shallow water habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook salmon. The grading and placement of topsoil and soil amendments will remove the invasive seed stack and improve the quality of soils for new native lants to Win. —2:ypne Estimated Quantity Source Clean Dredge Material 3,200 CY Lake Washington Dredging Project Quarry Spall 4,050 Tons Clean commercial product [rine Gravel Substrate 3 950 CY Clean commercial product Course Sand[Pea Gravel I Soo CY Clean commercial product 4-6" Washed Round Cabbie 360 CY Clean commercial product To soil 11900 CY Clean commercial product Soil Amendments 580 C.'Y Clean commercial product Mulch 900 CY Clean commercial product f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Localized disturbance may occur as a result of removing pilings and the sheet pile wall that are embedded in the sediments. Moreover some turbidity may occur during trenching of the sediments to extend two outfalls, and placement of cobble, sand and other materials along the shoreline. All efforts will he laken 10 minimize this temporary disturbance. 'lo th" (Y; MPLENil) liY APPLICANT EVALt M10N tilR AtIFNCY IJSE_ ON LY g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This proposal will not create any impervious surfaces. h. proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Rest Management Practices will he implemented to control and reduce erosion. A floating sediment control curtain will be placed in Lake Washington surrounding the work area. Construction fencing will he placed around the site. Erosion control fabric will be used around the upland site to control erosion. Live stakes will be planted along the shoreline to help stabilize the shoreline. A buried log edge will run along the whole project shoreline above the ordinary high water mark. This log edge will help keep the new soils and mulch in place. BM Ps are in place during the removal of the creosote -treated piles. ?. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result front the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smokc) during; construction and when the project is completed? It' any, generally describe and give approxinmite quantities if known. 'There will be a temporary increase in localized emissions from the equipment that will he used to complete lite project, however effects are expected to be minimal and will stop once the project is complete. b. Are there any of -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal'? If so, generally describe. 'rhere are no off-site sources of emission or odor that will affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to rcdut:e or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Equipment used at the site will meet King County emission requirements. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) is dwre any surface water body out or in the immediate -vicinity ofthe site (including year-round and seasonal strearns, salm-ater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes. describe type and provide nanies. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project is occurring adjacent to and in Lake Washington. The Cedar River flows into lake Washington approximately 0.4km west of the project site. Lake Washington flows into the ship canal through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hiram A Chittenden Locks and into Puget Sound, 2) Will die project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. All of the work proposed for this project will require work within, over, and adjacent to Lake Washington. • Work will include: • Remove approximately 550 linear feet of outer flume sheet pile wall and associated cross beams • Remove approximately 371 linear feet of inner flume sheet pile wall • Place over 9,000 cuhic yards of fine gravel, sand, round cobble, and sediment along the shorellne to create shallow water habitat • Remove nonnative invasive plants front the 3 acre upland property Plant native vegetation that will hang over the shoreline • Plant native vegetation on the 3 acres of upland property • Restore a 0.29 acre wetland • Remove three derelict dolphins from the lake consisting of approximately 21 creosote -treated piles • Remove rip rap and other debris from the shoreline • Place three Engineered Lag Jams (ELJ) along the shoreline • Extend two stormwater outfalls into deeper waters See the attached plans. 4, 'M E3tiCOMPIJ-11:1)13Y APP1,1C_AN'1' t,vnt.UAnON r•Ott AGENCY USE: ONLY 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface watcr or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 71,500 square feet of shoreline will be improved with the placement of flue grave, sand. cobble, quarry spull, and fine material. This nutterial will'create shallow water habitat along the shoreline of the property. 'l' Estimated.!2gantity Source Clean Dredge Material 3,200 CY Lake Washington Dredging Project !2UREY Spoil 4,050 Tons Clean! Commercial Product Fine Crave] Substrate 3,950 CY Clean Commercial Product Course Sand/Flea Gravel 1,500 CY Clean Commercial Product 4-6" Washed Round Cobble 360 CY Clean Commercial Product Approximately 750 cubic yards of material will be removed from a 0.29 acre lake fringe and slope wetland in order to remove the invasive plants that currently occupy a large percentage of the wetland. Tye Estimated Quantity Source To soil 1,900 CY Clean Commercial Product Soil Amendments 580 CY Clean Commercial Product Mulch 900 CY Clean Commercial Product 4) Will the proposal require.surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The proposal will not require surface water withdrawal or diversion. 5) Docs the proposal Iic within a 100 -year IloodpIain? Ifso, note location on the site plan. This proposal does not lie within the 100 -year flood plain. The proposal is located within Lake Washington where the water level is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers at tate Hiram M. Chit(enden Locks. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of.w•aste materials to surface waters'! If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No waste materials will be discharged to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be willtdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be dischiirfed into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if 'any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systenLg, the number of houses to he screed (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply. c. Water runoff(including storrnwater): 1) .Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other wale[~? If so, describe. During construction storm water will be contained with silt fences along the shoreline and a turbidity curtain located within the lake surrounding the construction area. The storm water from the site will be infiltrated on site. During removal and extension of the outfalls the contractor will be required to maintain conveyance during the construction using pumps and other methods to bypass the work arca. 'ro itc c:omF,u nil) ISY APPLICANT IIVA1.1IATION FOR MA NC'Y USE OM.Y Z) Could waste materials enter ground or surface %%Tters7 if so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and nlnofT Water impacts, if any: Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans will be developed with the selected contractor. The SPCC Plan will outline measures to he taken to prevent release or spread of discharged materials including those the contractor may store, use, or generate during construction activities. These items include, but are not limited to gasoline, oils, and chemicals. Pilings, sediment, rocks, concrete debris, and sheet pile wall will be transferred directly. onto the barge after removal. Any debris thut is associated with the project will be picked up and placed In containers and disposed oft' appropriately. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: -- cciduous tree: Pacific willow, pacific madrune, pacific ninebark, black cottonwood evergreen tree: Etlttb red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, yellow twig dogwood, Scot's broom, red elderberry, sulmonberry Crass Creeping, hentgrasc pasture crop or grain wet so€1 plants: reed canarygrass, yellow -flag iris, yelluw garden loosestrife, native soft rush, field taint, Northern Bugleweed, purple loosestrife, common tansy, Western Canada goldenrod water plants: milfoil or types of vegetattot . urled dock, bitter nightshade, common dandelion, long -stalked clover, veronica, ng glory, pacific silverweed, English ivy, small duckweed, lupine, forget me not, , narrow - leafed plantain, Japanese knotweed, California aster, field mustard, bull thistle, common horsetail h. What kind and amount of'vegetation will be removed or altered? All of the invasive plants will be removed from the 3 acre upland site including but not limited to Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygram, loosestrife, Scot's broom, and knot -weed. The area of invasive vegetation removal is approximately 64,000 square feet. During construction the native trees that are currently growing on the site will be protected. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known at this site. d. Proposed landscaping, use ornative plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The objective of the proposal is to plant a native shrub community, multi -layered mixed deciduous/conifer riparian community, as well as native wetland plants in the 3 acres of property. All of the invasive plants will he removed elindnating competition for the native plants. 'l'he existing trees will be protected during construction and remain on [tic . site. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be oft or near the site: 6 TO BE COMPIT. n -D HY APPLICAwr I'VALUA•IION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY birds: qgxEea =ie songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: as so mo rou terring, shellfish, other: sculpin, threespine stickleback, yellow perch, freshwater shrimp b. list any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The National Marine Fisheries. Service listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as Threatened in March 1999 under the Endangered Species Act. Puget Sound coho salmon are considered a species of concern, with a potential for future listing, and Puget Sound steelhend were listed Threatened ESA in May of 2007. e. Is the site part of a migration route'? if so, explain. This site Is part of the Pacific Flywny, a major north -south seasonal migration route for many bird species. This site is also a migratory and rearing corridor for Chinook salmon, and Lake Washington contains the largest population of naturally occurring sockeye salmon in Washington State. Most spawning and fry production occur in the Cedar River, just west of the project site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The purpose of this project is to restore habitat for migrating juvenile Chinook salmon. During construction hest Management Practices will be In place to reduce disturbance to wildlife. Construction timing will take place as authorized by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. G. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy need's? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Frillowing the completing of the project there will be a need for water to Irrigate the new vegetation for 3 tears. DNR is working with Boeing to secure a temporary source of water to ensure the,sustainability of the plants. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal'? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7.,,Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this•proposal7 If so, describe. The pilings that will be removed from the site are treated with creosote. Some of the sediments have high concentrations ot'polychlorinated biphenyl, Bls(2-cthylhexyl) phthalate, arsenic, and nickel. ] ) Describe special emergency services. that might be required. The need for emergency services is not expected. 2) Proposed nteastues to reduce or control environmental health hazards; if any: Best Management Practices will be in place during the construction to prevent environmental health hazards. The contractor will be required to have a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan in place and take steps to prevent exposure to the chemicals and other environmental health hazards while working on the site. All hazardous materials will be disposed of at an approved Hazardous Waste Landfill, TO 13F COMPLETI;1) BY AITI.IC:AN'I' 1zVAIAJATION FOR AGENT UNH ONLY h. Noise 1) What types o1'noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apple. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -tern or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would conte from the site. Noise will result from the equipment that will be used to construct the project. The equipment needed to complete this project iucludes; trucks, barge, crane, vibratory hammer, excavator, and conveyor belt. This noise Is short term and will only occur during the construction of the project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise will only occur during the construction and will only be temporary. R. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the site consists of approximately 650 linear feet of hardened shoreline that is made up of a derellet flume structure. The remaining 600 linear feet of shoreline is a mixture of rip rap debris and sandy beach. Thrce dolphins made up of 21 creosote -treated piles are located on the eastern side of the property. Approximately three acres of upland are overgrown in many ureas with Himalayan blackberry and other invasive plants. Hoeing has two casement agreements with DNR for stormwater outfalls, utilities, and an airplane wing overhang that cross the property. The site is bordered by Hoeing, which is south of the RNR property, and Is currently unavailable for public access. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The property was created in 1965 when Puget Sound Power and Light (PSPL) was permitted to place 150,000 cubic yards of fill into the lake. The fill was placed alongside a flume made of two sheet -pile walls that PSPL used to release cooling waters from the Shuffleton Stearn Plant. 'Che Shuffleton Steam Plant has been decommissioned; however the flume is still located on state property. DNR has two casements with Hoeing that ruts across the properly. The easements consist of a 33 -inch concrete stormwater outfall, a 48 -inch storm drain, manhole, 4 -inch PVC forcemain, 12 -inch concrete storm drain, utility vault and sump pump, various utilities, asphalt towpath, and an airplane wing overhang. Three dolphins made up of approximately twenty one creosote -treated pilings are located on the property. d. Will any structures be demolished? l f so, what? Yes. Approximately 550 feet of the outside sheet pile wall and approximately 371 feet of the Inside sheet pile wall and all associated cross bean>_s that make up the flume that runs along a portion of the property shoreline will'be removed. The twenty one creosote -treated pilings will be removed.from Lake Washington. c. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 'rhe site is adjacent to property zoned as Urban Center North 2. f. What is flit current comprehensive plan designation of the site'? Urban Center North. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the sitt:Y TO w-, t:umpttrnui HY APPLICANT 1>VAt_t1A'11ON FOR AGENCY USr ONLY Shoreline High Intensity. Is, Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area'? If so, specify. The City of Renton has listed the site as a high liquefaction susceptibility area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No people would reside or work in the completed project site. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace'? No people would he displaced due to this project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Docs not apply. 'Proposed measures to ensure the.proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: "Phis project is listed as project number 0266 on the three year work plan under the Nater Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chfnook Sahnou Consenadon Plan. This project is a Tier I priority under the WRIA 8 plan due to the project's location in a migratory and rearing corridor fur Chinook salmon. '['itis project will accomplish priority actions under the Conservation Plan by increasing overhanging vegetation and reducing bank hardening by restoring important shallow water"habitats closest to the mouth of the Cedar River where such habitat is most heavily used by juvenile Chinook salmon (Tabor 2006). 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any'? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. Not applicable b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle. or low-income housing. Not applicable c. Proposed nieasures to reduce or control housing, impacts, if any: Not applicable Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed'? Not applicable b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ,Not applicable Il'. Light and glare a. What type of lista or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly (iccur? N,)1 applicable 9 TO 1:11: COMPLETED BY AITLI 'ANE' GVALUAT10N FOR AGUNC:Y USE ONLY b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may afT'ect your proposal? Not applicable d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glurc impacts, if any: Nolt applicable 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in tine immediate vicinity'? Gene Coulon Park is located 600 feet oast of the site and the Cedar River Trail is located 1 10 feet west of the site. Lake Washington is open to the public to recreate on. The three acres of upland property of the proposed restoration site is closed to public access. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational vises? lfso,'describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any; The three acres of upland are currently not available for recreational use. lake Washington is available for normal recreational activities such as boating. This proposal will not change the current activities at the site and surrounding the site. 13. Ilistoric and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to he on or next to the site'? if so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence orhistoric, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This site is not accessible by public streets or highways. The property is landlocked by the Boeing property to the south and Lake Washington to the north. b. Is site currently sen Lei by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to die nearest transit stop? No. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. to TO [it- COMPL1: 71:1] til' AITIJCANr UVALl1ATION FOR AGrF NCY 11.4 'ONLY d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways'? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No, e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. No. I: How many vehicular trips per clay would be generated by the completed project`? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The completed project will not create any vehicular trips. g. Proposed treasures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. I5. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control.direct impacts an public services, if any. Not applicable. '16. lltilittes a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer,.septic system, other. Not applicable. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might he needed. No utilities ,!vial be needed for the long term. Water will be needed for three years following the completion of the project to assure the survival of the vegetation and trees that are planted on the site. C. SMNATURF. The above answers are true and complete to the hest of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them o make its decision. DateSubmitted: ..1........��,.............................................................................................................................................. i of !Renton i'iartnOg Division Ai R `d 0 "`Loll DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE. r;} CEOVED Description of proposal: Restore approximately 1,100 lineal feet of shoreline and 3 acres of upland in South Lake Washinbnon with the goal to improve and restore water quality and migratory habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. Proponent: Washington State Department of Natural Resources Location of proposal, including street address, if any: South Lake Washington in the NE '/4 section of S,xtion 7, Township 23N, Range 5E. Lead agency: Washington State Department of Natural Resources The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 c.030(2)(c). This ,decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. JJ There is no comment period for this DNS IXJ This DS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will nota t on this proposal fora! days from 11 10,rC 1:1 Comments must be submitted by� iTi ± t-1� 2UII___ . Responsible official: Kristin Swenddal Pnsition/Title: Division Manager Address: 1 11 I Washington St SE Mailstop 47027 Olympia, Wa 9804-7027 Date: Phone: 360-902-1124 Signature: There is 11a DNR administrative SEPA appeal. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Peter Goldmark • Commissioner of Public Lands April G, 2011 Caring tor your natural resources now and forever Notice of Final Determination Department of Natural Resources South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration SEPA File No. 11-031403 The Department of Natural Resources issued a [ X ] Determination of Non -significance (DNS), [ ] Mitigated Detcrmiliation ofNon-significance (MDNS), [ ] Modified DNS/MDNS on March 14, 3011 for this proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and WAC 197-11-340(2). Renton This threshold determination is hereby: otv ON+son pla [ X ] Retained. [ ] Modified. Modifications to this threshold determination include the following: [ ] Withdrawn. This threshold determination has been withdrawn due to the fallowing: [ ] Delayed. A final threshold determination has been delayed due to the following: Summary of Comments -and Responses (if applicable): No comments received. Responsible Official: Kristin Swenddal Position/title: Division Manager Phone: 360-902-1124 Address: 111 I Washington St S F Mailstop 47027 Olympia, WA 98504-7027 Date: t Signature: There is no DNR administrative SEPA appeal. . p c� gvslo AQUATIC RESOURCES DIVISION 1 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I MS 47027 I OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7027 -HZ— TEL (360) 902.1100 1 FAX (360) 902.1786 1 TTY (360} 902.1125 1 TR5 711 1 W W W.DNR.WA.GOV NWYl I ILI PAKM 0 EQUAL OPPORTUNtrY EMPLOYER e► City of Renton Planning Division Photos of South Lake Washington DNR Shoreline Restoration Property APR 2 G Yu11 Flume running along eastern section of shoreline. Dolphins located in the distance. Flume opening L C OWE oD Photos of South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Site Page 1 Looking south at western section of shoreline. Rip rap and invasive vegetation are located along sections of the shoreline. Photos of South lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Site Page 2 Blackberries along the state shoreline meet up with the inside wall of the flume One of the three dolphins proposed to be removed Photos of South Lake Washington Shoreline Restoration Site Page 3 -41�, LM Ffi�f�F � g x a C} F l I VATIDN iN FEE r INxynrbl � o � r ;I I 8 a d e r o m x C �� ao z b i N e ELF.WMSN IN FEET (N YDW y o pj ELE'MTION IN FEET {NAVOW ELEYAWNW FEET (N.SYOYI _ tl 7-1 d r� �i 7 g- 6 b n tl F C ® VJ r n R I - - E I i !°a gm e N I S �y i i N e ELF.WMSN IN FEET (N YDW y o pj ELE'MTION IN FEET {NAVOW I ELEYAWNW FEET (N.SYOYI _ tl 7-1 d r� �i 7 g- 6 b n tl r n R I � � I i !°a N I S �y If —t I M- ,1 7 g- 6 ,1 b n tl a 7y p a+ r i►��M�i• 'T. k�►if'i 1 ►�►a VIS i ►a►fC:i'r 44►a9i!y nfii�n"ig1• i►f a oua o d► uu,aa.l. - • ►frii iiF l• ..` .J►fNt,a� .. Si'L► A C•Ok at �C.► Y• f�yq • • ..�►i xYom.• n��►_I`: :. ASI • • �• • • ♦ +�►fay � � • � • • •ii :irk r • • • . • �• iy: !►� 7• • • a i X11111is A 40- re.•a r -,P.0 'I Y