The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1PARTIES -OF RECORD MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT LUA11-065, V -H, SP Doug Chin Happy Longfellow, President King County Water and Land Stonegate Homeowners Resources Division Association 201 S Jackson Street ste: #600 5405 NE 24th Court Seattle, WA 98104 Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 296-8315 tel: (425) 204-1119 eml: doug.chln@kingcounty.gov (owner) (applicant / contact) Andrew Duffus Julie & Jim Bonwell 9605 143rd Avenue SE Katie Bonwell Renton, WA 98059 2914 Lyons Avenue NE eml: klassicars@hotmail.com Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (party of record) Roger -Coates Don Althauser 14127 SE May Valley Road King County Water & Land Renton, WA 98059 Resources Division h (party of record) l 201 S Jackson Street ste: #600 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Lindsey Miller Tom Carpenter King County Water & Land 15006 SE 139th Place Resources Division Renton, WA 98059 201 S Jackson Street (party,of record) MIS KSC-TR-0231 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Jeff Waller 15125 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 11/07/11 Jean Rollins 2905 Ilwaco Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 eml: urbanseparator@hotmail.com (party of record) Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team Leader Mukleshoot Indian Tribe fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Jeff Burkey King County Water & Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street ste: #600 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Jerri Wood 12408 SE 98th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) Agenda Item No.: RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGWEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE: Oc�-q, �� PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit I 5 Name: 3e4 vA ,q Name:_ c� M A moi° r ,ti it T.... Address: 20 Address: 1,5' 06' Sr-- /3 q "Y pi 5:A, b� City r e_,A,( Zip Code9 City (� -� �^- Zip Code_ Topic: Topic: A h �'r�..-e � L z Name: ndS Mrl1-e-r b _ Name: v�,1E�^✓ Address:,,; -Au! S -Fa c Sart St Address: -C 12 IL�1 / MIs K9e- r2-02-31 City :55�ip Code `I8'�o City Zip Code %-,Sy`? Topic: Topic: 3 7 Name: DOQ C � Name: Address: '20 _0. o 1n- S Address: sut cc, City�_Zip Code <�,0 City Zip Code Topic: �y r Topic: 8 Name: Name: Address: �� Address: City Zip Code City Zip Code Topic: Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) DATE Agenda Item No.: RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 5 Name: VV( �'U _ Name: Address:40� C 1 Address: City U Zip Code 905,a City Zip Code Topic:V)t tree L Topic: 2 6 Name: Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code City Zip Code Topic: Topic: 3 7 Name: Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code City Zip Code Topic: Topic: 4 $ Name: Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code City Zip Code Topic: Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) Agenda Item No.: RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE: OC, NTr 20 PLEASE -PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 Name: cc-Cjc.s Address: 14 J �-`7 S r r`i m ill-elj. 1� City iTel,- c it Zip Code Topic: S Name: �p •,-/ 1� 7/t el fe 5 ->✓�' Name: �� L&Ln'—L �I tnr 6 Address: CityTLv�,4^ U,JK-- Zip Code 9 FOS9 Topic: NVAI) C,, e_ 0f`jl5„,-\ 3 7 Name: t tin 0 0, 0-C_. L'( Address: i L!i viA % ACV E 11�� City,�(� G'� Zip Code Topic: E Name: Address: City Zip Code Topic: Address: City r �, ' Topic: Name: Address: City 2•�ltk77FILJ Zip Code �8d� Topic: Name: Address: City Topic: Name:_ Address: City Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) Zip Code, Zip Code E TOWNSHIP 22 TOWNSHIP 23 CITY OF NEWCASTLE City Of Re� N Mann,ln SEMAY LLEY RD A�� VAw w � ` 5 � .,� cn C8 V PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF RENTON rl SS 80,3540 UNDIVIDED INTEREST TRACT it A., *,4,v - 6 ,4Y 6 68 80� 40 NE 26th ST. CITY OF RENTON ¢' V) z 0 >- - �--- — — j RACT 1 - CES Ld V) Ld 00 VI THE EXISTING PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE FROM G.I.S. PROJECT TITLE: 200 O 2OQ MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT SCALE IN FEET DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SHEET TITLE: - FROM COAL CREEK PARKWAY, (EAST OF VICINITY MAP 1-405) TURN EAST ON S.E. MAY VALLEY SCALE: H: t" 200' La ROAD. GO TO 148TH AVE S.E., TURN SOUTH ASSISTANCE BY: LINDSEY MILLER King County TO BRIDGE OVER MAY CREEK. DRAWN BY: MEREDITH RADELLA I' - �\:\� .\!�� /t - % � \ � . ' � ■� = d � ; - � ICE 420 \�� : . ig,lag .. ko A§ w » Ln LA - �� Ln■1 %■1� D VF k;&� it . rtpnmill � , C / 2• - �§E�� _ - - �-------- -- -- -- . 5 J LI O H N t'1 o o v U aaa � R a R s a a z d U 9 R a y W f a W YY6 li & ° H z d U 9 R a y W f a ° H d 9 R f a W YY6 li & a 9 R f a W YY6 b I- � z� DD+f ` 9d 1 W ZC wro^ � e _ e O W. w .VJ U 1 w p , y � J u Y or 3 3Av 180L 10 Z oC all �� w c w oc � U a � e F— Z e O w3S O 3AV H1491 U o,� w p , y � J u Y or 3 3Av 180L 10 I @ , 1 o fit` �i r TOM 8 00 ' rocs �,� j•r;..• 1 � � � �� s� � �� 7��s� � Ztj'7'gill F i a,� e Milm �� Niel . l� _� 2 Ire . s ~4 e e� owl a HOW a r C d = 7CHUME 8TA BOD ✓� 8 MEET 11 e 71 7YAQI138 IHl f n 'y o �! 6 1 '1•. �` n � �n li 1 lei �i nn f ` pp R � N b 1 004f i $ l 1 1 �• � 4 � a " 1 1 a 5g� + M h h I _ o N Ro+L / /"- 4: 0 "1 � ws ! f-A! t i �xJ~•S yam- - ��i �' ! ! f P � � � pr � � t! .H&11vx'01107� n UL a �1 � o r n � I. •. � a ' 1 P A 00 1 93 au 0 4p 114 5 004-0 --:I ij 0 o a r P 5 O e a I 6 ry 1 ° a i f 1 o S n I it a I + it 00+011 RIX 11 17T 11 oo+►q 1 � I iy js� QQ , Q J' 4 00+9 V j�73kg 7 o"py r_ a n Ph R + �,*� I fill, Ri F? lip loll 15 j T` TM. gi/'+oath jij a � aa11 14" /3", "z j 1 i 1! i I R 11 A. a 1 4 1 'V} '+ °� i' m 1141 a n 0 d¢ n a ¢0Id s 0 O 00 ,� 1r 00000 ,� If n` 3 0 I VLS J ea° �•� " STA/ / r +'I It �• � �� I r ,� v °o*�trr� � � R f l gill N ljha 8 N All r - �n r Eat 'Pin-lap, 0 , fill • rp • / I 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I I NO I� L II11 1 lI I I i` 1+OA . . . . . . . . . . .r��. a �J ell • t� � r �A , _i...S fillip Ln Ln fibLj Ln LJ vi �6INN Y�. �f, 04 Ln IN P 1 �A , I H RC:g,612j II AV o� � r II AV WE �p�5ORj y .D z oy `o t0 O i0 up r WE �p�5ORj y .D +604 J 00+ r� x ° hill L 7� Hill 1 J! 11 11 J! 111i 1.111 I'll) J i a r)j T'i i ° L 7� Hill Sol 3 J i a r)j ". 1 1 11 1 1 L 7� Hill a r)j ". 1 1 11 1 1 L 7� Hill ". 1 1 11 1 1 Q �1 9Q C p i tir p Q Let Zl C r f � to U a � Call Ills I r 1 48Tnil! E. on4 k �y M •.0l.ii.li i Q Lu V r ' c � A{J0.10 ■ — � ♦ �� 4GB] � N C o� qi l ', '�G j • �I rp} Aae f 1 1 .3'N 3nb S N N� � 1 osg� 0� Q �1 I i `"� Q •v � c Iii ry ltlGtly� r Hal wt M ppLn ------S Ln LO Ln RO 0 tl 0 �-0 z+ aw4cr CDP a ai M 6 Zo; ino? S ice+ N J W LAI v- A& I i a y tt 0 a O CF J�4J'4J'4J'4J'4 y oz LAi y � Z W N 4 W � Fy- WQ_ + LZ J i' aa�nmo z 3 a W a� �a E► �g a O CF oz LAi y � Z W N 4 W � Fy- WQ_ + LZ J i' aa�nmo z 3 a W a� �a E► 1 Denis Law .. Mayor Cl Of Ah FEB 2 :0 2012 February'l7, 2012 . RECEIVED - CrrYCLERICS OFFICE APPEAL FILM] BY: King County Water & Land Resources, represented by Doug Chin RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision,dated January 9; 2012 regarding'the May Creek ; Drainage.Improvemeht.Project (LUA-11.7065,.,V-H, SP) ; To Parties of Record: ; The Renton City -Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above referenced item:on .the following date:. Thursday, April 12,' 2012 J 4:00 p. rn, . 7' Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton ..: 10558outh.Grady Way -Renton, Washington- .'This ashington .This Council Committee meeting is open"ta.the public,. but It Is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the:Planning &'Development Comrnittee..No new testimony or evidence will be -taken. However, the parties -are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the* Hearing Examiner. If you.' have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at . .425-430-6555. February 13, 2012 Renton City Council Minutes Page 43 Appeal: May Creek Drainage MOVED BY PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER CORRESPONDENCE Improvement Project Permit & REGARDING THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PERMIT & Variance, King County Water VARIANCE APPEAL TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. & Land Resources, LUA-11-065 CARRIED. Fire: Foam Trailer MOU, Olympic Pipeline ADJOURNMENT Jason Seth, Recorder February 13, 2012 MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE PROPOSED DONATION OF A FOAM TRAILER FROM OLYMPIC PIPELINE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCILADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:36 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:48 PM .-�,3_ao 1J_To: 'w.watters' Subject: RE: LUA-11-065 Appeal Dear Mr. Watters: • v Thank you for your email correspondence related to the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance appeal. This will be made a part of the record and forwarded to Coundinnembers and appropriate staff for their consideration as the process moves forward.-- Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton Ilk r City Clerk City of Renton �S 4�5-430-6502 r From: wmatters jmalito:w.watter5&com-c st.ne I Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:42 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: RE: WA -11-065 Appeal To: Ms. Bonnie Walton Renton City Clerk - RE: LUA-11-066 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision - 13 - 20.1,2 fazA"' It appears that King County is still pursuing the dredging of May Creek without property addressing the issues brought up by Dr. Patricia Olson, Ecology's Senior Hydrogeologist and others. The State Dept of Ecology denied the necessary permits for this project due to flaws in the studies. King County WLRD has failed to prove that there will be no adverse impacts downstream. This fact is documented in the Hearing Examiner's findings and the DOE letters dated 9-1-2011 and 9-22-20112` entered into the record. Until Kang County provides additional baseline data and appropriate erosion and flooding studies, they have nothing new to argue that could reverse the department of Ecology or the City of Renton variance -permit denial. T am concerned about potential adverse impacts that this project may cause to May Creek's habitat, its wetlands and downstream properties. Unless the proper studies are done, these impacts could easily exceed the potential benefits that are expected. Please deny the project's permits at this time. Sincerely, Wayde Watters 11608 SE 286th Street Auburn, WA 98092 &414Y - 1 - s -/,,A From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:26 AM To: 'Julie P. Bonweli' Subject: RE: Comments to KC Appeal of Renton's Hearing Examiner's Decision Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bonwell: Thank you for your email correspondence related to the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance appeal. This will be forwarded to Councilmembers and appropriate staff for their consideration as the process moves forward. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Julie P. BonweEl rmailto:jbonwell@lesourd.comj ��— �..,.,..,�.,..,.....�.,...,..._.. Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 7:54 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Comments to KC Appeal of Renton's Hearing Examiner's Decision City of Renton c o Ms. Bonnie i. Walton City Clerk bwalton@rentonwa.gov Re: Comments to King County Appeal of Renton's Hearing Examiner's Decision Councilmembers: Significant concerns raised by citizens (erosion, flooding), the Washington State Department of Ecology, and others regarding the proposed project (May Creek) have not been addressed. Dr. Olson and others in the Department of Ecology believe the county's proposal includes inaccurate data, bad analysis and bad conclusions. Dr. Olson, other Ecology personnel, and the Muckleshoot Department of Fisheries visited the sites at least twice. My husband was home on one of those visits. Was the City of Renton come to see for themselves the erosion we already have downstream (in our reach)? The Department of Ecology Is asking the county to respond to their comments and questions. They are requesting a bank erosion model. Our home and bridge are located on the banks of May Creek. The Hearing Examiner recommends that a third party review the additional data and studies required by Ecology. The county's assertion that there will not be downstream impacts cannot be supported by studies based on inaccurate or incomplete data. The potential exists for negative downstream impacts per the scientific review of this proposal. Why is i the City of Renton allowing King County to push their problem on the City of Renton andlor its citizens?? When experts (and lay people living creekside) challenge the county's study, it is loud and clear - those discrepancies must be addressed before going forward with any sediment removal from May Creek. The issues must not be ignored. Our homes and bridges are at stake. We respectfully request as citizens of Renton, the Renton Council deny the appeal of the permit and variance the county is seeking from the City. Thank you. Jim and Julie Bonwell 2914 Lyons Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington 98059 r From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:15 AM To: 'Debra Rogers' Subject: RE: May Creek appeal Dear Ms. Rogers: Thank you for your email correspondence related to the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance appeal. This will be forwarded to Councilmembers and appropriate staff for their consideration as the process moves forwa rd. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Debra Rogers jmailto:herogers@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 10:51 PM To; Bonnie Walton Subject: May Creek appeal To: Ms. Bonnie I. Walton Renton City Cleric bwalton@rentonwa.gov RE: LISA -11-065 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision to full Renton City Council *As a point of Informadon...I am a party of record for the hearing held by the hearing examiner... though I did not get notice from the qty of Menton. I am writting regarding King County's request to dredge part of May Creek and alter the wetland which is on property that is owned by the neighborhood I live in, Stonegate. I attended the initial King County meeting held in Jan 2010 and I have continued to follow the process that IGng County has taken in their attempts to get permission to dredge May Creek. I know that the City of Renton has denied the IGng County's dredge plan twice and that the Department of Ecology (DOE) has also denied the King County plan. I also appreciate concerns that other agencies have stated of this project.. I especially appreciate and respect the input that Doctor Olson, Senior Hydrology Specialist with the Department of Ecology (DOE) has given. I have voiced and submitted concerns since May of 2010 of my personal objections which are; I feel that the paperwork and reports that King County has submitted to substantiate the impact of their pian does not adequately cover the concerns that I have for downsteam erosion and/or flooding, or the effects on the wetland itself, and changes that dredging and mitigation will have on the character of the stream, and the impact these changes will have on the fish and wildlife that live in and off of the creek. I also remain extremely frustrated that the objections of concern by the Department of Ecology and other agencies continue to be ignored by King County though these agencies restate and restate these concerns to King County over and over again. I urge the City of Renton to deny permits to King County for this May Creek Dredge project until ALL denial concerns of the City of Renton and the Department of Ecology and other agencies are ALL addressed with valid certifiable A@M and not allow King County to continue to side step these Important issues In attempts to dredge May Creek. Respectfully, Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court Renton, WA 98059 2 From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, February 06, 201211:25 AM To: A. Duffus' Subject: RE: LUA-11-065, V -H, SP Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 9th, 2012 regarding May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Dear Mr. Duffus: Thank you far your email,correspondence related to the May Creels Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance appeal. This will be forwarded to Counciimembers and appropriate staff for their consideration as the process moves forward, and will be made a part of the record. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: A. Duffus lmailto:hlueheron6,287C+�hatmail.rom], Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:09 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: LUA-11-065, V -H, SP Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 9th, 2012 regarding May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Dear Ms. Walton: Please find attached my comment letter and exhibits regarding King County Water & Land Resources Division's appeal to City Council. The three exhibits attached are: ✓ Agenda of a meeting between King County and Washington State Department of Ecology, October 1801 , 2011 ✓ A handout from that meeting entitled: "HEC RAS Sediment Transport Model" ✓ Three e-mails exchanges between King County and Ecology dated December 2011, & 21,12011 and January 6111, 2012 Thank you, Andrew Duff -us 425-255-9405 9645 143`d Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059-3764 February 5`h, 2012 Councilmembers City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 VIA: E-mail to Ms. Bonnie I. _Walton. City Clerk RE:_LZUA-11-065, V_H,_SP Appeal a Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 9'h. 2012 retarding May Creek Drainage Improvement Prarect Dear Councilmembers: Attached to this letter is new evidence. This evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner, (October 4th, 2011) because Washington State Department of Ecology had not prepared nor presented it to King County Water & Land Resources Division. The new evidence is the Agenda and attached handout for an October 18th, 2011 meeting -between the State Department of Ecology and King County. The handout is entitled "HEC RAS sediment transrtort model." Under the handout's subheading, "No discussion on a number of important factors" are fourteen (14) questions from State Ecology questioning King County's modeling methods, assumptions and conclusions. The handout states, "So you have model error compounded on model error plus an unknown error associated with the sediment data collections. Not___a high level of confidence," (Emphasis added.) Under the subheading, "Anchor sediment sfudy" are four (4) more questions. In addition, statements in the handout reflect the lack of validity of the modeling and its conclusions, to wit: D "This analysis illustrates that 1 (one) measurement for a long reach is not adequate to evaluate site specific incipient bedload transport which is one piece of information needed for a hazard assessment." (Emphasis added.) 7 "But more importantly critical shear stress and incipient bedload transport calculation is just onefactor in erosion and channel -movement. " (Emphasis added.) ➢ "Bedload transport is known to be highly unpredictable." (Emphasis added.) ➢ "...sediment transport ... (is) ... influenced ... by magnitude ... and duration,... duration is an important factor to sediment transport and bank erosion." The Ecology handout notes the inadequacy of County's analysis of possible adverse downstream impacts from erosion (sediment transport) to both streambed and stream banks. The handout states, "The data provided by ging County does not address any of these." (Emphasis added.) The handout concludes that there are three possible options. The two most important to us, downstream citizen -property owners are: + "Collect additional data in reach of contention and add a bank erosion model" (emphasis added) + "Compensate for flood storage by adding equivalent or greater storage." Therefore, this new evidence, (hereto unavailable) is further proof that County has not satisfied the City of Renton's Hearing Examiner's earlier finding that "There is insufficient evidence to establish that the drainage project will not adversely affect downstream properties by increasing erosion." (Final Decision, November 8"i, 2011, page 1, line 17,) Nor has County satisfied the Washington Department of Ecology earlier denial of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. Ecology stated, ", ..we have not received all 'of the documentation needed in order to demonstrate that we .have reasonable assurance that the state water gualitv standards will be met." (Ecology letter September 22 d, 2011) Note, the County first applied to Ecology and United States Army Corps of Engineers for federal and state water quality certification in early 2010. On January 20h, 2010, King County held an interagency meeting with Ecology, the Corps, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and others. Yet, to -date, over two years later, the County has been unable to satisfy the requirements of Sections 401 & 404 of the United States Clean Water Act. For this project to proceed King County needs a Critical Areas Ordinance Variance and Special Grade/Fill Permit from the City of Renton. County needs these is so it can create "mitigation" in the relatively undisturbed 3.75 -acre wetland. (Stonegate tract "A") This mitigation is to counter the adverse impacts of dredging May Creek upstream. The reason for the dredging is to allow stormwater to drain more frequently and quickly from the grazed wetland horse pastures located in the upstream natural floodplain. This proposed project will release the stormwater more quickly and at a higher volume than the current rates. The concern is that this -will exacerbate the flooding and erosion downstream, thereby impacting riparian habitat, citizens' homes and private bridges King County has not demonstrated that the project will not have an adverse impacts downstream. The contention is homes and sole access private bridges and riparian habitat are at risk if the applicant dredges upstream. The goal of the upstream dredging is to alleviate some of the seasonal storm water ponding in the wetland -floodplain. The purpose is to facilitate addition pasture grazing for horses. It could be said, this is an issue of "homes versus horses"!, Reviewing King County's appeal, I have the following questions,' comments and observations: The County says this is a small project. It is not a small project if has unintended consequences that adversely impact downstream. For a relatively short period of the year upstream residents experience temporary seasonal loss of their horse pastures. Every year, downstream residents experience flooding and erosion. Erosion steals our property forever, not just seasonally! We lose are Property Permanently, hardly comparable to the relatively minor inconvenience of temporary seasonal wetness in the horse pastures. F% The appellant's reference to May Creek and its associated wetlands as a "drain pipe" is a gross insult to this 10,000 -year-old watershed? The County notes, "Valley residents depend on this drain pipe..." Well, we down streamers also depend on this "drain pipe" (a.k.a. 10,000 year old wetland) to do what wetlands are supposed to do. That is, meter out the storm water inundation so that downstream flooding and erosion impacts are not as otherwise severe. However, to parallel the County's despicable "drain pipe" analogy, what happens when you clear a clogged kitchen drain? The volume increases and flows down the kitchen drain faster. This is why we down streamers are concerned, more storm water flowing faster instead of metering out of nature's retention -retention pond, the wetland. The appellant claims that it is not effectively enlarging the "drain'pipe". Excuse me; the proposal is to increase the stream channel capacity from 6 cubic feet per second to 50. If that is not an enlargement, what is? The County's appeal states, "Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean they obstructed "drain pipe," that is May Creek. Well neither are we downstream residents allowed to armor our eroding banks, build berms to alleviate flooding of our homes, or reinforce our sole access bridges. (See Renton City Code Enforcement records regarding the Lyons Avenue NE private bridge, the sole access to four properties.) The County states, "They (upstream residents) are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation...." Neither can we downstreamers restore the use of our eroded land as it has washed downstream to Lake Washington. Lost1orev_er1l The appellant claims it has analyzed the proposed project extensively. However, the State of Washington Department of Ecology's senior Hydrogeologist, Dr. Patricia Olson, after field visits and review of said analysis, challenges the County's conclusions. The County lists 12 reports that it contends, "show there are no adverse downstream impacts". The problem is only TWO (2) of these re orfs s eci rcall address downstream erosion. None addresses flooding. (See note below regarding May Creek Basin Action. Plan.) One of the 12 reports, the "May Creek Erosion Stabilization, Draft Report" describes 24 projects proposed to stabilize the downstream banks, protect riparian habitat, peoples' homes and sole access private bridges. The Erosion Stabilization report not only acknowledges the fact that there is sever erosion and flooding downstream, it recommends 24 projects to address this fact, including, but not limited to, buying out -at -risk properties, rebuilding bridges or developing alternative ingress and egress to the peoples' properties or realigning the May Creek channel. The report contains phrases such as "risk to life and property". Hardly supportive of the County's upstream "drain pipe" clearing proposal if there is exacerbation of the documented erosion and flooding downstream! The appeal states that, Dr. Patricia Olson "has concurred in a separate meeting that our fluvial geomorphologist has applied more superior formulas than exist in the HEC -RAS model." If that is the case, why are the questions contained in the handout entitled "HEC RAS sediment transport model." still outstanding? Why is the County, as of January 2012 "_..still working a package specifically for Ecology..." (E-mail attached) The appellant states that it isnot the County's position that the erosion threshold is at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. However, in the October 40', 2011 City of Renton Public Hearing, Don Althauser, Managing Engineer of King County W&£.RD testified that the threshold of erosion, quote, "ranges between 75 to 200 cfs and we will continue to sample what is real." The County states that there are unique substrate conditions in the Duffus/Coates reach. Unique or otherwise, that is no reason to blow off the fact that the proposed channel -clearing project may exacerbate an already serious erosion problem. Especially given that Coates' house is poised upon this very bank of the creek and may well be in danger. If this unique substrate has a lower threshold of erosion that needs to be determined and mitigation implemented. The Hearing Examiner contends the County relied on flawed data. Well, it did. How else to explain the Ecology's questions at the October 18'h, 2011 meeting. Further, why is County still attempting to address those concerns and the concerns expressed in Dr. Olson's memo of August 1 5'h, 2011 ? (See e- mails between Ecology and County dated December 20'h & 21", 2011 and January 6t'', 2012, attached.) As to the City of Renton staff review, it was a routine desk review of the appellant's application. City staff did no field visits nor onsite analysis. Staff did not evaluate downstream erosion and flooding. The city staff "Preliminary. Report to the Hearing Examiner" gave bare mention of the fact that the State Department of Ecology had denied King County necessary certification to proceed with the project. There was one reference to the Ecology's decision to deny certification, almost a footnote. A copy of Ecology's denial was not even included as a numbered exhibit in the preliminary report. City staff not only over looked certain facts but also allowed a gap in relevant information. It rested upon the concerned public to highlight this major omission. County infers that various adjacent landowners, in part, caused downstream problems. Has King. County factored in the decades of illegal filling and grading and channel realignment in the upper reaches•of May Valley? Some of this by the very upstream proponents of this ill-conceived dredging proposal. To verify those historic illegal "modifications" see King County Department of Development and Environmental Services website for the various creek -side properties citations. These historic "modifications" not only impacted the property of fellow upstreamers by forcing storm water flooding from one side of the valley to the other, but the filling and grading sent stormwater more quickly downstream, thereby impacting our homes and bridges. For some real entertainment, read about the self -described ` vigHante" who in the heat -the -night drove his track -hoe into May Creek and illegally dredged the stream. (Various local newspapers, August 2001) On the one hand, the appellant argues that there is no evidence that Dr. Patricia Olson memo is the official position of Ecology. But on the other hand, County recently e-mailed Ecology, "...we are stall working a package specifically for Ecology..." (E-mail attached) The Hearing Examiner states, "...it is not possible to conclude with any reasonable degree of confidence that downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project." (Decision on Reconsideration, January 9a', 2012, page 2, line 21,) As a downstream resident, the adverse impact nightmares that I have in my sleep are: 0 What will King County do if the creeks banks blow out? ■ What will County do if Roger Coates' house tumbles into the creek, the Madfai's, or Gary Cole's or the Bonwed's houses are flooded? ■ What will County do if our private potable wells are adversely impacted? What will County do for us if our private bridges collapse? (Note there are eight properties that rely on these private bridges for access. The County infers, in its appeal, that it is only the Duffus/Rollins bridge.) If any of these adverse impacts should occur: ■ What are County's contingency plans? ■ What is the County's budget to rectify? ■ How soon will we, if aggrieved, be made whole? May Valley Wetland #5 at 248 acres, is one of the largest freshwater wetlands in King County. The 3.75 -acres within Renton City Limits that the appellant wants to modify are a relatively undisturbed portion. (Stonegate tract "A") In 2408, King County contracted with Mid -Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group to remove Reed canary grass from 15 feet on either side of the creek in the Stonegate wetland. It does not need to be restored a second time. The only reason for disturbing and altering this wetland again, is as mitigation for the proposal to dredge upstream in an ill-conceived effort to drain horse pastures. The issue boils down to assessing the possibility of adverse impacts downstream. The Renton Hearing Examiner has denied the necessary permit and variance twice, as has Washington State Department of Ecology. Like Ecology, the Hearing Examiner found no proof that there will be not be downstream impacts. The question then, as now remains, has King County addressed all the concerns? The answer is Ino! Therefore, I respectively ask Renton City Council to support the Examiner's decision to deny the Critical Areas Ordinance Variance and Special Grade/Fill Permit. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew DufFus The "May Creek Basin Action Plan" addresses in broad terms overall flooding and erosion in May Creek Basin. The plan is not specific to possible significant adverse impacts downstream of the proposed dredging project. Exhibits: three ✓ Agenda of a meeting between King County and Washington State Department of Ecology, October 18a', 2011 ✓ Handout from October 18`', 2011 meeting entitled: "HEC RAS Sediment Transport Model " ✓ Three e-mails exchanges between King County and Ecology dated December 20th & 211, 2011 and January b`', 2012 RAS sediment transport model No discussion on a number of important factors • Transport equation used in HEC RAS model? Results compared from all appropriate equations? Lateral boundaries? Upstream boundary? • HEC RAS requires that upstream sediment loads are specified 'or they can be calculated by the model. Which was done? How do know them if sediment sources and quantities are not determined? What are they based on? Sediment transport results are strongly dependent on which transport function is selected and energy slope: Was the default based on Manning's n used or the actual slope of the energy grade line? • Did you overwrite the mobility coefficient (varies as to equation used in MPM it is critical shear stress, Ackers is threshold mobility, Wilcock is reference shear stress) with specified variables.based on reference data or data representative of this reach? If so how determined? Theoretical or empirical? , FMC RAS manual emphasizes that transport coefficients represent the central tendencies of the data considered but will not likely reflect the transport of a specific site precisely even if an appropriate transport function is selected. When✓ can be substantial error in sediment transport • HEC RAS requires that upstream sediment loads are specified ore they can be calculated Py the model. Which was done? How do know them if sediment sources and quantities are not determined? What are they based on? • No discussion of error: The conclusion of the HEC RAS model is partial and tentative, because real rivers are not 1D and numerical models are less than perfect expressions of reality. Then you tie that with inadequate sediment data to conduct a hazard related erosion analysis. and there you go. Also you have error from HSPF, HEC RAS hydraulic, HEC RAS sediment and very limited sediment data. So you have model error. compounded on model error plus an unknown error associated with the sediment data collection. Not a high level of confidence. Anchor sediment study • Data collection and monitoringwas focused on three stations (cross-sections of the creek) located throughout the ,project reach at approximately RMs 2.9, 3.4 and 3.6. All sites are downstream of the properties in the upper ravine. What were the criteria used to determine these locations? Whatwas the sampling design? No discussion of sampling error based on techniques. Station 3 is the more representative but does not provide adequate data to evaluate erosion on a site specific basis. Nevertheless, significantly more bank recession and channel movement occurred at this site than the other 2. We observed that the reach was actively migrating with bank erosion. - • The incipient motion calculation was interpolated between 70 cis and 350 cfs using a simple linear relationship. Not appropriated because it Is not a linear relationship as shown by the transport equations. The uncertainty with the data was expressed in the study summary: "It is important to note that there is a fair amount of uncertainty with this value. To illustrate some problems with limited data, looked at potential to initiate bedl'oad, transport by'determining critical shear stress for 3 additional empirical critical shearstress equations and then used to compare HEC RAS profile data at different flows..' Channel shear. lb ft -7 from Anchor study Shields Relation . Ashworth and Ferguson {1989) . dell d50 d70 d10 d50 d70 Station 1 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.8 2.4 5tation 2 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.1 Station 3 0,5 0.4 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.9 Convert channel shear in lb ft -2 to Channel shear in N m -z N M -A IShields Relatfon . Ashworth and Ferguson (1989) Station Aeff d50 d70 d10 d50 d70 1 38.304 47.88 90.972 47.88 86.184 114.912 2 23.94 23.94 33.516 28.728 43.092 52.668 3 23.94 19.152 28.728 28.728 38.304 43.092 3 additional shear stress estimates Shields (0.056) Parker 1990 Miller 1977 d50 d70 d50 d70 d50 d70 Station 3 25.438.1 34.8 36.2 20.4 30.1 Hvdraulle Radius and Total Shear 5tr&s %r HiPh Flotir Pupntc Wndfdadl frnn-L Anrfinr e+,ad„ Return Flow In Period Creek (ds) Rh (ft) Ts (Ib/ft2) N m.2 t" range for Do at site 3, .20.4-38A N (Years m -N=5, Potential far initiation Mean Annual 13.6 '0.4 0.7 33.516 Yes within range 2 208 1.2 1.9 90.972 Yes 5- 243. 1.4 2.1 10O•W Yes 10 347 1.7- 2.6 124.488 Yes 20 429 1.9 2.8 134.064 Yes Cross-section specific HEC -RAS model (from Anchor study) :' Profile Channel stress Ib ft-' While one reach with obvious bank erosion appears to have similar sediment size distribution to Anchor site 3 [Photo 1 and 2), there are substantial variations among profiles. This analysis illustrates that I measurement For a long mach is not adequate to evaluate site specific incipient bedload d. transport which is one piece of information needed for a Hazard assessment The above simple analysis illustrates the limitations of the 3 point data in evaluating specific sites. But more, Importantly, critical shear stress and incipient bedload transport calculation is just one factor- In erosion and channel movement Temporal and spatial influence on sediment transport indicate that increased flow event durations such as 7 extra hours per year for a 100 cfs storm 6 hours per year for a 75 ds storm could be very significant should additional sources of sedlmeat from armor break up, bed mobiilzatlon and bank erosion be added. Bedload transport is known to be highly unpredictable. One reason is time varying passage of upstream sediment causes fluctuations In rate - The supply of sediment available to be transported is known to be a fimction of both temporal and spatial variations in entrainment characteristics (cluster, Channel stress N t� Dso at 20.4-38.4 N m'2 PIAS M 2 Potential for initiation s , iT— •' i,..,nl'., }.� +k: d+:l o•S+ �T�et'.�,.'�'t'--`�', 67 � -rc : � .!� 2756.00 0.08 3.83 No 2746.00 0.09 4.31 No 2741.00 Bridge 2736.00 '0.09 4.31 No •y » �_ R {^: ��•�.,.�.w. -♦WLL� TTrri��t✓ 2440.00 0.03. 1.44 No 1964.00 0.14 6.70 No � �3 y�rl:�Hicd! - � 'lIY wt�_ ! 4 Oel� �_�: �y-''t�•.•sW_VNMVf � 1 9r3,.,y ._..-_�_-�3c.},"r� � 3! �m p w�� _� ci �_ �. ��n-'i. �. i1�,�'' ^!,}�. _ :�-s�, ' J �„':':a,T � d• i` �'� ' 1L 72 ds ::--c:,a•_-- '1'y' `dart - :5 _•�, �Cr-m uu::{: �`ar'v�>a i--=1'-�i :�.,,. �•�-�.;��,,;, �.._ _.'awn"�� I :!`•+;' _r 2756 0,23 11..4124. No .2746 0.28 13.4064 No 2741 Bridge N o 2736 0.29 13:8852 No 2410 0.07 33516 No 1964 0.34 16.2792 No "��_eS•-` - .�: n s•I' , `-.:Jit. .,' .�A ML PON '-e `�" - - _ I. s —: ,rte• k _ .. '�7.c`sa�lr F . .:.'=c»,a�...� ni'._• moi..._... Reach average 0.55 26.3 Yes, within range :' Profile Channel stress Ib ft-' While one reach with obvious bank erosion appears to have similar sediment size distribution to Anchor site 3 [Photo 1 and 2), there are substantial variations among profiles. This analysis illustrates that I measurement For a long mach is not adequate to evaluate site specific incipient bedload d. transport which is one piece of information needed for a Hazard assessment The above simple analysis illustrates the limitations of the 3 point data in evaluating specific sites. But more, Importantly, critical shear stress and incipient bedload transport calculation is just one factor- In erosion and channel movement Temporal and spatial influence on sediment transport indicate that increased flow event durations such as 7 extra hours per year for a 100 cfs storm 6 hours per year for a 75 ds storm could be very significant should additional sources of sedlmeat from armor break up, bed mobiilzatlon and bank erosion be added. Bedload transport is known to be highly unpredictable. One reason is time varying passage of upstream sediment causes fluctuations In rate - The supply of sediment available to be transported is known to be a fimction of both temporal and spatial variations in entrainment characteristics (cluster, armoring and patches) of the channel bed. In supply limited rivers (as May Creek ravine reach was described), the sudden availability of new sources of bedload from armor break-up, bar mobilization or bank collapse, may become locally Important. Such variability is reflected in the high degree of scatter recorded in � bedload transport datasets, although it seems particularly pronounced in supply limited humid -temperate streams • Sediment heterogeneity increases variation in bedload transport in time and space' - within one flow event, o Z -D models, such as HEC RAS, results represent instantaneous, rather than time - averaged, critical shear stresses. I o Equal mobility influences sediment transport in armored beds, This mechanism is most often observed in reaches with a coarse armor layer in which coarse particles are exposed to the surface that provides them with an increased chance of transport. Fine particles are hidden below the surface where their transport probability is diminished. Thus, the preferential exposure of larger particles in the armor layer acts to equalize the mobility of coarse and fine particles and eliminates most of the differences In the mobility of small and large particle sizes. Once the small particle sizes are mobilized they increase entrainment and I transport of larger particles. • An important element in the process of bedload transport is the extent to which local vs. remote sources of supply interact with the sequence of flows to create temporal and spatial variability in transport at a section. o As water levels rise additional sediment sources (armor break up, bars, banks) and recedes (banks) become available. ,But they also establish connectivity between sediment sources over much longer reaches of channel. o The duration of flow over the critical threshold for transport and where the sediment sources are within the upstream reach strongly influences interaction with sources and connectivity along a reach. • Given the above sediment transport characteristics as influenced not only by magnitude of event but also duration, duration is an important factor to sediment transport and bank erosion. The data provided by King County does not address any of these. Banks may erode even if bedload does not move especially where basal erasion is already occurring (Photo x). Where is the bank erosion model? • Sediment transport occurs in the longitudinal direction AND transverse directions. Both affect bank erosion. HEC RAS cannot predict in transverse direction nor can it model for channel migration. - • Bank erosion consists of two interactive physical processes: basal erosion and bank failure. Basal erosion (Photo 2, 3) refers to the fluvial entrainment of bank material (in this case consisting of smaller sediment size) by flow -induced forces that act on the bank surface.. Bank failure occurs due to geotechnical instability (e.g. planar failure, rotational failure, sapping or piping,). Xy v s: • The rate of bank erosion traditionally is calculated empirically from the geometry of channel bends, bank material, and flow intensity. Bank failure can occur before bedload . transport is initiated, • These modes of failure have distinct characteristics, and an investigation must be conducted to -determine the specific mode of failure because this is often indicative of the underlying problem at a site or in a reach or system of time, and Z} to monitor changes at specific points by repetitive surveys or through the installation of bank pins. The first approach offers the benefit of providing immediate results for average bankline retreat, while the second method provides insightinto event-speciflc•bank ' loss..Because erosion tends to be episodic, periods of 10 years or greater are recommended for aerial photograph time -series analysis as well as bank pin monitoring. Banks also erode during bedload movement especially in meandering or migrating streams. Whether a bank retreats or advances depeilds on the balance of sediment load at near -bank regions where sediment may dome from upstream, bank erosion, and secondary flow. The strength of secondary floW in redirecting bedload transport correlates with the local radius of curvature as well as sinuosity of meandering channels. Flow momentum redistribution causes bed degradation near concave banns and deposition near convex banks. Bed degradation steepens concave banks and deposition stabilizes convex banks. This causes concave banks to retreat as bank erosion occurs, while convex banks advance with the build-up of point bars. This process occurs within the reach between Lyons and 143"d Street Bridge. 3 possible options-. . ptions; ' • Collect additional data in reach of contention*anci add a ban>� emsion model • Compensate for flood storage by adding equivalent or greatei'.stoxage. f.:,; ...:.;';•' '.'�::..: with landowners not to develaj a sblutioii t$at is ariienabTe,': • Work just a meeting or.iwn, - .:f •'' •• ' . ' to alL • _ ! 7It Z'.H•; "iii... -.i=" •I.' `..`.cif'•, - `''• '.�I„'• ` From: Miller, Lindsey[mailto:Lindsey.Milfer@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:52 AM To: Padgett, Rebekah (ice Cc: McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Jason Mirro; Stockdale, Erik (ECY); Olson, Patricia (ECY); Chin, Doug; Joshua Monaghan Subject: RE: May Creek -Water Quality Samples Rebekah — Below is a link to the package that we submitted to the City of Renton for this project. It contains some of the information that you need, but not all: We are still working a package specifically for Ecology that will contain all the information we submitted to the City plus more. When Doug and i looked at the schedule earlier this week, we determined it would probably take us another two weeks to finish getting this package together for you. http:lfvour.kingcounty.govlkcdotlroads/transferAmiller/MayCreek-RentonReconsiderationPackage.zip Also, please let me know when you have downloaded the City of Renton package so that we can take it off our server. This is only a temporary location. Thanks, Lindsey From, Miller, Lindsey .� Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 20119:51 AM To: 'Padgett, Rebekah (ECY)'; Chin, Doug; Joshua Monaghan Cc: McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Jason Mirro; Stockdale, Erik(ICY); Olson, Patricia (ECY) Subject: RE: May Creek Water Quality Samples Hi Rebekah — Doug is out of the office over the holidays but I just wanted to reply and give you a quick update We have been focused on preparing a submittal package for the City of -Renton Hearing Reconsideration and that package is being submitted to the City today. The City of Renton package contains a lot of the same documentation needed to address Ecology's comments (including documentation on Long Marsh Creek footbridge backwater affect), but we still have a few more items that we are trying to get together before we send our official response to Ecology. We have also been working with Jay Mirro on ideas for how to incorporate implementation of the agricultural BMPs into this project. We have reached out to DDES for their help on this component of the project, but have not received any feedback from them yet. We visited the ravine during the November storm event and did some additional monitoring So we have definitely made some progress, but I will let Doug speak to the schedule when he returns to the office. Thank you for your continued assistance on this project! Lindsey Shepherd Miller Environmental Engineer 241 S Jackson St, MIS KSC-TR-0231 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 206.296.3762 (p) 206.296.0565 Lindsey.Mil l er(d*inggg11=. gay From: Padgett, Rebekah (ECY) [maiko:RPAD461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 201110:40 AM To: Chin, Doug; Joshua Monaghan Cc: Miller, Lindsey; McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Jason Mirro; StDckdale, Erik (ECY); Olson, Patricia (ECY) Subject, RE: May Creek Water Quality Samples Hi Doug and Joshua, We have been out to the site a few times since we last met to take screening level samples up and downstream to get an idea of baseline and are planning to take some additional samples once we get a good rain event or two. At that point we'll have a better idea about what is going on at the site and can share that information with you. Has King County consulted with the King Conservation District to discuss which BMPs may be applicable for specific properties or portions of properties? It would be helpful to hear about any progress on this. Doug, what have you learned from DDES about how BMPs could go into local permits? Has Tracy Drury gained access to the reach downstream to collect additional sediment information? You had mentioned that Jeff Burke was doing a write-up on Long Marsh and would,run an analysis for 100cfs and that the County was working on a response to Patricia's e -mail —how is that coming along? Let me know what your timeframe is for getting this information submitted to Ecology. Thank you all for your efforts on this Best, Rebekah r CITY OF RENTON Jean Rollins a? -G- p2al z 2905 Iiwaco Ave NE t rema . ,�,fi, � t FEB 0 6 2012 Renton, WA 98059 / e'W` RECEIVED j IVIT&0"01CPTY CLERK'Sr0F F:1CgFebruary 6, 2412[' CSS s. City of Renton Planning &Development Committee RE: King County Appeal of Renton's Hearing Examiner Decision for May Creek Honorable Councilmembers: King County (KC) has completely loss credibility regarding downstream impacts from their proposed project. For almost 2 years, citizens have been asking about erosion to banks. It has now been revealed no bank erosion modeling has ever been done. It is inconceivable after so much -input by scientists and citizens that the County still does not have appropriate erosion studies. KE's Appeal 's finding of facts: 1. Flawed conclusions: Ecology (DQE) clearly docurnents KC presenting insufficient data -and reaching flawed conclusions. "...outstanding issues remain: baseline data, and sediment transport and data about what will happen downstream." (1) "...flawed In terms of making conclusions based on insufficient information or incorrect data.... {required to provide) an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study {with} independent review..." (2) , Tile need for independent review suggests a low level of confidence krffie KC studies by Ecology. On the October 18, 2011 meeting of KC with Ecology, Dr. Olson provided a 5 -page handout for a technical discussion on sediment/erosion. (Agenda- 3) Dr. Olson states, "So you have model error compounded on model error plus an unknown error psociated with the sediment data colleetfkm' (4) On the handout, I have highlighted KCs flaws that are continuing. (4) The most distressing are that KC has no bank erosion model, data provided does not address ..., not a high level of confidence, only looked at one factor in erosion, and the potential significance of 7 extra hours. Solutions given by Dr, Olson is collect additional data, and add a bank erosion model. Ecology staff meeting notes from the 10-18-2011 meeting between KC and Ecology all support the need far additional data, greater confidence and lack of erosion modeling. Rebekah Padgett, meeting notes record: "No bank erosion model; baseline data is insufficient; need samples, in the downstream reach. Need for more data, appropriate modeling and monitoring" (5) Erik Stockdale, meeting notes record: "There are no bank erosion model in any of the models. 7 extra hours can make a difference in sediment transport. Do more detailed sampling; separate bank model; data is not there to address specific assessment. ( Get)greater confidence in data. Data is not there to determine which events will cause a problem," (b) 2. Pebble size argument- Irrelevant since the Sediment Transport Study is only one factor in determining erosion pursuant to Dr. Olson's' handout of 10-18-2011. 3. Threshold of erosion argument- Also irrelevant as movement of the streambed (bedload) done in only a few arr,2Es is only one factor in determining erosion. Page 4 of Olson's handout; "Banks may erode even if bedload does not move. Where is the bank erosion model?" 4. KC arguing errors in interpretation is also irrelevant since there is no bank erosion modeling; factors of erosion have not been studied and the level of confidence is not hieh. S. KC argues they have provided extensive evidence to show no adverse impacts downstream. Ecology had all the documents cited in the KC anneal except the 12-14-2011 memo regardi.ns scour chains. This new document begins to suggest a way to study sediment changes in the downstream reach, one of the factors of erosion not yet studied. This is an initial plan alas not the results of a study. Yet with this array of documents, Ecology denied their permits and stated on page 5 of the denial letter ". -outstanding issues _Data .Data about what will happen downstream." Members of Ecology staff (Dr. Patricia Olson, Senior Hydrogeologist, PhD, Erik Stockdale, Unit Supervisor &Wetlands Biologist, Patrick McCiraner. Wetlands Biologist) have seen first hand the erosion downstream. In their scientific decision to deny permits, they did not deem erosion impacts from this project to be negligible. King County has not demonstrated to Ecology this nroiect will not have downstream impacts, which could negatively affect water quality. Legal Quotes from Dr. Olson's S-15 memo are laced throughout Ecology's pre -denial letter of 9-1-11 and in the denial letter itself. The meeting on 10.18-2011 focused on Dr. Olson's input in the -form of a handout. Agenda item #4 of the meeting with Ecology and KC ony11-15-2411 is "Discuss 8115111 Olson memo items- scheduled for 90 minutes." (7) Notes of this meeting: Require KC to respond to Dr. Olson's memo, Project will change the sediment delivery process, No sampling between 143` and 146th(8) KC knew Dr. Olson's. input was important to their permitting process- If not,. why on the day that their permits were denied did KC ask for a meeting with Dr. Olson? (9) Dr. Olson refines the baseline data, the adeauacv ofthe study., the design of the oroiect. and the conclusions ofthe orofect. She refutes KC's threshold of erosion, and concludes that there could be potential downstream impacts. This proposal has not met the Citv of RentonIsown critical area variance criteria 5b1. Public health & safe11and welfare,are not best served This project is attempting to drain horse pastures at the detriment of family homes and sole access bridges. Ecology scientists stated in their denial letter that KC does not know what will happen downstream. KC has not sufficiently addressed impacts to downstream flooding and erosion and critical areas of May Creek. PhD HydrogeoIogist, Dr. Olson asserts KC's hydraulic analysis is inappropriate, the County's conclusion that this proiect will not further contribute to erosion is incorrect -and -disagrees that -the increase in frequency of smaller floods is insignificant. These unknown issues (erosion, increased frequency of flooding, sediment transport, sediment deposition and changing morphology. of May Creek)_ieovardize the health, safety and welfare of Renton recidents.doum trpAm 5b5. The proposed action DOES NOT TAKE affirmative and anarnpriate measures to minimize and compensate -for unavoidable impacts. The scientists at Ecologynurvort the models used do not adequately address erosion or deposition and hence KC does not know what will happen downstream. Dr. Olson disputes the erosion thresholds, and sediment transport numbers. She laments the lack of accurate studies as to where sediment volumes will be transported, downstream sediment deposition,• an upstream sediment report, geomorphic analysis and an erosion report. She disagrees with the insignificance of smaller floods to downstream areas. Ecology states that King County's expertise• should be consulted and recommends the existing transport modeling should have independent review. Since baseline data, sediment studies and erosion studies are inadequate or incorrect and downstream impacts are unknown. avorovriate measures to minimize. and. cornnensate..for.. unavoidable imvacts. are not possible.. In conclusion, KC has yet to perform an erosion study with the appropriate factors according to Ecology. -As recently as October 48, Ecology has discovered KC. needs more detailed sampling and has not done bank erosion modeling. The banks of May Creek are where our at risk homes and bridges sit. Ecology as•recently as November 15 is reouestina KC get more -information of this reach, and respond to Dr. Olson's questions and comments. Ecology's and citizens' concerns led Renton's Hearing Examiner.twice-to denv KC the needed -nermits.- King County has vet to provide Ecology the- necessary henecessary documents to support their claims of no impacts downstream! The burden of proof is on KC for a proposal that addresses all stakeholders' concerns to the satisfaction of the Citv of Rentor, - Ecology and other agencies. I respectfully request the Planning & Development Committee recommend to full Council that this appeal. be -denied:. Sincerelv, 0.h f�A" , ""' eaI• Rolling Enclosures: Cony of email dated September 22. 2111 from Rebekah Padgett, Ecoloev to Daus. Chin.. Kine. County October 18, 2011 Meeting Agenda with KC and Ecology Dr. Olson's Octoberl8.2011 meeting handout regarding erosion and attached email confirming Dr.. Olson provided this handout October 18. 2011 Meeting Notes taken by Rebekah Padgett,, DOE October 18, 2011 meeting Notes Taken by Erik Stockdale, DOE November 15, 2011 Meeting. Agenda to discuss Sediment Transport Issues November 15.2011 Meeting Nates taken by Erik Stockdale, DOE Footnotes: (1) "Ecology received King County's resvonses-to the 911/11 letter requestinwadditional information. While some questions were addressed, outstanding issues remain including buffer, baseline date, and sediment transport and data about what will hapten downstream." (Ecology 9-22 Page 5) (2) King County... has well qualified fluvial geomorphologists and geologists on staf, however, it does not appear that they were consulted for evaluating: the sediment transport study, baseline rreolou and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, the downstream charnel response including migration to changes in flow and sediment regimes. The studies upon which the proposal is based appear to be flawed in terms of maldng conclusions based on insufficient information or incorrect data. Kine County should utilize its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling paints and designing an appropriate -sediment transport and erosion study," Additionally the existing transport modeiina should have independent review because not all sediment txansvort models apply everywhere." (Ecoloav 9-1 Page 5-61 Note: I have referenced documents in the Bearing Examiner record in addition, I have provided new evidence that, "could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the examiner" since the documents are dated after the hearing date. All these new documents show KC has vet to .provide to Ecologv the necessary documents to support their claims of no impacts downstream. Please note KC vrovided documents dated after the initial hearing date. New documents- (3)October 18. 2011 Meeting Agenda with KC and Ecoloev (4)Dr. Olson"s October 18, 2011 meeting Handout regarding erosion and att wed email confirmed Or. Olson movided this handout (5)October 18, 2011 meeting notes taken by Rebekah Padgett, DOE (6) October 1.8.2011 meetins notes Taken. by .Erik Stockdale. DOE (7)Novembert5, 2011 Meeting Agenda to discuss Sediment Transport Issues (8) Novemberl5, 2011 mectim nates taken by Erik Stockdale_ DOE (9) Copy of email dated September 22, 2111 from Rebekah Padgett, Ecology to Doug Chin, King County :�— 'May Creek ®rc4a a Irn iovernent4 Project. # 3 October 18, .201 . Agenda: Time Topic . Wiia 1:00—1:10.PM. Welcome Doug Chtn,.FCng County & Introductions AH' 1 A 0 -.2:40 PWI Technical Discussion FacilithEed by Rebekah Padgett, WA Dparttnent of Ecology o Sediment Po#r cia Olson, Ecology O. Buffers Patrick- McGran@r, EcolO 2:40 — 3:00. PM Next Steps -Rebekah, Doug, Ali 3:00 PW. Adjourn. #11 c ::•' ` �' HEC RAS sediment transport model No discussion on a qupber of Important fattors • Transport equation used in HEC RAS model? Results compared from all appropriate equations? Lateral boundaries? Upstream boundary? • HEC RAS requires that upstream sediment loads are specifted'or they can be calculated by the model. Which was done? :How do know them if sediment sources and quantities are not determined? What are they based on? • Sediment transport results are strongly dependent on which transport function is selected and energy slope: Was the default based on Manning's n used -or the actual slope of the energy grade line? • Did you overwrite the mobility coefficient (varies as to equation used in MPM it is. critical shear stress, Ackers is threshold mobility, Wilcock is reference shear stress) with specified variables.based on reference data or data representative of this reach? If so how determined? Theoretical or empirical? • HEC RAS manual mazes that transport coefficients represent the central tendencies of the data considered but will ;not likely reflect the transport of a specific site precisely even if an apprapriaW transport functian is selected. There can, be substantial error in sediment transport • HEC RAS requires that upstream sediment loads are specified ore they can be calculated by the model. Which was done? How do brow them if sediment sources and quantities are not: determined? What are they based on?. • No discussion of error. The conclusion of the HEC RAS model is partial and'tentative, because real rivers are not 1D and numerical models are less than perfect expressions of reality. Then you tie that with inadequate sediment data to conduct a hazard related erosion artalysis.and there you go. Also you have error from HSPF, HEC RAS hydraulic, HEC RAS sediment and very limited sediment data So you have model error_ compounded on model error plus an unknown error associated with the sediment data; collection. Not a high level of confidence. Anchor sediment study • Data collection and monitoring was focused on three stations (cross-sections of the creek) located throughout the project reach at approximately RMs 2.9, 3.4 and 3.6. All sites are downstream of the properties in the upper ravine. What were the criteria used to determine these locations? What was the sampling design? No discussion of sampling error based on techniques. • Station 3 is the more representative but does not provide adequate data to evaluate erosion on a site specific basis. Nevertheless, significantly more bank recession and channel movement occurred at this site than the other 2. We observed that the reach was actively migrating with bank erosion. • The incipient motion calculation was -interpolated between 70 cis and 350'cfs using a simple linear relationship. Not appropriated because it is not a linear relationship as shown by the transport equations, The uncertainty with the data was expressed in the study summary - *It is important to note that there is a fair amount of uncertainty with this value. To illustrate some problems with limited data, looked at potential to initiate bedload transport bydetermining critical shear stress for 3 additional empirical critical shear stress equations and then used to compare HEC RAS profile data at different flows.. Channel shear: lb it'2 from Anchor study Shleids Relation Shields Relation . Ashworth and Fe n (1989 deft d50 d70 d10 d50 d70 StatJon 1 0.8 1.0 1-9 1.0 1-8 2.4 Station 2 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.1 Statton 3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 -0.9 Convert channel shear in lb fl~= to Channel shemr :in N nr2 N rri Shields Relation . Miller 1977 Ashworth and Ferguson (1989) Station 'dell d50 d70 d10 d50 d70 1 38.304 47.88 90.972 47.88 86.184 114.912 2 23.94 23.94 33.516 28.728 43.092 52.668 3 23.94 19.157 28.728 28.728 38.304 43.092 3 addltlonai shear stress affe n ates Shields (0.056) Parker 1990 Miller 1977 d50 I d70 d50 d70 dS0 d70 Station 3 125.4 138.1 34.8 362 20A 30.1 i'il/draulic Radius and Total Shear Stress fnr mbvh Clem MaMmf,e rMlnA.I.Al F.•..... e-i........d.. Return Flow in Period Geek (cfs) Rh (M Ts (Ib/ft2) N nr4 'arm For pso at sfr,e 3, ?QA -38A N (Years) rn 1,14=5, Potential for Initiation Mean Annual 13.5 0.4 0.7 33.515 Yes within range 2 208 1.2 1.9 90.972 Yes 5 243. 1.4 2.1 100.548 Yes 10 347 1.7- 2.6 124.488 Yes 20 429 1.9 2.8 134.064 Yes CrMLS-sermon specific HEC -RAS model (from Anchor sturdy) While one reach with obvious bank erosion appears to have similar sediment size distribution to Anchor site 3 (Photo 1 and Z), there are substantial variations among profiles. This analysis Illustrates that 1 measurement for a long reach is not adequate to evaluate site specific incipient bedload transport which is one piece of information needed for a hazard assessment The above simple analysis illustrates the limitations of the 3 point data in evaluating spedfic sites. Out more importantly, critical shear stress and incipient bedlead transport calculation Is just one factorin erosion and channel movement Temporal and spatial influence on sediment transport indicate that increased flaw event durations such as 7 extra hours per year for a 100 cis stflrm 6 hours per year for a 7 S cfs storm could be very significant should additional sources of sediment froze► armor break up, bed mobilization and bank erosion be added. • Bedload transport is known to be highly unpredictable. One reason is time varying passage of upstream sediment causes fluctuations in rate. o The supply of sediment avagable to be transported is known.to be a function of both temporal and spatial variations in entrainment characteristics (cluster, «.. .� 1 1: tq{. CJ3q]+7�r _�.=" 1a:�;.i`3k,r`773 YR .. tin �; .� I'i'i,- _ f�e5•��..b.�0,.�`•`; ,• 4u��F1 f•f�� L �`l�f �^�yy }•1 t J,',I �� 1uL`�i•e�+' • 11 1 1' f I �+ �# MESSEIrJ\is �s .�SI {W`ii.MIIIRT ��A?v��'C�' �� `..��F ��`�� • r�li �� ; Sn Y: 71 L 1 v ..4kHfr}"y 1!1 11 c tFia i f i�s'.-.-_uEa;.�:+'Y,Er'.�cu�s.i ---` t,' 'fo..:3i.ly L , L>3v T`•''I�..��,"ir`:,�'.�w.•' r` ,7J�LiFR1`.1'`�. ern I+..,J"-.i %a .:r5 I.. :r 1Yes, Mthin range While one reach with obvious bank erosion appears to have similar sediment size distribution to Anchor site 3 (Photo 1 and Z), there are substantial variations among profiles. This analysis Illustrates that 1 measurement for a long reach is not adequate to evaluate site specific incipient bedload transport which is one piece of information needed for a hazard assessment The above simple analysis illustrates the limitations of the 3 point data in evaluating spedfic sites. Out more importantly, critical shear stress and incipient bedlead transport calculation Is just one factorin erosion and channel movement Temporal and spatial influence on sediment transport indicate that increased flaw event durations such as 7 extra hours per year for a 100 cis stflrm 6 hours per year for a 7 S cfs storm could be very significant should additional sources of sediment froze► armor break up, bed mobilization and bank erosion be added. • Bedload transport is known to be highly unpredictable. One reason is time varying passage of upstream sediment causes fluctuations in rate. o The supply of sediment avagable to be transported is known.to be a function of both temporal and spatial variations in entrainment characteristics (cluster, armoring and. patches) of the channel bed In supply limited rivers (as May Creek ravine reach was described), the sudden availability of neve sources of bedload from armor break-up, bar mobilization or bank collapse, may become logy important. Such variability is reflected in the high degree of scatter recorded in bedload transport datasets, although it seems particularly pronounced in supply limlxed humid -temperate streams. • Sediment heterogeneity increases variation in bedload transport in time and space within one flow event a 1-D inodels, such as HEC RAS, results represent Instantaneous, rather than time - averaged, critical shear stresses. a Equal mobility influences sediment transport in armored beds. ■ This mechanism is most often observed in reaches with a coarse armor layer in which coarse particles are exposed to the surface that provides them with an increased chance of transport. Fine particles are hidden below the surface where their transport probability is diminished. Thus, the preferential exposure of larger particles in the armor layer ars to equalize the mobility of coarse and fine particles and eliminates most of the differences In the mobility of small and large particle sizes. Once the small particle sizes are mobilized they increase entrainment and transport of larger particles. • An important element in the process of bedload transport is the extent to which local vs. remote sources of supply interact with the.sequence. of flows to create temporal and spatial variability in transportat a section. ' . o As water levels rise additional sediment sources (armor break up, bars, banks) and recedes (banks) become available. But they also establish connectivity between sediment sources over much longer reaches of channel. o The duration of flow over the critical threshold for transport and where the sediment sources are within the upstream reach strongly influences interaction with sources and connectivity along a reach Given the above sediment transport characteristics as influenced not only by magnitude of event but also duration, duration is an important factor to sediment transport and bank erosion.... The data provided by King County does not address any of these. Bii<nlrs may erode even iPbedload does not mpve;espec llywhere basal erosion is already occrn-ring (photo 2). where is the bank erosion model? Sediment transport occurs in the. longitudinal direction AND transverse directions. Botts affect bank erosion. HEC RAS cannot predict in transverse direction' can it model for channel migration. - Bank erosion consists of two interactive physical processes: basal erosion and bank failure. Basal erosion (Photo 2, 3) refers to the fluvial entrainment of bank material (in this case consisting of smaller sediment size) by flow -induced forces that act on the bank surface.. Bank failw,e:occurs due to geotechnical instability (e g. planar failure, rotational failure, sapping or piping). • The rate of bank erosion traditionally is calculated empirically from the geometry of channel fiends, bank material, and f1pw intensity. Bank failure can occur before bedload . transport is initiated. . These modes of failure have distinct chaz acteristics, and an investigation must be conducted to -determine the specific mode of failure because this is often indicative of the underiyirig problem at a site or in a reach or system of time, and 2) to monitor changes at specific points by repetitive surveys or through the installation of bank pins. The ftirst approach ofiers the benefit of providing immediate results fur average bankline retreati; while the second method provides insight into event: spec'ti3c bank ' loss. -Because erosion tends to be episodic, periods of 10 pears or greater are recommended for aerial photograph time -series analysis as well as bank pin . monitoring. - Banks also crude during bedload movement especially in meandering or migrating streams. Whether a bank retreats or advances depends on the balance of sediment load at near -bank regions where sediment may come from upstream, bank erosion, and setondary flow. The strength of secondary flow in redirecting bedload transport correlates with the local radius of curvature as well as sinuosity of meandering channels. Flow momentum redistribution causes bed deg adattiori near concave banks and deposition near convex banns. Bed degradation steepens concave banks and deposition stabilizes convex banks. This causes concave banks to retreat as Bank erosion occurs, while convex banks advance with the buildup of point bars. Shin process occurs within the reach between Lyons and 1431d Street Bridge. 3 possible options: + Collect additional data in reach' corabeirtion.and add a bank erosion model: Compensate for flood storage by &ding egtuvalcnt or greatei:storagfl + + mark wrth Lando wners, not just a meeft pr two, to deveio i a.soliitioii th& is adsefi"', to ail. �.; •, - ;_,:-; `'��'':� - . ' •'-. •: tib.:: _4 '.. 47 • •a* -•y ,1','`'.1'.,x_: , + Clarification. about the source of the a document (attached: first oaae. first line is "HEC RAS sediment transQort model°). This was distributed by Dr. Patricia Olson at the.,10/98/1.1 meeting with Kina County staff. If you -determine .that you would like. anvthina further. please contact both Sally Perkins. and myself. Thank you, Rahakah From: Padgett, Rebekah (ECY) -Sent: Monday..ianuarv, 30, 2012 9:32 AM MA y Creek Drainage Improvement Project —October 18, 2011 ,Agenda: Time Topic INho 1:00- 1:10 PM Welcome Doug Chin, King County introductions MI 1:70 --- 2:4.0 PM. Technical •D.Isgwsgion Facilitated by Rebekah Padgett, VIIIA Department of Ecology o Sediment- � �p�' Patricia Olean, Ecology fi o Bii#fers Next Steps Patrick McGraner, Ecol6gy 2:40 —.3 -DO PM Rebekah, Doug, All 3:00 PM Adjourn ��•�l 4 'ki_ ,aif:7yK� •eL-cj '?'v• u+Y V c U/�^.rr �j ..+: �--�..r,.+,•,!� r�f1 e�.f� R•T � L� Y'_d�F+rr73` \J J � ! ,!' `U,�L�J'�r o �+--tr. � oma[' � -7-C- •i.-+�eA �j N 1.� y-�i--•�...v� � 1•�J� 1..w�.+ G •�„ "� ^. j. - �C /•� a +� (� T �` C s.r I'l v :�. f.+F.� (O'er � �^�' � �C' ^.�. y �Yl'i. i q cam,.- � w�' w �. ��Y i�'wL•'F"q iir Q�7[ � ! r►: �. G�� ..f/d ..� �-rc� .,ate i S•[ . �' •uCr.`'S" ��+.d !P � � Int � I ! r L-5 7•,e.+� R✓ i r'�'} ' �� :�v � [�a � c�iJ—�-�c• 1.+— rv�//�� ' (�r : ,. �•..ylC�r /• N a %�y�._!c �+0 5 : c-� sC...-v � � fJ � r•�r-•a- g :.{.e_�. sf�y'rt :� � G�\. ��ts�' �y -�*+ d�-s a..�f e.�r{•Y� - (.+{�[.G+r S ,.-•.-y rt•P et.e.l •'�-ui �•�T�"�..-.e c i• 4TO w /.� � •},••�.�..••� ��--e%S e�� t'c•ti.'1'fw..� V rr-�.,��o mac. M•"�G c`• -e•.[ �"'� �n'u•�.. � �.S "L S L 4- -6 J Ra�.�..6 4'. s �-ce . 1! �O W.•dl� . 4-.— IL ••J fj /�, • 4- . t Ci rJ V M.S�r� V� y,+��T.l G C41++♦ 4. Y 41- f/C �1 I L ; y 5 4Cf 73. • S : S I S-( . • Z j,� S esu` -1F K ' ~�� 1-4.r& ! 7o�1+ �'�' Ld�•u-'� S G Y"f-ILfyP �4 bL -S�rC�. TL'/..LA //-y �.� �j ✓ {' 4J/ t Yy,.�yfSY y . f � //��. . {IS. Lam-- L- //'7 a j� vt (f+•�.�,��Jj}��'',j• •:.: T A. !� J.J.-'1 • 1 f �'. �� 1 F +I 1 f •l /`M.. ,fo eiz �y►-4 r.� �. �r .-+Jz f „l. (a �c.[� ..� f � � i.- ,r.:. L,dr� �—...N d -f'+w. L r.:..a''�,. �+ — t -.d' . /'� � ) /� �4f' / •.y 4�o.. ICY ` dup—C S • lU,a,� 11 - � i^C.�t(� � ��,.," w.a L.,•. � • � ; "�- ...1- ��.� C f.. 1'�r fj-� L.w.... � G n' + fs�' �. � � � .ti.'�' �C f�•' [`7'kJd'd%!' ^ +l r / ^'T -vs S 5 La ;.". •.-r'.-r,,. , -t L1`,c�..�� ,0 1..,.. -t v�.�. J ►'T le, "bS K� 45 ,Ad e— V-1 V-- 4 —�Li-s� i s s�i-�Jc�rr� • 7 r r� .. ......... sm TAN A ............. ........... d f2y.4 t I T R P. � m- MR Of pj MR191 !lw&rp)p7v, SIMI filwAlk—ir. 11W., lfw !'W =VT WEI -- 7TAPE . Sk P4 too T.: Mtn 411 1� suit WJ4 . ZT. 4�; pg Fe WIN AGENDA # �' May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 Time: 10:30 -- 22:30 p.m•. Location: Room 3J - 'Attendees: D6n Althanser, Jeff BurkeY, Julia Turney, Tracy Drury by. phone, Patricia Olson, Ericc-Stockdate Purpose: Discuss Sediment Transport #ssues •a■■■■a��s■r■■■■■■■■.a•■■■■■■•a�■■■■��■■■■rrra■��■■r■■��x■rr��■■■■■■ 1. Introduction 1 min. Review purl ose of meeting and agenda. i 2.. Overview 13 miu, Valley-Juba-rumey . Ravine -Tracy DnrrY . Hydraulics and Hydrology Burkcey 3. Anchor Study - Drury JU msn. Basis- of monitoring 4. Technica[Discussion -AR 90 min. Discuss $115111 Olson memo items and existing info available and analysis: 5. Other Rema 5 rain. Y J i, t. _ Y „ � 5 � .. `� i i n. I T 4 ..... ... �I �q may creek Drainage Improvement Project Decision From: Padgett, Rebekah (ECY) Sent: Thursday,::September 22, 2411;2:58 PM j To:'Chin, Doug' cc: stnckdale, Erik (ECY) Subiect:• Mav creek Drainage imrovement Proiect-Decision Attachments: MAY CREEK 481 -WO CERTri-FICATION-ECOLOGY,DENIAL.odf Hi. Doua. Thank you for your time this afternoon to discuss the May creek Drainage improvement oroiect.- As- oromi sed - . attached•is Ecoloav s•declsion.- once i have had a chance to check with Patricia.about her schedule, i will follow up wi-th vaLt to set un a meati no.. Best, rrAhpkah Paae 1 February 6, 2012 Renton City Council Minutes Page 29 Concluding, Mr. Warren stated that if any member of Council believes there may be a conflict of interest, they must recuse themselves from the topic and leave the chambers during the discussion. For example, he remarked that owning Boeing stock would not necessarily cause a conflict of interest, but owning property where adjacent land values could significantly increase or decrease should be disclosed. It was clarified that these restrictions apply to every Councilmember not just the committee. Mr. Warren stated that the topic regarding whether or not Council can defer appeals to Superior Court was a separate issue that is still scheduled for an upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENT Beatrice Clark (Seattle) stated that she had previously spoken to Council Citizen Comment: Clark - King regarding racism, racial profiling, and corruption at the King County Library County Library System Racism System (KCLS). She noted that at that time she did not have all of her paperwork together and would now like to submit it to Council. She also remarked that the Renton Reporter was censoring her through their refusal to publish her letters to the editor. Discussion ensued regarding the roles and responsibilities of the City's Library Advisory Board. Councilmember Taylor requested that Ms. Clark be provided with resource information to assist with her situation regarding KCLS and the Renton Reporter. City Attorney Warren remarked that the City has no control over what the newspaper decides to publish or not publish in its paper. Citizen Comment: Sweezer - Linda Sweezer (Kent) expressed support for the previous speaker. She stated King County Library System that she has also experienced racism in the past. She thanked Council for the Racism opportunity to express her frustrations, and remarked that it is unfortunate to not feel accepted as part of the community. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council: Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 1/23/2012. Council concur. 1/23/2012 Appeal: May Creek Drainage City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on the May Creek Improvement Project Permit & Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance (File No. LUA-11-065, V -H, Variance, King County Water SP); appeal filed by King County Water & Land Resources, represented by Doug & Land Resources, LUA-11-065 Chin, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CED: HOF Award Modification Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval for Glennwood Townhomes, to modify the Council's 9/28/2009 Housing Opportunity Fund award of Renton Housing Authority $100,000 to the Renton Housing Authority for the Glennwood Townhomes project in order to provide $50,000 to the Glennwood Townhomes project and $50,000 to the next replacement housing project slated for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment project. Refer to Planning and Development„ Committee. Community Services: Off- Community Services Department requested approval to continue use of the Leash Dog Park MOU, RUFF NARCO property as an off -leash dog park for an additional three years, and recommended approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with Renton's Unleashed Furry Friends (RUFF) outlining roles and responsibilities between the City and RUFF for the park. Council concur. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision by King County regarding the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit & Variance (File No. LUA-11-065, V -H, SP) Meeting: Regular Council - 06 Feb 2012 Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Clerk's Appeal notification letter Executive (1/25/2012); Notice of Appeal from King County Water & Land Resources by their representative Doug Chin Staff Contact: (1/23/2012); Bonnie 1. Walton, x6502 Hearing Examiners Order and Decision on Reconsideration (1/9/2012); Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: EXHIBITS CONTINUED: Request for Reconsideration from King County Water & Land Resources by their representative Doug Chin (11/17/2011); Hearing Examiners' Decision (11/8/2011) Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit and Variance was filed on January 23, 2012, by King County Water & Land Resources representative Doug Chin accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Permit and Variance appeal. Denis Law � Ci}t� of Ma>ro ► i City - , January 25, 2012City Clerk'Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL.FILED BY: King County Water & Land Resources, represented by Doug Chin RE: Appeal of Hearing e=xaminer's decision dated Januay 9, 2012, regarding the May Creek Drainage, Improvement Project(LUA-117065; V -H, SP) To Parties'.& Record: ; Pursuant to.Title IV, Chapter 8;,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal'af the hearing 'exam Iner's decision on the May Creekbrainage.Improvement Projekt land use application has been filed with the City Clerk. In -accordance with'Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1101', the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the.appeal. Cr her parties of record may -submit letters, : limited to their positions regardingthe.appeal only,. ' ithin ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the no of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:06 pm, Monday; February 6,'2012. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent.documents will be ..referred and reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record'ofthe date and time of the Planning and, Development 'Committee meeting in advance of the meeting., The recorrimendation of the Committee will be - thereafter presented for consideration by, the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the-Rentoin Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examine'r.decisions-or recommendations: Please note that the City.Council - j will be considering the,merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unles showing can be made that, additional evidence could not reasonably have Been available 'at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepte'd-by the. City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. at bwalton Preritonwi.goV. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk -Enclosures .cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Gerald Wasser, CED -Planning Stacy Tucker; CED - Planning ' Parties of Record (13).. - 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 •4425) 430-6510 /Fax (425j 430-6576 • rentonwa.gov, APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAM NER'S DECISIONIRECOMNENDATION APPLICATION NAME Y" .�r u t �E -i6,L,,IIV,� r� � L� rYA The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the de�zsion r reco Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated J 0,yty e r _ , 20j ,, r JAN 2 3 2012 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY RECEIVED APPELLANT: REP ATNF ANY)IMY CLERK'S OFFICE Name: �V k Q Name: u L'- Address: © b h S Address:. Z, 0 t� � �� C,. C G� A � ! Phone Number:I ZC3 Z--�( jn — �D� Phone Number ZCU Z�1 r Email: Email: (:?? 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets; if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate No. Erzor. Correction: Conclusions" • No. Error: Correction: as denoted in the Examiner's Report) I I k 1 a A I I Other: No_ Error. Correction: N� A " 3. SUMMARY OF ACTIO VESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attacl planation, if desired) Reverse the decision of recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows:' Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other. t 1_-- Appella=er sentative Signature Typ Name D to NOTE: P to Title IV, Chaptex 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and' Section 48-110F, for specific appeal procedures. City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter S. Section 110—Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency, only the Applicant, City or a Party of Record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing. or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing: or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand -the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the Appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based ,solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. B. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. .. � '...v: �' .. .. .. :' ... .. ". ::-.:.._.moi- u., '.'. '..'.:. '.... ...i ....... ..... .... L-9 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson' Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 TTY Relay: 711 January 23, 2012 Bonnie Walton City Clerk, City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Dear Ms. Walton: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-065, V -H, SP) because King County has demonstrated that its project will not have an adverse effect downstream. King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. The project is a small project that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months, so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year, flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential, as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. -sib- A u .,.._7-77-7-7. 777777777777 I Bonnie Walton January 23, 2012 Page 2 All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Sincerely, C�; Doug Chin, PMP Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgnoa cc: Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks s Attachment "A" May.Creek Drainage Improvement Project King County Appeal to Hearing Examiner Decision LUA11-065, V -H, SP Context: The project is a small project -that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Findingof Fact: 1. King County contends that the Hearing Examiner misinterpreted the technical arguments provided by King County in Exhibit 40, defending King County's technical studies in response to the memorandum authored by Dr. Patrica Olson and entered as an exhibit by a project opponent. Errors in interpretation by the Hearing Examiner are cited from the Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration: Analysis and Conclusion, as follows. Analysis Line 14-2: This paragraph starts with the Hearing Examiner assessment that: "King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study! I This particular paragraph develops argument on behalf of Dr. Olson by the Hearing Examiner and presents conclusion of the entire effort of erosion analysis erroneously assuming King County applied flawed data. This line of May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 1 reasoning is perpetuated in the HE analysis sections referred to as: HEC -RAS modeling; Median Pebble Size; Monitoring Site Observations; and Site Specific Impact, Page 2, Lines 24-26 and Page 3, Lines 2-21. Due to the complex nature of erosion analysis and arguments provided for site specific erosion analysis versus reach specific analysis, the Hearing Examiner has drawn erroneous _...conclusions..from.evidence presented..by_King_County...There is.no.foundation_that.King_County_has _.__._ presented flawed data. King County has testified in defense of the submitted analysis. King County did not consider the application of HEC -RAS to the study as vague or "not apparent." KC submitted a statement that the erosion study applied separate formulas for erosion analysis, thus did not limit itself to formulas imbedded in the HEC -RAS model. Ms. Olson has concurred in a separate meeting that our fluvial geomorphologist has applied more superior formulas than exist in the HEC -RAS model. 2. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's contention about the pebble count method. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded that King County applied "generalized empirical observations. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's comment." However, King county provided argument that in this specific erosion study, we were satisfied by the pebble count methodology since response of the channel after three storm events corroborated the estimates of flows that would cause channel change. Therefore, we concur that she can be right in many situations, but field evidence confirms King County should remain with its original input parameter for pebble size derived from scientifically established sediment measurement methodology. Under "Monitoring Site Observations," the HE states: "In its reconsideration request, it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duffus property was probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. King County did not make this statement. As per Exhibit 40, we recognized that Dr. Olson has this opinion based on her single site visit. This statement is erroneously assigned or inferred as King County's position, when in fact Exhibit 40 provides argument that the specific site, if analyzed, would derive a higher threshold for erosion than the study reach results. This further evaluation is not mentioned or acknowledged by the HE. 4. Site Specific Impact Analysis is the crux of Dr. Olson's memo, expressing concern for erosion impacts. Dr. Olson was representing that site specific analysis is needed at the project Duffus/Coates reach identified as immediately downstream of the private bridge at SE 143rd Street crossing of May Creek. The Duffus/Rollins and Coates are owners adjacent and downstream of this bridge. King County acknowledged that there are issues of concern for the SE 143rd Street private bridge, Coates'rockery, and the condition of channel downcutting existing at thissite. The Hearing Examiner summarized a conclusion that "reports are based on inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusion, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will cause adverse downstream impact." King County disputes that this conjecture and conclusion is based on the previous errors in interpretation cited above. In addition, King County previously provided evidence that engineers, fluvial geo morphologist, and hydrologist had performed site specific observations at this site. King County affirms that the data provided is not flawed or mis-applied in the erosion analysis and exhibits submitted to record for the Hearing. Secondly, King County does not believe that there are other reasonable methods to apply at the Duffus/Coates reach due to the unique levels of modification to the channel from the private facilities installed, historic modifications performed to the channel by private parties, and the unique substrate conditions known at this site. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 2 Other: 1. The Examiner states in, his analysis that "the information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information." King County has made more _._.._than a_reasonable effort to in demonstrating that the project has provided sufficient information to show there are no adverse downstream impacts. Submittals provided to the hearing include: • May Creek Basin Action Plan (2001) - Referenced in hearing. • May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan:- Final Draft (Mid -Sound). • Biological Evaluation for Endangered Species Act. • Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan. • May Creek Erosion Stabilization, Draft Report, May Creek Sediment Transport, Study Phase 3; Anchor; January 2010. • May Creek Sediment Transport Study, Anchor, June 2009. • Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project; December 17, 2010. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 9A1205 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Document. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205): Post -construction Erosion Monitoring Plan - Downstream of 148th Avenue SE. August 24, 2011 memo from Bill Kerschke and Julia Turney to Don Althauser. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project -Response to Ecology's September 1, 2011 comment on the backwater effect caused by the McFarland (i.e., Gambini) footbridge. December 14, 2011 memo to Doug Chin from Jeff Burkey and Julia Turney. • Sediment Assessment. February9, 2011. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Design Plans, Including Long Marsh Creek Design Plans. KC has provided sufficient evidence to prove that its project will not have an adverse effect on downstream property owners. The Examiner recommends in his conclusion that the City of Renton hire a third party independent review of King County's conclusions. However, the Examiner has not obtained any support for the technical review of KC conclusions before making his own conclusions that the project has not performed a sufficient amount of analysis. Lastly, the Hearing Examiner did not take into account the City's staff review and recommendation for approval of the project or utilize the City's technical staff to review the reconsideration materials submitted by King County. 2. King County represented to the HE that the Duffus/Coates reach should be considered an erosive channel -subject to long-term erosion that will promote channel downcutting and bank erosion, which should have been considered natural processes and existing conditions when evaluating project impacts. KC further presented that this site has been constrained or restricted by channel and bank hardening measures installed by various adjacent land owners. King County inspected the private bridge and staff observed repeated efforts overtime of concrete placement at the stream bed to protect the bridge. At the Coates property, KC acknowledges the existing rockery provides protection to the Coates home. This rockery is incurring failure of the toe of the rockery, due May Creek Drainage'Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 3 primarily to channel downcutting. These are long-term deteriorations that require measures by owners to properly maintain these private facilities. King County has offered technical advice to Mr. Coates and further supports that the facility should ------------�•--be-re paired- or-replaced-with-bioengineered_bankstabilization._King-CauntyAestified-its-p-osi-t!Qn,._....,- that maintenance of the private facilities containing the channel at the 143rd private bridge to the Duff us/Rollins property and rockery at the Coates residence are private responsibility to maintain and that erosion processes have negligible increases due to the proposed project, as demonstrated in hydrologic and fluvial geomorphology studies performed and submitted. Legal: In the HE analysis, the Hearing Examiner stated that he "determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute." The Examiner is referring to an internal DOE memo that is unsigned and not on official Washington State Department of Ecology letterhead. The Examiner has not confirmed that the memo is or would be the official position of DOE, nor has he required the person that submitted the memo to demonstrate that it is the official position of DOE. The memo was never officially sent to the City of Renton for consideration in its permitting of King County's project, prior to the hearing. The author of WA DOE was not available at the hearing for questioning or cross-examination by KC to substantiate issues of this correspondence. Summary: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the city of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-065, V -H, SP). King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement project. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 4 C, OF REfVTON : 'NOV 29-2011 ' Le E sr 2 O61 C1tr CE 3 6 $ ` BEFORETHE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY'OF 1tENTON. g 10 RE: "May Geek. Drainage Improvement. } Projec( ' )- ' .ORDER AUTFiORFZII�TG RECONSIDERATION Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO } 12 Variance } 13 WA11-065, V -H, SP ) 14 15 16 Additional information specifically. identified in the last paragraph of this Order is authorized in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration timely -filed by the Applicant on November 15, 2011'. The 17 APPhct public and. City staff will be allowed topresent new evidence and argument to address .the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study; Eit. � 31 as'outlined in this Order- 'The appeal period for the 18 final decision on thc'. above -cautioned matter is tolled pending. resolution of the rnsideration - request as specified.in C-4-8-110(E)(8)(a}. :k 19 The Applicant has requested reconsideration with an'o 20 PPoAhmity to provide tiew evidence becanse'it did not receive some public comment lettm to which'it-had a right of rebuttal. As background, the 21 Examiner' denied the application far the abovecaptioned matter by decision dated November 2; 2011. . The hearing on the application was held on. October 4; 2011, at 1:00 -pm -at the Renton City Hal! City Council Meeting Chambers. At the close of the verbal portion of the October 4, 2011 hearing, the Examines left the i =rd open for submission of a sediment 23 transport.study (Ex. 31). The Applicant was gsvenzmtil the following Thursday (10/6/11) to supply the report (or a weblink)•to the City. -•The 24. - Public was given until a week from the following Friday (10/14/11)to _supply written comment on the report and the County WaYg Ven until the following Wednesday (10/19/11) to reply. ' :25. 26- ' Lxhdbit numbers are those assigned m the Exhibit List of the final decision to tic abovb uptloned matter. Reconsideration - 1 1 : 2 3. 4 5 IS 19 •20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Several public comment letters on fhe transport study were supplied to the City by the public' on the transport_stvdy..::.The_Ayplicant:cl -it-did, i�ot receive; faux of those:'comment letters and tliis liar : '" .' beezi 'confzrxned b Cit staff. Specifically, the_Applicant dad not. receive comment Tetters from Andrew I7uffus (I0/12/11), Jean Rollins- (10/11/11), Gary Amundson (Ex. 34) and Wayne Watters (Ex. 35). TheApplicant should be allowed an opportunity to provide new evidence on the four public comment' Iett=. .It is recognized that, the four comment letters .for the' most ' p art dill not p present any new evidence. They primarily refer:to.evidence already presented in .the 'Patrieia Olsen memo Ex. ��15. Criveri tbe'quaii$cations of 1]r. Olson and her review of the project, it should have been immediately apparent to • the Applicant that a detailed -rebuttal- to. all her concerns was critically necessary, with or without.the four public comrxient letters: However,' the Applicant was assured of an opportunity to reply to the letteis. it is. unclear:whether the Applicant made •any,pff'ort to determine whether it had received ali•comment letters, but it was reasonable for•it to conclude'that it had received them from the City when it decided• to not provide ;any reply..Given• these circumstances$ procedural due process and its principles of fundamental• fairness dictate that an opportunity to be beard on these comment letters must be afforded to the Applicant The, public should also. be allowed an opportunity to provi&-additional evidence on the transport stuy, F.x: 31.. In responding to public. comment on the transport study, the Applicant now has the benefit of the Examiner's final decision jn this case,•which lays out with specificity the shortcomings in the Applicant's proposal. The public did not have this information when. it supplied its.comurents on the transport study, ]n order to "level 'the playing field", the public will be given a second opportunity to comment on the transport study, 1$e Applicant has also requested a "no fee" reconsideration. The Applicant has not identified any enton Municipal Code provision tbai authorizes the &aminer to waive fees for reconsideration •eauests. It appears that is a matter left between the Applicant and City staff.' ORDER SON. RECONSTDERATTON The public and City staff shall have 'until 5:00 pm, December 9. 2011 to. provide written comments, including new evidence, addressing the Anchor'QEA Sediment Transport Study, Ex - 3 L All comments previously admitted into the record, as identified in the Exhibit List to .the final decision in this matter, Ex. 32-36, do not need to be resubmitted In addition, two comment letters inadvertently omitted from the -Exhibit list of the Final Decision, Andrew Duffus (10/.12/11) and Jean .Rollins (10/11111), will also- be deemed admitted into the record as Exhibits 37. and 38• respectively and do not need to be resubmitted. The 10/11/11 Rollins letter is only admitted to the extent it comments on the transport study. Any additional comments submitted by the public shall only address the transport study - Reconsideration Reconsideration - 2 1. The -Applicant shall have.until December 21, 2011 at-5:00pm to provide a response to Exhibits 32-38 iri addition to any other comments subsequentlypresented by the publicand City staffon the _. Po. Y ,Y pp iriments shaiI P limited to. , ........_............._._. .3 the transport study, Ex. 31. trans rt, stu a December �9-.201�1� deadline.--- T1ie �A licant s �co 4 3. The -Examiner understands the Applicant's request for reconsideration as limited to issues arising from the transport study; since no other iss 5 ues.are identified in the Applicant's November 15, 2011 reconsideration request. If the Applicant wishes to address other portions of the Final Decision, it. 5 should pmvide clarification on What' other arguments it would like, to present by 5:00 pm, December 9, 201I so that the Examiner can evaluate whetlier fiuther argument will be allowed on 7those issues. A separate briefing schedule* will. be ordered by the Examiner -for any additional' reconsideration issifes.- 9 All written comments authorized above (other than those already admitted into the record) may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw � ail.com_ Emailed comments must•also be cc'd to the - 10 Applicant. at Dau�hui&_jMcountv_gov. In the alternative written, comments may be mailed or delivered ,to JenniferHensing; City. of Renton Planning Manager, at, 1055 South Grady Way, 11 : Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be'received by the City by the deadlines 12 specified in this Order. 13 '17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. Only persons who attended the October.4,. 2011 heaiing on this matter and/or supplied timely written comments for the hearing of this proceeding may provide written comment as specified in this Order_ DATED this 28th day of November, 2011. Reconsideration - 3 Pfiil A Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1 2 .............. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement } DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Project Special Grade/FilI Permit and CAO ) Variance } LUAU -065, V -H, SP ) Kang County has requested reconsideration of the denial of its applications for a critical areas ordinance variance and special grade/fill permit for the dredging of May Creek, Renton File No. LUA11-065, V -H, SP. The request is denied. Procedural Background 1, On November 11, 2011 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision denying the above - captioned permit application. 2. King County filed a timely Request for Reconsideration, received by the City of Renton on November 17, 2011. In its request for reconsideration, King County pointed out that it had not received copies of letters submitted into the record that were critical of the Anchor QEA, LLC sediment transport study, Ex. 31. 3. By Order Authorizing Reconsideration dated November 28, 2011 the Examiner authorized King County to provide new evidence in response to the written comments King County had not received on the sediment transport study. The Order included a schedule for submission of additional comments for all hearing participants. t. Several new exhibits were entered into the record as part of the reconsideration process, SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 2 '4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 identified as follows: Ex. 36: 11/15/11 King County Reconsideration Request _..... _...... Ex.-.--.... 37:..--....Order-Authorizing.-Reconsideration .. ........ ............... ...... Ex. 38: 1218111 comment letter from Andrew Duffus Ex. 39: 12/9/11 comment letter from Jean Rollins Ex. 40: 12/21/11 comment letter from King County Analysis The critical issue for both permit applications is the impact of dredging project on downstream properties. Project opponents presented a compelling report by Dr. Patricia Olson, Ex. 15, from the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE"), who asserted numerous flaws in the studies used by King County to conclude that downstream properties would not be adversely affected. The Examiner determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute them. As detailed in the procedural background above, King County was given an oppor4iinity to present new evidence in its request for reconsideration to rebut comments made by the public regarding the accuracy and validity of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31. These public comments primarily referenced the report provided by Dr. Olson, Ex. 15. The information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information to determine that more likely than not downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. In its reconsideration comments, Ex. 40, King County largely agrees with the concerns of Dr. Olson regarding the accuracy of the sediment transport study. King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon the flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study. As best as can be discerned from King County's arguments, King County ultimately concluded that the project wouldn't increase downstream erosion because the flows that initiate sediment transport observed at three monitoring stations significantly exceeded the extra flows generated by the project. These relatively simple -observations would -have been readily apparent to Dr. Olson, who still determined that further analysis was necessary. Corroborating Dr. Olson's skepticism is the fact that King County also acknowledges that the transport thresholds at the monitoring stations aren't representative of those that may occur downstream. Of further concern is that King County also readily admits that it did not provide any detailed assessment of damage that may occur to downstream properties. With this background, it is not possible to conclude with any reasonable degree of confidence that downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. The points raised by Dr. Olson are more fully addressed as follows: HEC -RAS Program. In Ex. 40 King County acknowledged that the HEC -RAS program should not be used to evaluate erosion potential. It does appear that the conclusions of the sediment transport study do not appear to use model results in determining the estimate of threshold motion, assessed at pages 22-24 of the study. The HEC -RAS Program may have been used to input some values into the formulas used to estimate critical shear stress, but that was not apparent from the text of the SPECLU GRADFAUL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 3. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 report. Median Pebble Size: King County agrees with Dr. Olson that the median pebble diameter size identified.. in..the...report..may. -be.. inaccurately --smaller than -actual.. site ..conditions...:King County. pointed out that its conclusions were not based solely upon median pebble size. The "estimate of threshold motion" section of the study, referenced in the preceding paragraph, was expressly based upon median pebble size. The only conclusions in the study made independently of median pebble diameter. appear .to be the generalized- empirical observationa-.from..high flour .events at..the_.three monitoring stations. As previously noted these conclusions were that soil transport only occurs at flow rates that significantly exceed those created by the project. In short, the bulk of the analysis in the sediment transport study was not sufficiently accurate to support any reliable conclusions on downstream property impacts. Monitoring Site Observations. Although the King County conclusions appear to be based almost entirely upon observations from its monitoring stations as opposed to HEC -RAS modeling, King County admits that the monitoring stations may not be representative of all portions 'of the stream. In its reconsideration request it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duff -us property wps probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. This low range is a significant departure from the conclusion of the sediment transport study that the overall erosion threshold is 275 cfs. Further, there's no indication in the record that the'Duffus.property even represents the lowest end of the range. If the threshold has this much variability, it is difficult to understand how any single threshold can be assigned to the stream as a whole. It would appear that a far more relevant inquiry would be what the lower downstream thresholds would be and whether the increased flows generated by the project would create cumulative flows that exceed them. Site Specific Impact Analysis. The King County reconsideration request expressly stated that the sediment transport study was not designed "fo evaluate site specific issues and concerns of the individual landowners at the specific location visited by Dr. Olson" and that the study "was not designed to and did not conduct a detailed analysis of risk to any specific private infrastructure elements". The Examiner recognizes that King County qualified its statements as not providing any "detailed" analysis of site specific impacts. Under different circumstances King County could very well support a finding of no downstream impacts with these types of generalized conclusions. However, the generalized conclusions of this report are based upon inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream stream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusions, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will not cause adverse downstream impacts. Overall Conclusions. King County appears to be arguing that the shortcomings of its data and analysis are of no consequence given the wide disparity between the nominal increased flows generated by the project and flows necessary to trigger sediment transport. King County also takes the position that any more precise analysis would not yield any more useful results, given this disparity. One is left with the impression that King County has loaded the record with extensive data and studies to support its position, only to subsequently argue that most of that data and analysis was not used by the County in its decision making when tasked to defend it, The existence Df extraneous information is understandable in most cases. Anchor QEA was probably just SPECIAL GRADEXILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 demonstrating that it had done its due diligence and completed as much analysis as could be reasonably expected within the limitations of sediment transport. science. The problem in this particular case is that a qualified expert, Dr. Olson, provided very compelling evidence that more useful information -could have been reasonably acquired. ...Almost.all -of Dr. Olson's-conclusions on the short comings of the studies were validated by King County. If she was correct on all these issues, it reasonable to conclude that she was also correct in determining that more could have been done to assess downstream impacts. DECISION The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are still denied without prejudice. All' findings and conclusions of the November 11, 2011 decision shall remain in place. In addition, those findings and conclusions are supplemented by the exhibit list, findings and conclusions of this decision on reconsideration as well as the exhibit list identified in the Order on Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed above, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the project will not adversely affect downstream property owners. Should the County exercise its option to re -apply, it is recommended that the City hire an independent third party reviewer to assess the validity of the conclusions of King County. In the alternative, evidence " that King County has resolved the concerns of Dr. Olson would be equally persuasive. The County should also recognize that the issues addressed in this reconsideration decision solely address erosion impacts. Potential flooding impacts also need to a addressed in more detail. DATED this 9th day of January, 2012. A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified. in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — P floor, (425) 430-6510. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. SPECIAL GRADETE LL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 .............206:296.6519 - Fax -206.296:0192-_-....... TTY Relay: 711 Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner c/o Bonnie Walton, City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE:. -May Creek Drainage Improvement Proiect LUA11-065 Dear Mr. Olbrechts: CRY OF RENTON NOV 17 2011 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE* /A/6 aw November 15, 201 I King County is requesting a No Fee Reconsideration of the November 8, 2011 decision on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project LUAI 1-065.. King County is requesting that the written record of the hearing be reopened, for submittal of additional information about erosion, to remedy a procedural error. We have confirmed through discussion with Jennifer Henning that King County did not receive four comment letters regarding King County's Sediment Transport Study before the deadline for rebuttal. The comments, submitted by Andrew Duffus, Jean Rollins, Gary Amundson, and Wayde Watters, specifically related to erosion impacts and opinions expressed in the Patricia Olson memorandum, Exhibit 15. By not receiving these comment letters, King County staff did not have the opportunity to respond to the technical issues raised. Therefore, King County is requesting an extension of the written record to allow time for rebuttal. In addition, King County is requesting that the appeal period be held in abeyance until a decision on King County's request is made. King Countyis willing to provide expert testimony if the Examiner feels this is appropriate and necessary. Thank you for your consideration of this, request. Please contact me at 206-296-8315 if you have any questions. incerely, l tDoughin, i' Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgn3a cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, City of Renton Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development, PIanning Division, City of Renton Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks .Wzw� a 1 2 ... _3.. 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OU CRY OF RENTON NOV 0 4 201' CRY CLERKS OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement } Project ) FINAL DECISION Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO Variance } } LUAI 1-065, V -H, SP ) Summary King County has applied for a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations for a dredging project -to May Creek designed to reduce the duration of one year flood events for upstream properties. The permits are denied without prejudice. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the drainage project will not adversely affect downstream properties by increased erosion. Testimony Jennifer Henning, Renton current planning manager, spoke on behalf of the City of Renton. She noted that the hearing is a permit for grade and fill and also a variance to the -critical areas regulation in order to allow for some removal of vegetation along the stream. The area in Renton is only 3.75 acres, composed of the dredging area as well as vegetation removal. Sediments, fines and cobble will be removed. Vegetation that obstructs the channel, primarily canary grass, will also be removed.. The project site contains a Class III wetland- The City has five classes of wetlands. Class III is the third most significant with a 25 foot buffer. SPECIAL GRADEMLL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 2 4 5 b 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 Ms. Henning noted that May Creek River Mile 4.3 to 4.9 contains the entire project area The portion in Renton is only a small portion of the project, the western limit of the project area. Large woody debris will be added to the stream as mitigation. 'A couple stream alcoves are added to serve as-fish--habitat---The • project involves -a temporary access road - for •the equipment used to do the dredging and mitigation. The project will improve the flood capacity of the area, which is flooded during most of the year. The project will increase the flow capacity and will allow some use of the land that is usually flooded. The dredging will remove accumulated sediment that will be spread throughout the project site instead of transported off-site. Enhancement native vegetation win be installed. The Department of Ecology has required fencing around the project area composed of three strand barhwire, which is standard for areas along May Creek to keep livestock outside of the stream buffers. There is some disagreement as to where to place the- fence on one of the lots affected by the project. The City's main interest is that sensitive area signs be posted and that the fence doesn't obstruct wildlife movement. Ms. Henning summarized the mitigation required for the project. Only 392 cubic feet of sediment will be dredged and obstructing vegetation removed. The stream will be diverted during the dredging to prevent water quality impacts. Noise and dust impacts will be temporary during construction only. On-site noise levels during construction will reach dba, but this dissipates away from the site and there will be no work on weekends. The variance from critical area regulations is necessary to remove vegetation and sediment within a sensitive area and buffer — May Creek and the Class III wetland. The project site is fairly flat. The project protects the public health and welfare because public access will be very limited. The project will reduce flooding which promotes public safety. Staff concurs with the Applicant's hydraulic analysis that there will not be adverse erosion impacts downstream and downstream flooding. The project is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan because there is no change in use of the land. The Applicant did review alternative courses of action and they determined that the measure taken was the least disruptive of the sensitive areas and the most consistent with the County's budget limitations. Wetland areas will be restored and invasive species removed. Measures will be taken to prevent sediments from re-entering the stream. The project will not create any net loss in stream function. The project involves one to one compensatory mitigation so there is no net loss. The project was evaluated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Exhibit 20 was admitted into the record as the ESA consultation for the project. ' The consultation reveals that there will be no adverse impacts to endangered species. There were some comments submitted from. the Muckleshoot Tribe for the dredging project as a whole (Ex. 17). Best management practices will be employed to protect ground and surface water quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE') has denied 401 certification without prejudice only because DOE had a deadline to make a decision and King County is still working with DOE to acquire certification approval. Project mitigation involves 10 years of monitoring. The Examiner asked the King County representative, Doug Chin, whether a foot bridge was a contributing factor to the flooding as alleged in some of the comment letters submitted on the project. Mr. Chin clarified that the dredging is designed to alleviate one year flooding. The bridges don't have any impact on the flows the project is designed to improve. The bridges affect larger storm events. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 ............ j- 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Andrew Duffus, neighboring property owner, asserted that the 9122111 DOE letter was glossed over as DOE running out of time. DOE asked the Applicant numerous times to ask for information that .hasn't -been -received. He noted, that, the project is an ill=conceived attempt -to -temporarily iedua6 flooding to protect horse pastures. Downstream properties already experience numerous flooding problems and can only access their properties through private bridges that are vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The preliminary report to the Examiner is flawed with gaps in relevant information. No reference is made to the 9122 DOE letter. On 8115/11 DOE released a memo from its senior hydrologist, Dr. Patricia Olson, who had reviewed all of the County's documentation and done a site visit. She questioned the lack of detail in the County's studies and design, the effectiveness of the project and cosvbenefits. Dr. Olson publishes articles on rivers, lakes and groundwater issues and testifies as an expert witness. Her work was cited in the County's studies. Her memo should have been referenced in the staff report. The document should be given substantial weight. Mr. Duff -us questioned the qualifications of staff to evaluate the application given the conclusions of Dr. Olson. On 9/1111 DOE informed King County that it would have to deny the water quality certificate unless requested information was received by 9116111. DOE has repeatedly questioned the "effectiveness, purpose and need of the project". Just two weeks ago the Muckleshoot Tribe submitted a comment letter to DOE requesting that King County exhaustively consider alternatives before dredging May Creek. The wetland is a Class M wetland that is wet all year round, chest deep in the summer. Additional alcoves and other measures may be necessary to mitigate impacts. DOE and the Tribe are requesting larger planting buffers and other measures that could have greater clearing and grading impacts than those assessed by the Renton stag Mr. Duffus asserted that machinery would be roaming all over the project site to place snags. In the past the City has required cedar split rail fencing for critical areas, as demonstrated in LAU 05-83. That plat was in a project adjacent to the project within the same open space corridor of the project. Mr. Duffas also saw no broad public support for the project, which only benefits four horse pastures at the expense of downstream property owners. He also questioned whether the project could pass a costlbene$t analysis. There is a risk of liability for downstream environmental and Property damage. There are 7 properties adjacent to the project. One property is a wetland, another is an undeveloped property that is also a wetland. -A third property is not used for farming. The remaining four properties have horse pastures with seasonal flooding. None of the homes on those properties are in danger of flooding. Conversely between 148th and Coal Creek Parkway there are 18 properties and eight of those homes are close enough to the stream to be flooded. Ex. 21. was admitted as the 9/22/11 DOE denial. Ex. 22 was admitted as the 1013111 letter from Mr. Duffus. Ex.. 23 was admitted as a September 15, 2011 letter from the Muckleshoot Tribe. Ex. 24 was admitted as the joint notice from the Army Corps. Tom Carpenter, community activist, noted that the DOE denial was without prejudice because DOE was out of time and a permit is expected to be forthcoming. The cause of flooding in the project area is well understood as resulting from development of the surrounding hillsides that has resulted in the deposition of tons of silt into the project area. Stormwater mitigation in the 1960's was not adequate to protect May Geek from these silt impacts. There has been a significant infestation of SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 2 ................... 3 4 '5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 invasive reed canary grass into the valley. Unfortunately extension agencies recommended their installation before realizing their adverse impacts. The deposition of sedimentation and the proliferation of the reed canary grass have completely altered the natural retention/detention -functions-ofIlic-aileyand-creek:-The --Stonegate-Homeowner's--Association' is-very-excited-about- the excited about•the project because it will restore the hydrological functions to its predevelopment state extending to before coal was discovered in the valley and it was first developed. The project site is limited to the area where sediment has settled. The properties that benefit extend way up stream from the project site. Currently those properties are flooded six months out of the year, which is not consistent with the natural state of the valley. It is not correct to assert that only seven properties will benefit Wetland boundaries are far in excess of what they have been historically and these standing bodies of water are caused by the loss of hydrological functions of the creek. Historically there have only been two small wetlands on the entire seven mile stretch of the creek. One is in a small area not close to the project site and the other is at the mouth of the creek. Jeff Walker, an upstream property owner, noted that Mr. Carpenter had already covered much of what he was going to say. He added that his property has been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years and that much of this property can't be used because of the flooding. Ife emphasized that the County are unbiased and that property owners and that there is a high vested interested in the project by numerous upstream property owners. He noted that the stream is a valued recreational corridor as well that will benefit from the project. Roger Coates, testified he was concerned that no one has proven that. am erosion to •downstre properties won't occur. He is concerned that the increase in stream velocity will increase erosion on his property. Jean Rollins submitted a summary of citations from scientific experts demonstrating that 9 of the 10 variance criteria haven't been met She noted that the project is designed to benefit horse pastures at the expense of downstream properties. The County doesn't know what will happen downstream. Dr. Olson states that the hydraulic analysis is inappropriate. Experts conclude that it is incorrect that the project will not create downstream erosion. Experts believe that the project will harm. the stream and wetlands. The project serves private property, not public need.. Better alternatives have been ignored. The 0.04% in flood reduction is not worth the project cost and impacts. Dr. Olson disagrees with King County conclusions on downstream erosion impacts and deposition of sediment. Dr. Olson concluded that the existing transport modeling needs independent review.. Compensatory flood storage is not provided. Fish species are jeopardized as Green Creek is home to Chinook, Sockeye and Coho. Green Creek is close to the wetland. The 401 certificate was denied because King County could not demonstrate that water quality standards had been met. The 9/22/11 DOE letter shows that King County has not provided information necessary to approve the permit. There was no "time crunch" as DOE had requested needed information over an extensive amount of time. The Army Corps and DOE have repeatedly questioned the need and purpose of the project Dr. Olson wrote that the channeling project is akin to trying to channel a bathtub that has more inflow than outflow. The scientific studies used for the project has been invalidated by scientific authorities. The long marsh creek plan is not a mitigation plan. Compensatory flood SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 3 N 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 storage has not been provided. The alcoves are insignificant. If the alcoves fill with sediment fish will not be able to access the site. There is no monitoring plan for the dredging of the project. The Examiner should take a no risk approach to the project pursuant to RMC 4-9-25(F). Jim Bonwell, owner of the first downstream private bridge, noted that the County comes up with a different plan at each hearing. He was bora near the creek and his parents live near the headwaters of the creek. His grandfather told him they used to dredge the creek so it's inaccurate to say that the project will return the creek to natural conditions. There are dredge materials on his property that he discovered 25 years ago when he acquired his property. He overheard some County consultants walking the creek stated it was classic Coho habitat. He understands that upstream properties are flooding but this is what the Valley properties are designed to do. On his property there is a rock vein that serves as a high water mark and this is the reason for the flooding and that's not going to be changed by the dredging. Jerri Wood has lived in May Valley her entire life. Part of the flooding is due to overdevelopment. Her concern on the dredging and mitigation is that there are experts on both sides. The experts opposed to the project validate her experiences and those of her mother in the valley. The City has failed to follow its urban separator regulations. Her mother's neighbor repeatedly channels storm water onto her property in violation of Renton standards but Renton won't enforce those standards. If you dredge May Creek her mother will lose her backyard and septic system. With the erosion already happening, the removal of the sediment by the project will destabilize shoreline trees that will fall onto her mother's home. The City of New Castle is also responsible for the overdevelopment. The creek as whole should be considered and impacts to persons such as her mother should be considered. A more collaborative process is needed to solve these problems. Julie Bonwell testified that dredging can't be good for an environmentally sensitive wetland and salmonid stream. Up until 22 years ago the project area was an overused, overgrazed horse pasture and it has taken years to be restored. The wetland is doing its job in filtering water and serving as an aquifer recharge area_ The stream level rises by several feet during major storm events. Woody debris flowing down the stream causes property damage. She is concerned that the woody debris proposed for mitigation won't,be sufficiently anchored and will wash out her bridge, which is the only way she can access her home. Ex. 25, Jean Rollins written materials, was admitted. The Examiner inquired whether the County wanted an opportunity to reserve objection until it had an opportunity to read it and the County stated they had no objection and just wanted a copy. The Examiner inquired whether King County had any rebuttal and noted that he was particularly interested in any response to the Dr. Olson materials, since that represented credible scientific evidence that he will take seriously. Mr. Chin noted that a biological evaluation on fish impacts had. been done for the project and that the National Marine Fisheries Service concurred in the evaluation. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has also approved a hydraulic permit for the project. King County first received comment on the project from DOE on September SPECIAL GRADFJFff.T• PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1, 2011. DOE gave King County until September 16, 2011 to respond to the comments. Part of those concerns were based upon input from Dr. Olson, but King County had not seen her memo until October 3, 2011. King County responded to the DOE comments on September 16, 2011. On -Septembek-22; 20 11-DOE"notified- the- County, they'were "up against the "wall "and'"had to meet'tbe " statutory deadline and didn't have time to approve the permit so their only course of action was to deny the permit with [sic] prejudice. The County will address all the questions raised by Dr. Olson with DOE in a near term meeting that is being set up at this time. Mr. Chin asked to enter a sediment transport study. into the record, which is located at the King County website. The Examiner stated that he could leave the record open for the County to supply the document, but that the record would also have "to be left open for public response and the County would then have an opportunity to provide rebuttal to that response. Mr. Chin stated he was fine with that process. Mr. Chin noted that the woody debris would be anchored into the ground and embedded with `what is appropriate", which may be [inaudible] -filled anchors or whatever is necessary to keep the debris in place. Mr. Chin also requested to submit a hydraulic analysis, which was admitted as Ex. 26. He noted that the project will provide better flow to prevent one year storms. The buffers will be replanted with native vegetation that should out compete the reed canary grass that will be removed. The replacement of the reed canary grass will ensure longevity for the project. The long marsh creek project is designed to prevent the deposition of sediment from long marsh into May Creek. The long marsh creek project will trap sediment before it gets to May Creek, thereby maintaining the functions of May Creek and extending the life of the project. Jeff Burke, King County, acknowledged that 0.04% is a very insignificant change in the duration of flooding. The project is designed to focus on flows between 6 and 50 cfs. Any storm goes overbank into flood areas. No changes are being made to the flood area, just to in -channel capacity. This results in significant changes to flood duration in the flood areas of 20%. There will still be flooding. The duration of flooding for small storms will change. Mr. Burkey testified that there will be more conversations with DOE on the Olson memo. The 0.04% change in duration of 50 cfs referenced in the Olson memo is only a 7 hour difference per year. As to her comments on stream power, stream power is based on time not just magnitude. The change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent Duration is a major component of erosion impacts. Mr. Burke is a hydrologist with King County and has served in that capacity for over 20 years. He has also done contract work for DOE. Lindsey Miller, King County Environmental engineer, is a wetland ecologist by training. The impacts to the wetlands are only temporary resulting from wetland enhancement designed at suppressing canary grass. The work in the wetlands is limited to replacing non-native canary grass with native species, which is an enhancement project. There will be no change in flood storage or extent of flooding in the wetlands. The pmject will also further mitigate impacts from upstream development. Don Althauser, engineer of record for design of the project, testified on the private downstream SPECIAL GRADEN LL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 6 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 bridges. There are two private downstream bridges, one owned by Duffus and Rollins and the other by Bondwell. The changes in hydrology are small and well within the capacity of the bridges. He can't testify as to the condition of the bridges. The second bridge doesn't appear to have any .--exposure, to, erosion...._ The-BondweH.bridge.does•appear-to-have-some exposure:.. -He can't - propose -upgrades to private bridges. He does not see that the project will create any adverse impacts to the bridges. The Coates property was inspected. It is eroding and unstable. Bioengineering stabilization measures would probably stabilize the property. The project will not further destabilize the property. The project was designed to assure no increase in downstream erosion. The sediment transport study for -the project found that the flow rates necessary to create erosion indicate that the flows are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs. The project will only increase flows by 6 cfs, which is well below the range of concern. Mr. Chin noted'there were a number of senior level biologist, ecologist, geologists and consultants worked on the project and provided their expertise. Jennifer Henning introduced a few more exhibits. Ex. 27 was admitted as the 2/9/22 Sediment Assessment Report. Ex. 28 was admitted as the HPA approval. Ex. 29 was admitted as the 2111 May Creek Drainage Improvement Biological Evaluation. Ms. Henning identified some administrative permits required for the project. She referenced RMC 4-3-110, which identifies the urban separator map and shows that the project area is not in the urban separator. Within the separator area there's a requirement for no fencing to allow for the passage of wildlife. This requirement doesn't apply to the project area, where fencing is allowed. She clarified that the Olson memo was not submitted to the City by DOE as their comment on the project application. It was provided by Mr. Duflus. Exhibits Exhibits 1-17 of the exhibits identified at Page 2 of the staff report were all admitted into the record with no objections from the public. Ex. 1, the "project file" will be limited to the staff report,,since the exhibit title otherwise does not provide notice to the public of what documents are specifically included. The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 18: Vicinity Map with project location highlighted in yellow. Exhibit 19: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation vicinity map, Sheet 14 of 18 Exhibit 20: 3110/11 ESA Consultation Exhibit 21: 9122111 DOE Section 401 denial Exhibit 22: 10/3/11 comment letter fr A. Duffus Exhibit 23: 9/15/11 Muckleshoot continent letter Exhibit 24: Army Corps/DOE Joint Public Notice, NWS -2010-158 Exhibit 25: 10/4/11 comment letter fir Jean Rollins Exhibit 26: 12/17/10 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Exhibit 27: 219111 Sediment Assessment Exhibit 28: 123184-2 Hydraulic Permit Approval Exhibit 29: 2/11 Biological Evaluation - SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 7 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 30: Landscaping Plan Exhibit 31: Sediment Transport Study Exhibit 32: Two 10/13/11 emails fr Debra Rogers re transport study ---Exhibit 33: A0/13/1-1- email -from rim -and Julie-Bonwell-re transport study Exhibit 34: 10/13/11 email fr Gary Amundson re transport study Exhibit 35: 10/14/11 email from Wayde Watters re transport study Exhibit 36: 10/14/1 lcmail from Doug Chin re transport studyl FINDNGS OF FACT 1. Applicant. King County Water and Land Resources Division 2. Hearin . A hearing was held on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm at the Renton City Hall City Council Meeting Chambers. The Examiner left the record open for submission of the sediment transport study (Ex. 31). Mr. Chin was given until Thursday (1016111) to supply the report (or a weblink) to the City. The public was given until a week from Friday (10/14/11) to supply written comment on the report and the County was given until the following Wednesday (10119111) to reply. Emails were received after the October 4, 11 hearing questioning whether comments were limited to the transport study. The Examiner stated both during the hearing and at the end of the hearing that the purpose of leaving the record open was to provide an opportunity for the public to review the transport study, because the transport study was not available during the hearing for review and response. All other exhibits were presented for review during the hearing. The Examiner provided an opportunity for all hearing participants to review all other exhibits and to object to their admission. No requests to leave the record open on any exhibit were made during the hearing and the Examiner only left the record open for comment on the transport study. King County did not reply to the transport study comments submitted by the public. The Examiner confirmed with staff that the public comments had been forwarded to the County along with confirmation that the reply deadline was October 19, 2011. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. King County requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River We CTM') 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) for approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The 1 Mr. Chin's email does not address the transport study directly. However, it does indirectly argue that the Olson memo criticizing the transport study may not be the official position of DOE and that King County will resolve any concerns raised by Dr. Olson should her memo become the official position of DOE. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 8 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland and a Class 2 salmonid stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek,,and-also outside -City -limits: Enhancement- would include approximately 0:24 L acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation and large woody debris placement. All dredged materials will be deposited on site, eliminating the need for truck. export Additional vehicular access during project installation within the wetland and floodplain will be provided using rubber tired or tracked equipment. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA environmental review was conducted by Icing County as lead agency. 4. Adverse Impacts. King County -has failed to demonstrate that its project will not harm downstream properties through increased erosion. ' The impacts to downstream properties were of significant concern and anxiety to downstream property owners. The owners were concerned about impacts to footbridges, septic drainfields, flooding and eroding away of stream banks. The concerns of the property owners were confirmed by Dr. Patricia Olson in an August 15, 2011 internal DOE memo (Ex. 15). Dr. Olson is a PhD hydrologist employed by DOE to assess water quality impacts of projects such as that proposed by King County. She reviewed the project and wrote the memo as part of DOE's Clean Water Act Section 401 certification review for the project. There is no question that Dr. Olson was both highly qualified and unbiased in her assessment of downstream impacts resulting from the project. In her memo, Dr. Olson raises several concerns over the County's analysis of the project. She wrote that it did not appear that the author of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31, was `well versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response". She notes that County studies fail to identify the volume of additional sediments that will be transported downstream and where they will be deposited. She identifies several reasons why the methodology used to assess the potential for erosion is flawed and may underrepresent the potential for sediment transport. She concluded that she cannot make a determination concerning bank erosion of downstream properties given the flaws in the transport and hydraulic studies. She also disagreed with hydraulic study conclusions that flood frequency would be insignificant and noted that an increase in flood frequency increases the potential for erosion due to associated increases in stream power. At the hearing King County provided some verbal rebuttal to the concerns raised by Dr. Olson. Jeff Burke, a hydrologist, testified that the change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent and that this will have no significant impact on erosion potential. Don Althauser, project engineer, testified that in his professional opinion the project would not destabilize or erode the support of downstream bridges and that the project would not increase downstream erosion. He noted that the flow rates necessary to threshold sediment transport are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs and that the project will only increase flows by 6 cfs2. It doesn't appear that W. Althauser identified the mean flow rate for May Creek in his testimony, but the hydraulic tudy (Ex 26) sets the rate as 9 cfs. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 9 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 During the hearing and also in its written comment on the transport study (Ex. 36), King County discounts the issues raised by Dr. Olson because her comments may not represent the position of DOE and,--if-her-comments. do -represent -the .position.of DOE, ..they..will-be .addressed.at a later.date..... Those facts are largely irrelevant. Dr. Olson has provided a qualified and credible scientific opinion that the studies prepared for the project are flawed and incomplete. The fact that Dr. Olson's opinion may or may not represent the position of DOE only has marginal relevance to the accuracy of her position. The fact that King County intends to address her concerns at a later date does absolutely nothing to support a finding in this case that downstream impacts will be fully mitigated as required by the permitting criteria for the applications under review by the City of Renton. Permits are not approved based upon assurances from applicants that impacts will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Burke and Mr. Althausen did a fine job in .responding to some of the issues raised by Dr. Olson. They take the position that the flows generated by the project are far below the thresholds for sediment transport identified in the transport study (Ex. 31) and the hydraulic study (Ex. 26). However, Mr. Burke and W. Althausen did not address Dr. Olson's issues with the accuracy of those much higher threshold points. Given the numerous and significant alleged flaws in the studies identified by Dr. Olson, there is no way of knowing from the record before the Examiner whether the threshold flows are indeed much higher than those generated by project. It is both alarming in the truest sense of the term and even suspect that Kang County is unable to defend the accuracy of its studies when alleged flaws are so clearly identified by Dr. Olson. Why were pebble counts used? Why weren't more data samples necessary? Why were pebble counts done on the channel instead of bars? Why weren't subsurface pebble counts done? Why wasn't any volumetric sediment sampling done? King County should be able to answer these questions. Apparently it cannot. King County was fully apprised of the significance of the Olson memo from both the examiner and the public. King County had ample opportunity to respond to the Olson memo. The Examiner advised King County during the hearing that the Olson memorandum raised significant issues and that he needed the memo to be addressed. The King County response was primarily limited to the verbal testimony from W. Burke and Mr. Althauser. King County did not request additional time to respond to the memo. In point of fact, King County was given another opportunity to respond to the memo in the reply it was afforded for comments on its transport study. Many of the public comments on the transport study referenced Dr. Olson's critique of the study. Kang County could have used the reply to address those Olson comments. Instead, King County didn't submit any reply, despite having received the public comments and a reminder from staff that the County could reply to them Given the circumstances above, the Examiner has no choice but to find that the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that, more Likely than not, the project will not adversely affect downstream properties with erosion. Despite multiple opportunities to assure the Examiner and the public that its methodology in assessing erosion impacts was not flawed as asserted by a qualified hydrologist, SPECIAL GRADEIFILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE -10 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 King County simply let the allegations stand, raising serious doubts as to the credibility of the studies. Substantial evidence in the record, the uncontested conclusions of Dr. Olson, establishes that the studies are flawed and cannot be relied upon to assess downstream impacts. The assessment of adverse impacts is limited to erosion impacts since that was the most significant issue raised during the hearings and all that is necessary to deny the grade/0 and variance applications. In any reapplication King County should fully address all issues raised by Dr. Olson as well as all other issues pertinent to project approval. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-0800(2) provides that the hearing examiner is responsible for granting special permits for fill and grade. The code section provides that a special permit is required for the depositing of minerals or materials such as sand, gravel and rock. The proposed dredging will involve the deposition of dredged materials on site, so a special use permit is required and subject to review by the Examiner. The authority of the Examiner to rule upon Critical Area Ordinance variance applications is not so clear. RMC 4-9-250(3)(1) provides that the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee shall have the authority to grant variances "from the following development standards when no other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner Review". The requirement implies that the Hearing Examiner shall review the variance request if an associated permit also requires Examiner review, which in this case would be the special grade and fill permit. "[Tjhe following development standards" that may be modified by a variance under RMC 4-9-250(3)(1) includes those identified in RMC 4-9-250(3)(1)(c)(v), which are those "authorized to be requested as variances in RMC 4-3-050(1.)". RMC 4.3-050(L)(8)(d) authorizes administrative approval of dredging activities provided that if applicable criteria are not met, a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250(B) is required The staff report does not identify what Critical Area regulations are subject to the variance request and what corresponding parts of the project trigger the need fora variance. The dredging activity appears to meet the criteria for administrative approval by being necessary for flood hazard reduction purposes as required by RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(d)(i)(a). The replacement of canary grass with native vegetation and introduction of woody debris appears to meet the exemption criteria of RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(a)(ii). Project features that may trigger the need for a variance could arguably be the stream alcoves and the temporary access plan.. However, these features could also be interpreted as implied necessary elements of an mhancement/dredging operation. If King County reapplies, staff may be able to conclude that the variance request is not necessary. In the alternative, Lf staff still finds the variance application necessary' it should provide a more detailed explanation of why a variance is required SPECIAL GRADE/F1LL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 11 1 Substantive: OA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Applicable Standards. RMC 4-9-080(F)(4) governs the criteria for special f l/grade permits. RMC 4-9-250(B)(10) governs the criteria for the CAO variance. Only those criteria that address, erosion irripacts.-will lie quoted-and'applied"Below sizace those standaid§"6n their justify denial -of the applications. RMC 4-9-080(F)(4):... To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that.. the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following: ... Size and location of the activity... 3. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there is insufficient evidence to support a determination that the amount of dredging proposed by the County will not create downstream erosion that could adversely affect downstream properties. For this reason, there is not sufficient evidence to determine that the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. RMC 4-9-250(B)(10): ... in lieu of the variance criteria of . subsection BS of this Section, applications for public,/quasi public utilities or agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard habit, stream and lake or wetland regulations shall be reviewed far compliance with all of the following criteria: a. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department Administrator that the public's health, safety and welfare is best served, ... e. The proposed activity takes afflm ative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts 4. Since the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the project will generate erosion impacts for downstream properties, King County has failed to establish that the public health, safety and welfare_ is.best served by the project. The absence of demonstrably credible erosion evidence also makes it impossible to determine whether affirmative and appropriate measures have been taken to minimize unavoidable impacts. The project does not comply with RMC 4-9-250(B)(10). DECISION The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are denied. The permit applications must comply with all applicable criteria and King County has failed to demonstrate compliance with the permitting criteria identified in this decision. Since denial is based upon the failure to provide necessary information, the denial is without prejudice in case King County can produce the information necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE -12 DATED this 8th3 day ofNoVember, 2011. Phal �AOlb�=�h�� City of Renton hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-9-110(E)(9) and/or .RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that, the ftual decision of the hearing examiner is Enal subject to appeal. to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the heating examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(b)(4)., Anew fourteen (14) day appeal period shall 'commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's. Office, Renton City Hall —'7`h floor,. (425) 430-6510. Affected .property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Ihis decision was initially mailed to the City o€Renton an I112111 with an hworredsign$tme date. 'Etre decision ms'beea re -issued- with a correct signage date. SPECIAL ORADETR L PERMIT AND CAA VARIANCE -13 ' Denis Law Mayor Jpnuary 25, 2012 City of'� City Clerk Bonnie 1. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: King County Water & Land Resources, represented by Doug Chin - RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 9, 2012 regarding the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA-11-065, V -H, SP) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, Written appeal of the hearing exam.iner's decision on the May Creek'Drainage Improvement Project land use application has I filed with.the City Clerk. In -accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, th-e City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the.appeal. Other -parties of record may submit letters, limited to their positions regarding the appeal only, within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the: filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Monday; February 6, 2012. NOTICE: IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be referred and reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and -time of the Planning and Development °Committee meeting in advance of the meeting.- The recommendation of the Committee will be thereafter presented for consideration by.the full Council at a subsequent -Council meeting. Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examine''r decisions or recommendations. •Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based, upon the Written record previously. established. Unless *a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available'at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please'feel free to contact me. at bwaltonOrentonwa.eov. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk . Enclosures cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current, Planning Manager . Gerald Wasser, CED - Planning Stacy Tucker; CED - Planning Parties of Record (13) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-65101 Fax (425) 430-6516 • rent onwa.gov 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC� OF HEARINO EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME 17 C-D,r ut if Cz The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the d�isJon-Trreco1&n tf Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated J 0,-Avet r q .201 JAS 2 3 2012 �+�t 1. IDE=CATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: 0 04 f y Address: �{ Phone Number: Lad)I" k — Cro S I Email: RECEIVED REPRE NTATNE ANY).CIrY CLERK'S OFFICE Name: i Address: , 7, O Phone Number. c( b — R�LLS Email: 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets; if necessary) �J Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: ` Finding of Fact: (Please designate No. Error: Correction: Conclusions: No. Error: Correction: Over: No. Error: as denoted in the Examiner's Report) q A =t rAC Correction: 3. SLYMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attac planation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows - Other: iL lJ Appellarejfer sentative Signature Type/Printe Name D to NOTE: Pto Title IV, Chapter S, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific•appeal procedures. 1W City of Renton Municipal ,de; Title IV Chapter 8 Section 110 —. .eals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures I. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency, only the Applicant, City or a Party of Record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing: or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing: or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the Appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. a King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 96104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 TTY Relay: 711 January 23, 2012 Bonnie Walton City Clerk, City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Dear Ms. Walton: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-065, V -H, SP) because King County has demonstrated that its project will not have an adverse effect downstream. King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. The project is a small project that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months, so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential, as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. Bonnie Walton January 23, 2012 Page 2 All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Sincerely, OA� Doug Chin, PMP Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgDoa cc: Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks Attachment "A" May Creek Drainage Improvement Project King County Appeal to Hearing Examiner Decision LUA11-065, V -H, SP Context: The project is a small project•that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Finding of Fact: King County contends that the Hearing Examiner misinterpreted the technical arguments provided by King County in Exhibit 40, defending King County's technical studies in response to the memorandum authored by Dr. Patrica Olson and entered as an exhibit by a project opponent. Errors in interpretation by the Hearing Examiner are cited from the Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration: Analysis and Conclusion, as follows. Analysis Line 14-2: This paragraph starts with the Hearing Examiner assessment that: "King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study!! This particular paragraph develops argument on behalf of Dr. Olson by the Hearing Examiner and presents conclusion of the entire effort of erosion analysis erroneously assuming King County applied flawed data. This line of May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 1 reasoning is perpetuated in the HE analysis sections referred to as: HEC -RAS modeling; Median Pebble Size; Monitoring Site Observations; and Site Specific Impact, Page 2, Lines 24-26 and Page 3, Lines 2-21. Due to the complex nature of erosion analysis and arguments provided for site specific erosion analysis versus reach specific analysis, the Hearing Examiner has drawn erroneous conclusions from evidence presented by King County. There is no foundation that King County has presented flawed data. King County has testified in defense of the submitted analysis. King County did not consider the application of HEC -RAS to the study as vague or "not apparent." KC submitted a statement that the erosion study applied separate formulas for erosion analysis, thus did not limit itself to formulas imbedded in the HEC -RAS model. Ms. Olson has concurred in a separate meeting that our fluvial geomorphologist has applied more superior formulas than exist in the HEC -RAS model. 2. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's contention about the pebble count method. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded that King County applied "generalized empirical observations. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's comment." However, King county provided argument that in this specific erosion study, we were satisfied by the pebble count methodology since response of the channel after three storm events corroborated the estimates of flows that would cause channel change. Therefore, we concur that she can be right in many situations, but field evidence confirms King County should remain with its original input parameter for pebble size derived from scientifically established sediment measurement methodology. 3. Under "Monitoring Site Observations," the HE states: "In its reconsideration request, it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duffus property was probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. King County did not make this statement. As per Exhibit 40, we recognized that Dr. Olson has this opinion based on her single site visit. This statement is erroneously assigned or inferred as King County's position, when in fact Exhibit 40 provides argument that the specific site, if analyzed, would derive a higher threshold for erosion than the study reach results. This further evaluation is not mentioned or acknowledged by the HE. 4. Site Specific Impact Analysis is the crux of Dr. Olson's memo, expressing concern for erosion impacts. Dr. Olson was representing that site specific analysis is needed at the project Duffus/Coates reach identified as immediately downstream of the private bridge at SE 143rd Street crossing of May Creek. The Duffus/Rollins and Coates are owners adjacent and downstream of this bridge. King County acknowledged that there are issues of concern for the SE 143rd Street private bridge, Coates rockery, and the condition of channel downcutting existing at this site. The Hearing Examiner summarized a conclusion that "reports are based on inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusion, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will cause adverse downstream impact." King County disputes that this conjecture and conclusion is based on the previous errors in interpretation cited above. In addition, King County previously provided evidence that engineers, fluvial geomorphologist, and hydrologist had performed site specific observations at this site. King County affirms that the data provided is not flawed or mis-applied in the erosion analysis and exhibits submitted to record for the Hearing. Secondly, King County does not believe that there are other reasonable methods to apply at the Duffus/Coates reach due to the unique levels of modification to the channel from the private facilities installed, historic modifications performed to the channel by private parties, and the unique substrate conditions known at this site. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 2 Other: 1. The Examiner states in his analysis that "the information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information." King County has made more than a reasonable effort to in demonstrating that the project has provided sufficient information to show there are no adverse downstream impacts. Submittals provided to the hearing include: • May Creek Basin Action Plan (2001) — Referenced in hearing. • May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan — Final Draft (Mid -Sound). • Biological Evaluation for Endangered Species Act. • Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan. • May Creek Erosion Stabilization, Draft Report, May Creek Sediment Transport, Study Phase 3; Anchor; January 2010. • May Creek Sediment Transport Study, Anchor, June 2009. • Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project; December 17, 2010. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 9A1205 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Document. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A120S): Post -construction Erosion Monitoring Plan — Downstream of 148th Avenue SE. August 24, 2011 memo from Bill Kerschke and Julia Turney to Don Althauser. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project — Response to Ecology's September 1, 2011 comment on the backwater effect caused by the McFarland (i.e., Gambini) footbridge. December 14, 2011 memo to Doug Chin from Jeff Burkey and Julia Turney. • Sediment Assessment. February 9, 2011. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Design Plans, Including Long Marsh Creek Design Plans. KC has provided sufficient evidence to prove that its project will not have an adverse effect on downstream property owners. The Examiner recommends in his conclusion that the City of Renton hire a third party independent review of King County's conclusions. However, the Examiner has not obtained any support for the technical review of KC conclusions before making his own conclusions that the project has not performed a sufficient amount of analysis. Lastly, the Hearing Examiner did not take into account the City's staff review and recommendation for approval of the project or utilize the City's technical staff to review the reconsideration materials submitted by King County. 2. King County represented to the HE that the Duffus/Coates reach should be considered an erosive channel subject to long-term erosion that will promote channel downcutting and bank erosion, which should have been considered natural processes and existing conditions when evaluating project impacts. KC further presented that this site has been constrained or restricted by channel and bank hardening measures installed by various adjacent land owners. King County inspected the private bridge and staff observed repeated efforts over time of concrete placement at the stream bed to protect the bridge. At the Coates property, KC acknowledges the existing rockery provides protection to the Coates home. This rockery is incurring failure of the toe of the rockery, due May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 3 primarily to channel downcutting. These are long-term deteriorations that require measures by owners to properly maintain these private facilities. King County has offered technical advice to Mr. Coates and further supports that the facility should be repaired or replaced with bioengineered bank stabilization. King County testified its position, that maintenance of the private facilities containing the channel at the 143rd private bridge to the Duffus/Rollins property and rockery at the Coates residence are private responsibility to maintain and that erosion processes have negligible increases due to the proposed project, as demonstrated in hydrologic and fluvial geomorphology studies performed and submitted. Legal: In the HE analysis, the Hearing Examiner stated that he "determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute." The Examiner is referring to an internal DOE memo that is unsigned and not on official Washington State Department of Ecology letterhead. The Examiner has not confirmed that the memo is or would be the official position of DOE, nor has he required the person that submitted the memo to demonstrate that it is the official position of DOE. The memo was never officially sent to the City of Renton for consideration in its permitting of King County's project, prior to the hearing. The author of WA DOE was not available at the hearing for questioning or cross-examination by KC to substantiate issues of this correspondence. Summary: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the city of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project jLUA11-065, V -H, SP). King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement project. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 4 PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC. OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMM[ENDATION APPLICATION NAME kai j�f' �r ut vE,$ 3. LU S The undersigned interested party dedi� hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the onTrecominen A AARN Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated J 4nu at v' , CO -41 JAN 2 � 20 1. IDENTINICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT' Lin �PS Name: kC44 V Address:O o h � Phone Number: — q Email: RECEIVED REI' ATIVEANY}-CaY CLERK'S OFFICE Name: u Address: .2 011 ,�01, Phone Number. Z0 LQ 2-21 Email: C164P L ln®K—QQv ht V 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets; if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: ' Findingaf Fact: (Please designate No. Error: Correction: Conclusions: No. Error. Correction: Other: No. Error: as denoted in the Examiner's Report) f I % 1 4A I I Cl - Correction: Ni A =t 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attac planation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: V 23 L ep sentative Signature Type/Pr, to Name D to NOTE: P er to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 IOP, for specific•appeal procedures. t. �l . t' t. City of Renton Municipal . Je: Title IV, Chapter 8. Section 110 - ►,r,,eais 4-8-11QC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by state law or exempted by a state or federal agency, only the Applicant, City or a Party of Record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if that person(s): a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing: or b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing: or c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior to the close of the public hearing. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. 5. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the Appellant. 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. L-9 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 TTY Relay: 711 January 23, 2012 Bonnie Walton City Clerk, City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Dear Ms. Walton: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-065, V -H, SP) because King County has demonstrated that its project will not have an adverse effect downstream. King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. The project is a small project that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months, so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential, as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. Bonnie Walton January 23, 2012 Page 2 All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Sincerely, Doug Chin, PMP Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgpos cc: Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks Attachment "A" May Creek Drainage Improvement Project King County Appeal to Hearing Examiner Decision LUA11-065, V -H, SP Context: The project is a small project,that does the bare minimum to restore the low flow drainage capacity of a stream channel clogged by sediment from upstream development. It is analogous to cleaning out a "drain pipe" that is partially obstructed with sediment. The Valley residents depend on this "drain pipe" so to speak to keep their agricultural land dry in the summer months so they can continue using the land as they have done historically. Cleaning the "drain pipe" will not increase flooding or erosion downstream because we are effectively not enlarging the "drain pipe." The Valley floodplain for greater than one-year flood events will remain virtually unchanged by the project because of other controlling factors. Drainage will be improved only during the smallest of flow events that have no effects on downstream erosion potential as demonstrated by our extensive hydraulic analysis and erosion study. We believe our analysis of this project was extensive relative to the maintenance nature and small size of the project and we feel strongly that it shows no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project. We believe the project is a good one because Valley residents are no longer allowed by regulations to clean their obstructed "drain pipe" that is May Creek. As a result, they are no longer able to restore the lost use of their land caused by sedimentation from a peak in upstream erosion during the 1980s and 1990s from upstream development with inadequate stormwater controls. All the work to be done within the city of Renton is mitigation work that will improve environmental conditions in a wetland that is dominated by invasive reed canary grass. The County chose this site as the most effective and efficient location to mitigate for habitat impacts associated with our drainage improvement project. Finding of Fact: King County contends that the Hearing Examiner misinterpreted the technical arguments provided by King County in Exhibit 40, defending King County's technical studies in response to the memorandum authored by Dr. Patrica Olson and entered as an exhibit by a project opponent. Errors in interpretation by the Hearing Examiner are cited from the Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration: Analysis and Conclusion, as follows. Analysis Line 14-2: This paragraph starts with the Hearing Examiner assessment that: "King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study!! This particular paragraph develops argument on behalf of Dr. Olson by the Hearing Examiner and presents conclusion of the entire effort of erosion analysis erroneously assuming King County applied flawed data. This line of May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 1 reasoning is perpetuated in the HE analysis sections referred to as: HEC -RAS modeling; Median Pebble Size; Monitoring Site Observations; and Site Specific Impact, Page 2, Lines 24-26 and Page 3, Lines 2-21. Due to the complex nature of erosion analysis and arguments provided for site specific erosion analysis versus reach specific analysis, the Hearing Examiner has drawn erroneous conclusions from evidence presented by King County. There is no foundation that King County has presented flawed data. King County has testified in defense of the submitted analysis. King County did not consider the application of HEC -RAS to the study as vague or "not apparent." KC submitted a statement that the erosion study applied separate formulas for erosion analysis, thus did not limit itself to formulas imbedded in the MEC -RAS model. Ms. Olson has concurred in a separate meeting that our fluvial geomorphologist has applied more superior formulas than exist in the HEC -RAS model. 2. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's contention about the pebble count method. The Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded that King County applied "generalized empirical observations. King County did not dispute Dr. Olson's comment." However, King county provided argument that in this specific erosion study, we were satisfied by the pebble count methodology since response of the channel after three storm events corroborated the estimates of flows that would cause channel change. Therefore, we concur that she can be right in many situations, but field evidence confirms King County should remain with its original input parameter for pebble size derived from scientifically established sediment measurement methodology. Under "Monitoring Site Observations," the HE states: "In its reconsideration request, it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duffus property was probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. King County did not make this statement. As per Exhibit 40, we recognized that Dr. Olson has this opinion based on her single site visit. This statement is erroneously assigned or inferred as King County's position, when in fact Exhibit 40 provides argument that the specific site, if analyzed, would derive a higher threshold for erosion than the study reach results. This further evaluation is not mentioned or acknowledged by the HE. 4. Site Specific Impact Analysis is the crux of Dr. Olson's memo, expressing concern for erosion impacts. Dr. Olson was representing that site specific analysis is needed at the project Du .flus/Coates reach identified as immediately downstream of the private bridge at SE 143rd Street crossing of May Creek. The Duffus/Rollins and Coates are owners adjacent and downstream of this bridge. King County acknowledged that there are issues of concern for the SE 143rd Street private bridge, Coates rockery, and the condition of channel downcutting existing at this site. The Hearing Examiner summarized a conclusion that "reports are based on inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusion, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will cause adverse downstream impact." King County disputes that this conjecture and conclusion is based on the previous errors in interpretation cited above. In addition, King County previously provided evidence that engineers, fluvial geomorphologist, and hydrologist had performed site specific observations at this site. King County affirms that the data provided is not flawed or mis-applied in the erosion analysis and exhibits submitted to record for the Hearing. Secondly, King County does not believe that there are other reasonable methods to apply at the Duffus/Coates reach due to the unique levels of modification to the channel from the private facilities installed, historic modifications performed to the channel by private parties, and the unique substrate conditions known at this site. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 2 Other: 1. The Examiner states in his analysis that "the information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information." King County has made more than a reasonable effort to in demonstrating that the project has provided sufficient information to show there are no adverse downstream impacts. Submittals provided to the hearing include: • May Creek Basin Action Plan (2001) — Referenced in hearing. • May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan - Final Draft (Mid -Sound). • Biological Evaluation for Endangered Species Act. • Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan. • May Creek Erosion Stabilization, Draft Report, May Creek Sediment Transport, Study Phase 3; Anchor; January 2010. • May Creek Sediment Transport Study, Anchor, June 2009. • Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project; December 17, 2010. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 9A1205 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Document. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9Ai205): Post -construction Erosion Monitoring Plan — Downstream of 148th Avenue SE. August 24, 2011 memo from Bill Kerschke and Julia Turney to Don Althauser. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Project — Response to Ecology's September 1, 2011 comment on the backwater effect caused by the McFarland (i.e., Gambini) footbridge. December 14, 2011 memo to Doug Chin from Jeff Burkey and Julia Turney. • Sediment Assessment. February 9, 2011. • May Creek Drainage Improvement Design Plans, Including Long Marsh Creek Design Plans. KC has provided sufficient evidence to prove that its project will not have an adverse effect on downstream property owners. The Examiner recommends in his conclusion that the City of Renton hire a third party independent review of King County's conclusions. However, the Examiner has not obtained any support for the technical review of KC conclusions before making his own conclusions that the project has not performed a sufficient amount of analysis. Lastly, the Hearing Examiner did not take into account the City's staff review and recommendation for approval of the project or utilize the City's technical staff to review the reconsideration materials submitted by King County. King County represented to the HE that the Duffus/Coates reach should be considered an erosive channel subject to long-term erosion that will promote channel downcutting and bank erosion, which should have been considered natural processes and existing conditions when evaluating project impacts. KC further presented that this site has been constrained or restricted by channel and bank hardening measures installed by various adjacent land owners. King County inspected the private bridge and staff observed repeated efforts over time of concrete placement at the stream bed to protect the bridge. At the Coates property, KC acknowledges the existing rockery provides protection to the Coates home. This rockery is incurring failure of the toe of the rockery, due May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 3 primarily to channel downcutting. These are long-term deteriorations that require measures by owners to properly maintain these private facilities. King County has offered technical advice to Mr. Coates and further supports that the facility should be repaired or replaced with bioengineered bank stabilization. King County testified its position, that maintenance of the private facilities containing the channel at the 143rd private bridge to the Duffus/Rollins property and rockery at the Coates residence are private responsibility to maintain and that erosion processes have negligible increases due to the proposed project, as demonstrated in hydrologic and fluvial geomorphology studies performed and submitted. legal: In the HE analysis, the Hearing Examiner stated that he "determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute." The Examiner is referring to an internal DOE memo that is unsigned and not on official Washington State Department of Ecology letterhead. The Examiner has not confirmed that the memo is or would be the official position of DOE, nor has he required the person that submitted the memo to demonstrate that it is the official position of DOE. The memo was never officially sent to the City of Renton for consideration in its permitting of King County's project, prior to the hearing. The author of WA DOE was not available at the hearing for questioning or cross-examination by KC to substantiate issues of this correspondence. Summary: King County is appealing the January 9, 2012 decision of the city of Renton Hearing Examiner on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-055, V -H, SP). King County is asking the Renton City Council to overrule the Examiner's decision and grant the Grading Permit and Variance for the May Creek Drainage Improvement project. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Attachment A Page 4 CITY OF RENTON REVENUE/CHECK DOCUMENTATION DATE: SOURCE: (WHO FROM) AMOUNT(S): BIZ p C�V-.-Y,�. ACCOUNT CODE(S): 000.0000000.011.345.81.00.003 - Appeal Fee ❑ 000.000000.007.359.90.00.000 - Code Compliant - Fee ❑ 000.000000.012.341.60.00.024 - Copy Fee 000.000000.011.359.90.00.000 - Impound Fee 000.000000.012.341.60.00.001 - Notary/Certific TRANSAcnON DESCRIPTION: PRINTED NAME: DEPT: TURE' C t r•� Supportive documentation must be attached prior to prc r Q-JFLS430/bh .0_5-o'm DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 425-430-6850 Reg# #/Rcpt#; 001-00037364 [ DH ] Accounting Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 Date/Time: Mon, Jan 23, 2012 4:34 PM REF #: MAYCREEK DRAINAGE LUA 11 065 000.000000.011.345.81.00.003 FEE AMOUNT: $250.00 ---------------------- RECEIPT TOTAL - $250.00 Payment Data: Pmt# :1 Payer: DOUG CHIN Method; CC AMOUNT = $250.00 RECEIPT SUMMARY TOTAL TENDERED = $250.00 RECEIPT TOTAL - $250.00 ------------------ CHANGE DUE _ $0.00 **************************************** HAVE A NICE DAY! **************************************** DUPLICATE -DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE January 25, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 25th day of January, 2012, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties attached, the Appeal to City Council for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA11-065, V -H, SP) ,�. W a&e� Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 25th day of Jarippy, 912. ►4 y kk G.,.ssioN� 0�� 1 uo NOT,q,4y r�+i �'► :. C'$LIC i Cynt is R. Moyac `'� ;27-1k,.� o , Notary Public in and for the State of�..F Wgg; IJe i Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Doug Chin King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Andrew Duffus 9605 143rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Roger Coates 14127 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 Lindsey Miller King Co. Water & Land Res. Div 201 S Jackson Street MIS KSC-TR-0231 Seattle, WA 98104 Jeff Waller 15125 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 Happy Longfellow, President Stonegate Homeowners Assoc. 545 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 Julie & Jim Bonwell Katie Bonwel! 2914 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Don Althauser King Co. Water & Land Res. 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 Jean Rollins 2905 Tlwaco Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Div. 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Jeff Burkey Div. King Co. Water & Land Res. Div. 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Jerri Wood 12408 SE 98th Street Renton, WA 98056 Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal to Council, May Creek Drainage Improvement Project LUA-11-065, V -H, SP January 23, 2012 1 Renton Reporter 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * Julia Medzegian 8 Community and Economic Alex Pietsch✓ Development Gerald Wasser✓ Neil Watts"" Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker ✓ Erika Conkling Janet Conklin Larry Meckling ✓ 1 Fire Marshall Dave Pargas ✓ 1 Fire & Emergency Services 7 Planning Commission Judith Subia 13 Parties of Record (see attached list) 1 Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman 1 PW/Transportation Services Rich Perteet 1 PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-11-065 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only ppe03 Hearing Examiner's Decision -4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 N CrrY of REWON J0 1 a 2012 Rr,CENED CIT( CLERK'S OFFICe BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO Variance LUA11-065, V -H, SP DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION King County has requested reconsideration of the denial of its applications for a critical areas ordinance variance and special grade/fill permit for the dredging of May Creek, Renton File No. LUAI 1-065, V -H, SP. The request is denied. Procedural Background 1, On November 11, 2011 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision denying the above - captioned permit application. 2. King County filed a timely Request for Reconsideration, received by the City of Renton on November 17, 2011. In its request for reconsideration, King County pointed out that it had not received copies of letters submitted into the record that were critical of the Anchor QEA, LLC sediment transport study, Ex. 31. 3. By Order Authorizing Reconsideration dated November 28, 2011 the Examiner authorized King County to provide new evidence in response to the written comments King County had not received on the sediment transport study. The Order included a schedule for submission of additional comments for all hearing participants. 4. Several new exhibits were entered into the record as part of the reconsideration process, SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 identified as follows: Ex. 36: 11/15/11 King County Reconsideration Request Ex. 37: Order Authorizing Reconsideration Ex. 38: 1218111 comment letter from Andrew Duffus Ex. 39: 12/9/11 comment letter from Jean Rollins Ex. 40: 121211] 1 comment letter from King County Analysis The critical issue for both permit applications is the impact of dredging project on downstream properties. Project opponents presented a compelling report by Dr. Patricia Olson, Ex. 15, from the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE"), who asserted numerous flaws in the studies used by King County to conclude that downstream properties would not be adversely affected. The Examiner determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute them. As detailed in the procedural background above, King County was given an opportunity to present new evidence in its request for reconsideration to rebut comments made by the public regarding the accuracy and validity of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31. These public comments primarily referenced the report provided by Dr. Olson, Ex. 15. The information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information to determine that more likely than not downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. In its reconsideration continents, Ex. 40, King County largely agrees with the concerns of Dr. Olson regarding the accuracy of the sediment transport study. King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon the flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study. As best as can be discerned from King County's arguments, King County ultimately concluded that the project wouldn't increase downstream erosion because the flows that initiate sediment transport observed at three monitoring stations significantly exceeded the extra flows generated by the project. These relatively simple observations would have been readily apparent to Dr. Olson, who still determined that further analysis was necessary. Corroborating Dr. Olson's skepticism is the fact that King County also acknowledges that the transport thresholds at the monitoring stations aren't representative of those that may occur downstream. Of further concern is that King County also readily admits that it did not provide any detailed assessment of damage that may occur to downstream properties. With this background, it is not possible to conclude with any reasonable degree of confidence that downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. The points raised by Dr. Olson are more fully addressed as follows: HEC -RAS Program. In Ex. 40 King County acknowledged that the HEC -RAS program should not be used to evaluate erosion potential. It does appear that the conclusions of the sediment transport study do not appear to use model results in determining the estimate of threshold motion, assessed at pages 22-24 of the study. The HEC -RAS Program may have been used to input some values into the formulas used to estimate critical shear stress, but that was not apparent from the text of the SPECIAL GRADENILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 report. Median Pebble Size: King County agrees with Dr. Olson that the median pebble diameter size identified in the report may be inaccurately smaller than actual site conditions. King County pointed out that its conclusions were not based solely upon median pebble size. The "estimate of threshold motion" section of the study, referenced in the preceding paragraph, was expressly based upon median pebble size. The only conclusions in the study made independently of median pebble diameter appear to be the generalized empirical observations from high flow events at the three monitoring stations. As previously noted these conclusions were that soil transport only occurs at flow rates that significantly exceed those created by the project. In short, the bulk of the analysis in the sediment transport study was not sufficiently accurate to support any reliable conclusions on downstream property impacts. Monitoring Site Observations. Although the King County conclusions appear to be based almost entirely upon observations from its monitoring stations as opposed to HEC -RAS modeling, King County admits that the monitoring stations may not be representative of all portions of the stream. In its reconsideration request it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duffus property was probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. This low range is a significant departure from the conclusion of the sediment transport study that the overall erosion threshold is 275 cfs. Further, there's no indication in the record that the Duff -us property even represents the lowest end of the range. If the threshold has this much variability, it is difficult to understand how any single threshold can be assigned to the stream as a whole. It would appear that a far more relevant inquiry would be what the lower downstream thresholds would be and whether the increased flows generated by the project would create cumulative flows that exceed them. Site Specific Impact Analysis. The King County reconsideration request expressly stated that the sediment transport study was not designed "to evaluate site specific issues and concerns of the individual landowners at the specific location visited by Dr. Olson" and that the study "was not designed to and did not conduct a detailed analysis of risk to any specific private infrastructure elements". The Examiner recognizes that King County qualified its statements as not providing any "detailed" analysis of site specific impacts. Under different circumstances King County could very well support a finding of no downstream impacts with these types of generalized conclusions. However, the generalized conclusions of this report are based upon inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream stream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusions, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will not cause adverse downstream impacts. Overall Conclusions. King County appears to be arguing that the shortcomings of its data and analysis are of no consequence given the wide disparity between the nominal increased flows generated by the project and flows necessary to trigger sediment transport. King County also takes the position that any more precise analysis would not yield any more useful results, given this disparity. One is left with the impression that King County has loaded the record with extensive data and studies to support its position, only to subsequently argue that most of that data and analysis was not used by the County in its decision making when tasked to defend it. The existence of extraneous information is understandable in most cases. Anchor QEA was probably just SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 demonstrating that it had done its due diligence and completed as much analysis as could be reasonably expected within the limitations of sediment transport science. The problem in this particular case is that a qualified expert, Dr. Olson, provided very compelling evidence that more useful information could have been reasonably acquired. Almost all of Dr. Olson's conclusions on the short comings of the studies were validated by King County. If she was correct on all these issues, it reasonable to conclude that she was also correct in determining that more could have been done to assess downstream impacts. DECISION The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are still denied without prejudice. All findings and conclusions of the November 11, 2011 decision shall remain in place. In addition, those findings and conclusions are supplemented by the exhibit list, findings and conclusions of this decision on reconsideration as well as the exhibit list identified in the Order on Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed above, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the project will not adversely affect downstream property owners. Should the County exercise its option to re -apply, it is recommended that the City hire an independent third party reviewer to assess the validity of the conclusions of King County. In the alternative, evidence that King County has resolved the concerns of Dr. Olson would be equally persuasive. The County should also recognize that the issues addressed in this reconsideration decision solely address erosion impacts. Potential flooding impacts also need to a addressed in more detail. DATED this 9th day of January, 2012. P 1 A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7h floor, (425) 430-6510. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Affected property owners may request a change in. valuation for, property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. SPECIAL GRADEXILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 January 10, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 10th day of January, 2012, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties attached, the Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project - Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO Variance (LUA11-065, V -H, SP) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 10th day of January, 2012. Cynth'ia� Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 T f d -do o aj a Ja n wawa6Jay3 je e6 a zes Aa3nd-o�-oos-� , p. n d w q I is � a S� ®o91.s,�Ai�l3Atl3! q I ifRn i uwrNane•nnmm ; ap uta ajny'jey el q zaildaV p suas I salad q salpe; sa;lanb 3 Doug'Chin King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Andrew Duffus 9605 143rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Roger Coates 14127 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 Happy Longfellow, President Stonegate Homeowners Assoc. 5405 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 Julie & Jim Bonwell Katie Bonwell 2914 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Don Althauser King Co. Water & Land Res. Div. 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Lindsey Miller King Co. Water & Land Res. Div. Tom Carpenter 201 S Jackson Street 15006 SE 139th Place MIS KSC-TR-0231 Renton, WA 98059 Seattle, WA 98104 Jeff Waller 15125 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 .lean Rollins 2905 Ilwaco Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Div. 39015 172nd Avenue 5E Auburn, WA 98092 Jeff Burkey King Co. Water & Land Res. Div. 201 S Jackson Street #600 Seattle, WA 98104 Jerri Wood 12408 SE 98th Street Renton, WA 98056 T owls ® �/ 1043 d -dod asodxe � .jaded peal � 0096S aieldwal ®tianv esD i °4 MR 00le puas • i. el7ge-! eland 4n Denis Law C1 OiF Mayor O " ;: r A• �a City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton January 10, 2012 Doug Chin, PMP Project Manager, Capital Services Unit ' King County Water and Land Resources Division,. 201- S: Jackson St:, Ste #600 Seattle,.WA 98104 Re: Decision on Reconsideration.for May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA-11-065, V -H, SP) Dear Appellant:'. Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated January 9;2012, in the above - referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie (`..Walton City•Clerk Enc.: Hearing'Examiner's Decision cc:. Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Gerald Wasser, CED - Planning Stacy Tucker, CED -Planning , Parties of Record'(12). 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 /Fax (425).430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 YO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement } DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Project } Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO } Variance } } LUAI1-065, V -H, SP } King County has requested reconsideration of the denial of its applications for a critical areas ordinance variance and special grade/fill permit for the dredging of May Creek, Renton File No. LUA11-065, V -H, SP. The request is denied. Procedural Background I, On November 11, 2011 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision denying the above - captioned permit application. 2. King County filed a timely Request for Reconsideration, received by the City of Renton on November 17, 2011. In its request for reconsideration, King County pointed out that it had not received copies of letters submitted into the record that were critical of the Anchor QEA, LLC sediment transport study, Ex. 31. 3. By Order Authorizing Reconsideration dated November 28, 2011 the Examiner authorized King County to provide new evidence in response to the written comments King County had not received on the sediment transport study. The Order included a schedule for submission of additional comments for all hearing participants. 4. Several new exhibits were entered into the record as part of the reconsideration process, SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 identified as follows: Ex. 36: 11/15/11 King County Reconsideration Request Ex. 37: Order Authorizing Reconsideration Ex. 38: 1218111 comment letter from Andrew Duff -us Ex. 39: 12/9/11 comment letter from Jean Rollins Ex. 40: 12/21/11 comment letter from King County Analysis The critical issue for both permit applications is the impact of dredging project on downstream properties. Project opponents presented a compelling report by Dr. Patricia Olson, Ex. 15, from the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE"), who asserted numerous flaws in the studies used by King County to conclude that downstream properties would not be adversely affected. The Examiner determined that Dr. Olson raised legitimate concerns and that King County did not adequately refute them. As detailed in the procedural background above, King County was given an opportunity to present new evidence in its request for reconsideration to rebut comments made by the public regarding the accuracy and validity of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31. These public comments primarily referenced the report provided by Dr. Olson, Ex. 15. The information provided by King County in its reconsideration request still does not provide sufficient information to determine that more likely than not downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. In its reconsideration comments, Ex. 40, King County largely agrees with the concerns of Dr. Olson regarding the accuracy of the sediment transport study. King County's primary defense is that it didn't rely upon the flawed data, which comprises the bulk of the sediment transport study. As best as can be discerned from King County's arguments, King County ultimately concluded that the project wouldn't increase downstream erosion because the flows that initiate sediment transport observed at three monitoring stations significantly exceeded the extra flows generated by the project. These relatively simple observations would have been readily apparent to Dr. Olson, who still determined that further analysis was necessary: Corroborating Dr. Olson's skepticism is the fact that King County also acknowledges that the transport thresholds at the monitoring stations aren't representative of those that may occur downstream. Of further concern is that King County also readily admits that it did not provide any detailed assessment of damage that may occur to downstream properties. With this background, it is not possible to conclude with any reasonable degree of confidence that downstream properties will not be adversely affected by the project. The points raised by Dr. Olson are more fully addressed as follows: HEC -RAS Program. In Ex. 40 King County acknowledged that the HEC -RAS program should not be used to evaluate erosion potential. It does appear that the conclusions of the sediment transport study do not appear to use model results in determining the estimate of threshold motion, assessed at pages 22-24 of the study. The HEC -RAS Program may have been used to input some values into the formulas used to estimate critical shear stress, but that was not apparent from the text of the SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 report. Median Pebble Size: King County agrees with Dr. Olson that the median pebble diameter size identified in the report may be inaccurately smaller than actual site conditions. King County pointed out that its conclusions were not based solely upon median pebble size. The "estimate of threshold motion" section of the study, referenced in the preceding paragraph, was expressly'based upon median pebble size. The only conclusions in the study made independently of median pebble diameter appear to be the generalized empirical observations from high flow events at the three monitoring stations. As previously noted these conclusions were that soil transport only occurs at flow rates that significantly exceed those created by the project. In short, the bulk of the analysis in the sediment transport study was not sufficiently accurate to support any reliable conclusions on downstream property impacts. Monitoring Site Observations. Although the King County conclusions appear to be based almost entirely upon observations from its monitoring stations as opposed to HEC -RAS modeling, King County admits that the monitoring stations may not be representative of all portions of the stream. In its reconsideration request it acknowledged that the erosion threshold at the Duffus property was probably at the lower end of the range of 73 to 230 cfs. This low range is a significant departure from the conclusion of the sediment transport study that the overall erosion threshold is 275 cfs. Further, there's no indication in the record that the Duffus property even represents the lowest end of the range. If the threshold has this much variability, it is difficult to understand how any single threshold can be assigned to the stream as a whole. It would appear that a far more relevant inquiry would be what the lower downstream thresholds would be and whether the increased flows generated by the project would create cumulative flows that exceed them. Site Specific Impact Analysis. The King County reconsideration request expressly stated that the sediment transport study was not designed "to evaluate site specific issues and concerns of the individual landowners at the specific location visited by Dr. Olson" and that the study "was not designed to and did not conduct a detailed analysis of risk to any specific private infrastructure elements". The Examiner recognizes that King County qualified its statements as not providing any "detailed" analysis of site specific impacts. Under different circumstances King County could very well support a finding of no downstream impacts with these types of generalized conclusions. However, the generalized conclusions of this report are based upon inaccurate pebble data and monitoring data that does not accurately represent the conditions of all downstream stream sections. With flawed general conclusions and no site specific conclusions, it cannot be determined that more likely than not that the project will not cause adverse downstream impacts. Overall Conclusions. King County appears to be arguing that the shortcomings of its data and analysis are of no consequence given the wide disparity between the nominal increased flows generated by the project and flows necessary to trigger sediment transport. King County also takes the position that any more precise analysis would not yield any more useful results, given this disparity. One is left with the impression that King County has loaded the record with extensive data and studies to support its position, only to subsequently argue that most of that data and analysis was not used by the County in its decision making when tasked to defend it. The existence of extraneous information is understandable in most cases. Anchor QEA was probably just SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 demonstrating that it had done its due diligence and completed as much analysis as could be reasonably expected within the limitations of sediment transport science. The problem in this particular case is that a qualified expert, Dr. Olson, provided very compelling evidence that more useful information could have been reasonably acquired. Almost all of Dr. Olson's conclusions on the short comings of the studies were validated by King County. If she was correct on all these issues, it reasonable to conclude that she was also correct in determining that more could have been done to assess downstream impacts. DECISION The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are still denied without prejudice. All findings and conclusions of the November 11, 2011 decision shall remain in place. In addition, those findings and conclusions are supplemented by the exhibit list, findings and conclusions of this decision on reconsideration as well as the exhibit list identified in the Order on Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed above, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the project will not adversely affect downstream property owners. Should the County exercise its option to re -apply, it is recommended that the City hire -an independent third party reviewer to assess the validity of the conclusions of King County. In the alternative, evidence that King County has resolved the concerns of Dr. Olson would be equally persuasive. The County should also recognize that the issues addressed in this reconsideration decision solely address erosion impacts. Potential flooding impacts also need to a addressed in more detail. DATED this 9th day of January, 2012. Is Phil 01brechts (Signed original in officialfile) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7t` floor, (425) 430-6510. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 I Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 2 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SPECIAL GRADEMLL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 sLIA9 King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 'TTY Relay: 711 December 21, 2011 Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 C0�'Y R1vF� 0�c 2 12411 J3U1&JD1.NG p1,11S��N RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (File No. LUA-11-065) Rebuttal to Comments on the Sediment -Transport _Study_(Exhibit 31) Dear Mr. Olbrechts: The King County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) is providing the following additional information in response to the public comment received on the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study (Exhibit 31) for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (LUA-11-065). All the public comments received focused on project issues raised in the memorandum written on August 15, 2011 by Dr. Patricia L. Olson, Senior Hydrologist, Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). For this reason, King County WLRD is responding to the public comments by providing the following documentation which addresses the comments in Dr. Olson's August 15, 2011 memorandum. Benefit of the Project Dr. Olson questioned the benefit of the project based on her conclusion that a 0.04 percent decrease in flood duration at 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) is not significant enough to dredge; however, Dr. Olson overlooked the point that the project is not trying to decrease flood durations at 50 cfs. The project is will decrease flood durations below 50 cfs (Attachment 1: Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project, Jeff Burkey, December 2010). King County WLRD agrees that an improvement of only 0.04 percent would not warrant a project; however, the benefit of the project is actually approximately 21 percent reduction in flooding of adjacent fields below 50 cfs. Under current conditions, the stream overflows its banks starting at 6 cfs, while post -project, the stream will remain in its banks for flows up to 50 cfs (slightly less than a 1 -year event). This means that for flows between 6 cfs and 50 cfs, flooding will no longer occur post -project. This is an improvement that King County WLRD does feel is significant. For flows over 50 cfs, Dr. Olson is correct in noting that there will not be much of a change in the amount of flooding. .cam� A Phi 1 ts�. December 21, 2011 Page 2 Cost -Benefit Analysis Dr. Olson also questioned whether a cost -benefit analysis had been done for various options considered for the project. The King County Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection of both agricultural uses and equestrian activities, both of which are at risk due to the flooding in the May Valley. As part of the King County Agricultural Program, the County is working to preserve prime agricultural soils, protect water resources, and ensure the continuing economic vitality of agriculture in the County. King County has historically been a productive agricultural region with dairies, livestock operations, crop farms, and berry fields. Drainage problems are one of the problems that have significantly contributed to the reduction of farmland in King County. Although most costs can be reasonably estimated for undertaking various alternatives, the benefits of preserving the rural character of a community cannot be easily measured and monetized. The benefits are collective and public in nature. In addition, the May Creek Basin Action Plan published by King County in 2001 recommended this project as one of the actions needed to correct adverse conditions in the basin. The focus of basin plans has been on reducing flood damages, protecting stream and wetland habitats, and improving the quality of surface and groundwater. This basin plan was developed in coordination with King County, City of Renton, City of Newcastle, and the May Creek Citizens Advisory Committee, which included Mr..Duffus. The basin plan is available on King County's website. Therefore, no additional cost -benefit analysis was conducted for this project above and beyond what was presented in the basin plan. While a detailed cost -benefit analysis was not conducted for the reasons explained above, the project did evaluate a number of alternatives. The alternatives or options ranged from floodplain restoration to upland stormwater controls. The preferred alternative is the current proposal. This alternative proved to be the most practicable for multiple reasons. First, it allows property owners to reclaim more useable pasture at certain times of the year, without requiring them to move their operations to another location. Second, the sediment and vegetation removal does not require land acquisition, and therefore the proposal fits within the King County budget: Third, the proposal'does not require permanent fill in the wetland; stream, or floodplain (except streambed gravels for mitigation). In addition, the mitigation associated with this proposal will protect the stream by restoring native riparian/wetland vegetation and installing fences along the stream, which will prevent livestock access. Sediment Transport to Lake Washington We would like to correct Dr. Olson's interpretation of the February 11, 2011 memorandum from Julia Turney to Doug Chin. Dr. Olson incorrectly concluded.from that memo that fine sediment from May Valley would not be deposited in Lake Washington. This conclusion was incorrect. The memo said that while muck and fine sediment from the May Valley does move downstream to Lake Washington, the May Valley is not the primary source of sediment to Lake Washington. The primary source of sediment entering Lake Washington from May Creek is from the canyon and eroding channels of tributaries downstream of the May Valley (May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report, 1995). The proposed project includes a number of features that will likely decrease the amount of sediment leaving the May Valley, including: Phil Olbrcchts December 21, 2011 Page 3 • Removing and controlling of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea); • Planting a buffer of native vegetation along the stream bank; • Reducing overbank flooding for flows between 6 and 50 cfs; • Excavating alcoves adjacent to the channel downstream of 148th Avenue SE; and • Designing the Long Marsh Creek restoration to include flood benches that will capture and store sediment prior to it reaching May Creek. Backwater Effects (Long Marsh Creek Footbrid Dr. Olson indicated in her August 15, 2011 memorandum that the backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge... therefore the bridge is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2, 000 feet upstream. King County WLRD would like to clarify that this conclusion reached by Ecology is incorrect for flows below the 5 -year event. The footbridge is not the predominate cause of backwater effect for the flood events addressed by this project (i.e., flows well below the 5 -year event). In summary, sediment deposition from Long Marsh Creek produces higher elevations in the May Creek channel and the backwater effect forces water out of the May Creek channel upstream of the footbridge. This action starts a cycle of reduced sheer stress in the May Creek channel, causing further deposition by Long Marsh Creek and greater overbank flooding by May Creek. Field observations and modeling show that the footbridge does not impede flows below the ` 5 -year event. Modeling results and field observations to support this conclusion are provided in Attachment 2: Technical Memorandum from Julia Turney and Jeff Burkey dated December 14, 2011 May Creek Drainage Improvement Project — Response to Ecology's September 1, 2011 comment on the backwater effect caused by the McFarland (i.e., Gambini) footbridge Long Marsh Creek as Mitigation Dr. Olson indicated that the Long Marsh Creek portion of the project should not be considered mitigation for stream habitat impact. King County WLRD already received this comment from Ecology staff and addressed the continent in July 2011 by submitting a revised Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan (Exhibit 10) to Ecology. The revised plan removed Long Marsh Creek as mitigation and instead increased the size of the wetland mitigation downstream of 148th Avenue SE to the area shown on our permit application to the City. It appears that Dr. Olson did not have the most recent version of the mitigation plan when she provided this comment. While the Long Marsh Creek portion of the project is not habitat mitigation, it is intended to increase the longevity of the overall project by trapping and storing sediment before it reaches the mainstem of May Creek. Calculations performed for the Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project Basis of Design Report found that the sediment storage capacity in Long Marsh Creek after the project is approximately 74 years. This will help minimize future gravel deposition Phil Olbrechts December 21, 2011 Page 4 near the Long Marsh Creek footbridge discussed in the previous section. This design report is provided as Attachment 3: Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project Basis of Design Report dated September 14, 2011 Methods for Assessin Sediment Transport and Downstream Bank Erosion Several comments were made with respect to the general study approach, methods, and preliminary findings. The study plan was developed to evaluate the threshold of motion through the study area, focusing on the segment below an identified bedrock control point in the channel downstream of 148th Avenue SE. The intent was to determine the threshold of bed movement or channel migration under natural conditions. Therefore, monitoring sites were chosen to preclude areas known to be affected by existing human infrastructure. While the HEC -RAS program was used for this analysis, it was generally assumed by Dr. Olson that the sediment transport routines within the model were used to produce the findings in the assessment. This assumption was incorrect. King County WLRD agrees with the concern that HEC -RAS sediment transport methods may not be suitable for this evaluation and therefore chose not to use them for this evaluation. King County WLRD used output from the model for shear stress and calculated sediment transport using a number of methods that are well described in the report. Concern was also raised about the approach of using pebble counts to characterize sediment transport through the reaches and that this method typically results in a larger DSO than reality. King County WLRD does not dispute this comment, but would like to clarify that our findings were not solely based upon pebble count data. Findings were based on data collected after storm events where monitoring elements were evaluated and a determination of bedload movement or bank erosion was made. Dr. Olson's comment that the likely range for initiation of sediment transport at the location visited by her team may be near the lower end of the range we provided (73 to 230 cfs) is not disputed. King County WLRD chose not to select this location for evaluation because it is not representative of reach scale conditions. A more likely driver for risk of failure to the private infrastructure involved at this location is related to ongoing geomorphic processes (ongoing headcutting) rather than purely sediment transport (initiation of motion). In addition, our study was not designed to and did not conduct a detailed analysis of risk to any specific private infrastructure elements. In response to the comment "There are many factors affecting bank erosion in the downstream reach such as riprap focusing flow against unprotected banks, reduction in natural sediment source from bank erosion, and head cutting from response to glacial lowering of the base level....", King County WLRD agrees and tried to select monitoring locations that were not likely influenced greatly by these other stressors. Phil Olbrechts December 21, 2011 Page 5 In summary, the study design was not intended to evaluate the site-specific issues and concerns of the individual landowners at the specific location visited by Dr. Olson and her team. King County WLRD believes the risk at that particular location is more closely related to ongoing geomorphic processes (headcutting) than bedload movement or bank erosion. The stream channel just upstream of the Coates' wall is steep and heavily armored with boulders much larger than found in much of the stream bed through the reach. Therefore, streambed movement through this reach would not occur in the same manner as other stream segments, if at all. If a detailed analysis of this location was conducted, the shear stress necessary to induce bed movement through the area that would affect the Coates' wall, would be greater than that necessary to induce erosion through the initial study area or the additional monitoring locations just downstream of the wall. Therefore, we are not convinced that this effort would provide additional information. Ongoing Monitoring and Public Outreach_ Efforts King County WLRD has been monitoring erosion on the properties downstream of May Valley for the past two years and is continuing to do so presently. Anchor Engineering was retained by King County WLRD to develop the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Attachment 3) for the reach downstream of 148th Avenue SE. In 2010 and 2011, King County WLRD then implemented the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan to collect baseline data. The intent of the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan is to gather supplemental data to be used to identify and document potential impacts from the upstream project implementation, building upon information gained from the Sediment Transport Study (Exhibit 31). King County WLRD's ongoing monitoring effort, in the May Creek Canyon Reach (both pre- and post -project), is documented in a memo dated August 4, 2011 and prepared at the request of Ecology. It appears that Dr. Olson did not yet have this monitoring memo when she prepared her August 15, 2011 comment letter. This memo is provided as Attachment 4: - - Technical Memorandum from Julia Turney and Bill Kerschke dated August 4, 2011, May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Post -Construction Erosion Monitoring Plan — Downstream of 148th Avenue SE Additional monitoring data has been collected on the properties downstream of 148th Avenue SE since the August 15, 2011 Post -Construction Erosion Monitoring Plan was written. Most recently, King County WLRD requested access to the Duff -us property on November 17, 2011 to do additional survey work and to observe the status of the bank pins installed on his property. The bank pins are used to access the ongoing erosion. Property access was requested via email and followed up with two phone calls the following Monday, November 21, 2011; however, Mr. Duff -us never responded to King County WLRD's request, so as of the date of this letter, King County WLRD has been unable to access the property to further assess the erosion -related concerns. When the bank pins were originally installed, Mr. Duffus offered to observe the pins during rain events and send reports to King County WLRD staff. Mr. Duffus has not sent any reports since April 2011. Since he also did not respond to King County WLRD's recent requests to access the property and observe the pins first-hand, King County Phil Olbrechts December 21, 2011 Page 6 WLRD staff is currently working under the assumption that there has not been additional erosion on the property since April 2011, despite the large rain event the week of Thanksgiving 2011. Please note, the flows during November 21-25, 2011 peaked at 335 cfs, an estimated 5 - to 10 -year event, above the 233 cfs flows when channel sediment mobilizes in the ravine. Finally, under existing conditions, King County WLRD has already observed erosion near the private structures of concern downstream. King County WLRD has committed to provide technical advice to the City and property owners. on environmentally acceptable methods that could be applied for stabilization and maintenance, such as bioengineered banks and bridge approaches. Currently, these private facilities appear to receive sporadic maintenance and King County WLRD has no information about their structural integrity. Erosion and localized scour is to be expected when flows encounter hard points or structures within the channel, such as is the case with these structures of concern downstream. Each of these structures is within the stream and susceptible to the existing stream flow and scour conditions. King County WLRD staff have observed various materials such as concrete, boulders and rebar, placed at or near the structures to stabilize the stream bed. These structures are already vulnerable to current levels of erosion and natural changes in hydrology. The maintenance of structures to prevent further deterioration is the responsibility of the owner. King County WLRD can provide advice, but cannot offer to provide the improvements to these private structures. Coordination with Washington Department of Ecology King County WLRD is actively working with Ecology to provide them reasonable assurance that the project will not have significant adverse impacts. King County WLRD met with Ecology staff, including Dr. Olson, October 18, 2011 and again November 15, 2011 to discuss the downstream erosion and sedimentation concerns. King County WLRD also met with Ecology staff at the project site on November 14, 2011 to discuss additional best management practices (BMPs) that could be utilized to protect water quality in the project area. The responses in this letter reflect the most recent discussions with Ecology, and King County will be continuing to work with Ecology to address their comments. King County WLRD would also like to point out that, contrary to public comment, the portion of the project within Renton's jurisdiction (i.e., the wetland enhancement and in -channel improvements on the open space tract) is not expected to change as a result of discussions with Ecology. The discussions with Ecology are focused on implementation of agricultural BMPs (all outside the city limits) and providing additional documentation to support the conclusion that no significant adverse impact will occur downstream. No design changes are being discussed that would affect the Special Grade and Fill Permit or Variance. In summary, the proposed project will support and protect the agricultural practices in May Valley by reducing overbank flooding during small storm events between 6 and 50 cfs. Flows over 50 cfs will not be affected. The longevity of the project will be increased by providing in - channel storage capacity for the sediment and gravels from Long Marsh Creek. King County WLRD is confident that that the existing technical studies support the conclusion that no significant adverse impact will occur downstream; however, since Ecology is requesting Phil Olbrechts December 21, 2011 Page 7 additional supporting documentation, King County WLRD will continue to monitor erosion and sedimentation processes to enhance our understanding of the stream channel stability (assuming property owner permission is granted). King County WLRD is committed to providing technical advice and expertise to property owners so that they can responsibly maintain their own private structures, but King County WLRD cannot offer to maintain or improve privately owned structures. Based on this additional information, and because King County WLRD's project proposal within the city limits is not expected to change as a result of the ongoing discussions with Ecology, King County WLRD requests that you reconsider your decision to deny the Special Grade and Fill Permit and Variance for this project. Thank you for your time and consideration of this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 206-296-8315. Sincerely, Doug Chin, P Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgD6z Enclosures cc: C7ennifer H"enning;,City of Renton Planning Manager Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project December 17, 2010 W Kh,<g Caurity Department or Natural Resources and Parks Water and land Resources Division Science Section King Street Center, KSC-NR-0600 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 481Q4 Alternate Formats Available 206-296-7380 TTY Relay: 711 L FCL'�, � Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Stormwater Services Section, Capital Services Unit Prepared by: Jeff Burkey Hydrologist King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks IN King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division (206) 296-6519 Hydraulic and Hydrologic analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Citation King County. 2010. Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project. Prepared by Jeff Burkey, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Science Section. Prepared for Stormwater Services Section, Capital Services Unit. King County i December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................... vi 1.0. Introduction......................................................................................................................... I 1.1 Study Goals..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Extent.................................................................................................................... 1 2.0. Model System Design......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Objectives....................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 System Overview............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 HEC -RAS Model Setup.................................................................................................. 3 2.3.1 Survey Data................................................................................................................. 4 2.3.2 Flow Rate Change Locations...................................................................................... 5 2.3.3 , Channel Roughness..................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 7 2.4.1 Precipitation................................................................................................................ 7 2.4.2 FTABLES................................................................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Refined Estimate of Stream Flow Events for Phase II Sediment Study ..................... 9 2.4.4 Model Validation...................................................................................................... 15 3.0. Scenario Development...................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Model Geometry....................................................................................................... 25 3.1.2 Typical Channel Cross-Section................................................................................. 28 4.0. Sediment Transport ........................................................................................................... 30 5.0. Results.......................................................:.......................................................................31 5.1 Improved Channel Conveyance.................................................................................... 37 5.2 Updated Flow Frequencies................................................................:.......................... 46 5.3 Reduced Duration of Flood Inundation for Smaller more Frequent Events ................. 52 5.4 Flow Rates Competent to Pass Silts through the System ............................................. 54 5.5 Durations of Flow Rates in the Ravine......................................................................... 56 5.6 Other Considerations.................................................................................................... 57 6.0. References.........................................................................................................................58 Figures King County ii December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 1 Locator map of study area in May Creek basin................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Extent of January 2010 King County Survey................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Gauge monitoring locations............................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Flow rates for the December 2007 event........................................................................ 10 Figure 5 Flow rates for the January 2009 event............................................................................ 11 Figure 6 Stages for December 2007 event. Note the obvious data errors in station 37G ............. 11 Figure 7 Stages for January 2009 event. Note the missing data for 37G ..................................... 12 Figure 8 Robust Regression (LOWESS- Locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) on Daily Peak Flow Rates from 11/1/1998 through 21512009. X-axis = 37A, Y-axis = 3713. Lower graph is a simulation of 37B using the regression and observed with time on the x-axis, and flow rateon the y-axis................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9 December 2007 Hydrograph of event............................................................................ 14 Figure 10 January 2009 Hydrograph of event 15 Figure 11 Edge of water survey shown in light blue lines............................................................ 16 Figure 12 January 2010 Hydrograph for King County Gauge 37G (148th Bridge) ..................... 18 Figure 13 Profile of observed water surface elevations for January 8 (downstream of footbridge) & 22 (upstream of footbridge) with left and right bank elevations (LOB, ROB) plotted.... 19 Figure 14 Example of cross-section where water surface elevation is same elevation as bank elevation (RM 4.974). Obstruction in cross-section is representative of dense canary reed grasson the banks................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 15 Example of overbank flooding slowly draining back into channel after a storm from 7 days prior (with some minor precipitation 4 days prior). Photo taken 3/19/2010 ............... 21 Figure 16 Observed water surface elevation for January 14, 2010 at 64 cfs at Parcel ##0223059005 footbridge....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 17 Observed water surface elevation for March 30, 2010 at 48 cfs at three bridges........ 23 Figure 18 Scenario 7 longitudinal profile in study area. The black line is channel bottom using top of sediment (used in Scenario 1) and fuschia color line is profile of channel bottom to firmsediment........................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 19 Scenario 8 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal . (308 ft) and flushing of silts.................................................................................................. 27 Figure 20 Scenario 9 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal (309 ft) and flushing of silts.................................................................................................. 28 Figure 21 Typical Channel Geometry of existing (black fine) and proposed (fuschia line)......... 29 Figure 22 Guo -Shields Empirical Curve................................................................................... 30 Figure 23 Scenario 1 (existing conditions) water surface profile for mean annual (filled in water surface) and Conditions Report 1 year event (blue line with symbols) ................................ 31 King County iii December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 24 Water surface profiles for the 1 -year (Conditions Report) for Scenario 1 and 8. Red circle highlights the convergence of profiles at 146th Ave bridge ....................................... 32 Figure 25 Water surface profiles at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 .................................... 33 Figure 26 Water surface profiles for the 100 year flood event for Scenario 1 and 8 .................... 34 Figure 27 Water surface elevations (Scenario 1 and 8) for the 100 year (Conditions Report) at the 146thAve bridge............................................................................................. .................. 35 Figure 28 Water surface elevations for the 100 year return period (Current Conditions) at bridge crossing at 143rd Avenue SE for Scenario 1 and 8.............................................................. 36 Figure 29 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 (Existing Conditions) mean annual flow rate (8.6 cfs at 148thStreet).......................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 30 Longitudinal plot for Scenario 1 (Existing Conditions) water surface profile for mean annualflow rate..................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 31 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 7 (vegetation removal) 50 cfs at 148th Street. Light blue are for existing conditions while dark blue are for Scenario 7 ............................ 39 Figure 32 Water surface profile at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and 7 .................................................... 40 Figure 33 Perspective plot comparing Scenario 1 and 7 under mean annual flow rates .............. 41 Figure 34 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 8 overbank flooding with 50 cfs at 148th Street. Light blue areas are inundated areas for Scenario 1 and dark blue are Scenario 8 ............... 42 Figure 35 Water surface profile at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and 8 .................................................... 43 Figure 36 Water surface elevations for the 2 year return period (229 and 240 cfs) for Scenario 1 and8...................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 37 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 9 overbank flooding with 50 cfs at 148th Street. Dark blue areas are for Scenario 9, light blue are for Scenario 1 (existing conditions)....... 45 Figure 38 Water surface profile at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and 9 .................................................... 46 Figure 39 Flow Frequencies for existing conditions using USGS 17-B methodology for flows at 148th Avenue SE (catchment MVL)...........................................................:........................ 49 Figure 40 Flow Frequencies using USGS 17-B methodology for proposed project design (Scenario 8) for flows drainging to 148th Aveneue SE ........................................................ 50 Figure 41 Flow Frequencies using USGS 17-B methodology for existing conditions at Coal Creek Parkway (catchment CCP)......................................................................................... 51 Figure 42 Flow frequencies using USGS 17-B methodology for proposed project design (Scenario 8) at Coal Creek Parkway (catchment CCP) ......................................................... 52 Tables Table 1 Stationing for structures in the HEC -RAS model.............................................................. 4 King County iv December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses ojthe May Creek Channel Restoration Project Table 2 Example of Flow Change Locations in HEC -RAS for mean annual flow rate ................. 5 Table 3 Vertical varying roughness by flow rate............................................................................ 6 Table 4 Monthly scalars to transpose SeaTac precipitation to May Valley ................................... 7 Table 5 Accuracy of robust regression for simulated versus observed for gauging station 37B using linear regression statistics, with observed on the x-axis for slope .............................. 14 Table 6 Water surface observations, elevations in NAVD88 16 Table 7 Summary of flood frequencies for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 for May Creek in the valley..................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 8 Summary of flood frequencies for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 for May Creek in the ravine..................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 9 Percent of time flows are equaled or exceeded at each of the flow rate thresholds for flows passing through the project area (catchment MVL outlet at 148th Avenue SE) based on HSPF simulation WY 1949 — WY 2008.......................................................................... 53 Table 10 HEC -RAS calculated shear stress in channel for Scenario 8, mean annual equals 8.6 cfs. Zero shear stresses are highlighted in tan color............................................................ 55 Table 11 Percent of time flows are equaled or exceeded at each of the flow rate thresholds for flows in the ravine (catchment CCP) based on HSPF simulation WY 1949 — WY 2008 (525,960 hours)..................................................................................................................... 56 King County v December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May Creek in May Valley routinely flows out of channel inundating adjacent pastures and wetlands during the wet season. At the downstream end of the valley, the natural landscape constrains stream flows back into channel controlling flow rates leaving the valley before entering the ravine. This feature, coupled with the flat pasture lands, are reasons why flooded areas in the valley can take several days to sufficiently drain; returning to usable pasture lands. Combine this with a frequent occurrence of small storms and portions of the pasture lands expectedly remain unusable for much of the wet season with frequent undesirable inundation continuing through spring and into the summer months. Given these conditions, the proposed project focuses on areas upstream leaving the natural constricting features unaltered. A study was conducted for May Creek in May Valley to evaluate stream channel capacity for existing and proposed conditions. This report contains hydrologic and hydraulic analyses (H&H) used to help optimize project design. Analyses include; assessment of channel capacity for existing and proposed designs, assessment of flood frequencies and durations, assessment of channel competency to mobilize fine sediments and improve lifespan of the project, and assessment of impacts to erosivity in the ravine downstream of 148th Ave SE. Two types of models were used, HSPF and HEC -RAS. HSPF is an U.S. EPA hydrologic watershed model used extensively in the Puget Sound region. The original model used was developed for the May Creek Current and Future Conditions report (King County 1995). This model was updated with more current meteorology and channel routing to improve understanding of stream responses with longer periods of precipitation record and more accurate hydraulics. The HEC -RAS model used was last modified by Otak in 2006. For this study, new land survey work was completed in 2010 to update channel geometry and enhance resolution specific to this project study area, supporting simulation of several proposed channel restoration activities to reduce frequency of flooding without significant downstream impacts. At the lowest point in channel capacity under existing conditions, it is estimated that May creek begins to flow overbank at approximately 6 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow rate is below the estimated mean annual flow rate of 9 cfs. Thus for most of the wet months, small portions of the pasture susceptible to these minor exceedences will remain inundated. Additionally, a tributary (Long Marsh Creek) historically deposits large gravels from a mostly forested subbasin in May Creek just upstream of a footbridge (approximately at river mile 4.6). These gravel deposits are large enough to backwater May Creek upstream for a couple thousand feet. This backwater condition facilitates the recruitment of more fines and vegetation litter that decays into organic muck. This muck then allows for an increase of vegetation encroachment of the channel further reducing channel capacity. The project study proposes an excavation of the channel between 148`h Ave SE and approximately 2000 feet upstream to an elevation of 308 ft (NAVD 88). Additionally, dense vegetation choke points downstream of 148`h Ave SE will be thinned to reduce impediment of low flows exiting the valley heading to the ravine. Hydraulic analyses estimate that post project channel capacity will be increased from 6 cfs to approximately 50 cfs before overbank flows begin. This improvement will effectively reduce most small storms from flooding the pasture areas. However, this channel improvement is still below the magnitude of an annual storm, thus May Valley is still expected to flood annually, but with shorter duration. This change in low King County vi December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project flow hydraulics frees up overbank storage for larger storms, such that results of this study estimate that storm events greater than the 10 -year will either remain the same or marginally reduce in peaks. Storm events between the 1 -year (approximately 10% increase) and the 10 -year (approximately 1% increase) slightly increase, with all estimated increases or decreases calculated within model accuracy of a calibrated hydrologic model. Durations of flows near the 2 -year (i.e. 200 cfs) and above are essentially the same. Durations of flows at 100 cfs again are nearly the same with an estimated difference in durations of approximately 400 hours over a 60 year period (525,960 hours, 0.08%). The higher the flow rates the less difference in durations to be expected. Sediment mobility was also evaluated to estimate expected lifespan of the project. Channel bottom sediments in the project area are comprised mostly of silty fines and organic muck. With this type of channel bottom, it's'estimated that a shear stress of 0.01 pounds per square foot is required to move sediment downstream. A mean annual flow rate (i.e. 9 cfs) was selected to evaluate success of the project given that flows at or above the mean annual level occur during most of the year, thus minimizing the possibility of any significant recruitment of fines or vegetation re-establishing in the channel. Post project, estimates of shear stress at 9 cfs are at or above 0.01 psf except downstream of 148th Ave SE in the wetland. There at low flows, deposition is expected to occur similar to existing conditions. These results signify that given the management of gravel deposition from Long Marsh Creek and ability to mobilize fines in May Creek, post project conditions should continue into the future with minimal deposition of fines reducing intended channel capacity. Based on the sediment transport study conducted downstream in the ravine (King County 2009), channel sediment mobilizes approximately at 233 cfs (refined from original flow rate estimates of 275 cfs). This estimate along with marginal changes in durations of flows (maximum difference at 100 cfs with 0.08%), suggest no significant downstream impacts in the ravine resulting from proposed project designs. It is acknowledged that there is a level of uncertainty in estimates of stream channel sediment mobilization thresholds that could be lower. Given the maximum estimated difference in durations (at 100 cfs) is approximated to an annual average increase of 7 hours during the course of a year; these effects would likely be undetectable in the ravine. King County vii December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 1.0, INTRODUCTION May Creek valley experiences out of bank flooding on a routine basis every wet season lasting from several days to weeks at a time. The stream course is essentially in a bowl for approximately 2100 feet (river mile 4.6 to 5.0) between a footbridge upstream of Parcel #}0223059005 property down to Long Marsh con#luencejust upstream of another footbridge. Long Marsh is primarily a forested basin with steep gradients. This characteristic gives the tributary the ability to deposit gravels large enough that May Creek is not capable to redistribute gravels downstream. Thus stream bed elevations at this location rise as more gravels are deposited. This accumulation then backwaters May Creek upstream causing more deposition of fines and decaying vegetation—ultimately reducing conveyance capacity and increasing frequency of valley flooding. Like any natural stream system, larger but less frequent flow rates perform work on the stream banks and bed. Downstream of the valley, May Creek drops into a ravine where channel forming processes are expected. A recent sediment transport study was conducted at three locations in the ravine between Coal Creek Parkway and 148'h Ave SE (King County 2009) characterizing conditions capable of causing erosion in the ravine. Those results are used to evaluate effects of this proposed study. 1.1 Study Goals The goal of this study is to evaluate channel capacity for different alternatives in the valley area. to maintain flow rates near 1 -year flood return interval by showing a reduction in frequency and duration of flooding. The reduction in duration of flooding is intended to affect only the most frequent, smaller storms, therefore unlikely to have any significant impact to the larger storms capable of eroding downstream conditions. Additionally, the proposed conveyance improvement should also be sustainable by passing through silts and retarding buildup of fines. In order to perform these types of analyses, a combination of techniques was necessary to evaluate detailed hydraulics and hydrology. Two types of models were used to perform the analyses, HEC -RAS for hydraulics and HSPF (Bicknell 2005) for hydrology. Both models used were adapted from existing models and updated to reflect current conditions. HEC -RAS (USACE 2005) was used to evaluate channel conveyance capacities and flooding inundations, while HSPF was used to provide statistical measures of durations and magnitudes of storm events. 1.2 Study Extent While the extent of the proposed channel improvements extend from river mile 4.31 up to river mile 4.99 (yellow highlight in Figure 1), it was necessary to extend the boundary conditions to support the ravine erosion analysis and include the lower portions of the HEC -RAS hydraulic model down to the Coal Creek Parkway, river'mile 3.59 (model extent shown as cross-sections in green in Figure 1). Similarly, the watershed model used encompasses the entire basin as shown in light red in Figure 1. King County 1 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 1 Locator map of study area in May Creek basin. King County 2 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 2.0, MODEL SYSTEM DESIGN Model design was dependant on available information and intended goals of the project. Modeling of the May Creek system included a hydrologic (HSPF) and hydraulic model (HEC - RAS). The hydrologic model used was developed for the May Creek Current and Future Conditions report (King County 1995), while the HEC -RAS model was based on multiple modifications over time (King County 1995, Entranco 2002, Otak 2006) as projects occurred, with the most recent modifications performed by Otak in 2006. 2.1 Objectives The model system setup was designed to address May Creek Capital Improvement Project restoring hydraulic capacity with these objectives: 1. assess channel capacity for existing and proposed designs, 2. assess changes in flood frequencies and durations, 3. assess channel competency to mobilize fines in May Creek through the valley, and 4. assess impacts to erosivity in the ravine downstream of 148th Ave SE. 2.2 System Overview In order to evaluate the stochastic nature of stream hydrology, it was necessary to perform a deterministic evaluation of the flow'rates in the ravine and valley. Using the backwater computational abilities of HEC -RAS, channel routing tables (FTABLES) were created to provide a detailed characteristic of reaches in May Creek in HSPF. Then using HSPF, hourly continuous stream flow data are simulated through the May valley and ravine. By simulating continuous hydrologic conditions for multiple decades (i.e. 60 years), the sequencing and permutations of selecting shapes and magnitudes of storm events are not needed. This framework then allows for a comprehensive durational analysis of exceedances of flow rates that inundate the valley and exceedances of flows above the incipient motion threshold in the ravine. 2,3 HEC -RAS Model Setup An existing model was used as a starting point for updating existing channel geometry with recent survey data collected in January 2010. Outside of the surveyed area, existing model definitions were used. Additionally, there was the intent to use the same stationing for location of cross-sections as was previously defined in the model within the surveyed area with cross- sections added where recent survey data suggested a change in topography that may not have been present in the previous modeling efforts. This included a denser set of cross-section stationing to better encapsulate undulations of the stream profile where adverse slopes between segments were common or where vegetation choke points are occurring.. The existing model domain started a short distance downstream of Coal Creek Parkway, to two- thirds of mile upstream of where May Creek crosses May Valley Road at S.R. 900 (a little over 4 miles in total). King County 3 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 2.3.1 Survey Data King County recently surveyed much of the lower valley starting at Parcel #0323059038 property (approximately 950 ft downstream of 148`h), to approximately 640 ft upstream of Parcel #0223059005 lower footbridge—approximately 3800 ft of stream length, during the month of January2010. This surveyed area coincides with river miles: 4.266 through 4.99 (Figure 2). To further extend the model cross-sections from valley wall to valley wall, ground elevations using LiDAR data were used. Given the comprehensive extent of the field survey work, the addition of LiDAR was more for visualization rather than included in any of the hydraulic computations. The one exemption in the recent survey data were any bridge geometries upstream of 148`h street (including 148`h Street bridge). For these structures, existing geometry in the HEC -RAS model was used (see Table 1 for longitudinal stationing). Figure 2 Extent of January 2010 King County Survey Table 1 Stationing for structures in the HEC -RAS model Description 7.07 Bridge- May Valley Road 6.95 Bridge- Renton -Issaquah Road King County 4 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 5.87 Bridge -164th Avenue SE 5.04 Footbridge- Upstream of Parcel #323059038 4.868 Footbridge- Parcel #323059038 4.612 Footbridge- McFarland's 4.455 Bridge -148th Avenue SE 4.28 Bridge -146th Avenue SE 4.265 Weir- Partial rock weir 4.114 Bridge- 143rd Avenue SE 2.3.2 Flow Rate Change Locations In a stream system where tributaries occur or where attenuations from in -channel and overbank storage volumes reduce peak flow rates, a defined water surface profile may have changing flow rates associated to a set of cross-sections in the model. These flow rate changing locations in the hydraulic model were derived from two methods; either using observed gauge flows or results from continuous hydrologic model (HSPF). Statistical type flows such as mean annual, or 2 yr, etc., are based on outputs of the HSPF model, while any specific flow rate events evaluated were based on gauge data. In the hydraulic model, there were five defined inflow points starting near the headwaters as the upstream inflow down to where two lateral tributaries drain into the wetland on Open Space 803540, west of 148th Ave SE. River mile stations for the flow change locations defined in the model are: • River mile: 7.605 (defined as catchment outlet NFK), head waters of May Creek • River mile: 7.05 (defined as aggregation of catchment outlets: NFK, EFK, and LKC), confluence of North Fork, East Fork, and Lake Kathleen, at SR -900 • River mile: 6.943 (defined as catchment outlet MVM), local drainages feeding to downstream of 164th Ave SE • River mile: 5.277 (defined as catchment outlet MVL), drainages leading to 148th Ave SE • River mile: 4.388 (defined as catchment outlet CCP), drainages leading to Coal Creek Parkway. As an example, the mean annual water surface profile is defined using the stationing from above. Flow rates start at the headwaters with 4.6 cfs, and accumulate to 13.6 cfs entering into the ravine. Table 2 Example of Flow Change Locations in HEC -RAS for mean annual flow rate Station mean annual King County 5 December 2010 Hydiaulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project {cfsj 7.605 4.6 7.05 10 6.943 8.4 5.278 8.6 4.388 13.6 2.3.3 Channel Roughness Defined channel roughness followed previous modeling efforts developed by Otak. Essentially, channel reaches with substantial reed canary grass or collections of willow tree root systems were simulated with a channel roughness decreasing with increasing flow rates (Table 3). Otherwise, channel roughness in continuously choked reaches has a constant channel roughness of 0.07 and where channel was assumed clear, a roughness of 0.04. In addition to channel roughness, obstructions were used represent effective blockages either from dense clusters of willow trees, or heavy mats of canary reed grass on the banks. Table 3 Vertical varying roughness by flow rate Manning's n Flaw Rate Left Right {cfsj Bank Channel Bank 5 0.080 0.089 0.080 10 0.070 0.081 0.070 25 0.065 0.060 0.065 50 0.065 0.051 0.065 75 0.055 0.047 0.055 100 0.055 0.045 0.055 125 0.055 0.042 0.055 150 0.050 0.040 0.050 175 0.050 0.039 0.050 200 0.050 0.037 0.050 King County 6 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Manning's n Flow Rate Left Right (cfs) Bank Channel Bank 250 0.050 0.036 0.050 300 0.050 0.035 0.050 350 0.050 0.034 0.050 2.4 . Hydrology A numerical hydrologic model (HSPF) developed for the 1995 May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report was used to simulate the hydrologic regime for a 60 year period. To generate this long period of record, the National Weather Service Sea -Tac metrological station was used for precipitation, and the Washington State University Puyallup station was used for evapotranspiration (ET). The period of record simulated was from water year 1949 through water year 2008 (101111948 — 913012008). 2.4.1 Precipitation Precipitation is processed to hourly intervals, while the ET is processed to daily increments. However in the lower Puget sound basin, the Cascade foothills topography create an orographic effect of increasing precipitation the further east and closer to the mountain range. As a result, the observations made at Sea -Tac station needs to be translated to the May Valley basin. There -are any number of ways of doing this, one typical way is to scale precipitation using mean annual ratios of Sea -Tac to any local data in the basin. In general, this will provide a means for representing annual runoff volumes, but the scalar can be greatly divergent for a given season (e.g. over estimate storms in the winter and under estimate in the summer). This technique was used in the original Conditions report model. However, for this project a slightly more sophisticated technique was used to better preserve the individual seasons (i.e. by month). In May Valley, there were two local precipitation stations used to scale the Sea -Tac data (King County station 37u for the lower parts of the valley, and 37v for the upper elevations of the valley. The Sea -Tac data were then scaled on a monthly basis using linear regressions with a constant of 0.0 for each month, such that zero precipitation at SeaTac will be zero precipitation in May Valley. This allows for closer approximation of seasonal variability. Thus, in the HSPF model where one would use a scalar to adjust the Sea -Tac precipitation, the scalar is kept at 1.0 since the scaling was done prior to the model run. Monthly Scalars are listed in the table below. Table 4 Monthly scalars to transpose SeaTac precipitation to May Valley. SeaTac SeaTac Month to 37V to 37U January 1.172 1.044 February 1.150 1.096 King County 7 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project SeaTac SeaTac Month to 37V to 37U March 1.252 1.197 April 1.270 1.150 May 1.555 1.378 June 1.311 1.283 July 1.785 1.438 August 1.187 1.163 September 1.462 1.272 October 1.352 1.158 November 1.178 1.069 December 1.112 1.064 2.4.2 FTABLES FTABLES are user defined channel routing tables characterizing the relationship between stage, surface area, storage volumes, and flow rates. Four of these FTABLEs were modified to reflect the hydraulics modeled using HEC -RAS. Using the multiple flow rate profiles defined in,HEC- RAS ranging from mean annual flow rates to 100 -year flood frequencies, a series of cross- sections were used to define the transient storage HSPF utilizes for kinematic wave routing. For every cross-section in HEC -RAS the stage and wetted area can be highly distinct, thus an average was developed for each of the four catchments in HSPF. The groupings of cross- sections per catchment are listed below: • RM 3.5 though 4.451 were used for HSPF catchment CCP- FTABLE 100 • RM 4.53 through 5.49 were used for HSPF catchment MVL- FTALBE 80 • RM 5.69 through 5.86 were used for HSPF catchment MVM- FTABLE 70 • RM 5.87 through 6.84 were used for HSPF catchment CFD- FTABLE 60. The depth and flow rates are weighted averages using the downstream channel length defined in HEC -RAS. Surface areas and storage volumes are summed up for each group of cross-sections defined above. While the overall differences are minor, this was performed for each geometric scenario and inserted into the HSPF scenarios for durational analyses. King County 8 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 2.4,3 Refined Estimate of Stream Flow Events for Phase II Sediment Study During the sediment study time period, there were two significant storm events that occurred, December 2007 and January 2009. Recorded stream flows during those events were determined to be unreliable (see Phase II, May Creek Sediment Transport Study). Additional investigation into estimating the magnitude of those two events was instructional to better understanding the sediment mobilization that occurred during the two events. Flows at stations: 37A, 37B, May2, and 37G were evaluated for the two defining storm events (December 2007, January 2009) used to estimate incipient motion, 37H was not installed until WY 2010. At stations May and May3 no flow estimates were done, only stage was recorded (see Figure 3 for locations). Because it has been reported of active erosion/deposition influencing water levels at 37B, during the January 2009 event there is more uncertainty for flow estimates. Additionally, using a scaling method to synthesize records at 37B, Anchor estimated the peak flow rates for December 2007 and January 2009 to be very similar (339 and 348 cfs, respectively). However, upon further investigation the estimate used for the December 2007 event was based on a peak at 37A not appropriate for transposition to monitoring station 37B. Figure 3 Gauge monitoring locations The peak flow for the December 2007 event at 37A was near 600-cfs; however, that peak clearly occurs prior to the peaks measured upstream at the various continuous recording stations. King County 9 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Moreover, there is a considerable area of highly developed landscape draining to 37A below 3713, This drainage area with relatively high amounts of impervious would respond to an event significantly faster than the upper May Valley basin. This is illustrated by overlaying the various hydrographs for the December event (Figure 4). Thus, even though the daily peak flow rates for the various stations do occur within the same day, the peak event at 37A used should be just below 500 cfs--rather than the near 600-cfs for that event. 700 BW 500 4w 300 200 100 0 1711(2007 0:00 1 ZPM007 0.-00 17138007 0:00 17!42007 0:00 17152007 0.00 12IM007 0.00 Q 2007 0.00 Figure 4 Flow rates for the December 2007 event Conversely, while the fast response of the lower drainage areas presents themselves in the January 2009 event (Figure 5), that local maximum is less than the daily maximum coincident with the other stations. Thus the daily peaks used for the January 2009 event should be near 600-cfs at 37a (as was previously used). While the citation for the basis of the censoring the multiple years of continuous stream gauge records for 37a and 37b is provided, two apparent actions were taken in pre-processing the data: 1) data were split into high flow and low flow events, and 2) some periods of record were filtered for use. Given the survey results at monitoring station May2, there were minor changes in channel geometry between the beginning and the end of the sediment study. Therefore, the continuous water level measured at that station was assumed to remain consistent throughout the sediment study period with possibly small adjustments to the associated flow rates. Thus all else being equal, a greater depth at that location would coincide with greater flows—assuming no downstream conditions influence the gauge. Reviewing the stages at May2 (Figure 6 and Figure 7) for those two events, January 2009 was observed to have a stage approximately 0.5 -ft higher than the December 2007 event. Thus, it is assumed the flows during the January event were greater than the 2007 event. King County 10 December 2010 700 aoa 7ot1 1UC Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project a 111!2000 0 00 v3a00e o.00 v6i2WO 0:00 IM2000 0 00 102000000 1/1112009000 v1 N2" 000 u1W000 0 00 Figure 5 Flow rates for the January 2009 event 10 0 B 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12/1/2007 12/2/2007 1202007 17!412007 12!512007 121612007 12!712007 1218!2007 12/812007 12110!2007 0:00 0:00 0:00 000 0.00 0.00 0:00 0:00 0 00 000 Figure 6 Stages for December 2007 event. Note the obvious data errors in station 37G. 37G 37A 375 `Ma12 Maya King County II December 2010 10 9 6 7 6 5 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project M2009 11612009 177/2009 1/772009 118/2009 102009 1!912009 11912009 1110/2009 1110/2009 1111/2009 0:00 12:00 0.00 12.00 0,00 1200, 0:0D 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 Figure 7 Stages for January 2009 event. Note the missing data for 37G. 370 37A —VB Mn King County 12 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project In lieu of investigating Anchor's approach on using a subset of data and estimate an independent peak flow for 37b, a moderately different method was performed but for preliminary review adequate for comparison to Anchor's approach. Peak daily flow rates (based on mean -hourly) were assembled from November 1, 1998 through February 5, 2009 to be similar to Anchor absolute start and end dates—Ten plus years of data were used, and any days with missing data in either gauge were disregarded for this analysis. Then a robust regression (LOWESS) was performed on the entire set of peak daily data (subsequently, the same date ranges were used as in Anchor --the LOWESS results remained the same). In short, the LOWESS regression provides a sophisticated method for performing regressions applicable for linear and non-linear data making it not necessary to separate high and low storm events (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). In addition to estimating the most likely value for 37B, secondary regressions were performed on the positive and negative residuals of the primary regression to estimate a range of possible values based on the primary regression (Figure 8). 300 260 200 950 100 50 0 350 300 250 200 W 150 100 50 LOWESS Regression plot f=0.25 100 200 300 400 500 800 x -Values Simulated y -Values using LOWESS Regression • • Dee '1 7 Inc 7 94 7 41G 7 411 ss 7 1111 7 Alla 100 200 300 400 500 800 x -Values Simulated y -Values using LOWESS Regression Sequence Index (e.g. datenum) 7.34 X 105 • Observed Regression Upper/Lower Jan 2009 • Observed Simulated Lower Upper Figure 8 Robust Regression (LOWESS- Locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) on Daily Peak Flow Rates from l 1/1/1998 through 215/2009. X-axis = 37A, Y-axis = 378. Lower graph Is a simulation of 378 using the regression and observed with time on the x-axis, and flow rate on the y-axis. Results from the regressions estimates peak daily flows at 37B to be 233-cfs (with a possible range of 198 cfs to 260 cfs) for December 2007 (Figure 9) and 272-cfs (with a possible range of 218 cfs to 310 cfs) for January 2009 (Figure 10). Notably, this revised estimate more closely King County 13 December 2010 • Dee '1 7 Inc 7 94 7 41G 7 411 7 7 1111 7 Alla Sequence Index (e.g. datenum) 7.34 X 105 • Observed Regression Upper/Lower Jan 2009 • Observed Simulated Lower Upper Figure 8 Robust Regression (LOWESS- Locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) on Daily Peak Flow Rates from l 1/1/1998 through 215/2009. X-axis = 37A, Y-axis = 378. Lower graph Is a simulation of 378 using the regression and observed with time on the x-axis, and flow rate on the y-axis. Results from the regressions estimates peak daily flows at 37B to be 233-cfs (with a possible range of 198 cfs to 260 cfs) for December 2007 (Figure 9) and 272-cfs (with a possible range of 218 cfs to 310 cfs) for January 2009 (Figure 10). Notably, this revised estimate more closely King County 13 December 2010 Hydraulic and llvdrologic Analyses Of the May Creek Channel Restoraliun Project matches the critical shear stress presented in the sediment transport study based on observed data. Additionally, performing the same analysis but not including data after January 13, 2006, the flow estimates at 37B are estimated to be 240 cfs and 280 cfs (rounding to the nearest 10 cfs) for the 2007 and 2009 events. These are based on linear extrapolation of the LOWESS regression results since the magnitude of the peaks for the 2007 and 2009 events did not exist in the reduced dataset. Comparing the simulated flow rates using the robust regression to observed at gauging station 37B, there are good correlations, r -square's, and slope's when using all data greater than 100 cfs and for data greater than 100 cfs but excluding gauge records after January 13, 2006 (Table 5). A perfect fit would have a coefficient of 1.0 for each of those statistics and an intercept of 0.0. As such, the robust regression slightly under predicts observed. Table S Accuracy of robust regression for simulated versus observed for gauging station 37B using linear regression statistics, with observed on the x-axis for slope. 700 600 500 400 m LL 300 200 100 0 1112&2007 1113012007 121112007 12;MD07 1 Z3f2007 121412007 121512007 12 &2007 12!7!2007 Time jDalty) Figure 9 December 2007 Hydrograph of event t 37"bs 37b-sim Lower d Lipper �— 37b -obs King County 14 December 2010 Intercept Dataset Pearson r -square Slope (cfs) All Data greater than 100 cfs 0.87 0.75 0.91 10.1 Greater than 100 cfs and excludes data after 1/13/2006 0.88 0.78 0.82 14.8 0 1112&2007 1113012007 121112007 12;MD07 1 Z3f2007 121412007 121512007 12 &2007 12!7!2007 Time jDalty) Figure 9 December 2007 Hydrograph of event t 37"bs 37b-sim Lower d Lipper �— 37b -obs King County 14 December 2010 700 600 500 400 8 300 200 100 0 11412009 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 11512009 11912009 11712009 1 ! 612009 119f2009 111012009 1/11/2009 102J2009 1212009 Tim {Daily) Figure 10 January 2009 Hydrograph of event 37a -06s --6" 37h-sim ■ Lower Upper t 376 -alts It is worth noting that although it was discussed previously about the faster response for drainages below 3713, no effort was made on a storm event basis to match up peaks that might have shifts within the same day; which is similar to the method previously done by the sediment study. One other comparison was performed using the HEC -RAS model developed for this project. At the May2 station, it was noted in the May Creek Sediment Transport Study, that the model was estimating approximately 1 -ft higher than observed after calibration. This was based on the flow rate of 340+ cfs for those two storm events. An attempt was made to reconcile where the monitoring stations were in the HEC -RAS model and known stations and locations in the ravine. Stationing between the HEC -RAS model and assumed known locations of the gauging did not reconcile; thus, matching up where the documented elevations are at the study sites and cross- sections in the model was not possible at this time. 2.4.4 Model Validation Edge of water was surveyed on two different days, January 8, 2010 and January 22, 2010. The January 8 survey was preceded by a small storm on January S cresting at 42 cfs as estimated at 148'' Ave SE bridge (KC Gauge 37G). Flows computed from the gauge during the survey on January 8 were approximately 29 cfs. The second survey occurred after a larger storm that began to recede January 16. The peak flow rate using the same stream flow gauge for that event was estimated to be 66 cfs. During the January 22 survey of edge of water, flows were estimated to have receded to a flow rate of 13 cfs as measured at KC gauge 37G (see Figure 12). King County 15 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Survey data for the January 8 event were transposed to the nearest cross-sections (RM 4.8612 and 4.8285) just downstream of Parcel #0223059005 footbridge and the January 22 survey work was taken upstream of the Parcel #0223059005 footbridge (see Figure 11 and Table 6 below for more detail). . it T.,�.. Figure l t Edge of water survey shown In light blue lines. Table 6 Water surface observations, elevations in NAVD88. 37G Flow 4.992552 1/22 314.27 313.85 314.06 13 cfs 313.00 -1.06 4.988154 1/22 314.20 314.20 13 cfs 312.99 -1.21 4.9749 1/22 314,35 314.04 314.20 13 cfs 312.98 -1.22 4.949 1/22 314.08 314.14 314.11 13 cfs 312.94 -1.17 4.937 1/22 314.17 314.14 314.16 13 cfs 312.91 -1.25 King County 16 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Station Date Left Bank Right Bank Avg. 37G Flow Rate WS Profiles Diff. 4.912 1/22 313.97 314.19 314.08 13 cfs 312.89 -1.19 4.8612 4.8285 1/8 1/8 313.95 313.41 313.95 313.41 29 cfs 29 cfs 313.29 313.27 -0.66 -0.14 4.868 1/14 314.151 64 cfs 313.97 -0.18 Station Date Field Measured Flow Rate WS Profile Diff 4.868 3/30 313.541 40 cfs 313.60 +0.06 4.612 3/30 313.971 48 cfs 313.47 -0.50 4.455 3/30 312.041 .48 cfs 311.89 -0.15 IElevation is based on tape down from top of footbridge. King County 17 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 12 January 2010 Hydrograph for King County Gauge 37G (148th Bridge) King County 18 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Reviewing the surveyed water surface elevations shows that for those two dates, the elevations are virtually the same with the exception of the lower most point a half foot lower (associated with the 29 cfs date) than the rest. This does present an inconsistency between the calculated flow rates and expected water surface elevations: With flow rates on January 22 less than half of what was estimated for January 8, one would expect the water surface elevations to be lower on January 22, when in fact they appear the same or higher with half the associated flow rate. Figure 13 Profile of observed water surface elevations for January S (downstream of footbridge) & 22 (upstream of footbridge) with left and right bank elevations (LOB, ROB) plotted. In addition, in the area where edge of water was taken, overbank ground elevations are lower than bank elevations effectively creating a bowl outside the channel. This is consistent for about 570 feet (RM 4.88 through 4.99). The observed edge of water was either very near bank elevations (i.e. depressional area filled with water) or up to a half foot above assumed bank elevations (see Figure 14). Given the combined circumstances of inconsistent water surface elevations relative to flow rates, and the overbank depressional areas, conveyance out of bank in the pastures likely will behave in a couple of different fashions. When flows are initially going over bank, the flow pathways will act like a branch in the stream with its own water surface profile until it rejoins the mainstem. Then as flooding waters increase, the whole valley acts as one conveyance. As the storm recedes, the overbank flooding areas begin to behave like a slow draining lake (see Figure 15). Each of these conditions has a different hydraulic characteristic that may yield these inconsistent out of bank water surfaces for a given estimated flow rate. King County 19 December 2010 May Creek EAsiting Condition NAVD88 Plan: Scenario 1: KC Exlstlng with Sediment W W2412010 MayCreek Maindem Legend 319 n ---------- -- Ground - - LOB ROB f OWS 13 da -Jan 22 314 �, — �y ,,, —__— - ._ •-T —,.• • �! • Otto • OWS 29 ch- Jan 9 • 312 ---- — -- —� — -— -- - All I 310 y- V 1; 309 9� * h Iii •1� Iq XV Iyf�{ W IaN� tYi�% $ B l�yfr 245000 25000 25500 28000 29500 Main Chamal Ounce Figure 13 Profile of observed water surface elevations for January S (downstream of footbridge) & 22 (upstream of footbridge) with left and right bank elevations (LOB, ROB) plotted. In addition, in the area where edge of water was taken, overbank ground elevations are lower than bank elevations effectively creating a bowl outside the channel. This is consistent for about 570 feet (RM 4.88 through 4.99). The observed edge of water was either very near bank elevations (i.e. depressional area filled with water) or up to a half foot above assumed bank elevations (see Figure 14). Given the combined circumstances of inconsistent water surface elevations relative to flow rates, and the overbank depressional areas, conveyance out of bank in the pastures likely will behave in a couple of different fashions. When flows are initially going over bank, the flow pathways will act like a branch in the stream with its own water surface profile until it rejoins the mainstem. Then as flooding waters increase, the whole valley acts as one conveyance. As the storm recedes, the overbank flooding areas begin to behave like a slow draining lake (see Figure 15). Each of these conditions has a different hydraulic characteristic that may yield these inconsistent out of bank water surfaces for a given estimated flow rate. King County 19 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 14 Example of cross-section where water surface elevation is some elevation as bank elevation (RM 4.974). Obstruction in cross-section Is representative of dense canary reed grass on the banks. King County 20 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 15 Example of overbank flooding slowly draining back into channel after a storm from 7 days prior (with some minor precipitation 4 days prior). Photo taken 3/19/2010. King County 21 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project January 14, 2010 Water Surface Observation A second observation of water surface was made during the larger storm event between the two survey dates on January 14, 2010 1:00 pm, at Parcel #0223059005 footbridge (tape down from top of bridge was used). Using the gauged flow rate at 1481h Ave SE bridge of 64 cfs, the water surface profile was within a two tenths of a foot to observed (see Figure 16). Figure 16 Observed water surface elevation for January 14, 2010 at 64 cfs at Parcel #0223059005 footbridge King County 22 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project March 30, 2010 Observed Water Surface Elevations In an attempt to capture water surface elevations for smaller storm events, another site visit was conducted. Water surface elevations were obtained by taping down from top of bridge. Additionally, flow rates were estimated using standard methods and velocity meters at each water surface observation point. Observations were made at three locations, 140 Ave SE bridge, McFarland footbridge, and parcel ##0223059005 footbridge with their respective estimated flow rates of 45 cfs (poor quality), 48 cfs (good quality), and 40 cfs (good quality). Long Marsh creek enters in upstream of the McFarland footbridge, hence the increase in flows at that measurement. Using these field measured flow rates, model accuracy validates with good accuracy with the greatest error equal to 0.50 feet. -A water surface profile and observed water surface elevations is shown in Figure 17 below, and previously in Table 6. Figure 17 Observed water surface elevation for March 30, 2010 at 48 cfs at three bridges. 2,4.4.1 Validation Summary This validation shows that the model under predicts water surface elevations for lower flows in the Valley floor anywhere from 0.06 feet to 1.3 feet (assuming calculated stream flows are accurate, but appear suspect) with most of the differences in the range of 1.0 feet and has better accuracy with higher flows (e.g. 48 and 64 cfs water surface observation.). One hypothesis has been presented to partially account for the discrepancies, however there are multiple other plausible causes for the elevated water surfaces for low flows: some of which might be, error in gauge flow estimates at 37G, or unaccounted for choke points in the channel. At present, assuming the flow rate estimates are correct, it is very unlikely that water surface elevations King County 23 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project could be as high as surveyed. To reproduce those elevations for those low flow rates, the McFarland footbridge would have to be nearly completely damned to backwater upstream that high. While it is not known if this may have happened, it again seems unlikely. Therefore, while the accuracy of the survey data is not in question, the combination of assumed accuracy in flow rates and the edge of water survey in flooded conditions appear to represent a set of conditions neither characterized in the model configurations nor explainable in their contradictions. Therefore those two dates of observations should not be considered part of the validation. Conversely, model accuracy seems to be quite good for larger storms with error less than or equal to 0.50 feet. However, further model validation is still'being pursued at this time targeting storms in the range of 10 to 20 cfs. King County 24 December 1010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 3.0, SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT Hydraulic scenarios were designed with changes in channel geometry representative to the three proposed channel improvements: 1) removal of choking vegetation points, 2) removal of choking vegetation points with increased sediment removal to an elevation of 308 feet, and 3) removal of choking vegetation points with some sediment removal to an elevation of 309 feet. 3.1.1 Model Geometry Scenarios were designed to characterize existing and proposed conditions in the valley. The first scenario includes characterizing existing conditions, and three other scenarios were designed to evaluate increasing levels of channel modification to address the objectives. The naming of the scenarios are representative of the stepwise process of developing the geometry files to get from one scenario to the next in HEC -RAS rather than suggesting that multiple additional scenarios were evaluated but not presented in this report. Scenario 1: Existing conditions Survey work done in January 2010 included two channel bottom elevations: on top of soft sediment, and harder substrate assumed to be the more historical channel bottom. Existing conditions is meant to represent current channel geometry with channel bottom defined as on top of soft sediment. King County 25 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 7: Removal of vegetation choke points This scenario represents enhancements to the channel conveyance capacity by assuming Reed Canary grass is removed from the channel and banks, and Willow root systems are removed from the channel. The assumed channel bottom for this scenario and subsequent scenarios are based on the harder substrate sediment. This is based on the calculation of critical shear stress of silts in the channel and steam competency to mobilize the silts (see Section 4.0). Figure l$ Scenario 7 longitudinal profile In study area. The black line is channel bottom using top or sediment (used in Scenario l) and fuschia color line Is profile of channel bottom to firm sediment. King County 26 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 8: Removal of vegetation choke points and increased sediment removal This is the mast aggressive scenario with sediment removal assumed to occur between just downstream of 148th Ave SE bridge to the 125 ft upstream of McFarland footbridge --in total approximately 1025 ft at an elevation of 308 ft. The elevation of 308 ft was selected based on the apparent historical channel bottom at 148`' Avenue SE bridge crossing. Figure 19 Scenario 8 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal (308 ft) and flushing of slits. King County 27 December 1010 frfayCraak EAsiUng Condlllon NAW88 Plan: 1} KC SCN_1 312512018 2j KC_SCN 8 3/2512010 MayCreek M minden Legend op of E edlme r' Las 319 - - - _ _ _ f RDB - - henna! Grade - - - -_ v_- TF310-- i a 300. 9 m a O N oP pOp oo QA pOp N g 300 and 23400 23600 23800 24000 24200 24400 24800 Ma1n Channel Gdance Figure 19 Scenario 8 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal (308 ft) and flushing of slits. King County 27 December 1010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 9: Removal of vegetation choke points and some sediment removal Approximately 518 ft of sediment (125 ft upstream, 393 ft downstream) of McFarland footbridge is assumed to be removed to an elevation of 309 ft, This elevation was selected to be similar to historical channel bottom elevations leading down to 148th Avenue SF bridge crossing and to evaluate an intermediate alternative. Figure 20 Scenario 9 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal (309 ft) and flushing of slits. 3.1.2 Typical Channel Cross -Section Typical Channel Cross-section within the sediment removal segments was simplified for this study to assume existing channel geometry with the bottom dropped to the proposed elevation. In final design, sections where excavation exceed 2 feet below top of sediment, channel banks will be given side slopes to prevent bank sloughing. This simplification represents a conservative side of expected as -built conditions given the addition of side slopes will slightly increase channel capacity. King County 28 December 2010 May Creek Exulting Condition NAVDBB Plan: 1) KC_SCN_7 3/2512010 2)KC SCN B 3252010 MayGeekMaingem Legend ropofSadmary LOB 315 ---- -- — — ----- ---- - ----- - .. -Roe _ _ -Channel Bonam 310'- 10 9 6 s W 0 a 306— -- m w ga $ N N N N 700 Y ,Y Y YVJ .. M 00 ED m r, w 1 wi w rj w 1 r, 29400 23600 23800 24000 24200 2"00 - 24600 Mein Channel Ol dance Figure 20 Scenario 9 showing existing conditions and proposed profile after sediment removal (309 ft) and flushing of slits. 3.1.2 Typical Channel Cross -Section Typical Channel Cross-section within the sediment removal segments was simplified for this study to assume existing channel geometry with the bottom dropped to the proposed elevation. In final design, sections where excavation exceed 2 feet below top of sediment, channel banks will be given side slopes to prevent bank sloughing. This simplification represents a conservative side of expected as -built conditions given the addition of side slopes will slightly increase channel capacity. King County 28 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 21 Typical Channel Geometry of existing (black line) and proposed (fuschia line). King County- 29 December 2010 May Creek EAsiting Condition NAVD88 Pian: 1) KC_SCN_l 2) KC–SCN_8 RS = 4.622813 Legend Ground - KC SCN 8 Bank Ste - KC SCN 314 Ground - KoC_SCN_1 ank Sta - KC SCN 1 - 312 -- — — -�— 5 LU 310 308 200 250 300 350 Station (ft) Figure 21 Typical Channel Geometry of existing (black line) and proposed (fuschia line). King County- 29 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 4.0, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT A particle size distribution was not performed for stream reaches in the valley floor; however, during field visits, it was noted that much of the channel bottom is extremely soft ----in some places up to 3 feet of muck. Given the amount of bank vegetation and slow velocities, the soft sediments are likely made of up fine silts and organic matter from decaying vegetation. Given this condition, the particle size distribution (D50) used for incipient motion in the valley channel was assumed to be 0.10 mm diameter (0.000328 ft). Aside from the percent of organic matter and possible colloidal conditions, incipient motion was calculated assuming the sediment is non- cohesive in nature and made up of mostly silt. While Shield's curve is nearly constant for substrate sizes larger than 5 mm (Re* — 400), it varies with smaller particle sizes. Thus it was necessary to compute the particle Reynolds number to obtain the Shields value (Guo 2002). Using a particle diameter of 0.1 mm, translates to a Re* approximately equal to 1. 1, and Shields number of approximately 0.10 (Figure 22). Hence, the computed critical shear stress of less than 0.01 psf is estimated for silty fines. Figure 22 Guo -Shields Empirical Curve In Hec-RAS, the shear stress is computed with the following formula: T = *S, where R is the hydraulic radius, and S is the energy slope. King County 30 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 5.0, RESULTS Summary of results include assessments of existing and proposed channel capacities, changes in flood frequencies and durations, stream competency to mobilize fines, and changes in erosion in the ravine. Reviewing existing conditions, it is apparent where hydraulic controls are located in the system (based on available survey data). During mean annual flows (8.6 cfs through the study area), control points are vegetation choking points in the wetland downstream of 148th Ave SE bridge and mildly so upstream of 148th and gravel deposition where Long Marsh enters into May Creek at approximately river mile 4.64, just upstream of a footbridge. This high point of gravels controls the water surface elevation upstream approximately for 2000 feet to a footbridge located approximately at river mile 5.04 (Figure 23). Similarly for higher flows (e.g. l year event), Long Marsh again controls water surfaces upstream for the same reach length. WyCroek E:dsitinp Conditlan NAVD88 Plan: Sconado 1: KC ExisEng with Sediment A 411/2010 MeyCreek Maindem 320 -"'^' SGround VA 315 �1 — 310 v---- --- I+V w �T�,,,% Q 305 a:; a.� k�7r yL 1luLd SUC. �i �u wx N K L11 300 22000 23000 24000 25000 28000 27000 28000 Main Channel aletance Figure 23 Scenario 1 (existing conditions) water surface profile for mean annual (filled In water surface) and Conditions Report 1 year event (blue line with symbols). However, downstream of 148th model runs show a convergence of water surfaces for the same flow rates for pre (Scenario 1) and post (Scenario 8) project based on the transition from a valley to a ravine. This abrupt natural constriction changing from open wetland on valley floor to a well defined channel entering into the ravine become more controlling the larger the storm event. While water surface elevations may be lower for Scenario 8 in the wetland for the same flow rate, water surface elevations approaching 146th Ave bridge converge to the same elevation (Figure 24). King County 31 December 2010 8 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project WeyCreek ExisKingCondithnNAVD88 Plan: 1}KC SCN_B 412212010 2}KC_SC0_1 4828010 ua,Geek Meindem 317 _ — ��`-�--- ��.�-T — ---- .'�--- -- �- —._. _��- _� end Lag 316 4 { WS 1gv8aa1nF4an•KC_SCKB WS t -e Bee n Plan• KC_SCN 1 315 '- - iijl �. . _ Gonna 314------`�-- 313 E 3111- 3 10 11 -310 - t � y 300 I � 307, 305 45 304 - -. o o a_a_ o_ >a h is A r� h h A A a a is 303 __-'--_ i,;�a. � a.- C_ � .�, __.�. �, -�_ -_E, •---•a 302 �. >C Y ><yY Y tl Y 0 Y ti �Y Y ...Yy---•-Y "'��a 10 11��"�-��-$ 11 Figure 24 Water surface profiles for the ]-year (Conditions Report) for Scenario 1 and 8. Red circle highlights the convergence of profiles at 146th Ave bridge. Secondarily, removal of vegetation choke points in the wetland show a few tenths change in water surface, but given the model accuracy and very small amount of lost storage, this natural land form downstream of the proposed restoration channel activities will greatly control potential changes in erosion in the ravine, and less control from the bridge at 146 Avenue SE. In the following sections, three scenarios (plus existing conditions) were focused on for evaluations: • Scenario l—existing conditions, • Scenario 7—removal of vegetation choke points, • Scenario 8—removal of vegetation choke points with increased sediment removal, and • Scenario 9—removal of vegetation choke points with some amounts of sediment removal. As previously mentioned there are three main control points in the system under existing conditions: 1) the natural transition from valley to a ravine, 2) vegetation choking the channel downstream and upstream of 148th Ave. SE, and 3) sediment depositions upstream of 148'h to the confluence of Long Marsh Creek. Each of the proposed scenarios improve in channel conveyance to varying degrees of success with Scenario 8 resulting with the ability to maintain waters in channel up to approximately 50 cfs for properties upstream of 148'h Ave SE. King County 32 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Estimated hydraulics for Scenario 8 elucidate that the control points effectively move down to the transition of the wetland to a channel entering the ravine for lower flows (Figure 25) and for high, infrequent flows (Figure 26). This characteristic supports the results of no increases in erosive flows to the ravine before/after the proposed project for the same flow rates. WyCrook Exishinq Condition NAV088 Plan: 1) KC_SCN_8 4122!2010 2) KC_SCN_1 4222010 Ma0eek Malnlem Legend W3 In Ghnnl 50 do • KQ•Sa 5 WS In Ghnnl50de•KC_SOJ_1 �T GAund 314 —_---- -- 112 -- 310 8 6 305 1u n 11 J i Ii it i 1 t; 1 Figure 25 Water surface proflies at 50 cis for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8. b r 25000 King County 33 December 2010 R RA R R RR R R X �YY�JJg 54 X 1G !{X�9j y Y SC 1}}�QQ 1{ �Qrr Y Y S8q Axe+ Y, 27000 24000 25000 Main Chanel atance (n) Figure 25 Water surface proflies at 50 cis for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8. b r 25000 King County 33 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 26 Water surface profiles for the 100 year flood event for Scenario 1 and 8. King County 34 December 2010 WyCreek Eldailing Condition NAV080 Plan: 1) KC_SCN_8 4122!2010 2) KC_SCN_l 4222010 MayCree k Malndern WS lOOyrurr.•KQBCN,a 316 - - -- - - ..and WS 100 -yr mr.•KC SCN_1 Giound 314 - - 312 — 310 — 900 1 305 304 §� 302 �-�-�-�•-•-w— tll «•N N NSW N pYItl1 N- uN FYI �+�N�-N N >Q Xr Y Y Ys}gF qq K Y Y Y Y u v v, rr, r � r ♦ e, r a e, r; � . v, e, a �,. - � � 300 23000 24000 25000 26000 22000 Main Channel ddante Figure 26 Water surface profiles for the 100 year flood event for Scenario 1 and 8. King County 34 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Capacity at the bridge located at 146th Ave SE show that the 100 -year (Conditions Report) flow rate does go overbank (left side looking downstream) under both existing and proposed conditions and at the same elevation. Again it is worth noting that under the proposed project, the magnitude of the 100 year return period decreases, water surface elevations post project will be less (Figure 27). Similarly, the bridge downstream at 143d Ave SE shows to have capacity to pass the 100 -year pre and post project (Figure 28) as well. It is worth noting that the bridge geometry used for 143d Ave SE is based on previously existing geometry from the previous HEC -RAS model. A survey crew is scheduled to resurvey this bridge and confirm existing geometry from previous modeling efforts. May Geek Ecisking Condition NAV D88 Plan: 1) KC_SCN 8 412212010 2) KC SCN 1 4x2212010 RS a 4.28 BR Bridge #2 148TH AVENUE (RM 4.280) .08 .04 .08 Legend 320 100 -yr cur, - KC SCN 8 • S 100-yrcur. -KC_SCN_1 Ground 0 Benk Ste 315 — C_ W 310- 305- 1 60 10305100 200 300 400 StaOon (fl) Figure 27 Water surface elevations (Scenario 1 and 8) for the 100 year (Conditions Report) at the 146th Ave bridge. _ King County 35 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 28 Water surface elevations for the 100 year return period (Current Conditions) at bridge crossing at 143rd Avenue SE for Scenario l and 8. King County 36 December 2010 May Creek Exisiting Condition NAVD86 Plan: 1) KC SCN B 4!22!2010 2) KC SCN 1 4/22/2010 RS = 4.114 BR &ldge #1 143RD AVENUE (RM 4.118) �.08 08 325 - — — - -- .... __-_�._ �-. a. � ____ 4 Legend WS 100-yrcur. -KC-SCN 8 WS 100 -yr cur. -KC SCN 1 Gpound 320 -- -- — — IneH e Bank Sta 6 ' w 310 - U - 305- 300 0 100 200 300 400 Station (ft) Figure 28 Water surface elevations for the 100 year return period (Current Conditions) at bridge crossing at 143rd Avenue SE for Scenario l and 8. King County 36 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project SA Improved Channel Conveyance Hydraulic analyses using HEC -RAS estimate that Scenario 1 (i.e. existing conditions) flow rates as low as mean annual (8.6 cfs) over top banks inundating pasture lands (Figure 29). In fact, channel capacity estimates for a few sections show that flows can go out of bank at rates as low as 6 cfs for existing conditions (Figure 30) while Scenario 8 (later in this section) keeps flows in channel up to 50 cfs. Thus calculations for evaluating improved conditions in May Valley are based on this threshold of flows between 6 and 50 cfs, such that any improved conveyance capacity will reduce the frequency and duration of minor storm events flowing out of bank. U.VO—k En1ilmg CmObM NAyp66 Pl-, 6C01g110I; KC E>e11n6 Wlh le4l IMN 111f1010 1010111 31{'621 owM a 0703 611A iq 1.167612 Lwi1" In11 1./17706 """N #022305900 .7313 1.71.3611 1,756710 McFarland Footbridge 1 10112]0 1.37660 1.662101 163116a 148'h Ave SE Bridge 17271 107611 67 1432041 1.115413 ]$4707 1371744 1 76736 1.326101 323419 1790163 202304 1161766 Figure 29 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 (Existing Conditions) mean annual flow rate (8.6 cfs at 148th Street) King County 37 December 2010 5 LU LU Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project MayCreek Exisiting Condition NAVD88 Plan: Scenario 1: KC Exlating with Sediment t4 41112010 101 — - ".ai T:q - r=r, v, v,v,� It. -V, v,Ir, v,v, rlv,v,^v, — r, v, e. v .t3.; d:r v, v ui�vi vi a ur o 100 22000 21nen 24aon 25000 79006 970641 IN DO Figure 30 Longitudinal plot for Scenario i (Existing Conditions) water surface profile for mean annual flow rate. King County 38 December 2010 MayCreek Mafn9em ._ ____-_--- -.-- -_--- 319 ---- - ----- --�- —_._ I _--- .._ _ - __ ----�- - — —�------- 114 TL �� - 13 113- �yy )11- 111 110 , �y � 109 ^�^ t 'E # 07— -t- 108 106. — Zi 105 �- -� s.- a: s.. �,. - _ a, a.•-r—�• -a.--- v��-,n =n--,�g} O 104ig—-.— -—I _—.—N-. X 101 — - ".ai T:q - r=r, v, v,v,� It. -V, v,Ir, v,v, rlv,v,^v, — r, v, e. v .t3.; d:r v, v ui�vi vi a ur o 100 22000 21nen 24aon 25000 79006 970641 IN DO Figure 30 Longitudinal plot for Scenario i (Existing Conditions) water surface profile for mean annual flow rate. King County 38 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 7 With complete removal of encroaching canary reed grass and Willow trees, flows are kept in bank between 148th Ave SE and at the footbridge just downstream of Long Marsh Creek (Figure 31). However, this is predicated on the fact that all the silty fines are flushed out of the system. Without that successful element, in -channel capacity will be greatly reduced and more representative of existing conditions (Figure 32). One of the most effective choke points to be removed is just downstream of 148th Ave SE. The combination of canary reed grass and Willow trees significantly reduce potential channel capacity at this location and a few others further downstream. Figure 31 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 7 (vegetation removal) 50 cfs at 148th Street. Light blue are for existing conditions while dark blue are for Scenario 7. King County 39 December 2010 4A? 23 �R r►i%4992552 , 4 B612110 41491114 McFarland Footbridge 4 It 123D 4.55i5al f2274 1h 148 Ave SE Bridge NMI 307 4 32545 4 15415 394707 1^ 4371344 43538341 �-_ -�-`` 24610 Figure 31 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 7 (vegetation removal) 50 cfs at 148th Street. Light blue are for existing conditions while dark blue are for Scenario 7. King County 39 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 32 Water surface proille at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and 7 King County 40 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project With only a water surface reduction of half a foot through the study area, conditions upstream of Long Marsh are clearly unimproved given flooding still occurs at the mean annual flow rate (Figure 39). Furthermore, storm flows may begin to overtop downstream of Long Marsh depending on the magnitude of the event again not meeting project goals. May Creek ExIsKin0Conaaion NAVDBB Plan: 1jNC SCN 7 41112010 2}HC_SCN 1 4M010 /4.040111 4974923 Ow�M 4 osmaz 6.�+e1. 74 fango M20 so #022305900 4,750740 McFarland Footbridge 611530 lmaa 14 14$'h Ave SE Bridge 4 433U Figure 33 Perspective plot comparing Scenario l and 7 under mean annual flow rates King County 41 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 8 Under the proposed project design, Scenario 8, with vegetation removal and sediment removal down to 308 feet for approximately 1000 feet, the conveyance capacity increases to approximately 50 cfs in the previous sections where 6 cfs would be out of bank. This improvement effectively mitigates storms near the 1 -year magnitude (i.e. 61 cfs). Figure 34 shows that for 50 cfs, May Creek is over bank for existing conditions in the entire project area while for Scenario 8, flows are kept in -channel until the wetland area downstream of 148'h Ave SE (shown in dark blue). Hydraulic controls in the system coalesce down to the outlet of the wetland entering into a well defined channel leading to the ravine, with a small difference in water surfaces through the wetland area as a result of removal of vegetation choke points (Figure 35). One of the primary choke points to be removed affecting upstream of 148'h Ave SE is the combination of canary reed grass and clumps of Willow trees encroaching in the channel just downstream of 148'h Ave SE --significantly reducing channel capacity. NOyGrk E)deHmg COnd6m NAW88 Pim: ,]KC_5CN ! 41V2010 2�KC_8CM_4 4!i,2010 074223 101200 be #022305900 ,sea McFarland Footbridge "non "4 148'h Ave =Bridge u or a 4 432510 41WAS Figure 34 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 8 overbank flooding with SO cfs at 148th Street. Light blue areas are inundated areas for Scenario I and dark blue are Scenario 8. King County 42 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 35 Water surface profile at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and S King County 43 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project In addition to lower flows, a review of higher flows was done. Focusing on downstream of the wetland through the bridge located at 143rd Ave SE, the same return period of flood frequency was used, but with their respective flow rates of 229 cfs (Scenario 1) and 240 cfs (Scenario 8) for the 2 -year return period through the ravine. There is a marginal increase in water surface elevations downstream of 146th Ave SE of 0.08 ft and diminishes to 0.05 ft at 143rd SE (Figure 36). More importantly, the velocity changes are minimal as well with 0.10 ft/s at 146th Ave and 0.06 ft/s down at 143rd Ave SE. This marginal change in water surface elevations and velocities are essentially within the accuracy of the model validation. Thus, no effectively apparent significant changes between existing and proposed conditions at this flood frequency. Moreover, selecting any higher flow rates will result in even less differences between pre and post conditions. hdayCreekExisdingCondition NAVD88 Plan: 1)2yrScn1 4222010 2)2yrScnS 4222010 MayCreek Malnlem 374 _.� k , ` WS byear0-2ydcn6 - — �- �--`� Vy8 2•yeart]•Zy9cn1 r Gmund 1 712 --- -- - - - 1 I i 310 I fi 308 W 708 --�- --- ---�--�� --_ _ mss 704 -4 D ti K x x 302 211100 21800 22000 27100 22400 22800 22600 23000 Main Chamel Dllanq Figure 36 Water surface elevations for the 2 year return period (229 and 240 cfs) for Scenario 1 and S. King County 44 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 9 The alternative scenario of removing sediment and choking vegetation to an elevation of 309 feet (Scenario 9) is less effective at keeping flows in -channel at 50 cfs through the project area (Figure 37). However flows are estimated to stay within bank between 148`h Ave SE and at the footbridge downstream of Long March creek confluence. However, this is primarily because of the element of removing vegetation choke points and the assumed flushing of existing silts with the increased velocities. Again, convergence of the water surface profiles converge at the natural control of wetland outlet (Figure 38). It is worth noting that flows are maintained in channel through the pasture areas up to approximately 40 cfs. Figure 37 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 9 overbank flooding with 50 efs at 148th Street. Dark blue areas are for Scenario 9, light blue are for Scenario l (existing conditions). King County 45 December 2010 RUM Figure 37 Perspective plot for Scenario 1 and 9 overbank flooding with 50 efs at 148th Street. Dark blue areas are for Scenario 9, light blue are for Scenario l (existing conditions). King County 45 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Figure 38 Water surface profile at 50 cfs for Scenario 1 and 9. 5.2 Updated Flow Frequencies Original flood flow frequency estimates in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report were based on a 42 year period of record from water year 1949 through water year 1990, and a single scalar to translate SeaTac precipitation to May Valley conditions using Bulletin 17-B (USGS 1982). As previously mentioned, current hydrologic analyses include additional data through water year 2008 (18 years more data). This combined with the updated FTABLES for existing conditions, and flow frequencies have changed since the original analysis was done in the May Creek conditions report. Frequency analysis was done for two locations in the basin, flows draining through project area to 148`h Ave SE bridge (Figure 39) and flows down to Coal Creek Parkway. This illustrates how estimates of flood frequencies are dependant on period of record in addition to magnitude of events and any small changes in frequency estimates should be viewed with that understanding. Through the valley area, the magnitude of the 2 year flood frequency increases from 283 to 289 cfs (5 %). The increases in changes between Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 diminish to no change between -scenarios at the 20 year event. In fact, flood events greater than the 20 year event decrease after the project. It is also worth noting that all the changes either increasing or decreasing are within the 95% confidence interval of existing conditions (Table 7). For convenience, the original May Creek Current and Future Conditions report flood frequencies are included in the table. King County 46 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Table 7 Summary of flood frequencies for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 for May Creek in the valley. Return Period Scenario 1 Scenario 8 Percent Difference Conditions Report (1995) 17-8 Upper Lower 17-8 Upper Lower 1.01 53 64 41 61 73 48 16% 110 1.11 94 108 80 104 118 89 11% n/a 1.25 120 135 104 130 145 114 8% n/a 1.67 163 182 145 173 191 155 6% n/a 2 186 208 167 195 216 176 5% 165 5 283 326 252 289 329 259 2% n/a 10 351 414 307 354 412 312 1% 285 20 417 503 359 416 496 362 0% n/a 25 438 532 376 436 523 378 0% n/a 40 483 595 410 478 581 411 -1% n/a 50 504 625 426 498 609 426 -1% 413 100 571 722 476 561 698 473 -2% 468 Flows were Interpolated and extrapolated from published 2, 10, and 100 year flow rates in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Similarly for the ravine, these changes in flood events are nearly the same. The 2 year flood event increases from 229 cfs to 240 cfs (5%). Flood frequency magnitudes decrease starting around the 20 year event. Again, this estimated change is within the 95% confidence range of existing conditions (Table 8). Table 8 Summary of flood frequencies for Scenario 1 and Scenario 8 for May Creek in the ravine. King County 47 December 2010 Scenario 1 Scenario 8 Conditions Return Percent Report I Period 17-8 Upper Lower 17-B Upper Lower Difference (1995) 1.01 67 81 52 78 92 62 16% 141* 1.11 118 135 100 130 147 112 10% n/a 1.25 149 167 130 161 179 142 8% n/a 1.67 202 225 180 213 236 192 6% n/a King County 47 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Return Period Scenario 1 Scenario 8 Percent Difference Conditions Report (1995) 17-B Upper Lower 17-B Upper tower 2 229 256 206 240 266 217 5% 208 5 349 400 310 355 404 319 2% n/a 30 431 508 378 435 506 384 1% 357 20 513 618 442 512 609 446 0% n/a 25 539 654 .463 537 643 466 0% n/a 40 594 731 506 590 716 507 -1% n/a 50 621 769 526 615 751 526 -1% 514* 100 704 889 588 694 864 586 -1% 582 'Flows were interpolated and extrapolated from published 2, 10, and 100 year flow rates in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Additionally with the proposed improved channel conveyance, attenuation of flows is marginally less thus slightly increasing flow frequencies on the lower end with the 1 year event increasing from 54 cfs to 61 cfs (Figure 40). Flaw frequencies in the ravine were similarly indifferent between existing (Figure 41) conditions and proposed (Figure 42). King County 48 December 2010 10' Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 1 - MVL R80 Weighted Skew (G= -0.15274) Probability Plot Exceedance Provability Ae4uer, 173 EwpnCO ,year) wfel ICfa1 ---------------------- 200.00 639 01 ]OO.CO 571 590 A 00 504 520 40,C0 483 445 Y5.CO 438 467 _^n.Cn 417 1'1 LOCO 31J1 1' 5 5.00 283 286 2.00 _66 186 1.50 _44 164 1.2" ==0 lla 1.C1 5= 50 17B 95% CI EVeded watull ❑ 2008 0 xow 2008 1991 1990 ® 1951 Figure 39 Flow Frequencies for existing conditions using USGS 17-8 methodology for flows at 148th Avenue SE (catchment MVL) King County 49 December 2010 10' 103 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 8 - MVL R80 Weighted Skew (G= -4.12543) Probability Plot Exceedance Probability Pewcr, 113 E,peCLa i year) (cfs) !--ft) NO 00 624 654 100.00 551 57n 50.00 498 511 40.(10 478 490 25.00 446 444 '0co 416 4_4 10, C0 354 351 5,C0 269 292 2.00 .95 199 1.50 .59 159 1125 .30 129 1,C1 61 59 c� 176 95%cl Expected SIE Weibull ❑ 2008 0 2004 2008 +i 1900 1991 0 2007 Figure 40 Flow Frequencies using USGS 17-B methodology for Proposed project design (Scenario 8) for flows drainging to 148th Aveneue SE. King County s0 December 2010 10' 102 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 1 - CCP R100 Weighted Skew (G= -0.12501) Probability Plot Exceedance Probability Netufn ]l3 E.pecLd ty4ari 1Cfs1 ICfsl 200.00-_- 709--_v929 100.CO '10, 721 50.00 62L 640 ,n.Cri 594 610 2.`..CO 539 550 20.rn 513 5-i 10.00 431 176 5.r0 "_39 352 2.00 2 9 �29 1.5D :fiS 184 1.25 :49 14'5 1.C1 67 64 -178 MCI EVaded SIE weibull 0 2008 2004 2008 1991 1951 ® 1990 Figure al Flow Frequencies using USCS 17-B methodology for existing conditions at Coal Creek Parkway (catchment CCP) King County 51 December 2010 N 103 102 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario 8 - CCP R100 Weighted Skew (G= -0.082482) Probability Plot r 893.9�1s !V 17 �' r• e• 537.1 -da 431.8 -ds 355.5 cfs w o•' Ln 240.3 -ch a.. ! . 0, O' i� .,'O . o d o 0 0 o a d o 0 o c o d d d Exceedance Probability A9LurA 173 e,prctd ryeari ICfa1 (Cfsl ______________________ 200.Co 714 013 1P0.g0 694 7Ifi 30,Co 615 673 40.00 590 604 25.co 737 947 'o.nn 51- 5-2 10,Co 43�, 475 5, f,0 ills 359 2.00 240 240 1.50 _56 195 1.25 161 159 1,C1 77 75 179 95% CI Eq*ded ?jc weibull ❑ 2008 0 2M 4 2008 1991 7990 ® 1951 Figure 42 Flow frequencies using USCS 17-B methodology for proposed project design (Scenario 8) at.Coal Creek Parkway (catchment CCP). 5.3 Reduced Duration of Flood Inundation for Smaller, more Frequent Events Reductions of durations in pasture flooding are quite substantive given the conveyance improvement from 6 cfs to 50 cfs. Using HSPF, a watershed model was run for a period of 60 years (water year 1949 through water year 2008) at one hour time steps for each scenario. Using the continuous output from the model, a durational analysis can be performed estimating the length of exceedances at any given threshold. It is worth noting that these analyses are a simplification of actual conditions. These results do not take into account the time it takes for the flooded pastures to recede back into the channel after a storm event, thus actual reductions in durations of inundation will be less than presented here, but for the purposes of demonstrating improvements this method is valid. Relevant for valley flooding, the two key thresholds of interest are 6 cfs and 50 cfs where flows are either out of bank or in-bank—post project. Under existing conditions, flows are forecasted to be over bank, on average, 24 -percent of the time or roughly 3 months of the year. Which given the episodic nature of storms in the Pacific Northwest, and the unaccounted time for King County 52 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project receding waters, this could be interpreted as multiple more months of inundation. Durations of flows flooding the pasture for the proposed design (Scenario 8), shows a significant decrease assuming flows are not out of bank until flows exceed 50 cfs. For this threshold, flooding is expected to occur, on average, 3 percent of the time per year or roughly 2 weeks (Table 9). Again, it is important to note that this does not account for time draining the pastures after an event has occurred, thus the effective reduction in pasture flooding will be less than presented here. Reductions in duration of flooding are likely to occur when storm magnitudes begin to diminish in spring and summer with peak flow rates more likely to be less than 50 cfs. While the other two scenarios are included in the durational analysis and in the table below, the threshold for over topping banks is less than 50 cfs, hence reductions of durations will be considerably less with Scenario 7 (removal of vegetation choke points) the least effective, marginally increasing in -channel capacity to approximately 8 cfs before flows go out of bank. While Scenario 9 (removal of vegetation choke points, some sediment removal) does significantly improve conveyance capacity over existing conditions (i.e. approximately 40 cfs in channel capacity), over bank flows are estimated to occur 33 percent more of the time (i.e. 4 % of total duration versus 3 %) relative to Scenario 8. Table 9 Percent of time flows are equaled or exceeded at each of the flow rate thresholds for flows passing through the project area (catchment MVL, outlet at 148`h Avenue SE) based on HSPF simulation WY 1949 - WY 2008. King County 53 December 2010 Flow Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario (cfs) ^�^ 1 7 8 9 6 24.04% 23.77% 23.41% 23.49% 10.4 13.77% 13.65% 13.44% 13.50% 28 6.03% 6.01% 5.99% 5.99% 40 4.01% 4.02% 4.04% 4.04% 50 2.94% 2.96% 2.98% 2.98% 75 1.39% 1.42% 1.46% 1.45% 100 0.70% 0.74% 0.78% 0.77% 150 0.26% 0.26% 0.29% 0.28% 175 0.18% 0.18% 0.19% 0.19% 200 0.12% 0.12% 0.13% 0.12% 233 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% 275 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 300 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% King County 53 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Flow Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario (cfs) 1 7 8 9 350 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 400 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 5.4 Flow Rates Competent to Pass Silts through the System Based on the estimated incipient motion for silts, shear stresses equal to or greater than 0.004 psf are capable to mobilize silty -fines assuming non -cohesive and median diameter size of 0.000328 feet (0.10 mm). Using HEC -RAS computations of shear stress, it is assumed that shear stresses greater than or equal to 0.01 are capable to mobilize silts. Two flow rate profiles were evaluated for their competency, mean annual flow rates and 29 cfs. The goal was to obtain shear stresses above 0.01 for the mean annual flow rate of 8.6 cfs throughout the project area. Results show that shear stresses do equal or exceed 0.01 through the project area except for in the wetland downstream of 1481h Ave SE bridge (Table 10). The threshold of 29 cfs is meant to represent that typically, there is at least one event of that magnitude each month between November and Ma),- -with a few exceptions during dry months. However, barely meeting the minimum target is not optimal given the possible inaccuracies in assuming non -cohesive silty fines. Fines with a diameter of 1 mm or greater require shear stresses above what the mean annual flow rate can produce. Moreover, during summer months when flows are their lowest, it would be expected that silts will settle on the channel bottom based on these results. This introduces another uncertainty about characterization of the fines when the next wet season starts. If vegetation has started to grow in the channel bottom, the root system will bind the soils together thus increasing the incipient motion threshold. Therefore, it is unclear what levels of flow rates are necessary to eradicate any new growths that may occur in the channel bottom during the summer. These results are also dependant on the relocation of where Long Marsh creek deposits gravels during storm events. This tributary has clearly been shown in the past to deposit enough gravels to effectively backwater May Creek upstream of its confluence. Additionally, shear stresses in May Creek are far below forces necessary to mobilize gravels that are being deposited by Long Marsh creek. King County 54 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Table 10 MEC -RAS calculated shear stress In channel for Scenario 8, mean annual equals 8.6 cfs. Zero shear stresses are highlighted In tan color Station No. Mean Annual 29 cfs Station No. Mean Annual 29 cfs Station No. Mean Annual 29 cfs 4.9926 0.01 0.03 4.6120 McFarland footbridge 4.4550 148th Ave SE Bridge 4.9882 0.02 0.07 4.6112 0.01 0.03 4.4512 0.01 0.03 4.9749 0.1 0.25 4.6067 0.02 0.07 4.4454 0 0.01 4.9687 0.53 0.26 4.5754 0.01 0.05 4.4325 0.01 0.04 4.9491 0.04 0.09 4.5628 0.02 0.05 4.4265 0.01 0.06 4.9372 0.03 0.08 4.5516 0.01 0.04 4.4155 0.01 0.04 4.9120 0.01 0.05 4.5429 0.01 0.03 4.4116 0.01 0.04 4.8874 0.01" 0.06 4.5323 0.01 0.02 4.3947 0 0.02 4.8701 0.29 0.32 4.5144 0.01 0.04 4.3876 0 0.01 Parcel 110223059005 4.8680 footbridge 4.5076 0.01 0.04 4.3783 0 0 4.8658 0.18 0.18 4.5055 0.01 0.03 4.3713 0 0.01 4.8613 0.42 0.12 4.4974 0.01 0.03 4.3694 0 0.01 4.8286 0.02 0.06 4.4821 0.01 0.04 4.3538 0 0.01 4.7885 0.01 0.04 4.4814 0.01 0.03 4.3360 0.04 0.07 4.7495 0.04 0.1 4.4788 0.01 0.03 4.3234 0.06 0.08 4.7207 0.02 0.07 4.4729 0.01 0.03 4.3195 0.05 0.08 4.7087 0.02 0.06 4.4648 0.01 0.03 4.3108 0.14 0.23 4.6403 0.01 0.02 4.4613 0.09 0.14 4.2892 0.04 0.07 4.6226 0.01 0.04 4.2861 0.31 0.21 4.6177 0.02 0.06 4.2826 0.06 0.09 4.6138 0.03 0.09 King County 55 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 5.5 Durations of Flow Rates in the Ravine Using the results in the May Creek Phase lI Sediment Transport Study, erosive flows in the ravine were observed to occur in the range of 73 to340 cfs, and a theoretical estimate of incipient motion approximate to 275 cfs. Refinements for the flow events used in that study, presented in this study, narrows the range of observed mobilization of sediment estimates for incipient motion to a range of 75 to 275 cfs (rounding to the nearest 5 cfs). For this study, characterization of changes in erosion in the ravine are based on evaluating durations of flows above the defined incipient motion. As previously mentioned, an HSPF model was used to estimate continuous flows at one hour increments for a period of 60 years (from October 1, 1948 through September 30, 2008) using scaled historical precipitation and evapotranspiration. This method enables a statistical characterization using observed historical climate data for May Creek in the valley and ravine that would not be available otherwise. Thus, any phases of dry years, wet years, and everything in between are contained in this analysis as opposed to any potential climate bias using local data of shorter time spans. Durations of flows evaluated in the range of 75 cfs or greater for the ravine show that there are small increases that progressively get smaller the higher the flow rate. Comparing Scenario I to Scenario 8, these increases start with 0.07 percent increase at 75 cfs and become less than 0.01 percent for flow rates at or above 275 cfs. As an example, there is 0.003 percent (i.e. 0.00003) increase in duration of flow rates between 300 and 350 cfs. Over 60 years of duration, that is equivalent to 15 hours increase or on average 15 minutes more per year (Table 11). This level of detail is beyond the accuracy of the calibrated model, but any biases in the models would be consistent such that relative comparisons between scenarios like this are valid. Table l l Percent of time flows are equated or exceeded at each of the flow rate thresholds for flows in the ravine (catchment CCP) based on HSPF simulation WY 1949- WY 2008 (525,960 hours). Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenarlo Flow 1 7 8 9 6 43.26% 43.15% 42.97% 43.00% 10.4 25.06% 24.89% 24.63% 24.68% 28 8.84% 8.77% 8.66% 8.69% 40 6.10% 6.10% 6.06% 6.08% 50 4.60% 4.61% 4.61% 4.61% 75 2.41% 2.44% 2.48% 2.48% 100 1.32% 1.36% 1.40% 1.39% 150 0.47% 0.50% 0.52% 0.52% 175 0.33% 0.34% 0.36% 0.35% 200 0.23% 0.24% 0.26% 0.25% King County 56 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Flow 1 7 8 9 233 0.15% 0.15% 0.16% 0.16% 275 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 300 0.072% 0.074% 0.075% 0.075% 400 0.027% 0.029% 0.028% 0.028% 5.6 Other Considerations Presented in all the scenarios except for Scenario 1 (existing conditions), the channel bottom profiles were based on survey elevations taken to the harden channel bottom and not on top of the soft sediment. This assumption is based on the fact that after the project when velocities are improved, existing silts will flush out of the system over some period of time. Although in -channel silt mobility analysis indicates improvements will restore competence to mobilize this material, there are in -channel features that will likely retard this process including re -vegetation by aquatic plants during summer base flow conditions, thus changing soil mobility characteristics and estimates of flushing for the next.wet season. Lastly, the modeling verification is still in progress. Low flow conditions in the 10 to 20 cfs range should be validated to a reasonable accuracy, but given how well the model simulated for slightly larger flow rates (i.e. > 40 cfs), it's reasonable to assume that the model represents conditions at lower flows acknowledging that there will be numerous specific locations in channel geometry and vegetation blockages not included at every location. However, it is intended to include all major features. At present, the results of the modeling characterize out of bank flows in the 6 cfs range along with the durational analyses estimating that on average over time, pasture areas are flooded on average 3 months out of the year and likely longer. However given the preliminary hydraulic verification, existing channel capacity is uncertain at this time. King County 57 December 2010 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project 6.0. REFERENCES Bicknell, Brian, et al., July 2005. HSPF Version 12.2 User's Manual. Prepared for U.S. EPA- NERL. Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants. GcoEngincers, 2008. May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan, King County Washington. For King County Water and land Resources Division and Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group. Guo, Junke, 2002. "Hunter Rouse and Shields diagram." Advances in Hydraulics and Water Engineering, Proc. 131h IAHR-APD Congress, Vol. 2,1096-1098. Helsel, D.R. and R. M. Hirsch, 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 4, chapter A3. U.S. Geological Survey. 522 pages. King County, 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental .Corp. King County, 2002. May Creek Sediment Wedge Removal Project- HEC -RAS Model. Prepared by Entranco, Inc. King County, 2009. May Creek Sediment Transport Study. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC. Otak, 2006 USACE, March 2008. HEC -RAS, River Analysis System- Hydraulic Reference Manual (Version 4.0). U.S. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency, Bulletin 17-B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, [183 p.]. [Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA 22161 as report no. PB 86 157 278 or from FEMA on the World -Wide Web at (htt2;l/water.usgs.g_ov/oswlbulletin17b/bulletin 17B.htmi). King County 58 December 2010 King County Road Services Division Department of Transportation KSC-TR-0231 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 December 14, 2011 TO.: Doug Chin, Acting Supervising Engineer, Water and Land Resources Division FM: Jeff Burkey, Hydrologist, King County Water and Land Resources Division Julia Turney, L.G., Environmental Engineer, King County Road Services Division RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project - Response to Ecology's September 1, 2011 comment on the backwater effect caused by the McFarland (i.e., Gambini) footbridge In Ecology's September 1, 2011 letter'to you on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, they commented that the backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge, extending 2,000 feet upstream. The form and location of the gravel bar indicates that the bridge is the primary cause for excess gravel deposition probably due the backwater effect. Therefore it appears that the bridge rather than the gravel bar, is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2,000 feet upstream. King County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) maintains that this assessment by Ecology is incorrect for flows below the 5 -year event. The footbridge is not the predominate cause of backwater effect for the flood events addressed by this project (i.e. flows -well below. the 5 -year event).. In summary, sediment deposition from Long Marsh Creek produces higher elevations in the May Creek Channel and the backwater effect forces water out of the May Creek channel upstream of the footbridge. This action starts a cycle of reduced sheer stress in the May Creek channel, causing further deposition by Long Marsh Creek and greater overbank flooding by May Creek. Field observations and modeling show that the footbridge does not impede flows below the 5 -year event. Modeling results and field observations to support this conclusion are provided below. Flow Modeling King County WLRD completed hydraulic modeling comparing the effect of the foot bridge on the ability of May Creek to move sediment (shear stress) near the Long Marsh Creek confluence in May Creek between the existing conditions and post -project conditions. Modeling shows no change to how May Creek moves sediment until approximately between the 5- and 10 -year event (post project). Assuming a diameter of 22. mm, the size of sediment measured in Long Marsh Creek where half of the sediment 4.M,, Doug Chin December 14, 2011 Page 2 was larger and half smaller (D50= 22 mm), incipient motion is estimated to be 0.38 psf, which is about a 5 -yr flow event. At 20mm, the approximate size of sediment measured in May Creek at the confluence, incipient motion is about 0.35 psf. This indicates the bridge causes a backwater affect,and alters sediment deposition infrequently (approximately between the 5- and 10 -year post project and between the 2- and 5 -year existing conditions) based on incipient motion computed using Shields equation. Table 1 and Figure I compare the modeled flow and shear stresses on the May Creek channel between the existing conditions and proposed project conditions. Note that there is no proposal to remove the foot -bridge; the removal in Table I and Figure _1_is shown for comparison purposes only.. Table 1: Sheer Stress in May Creek Channel for Modeled Flows (yellow highlighted cells are at or above estimated incipient motion) Shear stress in channel s ExistingConditions PostProject Reoccurrence Interval Q (flow)_Bride With Without Bride With Bride Without Bridge 8.6 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 13 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 29 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.08 50 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.1 64 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 109 0,241 0.24 0.2 0.2 148 0.28 0.3 0.26 0.26 165 0.3 0.33 0.28 0.28 2 -yr 188 0.32 0.36 0.29 0.29 5 -yr 285 0.28 0.49 0.38 0.38 10 -yr (approx) 339 0.23 0.51 0.4 0.42 354 0.23 0.5 0.41 0.43 424 0.19 0.43 0.43 0.5 468 0.21 0.41 0.4 0.52 562 0.25 0.36 0.371, 0.5 ! Doug Chin December 14, 201 1. Page 3 Me O'S Fe OA H 0.3 0.2 0.1 W 200 '400 600 Flow Rate (cfs) Exist w8ridge Exist wo Bridge Post w8ridge Post woBridge : Estimated shear stress at the confluence of Lona Marsh and Mav Creek Field Observations Field observations of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek were made during August of 2010 and the flood event of December 11-13, 2010. The flood event of December 2010 is estimated to be between a 5 and 10 -year flow event (see Figure 2). May Creek December 2010 Event (37G -148th Avel 600 r -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- __------- - - - - --- - - - - -- 100 -yr I 327haursa50ds --—————--———————--——————————————— 20 -yr 400.i_-__,_______....._._..._...______.,___—._.___,..._.._...___........._:.............,..._�._______.�__._ I. j— — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — L•— — — -- — —. — — — — i35 C11 — — — — — — — — 1p-yf 200' ———--—— — — — — —— I ----—--— — — — — —— ,— 2-Y[ l ' 100 f ------------------- ------ --------- l.p]•yr 12/8/7010 O:OO II)16120SOO90 12112(20100:00 12/14/1010 0:00 12/t6/2010 0:00 12/18120100:00 TYns�hou[Ni �Dhchargejdsl — •- FIOWFreq —50 ds Figure 2: Hydrograph for December 2010 flow event Doug Chin December 14, 2011 Page 4 Photo 1: Long Marsh Creek and May Creek confluence as viewed from the footbridge looking upstream (August 2010). In Photo 1 in August of 2010, gravels from Long Marsh Creek are visible at the confluence with May Creek. These gravels are very similar in size and type (including glacially derived gravel) with gravel observed upstream in Long Marsh Creek between the culvert under SE May. Valley Road and the confluence. Grass and vegetation is present outside of the active channel downstream of Long Marsh Creek. 9 UE Doug Chin December 14, 2011 Page 5 Photo 2: Long Marsh Creek looking downstream towards the confluence with May Creek (December 2010). The image in Photo 2 is from a video taken of Long Marsh Creek looking downstream to the confluence with May Creek. The red alder in the right side of the image is the same tree as in the left side of Photo 1. The flows were receding on December 12, 2010 when Photo 2 was recorded. Photo 3 shows that although May Creek flow is not impeded by the lower cord of the foot bridge, flood waters leave the channel upstream of the footbridge -and flow south of the foot bridge in the pasture. Observations of the conditions showed that Long Marsh Creek -- introduces higher flow velocities in the main May Creek channel at the confluence. In May Creek higher upstream velocities were occurring outside of the excavated channel on the south side of the valley. -May Creek is occupying the lower elevations in May Valley. C, Doug Chin December 14, 2011 Page 6 Photo 3: The confluence of May Creek and Long Marsh Creep during the December 2010 storm. Conclusions A. Based on the modeling and observations of the two creeks, stream flow and sediment deposition (bed load) is occurring in the following sequence during flood events: 1. Flow volume increases in May Creek. 2. * Long Marsh Creek enters May Creek higher on the alluvial fan. 3. Sand and gravel sized sediment from Long Marsh Creek is deposited higher on its alluvial fan and farther from the May Creek channel. 4. As flow volumes increase in May Creek, the creek overflows the channel above the confluence with Long Marsh Creek and shear stress decreases at the confluence as flood flows are distributed across the valley floor. 5. As flood waters recede in May Creek, Long Marsh erodes sediment deposited in the channel at the flood confluence and carries it to the next intersection with May Creek flood waters and eventually to the main channel. 6. Flow from Long Marsh Creek entering May Creek is higher velocity and is contributing to sediment movement in May Creek. Doug Chin December 14, 2011 Page 7 B. Between flood events, grass and vegetation establish on the new sediment deposits on the right bank of May Creek. C. During low flows in May Creek, Long Marsh Creek moves gravel to silt sized material to May Creek. D. Sediment from Long Marsh Creek during higher flow events is being deposited on top of existing vegetation, visible in patches under sediment. The foot bridge is not the predominate cause of backwater effect at flood events below the 2 year event, but requires a 5 -year event to mobilize even if the footbridge was not there. Sediment deposition from Long Marsh Creek produces higher elevations in the May Creek channel and the backwater effect forces water out of the May Creek channel upstream of the foot bridge. This action starts a cycle of reduced sheer stress in the May Creek channel, further deposition by Long Marsh Creek and greater overbank flooding by May Creek. It should be noted that sediment size analysis from the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and upstream and downstream of the 146" Avenue SE bridge in May of 2010 show similar well graded gravel sediment size distribution (King County Materials Laboratory 2010). The sediment sizes are similar because: I. The gravels found at Long Marsh Creek confluence and at the 146 Avenue SE Bridge are representative of the May Valley glacial recessional deposits and the layer of finer sediment and muck is representative of the post glacial and human agricultural activities. 2, The flows contributed by Long Marsh Creek are enough to keep the muck in the May Creek channel from accumulating. References King County Materials Laboratory. 2010. Particle Size Evaluation of May Creek Water Channel Soils memorandum from Timothy R Hyden via Alan D Corwin to Jeff Burkey. May 11, 2011. Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project Basis of Design Report September 14, 2011 Julia Turney, Geologist Doug Chin, Project Manager Wesley Kameda, Engineer Jeff Burkey, Hydrologist Erick Thompson, Stream Ecologist Lucy Traxinger, Engineer 2493-�, 'd ae°�� ire• a�., "n Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................... i 1.1 Project Location....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary Description............................................................................................... 1 1.3 Goals..............................................................................................................:..........2 1.4 Objectives.................................................................................................................2 1.5 Summary of Technical Studies................................................................................ 4 2.0 Project Site Conditions.................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Historical Conditions................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Land Use and Ownership......................................................................................... 5 2.3 Watershed Geologic and Geomorphic Setting.... ..................................................... 5 2.4 Hydrology and Hydiraulics..................................................................................... 11 2.5 Water Quality ................................................................................... .............. 12 2.6 Stream Habitat........................................................................................................ 12 3.0 Project Design.................................................................................................................14 4.0 Design Criteria................................................................................................................15 4.1 Buffers....................................................................................................................15 4.2 Channel Cross Section........................................................................................... 15 4.3 Channel Pattern...................................................................................................... 16 4.4 Design Disharge..................................................................................................... 17 4.4.1 Effective Discharge Flow: ...................................... ........................................... 18 4.5 Planting Plan and Density ...................................................................................... 18 4.6 lnstream Wood Debris........................................................................................... 21 4.7 Sediment Transport ................................................................................................ 21 4.8 Soils........................................................................................................................23 4.9 Substrate............................................................................................................. .24 5.0 Literature Cited..............................................................................................................25 . Appendices Appendix A: 1872 Survey Map and Flood Photo Appendix B: Photograph of Long Marsh Creek Reaches Appendix C: Design Plans Table of Tables Table1:Long March Creek Stream Stats................................................................................. Table 2: Pebble Count Data for Two Transects Long Marsh Creek ....................................... 13 Table 3: Long Marsh Creek Channel Depth.. ......................................................................... 19 Table4: In -stream Wood Debris............................................................................................. 24 Table of Figures Figure1: Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................. 3 Figure2: 1936 Aerial Photo Graph........................................................................................... 8 Figure3: Geologic Map.......................................................................................................... 10 Figure4: Reach Map.............................................................................................................. Jt Figure 5: Cumulative Sediment Distribution.......................................................................... 14 Figure6: HSPF Flow Frequency ............................. ............................................ I ................. . 15 Figure 7: Channel Wide Definitions...................................................................................... 21 ,P 1.0 Purpose and Scope The Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project Basis of Design Report provides information on the design concepts, as well as detailed design criteria for the Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project(hereaftcr referred to as the Project). Project figures may be found in Appendix A. Detailed technical studies prepared to support the Project design development may be found in subsequent Appendices. 1.1 Project location Long Marsh Creek (08.0289) is located east of Renton in unincorporated King County on a private property located on the south side of SB May Valley Road. (Figure 1). Long Marsh Creek enters May Creek (08.0282) at River Mile 4.6 and is a perennial, 2nd order stream approximately 1.65 miles long, that drains a watershed of 0.78 square miles. Table 1 below lists the Long Marsh Basin characteristics (USGS, Stream Stats). Sediment control and stream restoration, including buffer enhancement, are proposed for this project site. Table 1: Long Marsh Creek Basin Characteristics (Modified from USGS Stream Stats) Parameter — �— Value Drainage Basin, In square miles 4.78 •-~—.�«�—,•~862 Mean Basin Elevation In feet .—_—.�!•-......_—.._.�._.._.�.._. Minimum Basin Elevation in feet I 351 Maximum Basin Elevation in feet- ��- —��- 1220 Relief (maximum - minimum elevation), In feet 869 Mean basin slope in percent m. ...-------•------._.._._�i-..—.-18.6 Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent --- -- — 12.2 Percent of area with slope greater than 30 percent and facing North I 2.18 Area -weighted forest canopy, in percent, computed from NLCD 2001 canopy dataset X86.1 i Mean annual precipitation, In inches — �— i 47. — 1.2 Summary Description The Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project will create a meandering channel, remove invasive vegetation, control sediment delivery to May Creek and establish variable with stream buffer habitat. Plants such as red alder, western red cedar, Pacific willow and other early successional species will be densely planted to rapidly provide shade and cover L .ag Marsh Creek, May Vu ;y Long Marsh Creek Project Area t.S7,i1 cmek P06'80 Y 15F.hSt: Yrflvt Dom"tr ^ Ctl as �` I Newcastle, Ope4 5plce: Ise lath wri 1 s ° Rota st �!e pr SF FUrk 2'92 —3 .se 65th q Coal o Pa k s 1 Ireee"OAA r tE��hP � FYre;;� urst Olt Cab � N h AY �^ t� Vy. Skin Ave N C L) O An m sE�• t 6 FUrk �t N°.v 9 -19th ati PJ! n An m sE�• SE a6th 4 Ch.Ar; X14' : '•`k1 1pltd4?4 CJPek Ste `e R70m 1JIkt41 51>ilce May ar r Crctak Park " f SE 91xt St 4lip ` r9S1h�taY Sp St Hv„r�A� 4 r Long Marsh Creek Project location Nay rl,ti ? P1av CICQi; fifto'ippen 5p:Xfl p0 t Pam xE 25th EI .r ,I so loom 5t .. Nt 25th SI 1 . ;l j` w NE lAlh St NC 7114 5t �. , r e•'�n Z. L 21,0 St r z�g23xlst •q. al C�,P �il•1QY, 71E 2101 St -k, Off. *ts4Aln ,q.• i ie iiltl{C ' HE 14th 5t ,�'.. 4 td&n r ',`•'� . ihr ME 17” g HE 1'hh 5e, � •4 � • •„ M NEJAh 417N51 i May } Vale • h♦s 12th St NE 121n SI • Mk 17th 51 - Park ; ;; 112th S. •; .NE ttdi S[ ^gam �3JM 5t w. •.-.(. S6J13tb*+t �` •+"�,COI11f14I+1 i8 Q ' Satit SI 14 1 QN F4 � � of loth Pr'� � z 1 � r • �- - r . � � � HdtOlh In 140 iO6 Sia •n:• -' .. Ne V1Ut St, "'� i5E.i16ih 5t �•. .` ME 9th Sl St ti 6' •�4, Ic. .�4r1; z' nxi Y7E 91h 5r - I _3 A Renton NF Q,h S1 i nC Qtn v P c 4 e t,SE 12Qrtt St - - ?!h er HE 7y' SE 424th St ' HE 7th St AI ,y, tY`gl - � ��t Avx Y - 1 •R+� Y HE 6th Pf NE6litsl' GI 'FIE 6th S1 a z Kt N rY w. HE 5th _ - - 2: - g ,z lL G-¢•i;:'„'1t4vn.. -1 .4 HE 51h Pt NE Ch St 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 Miles 2 Figure 1 King County throughout the site. After these plants have become established conifers and other species will be planted in a managed successional planting strategy. Woody debris and snags will be placed to provide structure, roughness and habitat substrates to the stream channel and upland buffer. Native and imported soil material will be used to create variable soil moisture and substrate conditions to support the stream environment. Habitat adjacent to the low flow channel will be created for invertebrates such as amphibians such as Pacific chorus frogs and Northwest salamander, fish species such cutthroat trout and coho salmon. 1.3 Goals The goal of the Project is to control sediment delivery to May Creek and provide beneficial stream habitat. The Project will restore in -stream fish habitat complexity and alluvial fan functions at the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek by enhancing approximately 280 linear feet of stream from an agricultural ditch to a more natural channel and creating about 50 linear feet of side channel along May Creek within the alluvial fan . area. This will allow sediment to drop out in Long Marsh Creek prior to reaching May Creek, and will increase fish habitat complexity in Long Marsh Creek. 1.4 Objectives Specific objectives for the Long Marsh Creek site include: 1. Control sediment transport by increasing stream sinuosity, creating natural depositional benches, creating a new side channel for May Creek with natural channel morphology to allow sediment deposition outside of the main channel. 2. Restore in -stream habitat complexity by adding woody debris and boulders to approximately 140 linear feet of stream channel. 3. Restore in -stream complexity to May Creek by creating a side channel for May Creek and allow discharge of high quality Long Marsh Creek gravels to the side channel, thereby enhancing May Creek habitat for salmon and cutthroat trout. 4. Restore and enhance approximately 0.18 acres of riverine and upland riparian habitat by removing invasive vegetation, adding topography and planting native forested and scrub -shrub vegetation that will provide habitat for amphibians, and other aquatic species. 5. Create a minimum of 1600 square feet of ofd channel permanent open water with two depth classes to provide seasonal rearing and refuge habitat for fish as well as habitat for wetland -associated birds, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and small mammals. 1.5 Summary of Technical Studies Technical studies and assessments were performed to verify the feasibility of the conceptual design and to provide design criteria for construction of the Project (Appendix B and Q. These are briefly summarized as follows; The Long Marsh Creek Geomorphic Investigation (Turney, 20 10) was performed to determine soil and groundwater characteristics. The results of this study included recommendations for soil materials to reduce infiltration and support the . establishment of aquatic environments. Information from the report is included below, A summary hydrologic model (Burkey, 2010) of the project site was developed to analyze backwater conditions and develop channel and riffle geometries to convey design discharges and provide fish passage. Figures from the model are included below. 2.0 Project Site Conditions Long Marsh Creek is tributary to May Creek, located in the Puget Sound Lowlands of Western Washington. This broad rolling lowland is characterized by a mild maritime climate. It occupies a continental glacial trough and is composed of many islands, peninsulas, and bays in the Puget Sound area. Coniferous forest originally grow on the ecoregion's ground moraines, outwash plains, floodplains, and terraces. The distribution of forest species is affected by the rainshadow from the Olympic Mountains (Omemik, 1987). 2.1 Historical Conditions Historic 1872 survey map and aerial photo taken during flood events (see Appendix A) show that Long Marsh Creek, an unnamed drainage to the west and Indian Meadows Creek to east created a broad alluvial fan that pushed May Creek to the south side of May Valley. Historically the streams would have moved across the fan as sediment was deposited in the channel or debris flows brought large slugs of sediment from the slopes on the fan. In the late 1920s or early 1930s, May Creek was dredged to create a straight channel. May Creek and Long Marsh Creek appear in their current configuration in a King County 1937 aerial photo (Figure 2). A 42 -inch culvert carries Long Marsh Creek under May Valley Road and in a second 48 -inch culvert under farm structures and parking areas. At some point in the early 201h century Long Marsh Creek was placed into an excavated agricultural drainage channel oriented north -south to join May Creek. A uniform low (I foot) berm lies along the west side of the channel and statements from the previous property owners indicate the stream was regularly cleaned of sediments to provide conveyance capacity and permit tillage and pasturage in adjacent fields. Long viarsh Creek 1936 Aerial Photo s+ aw e +. +� is w _ r . 1 i Y r J6 21IT" ST .-fir.. �'j`�%. �• � ,�"�' �t(i •• w � F "''►L�ti+"+ f � fir` J I *Iq Y _Ct2of0iCGwnrty '' �. ', •1 0h32#1 ''; 1 Le ge nd County boundary Highway 193$ EWWAerial Photos X Mountain Peaks Artarials Highways LOCA Streets Lakes and Large Rivers C� (cont) Streams COMMENTS: Figure 2 The Information included on Ihls map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is sub}ecl to change without nonce. King County makes no represeniallons or warranties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or it his 10 the use o1 such Information. This document Is not Intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, Indirecl, incidental, or consequential LQ damages Induding, but nal Ilmiap ted to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on dlis map. Any sale of King Count y Ihis map or Intormation on 'his mIs prohibited except by writlen permission of King County. Date: 8!1212051 Source: ling County MAP - Properly Information (latlp:/lwww.matmkc.gov/WAMAP} i 2.2 Land Use and Ownership May Valley supports pasture and low -intensity agriculture uses, small farms, and scattered single-family residences. Historically, May Valley was probably more fully utilized for agriculture production; however, under existing conditions the pastures in the project area are primarily horse pasture. The Long Marsh Creek project area is located on parcel 0223459091. The stream corridor is approximately 30 feet wide and bounded by horse pastures and fencing. 2.3 Watershed Geologic and Geomorphic Setting The Project site is located on the Long Marsh Creek alluvial fan in May Valley that formed at the base of Cougar Mountain. The wide and relatively flat May Valley (RM 3.9 to RM 7.0) was created by glacial ice melt runoff and is part of the "Kennydale Channel". The creek is underlain by.recent alluvium over recessional outwash deposits and compacted glacial till. These deposits overlie Eocene Tukwila Formation. -The formation is composed of volcanic tuff, fine-grained volcanic sandstone and volcanic tuff -breccia. The Tukwila Formation outcrops in the hills above May Valley. The alluvial fan developed from the deposition of sediment in response to the loss of valley confinement and declining valley gradient. Sediment deposition on the fan raises the channel bed above the surrounding terrain and forces the channel to abandon the current alignment for lower ground. This process of sediment deposition and channel abandonment and formation can create a network of braided channels or a single channel incised into the fan. The geologic map is shown on Figure 3. The Long Marsh Creek, Indian Meadows Creek and unnamed drainage to the west of Long Marsh formed coalescing alluvial deposits. May Creek was dredged to form a linear channel between 1910 and 1936 (Foster Wheeler, 1995). The dredged channel may be located slightly north of the pre -dredged drainage. Long Marsh Creek is channelized and confined by a culvert under SE May Valley Road and a private culvert on the parcel. The channel gradient decreases from approximately 5% upstream of SE May Valley Road to approximately 3% below the private culvert. Long Marsh Creek appears as a straight channel following a fence line between fields in 1937 aerial photographs. Long Marsh Creek drainage has been subdivided into four reaches (Figure 4), each reach exhibiting internally similar characteristics. Photographs of the sub -reaches are located in Appendix B. Reach I extends from SE May Valley Road to the confluence with May Creek. Long Marsh Creek joins May Creek south of SE May Valley Road near 150th Place NE. The reach between the confluence and SE May Valley Road was in agricultural production prior to available 1937 aerial photography, and since that time has had a relatively straight channel aligned with a current property boundary. The channel is on the order of 2 feet ing Marsh Creek, May V,_.oey Geology W King County ♦ i. :S � , - . !r. "6�, IIT' Oji •�� ' itr' y# W 1 f 1 J dr Legend Qw- Wetland Deposits Organic Rich Sediment Qvr- Recessional Outwash Deposits Sand and Gravel 82,00000[0 82,000164,00(246,00028,000 Feet Qvt- Vashon Till Compacted Mix of Silt Sand and Gravel Tpt- Tukwila Formation- Mix of Volcanic and Sedimentary Material wide and several inches in depth at winter low flow. The stream banks are approximately 1 foot in height, and the surrounding floodplain/fan surface is primarily planted in pasture grass with some recent native plantings. Evidence was found of sand gravel deposition throughout this reach. Gravel in the channel is composed of Tukwila Formation representing the native Cougar Mountain bedrock source and granite and quartz material, reworked glacial material. The Tukwila sediments are generally angular to subangular and the reworked glacial is subrounded to rounded. At the confluence with May Creek the sediment is predominantly Tukwila sediments. Discussions with the property tenants indicate that sediment deposition extended into the adjacent pastures and required maintenance following a January 2009 storm event. A 100 -foot section of culvert conveys the creek across a portion of the fan with open channel on either side. • Reach 2 of the creek crosses under SE May Valley Road in a culvert that marks the top of the present alluvial fan. In the area upstream or north of SE May Valley Road, the stream is more incised within a narrow floodplain. The stream follows a contact between glacial till and Tukwila Formation volcanic rock. The west bank of the stream appears to have been modified by the grading of what might have or narrow access road. The compacted surface now appears to have reverted to largely native vegetation, some of which is hydrophilic. The west bank in that area has been actively undermined and is presently a 3-5 foot high vertical bank with exposed roots in places. It appears that the channel has incised, possibly in response to the bedrock -glacial contact, narrow access road and/or the culvert elevation under SE May Valley Road. The stream is attempting to rebuild a connected floodplain by undermining its banks. Erosion has also been observed where the stream flows against the SE May Valley Road embankment before entering the road culvert. In the process, significant sediment is being delivered to the stream. These conditions only exist along approximately 150-200 feet of stream before the gradient increases (approximately 400 feet upstream of SE May Valley Road) and the channel begins to climb Cougar Mountain. • Reach 3 includes the steepening gradient of the channel above Reach 2. The steepening gradient is a result of exposed Tukwila Formation, forming bedrock cascades. Very little sediment is present within this reach; however, intermittent collections of woody debris do trap modest amounts of sediment. Given the steep gradient and the relatively smooth channel, the wood accumulations appear to be readily breached during higher flow events. Given the small size of the debris accumulations, they likely contribute to the background rate of sediment transport, but do not likely result in large episodic sediment loads. • Reach 4 starts approximately 900 feet upstream of SE May Valley Road where the stream gradient flattens and a small man-made impoundment was found. More sediment is apparent in this reach, and it is possible that a failure of an impoundment like the one observed could release a significant amount of sediment into the system. However, there is no direct evidence of any recent failures. The reconnaissance was stopped approximately 1000 feet upstream from SE May Valley Road because the remaining portion of the drainage is forested with no development and therefore, is unlikely to have significant, correctible sedimentation problems. Active erosion in Reach 2 above SE May Valley Road is the apparent source for much of the sediment reaching May Creek. Sediment movement behavior in Reach I was observed during December 2010. During high flows in May Creek, Long Marsh Creek deposited sand, gravel and small cobbles at the high water boundary in May Creek. Water backing up in the Long Marsh Channel deposited sand as overbank deposits above the flood confluence with May Creek. As the water elcvations in May Creek dropped, Long Marsh carried gravel farther down toward May Creek. Flows in Long Marsh Creek subsequently scoured the recent channel deposits and transport sediment to the main May Creek channel. This indicates that lower flow events on Long Marsh Creek may deliver more sediment directly to the May Creek channel while larger storm events that produce higher flow events in May Creek deposit more sediment higher on the alluvial fan. Two pebble counts (Wolman, 1954) of stream substrate were conducted January 7, 2011 on Long Marsh Creek substrate above the confluence with May Creek. One count, Transect 1, was conducted approximately 50 feet downstream of the private culvert and the second 45 feet upstream from the confluence with May Creek. Pebble measurements for the two transects are shown below in Table 2, Figure 5 shows the cumulative particle size distribution of the sediments, Analysis of the two transect counts (BAGS, 2008) indicates that for sediments Table 2: Pebble Count Data for Two Transects Long Marsh Creek Cumulative ,Distribution ., Size finer than mm Transect 1 Transect 2 2 14.0 4.0 2.8 16,0 5.0 4 18.0 5.0 5.6 20.0 7.0 8` 24.0 11.0 11.3• 27.0 15.0 16 33.0 18.0 22.6 37.0 34.0 32 53.0 50.0 45.3 B6.0 71.0 64 75.0 82.0 90.5 92.0 97.0 128 9B.0 99.0 181 100.0 100.p 10 r Figure 5: Cumulative Size Distribution of Sediments Along two Transects in Long Marsh Creek (BAGS, 2008). less than 20 mm there is a statistically significant difference in sediment size between the two transects. The difference in sediment size distribution likely represents post high May Creek flood scour exposing earlier sediment deposited during different flow regimes in the second transect. 2.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Stream flows are seasonal, with peak flows occurring October -- February, and low summer base flows occurring between July and September. Modeling estimates peak flows (100 years) of approximately 90 cubic feet per second (cfs) and one year flow of approximately 10 cfs (Burkey, 2011). � 1 • 111 :11 �.�Illlll..�11�,11■■�Illlll..�lnlll ■1111111■■IIIIlP>•■111111■■�IIIIII 1..1MBOMO1111.111111 ■■��nlll■■��i1111■■�11111■■�111111 .11 ■1111111■.►111111■�N III■.�Illlll „ ,11 ■.1111111■I��Il11lI■.111111■��IIIIII ��N1111��111111■■111111■■111111 ■Ili��i�111111■■111111■■1111111 ;■:iilllll�■�Illll[■■�IIIIII■��111111 1 1 mslmilllmml111111mnl111111mol111111 1 11 111 1111 Figure 5: Cumulative Size Distribution of Sediments Along two Transects in Long Marsh Creek (BAGS, 2008). less than 20 mm there is a statistically significant difference in sediment size between the two transects. The difference in sediment size distribution likely represents post high May Creek flood scour exposing earlier sediment deposited during different flow regimes in the second transect. 2.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Stream flows are seasonal, with peak flows occurring October -- February, and low summer base flows occurring between July and September. Modeling estimates peak flows (100 years) of approximately 90 cubic feet per second (cfs) and one year flow of approximately 10 cfs (Burkey, 2011). )o? sal HSPF Sim. long Marsh Existing wyl949-2008 Weighted Skew (G= 0.058254) Probability Plot ,.wrr• tT0 Cr l.o:lp f y1Sr7 I'.[>> Irirl 2CC.W "i.71 13,7( al�•l�u SG.7N 11.:f 10.60 :.'iG ST.71 [.rl tO.Or r.7T � 7T$ CI $lrpnuea �E welblm q 2003 0 2007 2'004 I008 )Yaa © 1041 Excwdance P(abobillty Figure 6: HSPF Simulation of Flow Frequencies on Long Marsh Creek (Burkey, 2010) In May Creek fines with a diameter of 1 mm or greater require shear stresses above what the mean annual flow rate can produce, Shear stresses in May Creek are for below forces necessary to mobilize gravels that are being deposited by Long Marsh creek (Burkey, 20 10) 2.5 Water Quality Long Marsh Creek is not on the Washington State Department of Ecology's 303(4) list of impaired waters. May Creek is on the 303(d) list for Fecal Coliform downstream of the project area near Lake Washington. The reach of May Creek in the project area is not on the 303(d) list. 2.6 Stream Habitat The in -stream habitat within the reach of Long Marsh Creek below SE May Valley Road (Reach 1) is somewhat shallow low -gradient riffle with little to no pools. The exception includes a small plunge pool beneath a pipe that carries Long Marsh Creek through a section of pasture and farm equipment parking. This pipe is likely a partial barrier to upstream fish migration during some flows because of water velocities. The stream is maintained in a relatively straight alignment by property owners from the pipe to the stream's confluence with May Creek. There is a narrow riparian area adjacent the stream that has been planted in 12 the last ten years or so. The culvert at this location is also likely a partial fish barrier during certain flood events. Stream habitat immediately upstream of SE May Valley Road (Reach 2) consists of low gradient riffle and small pools. There is a narrow riparian environment that is providing some cover and complexity to this section of stream. Juvenile salmonids were observed in some of the small pools and edgewater habitats located within this section of the stream. This indicates that fish are able to pass both the culvert above the project area and the culvert under SE May Valley Road. The ravine is well forested and instream habitat is almost exclusively high gradient riffle (cascade), though there were numerous small pools on the edges of the channel, usually formed by aggregations of small sticks and leaf litter that would not persist through storm flows. Upstream of the steep bedrock cascades the instream habitat is similar to the stream section below the cascades, with possibly more pools habitats. The riparian area is wider and has a much more diverse coniferous forest. 13 3.0 Project Design The Long Marsh Creek Restoration Project is designed to with the goal of reducing sediment movement to May Creek and enhancing approximately 280 feet of the lowest reach of the Creek by creating meanders, adding habitat features, and planting native vegetation. The meanders, terrace features and vegetation will also enhance sediment -trapping capabilities to reduce transport of sediment to May Creek. The enhancement also includes creation of an approximately 50 -foot -long side channel parallel to May Creek that will join with Long Marsh Creek prior to discharging to May Creek. The side channel will provide an area of gravel substrate. Temporary and permanent easements will be acquired from property owners to protect the mitigation site in perpetuity within a permanent stream corridor. Estimates of sediment delivery to the Project are based on sediment deposition by Long Marsh in May Creek subsequent to a 2002 sediment excavation project in May Creek, This range of sediment production and delivery is representative of the variable and episodic nature of sediment production and transport. Larger cobbles are expected to settle out upstream of the SE May Valley Road culvert, with small cobble to silt sized material settling out in May Creek. LWD will be placed in the channel every 8 feet (4 channel widths) to create a moderately entrenched, moderate gradient, step -pool channel morphology with a sinuosity of>1.2. Plant species will include trees, shrubs, groundcover and emergents. Species utilizing the stream reach will include aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and migrating salmonids. Design plans are shown in Appendix C. 14 4.0 Design Criteria Specific design criteria are provided as derived from analog, empirical or analytical methods. Analog design criteria are derived from reference wetlands, and use structural wetland characteristics as a template for design. Empirical design criteria use mathematical relationships derived from observed relationships, e.g. relating bankfull discharge to channel width or depth. Analytical design criteria use process -based approach to design; e.g. density - dependency relationships obtained from research design studies. 4.1 Buffers Definition The types and aerial coverage of land uses within 165 feet of the creek. Rational Land use adjacent to Long Marsh Creek has historically been in agricultural and pasture. There are existing fences and pastures on either side of the creek providing a 25 to 30'foot wide corridor. The area for stream work and buffer restoration is limited due to fencing and existing property. Methods King County Code Title 16 and 22. Design Criteria The Long Marsh Creek channel will be graded and planted. The channel area will be widened up to five feet near the confluence with the new May Creek side channel to provide more area for the channel meanders. The new May Creek side channel will be bounded on the south by May Creek. No new buffer area is available for the creek alignment. 4.2 Channel Cross Section Definition A transect in the vertical plane oriented across the channel Rationale Channel shape is critical to water discharge and sediment retention and conveyance. The May Creek side channel provides sediment storage and side channel refuge for small fish. Methods Hydraulic modeling by Burkey (2010) and Kamada (2011) and channel design experience (Thompson, 2011). Desiun Criteria Channel cross sections were developed based on design discharges, planform geometry, and subreach slope. The Long Marsh channel was sized to convey the 1 year storm in a low flow IFS channel and provide sediment deposition behind large woody debris on benches within the channel. The cross sectional area has been adapted to the curvature of the meanders. Table 3: Long Marsh Creek Channel Depth Recurrence Interval Flood flow I Channel Depth 1.0l Year 9.8 cfs 1.l ft depth 2 Year 28.9 cfs 1 1.5 ft depth The May Creek side channel cross section was sized to allow flow at a 2 -year event. LWD will be positioned in the channel to provide complexity, clean gravel substrate will be placed in the channel and the side slopes designed to provide an "island" between the main May Creek channel. 4.3 Channel Pattern Definition The configuration of the east reach of the Project described in terms of relative curvatures Channel patterns are related to length, slope, sinuosity, and sediment load. Rational Channel pattern is a primary geomorphic parameter that changes in response to hydrology, sediment supply, and channel slope. The area available to design the Long Marsh channel is constrained by pastures. The sinuosity and meander amplitude were chosen to maintain a low flow channel, enhance sediment deposition and remain within the available property boundaries. Methods On December 12, 2010 a 60 -year recurrence interval event occurred in the May Creek Basin, The location of flooding on Long Marsh Creek below SB May Valley Road was surveyed. The observation showed that the below SE May Valley Road Long Marsh increased its sinuosity slightly during the event and the channel below the private culvert is relatively stable. Sinuosity, meander wavelength, amplitude and radius of curvature were maximized within the available space. Values were checked to be within US Forest Service Alluvial Fan Process Group characteristics for micro to moderate alluvial fan. These values include: Lona Marsh Creek Design Criteria • Valley Length = 2801f • Stream Length = 325 If • Sinuosity= 1. 16 • Meander Amplitude = 10-12ft • Radius of Curvature = 12ft • Meander Wavelength = 50-70ft The May Creek side channel is designed to allow deposition of Long Marsh Creek sediments, to not disrupt the flow velocities in the main May Creek channel and therefore 16 reduce the capacity of May Creek to carry fine sediment, and to provide side channel habitat with gravel substrate. The pattern is a gentle arc that represents a high flow meander channel. May Creek Design Criteria • Side Channel Length = 80 If • Meander Amplitude = 20 R • Radius of Curvature= 10 ft • Meander Wavelength = NIA 4.4 Design Discharge Definition The discharges (flows) that have the greatest impact on channel boundaries and wetland hydrology. The design discharge is used to design certain habitat elements, ensure fish passage of grade control structures, and evaluate flow depths in channels. Bank -full width describes the flow event that just fills and equilibrium alluvial channel, specifically to the depth where the flow width to depth ration is a minimum. Rationale Because the Project requires a full channel reconstruction a suite of design discharges are likely necessary to develop channel forms, cross-sections, and profiles that meet all project objectives. The channel design must provide hydrology to support sediment deposition, provide fish passage, transport future sediment loads and meet site constraints. Flows should establish two water depths regimes in Long Marsh Creek. Low flows in an inner channel should equal or exceed 3 inches and the low flow channel bankfull flow (i -year event) in winter will be 18 inches. Flows above the one year storm will spread out on a broad outer channel. The outer channel will contain the 100 -year flood event. The water depths will provide sediment deposition areas, habitat for different plant communities, which in turn, provide broader range of habitats for faunal communities. Sediment deposition will slow the delivery of sediment to May Creek. Minimum water depths in the low flow channel will maintain fish passage during summer months. In Western Washington there is a general correlation between the bankfuli discharge and the 1.25 -year recurrence interval flow, when flow within the channel just begins to spill over into the active floodplain (Castro and Jackson 2001). 17 Bankfull Discharge Active Channel Width Height of the active channel Figure 7; Channel width definitions. Methods HEC, 2008 Design Criteria 1.25 -year recurrence interval = 19 cfs 4.4.1 Effective discharge flow: Definition The single discharge event that transports the larges volume of sediment over time. Rationale To evaluate the relationship between channel geometry and sediment transport capacity and the implications of channel forming discharges. Methods HEC, 2008 Design Criteria 1.01 -year recurrence event = 9 cfs 4.5 Planting Plan and Density Definition Species type, size, number and density of planted species. Rationale King County Code 21A.21 requires critical areas restoration and enhancement. Guidelines published by DDES provide plant numbers based on formulas. 18 Methods DDES Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement in King County spacing formula was considered and modified by the stream side location and amount of wood that will be placed in the stream. The King County native plant guide provides lists of plants and preferred growing conditions. Design Criteria: The alluvial fan area is relatively wet environment due to shallow groundwater and flooding from May Creek. Selected species need to be able to withstand periodic flooding on the high flow bench and seasonally shallow groundwater. The south facing aspect will be in sun to part sun until tree and shrub species become established. Dong Marsh Creek is located between two active pastures and total view blockage is not desirable to the property manager. Proposed plant species are listed in table 3 below_ Table 3: Planting Schedule Scientific Name I Common Name Quantity Size Conditions I Plant Spacing Long Marsh Creek Thuja plicate Western Red Container min 18" High how channel, Cedar 10 ht, full, dense slope edge locate in foliage, cluster of willows symmetrical crown Betula papyrifera Paper Birch B&B 5-6' ht, full, High flow channel 9 dense foliage, within 50 feet of. symmetrical crown May Creek Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash B&B 5-6' ht, full, High flow channel, 10 dense foliage, base of slope symmetrical crown Comus sericea Red Osier Container IS" -21" Clusters of three on Dogwood 27 ht and spread, min high flow channel two stems Acer circiantum Vine Maple Container IS" -21" Clusters of three on 30 ht and spread, min high flow channel two stems Salix iasiandra Pacific Willow Lave stake, min 36" 3 'oc staggered. long at 1/1" to %" Stakes driven into 55 diameter, min 12 high flow channel lateral buds per . distributed along stake crock Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow Live stake, min 36" 3 'oc staggered long at 'h" to %" Stakes driven into 55 diameter, min 12 high flow channel lateral buds per distributed along stake creek Rubus spectabalis Salmonberry Container 18" -21" Clusters of three on ht and 15" spread, high flow channel 30 dense, multiple stems 19 Symphoricarpos Snowberry Container 15"-18" Clusters of three on albus 30 ht spread, full upper bank of high flow channel Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Container 15"-18" Clusters of three on 30 ht spread, full upper bank of high flow channel Polystichum Western Sword 1 Gallon container Distributed munitum Fem 40 min 3 fronds Achillea Yarrow 10 cubic inch Plugs Distributed millefolium 40 or 4" pot Aruncus dioicus Goat's Beard 10 cubic inch Plugs Distributed 40 or 4"pot Tellima Fringecup 10 cubic inch Plugs Distributed gtandiflora 40 or 4" pat Carex lenticularis Shore Sedge 10 cubic inch plugs Clusters adjacent to 30 low flow channel Scripus Small -fruited 10 cubic inch plugs Clusters adjacent to microcarpus Bulrush 30 low flow channel Oxalis oregano Wood -sorrel 50 4 "pot Distributed May Creek Side Channel Thuja plicate Western lied Container min 18" "Island" between Cedar ht, full, dense main and side 3 foliage, channel symmetrical crown Cornus sericea Red Osier 1 gal Container "Island" between Dogwood 3 min two stems main and side channel Symphoricarpos Snowberry l gal Container min "Island" between albus 6 two stems main and side channel Carex lenticularis Shore Sedge 10 cubic inch plugs Low bank along island between 6 main and side channel Scripus Small -fruited 10 cubic inch plugs Low bank along microcarpus Bulrush 6 island between main and side channel Salix iasiandra Pacific Willow Live stake, min 36" 3 'oe staggered. long at %" to %" Stakes driven into diameter, min 12 banks distributed 20 lateral buds per along island stake between May Creek main and side channel 20 Salix sitchensis Sitka Willow Key (Large) Live stake, min 36" 3 'oc staggered lengths LWD pieces long at''/," to 1/4 " Stakes driven into 20 diameter, min 12 banks distributed lateral buds per along creek 9 stake 4.6 Instream Wood Debris Definition Wood debris arc all pieces greater than 10cm in midpoint diameter and 2m in length. Key pieces are defined as a log and/or root wad that is independently stable in the stream bankfull width (not functionally held by another factor, i.e. pinned by another log, buried, trapped against a rock or bed form) and retaining, or having the potential to retain, other pieces of organic debris. Rationale Wood debris (WD) plays an important role in controlling channel morphology, the storage and routing of sediment and organic matter, and the creation of fish habitat (Fox and Bolton, 2007). Methods: Fox and Bolton, 2007 D_esien Criteria ' The number and volume of in -stream wood pieces. In -stream was specified (Table 4: In - stream Wood Debris) with total quantities of WD based on I WD pcs p/ 11.3 ft stream based on median values for Western Washington State. Key pieces = I Key lies p/ 55ft based on median for Western Washington State. Additional pieces are being added to provide sediment storage and channel complexity. Table 4: In -stream Wood Debris Long Marsh and May Creek Channel Key (Large) LWD TOTAL. LWD lengths LWD pieces (Mod & Pieces Small) pieces 9 Long Marsh channel 280 ft (5calculated) 25 34 3 ay Creels side channel 50 ft (lcalculated) 5 8 TOTAL U 30 42 4.7 Sediment Transport Definition Sediment yield is the total sediment load that leaves a drainage basin. Coarse sediment is transported by streams as bed load and fine sediment is transported as suspended load. 21 Rationale Sediment deposition on benches above the Long Marsh Creek low flow channel and in May Creek side channel will reduce sediment deposition in May Creek and the associated loss of flood storage capacity. Methods: The estimate of sediment yield is based on estimates of sediment volume deposited between 2002 and 2010 taken from survey elevation data collected by KCDNRP. Design Criteria Sediment yield in the Long Marsh Creek drainage was estimated from the accumulation of sediment in May Creek from Long Marsh Creek between 2002 and 2010. Approximately 6.56 cubic yards (5.02 cubic meters) or 4.05 Tons (1.38 tons per cubic yard) of sediment have accumulated at the confluence of Long Marsh and May Creek as determined from survey data after the sediment removal project in 2002 and again in 2010 (Kameda, 2011). This equals approximately .82 cubic yards or .63 cubic meters per year. The material at the confluence represents both bedload and suspended load carried by Long Marsh Creek that May Creek is unable to remove. This volume underestimates the total sediment yield as May Creek may carry very fine (clay size) suspended sediments during higher flow events. The fine sediment is carried by May Creek and partly drops out of suspension as flows slow in May Creek. During flooding additional sediment deposition is occurring downstream of the foot bridge where Long Marsh and May Creek flows eddy against the bank. The source sediment for this downstream deposition appears to represent both Long Marsh and May Valley sediment. As noted in the discussion of existing conditions, Long Marsh Creek Reach 3 and 4, the forested slopes of the Long Marsh Creek drainage, are stable and the channel is underlain by Tukwila Formation bedrock. There are a number of log jams observed in the drainage that retain large quantities of sediment. Modeling of sediment loads from the forested slopes is difficult since the channel is not an alluvial channel. Sediment yield to the channel comes from forested slopes by soil creep, tree throw, surface erosion of the forest floor, and surface erosion associated with slope failures. Sediment yield from forested slopes to streams has been reported (Hassan, 2605) from various investigations at rates ranging from 1m3/km/yr of channel bank to l Om3/km/yr drainage area for soil creep to surface erosions. The Long Marsh Creek cumulative stream length is 4.26 km (this measurement includes all of the side channels) and the basin is 2.02 km2 (USGS Stream Stats, 2011). Dividing the annual yield of .63 cubic meters per year by the stream lenfh provides an estimate of 0.15 m3/km/yr. The calculated rate based on area is 0.31 m3/km /yr. These two estimates are lower than the published sediment yield rates for forested drainages. Reach 2, the area above SE May Valley Road is undergoing active erosion. The drainage area of Reach 2 is approximately 2.8 acres or .O1 km2, a relatively small part of the Long Marsh Creek drainage basin. This reach has several houses/buildings and roads and is most highly developed portion of the basin. Published (Hassan, 2005) sediment yield rates for road areas can be 1000 m3/km2/yr. The drainage area of Reach 2 is approximately .O1 km2. Long' 22 Marsh Creek sediment yields from Reach 2 do not generate the l Om3/km2 that this rate suggests. However, due to the visible erosion in Reach 2, this area may be the source of a higher percentage of the basin sediment yield. The estimated yields based on the survey results are lower than published rates for similar streams. The lower stored volumes may represent courser sediments and the finer sediments are being moved downstream to the grass lined channels farther downstream. Greater volumes of sediment may be trapped in the upper reaches of the drainage behind log jams within the channel and delivery rates are lower than anticipated. Sediment storage in the redesigned Reach 1 will be located on eight outside meander bends set with key LWD above the low flow channel. These benches will be used to catch and deposit sediment. Sketches of the configuration and -an example photograph from Olsen Creek are attached. • Using the bench size of 25 to 30 feet long and 10 to 15 feet wide provides a maximum area of 20 feet by 10 feet by 0.8 feet equal to 1603 or 4.53m3 for sediment storage on each bench. • Eight benches provide a maximum of 36m3 of sediment storage in the Long Marsh channel. • The May Creek side channel provides a maximum of 5 feet by 40 feet (the down stream end of the channel) by 2 feet of depth equal to a maximum of 400ft3 or l l m3 of sediment storage. • The combined sediment storage potential for the Long Marsh project is 47m3. This provides an estimated 74 years of sediment storage at the estimated sediment yield rate of the last eight years. Events such as logjam failure in the upper reaches of Long Marsh Creek may shorten the storage "life" of the project. Low precipitation and runoff may lengthen the sediment storage time frame. 4.8 Soils Definition The loose top layer of the Earth's surface, consisting of rock and mineral particles mixed with decayed organic matter (humus), and capable of retaining water, providing nutrients for plants, and supporting a wide range of biotic communities (American Heritage 2008) Rational The area around Long Marsh Creek is an alluvial fan and history of agricultural use. Disturbing the existing soil to excavate the new channel will remove topsoil needed for plant establishment. Methods Top soil will be salvaged during excavation and reused on the slopes and benches. Topsoil will be imported for use Top soil will be tilled into the planting areas to minimize the loss of fines and organic material by runoff during plant establishment. Design Criteria Native soils are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent (AGc) on the slopes above May Valley and Bellingham Silt Loam in the valley. The Alderwood series is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These soils are "on uplands. They formed under conifers, in glacial deposits. Slopes are 0 to 70 percent. The Bellingham series is made up of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium, under grass and sedges. These soils are nearly level and are mostly in depressions on the upland glacial till plain. In general soil will meet the following specification: Gravel<2.9 inches, Sand 0.19-0.003 inches, Silt .003- .0002 inches Clay <.0002 and approximately 40-50% organic material. 4.9 Substrate Definition Loose sand and gravel laid down as a subaqueous deposit by stream transport (Pettijohn, 1975). Rational Long Marsh Creek created an alluvial fan composed of materials eroded from the Tukwila Formation and surf"icial glacial deposits overlying the Tukwila Formation. The new channel excavation is expected to be formed from the same materials that underlay the existing channel. Excavated deposits will be retained and reused to shape the meander benches. Desigm Criteria Pebble counts conducted prior to excavation will be used as the basis for the channel gravel design. 5.0 Literature Cited The American Heritage Science Dictionary. 2008, Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., ® 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Azous, A.L, Bowles, M.B., Richter, K.O. 1998. Reference standards and project performance standards for the establishment of depressional flow-through wetlands in the Puget Lowlands of Western Washington. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, Renton, WA. Bags I- See Wilcox Booth, D. B., 1990, Stream -channel incision following drainage -basin urbanization: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, p. 407-417. Booth, D. B., 1991, Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System --Impacts, Solutions, and Prognoses: Northwest Environmental Journal, v. 7, p. 93-118. Booth, D.B. and Henshaw P., 2000, Rates of Erosion in Small Urban Streams, in M. Wigmosta ed., Stream Channels in Disturbed Environments: AGU Monograph Series. Booth, D. B., D. Hartley, and C. R. Jackson, 2002, Forest cover, impervious -surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 38, p. 835-845. Burkey, Jeff, 2010, Hydrologic model of Long Marsh Creek, email communication, January 25, 2011. Castro, J.M. and P.L. Jackson. 2001. Bankfull discharge recurrence intervals and regional hydraulic geometry relationships: Patterns in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37{5}:1249-1262. Celedonia, Mark T. 2002. Establishing appropriate benchmarks for site development by documenting successional characteristics. WSDOT, Olympia, WA. Cooke, S. S. and Azous, A. 1993. Effects of urban stormwater runoff and urbanization on palustrine wetland vegetation. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stonnwater Management Research Program. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Fox, Martin and S. Bolton. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes of instream wood in unmanaged forested basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:342-359, 2007. American Fisheries Society. GeoEngineers. 2008. May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan, King County Washington. For King County Water and land Resources Division and Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group. 25 Kim, D..K., Ewing, K., Giblin, D.E. 2006,Controlling phalaris arundinacca (reed canarygrass) with live stakes : a density -dependent response. Ecological Engineering article in press. King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Prepared for Stormwater Services Section, Capital Services Unit. Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1.7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125. Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies, 2006, Geologic map of King County, Washington: D.B. Booth and A. P. Wisher, compilers, scale 1:100,000 (available at http://geoinapnw.ess.washington.edu/services/publications/map/data/Ki ngCo_composi te.pdo Traxinger, L and Kameda, W, Estimates of Sediment Deposition from Long Marsh Creek 2002 to 2010, personal communication, July 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release 55 (TR -55). National Technical Information Service. 1986. ' U.S Forest Service. October 2010, Alluvial Fan Process Group, Channel Type User Guide down loaded from http://dspace.nitle.org&itstream/handle/10090/20008/Channel-Type-User- Guide-Revision.pdf?seauence=l6 April 8, 201 t. US Geological Survey, StreamStats, Washington, Streamflow Statistics and Basin Characteristics for Long Marsh Creek, down loaded from http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/Washington.htmi , accessed between February 2011 and August 2011. WDF (Washington State Department of Fisheries). 1975. Catalogue of Washington Streams and Sahnon Utilization, Lake Washington-Sammamish Basin. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003. Design of road culverts for fish passage. ht ://wdfw wa. ov/hab/en ineer/cm/. Wilcock, P., Pitlick, J., and Cui, Y., 2006, Sediment Transport Primer and BAGS User's Manual, Part 1, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR. Fort Collins, CO USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Downloaded from: hltRs;aishare.iohnshopkins.edu/pwilcoct/r)ublic html/Skamania%20Short%20Course.htm Appendix A Historic River Location and Flood Information 27 l 58 May Creek Flooding Circa 1972 from King County Department of Natural Resources May Creek Project Files Appendix B Long Marsh Reach Photos 30 Appendix C Long Marsh Design Plans 32 I SF MA1gmm qm 1- NE 28��w ilk NE 24TH ST THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES A 'URPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK )IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: /ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH 'L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT VICINITY MAP 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING JORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S PR6�ECT LOC 'TION LIM King County ROPOSED WORK: CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION ATUM: SCALE: HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 1 of 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 4nn .7 Y r� CaugarHou, EL A 'URPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK )IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: /ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH 'L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT VICINITY MAP 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING JORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S PR6�ECT LOC 'TION LIM King County ROPOSED WORK: CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION ATUM: SCALE: HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 1 of 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 I04JMA, SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 VICINITY .MAP 2 SHEET INDEX 3 SITE PLAN 4 DESIGN PLAN 5 SECTIONS 6 LOG AND BOULDER DETAIL AND SECTION 7 TESC PLAN 8 TESC DETAILS 9 PLANTING PLAN AND NOTES 10 PLANTING DETAILS 11 PLANTING SCHEDULE THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES wl King Courrty URPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT SHEET INDEX 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING ORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S ATUM: SCALE; NO SCALE HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET. 2 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 RESTORE CONSTRUCTION STAGING Q AREA TO ORIGINAL CONDITION 7 STAGINq AREA 1 9121.23 S.F. 0.21 ACRES HAROLD OAMBINI, JR 1 5019 S.E. MAY RD 909D i WALKERS 15125 S.E.--1 MAY VALLEY RD 80 0 80 SCALE IN FEET THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING KingCounty ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT SITE PLAN 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING ORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL 5 ATOM: SCALE: 1"=60' HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C„ WES K., J.T. SHEET: 3 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 cr (D X -M L�L1, �?>-• `1�m / �-i -i ILL] Ln z to ;kt w Q Ld LIC z < �� LL �' g z w¢ 0 0 Ln 0 uo 0 z Ld ow �f�o�f �l �N. f 3 Q N 0[n 0�=p Zul w 0 U N n ai- F-rW vi V =a t' -t �L0 al a u] 0 N (L In Lr- 1�� v eE u zLd LLA 3 Z V) 0 J wop� o IS iv ® zW o a r � z " w Glr I- 1 I YC O� J E 1C �z 00 � c o zZ� �0 c7 �Z w tLd w~'~ _ T p W aso zv —W N 5 1 mLdz 0 �� U W tr D W EL Q of V) Ln 00- T A iL U I a w p � 3 C1 a a t s; O a n N w� d 3 La z 0 z Lod Z >_ 0 to cn+ wold --lR � Q 00O �a•Od�nfz3 K) o Izac�Zm �o 0,-V) _j z 0Lu 00 W x m Fzo (n+ aaLa � zow oina3NII U23dOdd oWi in tn V t _ t0 j�. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING 111ty ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES URPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL,, IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLAN AND PROFILE VIEWS PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING ORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S ATUM: SCALE:' 1 „=60' HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 4 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 w N Q �Wo Iwl i x �a pp FI,� Vl lOZ Zy �cj~�O iEo� Ir t.:l li Zv a M8 I� p N 1 zilq �a� ' ,o O S is O ;• -I - - 7{�!� I � I i E •III ' o j � j iQ 1 I p_jS1g �'x1g:zl � io co i --- 1-------- - ---�------- -- I- -----,a f ,..�i it ...ip n U I mrd LLj o Z ; I N Zq i Z� M �cr h I 1 oa; Z E td 106 I } ' THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES TTf7 F__ Li Lv LL W J U N Z Y M uj mi im KE1tg County PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND VALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION :'L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT SECTION VIEWS 15019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING VORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: SCALE: 1"=5' HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 5 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 BOULDERS 28"-36" (3 MAN) LOG & BOULDER NOTES: 1. USE LOGS WITH ROOT WAD ATTACHED, 2. LOGS MUST BE BETWEEN 24 -INCHES TO 36 -INCHES IN DIAMETER AND BETWEEN 20 -FEET TO 30 -FEET IN LENGTH. 3. LOGS SHALL 8£ WESTERN RED CEDAR OR DOUGLAS FIR. 4. BOULDERS SHALT. BE GLACIALLY WORN AND ROUNDED AND 28 --INCHES TO 38 -INCHES IN DIAMETER. 5. LOGS WILL BE EXCAVATED OR INCORPORATED INTO THE SURROUNDING BANK CONTOURING OR TERRACES. 6. BOULDERS WILL BE USED TO AID IN ANCHORING LOGS AND TO INCREASE HABITAT COMPLEXITY. 7. THE EXACT PLACEMENT OF LOGS AND BOULDERS IS TO BE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. LONG MARSH CREEK LOG AND BOULDER PLACEMENT DETAIL NTS 4 A MINIMUM OF 1/2 OF LOG SHALL BE BURIED ALONG LENGTH WITH STREAMBED GRAVEL AND SOIL. STABILIZE WITH 28" TO 36" BOULDERS ON TOP OF LOG, ALONG AT LEAST 1/2 LENGTH. LOG IS 20' LONG AND 24" DIAMETER. wit -k 0. - - - N � � STREAMBED GRAVEL 45-60 WEIGHT US STD. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING BY 18 INCHES 85-100 12 INCHES 90-95 9 INCHES 90-90 6 INCHES 70-80 4 INCHES, 55-70 STREAMBED GRAVEL 1 1/2 INCHES 45-60 3/4 INCHES 30 50 3/8 INCHES 25-35 N0. 4 1E-30 N0. 40 15-20 NO. 200 0-5 10 INCHES 18 INCHES LONG MARSH CREEK LOG AND BOULDER PLACEMENT SECTION K-B*)I, NTS 6 THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK ]IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY I SHEET TITLE: ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH LOG AND BOULDER L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 15019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING DETAIL AND SECTION VORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL 5 )ATUM: HORIZ.: NAD 83 VERT.. NAVD88 SCALE: 1"=5' ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER km KMg County 'ROPOSED WORK: CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION SHEET: 6 OF 11 DATE: JULY 18, 2011 HAROLD GAMBINI, JR 15019 S.E. MAY VALLEY RD I .% •mom `1 � � — +` �;. �-_ • TEMPORARY, )T �� BYPASS I k / PUMP AND COFFER_ DAM Q W `PROJECT 1 r a LIMIT r QOJECT + w Q S Llo \ MI• � � � \ x ( I ^ -ld vi ".wETLANQ B , U N DAf�Y� 1 � 1 EMPORARY`FL-OW YPAS 6 k 8"0 PVC PIPE � 8\ I NOTE: � STAGING AREA, SEE SHEET 3\ THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES km SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION 50 0 50 OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING King County ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND VALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION PL SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT TESC PLAN 15019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING NORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: SCALE: 1"=50' HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 7 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 r-MNTS IN FILTER FABRIC SHALL. BE SPLICED NNF kL CONNECTORS AT POSTS. USE STAPLES, MARE RINGS. OR NAfsINE GRADE EQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS ALUMRLUM Z'X2' BY 14 00. WIRE OR EQUIVALENT, IF STANDARD STTRENCIH FABRIC USED IFILTER FAMW 190N CABLE I� N IiF1DW F,DTATIGN I ` 1' .1 `YININUY 4'x4' TRENCH BACKFA.L TRENCH WfTH NATNVE 501E OR 5/4'-1/6' WISHED GRAVEL —p 1 PO SPACINp NAY BE INCREASEDu P \ TO W IF WIRE BACKING IS USED 2"M4" WOOD P4'T, S, STEEL FENCE NOTE: FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE POSTS, REBAR, OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLED ALONG CONTOUR WHENEVER POSSIBLE SILT FENCE DETAIL A� NTS 7 STEEL PLATE OR SANDBAGS ACROSS WIDTH OF CHANNEL. Fp(ISITNO 48'0 CULVERT STEEL PLATE AND/OR Cd DAM .ti PRIMARY PUMP iY 4' PRIMARY PUMP (8' PUMP ON )7MDBY FOR WET CONDITIONS) e' i 4"—B' QUARRY. S OVER OEOTEXTILF �- SECONDARY PUMP PUMP ON STANDBY 1 WET CONDTITONS) —TO STABLE CHANNEL, BEYOND ACTIVE WORK GROMML7S LAM TOGETHER WITH MANILA ROPE CHAIN SILT CURTAIN (TYPICAL) i31 MDT m $ME 7 TOP OF BALK A AREA (DOWNSTREAM) STEEL PLATE AND/OR SANDBAGS WITH 40 MIL POLYETHYLENE SHEETING OR EQUIVALENT TEMPORARY STREAM BYPASS PUMP, DAM AND PIPE DETAIL 6 NTS T TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS HTS \ 7 / THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES CO�RU00N ACCO NOTES: 1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBUC RIGHT—OF—WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2' STONE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN—OUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USE TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 2. ALL MATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED FROM VEHICLES ONTO ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. PROVIDE FLAGGING FOR CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ENTERING AND LEAVING SITE. 3. COORDINATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE EXACT SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO AVOID DISRUPTION OF THE HORSE BOARDING ACTTVTTY ON THIS PROPERTY. REMOVAL OF THE QUARRY SPALLS MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION. 4. HOG FUEL MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE QUARRY SPALLS DEPENDING ON WEATHER CONDITIONS, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WLRD SITE REPRESENTATIVE. K(ng County URPOSE:' MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH TESC DETAILS PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING ORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: SCALE: NO SCALE HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 8 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 HAROL MBINI, JR _ I L5019 S.E. MAY EY RD 9' 1 - 0o9a. NOTE: " PLANT LOCATIONS WILL BE ADJu7TED' O ACCOMMODATEaLARGE�W00DY ` DEBRIS PLACEMENT ` k' ��OJ`ECT w� � ! Ik 1 ! f, > 3� i 1oi > LLJ LL.} uj i La i x �N ' ! z>�� Lu` � X WETLAND I '\ 0 MITIGATION SEQUENCE: BOUNDARY1. PRIOR TO MITIGATION CONSTRUCTION, CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE '! CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH ORANGE PLASTIC FENCING. KING rJ COUNTY'S BIOLOGIST SHALL VERIFY AND APPROVE FENCE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH ENGINEER ' AND BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO DISCUSS ACCESS, LIMITS OF WORK AND \ 77 �,� 1 `•. •�� 3. MITIGATIONOPLANTING PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT f r LAYOUT, FINAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE �^ TIME OF PLANTING BY THE BIOLOGIST. 4. WITHIN ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE PLANTED OR SEEDED, I PROVIDE AND INSTALL FOUR (4) INCH DEPTH OF COMPOST ROTOTILLED TO A TWELVE (12) INCH MINIMUM DEPTH. Fm / ;r 5. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A MINIMUM OF ONE r YEAR. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPLIED BY COMMERCIAL J% NURSERIES THAT SPECIALIZE IN PLANTS NATIVE TO THE PUGET (� SOUND REGION OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. PLANT _ SUBSTITUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY KING COUNTY'S BIOLOGIST. - 1�,�1" , { 6. PLANTING SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING THE PLANT DORMANCY - � PERIOD (NOVEMBER 1ST TO MARCH 1ST), OR AS DIRECTED BY - KING COUNTY'S BIOLOGIST. =i ti- 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND EXCESS SOIL EXCAVATED BY THIS PROJECT. 1J'! iy 3t & CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. �y9. EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND \ NOT SHOWN TO BE RE -VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE X \ RESTORED AND SEEDED, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 10. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SITE CONDITIONS +I SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO PROCEEDING, 11. TO TACXIFIER, HERBICIDE OR FERTILIZER SHALL BE USED IN THE STREAM PLANTING AREAS. M r. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION 40 0 40 OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING K[ngCounty ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES SCALE IN FEET URPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANTING PLAN AND NOTES L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING ORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: HORIZ.: NAD 83 VERT.: NAVD88 SCALE: I "=40' ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER 'ROPOSED WORK: CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION SHEET: 9 OF 11 DATE: JULY 18, 2011 TREE STAKING "ARBOR TIE" OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE 8'-0" "BVC" LODGE POLE PINE STAKE, 2" DIA. (1 PER TREE) DRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED DIAGONALLY SUBSOIL MIN. 24" DEPTH NQIE7 STAKE ALL TREES 4' AND TALLER. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE 2" AS A MULCH AS A MULCH FORM SAUCER WITH 3" CONTINUOUS RIM NM. TREES BACKFILL WITH MIXTURE OF 1/3 SHALL HAVE DECIDUOUSTWO STAKES FOR COMPOST AND 2/3 NATIVE , SUPPORT. INSTALLED SOILS. WATER -AND TAMP TO z PERPENDICULARLY PER U.S. REMOVE AIR POCKETS. 1° HORT. STANDS. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. CONE OF HAND PLANTING HOLE FIRMED TOPSOIL TO BE 2 X DIA. FOR ALL PLANTS OF ROOTBALL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING I NIS — 2" DEPTH AS A MULCH. KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM MAIN STEM LANT AT SAME LEVEL AS GROWN. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE LEVEL FORM SAUCER WITH 3" W/ FINISH GRADE. CONTINUOUS RIM FINISH GRADE NOTE: PRUNE DEAD OR BROKEN ROOTS. SLICE THROUGH ROOTS CIRCLING THE BALL. EXISTING 501L SPREAD (BUTTERFLY) ROOTS ON BARE » ? '- ROOT &CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL. BACKFILL WITH MIXTURE OF 1 /3 COMPOST & 2/3 =, ¢ w g" NATIVE SOILS. WATER ANDMIN. TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PITS PRIOR x DIAMETER TO BACKFILLING. ROOTBALL. MIN. CANE OF HAND FIRMED SOIL FOR ALL PLANTS SMALL TREE, SHRUB "BUTTERFLY" ROOTBALL PAINT OR DIP EXPOSED ENDS OF LIVE STAKE WITH �� AND GROUND COVER PLANTING I L_\ MIN. 12 NODES WHITE LATEX PAINT PRIOR NTS -- BELOW GRADE TO INSTALLATION u 90. LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION: INSTALL LIVE STAKES AT MIN. 36" SPACING. INSTALL PER DETAIL. POKE HOLE IN SUBGRADE WITH STEEL BAR. CAREFULLY PLANT BEVELED END (45*) STAKE IN HOLE. DO NOT BREAK IN SOIL DO NOT LET OFF LEAF NODES. CAREFULLY FIRM DRY OUT SOIL AROUND INSTALLED LIVE a STAKE TO REDUCE AIR POCKETS. ry� _ LIVE STAKE DETAIL THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL FEATURES NTS -- SHOWN ON THIS PIAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION La ~� OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND LAND SURVEY USING KingCourrty ASSUMED BASIS OF COORDINATES PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK )IRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY /ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH �'L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 15019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING JORTH, APPROX. 300 FT BEFORE 150TH PL 5 ,ATUM: HORIZ.: NAD 83 VERT,: NAVD88 PROJECT TITLE: LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION SHEET TITLE: PLANTING DETAILS SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T DRAWN BY- L. TRAXINGER 'ROPOSED WORK: CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION SHEET. 10 OF 11 DATE: JULY 18, 2011 ME I@ King County PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANTING SCHEDULE PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING NORTH, APPROX. 306 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: SCALE: NOT TO SCALE HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 11 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 Sclentlfic Name Common. Name Quankity Size Conditions Plant Spacing Long Marsh Creek Thuja plicate Western Red Cedar 7 Container min 18' ht, rug, dense foliage, symmetrical crown High clow channel, slope edge locate In duster of w lows 0 Belida papytlfers Paper Binh 0 B&B 5-6' ht, full, dense foliage, symmetrical crown High flow channel within 50 feet of May Creek Q Frmodnus latifolia Oregon Ash 10 B&B 5d3' ht, full, dense foliage, symmetrical crown High flow channel, base of slope Cornus sedcee Red Osier Dogwood 27 Container 18- -21' ht and spread, min two stems Clusters of three on high Bow channel #' Aoer drolantum Vlne Maple 30 Container W-211' ht and spread, min two stems Clusters of three on high flow channel 0 Salix lastandta Pacific Willow 55 Li" slake, mit 3W long at 'A* to %' dlameter, min 12 lateral buds per stake 3 'dc staggered. Stakes driven Into high flaw channel distributed along creek C' SaBx sliehensls Sltka Willow 65 Live stake, min 36" long at 54" to V diameter, min 12 lateral buds per stake 3'oc staggered Stakes driven into high flow channel distributed along creek O Rubus spcetabaffs Salmonberr y 30 Container I W -21" ht and 15" spread, dense, multiple stems Clusters of three an high Bow channel 8ymphorfcerpos albus 8nowbeny 30 Container 15"-18" ht spread, full Clusters of three on upper bank of high Bow channel ,tom +� Rose nufttana Nootka Rose 30 Container 15.18" ht spread, full Clusters of three on upper bank of high Bow channel Polystichu m munitunt Western Sword Pam 40 1 Gallon container min 3 fronds Distributed Achinea millofdlurn Yanaw 40 10 cubic Inch Plugs or 4' pot Distributed Aruncus dlolous Goal's Beard 40 10 cubic inch Plugs or 4'pot Distributed Tetims grandinora Fdngocup 40 10 cubic inch Plugs or 4' pot Distributed Carex lenticularis Shore Sedge 30 10 cubic Inch plugs Clusters adjacent to low flow chenrod Scripue microcarpus Smaldrulted Bulrush 30 10 ruble Inch plugs Clusters adjacent to low flew channel Le Oxalis oregano Woad -somal 50 4 "pot Distributed May Creek Slde Channel Thuja pBcato Westam Red Cedar 3 Container min 18" ht, fu8, dense foliage, symmetrical Crown 'Island' between train and side channel Q Comus sedoea Red Osier Dogwood 3 1 gal Container min two stems 'Island' between maln and side channel Symphorbarpos albus Snowbarry fd 1 gal Container min two stems "Idend" between main and side channel rr• Carex lentioulads Shona Sedge 8 10 cubic inch plugs Low bank along island between main and side channel Scripus mic ocarpus Smallfmked Buhush 8 10 cubla Inch plugs L.ow bank along Island between main and side channel e Salbc Inalandra Pacific Willow 20 Live stake, min 38" long at W to 3/.' diameter, min 12 lateral buds per stake 3 'oe staggered. Stakes driven Into banks dlsfrlbuted along Island between May Geek main and side channel �, 8alhc sltchensls Sift Willow 20 Live stake, min 38" Iong at''A'to W diameter, min 12 lateral buds per atake 3'oe staggered Stakes driven Into banks dkugK ted along week I@ King County PURPOSE: MITIGATION FOR MAY CREEK PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED WORK: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CONTROL LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION CREATE A MEANDERING CHANNEL SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO MAY CREEK AND AN ADDITIONAL SIDE CHANNEL, DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SOUTH ON SE MAY SHEET TITLE: REMOVE INVASIVE VEGETATION AND ALLEY RD, GO APPROX. 300 FT PAST 150TH PLANTING SCHEDULE PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION L SE, TO LONG MARSH CREEK CROSSING AT 5019 SE MAY VALLEY RD. OR TRAVELING NORTH, APPROX. 306 FT BEFORE 150TH PL S DATUM: SCALE: NOT TO SCALE HORIZ.: NAD 83 ASSISTANCE BY: D.C., WES K., J.T. SHEET: 11 OF 11 VERT.: NAVD88 DRAWN BY: L. TRAXINGER DATE: JULY 18, 2011 L9 King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division Engineering Services Section King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 August 4, 2011 TO: Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Water and Land Resources Division, Stormwater Services Section FM: Bill Kerschke, Environmental Scientist, Road Services Division, Engineering Services Section Julia Turney, Environmental Engineer, Road Services Division, Enginee " Services Section RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) -Co st tion_Er-osion Monitor'�'lari-DQ3Lns1Mam of 148th Avenue SE Introduction This memo was prepared to address comments from the Washington Department of Ecology and the public on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. This memo describes the post -construction erosion monitoring plan for the reach of May Creek downstream of 148th Avenue SE. Project components, including in -stream sediment and vegetation removal between mile 4.3 and 4.9 of May Creek, have raised public concern that properties downstream of 148th Avenue SE may be impacted by post -project changes in stream bed and/or bank erosion. Studies already completed by King County Water and Land Resources indicate that the project will not effect downstream erosion (WRLD); however, King County is committed to confirming this assertion post -project. The intent of this memo is to describe an approach for a post -construction monitoring that will evaluate project -related changes in erosion in May Creek between, 148th Avenue SE and the Coal Creek Parkway SE. This reach is often referred to as the "canyon reach" of May Creek. Background Studies Studies were completed to evaluate downstream impacts for the proposed May Creek project. A sediment transport study (Anchor 2009) was implemented to analyze the erosion threshold in May Creek between 148th Avenue SE and Coal Creek Parkway SE. This study included selection of a study reach, data collection, analysis, preparation of a HEC -RAS model of the reach, and evaluation of the discharge at which the bed sediment begins to move. According to the sediment mobility evaluation, the threshold of motion occurs between approximately 70 to 350 cubic feet per second (cfs). Don Althauser August 4, 2011 Page 2 A hydraulic and hydrologic modeling analysis (King County 2010) was completed for the project that noted, post -construction, a minimal increase in surface water elevations and water velocities are predicted in the downstream canyon reach. This minimal increase is due primarily to existing hydrologic control points just downstream of the project area (at approximately River Mile 4.2 to 4.3). The hydraulic and hydrologic study concluded that effectively no significant change between existing and proposed conditions at the modeled flood frequency would occur. In addition, at higher flow rates, even less differences between pre- and post conditions would occur. Furthermore, the proposed May Creek Drainage Improvement Project features, including the installation of native plant buffers, removal of in -stream vegetation and sediment, construction of sediment management features in Long Marsh Creek, and excavation of alcoves downstream of 148th Avenue SE, are estimated to result in a net reduction in fine sediment and organic material reaching Marsh Creek within the project area. Fine sediment, which currently accumulates in the channel and moves downstream during high-flow events, is anticipated to move downstream at a more constant rate post -construction. Post -Construction Monitoring Plan King County WLRD proposes to implement a five-year monitoring plan post - construction between 148th Avenue SE and Coal Creek Parkway SE to address the concerns of increased post -project erosion in the canyon reach of May Creek. The monitoring effort will build upon prior and ongoing monitoring efforts implemented during the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor 2009) and proposed monitoring in the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010). Current Downstream Erosion_ Monitoring Efforts Anchor Engineering was retained by King County to develop the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010) for the reach downstream of 148th Avenue SE. In 2010 and 2011, King County WRLD implemented the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan to collect baseline data (King County 2011). The intent of the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan is to gather supplemental data to be used to identify and document potential impacts from the upstream project implementation, building upon information gained from the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor 2009). The proposed monitoring from this plan includes installation of a water level sensor, bed pins and bed hooks, and channel profile surveys to document existing conditions that allow for identification of changes to the channel bed. The hydrologic elevations and physical conditions of a stream channel enable the identification of changes in the character of the stream to be monitored. Surveyed physical characteristics of the May Creek channel enabled evaluation of changes in channel cross-sectional geometry and provided information on sediment movement through the reach. The sediment mobility evaluation in the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor 2009) identified a threshold of motion to occur between approximately 70 and 350 cubic feet per second (cfs). Therefore, it was determined that monitoring should occur at events Don Althauser August 4, 2011 Page 3 greater than approximately 70 cfs. Detailed data collection and monitoring protocols and descriptions of monitoring sites can be found in the attached May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 20 10) and are summarized below. The monitoring sites and potential monitoring elements at each site are identified in Table 1 below, which has been included for reference from the attached May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010). The monitoring site locations are shown in Figure 1 in the attached May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010); however, please note that Figure 1 in the attached report contains an. error, showing Tract A and D transposed. In Figure I of the attached, the right and left bank are referenced looking downstream. Also, please note that since preparation of the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010), King County's access to Tract A (Broussard property) was revoked by the property owner. In addition, monitoring at Station 1 in the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor 2009) was discontinued due to braided channel flow conditions and recurring vandalism at the site. Therefore, continued monitoring efforts will occur on only six sites. Table 1: Monitoring Sites and Efforts Monitoring Site Location Monitoring Elements Bank Set of Hook/Pins PT BH BP Right Left ParhaniemilGambini* X X X X X 1 Tract A (Broussard)** X X X 1 Duffus Right Bank X X 3 Duffus Left Bank X 1 Tract D X X X 2 Cole X X X 2 Stonegate Tract X X X 2 * Referred to as Site 2 in the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor 2009) ** Proposed monitoring at this site was subsequently cancelled due to access issues. PT = Pressure transducer, BH= Bed hooks, BP = bank pins. A cross-section survey is to be completed at every site "for each transect (bank pins and/or bed hooks). In addition, Gage 37B (Figure 1 in attached May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan) is to be reconciled due to inconsistencies in the stage flow relationship. Reconciliation of the gage will allow for the development of a long-term, site specific data record that can be used to improve the accuracy of the sediment mobility evaluation and predictions about future channel erosion. The monitoring described in the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010) will continue until the project is constructed and for five years post - construction. Don Aithauser August 4, 2011 Page 4 Additional Pro osed Erosion Monitoring Downstream In addition to the above referenced monitoring from the May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010), King County proposes to install scour and fill chains (Harrelson et al. 1994) at each of the six sites (property owner permission dependant) in Table 1 to monitor sediment movement. These sites provide some baseline cross section and erosion data from past monitoring. Scour chains are steel chains implanted in streambeds to measure erosion and deposition of sediment over a period of time. The scour chains will allow for the evaluation of movement of bed material at threshold storm events (70 cfs) and sediment deposition as waters subside. This information cannot be obtained from cross-section surveys or the other conventional methods already proposed. Recording the amount of scour and fill at the sample locations provides information describing how sediment is moving through the lower system. To measure erosion and deposition, scour chains (Figure 1) and metal chains anchored onto metal plates and buried vertically in the channel bed, would be installed in the streambeds at each of the monitoring sites. When sediment is eroded from the streambcd during a flood event, the exposed chain falls flat, forming a bend. Sediment deposition that would occur as waters receded, would rebury the chains. The amount of bed erosion is determined by comparing the original length of chain buried to the length left below the bend. The amount of deposition is identified by measuring the depth of sediment above the bend. Two to seven scour chains will be installed at each of the six monitoring sites and their locations documented for future relocation (survey and photograph). Scour chains will be installed in areas where the greatest amount of erosion is anticipated from previous monitoring, thalweg location, and bed erosion. Cross section data will be used to identify the elevation of bed material at each site and the length of each buried chain will be recorded, allowing calculation of changes in bed elevation when the scour chains are monitored over time. After each measured flow event, chains will be excavated to measure erosion and deposition and then straightened and reburied. Procedure for Inserting Scour Chains (from Reclamation 2008) 1. Implant chains with colored cork floats. 2. Slip duck bill anchor around the bottom of the inserter. 3. Hold chain as taut as possible. 4. Hold inserter vertical at bed surface. 5. Pound the top of the inserter into the bed/bank with a sledge hammer until the inserter handle is at the water surface, or the chain is sufficiently buried (The anchor should be buried at least 25 cm, or it won't set properly.) 6. Set the anchor by pulling back and forth on the inserter and twisting. 7. Once anchor is set, pull out the inserter using a pipe wrench. Don Althauser August 4, 2011 Page 5 Pull up on the chain remove any slack. 8. After chain is set, replace any gravel that may have created a hole around the chain; then attach hog ring to the first link that is exposed at the bed surface. 9. Measure the chain length from the hog ring to the end of the chain, and record. 10. Survey the bed surface at the position of the chain using total station. Maximum Erosion and Deposition (scour and fill) Calculation Scour: 1) Difference in elevation from the hog ring to the kink, calculated from the number of links (each link was 35 millimeters [mm] long). 2) Difference in elevation calculated from the surveys: elevation at the time of installation minus elevation of kink during measurement. Fill: Elevation of the surface at final measurement minus elevation of the kink. SOWT CtLen prabe wovh.a 0 Bc-" Wrt �rurre ib..l 2! un t6 Figure 1: Schematic of Scour Chain (Lyle, 1991) and Installation Process (USEPA) Don Althauser August 4, 2011 Page 6 References King County. 2011. May Creek Baseline Monitoring (Preliminary Draft) - Implementing May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010). King County. 2010. Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creels Channel Restoration Project. Prepared by Jeff Burkey, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Science Section. Prepared for Stormwater Services Section, Capital Services Unit. December 2010. Available at: http://www.kin cg ounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/may- creek/hydraulic-h, dy rolog•c=analyses,.aspx Anchor. 2010. May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Flan. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. December 2010. Anchor. 2009, May Creek Sediment Transport Study. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. June 2009. Available at: hqp://www.kin c�ty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake- wa/may-creek/sediment-transport-study.aspx Reclamation. 2008. Klamath River Salmon Redd Scour Study, 2007 — 2008, Technical Memorandum No. 86-68290-08-02, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO. USDA. 1994. Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM -245. Nawa, R., & Frissell, C. 1993. Measuring Scour and Fill of Gravel Streambeds with Scour Chains and Sliding -Bead Monitors. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 13, 634-639. Lisle, Thomas E.; Eads, Rand E. 1991. Methods to measure sedimentation of spawning gravels. Res. Note PSW-411. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 7 p. US EPA, Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply (WARSSS), Field Methods and Procedures, downloaded from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/warsss/1nethod.cfin August 4, 2011. Attachments May Creek Canyon Reach Draft Monitoring Plan (Anchor 2010) r MAY CREEK CANYON REACH DRAFT MONITORING PLAN MAY CREEK SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY PHASE'4 Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-3856 Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1605 Cornwall Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................:.......................................................1 2' DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND PROTOCOLS....................................................... 2 2.1 Monitoring Events...........................................................................................................2 2.2 Equipment.................................................................................. . ..................................2 2.3 Monitoring Elements.......................................................................................................3 2.3.1 Pressure Transducers..................................................................................................3 2.3.2 Cross -Section Survey...................".............................................................................3 2.3.3 Bed Hooks and Bank Pins..........................................................................................4 3 MONITORING SITES............................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Previously -Established Sites...........................................................................................6 3.1.1 May Creek Park (Station 1)........................................................................................6 3.1.2 Gage 37B -- Coal Creek Parkway...............................................................................7 3.1.3 Parhaniemi Property (Station 2)................................................................................7 3.1.4 Tract A (Station 3)......................................................................................................7 3.2 New Monitoring Sites......................................................................................................8 3.2.1 Duffus Property — Left Bank......................................................................................8 3.2.2 Duffus Property — Right Bank...................................................................................8 3.2.3 Tract D........................................................................................................................8 3.2.4 Cole Property...................:..........................................................................................8 3.2.5 Stonegate Tract...........................................................................................................9 4 SLA 94ARY..........................................................................................................................10 List of Tables Table1 Summary of Monitoring Elements....................................................................... 6 List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Monitoring Locations May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 i 090159-01 1 INTRODUCTION Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) and KPFF Consulting Engineers were retained by King County (County) to assist in developing a monitoring plan for the Canyon Reach (Reach) of May Creek downstream of 148th Avenue SE. The monitoring effort will gather supplemental data to be used to identify and document potential impacts from upstream project implementation, building upon the prior monitoring effort implemented during Phase I of the project. The following. sections of this plan will define elements of the Phase I monitoring effort to be re -implemented, refined, or discontinued. New procedures and elements of the plan will also be described, and new monitoring locations will be identified to build on the data collected in the previous study. The monitoring plan will be implemented by County staff. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 1 090159-01 2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND PROTOCOLS A data collection and monitoring program was previously developed for the May Creek Sediment Transport Study during Phase 1 to document baseline conditions and provide data. for the sediment mobility analysis. The current scope builds on and refines the methodology performed during Phase l to collect supplemental data. King County personnel will perform monitoring tasks, including completion of monitoring forms and survey. The specific monitoring to be performed at each site is described in Section 3. 2.1 Monitoring Events According to the sediment mobility evaluation during Phase 2, the threshold of motion occurs between approximately 70 and 350 cubic feet per second (cfs). Therefore, each location should be monitored following precipitation events greater than approximately 70 cfs. Because the range of critical discharge is relatively large, one purpose of the site visits is to narrow the range of observed discharges where erosion is observed and no apparent erosion is observed. These data will help to improve the precision of the sediment mobility evaluation. 2.2 Equipment Following is a list of the necessary items for each field visit following initial establishment of monitoring sites: 1. 30 bed hooks (eye bolts) 2. Three 2 -foot rebar stakes, or more following a large flow event 3. Tape measure (30 -foot minimum) 4. Sledge hammer 5. Colored flagging 6. Monitoring forms (spreadsheet printouts) 7. Spray paint 8. Waders or boots 9. Gloves May Creek Canyon Reach Monitonng Plan December 1010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 2 090159-01 Monitoring Sites 2.3 Monitoring Elements The following sections describe the various forms of data collection methods that may be implemented throughout the site including installation and monitoring. 2.3.1 Pressure Transducers Pressure transducers (piezometers) with internal data loggers are to be installed in the creek channel at the locations specified to collect hourly and daily water surface elevation data. Transducer data shall be collected periodically by County personnel. 2.3.2=-. Cross -Section Survey Each transect at a monitoring station shall include a left and right bank rebar with cap, placed such that a line between the rebar is perpendicular to the flow of the creek. The rebar caps represent benchmark points along the specific transect; surveyed points will be relative to the left bank rebar cap. The rebar shall'be placed outside of the possible extent of erosion or flooding such that there is no risk of its position being compromised. Upon initial installation of the monitoring elements, a cross-section survey shall be completed of each monitoring site. A laser -level and survey rod may be used for the survey to produce a cross-section relative to the left bank rebar cap. This control point should be tied into a known vertical coordinate system, such as North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88. All measured distances during the cross-section survey shall be measured from the left bank rebar benchmark to produce a cross-section survey looking downstream. Survey shall be collected across the channel between the left bank to the right bank rebar; if a level and rod is used, a string or tape may be placed between the rebar to ensure a straight, consistent section. Survey points shall be collected at no greater than 1 -foot changes in ground elevation, except at near -vertical banks where major grade breaks may be surveyed. Collecting survey at this resolution will allow for detection of minor changes in the channel cross-section. The position of each bed hook shall also be included in the survey and noted in the description. In addition to the channel cross-section, the survey crew shall collect a point in the lowest part of the channel bed at approximately 50 and 100 feet upstream and downstream of the May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 3 090159-01 Monitoring Sites rebar. These points will be used to represent the local gradient at the monitoring site, and provide preliminary indication of bedform modification within the reach. The cross-section and gradient survey shall be repeated per the process above when one or more of the following conditions apply: • When significant erosion or deposition at the monitoring location is evident from dislodgement or covering of bank pins or bed hooks • Following a flood event of 2 -year or greater recurrence interval, approximately 200 cfs • At the end of the monitoring period 2.3.3 Bed Hooks and Bank Pins Each monitoring location shall include either bed hooks, bank pins, or both to monitor erosion or deposition of the bed and erosion of the banks. The location and condition of bed hooks and bank pins will be documented during each site visit. Bed hooks consist of eye bolts driven into the streambed at 2 -foot intervals along a transect across the channel. Colored flagging shall be attached to each eye bolt to improve visibility during monitoring. Bed hooks are recommended in locations suitable to monitoring bed movement. Bank pins shall be distributed within the study area in locations where bank erosion is likely to occur prior to bed movement and shall consist of 2 -foot lengths of rebar driven flush into the bank along a transect. At least four lengths of rebar should be installed for each location specified for bank pins. Bank pins should be installed in locations where the greatest amount of erosion can be expected; therefore, it is important that the locations are refined in the field by personnel familiar with site conditions. After each critical flow event, monitoring locations shall be investigated for the presence or absence of each of the bed hooks (eye bolts) or exposure of the bank pins (rebar). Any change to these features shall be measured and documented using the monitoring forms. The protocol for each monitoring event is provided below. Note: Bed hooks are included at one site only, see Section 3.1.3. 1. Assess the site for obvious storm effects or potential vandalism and note in the site conditions sections of the monitoring form. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 4 090159-01 Monitoring Sites 2. Attach the measuring tape to the left bank benchmark (rebar with cap), confirm the presence or absence of all bed hooks, and document the findings in the monitoring forms. a. If bed hooks are present, mark "P" under the correct column in the form. If any bed hooks are partially exposed, measure the distance of exposure and record on the monitoring form. Use a sledge hammer to drive the bed hook flush with the channel bottom. b. If bed hooks are absent, mark "A" under the correct column in the form. Note if it appears that the bed hook has been eroded away or buried by deposition. c. Replace any bed hooks that were missing and attach flagging to each. i. Using the attached measuring tape, measure out the required replacement distance necessary to replace the missing bed hooks. ii. Bed hooks should be flush with the channel bottom and securely placed using a sledge hammer, as necessary. d. If any bed hooks were absent, a repeat survey of the transect should be performed per Section 2.3.2. 3. Evaluate bank pins, measure the length of exposure, and document in the monitoring forms. a. If bank pins are flush to the bank, record "0" in the length of exposure column in the monitoring form. b. If bank pins are exposed, measure the length of exposure and record in the corresponding column in the monitoring form. c. Re -mark each bank pin using spray paint for easy location during the next monitoring visit. d. If rebar is missing, replace by measuring down from rebar cap to correct elevation (given on the monitoring form), reinstall into bank, and re -mark. e. If any bank pins were absent or the rebar exposed such that the original position of the pin is offset, a repeat survey of the transect should be performed per Section 2.3.2. 4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 for each monitoring site. May Creek Canyon Reach Monntornng Plan December 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 5 090159-01 Monitoring Sites 3 MONITORING SITES Two previously -established and five new locations are proposed for the current Canyon Reach monitoring effort. In addition, we recommend that Gage 37B be reconciled. Table 1 includes a summary of which monitoring elements should be included at each site, excluding Gage 37B. A cross-section survey should be completed at every site for each transect (bank pins and/or bed hooks). The details at each site are discussed in the following sections. Table 1 Summary of Monitoring Elements Monitoring Site Location Monitoring Elements Bank Sets of Hooks/Pins PT BH BP Right Left Parhaniemi • • • • • 1 Tract A • 1 Duffus Right Bank • 3 Duffus Left Bank 1 Tract D • 2 Cole • • 2 Stonegate Tract 2 Notes: PT = pressure transducer BH = bed hooks BP = bank pins The approximate location of each site is shown in the accompanying Figure 1. However, the final position of each monitoring transect should be determined in the field by personnel familiar with site conditions in order to collect the most reliable data. 3.1 Previously -Established Sites 3.1.1 May Creek Park (Station 1 ) Station 1 is located downstream of the Coal Creek Parkway crossing within May Creek Park. Monitoring at Station 1 will not be continued for the purposes of the current effort. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan Decemher 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 6 090159-01 Monitoring Sites 3.1.2 Gage 37B — Coal Creek Parkway Gage 37B is located at Coal Creek Parkway crossing between Stations 1 and 2. The purpose of this gage was to establish a long-term flow record that could be used collectively with the data from the Phase 1 monitoring effort to perform the sediment mobility study. However, during the data collection period, perturbations observed in the flow record indicated that the stage flow relationship for the gage was not a constant and the gage records for 37B could not be used reliably for the study. Therefore, it is recommended that flow monitoring at Gage 37B be continued and the gage reconciled such that the data may be used reliably in the future. This may involve re -installation of the gage outside of the influence of channel obstructions; or other means. These data will allow for the development of a long term, site specific data record that can be used to improve the accuracy of the sediment mobility evaluation and predictions about future channel bank erosion. 3.1.3 Parhaniemi Property (Station 2) Monitoring at Station 2 will be continued per the recommendations of the Phase 1 monitoring pian, including continued data logging using a pressure transducer and re- establishment of bed hooks and bank pins. Bed hooks and bank pins should be installed as a transect across the channel along the same cross-section as previously used during Phase 1 monitoring. This site is well suited for evaluating bed movement in the creek and will continue to be useful in monitoring changes to the bed elevation through the canyon reach. Continued monitoring will allow for refinement of the threshold of erosion -discharge relationship developed for the Phase 2 sediment transport study. 3.1.4 Tract A (Station 3) This location was formerly referred to as Station 3 during the previous phases of the Project. Pressure transducer and bed hooks data.are no longer recommended for collection at this site. Because of the dynamic nature of the location (documented channel migration in previous phase of work) this site is well suited for monitoring bank erosion. Bank pins will be installed along the right bank in the same cross-section as used during Phase 1 monitoring. The left and right bank rebar benchmarks should be placed well into the floodplain to avoid compromising the position of the benchmark due to bank erosion. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan Decemher2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Ph ase 4 7 090159-01 Monitoring Sites 3.2 New Monitoring Sites 3.1.1 Duffus Property — Left Bank One section of bank pins shall be implemented at this site along the left bank, upstream of the resistant clay bank near Station 25+00. At least four bank pins should be installed at an even spacing between the top and bottom of the bank. Active erosion has not been observed at this site; however, the landowner has expressed concerns about lateral migration to the east. Therefore, the left and right bank rebar benchmarks should be placed well into the floodplain to avoid compromising the position of the benchmarks due to erosion or floodwaters. 3.2.2 Duffus Property — Right Bank Three sections of bank pins shall be implemented at this site along the right bank at the actively eroding cut bank, downstream of the existing retaining wall. At least four bank pins should be installed at an even spacing between the top and bottom of the bank. This site has a large potential for future erosion based on field observations. The right bank rebar benchmark should be placed well outside of the expected extent of erosion to avoid compromising the position of the benchmark. 3.2.3 Tract D Bank pins will be installed at this site to monitor potential bank erosion. Bank pins shall be installed along the left and right banks within the Tract A properties, just downstream of the Tabacek parcel where the stream is confined by stone walls. Bank pins should be installed in the locations where the greatest amount of erosion is expected in two locations (one on each bank); the locations do not necessarily have to be along the same transect. Bank pins should not be installed where stone armoring is present. 3.2.4 Cole Property Bank pins will be installed at this site to monitor potential bank erosion. Bank pins shall be installed along the left and right banks within the Cole property downstream of the Lyons Avenue bridge crossing. Bank pins should be installed in the locations where the greatest amount of erosion is expected in two locations (one on each bank); the locations do not May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan Decemher 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 8 090159-01 Monitoring Sites necessarily have to be along the same transect. Bank pins should not be installed where bridge reinforcements or abutments are present. 3.2.5 Stonegate Tract Bank pins will be installed at this site to monitor potential bank erosion. Bank pins shall be installed along the left and right banks within the Stonegate Property, just upstream of the Bonwell property. Bank pins should be installed in the locations where the greatest amount of erosion is expected in two locations (one on each bank); the locations do not necessarily have to be along the same transect. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December 2010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 9 090159-01 4 SUMMARY The recommended monitoring plan will accomplish three purposes: 1. Reconcile Gage 37B to provide a long-term hydrologic record for the site. 2. Collect additional data to refine the sediment mobility evaluation. 3. Collect information specific to monitoring bank erosion in the upper canyon reach. May Creek Canyon Reach Monitoring Plan December7010 May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 4 10 090159-01 FIGURES L c m L 0 Y Ui r 3 m O V � U d Q w Q w z 39 GAV cn r 'C 0 O Q C O+ N1 C N O m C O T C O m U O rin) N a o� 2 t`m.- �J 0 w -� t ®=I a U) c O C EC C N ~ -0O C Y .LO m m 0 C d N C11 N (U ` CU L) 0 C 10 Z O WQ' a a- m fn 0 C r + �I I 0 I R -i Ln C c � .p 4 O 'L O O Vl O L a O U a aj C a' ra a1 Cin f o °., c o m E CL -(U a a V v ) L --,[ U 4u a LJ U fU c O u e LO N C) a C O Ln a Lq am �x C 2 O Q 0 M U L L L.L. �U w O Q= z Q FM. O Ui r " U Lo E z S _ N UJ Ul ....0 1 w * T + ' C C C �yro=c to' M zz ? as � c � amo8 ' CC C) (0 o w - V) a1 U Ed N � O fl,; LL Lu - 3S A^^Hd xsajo leo WV 6401 OLOZI£l -� t ®=I a U) c O C EC C N ~ -0O C Y .LO m m 0 C d N C11 N (U ` CU L) 0 C 10 Z O WQ' a a- m fn 0 C r + �I I 0 I R -i Ln C c � .p 4 O 'L O O Vl O L a O U a aj C a' ra a1 Cin f o °., c o m E CL -(U a a V v ) L --,[ U 4u a LJ U fU c O u e LO N C) a C O Ln a Lq am �x C 2 O Q 0 M U L L L.L. �U w O Q= z Q FM. j CITY OF RENTON. . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC'DEVEl,OPMENT-PLANNING -DIVISION 1 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 8th day of November, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Decision documents. This information was sent to: Name - Representing See Attached Parties of Record List (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASH INGTOI COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or t signed this instrument mentioned in the instrument. �j GI's( OF RENTON Nov 11 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE Dated: ,8 .2011 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): � . 4 . GrabW My appointment expires:^ � �4 200 May Creek Drainage Improvement 7Xka�' I. lP X1.1 err"; LUA11-065, V -H, SP PARTIES OF RECORD MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT Doug Chin King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street ste: #60C Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 296-8315 emi: doug.chin@kingcounty.gov (applicant / contact) Andrew Duffus 9605 143rd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 eml: klassicars@hotmail.com (party of record) Roger Coates 14127 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Lindsey Miller King County Water & Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street MIS KSC-TR-0231 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Jeff Waller 15125 SE May Valley Road Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 11/14/11 LUA11-065, V -H, SP Happy Longfellow, President Stonegate Homeowners Association 5405 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 204-1119 (owner) Julie & Jim Bonwell Katie Bonwell 2914 Lyons Avenue Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jean Rollins 2905 Ilwaco Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 eml: urbanseparator@hotmail.com (party of record) Karen Walter Watersheds & Land Use Team NE Leader Mukleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Don Althauser King County Water & Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street ste: #600 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jeff Burkey King County Water & Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street ste: #600 Seattle, WA 98104 (party of record) Jerri Wood 12408 SE 98th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) November 28, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING i., BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 28th day of November, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record an Order Authorizing Reconsideration from the Hearing Examiner in the May Creek Drainage Improvement (LUA-11-0115, V -H, SP) Seth, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 28th day of November, 2011. CyntHia R. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 �� • 'MMiss ••'Q r •o; ` 0X, 14 ..•••'off 4, �w'�sHi1vG� !,f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 Special Grade/Fill- Permit and CAO ) 12 Variance ) 13 LUA11-065, V -H, SP ) 14 f f Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is authorized in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration timely filed by the Applicant on November 15, 2011. The Applicant, public and City staff will be allowed to present new evidence and argument to address the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study, Ex. 311 as, outlined in this Order. The appeal period for the final decision on the above -captioned matter is tolled pending resolution of the reconsideration request as.specified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8)(a). The Applicant has requested reconsideration with an opportunity to provide- new evidence because it did not receive some public comment letters to which it had a right of rebuttal. As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned 'matter by decision dated November12, 2011. The hearing on the application was held on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm at the Renton City Hall City . Council Meeting Chambers. At the close of the verbal portion of the October 4, 2011 hearing, the Examiner left the record open for submission of a sediment transport study (Ex. 31). The Applicant was given until the following Thursday (10/6/11) -to supply the report (or -a weblink) to the City. The public was given until a week from the following Friday (10/14/11) to supply written comment on the report and the County was given until the following Wednesday (10119/11) to reply. Exhibit numbers are those assigned in the Exhibit List of the final decision to the above -captioned matter. Reconsideration - I C17Y OF REN-ro V NOV 2 $ 2011 CITY CIERKSOFFICE BEFORE TI -IE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF. RENTON RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement ORDER AUTHORIZING Project ) RECONSIDERATION 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21- 22 23 24 25 26 Several public comment letters on the transportstudywere supplied to the City by the publiconthe 2. `transport, study. The Applicantclaims it did- not receive four of those comment letters and this has 3, been confirmed by City staff.. 'Specifically, 'the Applicant did not receive comment letters from Andrew Duff -us (10/12/11), Jean Rollins, (10/11/11), Gary, -Amundson (Ex. 34) and Wayde Watters 4 (Ex. 35). t . 5: The Applicant should be allowed an opportunity to.provide new evidence on the four public comment - 6 letters. 'It is recognized that the Tour, comment letters for the most part did not. -present any new evidence. They primarily refer to evidence already presented, in the Patricia Olson memo; Ex. 15. '7 Given the qualifications of Dr. Olson�and her.review of the project, it should have been,immediately apparent to the Applicant. that a detailed•rebuttal to- all her, concerns was critically necessary, with or 8 without the four. pulilic comment letters: However,, the Applicant was assured of an opportunity to, 9 reply to the letters. It is unclear,.whether the Applicant made any effort to determine whether it had received all comment letters, but•it was reasonable `for it to conclude that it had received them from 14 the City when it decided'to h6tprovide any reply:.,Given these circumstances, procedural due process . and its -principles of fundamental fairness -dictate that an'opportunity to be heard on these comment 11 letters must be afforded to the Applicant. 12 - The public should also be. allowed' an .opportunity 'to provide additional evidence on the transport l 3 study, Ex: 31. In responding to public comment: on the transport study, the Applicant now has the benefit of the Examiner's final decision: in` this case, which lays out with specificity the shortcomings 14 in the Applicant's proposal. The public did not have this information when it supplied its comments on the transport study. In order. to "level the playing. field' , _the public will be givena second 15 opportunity to comment on the transport, study: 16, The Applicant has also requested a 'no fee.' reconsideration The Applicant has not identified any 17 Renton Municipal Code provision that authorizes the Exaniner to waive fees for reconsideration requests. It appears that is a matter ,left between the Applicant and City staff. 18 19 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 20 L The public and City staff shall have. until 5:00 pm, December 9, 2012 to provide written 21 comments, including new evidence, addressing the Anchor-QEA Sediment Transport Study, Ex. 22 31. All comments previously admitted into"the record, as identified in the Exhibit List to the final " decision in this matter, Ex. 32-36, do not need to be resubmitted. In addition; two comment letters 23 inadvertently omitted from the Exhibit list of the Final Decision, Andrew Duffus (10/12111) and Jean Rollins (10/11/11), will also be: deemed admitted into the. record as Exhibits 37, and 38 24 respectively and do not"need twbe resubmitted. The 10/11/11 Rollins letter is only admitted to the extent it comments on the transport study. Any additional comments submitted by the pulilic shall 25 t only address the transport study. 26 Reconsideration - 2 c 1 2. The Applicant shall'have until December 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm to provide a response to Exhibits 2 32-38 in addition to any other comments subsequently presented by the public and City staff on the transport study by the December 9, 2011 deadline. The Applicant's comments shall be limited to 3 the transport study, Ex. 31. 4 The -Examiner understands the Applicant's request for reconsideration as lihiited to issues arising from the transport study, since no other issues are identified in the Applicant's November- 15, 2011 $ reconsideration request. if the Applicant wishes to address other portions of the Final Decision, it 6 should provide clarification on what other arguments it would like to present by $:00 pm, December 9, 2011 so that the Examiner can evaluate whether further argument will be allowed on 7 those issues. A separate briefing schedule will be ordered by the Examiner for any additional reconsideration issues. 8 9 All written comments authorized above (other. than those already admitted into the record) may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw(@gma.il.com. Emailed comments must also be cc'd to the 10 Applicant at Doug. C_ hinekinecounty.aov. In the alternative written. continents may be mailed or delivered to Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planning Manager, at 1055 South Grady Way, 11 Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines 12 specified in this Order. i3 5. Only persons who attended the October 4, 2011 hearing on .this matter and/or supplied timely written comments for the hearing of this proceeding may provide written comment asspecified in 14 this Order. I 5 16 DATED this 28th day of November, 2011. 17 l 8 N1 A. Olbrechts _ 19 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i Reconsideration - 3 a J CITY OF RENTON King County NOV 17 2011 Water and Land Resources Division RECEIVED CIiYCRICSOFFICE Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 TTY Relay: 711 November 15, 2011 Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner c/o Bonnie Walton, City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: May Creek Draina ge Improvement Project LUA11-065 Dear Mr. Olbrechts: King County is requesting a No Fee Reconsideration of the November 8, 2011 decision on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project LUA11-065. King County is requesting that the written record of the hearing be reopened, for submittal of additional information about erosion, to remedy a procedural error. We have confirmed through discussion with Jennifer Henning that King County did not receive four comment letters regarding King County's Sediment Transport Study before the deadline for rebuttal. The continents, submitted by Andrew Duffus, Jean Rollins, Gary Amundson, and Wayde Watters, specifically related to erosion impacts and opinions expressed in the Patricia Olson memorandum, Exhibit 15. By not receiving these comment letters, King County staff did not have the opportunity to respond to the technical issues raised. Therefore, King County is requesting an extension of the written record to allow time for rebuttal. In addition, King County is requesting that the appeal period be held in abeyance until a decision on King County's request is made. King County is willing to provide expert testimony if the Examiner feels this is appropriate and necessary. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me at 206-296-8315 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 Doug Chin, P Project Manager Capital Services Unit DC:bgn34 cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, City of Renton Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, City of Renton Don Althauser, Managing Engineer, Capital Services Unit, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks .42j>,M. koolz- CD 0 m a� 0 oCL o x� lTl v, `C no n� CD PRESORTED FIRST CLASS • • . Cynthia Moya From: Cynthia Moya Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:44 AM To: 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Bonnie Walton; Jason Seth; Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Chip Vincent Subject: May Creek Drainage Project - Reconsideration Letter Attachments: Reconsideration. pdf Mr. Olbrechts, We just received the attached letter of Reconsideration for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project - LUA-11-065. Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton - Executive/City Clerk Division cmoya(2rentonwa.eov 425-430-6513 C] Hearing Examiner's Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CrrY OF RENTON NOV 0 4 201T RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO Variance I LUA11-065, V -H, SP Summary FINAL DECISION 4k King County has applied for a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations for a dredging project to May Creek designed to reduce the duration of one year flood events for upstream properties. The permits are denied without prejudice. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the drainage project will not adversely affect downstream properties by increased erosion. Testimony Jennifer Henning, Renton current planning manager, spoke on behalf of the City of Renton. She noted that the hearing is a permit for grade and fill and also a variance to the critical areas regulation in order to allow for some removal of vegetation along the stream. The area in Renton is only 3.75 acres, composed of the dredging area as well as vegetation removal. Sediments, fines and cobble will be removed. Vegetation that obstructs the channel, primarily canary grass, will also be removed. The project site contains a Class III wetland. The City has five classes of wetlands. Class III is the third most significant with a 25 foot buffer. SPECIAL GRADEIFILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 oil, 21 22 23 24 041 F Ms. Henning noted that May Creek River Mile 4.3 to 4.9 contains the entire project area. The portion in Renton is only a smali.portion of the project, the western limit of the project area. Large woody debris will be added to the stream as mitigation. A couple stream alcoves are added to serve as fish habitat. The project involves a temporary access road for the equipment used to do the dredging and mitigation. The project will improve the flood capacity of the area, which is flooded during most of the year. The project will increase the flow capacity and will allow some use of the land that is usually flooded. The dredging will remove accumulated sediment that will be spread throughout the project site instead of transported off-site. Enhancement native vegetation will be installed. The Department of Ecology has required fencing around the project area composed of three strand barbwire, which is standard for areas along May Creek to keep livestock outside of the stream buffers. There is some disagreement as to where to place the fence on one of the lots affected -by the project. The City's main interest is that sensitive area signs be posted and that the fence doesn't obstruct wildlife movement. Ms. Henning summarized the mitigation required for the project. Only 392 cubic feet of sediment will be dredged and obstructing vegetation removed. The stream will be diverted during the dredging to prevent water quality impacts. Noise and dust impacts will be temporary during construction only. On-site noise levels during construction will reach dba, but this dissipates away from the site and there will be no work on weekends. The variance from critical area regulations is necessary to remove vegetation and sediment within a sensitive area and buffer — May Creek and the Class III wetland. The project site is fairly flat. The project protects the public health and welfare because public access will be very limited. The project will reduce flooding which promotes public safety. Staff concurs with the Applicant's hydraulic analysis that there will not be adverse erosion impacts downstream and downstream flooding. The project is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan because there is no change in use of the land. The Applicant did review alternative courses of action and they determined that the measure taken was the least disruptive of the sensitive areas and the most consistent with the County's budget limitations. Wetland areas will be restored and invasive species removed. Measures will be taken to prevent sediments from re-entering the stream. The project will not create any net loss in stream function. The project involves one to one compensatory mitigation so there is no net loss. The project was evaluated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Exhibit 20 was admitted into the record as the ESA consultation for the project. The consultation reveals that there will be no adverse impacts to endangered species. There were some comments submitted from the Muckleshoot Tribe for the dredging project as a whole (Ex. 17). Best management practices will be employed to protect ground and surface water quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") has denied 401 certification without prejudice only because DOE had a deadline to make a decision and King County is still working with DOE to acquire certification approval. Project mitigation involves 10 years of monitoring. The Examiner asked the King County representative, Doug Chin, whether a foot bridge was a contributing factor to the flooding as alleged in some of the comment letters submitted on the project. Mr. Chin clarified that the dredging is designed to alleviate one year flooding. The bridges don't have any impact on the flows the project is designed to improve. The bridges affect larger storm events. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 W Andrew Duff -us, neighboring property owner, asserted that the 9122111 DOE letter was glossed over as DOE running out of time. DOE asked the Applicant numerous times to ask for information that hasn't been received. He noted that the project is an ill-conceived attempt to temporarily reduce flooding to protect horse pastures. Downstream properties already experience numerous flooding problems and can only access their properties through private bridges that are vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The preliminary report to the Examiner is flawed with gaps in relevant information. No reference is made to the 9122 DOE letter. On 8115111 DOE released a memo from its senior hydrologist, Dr. Patricia Olson, who had reviewed all of the County's documentation and done a site visit. She questioned the lack of detail in the County's studies and design, the effectiveness of the project and cost/benefits. Dr. Olson publishes articles on rivers, lakes and groundwater issues and testifies as an expert witness. Her work was cited in the County's studies. Her memo should have been referenced in the staff report. The document should be given substantial weight. Mr. Duff -us questioned the qualifications of staff to evaluate the application given the conclusions of Dr. Olson. On 911111 DOE informed King County that it would have to deny the water quality certificate unless requested information was received by 9116/11. DOE has repeatedly questioned the "effectiveness, purpose and need of the project". Just two weeks ago the Muckleshoot Tribe submitted a comment letter to DOE requesting that King County exhaustively consider alternatives before dredging May Creek. The wetland is a Class III wetland that is wet all year round, chest deep in the summer. Additional alcoves and other measures may be necessary to mitigate impacts. DOE and the Tribe are requesting larger planting buffers and other measures that could have greater clearing and grading impacts than those assessed by the Renton staff. Mr. Duff -us asserted that machinery would be roaming all over the project site to place snags. In the past the City has required cedar split rail fencing for critical areas, as demonstrated in LAU 05-83. That plat was in a project adjacent to the project within the same open space corridor of the project. Mr. Duff -us also saw no broad public support for the project, which only benefits four horse pastures at the expense of downstream property owners. He also questioned whether the project could pass a cost/benefit analysis. There is a risk of liability for downstream environmental and property damage. There are 7 properties adjacent to the project. One property is a wetland, another is an undeveloped property that is also a wetland. A third property is not used for farming. The remaining four properties have horse pastures with seasonal flooding. None of the homes on those properties are in danger of flooding. Conversely between 148th and Coal Creek Parkway there are 18 properties and eight of those homes are close enough to the stream to be flooded. Ex. 21 was admitted as the 9122/11 DOE denial. Ex. 22 was admitted as the 1013/11 letter from Mr. Duffus. Ex. 23 was admitted as a September 15, 2011 letter from the Muckleshoot Tribe. Ex. 24 was admitted as the joint notice from the Army Corps. Tom Carpenter, community activist, noted that the DOE denial was without prejudice because DOE was out of time and a permit is expected to be forthcoming. The cause of flooding in the project area is well understood as resulting from development of the surrounding hillsides that has resulted in the deposition of tons of silt into the project area. Stormwater mitigation in the 1960's was not adequate to protect May Creek from these silt impacts. There has been a significant infestation of SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 invasive reed canary grass into the valley. Unfortunately extension agencies recommended their installation before realizing their adverse impacts. The deposition of sedimentation and the proliferation of the reed canary grass have completely altered the natural retention/detention functions of the valley and creek. The Stonegate Homeowner's Association is very excited about the project because it will restore the hydrological functions to its predevelopment state extending to before coal was discovered in the valley and it was first developed. The project site is limited to the area where sediment has settled. The properties that benefit extend way up stream from the project site. Currently those properties are flooded six months out of the year, which is not consistent with the natural state of the valley. It is not correct to assert that only seven properties will benefit. Wetland boundaries are far in excess of what they have been historically and these standing bodies of water are caused by the loss of hydrological functions of the creek. Historically there have only been two small wetlands on the entire seven mile stretch of the creek. One is in a small area not close to the project site and the other is at the mouth of the creek. Jeff Walker, an upstream property owner, noted that Mr. Carpenter had already covered much of what he was going to say. He added that his property has been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years and that much of this property can't be used because of the flooding. He emphasized that the County are unbiased and that property owners and that there is a high vested interested in the project by numerous upstream property owners. He noted that the stream is a valued recreational corridor as well that will benefit from the project. Roger Coates, testified he was concerned that no one has proven that, erosion to downstream properties won't occur. He is concerned that the increase in stream velocity will increase erosion on his property. Jean Rollins submitted a summary of citations from scientific experts demonstrating that 9 of the 10 variance criteria haven't been met. She noted that the project is designed to benefit horse pastures at the expense of downstream properties. The County doesn't know what will happen downstream. Dr. Olson states that the hydraulic analysis is inappropriate. Experts conclude that it is incorrect that the project will not create downstream erosion. Experts believe that the project will harm the stream and wetlands. The project serves private property, not public need. Better alternatives have been ignored. The 0.04% in flood reduction is not worth the project cost and impacts. Dr. Olson disagrees with King County conclusions on downstream erosion impacts and deposition of sediment. Dr. Olson concluded that the existing transport modeling needs independent review. Compensatory flood storage is not provided. Fish species are jeopardized as Green Creek is home to Chinook, Sockeye and Coho. Green Creek is close to the wetland. The 401 certificate was denied because King County could not demonstrate that water quality standards had been met. The 9122111 DOE letter shows that King County has not provided information necessary to approve the permit. There was no "time crunch" as DOE had requested needed information over an extensive amount of time. The Army Corps and DOE have repeatedly questioned the need and purpose of the project. Dr. Olson wrote that the channeling project is akin to trying to channel a bathtub that has more inflow than outflow. The scientific studies used for the project has been invalidated by scientific authorities. The long marsh creek plan is not a mitigation plan. Compensatory flood SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 IN 11 12 13 14 15 lL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 storage has not been provided. The alcoves are insignificant. If the alcoves fill with sediment fish will not be able to access the site. There is no monitoring plan for the dredging of the project. The Examiner should take a no risk approach to the project pursuant to RMC 4-9-25(F). Jim Bonwell, owner of the first downstream private bridge, noted that the County comes up with a different plan at each hearing. He was born near the creek and his parents live near the headwaters of the creek. His grandfather told him they used to dredge the creek so it's inaccurate to say that the project will return the creek to natural conditions. There are dredge materials on his property that he discovered 25 years ago when he acquired his property. He overheard some County consultants walking the creek stated it was classic Coho habitat. He understands that upstream properties are flooding but this is what the Valley properties are designed to do. On his property there is a rock vein that serves as a high water mark and this is the reason for the flooding and that's not going to be changed by the dredging. Jerri Wood has lived in May Valley her entire life. Part of the flooding is due to overdevelopment. Her concern on the dredging and mitigation is that there are experts on both sides. The experts opposed to the project validate her experiences and those of her mother in the valley. The City has failed to follow its urban separator regulations. Her mother's neighbor repeatedly channels storm water onto her property in violation of Renton standards but Renton won't enforce those standards. If you dredge May Creek her mother will lose her backyard and septic system. With the erosion already happening, the removal of the sediment by the project will destabilize shoreline trees that will fall onto her mother's home. The City of New Castle is also responsible for the overdevelopment. The creek as whole should be considered and impacts to persons such as her mother should be considered. A more collaborative process is needed to solve these problems. Julie Bonwell testified that dredging can't be good for an environmentally sensitive wetland and salmonid stream. Up until 22 years ago the project area was an overused, overgrazed horse pasture and it has taken years to be restored. The wetland is doing its job in filtering water and serving as an aquifer recharge area. The stream level rises by several feet during major storm events. Woody debris flowing down the stream causes property damage. She is concerned that the woody debris proposed for mitigation won't be sufficiently anchored and will wash out her bridge, which is the only way she can access her home. Ex. 25, Jean Rollins written materials, was admitted. The Examiner inquired whether the County wanted an opportunity to reserve objection until it had an opportunity to read it and the County stated they had no objection and just wanted a copy. The Examiner inquired whether King County had any rebuttal and noted that he was particularly interested in any response to the Dr. Olson materials, since that represented credible scientific evidence that he will take seriously. Mr. Chin noted that a biological evaluation on fish impacts had been done for the project and that the National Marine Fisheries Service concurred in the evaluation. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has also approved a hydraulic permit for the project. King County first received comment on the project from DOE on September SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1, 2011. DOE gave King County until September 16, 2011 to respond to the comments. Part of those concerns were based upon input from Dr. Olson, but King County had not seen her memo until October 3, 2011. King County responded to the DOE comments on September 16, 2011. On September 22, 2011 DOE notified the County they were up against the wall and had to meet the. statutory deadline and didn't have time to approve the permit so their only course of action was to deny the permit with [sic] prejudice. The County will address all the questions raised by Dr. Olson with DOE in a near term meeting that is being set up at this time. Mr. Chin asked to enter a sediment transport study into the record, which is located at the King County website. The Examiner stated that he could leave the record open for the County to supply the document, but that the record would also have to be left open for public response and the County would then have an opportunity to provide rebuttal to that response. Mr. Chin stated he was fine with that process. Mr. Chin noted that the woody debris would be anchored into the ground and embedded with "what is appropriate", which may be [inaudible] -filled anchors or whatever is necessary to keep the debris in place. Mr. Chin also requested to submit a hydraulic analysis, which was admitted as Ex. 26. He noted that the project will provide better flow to prevent one year storms. The buffers will be replanted with native vegetation that should out compete the reed canary grass that will be removed. The replacement of the reed canary grass will ensure longevity for the project. The long marsh creek project is designed to prevent the deposition of sediment from long marsh into May Creek. The long marsh creek project will trap sediment before it gets to May Creek, thereby maintaining the functions of May Creek and extending the life of the project. Jeff Burke, King County, acknowledged that 0.04% is a very insignificant change in the duration of flooding. The project is designed to focus on flows between 6 and 50 cfs. Any storm goes overbank into flood areas. No changes are being made to the flood area, just to in -channel capacity. This results in significant changes to flood duration in the flood areas of 20%. There will still be flooding. The duration of flooding for small storms will change. Mr. Burkey testified that there will be more conversations with DOE on the Olson memo. The 0.04% change in duration of 50 cfs referenced in the Olson memo is only a 7 hour difference per year. As to her comments on stream power, stream power is based on time not just magnitude. The change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent. Duration is a major component of erosion impacts. Mr. Burke is a hydrologist with King County and has served in that capacity for over 20 years. He has also done contract work for DOE. Lindsey Miller, King County Environmental engineer, is a wetland ecologist by training. The impacts to the. wetlands are only temporary resulting from wetland enhancement designed at suppressing canary grass. The work in the wetlands is limited to replacing non-native canary grass with native species, which is an enhancement project. There will be no change in flood storage or extent of flooding in the wetlands. The project will also further mitigate impacts from upstream development. Don Althauser, engineer of record for design of the project, testified on the private downstream SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 6 I bridges. There are two private downstream bridges, one owned by Duffus and Rollins and the other by Bondwell. The changes in hydrology are small and well within the capacity of the bridges. He 2 can't testify as to the condition of the bridges. The second bridge doesn't appear to have any 3 exposure to erosion. The Bondwell bridge does appear to have some exposure. He can't propose upgrades to private bridges. He does not see that the project will create any adverse impacts to the 4 bridges. The Coates property was inspected. It is eroding and unstable. Bioengineering stabilization measures would probably stabilize the property. The project will not further 5 destabilize the property. The project was designed to assure no increase in downstream erosion. 6 The sediment transport study for the project found that the flow rates necessary to create erosion indicate that the flows are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs. The project will only 7 increase flows by 6 cfs, which is well below the range of concern. 8 Mr. Chin noted there were a number of senior level biologist, ecologist, geologists and consultants 9 worked on the project and provided their expertise. 10 Jennifer Henning introduced a few more exhibits. Ex. 27 was admitted as the 2/9/22. Sediment Assessment Report. Ex. 28 was admitted as the HPA approval. Ex. 29 was admitted as the 2/11 11 May Creek Drainage Improvement Biological Evaluation. Ms. Henning identified some 12 administrative permits required for the project. She referenced RMC 4-3-110, which identifies the urban separator map and shows that the project area is not in the urban separator. Within the 13 separator area there's a requirement for no fencing to allow for the passage of wildlife. This requirement doesn't apply to the project area, where fencing is allowed. She clarified that the 14 Olson memo was not submitted to the City by DOE as their comment on the project application. It 15 was provided by Mr. Duff -us. 16 Exhibits 17 Exhibits 1-17 of the exhibits identified at Page 2 of the staff report were all admitted into the record with no objections from the public. Ex. 1, the "project file" will be limited to 18 the staff report, since the exhibit title otherwise does not provide notice to the public of what 19 documents are specifically included. The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: 20 Exhibit 18: Vicinity Map with project location highlighted in yellow. Exhibit 19: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation vicinity map, Sheet 14 of 18 21 Exhibit 20: 3/10/11 ESA Consultation Exhibit 21: 9/22/11 DOE Section 401 denial 22 Exhibit 22: 10/3/11 comment letter fr A. Duff -us 23 Exhibit 23: 9/15/11 Muckleshoot comment letter Exhibit 24: Army Corps/DOE Joint Public Notice, NWS -2010-158 24 Exhibit 25: 10/4/11 comment letter fr Jean Rollins Exhibit 26: 12/17/10 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis 25 Exhibit 27: 2/9/11 Sediment Assessment 26 Exhibit 28: 123184-2 Hydraulic Permit Approval Exhibit 29: 2/11 Biological Evaluation SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 30: Landscaping Plan Exhibit 31: Sediment Transport Study Exhibit 32: Two 10/13/11 emails fr Debra Rogers re transport study Exhibit 33: 10/13/11 email from Jim and Julie Bonwell re transport study Exhibit 34: 10/13/11 email fr Gary Amundson re transport study Exhibit 35: 10/14/11 email from Wayde Watters re transport study Exhibit 36: 1011411 ] email from Doug Chin re transport study' FINDINGS OF FACT I . Applicant. King County Water and Land Resources Division 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm at the Renton City Hall City Council Meeting Chambers. The Examiner left the record open for submission of the sediment transport study (Ex. 31). Mr. Chin was given until Thursday (1016111) to supply the report (or a web]ink) to the City. The public was given until a week from Friday (10114111) to supply written continent on the report and the County was given until the following Wednesday (10119111) to reply. Emails were received after the October 4, 11 hearing questioning whether comments were limited to the transport study. The Examiner stated both during the hearing and at the end of the hearing that the purpose of leaving the record open was to provide an opportunity for the public to review the transport study, because the transport study was not available during the hearing for review and response. All other exhibits were presented for review during the hearing. The Examiner provided an opportunity for all hearing participants to review all other exhibits and to object to their admission. No requests to leave the record open on any exhibit were made during the hearing and the Examiner only left the record open for comment on the transport study. King County clic] not reply to the transport study comments submitted by the public. The Examiner confirmed with staff that the public comments had been forwarded to the County along with confirmation that the reply deadline was October 19, 2011. Substantive: 3. Description -of Proposal. King County requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile ("RM") 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 Iineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) for approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The ' Mr. Chin's email does not address the transport study directly. However, it does indirectly argue that the Olson memo criticizing the transport study may not be the official position of DOE and that King County will resolve any concerns raised by Dr. Olson should her memo become the official position of DOE. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland and a Class 2 salmonid stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside City limits. Enhancement would include approximately 0.24 acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation and large woody debris placement. All dredged materials will be deposited on site, eliminating the need for truck export. Additional vehicular access during project installation within the wetland and floodplain will be provided using rubber tired or tracked equipment. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA environmental review was conducted by King County as lead agency. 4. Adverse Impacts. King County has failed to demonstrate that its project will not harm downstream properties through increased erosion. The impacts to downstream properties were of significant concern and anxiety to downstream property owners. The owners were concerned about impacts to footbridges, septic drainfields, flooding and eroding away of stream banks. The concerns of the property owners were confirmed by Dr. Patricia Olson in an August 15, 2011 internal DOE memo (Ex. 15). Dr. Olson is a PhD hydrologist employed by DOE to assess water quality impacts of projects such as that proposed by King County. She reviewed the project and wrote the memo as part of DOE's Clean Water Act Section 401 certification review for the project. There is no question that Dr. Olson was both highly qualified and unbiased in her assessment of downstream impacts resulting from the project. In her memo, Dr. Olson raises several concerns over the County's analysis of the project. She wrote that it did not appear that the author of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31, was "well versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response". She notes that County studies fail to identify the volume of additional sediments that will be transported downstream and where they will be deposited. She identifies several reasons why the methodology used to assess the potential for erosion is flawed and may underrepresent the potential for sediment transport. She concluded that she cannot make a determination concerning bank erosion of downstream properties given the flaws in the transport and hydraulic studies. She also disagreed with hydraulic study conclusions that flood frequency would be insignificant and noted that an increase in flood frequency increases the potential for erosion due to associated increases in stream power. At the hearing King County provided some verbal rebuttal to the concerns raised by Dr. Olson. Jeff Burke, a hydrologist, testified that the change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent and that this will have no significant impact on erosion potential. Don Althauser, project engineer, testified that in his professional opinion the project would not destabilize or erode the support of downstream bridges and that the project would not increase downstream erosion. He noted that the flow rates necessary to threshold sediment transport are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs and that the project will only increase flows by 6 cfs2. 2 It doesn't appear that Mr. Althauser identified the mean flow rate for May Creek in his testimony, but the hydraulic study (Ex. 26) sets the rate as 9 cfs. SPECIAL GRADE/FELL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0*4 23 24 25 26 During the hearing and also in its written comment on the transport study (Ex. 36), King County discounts the issues raised by Dr. Olson because her comments may not represent the position of DOE and, if her comments do represent the position of DOE, they will be addressed at a later date. Those facts are largely irrelevant. Dr. Olson has provided a qualified and credible scientific opinion that the studies prepared for the project are flawed and incomplete. The fact that Dr. Olson's opinion may or may not represent the position of DOE only has marginal relevance to the accuracy of her position. The fact that King County intends to address her concerns at a later date does absolutely nothing to support a finding in this case that downstream impacts will be fully mitigated as required by the permitting criteria for the applications under, review by the City of Renton. Permits are not approved based upon assurances from applicants that impacts will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Burke and Mr. Althausen did a fine job in responding to some of the issues raised by Dr. Olson. They take the position that the flows generated by the project are far below the thresholds for sediment transport identified in the transport study (Ex. 31) and the hydraulic study (Ex. 26). However, Mr. Burke and Mr. Althausen did not address Dr. Olson's issues with the accuracy of those much higher threshold points. Given the numerous and significant alleged flaws in the studies identified by Dr. Olson, there is no way of knowing from the record before the Examiner whether the threshold flows are indeed much higher than those generated by project. It is both alarming in the truest sense of the term and even suspect that King County is unable to defend the accuracy of its studies when alleged flaws are so clearly identified by Dr. Olson. Why were pebble counts used? Why weren't more data samples necessary? Why were pebble counts done on the channel instead of bars? Why weren't subsurface pebble counts done? Why wasn't any volumetric sediment sampling done? King County should be able to answer these questions. Apparently it cannot. King County was fully apprised of the significance of the Olson memo from both the examiner and the public. King County had ample opportunity to respond to the Olson memo. The Examiner advised King County during the hearing that the Olson memorandum raised significant issues and that he needed the memo to be addressed. The King County response was primarily limited to the verbal testimony from Mr. Burke and Mr. Althauser. King County did not request additional time to respond to the memo. In point of fact, King County was given another opportunity to respond to the memo in the reply it was afforded for comments on its transport study. Many of the public comments on the transport study referenced Dr. Olson's critique of the study. King County could have used the reply to address those Olson comments. Instead, King County didn't submit any reply, despite having received the public comments and a reminder from staff that the County could reply to them. Given the circumstances above, the Examiner has no choice but to find that the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that, more likely than not, the project will not adversely affect downstream properties with erosion. Despite multiple opportunities to assure the Examiner and the public that its methodology in assessing erosion impacts was not flawed as asserted by a qualified hydrologist, SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 King County simply let the allegations stand, raising serious doubts as to the credibility of the studies. Substantial evidence in the record, the uncontested conclusions of Dr. Olson, establishes that the studies are flawed and cannot be relied upon to assess downstream impacts. The assessment of adverse impacts is limited to erosion impacts since that was the most significant issue raised during the hearings and all that is necessary to deny the grade/fill and variance applications. In any reapplication King County should fully address all issues raised by Dr. Olson as well as all other issues pertinent to project approval. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authorityof Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-080(F)(2) provides that the hearing examiner is responsible for granting special permits for fill and grade. The code section provides that a special permit is required for the depositing of minerals or materials such as sand, gravel and rock. The proposed dredging will involve the deposition of dredged materials on site, so a special use permit is required and subject to review by the Examiner. The authority of the Examiner to rule upon Critical Area Ordinance variance applications is not so clear. RMC 4-9-250(8)(1) provides that the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee shall have the authority to grant variances "from the following development standards when no other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner Review". The requirement implies that the Hearing Examiner shall review the variance request if an associated permit also requires Examiner review, which in this case would be the special grade and fill permit. "[T]he following development standards" that may be modified by a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B)(1) includes those identified in RMC 4-9-250(B)(1)(c)(v), which are those "authorized to be requested as variances in RMC 4-3-050(L)". RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(d) authorizes administrative approval of dredging activities provided that if applicable criteria are not met, a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250(B) is required. The staff report does not identify what Critical Area regulations are subject to the variance request and what corresponding parts of the project trigger the need for a variance. The dredging activity appears to meet the criteria for administrative approval by being necessary for flood hazard reduction purposes as required by RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(d)(i)(a). The replacement of canary grass with native vegetation and introduction of woody debris appears to meet the exemption criteria of RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(a)(ii). Project features that may trigger the need for a variance could arguably be the stream alcoves and the temporary access plan. However, these features could also be interpreted as implied necessary elements of an enhancement/dredging operation. If King County reapplies, staff may be able to conclude that the variance request is not necessary. In the alternative, if staff still finds the variance application necessary it should provide a more detailed explanation of why a variance is required. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 11 r - I Substantive: 2 2. Applicable Standards. RMC 4-9-080(F)(4) governs the criteria for special fill/grade permits. RMC 4-9-250(B)(10) governs the criteria for the CAO variance. Only those criteria that address 3 erosion impacts will be quoted and applied below since those standards on their justify denial of the 4 applications. 5 RMC 4-9-080(1)(4):... To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that.. the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The 6 Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following:... Size and location of the 7 activity... 8 3. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there is insufficient evidence to support a determination that the amount of dredging proposed by the County will not create downstream 9 erosion that could adversely affect downstream properties. For this reason, there is not sufficient evidence to determine that the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the 10 surrounding area. 11 RMC 4-9-250(B)(10): ... in lieu of the variance criteria of subsection BS of this Section, 12 applications for public/quasi-public utilities or agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habit, stream and lake or wetland regulations shall be reviewed for compliance 13 with all of the following criteria: 14 a. Public policies have' been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department 15 Administrator that the public's health, safety and welfare is best served; ... e. The proposed activity takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and 16 compensate for unavoidable impacts. 17 4. Since the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the project will generate erosion 18 impacts for downstream properties, King County has failed to establish that the public health, safety and welfare is best served by the project. The absence of demonstrably credible erosion evidence 19 also makes it impossible to determine whether affirmative and appropriate measures have been taken 20 to minimize unavoidable impacts. The project does not comply with RMC 4-9-250(B)(10). 21 DECISION 22 The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are denied. The permit applications 23 must comply with all applicable criteria and King County has failed to demonstrate compliance with the permitting criteria identified in this decision. Since denial is based upon the failure to provide 24 necessary information, the denial is without prejudice in case King County can produce the 25 information necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria 26 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 12 DATED this 8th day of November, 2011. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(G)(4).- A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 3 This decision was initially mailed to the City of Renton on 11/2/11 with an incorrect signature date. The decision has been re -issued with a correct signature date. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 13 rJ Denis Law City O Mayor Allh • x `} November 8, 2011..:. Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Doug Chin;Project Manager . King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson 5tree#,.Suite, 600 Seattle, WA' 98104 SUBJECT: May Creek Drainage Lmprovemerit Project LUA11-065,V-H; SP Dear Mr. Chin: This .letter is to inform you 'that the date of decision issuance' by the City` of Renton Hearing. Examiner on ' the.'above-captioned project is November 8; 2011. A copy of the 'Hearing •Examiner„decision is'enclosed.,'Reconsideration.and appeal procedures' a re. described in the "Appeal Right and Valuation Notices” settion:ofthe decision., If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (425) 430-7382. Sincere) '! erald C. Wasser Associate'Planner cc:, Stonegate Homeowners Assoclatiom/ Owner: , Parties of Record , Enclosure Renton City Hall 105.5 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057: • rentonwa.gov 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE. May Creek Drainage Improvement } Project } } Special Grade/Fill Permit and CAO } Variance ) LUAI 1-065, V -H, SP } Summary FINAL DECISION King County has applied for a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations for a dredging project to May Creek designed to reduce the duration of one year flood events for upstream properties. The permits are denied without prejudice. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the drainage project will not adversely affect downstream properties by increasing erosion. Testimony Jennifer Henning, Renton current planning manager, spoke on behalf of the City of Renton. She noted that the hearing is a permit for grade and fill and also a variance to the critical areas regulation in order to allow for some removal of vegetation along the stream. The area in Renton is only 3.75 acres, composed of the dredging area as well as vegetation removal. Sediments, fines and cobble will be removed. Vegetation that obstructs the channel, primarily canary grass, will also be removed. The project site contains a Class III wetland. The City has five classes of wetlands. Class III is the third most significant with a 25 foot buffer. SPECIAL GRADEIFILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Ms. Henning noted that May Creek River Mile 4.3 to 4.9 contains the entire project area. The portion in Renton is only a small portion of the project, the western limit of the project area. Large woody debris will be added to the stream as mitigation. A couple stream alcoves are added to serve as fish habitat. The project involves a temporary access road for the equipment used to do the dredging and mitigation. The project will improve the flood capacity of the area, which is flooded during most of the year. The project will increase the flow capacity and will allow some use of the land that is usually flooded. The dredging will remove accumulated sediment that will be spread throughout the project site instead of transported off-site. Enhancement native vegetation will be installed. The Department of Ecology has required fencing around the project area composed of three strand barbwire, which is standard for areas along May Creek to keep livestock outside of the stream buffers. There is some disagreement as to where to place the fence on one of the lots affected by the project. The City's main interest is that sensitive area signs be posted and that the fence doesn't obstruct wildlife movement. Ms. Henning summarized the mitigation required for the project. Only 392 cubic feet of sediment will be dredged and obstructing vegetation removed. The stream will be diverted during the dredging to prevent water quality impacts. Noise and dust impacts will be temporary during construction only. On-site noise levels during construction will reach dba, but this dissipates away from the site and there will be no work on weekends. The variance from critical area regulations is necessary to remove vegetation and sediment within a sensitive area and buffer -- May Creek and the Class III wetland. The project site is fairly flat. The project protects the public health and welfare because public access will be very limited. The project will reduce flooding which promotes public safety. Staff concurs with the Applicant's hydraulic analysis that there will not be adverse erosion impacts downstream and downstream flooding. The project is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan because there is no change in use of the land. The Applicant did review alternative courses of action and they determined that the measure taken was the least disruptive of the sensitive areas and the most consistent with the County's budget limitations. Wetland areas will be restored and invasive species removed. Measures will be taken to prevent sediments from re-entering the stream. The project will not create any net loss in stream function. The project involves one to one compensatory mitigation so there is no net loss. The project was evaluated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Exhibit 20 was admitted into the record as the ESA consultation for the project. The consultation reveals that there will be no adverse impacts to endangered species. There were some comments submitted from the Muckleshoot Tribe for the dredging project as a whole (Ex. 17). Best management practices will be employed to protect ground and surface water quality. The Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") has denied 401 certification without prejudice only because DOE had a deadline to make a decision and King County is still working with DOE to acquire certification approval. Project mitigation involves 10 years of monitoring. The Examiner asked the King County representative, Doug Chin, whether a foot bridge was a contributing factor to the flooding as alleged in some of the comment letters submitted on the project. Mr. Chin clarified that the dredging is designed to alleviate one year flooding. The bridges don't have any impact on the flows the project is designed to improve. The bridges affect larger storm events. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Andrew Duff -us, neighboring property owner, asserted that the 9/22/11 DOE letter was glossed over as DOE running out of time. DOE asked the Applicant numerous times to ask for information that hasn't been received. He noted that the project is an ill-conceived attempt to temporarily reduce flooding to protect horse pastures. Downstream properties already experience numerous flooding problems and can only access their properties through private bridges that are vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The preliminary report to the Examiner is flawed with gaps in relevant information. No reference is made to the 9/22 DOE letter. On 8/15/11 DOE released a memo from its senior hydrologist, Dr. Patricia Olson, who had reviewed all of the County's documentation and done a site visit. She questioned the lack of detail in the County's studies and design, the effectiveness of the project and cost/benefits. Dr. Olson publishes articles on rivers, lakes and groundwater issues and testifies as an expert witness. Her work was cited in the County's studies. Her memo should have been referenced in the staff report. The document should be given substantial weight. Mr. Duffus questioned the qualifications of staff to evaluate the application given the conclusions of Dr. Olson. On 911/11 DOE informed King County that it would have to deny the water quality certificate unless requested information was received by 9/16/11. DOE has repeatedly questioned the "effectiveness, purpose and need of the project". Just two weeks ago the Muckleshoot Tribe submitted a comment letter to DOE requesting that King County exhaustively consider alternatives before dredging May Creek. The wetland is a Class IIl wetland that is wet all year round, chest deep in the summer. Additional alcoves and other measures may be necessary to mitigate impacts. DOE and the Tribe are requesting larger planting buffers and other measures that could have greater clearing and grading impacts than those assessed by the Renton staff. Mr. Duffus asserted that machinery would be roaming all over the project site to place snags. In the past the City has required cedar split rail fencing for critical areas, as demonstrated in LAU 05-83. That plat was in a project adjacent to the project within the same open space corridor of the project. Mr. Duffus also saw no broad public support for the project, which only benefits four horse pastures at the expense of downstream property owners. He also questioned whether the project could pass a cost/benefit analysis. There is a risk of liability for downstream environmental and property damage. There are 7 properties adjacent to the project. One property is a wetland, another is an undeveloped property that is also a wetland. A third property is not used for farming. The remaining four properties have horse pastures with seasonal flooding. None of the domes on those properties are in danger of flooding. Conversely between 148th and Coal Creek Parkway there are 18 properties and eight of those homes are close enough to the stream to be flooded. Ex. 21 was admitted as the 9/22/11 DOE denial. Ex. 22 was admitted as the 10/3/11 letter from Mr. Duff -us. Ex. 23 was admitted as a September 15, 2011 letter from the Muckleshoot Tribe. Ex. 24 was admitted as the joint notice from the Army Corps. Tom Carpenter, community activist, noted that the DOE denial was without prejudice because DOE was out of time and a permit is expected to be forthcoming. The cause of flooding in the project area is well understood as resulting from development of the surrounding hillsides that has resulted in the deposition of tons of silt into the project area. Stormwater mitigation in the 1960's was not adequate to protect May Creek from these silt impacts. There has been a significant infestation of SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 invasive reed canary grass into the valley. Unfortunately extension agencies recommended their installation before realizing their adverse impacts. The deposition of sedimentation and the proliferation of the reed canary grass have completely altered the natural retention/detention functions of the valley and creek. The Stonegate Homeowner's Association is very excited about the project because it will restore the hydrological functions to its predevelopment state extending to before coal was discovered in the valley and it was first developed. The project site is limited to the area where sediment has settled. The properties that benefit extend way up stream from the project site. Currently those properties are flooded six months out of the year, which is not consistent with the natural state of the valley. It is not correct to assert that only seven properties will benefit. Wetland boundaries are far in excess of what they have been historically and these standing bodies of water are caused by the loss of hydrological functions of the creek. Historically there have only been two small wetlands on the entire seven mile stretch of the creek. One is in a small area not close to the project site and the other is at the mouth of the creek. Jeff Walker, an upstream property owner, noted that Mr. Carpenter had already covered much of what he was going to say. He added that his property has been used for agricultural purposes for over 100 years and that much of this property can't be used because of the flooding. He emphasized that the County are unbiased and that property owners and that there is a high vested interested in the project by numerous upstream property owners. He noted that the stream is a valued recreational corridor as well that will benefit from the project. Roger Coates, testified he was concerned that no one has proven that erosion to downstream properties won't occur. He is concerned that the increase in stream velocity will increase erosion on his property. Jean Rollins submitted a summary of citations from scientific experts demonstrating that 9 of the 10 variance criteria haven't been met. She noted that the project is designed to benefit horse pastures at the expense of downstream properties. The County doesn't know what will happen downstream. Dr. Olson states that the hydraulic analysis is inappropriate. Experts conclude that it is incorrect that the project will not create downstream erosion. Experts believe that the project will harm the stream and wetlands. The project serves private property, not public need. Better alternatives have been ignored. The 0.04% in flood reduction is not worth the project cost and impacts. Dr. Olson disagrees with King County conclusions on downstream erosion impacts and deposition of sediment. Dr. Olson concluded that the existing transport modeling needs independent review. Compensatory flood storage is not provided. Fish species are jeopardized as Green Creek is home to Chinook, Sockeye and Coho. Green Creek is close to the wetland. The 401 certificate was denied because King County could not demonstrate that water quality standards had been met. The 9/22/11 DOE letter shows that King County has not provided information necessary to approve the permit. There was no "time crunch" as DOE had requested needed information over an extensive amount of time. The Army Corps and DOE have repeatedly questioned the need and purpose of the project. Dr. Olson wrote that the channeling project is akin to trying to channel a bathtub that has more inflow than outflow. The scientific studies used for the project has been invalidated by scientific authorities. The long marsh creek plan is not a mitigation plan. Compensatory flood SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 storage has not been provided. The alcoves are insignificant. If the alcoves fill with sediment fish will not be able to access the site. There is no monitoring plan for the dredging of the project. The Examiner should take a no risk approach to the project pursuant to RMC 4-9-25(F). Jim Bonwell, owner of the first downstream private bridge, noted that the County comes up with a different plan at each hearing. He was born near the creek and his parents live near the headwaters of the creek. His grandfather told him they used to dredge the creek so it's inaccurate to say that the project will return the creek to natural conditions. There are dredge materials on his property that he discovered 25 years ago when he acquired his property. He overheard some County consultants walking the creek stated it was classic Coho habitat. He understands that upstream properties are flooding but this is what the Valley properties are designed to do. On his property there is a rock vein that serves as a high water mark and this is the reason for the flooding and that's not going to be changed by the dredging. Jerri Wood has lived in May Valley her entire life. Part of the flooding is due to overdevelopment. Her concern on the dredging and mitigation is that there are experts on both sides. The experts opposed to the project validate her experiences and those of her mother in the valley. The City has failed to follow its urban separator regulations. Her mother's neighbor repeatedly channels storm water onto her property in violation of Renton standards but Renton won't enforce those standards. If you dredge May Creek her mother will lose her backyard and septic system. With the erosion already happening, the removal of the sediment by the project will destabilize shoreline trees that will fall onto her mother's home. The City of New Castle is also responsible for the overdevelopment. The creek as whole should be considered and impacts to persons such as her mother should be considered. A more collaborative process is needed to solve these problems. Julie Bonwell testified that dredging can't be good for an environmentally sensitive wetland and salmonid stream. Up until 22 years ago the project area was an overused, overgrazed horse pasture and it has taken years to be restored. The wetland is doing its job in filtering water and serving as an aquifer recharge area. The stream level rises by several feet during major storm events. Woody debris flowing down the stream causes property damage. She is concerned that the woody debris proposed for mitigation won't be sufficiently anchored and will wash out her bridge, which is the only way she can access her home. Ex. 25, Jean Rollins written materials, was admitted. The Examiner inquired whether the County wanted an opportunity to reserve objection until it had an opportunity to read it and the County stated they had no objection and just wanted a copy. The Examiner inquired whether King County had any rebuttal and noted that he was particularly interested in any response to the Dr. Olson materials, since that represented credible scientific evidence that he will take seriously. Mr. Chin noted that a biological evaluation on fish impacts had been done for the project and that the National Marine Fisheries Service concurred in the evaluation. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has also approved a hydraulic permit for the project. King County first received comment on the project from DOE on September SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1, 2011. DOE gave King County until September 16, 2011 to respond to the comments. Part of those concerns were based upon input from Dr. Olson, but King County had not seen her memo until October 3, 2011. King County responded to the DOE comments on September 16, 2011. On September 22, 2011 DOE notified the County they were up against the wall and had to meet the statutory deadline and didn't have time to approve the permit so their only course of action was to deny the permit with [sic] prejudice. The County will address all the questions raised by Dr. Olson with DOE in a near term meeting that is being set up at this time. Mr. Chin asked to enter a sediment transport study into the record, which is located at the King County website. The Examiner stated that he could leave the record open for the County to supply the document, but that the record would also have to be left open for public response and the County would then have an opportunity to provide rebuttal to that response. Mr. Chin stated he was fine with that process. Mr. Chin noted that the woody debris would be anchored into the ground and embedded with "what is appropriate", which may be [inaudible] -filled anchors or whatever is necessary to keep the debris in place. Mr. Chin also requested to submit a hydraulic analysis, which was admitted as Ex. 26. He noted that the project will provide better flow to prevent one year storms. The buffers will be replanted with native vegetation that should out compete the reed canary grass that will be removed. The replacement of the reed canary grass will ensure longevity for the project. The long marsh creek project is designed to prevent the deposition of sediment from long marsh into May Creek. The long marsh creek project will trap sediment before it gets to May Creek, thereby maintaining the functions of May Creek and extending the life of the project. .teff Burke, King County, acknowledged that 0.04% is a very insignificant change in the duration of flooding. The project is designed to focus on flows between 6 and 50 cfs. Any storm goes overbank into flood areas. No changes are being made to the flood area, just to in -channel capacity. This results in significant changes to flood duration in the flood areas of 20%. There will still be flooding. The duration of flooding for small storms will change. Mr. Burkey testified that there will be more conversations with DOE on the Olson memo. The 0.04% change in duration of 50 cfs referenced in the Olson memo is only a 7 hour difference per year. As to her comments on stream power, stream power is based on time not just magnitude. The change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent. Duration is a major component of erosion impacts. Mr. Burke is a hydrologist with King County and has served in that capacity for over 20 years. He has also done contract work for DOE. Lindsey Miller, King County Environmental engineer, is a wetland ecologist by training. The impacts to the wetlands are only temporary resulting from wetland enhancement designed at suppressing canary grass. The work in the wetlands is limited to replacing non-native canary grass with native species, which is an enhancement project. There will be no change in flood storage or extent of flooding in the wetlands. The project will also further mitigate impacts from upstream development. Don Althauser, engineer of record for design of the project, testified on the private downstream SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 bridges. There are two private downstream bridges, one owned by Duff -us and Rollins and the other by Bondwell. The changes in hydrology are small and well within the capacity of the bridges. He can't testify as to the condition of the bridges. The second bridge doesn't appear to have any exposure to erosion. The Bondwell bridge does appear to have some exposure. He can't propose upgrades to private bridges. He does not see that the project will create any adverse impacts to the bridges. The Coates property was inspected. It is eroding and unstable. Bioengineering stabilization measures would probably stabilize the property. The project will not further destabilize the property. The project was designed to assure no increase in downstream erosion. The sediment transport study for the project found that the flow rates necessary to create erosion indicate that the flows are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs. The project will only increase flows by 6 cfs, which is well below the range of concern. Mr. Chin noted there were a number of senior level biologist, ecologist, geologists and consultants worked on the project and provided their expertise. Jennifer Henning introduced a few more exhibits. Ex. 27 was admitted as the 2/9/22 Sediment Assessment Report. Ex. 28 was admitted as the HPA approval. Ex. 29 was admitted as the 2/11 May Creek Drainage Improvement Biological Evaluation. Ms. Henning identified some administrative permits required for the project. She referenced RMC 4-3-110, which identifies the urban separator map and shows that the project area is not in the urban separator. Within the separator area there's a requirement for no fencing to allow for the passage of wildlife. This requirement doesn't apply to the project area, where fencing is allowed. She clarified that the Olson memo was not submitted to the City by DOE as their comment on the project application. It was provided by Mr. Duff -us. Exhibits Exhibits 1-17 of the exhibits identified at Page 2 of the staff report were all admitted into the record with no objections from the public. Ex. 1, the "project file" will be limited to the staff report, since the exhibit title otherwise does not provide notice to the public of what documents are specifically included. The following exhibits were admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 18: Vicinity Map with project location highlighted in yellow. Exhibit 19: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation vicinity map, Sheet 14 of 18 Exhibit 20: 3/10/11 ESA Consultation Exhibit 21: 9/22/11 DOE Section 401 denial Exhibit 22: 10/3/11 comment letter fr A. Duffus Exhibit 23: 9/15/11 Muckleshoot comment letter Exhibit 24: Army Corps/DOE Joint Public Notice, NWS -2010-158 Exhibit 25: 10/4/11 comment letter fr Jean Rollins Exhibit 26: 12/17/10 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Exhibit 27: 2/9/11 Sediment Assessment Exhibit 28: 123184-2 Hydraulic Permit Approval Exhibit 29: 2/11 Biological Evaluation SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 30: Landscaping Plan Exhibit 31: Sediment Transport Study Exhibit 32. Two 10/13/11 emails fr Debra Rogers re transport study Exhibit 33: 10/13/11 email from Jim and Julie Banwell re transport study Exhibit 34: 10/13/11 email fr Gary Amundson re transport study Exhibit 35: 10/14/11 email from Wayde Watters re transport study Exhibit 36: 10/14/11 email from Doug Chin re transport study FINDINGS OF FACT I . Applicant. King County Water and Land Resources Division 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm at the Renton City Hall City Council Meeting Chambers. The Examiner left the record open for submission of the sediment transport study (Ex. 31). Mr. Chin was given until Thursday (10/6/11) to supply the report (or a weblink) to the City. The public was given until a week from Friday (10/14/11) to supply written comment on the report and the County was given until the following Wednesday (10119/11) to reply. Emails were received after the October 4, 11 hearing questioning whether comments were limited to the transport study. The Examiner stated both during the hearing and at the end of the hearing that the purpose of leaving the record open was to provide an opportunity for the public to review the transport study, because the transport study was not available during the hearing for review and response. All other exhibits were presented for review during the hearing. The Examiner provided an opportunity for all hearing participants to review all other exhibits and to object to their admission. No requests to leave the record open on any exhibit were made during the hearing and the Examiner only left the record open for comment on the transport study. King County did not reply to the transport study comments submitted by the public. The Examiner confirmed with staff that the public comments had been forwarded to the County along with confirmation that the reply deadline was October 19, 2011. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. King County requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a variance to critical area regulations in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile ("RM") 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) for approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The Mr. Chin's email does not address the transport study directly. However, it does indirectly argue that the Olson memo criticizing the transport study may not be the official position of DOE and that King County will resolve any concerns raised by Dr. Olson should her memo become the official position of DOE. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland and a Class 2 salmonid stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside City limits. Enhancement would include approximately 0.24 acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation and large woody debris placement. All dredged materials will be deposited on site, eliminating the need for truck export. Additional vehicular access during project installation within the wetland and floodplain will be provided using rubber tired or tracked equipment. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA environmental review was conducted by King County as lead agency. 4. Adverse Impacts. King County has failed to demonstrate that its project will not harm downstream properties through increased erosion. The impacts to downstream properties were of significant concern and anxiety to downstream property owners. The owners were concerned about impacts to footbridges, septic drainfields, flooding and eroding away of stream banks. The concerns of the property owners were confirmed by Dr. Patricia Olson in an August 15, 2011 internal DOE memo (Ex. 15). Dr. Olson is a PhD hydrologist employed by DOE to assess water quality impacts of projects such as that proposed by King County. She reviewed the project and wrote the memo as part of DOE's Clean Water Act Section 401 certification review for the project. There is no question that Dr. Olson was both highly qualified and unbiased in her assessment of downstream impacts resulting from the project. In her memo, Dr. Olson raises several concerns over the County's analysis of the project. She wrote that it did not appear that the author of the sediment transport study, Ex. 31, was "well versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response". She notes that County studies fail to identify the volume of additional sediments that will be transported downstream and where they will be deposited. She identifies several reasons why the methodology used to assess the potential for erosion is flawed and may underrepresent the potential for sediment transport. She concluded that she cannot make a determination concerning bank erosion of downstream properties given the flaws in the transport and hydraulic studies. She also disagreed with hydraulic study conclusions that flood frequency would be insignificant and noted that an increase in flood frequency increases the potential for erosion due to associated increases in stream power. At the hearing King County provided some verbal rebuttal to the concerns raised by Dr. Olson. Jeff Burke, a hydrologist, testified that the change in duration of the stream power is only on the order of a few hundredths of a percent and that this will have no significant impact on erosion potential. Don Althauser, project engineer, testified that in his professional opinion the project would not destabilize or erode the support of downstream bridges and that the project would not increase downstream erosion. . He noted that the flow rates necessary to threshold sediment transport are well above 75 cfs and may be as high as 200 cfs and that the project will only increase flows by 6 cfS2. 2 It doesn't appear that Mr. Althauser identified the mean flow rate for May Creek in his testimony, but the hydraulic study (Ex. 26) sets the rate as 9 cfs. SPECIAL GRADEXILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 During the hearing and also in its written comment on the transport study (Ex. 36), King County discounts the issues raised by Dr. Olson because her comments may not represent the position of DOE and, if her comments do represent the position of DOE, they will be addressed at a later date. Those facts are largely irrelevant. Dr. Olson has provided a qualified and credible scientific opinion that the studies prepared for the project are flawed and incomplete. The fact that Dr. Olson's opinion may or may not represent the position of DOE only has marginal relevance to the accuracy of her position. The fact that King County intends to address her concerns at a later date does absolutely nothing to support a finding in this case that downstream impacts will be fully mitigated as required by the permitting criteria for the applications under review by the City of Renton. Permits are not approved based upon assurances from applicants that impacts will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Burke and Mr. Althausen did a fine job in responding to some of the issues raised by Dr. Olson. They take the position that the flows generated by the project are far below the thresholds for sediment transport identified in the transport study (Ex. 31) and the hydraulic study (Ex. 26). However, Mr. Burke and Mr. Althausen did not address Dr. Olson's issues with the accuracy of those much higher threshold points. Given the numerous and significant alleged flaws in the studies identified by Dr. Olson, there is no way of knowing from the record before the Examiner whether the threshold flows are indeed much higher than those generated by project. It is both alarming in the truest sense of the term and even suspect that King County is unable to defend the accuracy of its studies when alleged flaws are so clearly identified by Dr. Olson. Why were pebble counts used? Why weren't more data samples necessary? Why were pebble counts done on the channel instead of bars? Why weren't subsurface pebble counts done? Why wasn't any volumetric sediment sampling done? King County should be able to answer these questions. Apparently it cannot. King County was fully apprised of the significance of the Olson memo from both the examiner and the public. King County had ample opportunity to respond to the Olson memo. The Examiner advised King County during the hearing that the Olson memorandum raised significant issues and that he needed the memo to be addressed. The King County response was primarily limited to the verbal testimony from Mr. Burke and Mr. Althauser. King County did not request additional time to respond to the memo. In point of fact, King County was given another opportunity to respond to the memo in the reply it was afforded for comments on its transport study. Many of the public comments on the transport study referenced Dr. Olson's critique of the study. King County could have used the reply to address those Olson comments. Instead, King County didn't submit any reply, despite having received the public comments and a reminder from staff that the County could reply to them. Given the circumstances above, the Examiner has no choice but to find that the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that, more likely than not, the project will not adversely affect downstream properties with erosion. Despite multiple opportunities to assure the Examiner and the public that its methodology in assessing erosion impacts was not flawed as asserted by a qualified hydrologist, SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 King County simply let the allegations stand, raising serious doubts as to the credibility of the studies. Substantial evidence in the record, the uncontested conclusions of Dr. Olson, establishes that the studies are flawed and cannot be relied upon to assess downstream impacts. The assessment of adverse impacts is limited to erosion impacts since that was the most significant issue raised during the hearings and all that is necessary to deny the grade/fill and variance applications. In any reapplication King County should fully address all issues raised by Dr. Olson as well as all other issues pertinent to project approval. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authori1y of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-080(F)(2) provides that the hearing examiner is responsible for granting special permits for fill and grade. The code section provides that a special permit is required for the depositing of minerals or materials such as sand, gravel and rock. The proposed dredging will involve the deposition of dredged materials on site, so a special use permit is required and subject to review by the Examiner. The authority of the Examiner to rule upon Critical Area Ordinance variance applications is not so clear. RMC 4-9-250(B)(1) provides that the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee shall have the authority to grant variances "from the following development standards when no other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner Review". The requirement implies that the Hearing Examiner shall review the variance request if an associated permit also requires Examiner review, which in this case would be the special grade and fill permit. "[T]he following development standards" that may be modified by a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B)(1) includes those identified in RMC 4-9-250(B)(1)(c)(v), which are those "authorized to be requested as variances in RMC 4-3-050(L)". RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(d) authorizes administrative approval of dredging activities provided that if applicable criteria are not met, a variance pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250(B) is required. The staff report does not identify what Critical Area regulations are subject to the variance request and what corresponding parts of the project trigger the need for a variance. The dredging activity appears to meet the criteria for administrative approval by being necessary for flood hazard reduction purposes as required by RMC 4-3-050(L)(8)(d)(i)(a). The replacement of canary grass with native vegetation and introduction of woody debris appears to meet the exemption criteria of RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(a)(ii). Project features that may trigger the need for a variance could arguably be the stream alcoves and the temporary access plan. However, these features could also be interpreted as implied necessary elements of an enhancement/dredging operation. If King County reapplies, staff may be able to conclude that the variance request is not necessary. In the alternative, if staff still finds the variance application necessary it should provide a more detailed explanation of why a variance is required. SPECIAL ORADE/1+ILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Substantive: 2. Applicable Standards. RMC 4-9-080(F)(4) governs the criteria for special fill/grade permits. RMC 4-9-250(B)(10) governs the criteria for the CAO variance. Only those criteria that address erosion impacts will be quoted and applied below since those standards on their justify denial of the applications. RMC 4-9-080(F)(4):... To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that.. the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following: ... Size and location of the activity... 3. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there is insufficient evidence to support a determination that the amount of dredging proposed by the County will not create downstream erosion that could adversely affect downstream properties. For this reason, there is not sufficient evidence to determine that the proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. RMC 4-9-250(B)(l0): ... in lieu of the variance criteria of subsection B5 of this Section, applications for public/quasi-public utilities or agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habit, stream and lake or wetland regulations shall be reviewed for compliance with all of the following criteria: a. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department Administrator that the public's health, safety and welfare is best served, ... e. The proposed activity takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate.for unavoidable impacts. 4. Since the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the project will generate erosion impacts for downstream properties, King County has failed to establish that the public health, safety and welfare is best served by the project. The absence of demonstrably credible erosion evidence also makes it impossible to determine whether affirmative and appropriate measures have been taken to minimize unavoidable impacts. The project does not comply with RMC 4-9-250(B)(l0). DECISION The grade/fill permit and the critical areas variance applications are denied. The permit applications must comply with all applicable criteria and King County has failed to demonstrate compliance with the permitting criteria identified in this decision. Since denial is based upon the failure to provide necessary information, the denial is without prejudice in case King County can produce the information necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 12 DATED this 8th day of November, 2011. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4- 8-100(G)(4).- A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall 'commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City CIerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7"' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 3 This decision was initially mailed to the City of Renton on 11%2111 with an incorrect signature date. The decision has been re -issued with a correct signature date. SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 13 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: September 29, 2011 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following Information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement LUA (file) Number: LUA-11-065, V -H, SP Cross -References: AKA's: Project Manager: Gerald Wasser Acceptance Date: August 25, 2011 Applicant: Doug Chin, King County Water & Land Resources Division Owner: Stonegate Homeowners Association - Attn: Happy Longfellow Contact: Same as applicant PID Number: ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: October 4, 2011 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Applicant requests a Special Permit for grade/fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to Improve the in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate river mile 4.3 and 4.9. Location: West of 148th Avenue SE and South of May Valley Road Comments: Environmental (SEPA) Review was conducted by King County as lead agency. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 29th day of September, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Doug Chin Contact/Applicant Happy Longfellow - Stonegate HOA Owner Jean Rollins (via email) POR Andrew Duffus POR Julie, Jim, Katie Bonweil POR Karen Walter (via email & US mail) POR (Signature of Sender): 7'n STATE OF WASHINGTON ) " Af, W� ry� } SS s oft COUNTY OF KING ) _ • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fdr/A ~e mentioned in the instrument. rf III,I,,i�.►.01Fr�`��` Notary P in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): q A - G ,,1 -eY My appointment expires: A-� A -q( ao L3 'Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Projdcf Numbek: ; LUA11-065, V -H, SP Deus Law " . Clay O c y o Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator' September 28,2011 Doug Chin King County Water and Land Resources Divisidn 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 60i] ` . Seattle, -WA 98104 SUBJECT: 'May-Creek Drainage Improvement LUA11-065, V-H, SR Dear.Mr. Chin: This letter is to inform you that a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for October. 4, 2011, where conditions may be issued. Th.e applicant •or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the PreliminaryReport to the Hearing.Examiner for your. review. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-7382. Sincerely, Gerald C. Wasser` Associate Planner. Enclosure ` CC: Happy Longfellow — 5tonegate HOA./ Owner(s) Jean Rollins (via email), Andrew Duff us, Julie, Jim, & Katie Bonwell, Karen Walter / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D ityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING October 4, 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: May Creek Drainage Improvement PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-065, V -H, SP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland, and a Class 2 salmonid Stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside of the city limits. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA Environmental Review was conducted by King County as lead agency. HEX Agenda 10-04-11.doc DEPARTMENT OF COM,..JNITY fTcity offi . AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1"Df J PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 4, 2011 Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Owner: Happy Longfellow, President Stonegate Homeowners Association 5405 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 Applicant /Contact: Doug Chin King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 File Number. LUA11-065, V -H, SP Project Manager: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner Project Summary: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland, and a Class 2 salmonid Stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside of the city limits. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA Environmental Review was conducted by King County as lead agency. Project Location: West of 148th Avenue SE and south of May Valley Road Exist. Bldg. Area SF: None Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Site Area: 36,600 SF Total Building Area GSF: None Project Location Mop Upper Bakh Pit Grade & Fill HEX Report �V% 0 w City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development F iinary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVtirtfNT PROJECT LLIA10-065, V -H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 2 of 11 A. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit 4: Rehabilitation Plans: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation Exhibit 5: Rehabilitation Plan: Planting Plan Exhibit 6: Topography Map Exhibit 7: Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit 8: Sediment Disposal and Turbid Water Disposal Areas Exhibit 9: Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, September 8, 2011 Exhibit 10: Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, July 2010 Exhibit 11: Wetland Delineation Report, March 10, 2010 Exhibit 12: Baseline Stream Conditions, April 15, 2010 Exhibit 13: Email from Jean Rollins, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 14: Email from Andrew Duffus, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 15: Email from Andrew Duffus, September 14, 2011 Exhibit 16: Email from Julie & Jim Bonwell, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 17: Email from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, September 15, 2011 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Happy Longfellow, President Stonegate Homeowners Association 5405 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) Residential Low Density (RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant (stream and wetland area) 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single-family residences and vacant (R-1 zone) East: Single-family residences and vacant (R-1 zone) South: Single-family residences and vacant (R-1 zone) West: Single-family residences and vacant (R-1 zone) 6. Access: Temporary construction road off 148th Avenue SE 7. Site Area: 36,600 square feet C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co wiry & Economic Development P Finory Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROMwENT PROJECT LUA10-06S,V-H, SP Wearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Action Description Land Use File No. Ordinance Date No. Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 5099 11/1/2004 Zoning N/A N/A 4404 6/7/1993 wl /A Annexation �N/A 4510 6/20/1966 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Not applicable. The proposed project for drainage improvement in May Creek. 2. Streets: A traffic control plan is necessary and must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction for the entrances on 148th Avenue SE. Construction hours will be in accordance with City standards (7:00 am --- 8:00 pm), or as established in the approved traffic control plan. All frontage streets are paved with curb and gutter. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 2. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020 Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110 Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 4 City-wide Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 3. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations 4. Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals a. Section 4-8-080 Permit Classification 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-9-080 Grading, Excavation, an Mining Permits and Licenses 6. Chapter 11 Definitions HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development F unary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEmENT PROJECT LUAIO-065, V -H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 4 of 11 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Low Density Land Use Designation 2. Environmental Element Resource Land G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS. 1. Proiect Description/ Backeround King County's Water and Land Resources Division proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of localized flooding on these properties at both start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This is anticipated to alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur. Due to the high groundwater table in May Valley and because there would be no measurable difference in the geographic extent of flooding, it is not likely that this project will change the amount of wet pasture or wetland in the project vicinity. The project hydraulic analysis found that the potential for erosion downstream of May Valley would be virtually unchanged for before and after project conditions. Within the City of Renton, the project proposes to remove accumulated sediment (approximately 392 cubic yards) from approximately 160 linear feet of the May Creek channel, and remove flow obstructing vegetation (such as reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 linear feet of channel. No trees greater than 6 -inch diameter chest height would be removed. May Creek is a Class 2 (salmonid -bearing stream) and there is an associated Category 3 wetland which would be impacted by the proposed project. Additional sediment and vegetation removal will happen in May Creek outside the City boundary. As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek within and outside the City of Renton. Approximately 3 acres of riverine wetland would be enhanced. Enhancements would include approximately 0.24 acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation, and large woody debris placement. Site access would be provided via a temporary construction road off 148th Avenue NE. Additional access within the wetland and floodplain will be provided by using rubber tired or tracked equipment. This equipment can move over the landscape with minimal ground disturbance. 2. Environmental Review King County Water and Land Resources Division issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated September 8, 2010 for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205). That Mitigated HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co inity & Economic Development A iinary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE 1MPROVEmENT PROJECT LUA20-065,V-H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Determination of Non -Significance states that the following mitigation measure would be implemented to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative impacts to the in -stream and wetland habitat. • During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in -water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fish are less likely to be present. A King County biologist will be onsite during construction to monitor water quality. • Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent), where additional access is needed, will minimize disturbances to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland and riparian vegetation will be planted along <ay Creek (15 feet on each side of the stream from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project). Fencing will be installed to protect the plantings and the stream from livestock. • Approximately 3.75 acres of wetland will be enhanced on the west side of 148th Avenue SE by removing invasive reed canary grass and replanting with native wetland vegetation. Off - channel alcoves will also be excavated along May Creek in this location and large woody debris and streambed gravel will be added in the alcoves to enhance wetland fish habitat. • Fish habitat and natural stream processes will be restored at either the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, or at similar location in the project vicinity. 3. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. Also, the 100 -year floodplain boundary must be shown on construction drawings. 4. Consistency with Special Grade and Fill Permit Criteria In order to grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that the activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: aj Size and Location of the Activity. As noted above, the applicant is seeking approval of a Special Fill and Grade Permit to allow the dredging of sediment and in -stream vegetation in the May Creek channel, It is estimated that approximately 392 cubic yards of sediment as well as flow obstructing vegetation would be removed. The portion of the project site within the City of Renton is approximately 36,600 square feet. Sediment would be removed from the stream channel using low impact machinery operated from the stream bank. The stream would be diverted around the construction site to minimize temporary HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cc inity & Economic Development F 7inory Report to the Nearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEwENT PROJECT LIJA10-065, V -H, 5P Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 6 of 11 downstream water quality impacts. Sediment would be placed in onsite drying areas and then would be disposed of onsite outside flood prone and sensitive areas. The project site within the City of Renton is located west of 18`" Avenue SE and south May Valley Road. b) Trak Volumes and Patterns. Site access would be provided by a temporary construction road off 148th Avenue SE. Additional access within the wetland and floodplain would be provided by using rubber tired or tracked equipment. Such equipment can move over the landscape with minimal ground disturbance. As described in Section 4.a], above, dredged sediment would be disposed of onsite. cj Screening, Landscaping, Fencing and Setbacks. No screening, landscaping, fencing, or setbacks are required in the City of Renton Development Standards for the dredging of May Creek. King County is proposing to fence the project area within the City of Renton to protect the enhanced riparian and wetland habitat. Such fencing would also include signage which would identify the area as a sensitive area. The wetland enhancement includes off -channel alcoves which would partially replace some in -stream habitat functions lost due to sediment and vegetation removal. The wetland enhancement also includes the suppression of reed canary grass and replanting of native vegetation. The riparian buffer planting would improve long term buffer function by minimizing reed canary grass and replanting of native vegetation. d) Unsightliness, Noise, Dust. During project construction there will be areas of disturbance. However, this is a temporary project and areas of disturbance will be restored and enhanced. During construction, equipment operation would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. Construction equipment may produce temporary noise levels as high as 90 decibels. The completed project, however, would not change existing noise levels. The proposed project may generate some dust during the transport of soil and sediment. Because the material being transported would originate from the stream channel and wetland, it will likely be moist, and therefore will have little potential for generating dust. ej Surface Water As stated previously, sediment would be placed in onsite drying areas and then would be disposed of onsite outside flood prone and sensitive areas. Such drying areas would be located south of the stream channel. Also, during the sediment and in -stream vegetation removal, the stream would be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of temporary erosion and sediment control. The diversion may involve using pumps to remove water from the channel just upstream of the work area. The water would be discharged just downstream of the work area. No waste material would be discharged to surface or groundwater. HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Co nity & Economic Development F )inary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVLmENT PROJECT LUA10-065,V-H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 7 of 11 f] Reuse of Site. The project goal is to reduce the duration of flooding on residential properties and actively used pastures at the start and end f the rainy season by removing in -stream obstructions. The project area is anticipated to remain in a natural state. g) Transferability of Special Permit This permit is for a one-time project. h) Permit Expiration This is a one-time project of relatively short duration. i) Revocation of Permit The Community and Economic Development Department is authorized to revoke any annual license issued pursuant to the terms of the Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations if after due investigation it is determined that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this Ordinance. Notice of revocation shall have reasonable time not to exceed forty-five (45) days in which to remedy the defects or omission specified. In the event that the licenses fails or neglects to do so within the time period, the order of revocation shall be final. A total or partial stop work order may be issued for good reason. S. Critical Areas Variance a) Findings: 1. Request — The applicant is requesting to remove sediment and vegetation within the May Creek, a Class 2 stream. The area contains a Category 3 wetland on both sides of the stream. 2. Variance — Alterations of streams and wetlands require a Hearing Examiner Variance. 3. Existing land use — The project area is surrounded by vacant natural land and low density single-family residential uses. 4. Zoning — Residential --1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) zone. 5. Topography — The project site includes a shallow stream channel and surrounding banks which slope upward to the north and south. b) Consistency with Variance Criteria: Section 4-9-250810 lists 10 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with other relevant information, in making a decision on a variance application. These include the following: 1. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been determined by the Department Administrator that the public's health safety and welfare is best served. The applicant states that the project has been designed to protect public health and safety. The applicant also states that to protect public health and welfare during construction activities, public access will be limited. Construction crews would allow public access to these areas only when public health and safety can be maintained. The applicant further states that a hydraulic analysis (Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of May Creek Channel Restoration Project, December 2010) to analyze the potential effects on HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development F binary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROV6viENT PROJECT LLIA20-055, V -H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 8 of 11 adjacent properties downstream of the project area. The hydraulic analysis shows that the proposed project would not further contribute to ongoing erosion on properties downstream in May Canyon. While staff concurs with the hydraulic analysis provided by King County, letters in opposition to the project have been received by staff. These letters express concerns about downstream stream flows which may adversely affect residential property after project completion. 2. Each facility must conform to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and with any adopted public programs and policies. The applicant states that proposed project would not change existing land use and, therefore, would, therefore, be in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Flan and other public programs and policies. Staff concurs that the proposed project would not affect existing land use. 3. Each facility must serve established, identified public needs. The applicant states that the proposed project would result in the protection of both residential properties and agricultural uses from flooding. While staff concurs with the applicant, letters in opposition to the project have been received. These letters express concerns about downstream flows adversely affecting residential properties after project completion. 4. No practical alternative exists to meet the needs. The applicant examined four other alternatives: • Restore May Creek channel corridor that corresponds to the King County regulatory buffer of 330 feet (165 feet on either side of the stream); • Construct flood control berms along May Creek; • Construct upland stormwater controls for upland sources of sediment, including the addition of retention and detention facilities, and • Implementation of farm management plans and construction of farm pads. The applicant chose the proposed project, which includes removing channel obstructions while also providing compensatory stream and wetland mitigation, because it is the alternative with the least adverse impact on critical areas and was within the King County budget. Staff recognizes that preferred alternative and the four rejected alternatives were vetted during the environmental (SEPA) review process. S. The proposed action takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts. The applicant states that the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on critical areas to the extent possible without compromising the project goals. The following measures would be followed: • Construction equipment would use existing roads, whenever possible to cross the wetland, floodplain, and stream; HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development F unary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE iMPROVErviENT PROJECT LLIAI0-065,V-H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 9 of 11 • When wetland access outside of existing roads is needed, only rubber tired or tracked vehicles would be used to minimize ground disturbance; • Temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices, such as silt fences or coir logs, would be used to prevent sediment -laden stormwater from entering the stream or wetland; • Any wetland areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction would be restored with native wetland vegetation after construction is completed, • in order to minimize the amount of temporary ground disturbance in the wetland, reed canary grass would be removed from the planting area using a weed barrier fabric instead of excavation. Native vegetation would be planted through the fabric; • All in -water work would be conducted during the summer low flow construction work window designated to protect aquatic species; • During sediment removal, the stream would be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of the temporary erosion and sediment control plan. • In -stream vegetation removal would be by hand, when possible, to minimize turbidity in the stream and to avoid removing more vegetation than is necessary to restore flow conditions; • Hand removal of in -stream willow branches would be limited to the minimum amount required to restore flow conditions, and • May Creek would be protected during construction of the off -channel alcoves west of 148`h Avenue SE by leaving an earth plug between the existing stream channel and the excavation area for the alcove. Prior to removing the earth plug and connecting the alcove to the existing channel, a turbidity curtain would be installed to protect the stream during the connection. While staff agrees that the applicant has incorporated measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts, staff has received letters in opposition to the proposed project. These letters express concerns about downstream stream flows which may adversely affect residential property after project completion. 6. The proposed activity proposes no net loss of regulated wetland or stream/lake area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland, stream, or lake is located. The applicant maintains that the proposed project would not result in a loss of regulated wetland or function. The sediment and vegetation removal would impact existing in -stream habitat. Compensatory mitigation is proposed to offset these impacts. Such compensatory mitigation is contained in the Stream and Wetland impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan (Revised July 2011). Staff concurs with the applicant that no net loss of wetland would occur. 7. The proposed activities. will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development F +inary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE iMPROVtiviENT PROJECT LUA10-065,V--H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 10 of 11 The applicant states that the proposed project has been evaluated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The evaluation determined that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. The applicant further states that the proposed project would have no effect on bull trout. No other sensitive species are located in the project area. While staff concurs with the applicant's evaluation, comments have been received from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division regarding the effect of dredging operations on fish species affected by the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Walter has also expressed concern over proposed mitigation measures for restoration and enhancement. 8. That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality. The applicant states that Best Management Practices would be used during construction to protect groundwater and surface water quality. These are described in Section 5.1 of the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan for the project. Construction and post -construction monitoring of surface water and groundwater would be conducted as described in section 5.2 of the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan for the project. In addition, this project will require an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and will follow all permit conditions set forth by DOE for the protection of groundwater and surface water. On September 22, 2011, the Department of Ecology denied the Section 401 Water Quality Certification without prejudice. It is assumed that King County will resubmit for such certification. Staff agrees with the applicant's use of'Best Management Practices to protect groundwater and surface water. 9. The approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant maintains that the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on critical areas to the maximum extent possible without compromising the project goals and is therefore the minimum variance possible. Staff agrees that this is the minimum variance to accomplish the project goals. 10. The proposed variance is -based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-196-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-25OF are followed. The applicant maintains that the best available science was used in the preparation of the following reports: • Wetland Delineation Report, March 2010; • Baseline Stream Conditions, Revised December 2, 2010; • Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses, December 17, 2010; • Sediment Assessment, February 2011; *Stream and Wetland impact Analysis and Mitigation plan, Revised July 2011; HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cc inity & Economic Development F iinary Report to the Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROArwENT PROJECT LUAIO-065,y-H, SP Hearing Date October 4, 2011 Page 11 of 11 • Biological Evaluation Report for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered Species Act, February 2011; • Construction Water Quality Protection and monitoring Plan, July 2011. While staff concurs that the applicant employed the use of best available science in the above documents, letters in opposition to the proposed project have been received. These letters express concerns about downstream stream flows which may adversely affect residential property after project completion. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Special Permit for Grade and Fill and a variance from RMC 4-3-050 for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project; Project File No. LUA10-065, V -H, SP subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance, issued by the King County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, dated September 8, 2011. 2. The applicant shall also comply with the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, Revised July 2011. HEX Report _XHIBIT 2 Ftss Z coCL r_ Q + z -o rr�� o � v� w U� a . 0 LD W Q 3S 3AV Hi"L VQ. / � V 3 3AV 1841 I - I p p 2� gfjNN OOP 0-Z y WS34w Vii- pOO`J sail vY p W Z p 88 S+ 4 « a �IIJJNN` �}m bN ��d��apNN<d flifiRPRR wW it! a�� I 1 iur EXHI� 3 0 =.Q 0 r � ,r � �+ir �• 'rr r i x 1 1r , 0 41 t..r p- r i*$ K/00 00 F 0,, /a KE I ON 'a► Id'IV/► 00 f Imo{ f + 00 a Q' 00`'xjp , 01 2 a mi cz I i 19$ 1 a gig `1� q fill 9 I 0 ail F 41 t..r p- r i*$ K/00 00 F 0,, /a KE I ON 'a► Id'IV/► 00 f Imo{ f + 00 a Q' 00`'xjp , 01 2 a mi cz I i 19$ 1 a gig `1� q fill 9 I / v + 4 F Y a f i 9 • I lie Y Y ■ I i I ~ ZZ EXHIBIT 4 Y �o- Al. V¢4�•�-�r'j":�4n�i �+meq{ i-• "l� I� 1' t 00+9 _ cb�rr )/ 1J,, r f' N oz OA a - LU J 4 O 2 � L L O U Ig L9 tt ■ m U y C � H dA m 31 u $ 19 $ c y1{ oz OA a - LU J 4 O 2 � L L O U Ig L9 tt ■ U y 31 t 19 $ c N MIKE , iiiiiiii "INNER I 1161 2 EXHIBIT 5 1 J O 2 � O O U � a � O MIKE , iiiiiiii "INNER I 1161 2 EXHIBIT 5 1 t MIKE , iiiiiiii "INNER I 1161 2 EXHIBIT 5 1 A/Z A EXHIBIT 7 00+1 I � q 00+ ills ze- e' 00+ } t cw 00 f t lie Ian LN King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street [enter 201 South 3ackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-296-6519 Fax 206-296-0192 TTY Relay: 711 EXHIBIT 9 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance Date of Issue: September 8, 2010 Name of Proposal. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Description of Proposal: King County's Water and Land Resources Division proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willows) throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting well into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties at both the start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized 'flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow the pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur. Due to the high groundwater table in the May Valley and because there will be no measureable difference in the geographic extent of flooding, it is not likely that this project will change the amount of wet pasture or wetland in the project vicinity. In addition, the project hydraulic analysis found that the potential for erosion downstream of May Valley is virtually unchanged for the pre- versus post -project conditions. Flow obstructing in -stream vegetation and accumulated sediment will be removed from the stream channel primarily using machinery operated from the stream bank. The vegetation and sediment removal will negatively impact existing in -stream fish habitat. Mitigation has been proposed to offset these impacts. Mitigation: The following mitigation will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative impacts to the in -stream and wetland habitat. • During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in -water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fish' are less likely to be present. A King County biologist will be onsite during construction to monitor water quality. • Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent), where additional access is needed, will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland and riparian vegetation will be planted along May Creek (15 feet on each side of the stream from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project). Fencing will be installed to protect the plantings and the stream from Iivestock. 8/31/2010 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Page 2 Approximately 3.75 acres of wetland will be enhanced on.the west side of 148th Avenue SE by removing invasive reed canarygrass and replanting with native wetland vegetation. Off - channel alcoves will also be excavated along May Creek -in this location and large. woody debris and streambed gravel will be added in the alcoves to enhance wetland fish habitat. Fish habitat and natural stream processes will be restored at either the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, or at another similar location in the project vicinity. Location of Proposal: The project is located in the May Valley near the cities of Renton and Newcastle (Sections 2 and 3, Township 23N, Range SE) on the south side of SE May Valley Road. The project area includes multiple segments of May Creek between approximately River Mile 4.3 (about 0.25 miles downstream of 148th Avenue SE in Renton) and River Mile 4.9. Responsible Official: Position/Title: Address.- DATE: ddress: DATE: Proponent and Lead Agency: Contact Person(s): Mark. Isaacson Division Director, Water -and Land Resources Division 20l South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-jf55 SIGNATURE: AIIQOa King County County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Doug Chin, Project Manager, 206-296-8315 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 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.2 1 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other in on file with the lead agency. THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON REQUEST (for a nominal photocopying fee). It is also available on the King County website at: htt ://www.kin count ov/envirorunenUwatersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/ma-creek.as x THIS MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal until after September 22, 2010. Comments must be submitted or postmarked by that date. For additional information, please contact: Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and Land Resources'Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 (206) 296-8315 Doug. Chi akin count .gov 8111/1010 �v lS4 ve;+ r .7 ZO C.C7 (k4, b S Cc o , C-4 a, EXHIBIT 10 t'l-e— . TL'1 Citic,, of pjannir;q Civilsion AUG -. a ''lu"1 RE(il'E 0 May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan Prepared by: King County Road Services Division Lindsey Miller, Environmental Engineer Erick Thompson, Senior Environmental Engineer King County Water and Land Resources Division Doug Chin,. Supervising Engineer Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 Revised July 2011 i 4ayy�r� _XHIBIT 11 reek cChannel Restoration Project King County Water and Land Resources Division Wetland Delineation Report City of RentC? �Ianllinr !7 Division AUG - S 201, �j��49 mEQ f or ~ L... � King County Department of Parks and Natural Resources Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by: Lindsey Miller, Environmental Engineer Cindy Clark, Environmental Engineer Todd Martin, Environmental Engineer King County Road Services Division Environmental Unit March 10, 2010 IS is C 0 EXHIBIT 12 BASELINE STREAM CONDITIONS MAY CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION CIP#9A1205 April 15, 2010 L41 King County Prepared by: Erick Thompson Environmental Scientist III and Kerry Bauman Environmental Scientist III Department of Transportation Roads Services Division Environmental Unit 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98104 Gerald Wasser EXHIBIT 13 From: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 20112:27 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Dredging Project/LUA11-065, V -H, SP Mr. Wasser, I respectfully request that the City of Renton deny King County a `Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Area Variance". The project is in a critical area. The downstream area that this project may potentially negatively impact is also a critical areal The downstream area was prezoned one dwelling per acre and declared an urban separator for good reasons: the presence of May Creek, and erosion and flooding in this area of May Creek. Both the County and the City recognize this urban separator designation. As Alex Pietsch once said, the City received more input regarding creating the May Valley Urban Separator than they did for the whole Boeing rezone. Our community has lived by May Creek and along side the steep slopes of the ravine that surround May Creek for many years. We know the sensitivity of this environmentally critical area. We have supported its protection amid concerns for the landscape and negative impacts to our own lives. We care deeply about our environmentally sensitive area. In fact, we gave up the potential economic gain of higher dwelling density by supporting the urban separator concept. We believe this project will exacerbate downstream flooding and erosion. As a community, we have been communicating these serious concerns to all agencies involved since May 2010. As a result, the county has revised the project several times. Nevertheless, it is still not good enough. To address concerns, the Washington State Department of Ecology sent a hydro -geologist to site visit the downstream properties. Doctor Patricia Olson, the sole departmental hydro -geologist for all of Washington State, typically reviews much larger scaled projects. In her report dated August 15th, 2011, she questioned, among other things, the very effectiveness of the project and erosion and sedimentation thresholds values assumed downstream. Subsequently, on September 1"�, 2011 state Ecology notified the county that the proposed project is lacking and Ecology will deny the permits if not revised. I urge the City of Renton staff and hearing examiner to request Dr. Olson's memo and Ecology's letter directly. We ask that the City of Renton deny the permits requested by King County and support its own citizens in assuring that this project will not increase flooding and erosion downstream. We have new erosion pins placed in February 2010 and a new stream gauge (37H) in place in the center of the downstream properties. Monitoring these erosion pins and gauge for 1 water year with above average rainfall would enable a better understanding when erosion occurs in our community. We ask the City of Renton to support its' citizens and require this monitoring before this project is allowed to proceed. Thank you, Jean Rollins Gerald Wasser EXHIBIT 14 From: A DUFFUS [klassicars@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:35 AM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project LUA11-065, V -H, SP Attachments: Cityof rentoncomments090911.doc; FINAL May 5 - May Creek Summary 052510.doc; May Creek residence sandbagged.jpg; May Valley Pasture Storm 2010.jpg; Trees & property lost FOREVER.jpg; May Valley Temporary Pasture Flooding Storm 2010.jpg; Home in Peril.jpg Hello Mr. Wasser: Attached please find my comments and question regarding this King County dredging proposal. Depending on how it goes I may send the photograph attachments to my letter separately. Also the Meeting Notes from the Office of Regulatory Assistance. (ORA) Thank you. Andrew Duffus p.s. looks like everything uploaded fine. Should be one letter, one meeting's notes ORA and five (5) photographs. 2905 Ilwaco NE Renton, WA 98059-3764 September 9th, 2011 Gerald Wasser, Associate PIanner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 VIA E-MAIL RE: May Creek Drainage IWrovement Project /L UAI I -065, y H, SP Dear Mr. Wasser: King County Water & Land Resources Division proposes to dredge and/or remove reed canary grass and native willows between river mile 4.3 and 4.9 on May Creek. The goal of this ill-conceived project is an attempt to improve drainage on three horse pastures that are located within a wetland. Many downstream property owners, (all citizens of Renton) are apprehensive that this proposal may exacerbate stream flow velocity, volume and peak flow timing during storm events. (Footnote 1) There are severe and well documented flooding and erosion issues downstream that put our homes, properties and sole access bridges in peril. (Please see photographs attached.) Due to easement restrictions and development patterns, there is no way to access our properties other than private bridges across the creek. Recently the Washington State Department of Ecology conducted a review of the downstream issues. Their conclusion was that King. County's project failed to provide the appropriate level of detail for potential downstream impacts. While we are less concerned about the removal of non-native invasive vegetation and replacement with native species suitable for stream bank stabilization and fish habitat, we are very concerned with the proposal to dredge, which we believe, will increase downstream flow during storm events. We are not isolated. Many of our concerns were echoed in an inter -agency meeting for the proposed project held on May 5, 2010. (See attached "Final Meeting Notes" ORA) Personnel from the City of Renton, two King County departments, the conservation district, state fisheries and ecology, the Muckleshoot Tribe and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attended this meeting. Several agencies expressed concern that this project was more about drainage of horse pastures than enhancement of May Creek and its associated wetlands. Questions asked regarded "buffers, repeated sedimentation, downstream impacts, inadequate mitigation," etc. During the past 16 months, the county has attempted to address some of those concerns. However, we do not believe that all issues are adequately resolved. As stated above the state Department of Ecology has recently concluded that King County's project failed to provide detail for potential downstream impacts. I am reiterating some of the unanswered questions of downstream property owners and public agencies. 1. Proposed stream and wetland buffer width? 2. Timing of May Creek storm surge flows? 3. Downstream bank erosion and destabilization of infrastructure? 4. Cumulative impacts of similar future proposed projects? 5. Ephemeral nature of this proposed project? First question, why is the county proposing only 15 -foot mitigation buffers? My property straddles May Creek. When I applied for a permit to build a garage located over 300' (three hundred feet) from the creek, I was required to dedicate and publicly record a 165 -foot conservation easement/buffer on both sides of the creek. A 15' buffer is considerably less than the 50 to 100 foot buffers that King County's own Code requires in rural areas. Further, within Renton city limits, Ordinance No. 5 13 7 requires minimum 100 -foot buffers for a class 2 stream. (Page 102 5. a. I (a)) Even by administrative reduction the minimum requirement is 75 feet. WHY ONLY 15 FOOT BUFFERS? Second question, will peak storm flow timing be altered post -project? Any alterations of upstream conditions in either the May Creek channel, wetlands, natural floodplain or any of the tributaries (i.e. Long Marsh Creek) may have significant adverse impacts on the timing of peak flows through the valley, the canyon and the creek's mouth at Lake Washington. The relationship between flow, velocity and timing of storm impulses and the role of the upstream May Valley wetlands and tributaries is not addressed in any of the county's reports or the design of this proposed project. The "May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report" released in 1995 has an informative narrative and analysis of a storm event that occurred in 1990. This analysis discusses the January 1990 storm and how the tributaries and valley wetlands influenced the timing of peak flows. (See pages 5-24 to 5- 30) The report states, "upper basin tributaries ... peaked long before the valley." While the storm was generally considered a 100 -year storm, the storage and metering effect of May Valley reduced the flood flow at 148th Ave SE (a.k.a. Nile NE) and further downstream to the range of a 10- to .25 year flow. "While the tributaries peaked in the morning of the 9t' during the heaviest rainfall, the main stem of May Creek did not peak until some 8 to 14 hours later. ...the large amount of valley floodplain storage resulted in a relatively small peak flow moving down through the valley at that time. A large portion of the flood volume was retained in the valley until the afternoon of the 9th, when floodwaters in May Valley began to recede. ... The flood flow at 148th equaled that ... of a 10- to -25 year flood.... This spread out the time of peak or near -peak discharge in the canyon and at the mouth, rather than concentrating the flood volume with a consequent higher peak." (Page 5-26 MCC&FC Report) This begs the question, what are the post -project impacts on storm event timing relationships of May Creek, its tributaries, wetlands and floodplains and downstream erosion and flooding? If we are going to remo-v atural wetland/floodplain choke point. _ �ormwater metering points) and/or "manage" sediment contributed by Long Marsh Creek, what will be the downstream impacts to storm flow intensity and tinning? Conclusion, the downstream impacts of the storm (scary enough as they were in 1990) could have been much worse had the creek, tributaries and wetland not interacted as they did. Has the timing of flood events and flow rate post channel clearing/dredging been adequately addressed? Third question, what about erosion and destabilization of homes and bridges downstream? The threshold of sediment transport (i.e. erosion) affects the creek's banks (our property), infrastructure (homes and sole access bridges) and aquatic habitat. To support the proposed dredging project the county is relying, in part, on the May Creek Sediment Transport Study (KC 2010) and the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project. (KC,2010) These studies use hydrologic simulatiori (HSP -F) and hydraulic model HEC -RAS. The number of data points in the Sediment Trans ort Study is limited because only three (3) flow -monitoring stations were established and one failed during the short 14 -month study period. The County has attempted to make up for this lack of hard data by simulating hydrologic conditions. We are not comfortable with this as there have been acknowledged errors in previous modeling of May Creek. Further, as in most streams, all sediment is not created equal. There are different'size particles in the various reaches of May Creek. Particle size sampling is required to. validate any model or simulation. King County has many times acknowledged the downstream erosion and flooding problems. In 2007, the county hired the consulting firm of Anchor QEA, LLC to study sediment transport (erosion) and suggest ways to mitigate erosion and flooding of homes, bridges and properties. King County spent a great deal of money and staff time to work with the consultants to determine how to stabilize the banks of May Creek downstream of the proposed project. Ideas to reduce erosion and flooding of homes, loss of bridges, etc. included re -aligning the creek channel, shoring up the banks and/or the outright purchase of at -risk -properties. The downstream challenges are significant. Yet, to -date, King County has not proceeded with any of this mitigation. Instead, they are proposing an upstream project that may exacerbate downstream risks! Between RM 3.8 and 4.0, the creek makes four 90 -degree bends. At these bends, the creek banks are extremely unstable. Furthermore, over time the creek bed is armoring itself with larger and larger cobble thus flow is now impacting bank stability to a greater extend. The creek banks are eroding and migrating. This is not only imperiling at least one home but is most certainly causing loss of property and habitat through bank collapse. (This geomorphology was predicted in the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study ". (See excerpt reproduced below [2]) We asked the county install more in -stream flow monitoring stations, gather more data and be absolutely certain that there will be no unintended negative consequences to downstream public and private properties, and stream habitat. On February I lth, 2011, King County Water and Land Resources (W&LR) completed the installation of six erosion -monitoring pins between River Mile 39 and RM 4.2 downstream of the proposed dredging project. Please note the stream bank erosion pins were installed on February 11, 2011. These were set sticking one-tenth (1110`) of a foot out of the stream bank per King County email reproduced here. "> From: Tim.Kelly@kingcounty.gov > To: klassicars@hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 21 _dr 2011 12:12:57 -0700 > Subject: Emailing: Survey Notes for Andrew Duffus.pdf > Hi Andrew, tried calling a few times but your number (425-255-xxxx) goes straight to a busy signal. I'll try and call again later today (and tomorrow if necessary), but if you get this just email me back so I know. The pins all look to be set around 0.1'." At the bottom of this correspondence are stream flow records [(3) from October 1St, 2010 to April 8th, 2011. Notice the flow recorded on the second day of April 2011 — 91.59 cubic feet per second. This writer examined three of the erosion monitoring pins on April 11th, 2011. Two of the pins were exposed over three -tenths (3/10th) of a foot. This indicated over two-tenths (2/10`h) of a foot erosion between date of install and date of observation. The stream flow records at gauge site 37H show a maximum flow of 92 cubic feet per second between February 1 lth, 2011 and the observation date, April 1 ltr'. It is reasonable to conclude that erosion occurred at 92 cfs OR LESS !! In the past King County, or its consultants, have come up with various erosion thresholds. These theoretical thresholds have been determined by interpolation and modeling. The current estimate the county is using is 233 cubic feet per second. However, this estimate rests on a limited number of empirical observations. Recently we have seen with our own eyes that bank erosion has occurred at just 92 cfs or less. Through our lawyer, we have asked the county to delay this project until potential adverse impacts downstream can be evaluated. Now that the county has installed more stream flow gauges and erosion monitoring sites there is a wonderful opportunity to determine a refined erosion baseline and clearly document that this proposed channel dredging will not create any unintended negative consequences downstream. Fourth question, what about cumulative impacts of similar future proposed projects? The May Creek Channel Restoration Baseline Stream Conditions (KC April 15, 2010) states, "The proposed project is one of four proposed "Ineffective Flow Projects" identified in the Ma v Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers 2008). The four projects together would result in dredging of about 3.64 km (2.26 miles) of May Creek in May Valley, which is 75% of the valley length and 32% of May Creek's entire length." (Page 1-4 MCCBRSC) The cumulative iMpacls of all these proiects must be addressed now! Not piecemeal as each subsequent project is considered. Fifth question, what about the ephemeral nature of this proposed project? GeoEngineers, the authors of the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers 2008) stated: "The greatest challenge and limitation to TPF I (Ineffective Flow Project One) is the ephemeral nature of the solution proposed. While IFP 1 would be expected to immediately address flood duration, conveyance, fish passage, and other issues, the benefits would be expected to be short lived.... May Valley is naturally a sediment deposition zone, and as sediment sources in the headwaters of thL ay Valley remain unmitigated, May C. K would be expected to fill back in." Before a lot of time, energy and money are spent, we ask that there is a concrete plan to address the otherwise ephemeral nature of the current proposal. MOREOVER, all the downstream impacts must be addressed! We are not saying that the project should not go forward. We are only saying that the county does not, at this time; have sufficient information to make this critical decision. We appreciate that the county has taken considerable time getting to this point. However, passage of time, by itself, does not fill in data gaps. As of today, data essential to making an informed decision is still missing. We ask that the City of Renton permit/variance decision be deferred to allow time to collect the necessary data and correlate the rainfall, stream flows and erosion in real time. Until this year, there were no erosion monitoring stations in the reach of the creek that contains four (4) erosion prone 90 degree bends. Until the fall of 2009 there was no gow meter in this reach of the creek either. With these additional erosion monitoring stations pins and the additional flow gauge, it is now possible to have real time data to establish the erosion threshold with greater certainty. This, in turn, will allow the permitting agencies to understand better how the additional volume and velocity post -project may, or may not, exacerbate downstream flooding and erosion. We are asking for more time to collect and analyze data based on current known conditions (not assumption, interpretations or hypothesis). We are requesting greater certainty for the downstream citizens. We deserve mitigation to reduce any significant impacts to our homes, property and bridges and habitat. The city must not issue the permit/variance until the Washington State Department of Ecology, other local state and federal agencies, tribes and the public (particularly the downstream property owners, all citizens of the City of Renton,) have had their questions and concerns adequately addressed by the applicant. Moreover, adequate mitigation be proposed downstream. The city has an obligation to look out for its citizen's best interests. This also applies to the public and private infrastructure and riparian habitat at the mouth of May Creek (i.e. Barbee Mills). In summary, our questions are threshold of sediment transport, cumulative impacts, timing of peak flows, the projects ephemeral nature and regulatory critical areas buffer widths. We are asking that your department review our concerns and ensure that the county's proposed project does not have any unintended negative consequences downstream within the City of Renton. As a downstream property owner, I request that the City of Renton defer the Special Permit for Grade/fill and Critical Areas Variance at this time. This will allow time to correlate rainfall data, stream flow and the recently established erosion monitoring pins. We must establish and better understand the actual threshold of erosion as it affects the downstream reach of May Creek. The proposed project is primarily about draining several upstream horse pastures located in a wetland. There is potential for significant downstream impacts to people's homes and sole access private bridges! We ask Renton to consider this application very carefully and hold King County accountable. Sincerely, Andrew Duff -us cc: Mayor's Office, City Renton FOOTNOTES: (1) There are seven properties adjacent to May Creek within River Mile 4.3 an 4.9, the proposed project reach. One of these properties is a dedicated open space wetland; the second is an undeveloped -unused property that is obviously a wetland; and the third is not used for farming activity of any kind. The remaining four properties do pasture horses. None of the homes on these properties is in danger of flooding. Conversely, between Nile Avenue NE and Coal Creek Parkway there are 18 homes along the creek and two sole access bridges. At least eight of these homes are within 30 to 50 feet of the unstable creek banks and/or close enough to experience flooding (2) The armoring of the streambed and subsequent erosion of the banks was predicted in the "May Creek Sediment Transport, Study", June 2009, Anchor QEA, LLC. Page 25 and 26 state the following: "The portion of May Creek examined in this study lacks an upstream sediment source for gravels and sands. As flow events impact the reach, the sediment size distribution along the channel bed will tend to coarsen over time; due to the transport of finer sediments out of the reach with no incoming sediment supply to replenish these materials. This armoring effect will tend to increase the threshold of sediment motion for the channel bed. On the other hand, bank sediments, which are likely of liner gradation than the bed sediments, will remain unchanged and are not affected by a natural armoring effect. Therefore, future erosion events may be characterized by bank migration (movement of the stream channel from its current location) as opposed to channel incising." Writer's comments: Bank. migration equals risk and peril for homes and bridges. So we are draining horse pastures in wetlands to increase seasonal use, while we run the risk of exacerhatink downstream conditions that put at peril not only sole access to properties (bridges), but the actual properties themselves and the homes that people, -- not horses -- LIVE IN! (3) Site 37H - May Creek at 143 PI SE Stream Gauge(Recording) Select a different water year: 2011 - I Igo 1 - 2 3 4 1.85 123.26126-28 1.82 43.871 1.60 26.77 1.53 15,031 22.13 17.48 14.17 15.89 14.26 12.54 11.17 18.98 (1637 1 15.25 11 15.80 29.10 40.54_ t 29.27191.59 29.09 ; 82.83 30.01 60.86 I 1 i 5 1.65 10.71 12.39 111..71 17.13130.44;54.43 6 11.50 1 14.26 j 11.56 113.48 18.88126.B2'48.431, 71 8 1.51 30.30 1.39 3 25.61 10.64 20.17 ; 26.56122-.03-122.23 139.84 23.86 52.93 1 20.43 47.22 j 9 -1.8 7.62 37.57 138.64! 20.35125.30 I 10 111.07 L --- ' 14.63 --- ! 51.69 ----- - 33.60117.94162.72' ! - �' L- 111 1 11.53 � 11.7 X6.52 � 27.78;16.67 � 5 5 L t_ - 12 - ' p 5.64 ;10.17 i 221.78 136.05! 15 9946.11 -_ _71 13 3.81 903 199.52 68.46 21.12!46.59 14 1 3.13 ,11.33 12$.8371.9025.21 54.40 _ r 15 12.99 ' 14.621 89.89 162.98 29.80 49.644 I J 11 6 12.63 115.67 f 64.71 168.11 26.27151.371 1 17 2.36 16.08 48.86 161.97122.90j42.46 j 18 2.38 18.08 38.66 51.13;21.00 36.48 I 19 2.20 17.30 33.19 43.17117.33 35.69 - I 20 1.84 114.48 28.43 34.87115.01 30.52 G 21 1.76 ;12.01 23.25 52.37 ! 13.47 25.01 _ 22 ; 1.76 i 9.941 18.80 89.3914 21 20.08! 1 j 23 1.80 1 8.81 € 16.63 71.15 15.98;17.47! WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance FINAL Meeting Notes May Creek Channel Restoration Agency Meeting May 5, 2010 Location Department of Ecology, NWRO, 3190 160"' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Purpose Review and comment on the May Creek proposal submitted by King County Water and Land Resource Division (King WLRD). Comments provided in the summary below were prepared by the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) and are intended to offer a general overview of the information presented during the meeting. Participating agency staff reviewed and provided comments for the Final Notes. Introduction King County Water and Land Resources Division (KC WLRD) presented a proposal for a channel restoration project in May Creek. The project description includes improving in -stream flow conditions and restoring a buffer of native riparian vegetation along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately river mile 4.3 and 4.9. The three primary components are: vegetation removal, sediment removal, and stream / wetland mitigation. Participants were provided the following information before the meeting primarily via the May Creek website (hn://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/may creek.aspx): • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist and Mitigated Determination of Non- significance (April 21, 2010). • Wetland Delineation Report (March 2010). • Baseline Stream Conditions Report (April 2010). + Draft Hydraulics Report (April 20, 2010). • Draft JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application) and project plans (Note: not available on website). The meeting began with a question and answer session regarding the project. The second half of the meeting was conducted as an agency round table to identify issues of concern, clarify requirements, offer suggestions how to avoid and minimize impacts, and describe permits and permit conditions. At the conclusion of the meeting, KC WLRD submitted application packets to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Ecology (ECY). Next Steps Identified during the meeting were three action items regarding the following topics: SEPA public comment period, reference materials, and a follow-up agency meeting. www.orama.gov 360-407-7037 • 800-917.0043 assistance&rama.gov l May 25, 2010 r , J WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► SEPA Public Comment Period • Several agencies (Muckleshoot Tribe at the meeting; WDFW, City of Renton, ECY after the meeting) commented that it appeared their agencies did not receive a SEPA notice for the project. • A request was made to reopen or extend the comment period, which closed on May 5`�. Next Steps: KC WLRD will review the situation with their SEPA staff and report back their findings to the group. 4 Follow-up from KC WLRD after the meeting After reviewing our records, King County has confirmed, that due to an administrative error, the SEPA notification did not get sent to the necessary agencies per WAC 197-11-3409(2)(d) for the May Creek Channel Restoration Project. Therefore, King County has not officially issued SEPA for this project. King County will be issuing SEPA for this project within the next 4 to 6 weeks. We are delaying the issuance to allow time to consider modifying the project description based on the feedback received at the May 5, 2010 meeting. We are sorryfor any inconvenience that this may have caused and thank you for your ongoing assistance with this project. ► Reference Material(s) for Earlier Promeetson May Creek. 3 A previous sediment removal project was conducted near the McFarland property in 2002. This was a small, pilot project by KC WLRD. -> A planting project on the Colassurdo property was implemented in the fall of 1995. Next Steps: KC WLRD will review their files and forward information to the group regarding these two projects. The planting plan from circa 1995 may no longer be available in King County archives. King County is searching through their files to see if project files are still available. Next Steps: Agency staff participating in the meeting will review files to determine if they have information on these projects to share with the group. If they find relevant information, please distribute to the group. ORA can also assist with distribution. ► Agency meeting 4 The Corps offered to review the proposal and offer design suggestions to reduced impacts on the aquatic environment. The Corps invited other agencies and tribes to participate in the review and comment process. The outcome could result in a substantial redesign to facilitate review under the standard Individual Permit (IP). Or suggestion for activities such simply planting in the buffer which would have a shorter review, potentially under a Nationwide Permit (NW) 27. ECY would need to verify the wetland delineation. -- ------- -----_...r--- .. ---...._..._. _-.._... _.._.....__-__.__---------_-._-- www.ora.wa.gov 350-407-7037 • 800-917-0043 1 assistance@ora.wa.gov k May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of 21u-` Regulatory Assistance Meeting and suggestions could be provided within a 30-60 day window. (Note: this assumes staff availability within 30-60 days.) KC WLRD suggested that the technical experts who worked on the various reports (wetland, stream, and hydraulics studies) be available to answer questions for agency staff. ► Next Steps: KC WLRD will discuss to determine if this is an approach they would like the agencies to pursue. If yes, KC WLRD will coordinate with the Corps. Agency Comments Kine County Department of Development and Environmental Services (King DDES) Two permit processes are possible for the project: Grading permit as allowed alteration under the Critical Areas Code if considered Habitat Enhancement OR Grading permit with a separate Alteration Exception 1 Reasonable Use Exception of Critical Area Code if not considered habitat enhancement. ► Habitat Enhancement Project 4 After reviewing proposal, King DDES anticipates it would be able to permit the project under this approach. -) Requirements: ► Demonstrate that project restores habitat forming processes or directly restores habitat function and value. ► Restoration and enhancement plans must be prepared by a qualified biologist OR all properties have an approved King County Farm Management Plan (approved by King DDES). ► Average review time 120 days after submittal of a complete application. P. Alteration_ Exception -> Includes a public comment process. * Requires an alternative analysis, similar to the Corps 404(b)(1) analysis, to ensure minimal impacts. * Appealable decision. -> Average processing time 4-6 months after submittal of complete application. 4 1n general, this process is usually longer and more expensive for the applicant. www.ora.wa.gov 360-407-7037 • 800-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 : WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► Other Comments. 3 If the Corps requires a standard Individual Permit (IP), King DDES would require the Alteration Exception process. Much of the information the Corps would request of KC WLRD for the IP process would likely be similar to what King DDES would need to generate for the Alteration Exception application. 4. Buffers: no specific distance required to qualify for a habitat restoration process. The buffers must provide an improvement over existing conditions. Acceptable buffer widths vary by project. May or may not accept buffer widths in Farm Management Plans by. the King Conservation District. ► Right now, most of May Creek does not have any effective buffers. King DDES would see planting buffers with appropriate native vegetation as an improvement to the existing conditions. Buffer plantings would need to be fenced. Overall, King DDES needs to see an improvement or net gain. Kine Conservation District (KCD) ► Two properties in project area currently have Farm Management Plans. ► Existing Farm Management Plans in project area generally try to achieve 25 ft buffers on average for pasture areas. However, one property has a fence that is grandfathered in at 15 ft as it was installed prior to 1990 (the Celigoy property). KCD generally promotes installing larger buffers but it doesn't work all the time. ► Farm Management Plans are landowner driven. ► Prepared under National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) methodology. Plans are not public documents. However, property owners may grant permission to release the plan to specified individuals. P. Some of the farm land in the May Valley has recently gone through ownership changes. Many of the new owners are interested in implementing Farm Management Plans. Implementing Plans often involves relationship building between the landowner and KCD. Renton ► For the work within Renton City limits, project would most likely require: 4 Grading and Fill permit. Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Permit. Review will be required to determine if project qualifies for an exemption or needs a variance. -) Construction permit. Land Use Examiner process used for Grading/Fill permit. Both the Grading/Fill and CAO process require a public hearing. ► Average time 5-10 weeks, assuming no appeals. www.ora.wa.gov 380407-7037 • 800-817-0043 1 assistanco@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 , WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► If project has only 280 cubic yards of fill, then an Annual Grading License may be another option. ► Renton offers a pre -application meeting to discuss the details and clarify requirements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ► Corps considers the purpose and need for the project when determining which permit is appropriate. 4 As proposed, the purpose of the project appears to be "flood control" or "increased conveyance" with some habitat features incorporated in the design for mitigation. -� The current proposal appears to contradict some of the recommendations for improving stream habitat and functions as presented in the Baseline Stream Conditions Report. ► The project as proposed does not meet the terms and conditions of a NWP 27. ► At this time, project appears it will require a standard Individual Permit (IP) where a range of off- and on-site alternatives will be considered. The off-site alternatives will likely address source control and sustainability of any proposed action. On-site alternatives will evaluate ways in which impacts to the aquatic environment could be reduced. 4 A 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis required for an IP. Different evaluation than is required under SEPA. Considers alternative with least impact to aquatic resources. -� Public Notice period part of process. Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation required. 4 Cultural Resources Survey also required. ► Threshold for an IP vs. an NWP is based on the ecosystem restoration. The values and functions of the stream are considered. For example, a NWP 27 would consider sediment removal when the purpose is for improved habitat functions. s Timelines: (Note: "average" assumes straight -forward project review without significant issues / concerns and project revisions.) -> IP:. 180 days to I year average based on submittal of a complete application. NWP: usually shorter than for an IP but still 4-6 months on average. ESA and Cultural Resources still required for NWP. -> The ESA process for all projects has been averaging 71 days. Muckleshoot Tribe ► Note: Some of the Corps permits processes include consultation with the Tribes. This is the case with the Corps IP. ► The project needs to provide details about the proposed mitigation; how does the mitigation compensate for the amount of dredging? The details for the proposed wood are missing, www.orama.gov 360-407-7037 800-917-0Od3 1 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance including the sizes, numbers, and species. The project will result in a loss of rearing habitat (albeit due to reed canary grass) and will need mitigation. A 15 ft buffer is insufficient. There needs to be fencing and long term protection of the buffer. ► The Mucklesboot Tribe will review how much mitigation is included and what is sufficient. ► Reed canary grass: even though a non-native species, provides juvenile salmon rearing habitat particularly because it provides lower water velocities. ► Mitigation and riparian buffer proposed for the project (15 ft) may not be adequate because it does not appear to fully mitigate the project impacts. ► More information to evaluate impacts would be required. -> Concerned about long term, repeated sedimentation and subsequent removal projects. ► One of the project reports mentioned three other sediment removal projects for a total of 2.6 miles of May Creek. Need more information if this is the case. ► Cumulative impact from more dredging on this reach of the stream as well as other locations is a concern. Also, questions about how removing sediment from May Valley will impact downstream flow, erosion, and fish habitat. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife W_DFW) ► Project needs to demonstrate no net loss of habitat. ► Planting plan required. Crucial for long term prevention of reed canary grass proliferation, which increases sediment continuing to accumulate in stream. ► The wider the buffer width on the stream, the better. WDFW does not have specific buffer requirements. However, WDFW has buffer recommendation in Management Recommendation for WA Priority Habitats, Riparian(http:%/wdfiv.wa.gov/hab/ripxsum.htm). ► Stream Report, page 8 and 11. Gravel from Long Marsh Creek is an important spawning habitat. Do not want to see gravel in.this area of May Creek disturbed. Would be better to widen this area where Long Marsh Creek flows into May Creek. ► Not meaning to speak for the Corps, but in trying to qualify for a NWP, it is recommended to design the project without a flat channel profile by adding pools and large woody material. ► Note: the WDFW application cannot accept a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) application until the SEPA process is complete. Ecology 401 1 Coastal Zone Mann ement CZ ► The 401 Certification status depends in part on what permit the Corps determines is appropriate for the project. If project is a NWP, then a 401 may or may not be required. 3 If IP from the Corps, then ECY will require an Individual 401 and a CZM Consistency Determination. ---------- _ ..__ --- ------------.-_...-----....... www.ora.wa.gov 360-407-7037 - 800-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov I May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE ' Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance -> Individual 401 and CZM must be completed before Corps can issue 1P. ► Other comments: 4 Project needs to follow current ECY Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 4 If greater than 1 acre disturbed, ECY Construction Stormwater General Permit required. 4 Since the mitigation report is pending, not able to review in full at this time. Ecology Wetlands ► Concerned about several inconsistencies between Baseline Stream Conditions Report and the proposal. ,For example: The purpose of the project appears to be to provide stormwater conveyance rather than habitat restoration. • From ECY perspective, concerned that project will not meet goal to drain water from pastures such that pastures will be dry earlier in the year. The high groundwater table in many of the pasture areas will keep the pastures wet. • At this point, ECY may not be able to approve application as proposed. • Concerned that adequate buffer widths have not been proposed based on Best Available Science (BAS). Proposed buffers for wetlands and the stream may not be effective. Ecology Water Quality ()CY WQ} May Creek is on the state 303(d) list for Fecal Coliform. 4 Most of the sampling and data is from King County. ► Because of this, ECY would like to see limiting of animal access to May Creek. ► ECY WQ staff prefers 35 foot buffers. The proposed 15 foot buffers appear thin for preventing future sedimentation of the Creek. ► ECY WQ staff prefers South side buffer to be wider than 15 feet since it provides the best shading which helps reduce summer temperatures in the Creek. ► Stream morphology, such as a meandering stream, provides benefits of reducing sedimentation and improving water quality. Realize there are limitations with private ownership and that this might counter the water conveyance objectives of the project. Channel meander might be considered for the improvements in the area south of 148'b. www.ora.wa.gov 360-407-7037 • 800-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance Attendees (Der si4n-in sheet) ► Zelma Zieman, ORA ► Jay Mirro, KCD ► Jane Dewell, ORA ► Jennifer Henning, Renton ► Doug Chin, KC WLRD ► Ron Straka, Renton ► Rachel Berryessa, KC WLRD ► Lori Lull, Corps ► Don Althauser, KC WLRD ► Matt Bennett, Corps ► Curt Crawford, KC WLRD ► Rebekah Padgett, ECY 401/CZM ► Lindsey Miller, KC WLRD ► Paul Anderson, ECY Wetlands ► Randy Sandin, King DDES ► Patrick McGraner, ECY Wetlands s Jamie Hartley, King DDES ► Dave Garland, ECY WQ ► Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries ► Chris Coffin, ECY WQ ► Larry Fisher, WDFW wwwlora.wa.gov 360-407-7037 -800-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 AW Ole' `r, � ' � � � • �� tali I LI f+ PAO r, s i rA 0 i I j r� k I i rl + ' ,411 X 0 r4 b6 i Gerald Wasser EXHIBIT 15 From: A DUFFUS [klassicars@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:16 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Dredging Attachments: EcyOlsonquestions.pdf, EcytoKC9111.pdf Hello, Attached is a recent memo from Dr. Patricia Olson of Washington State Department of Ecology. She questions the county's proposal to dredge a section of May Creek Also, attached is a formal letter from Ecology regarding the county's application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate and determination of Coastal Zone Management Consistency. These validate downstream property owners' concerns. Thanks for your support. Andrew Duffus Memo TO: Rebekah Padgett, 401 Coordinator, SEA-NWR0 Rcm. Patricia L Olson, Senior Hydrogeologist, PhD, LHG, SEA -HQ [x: Patrick McGraner, Erik Stockdale nabP August 15, 2011 Ra; Comments on Upper May Creek dredging project My comments are mostly based on observations from our field visit on 07/29/2011 supplemented by technical documents provided by King County. i also reviewed comments from USCOE, Muckleshoot Tribe, and downstream.property owners but did not include in my discussions. I have many comments on the King County documents. But I have limited time so this memo contains only a summary of some important issues. 401 certiflcation and WQ issues The King County memo from Julia Turney to Doug Chen dated 2/11/2011 discusses how the project will increase the channels fine sediment transport efficiency within the projectarea (pp 14). The memo also states that fine sediment and organic material will be transported downstream at a constant rate rather than an episodic rate (pp 15) and sediment delivery to May Creek will be reduced "in the project area". This will be a change in the current sediment transport regime and current downstream effects from the fine sediment transport Since lower flows will be transporting sediment, the fine sediment will likely be deposited in areas upstream of where high, episodic flows would deposit the sediment However, the memo does not address what sediment volumes will be transported and where fine sediment will be deposited downstream other than to say it won't be Lake Washington. While the memo says that the project will decrease the agricultural sediment source at some time in the future, it does not say how long the increased sediment load will occur. The memo states that quantitative sediment estimates are not available (pp 16). These factors present ambiguities in terms of water quality effects. Dredging The project seems somewhat short-sighted because one time dredging will not solve the flooding extent and duration over time. LiDAR data indicate that there are large floodplain areas below the channel elevation (Figure 1). Some of this is may be due to LiDAR processing for the bare earth DEM. However, the H and H study supports this conclusion (pp 19). The "flood basin" type landform may be a natural condition or it may be due to years of dredging and lowering groundwater levels which promotes subsidence in organic rich soils (e.g. hydric and peat soils). Wetland drainage leads to oxidation of the upper organic horizon burning up organic component. The weight of livestock and machinery will increase the compaction and subsidence as well (e.g. Devin and others 1999). The survey notes that accompany the General Land Office (GLO) maps shown in the Turney memo indicate that the upper basin was mostly a groundwater fed wetland system. These conditions suggest that dredging is somewhat akin to trying to channelize a bathtub where water inflow is greater than outflow, Page 1 Cost-benefit- There ost-benefitThere may be a cost -benefit analysis but I haven't found it. There should be cost -benefit analysis of various options including removing backwater effects caused by bridges, reducing reed canary grass, reducing or eliminating fine sediment sources, and removing willows and replanting with vegetation thatwas documented to occur in the area including cottonwood, ash, maple, cedar and undergrowth species such as alder, native Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca), and vine maple. Backwater effects Backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge. The FEMA longitudinal profile indicates that backwater likely occurs at floods less than the 10 -year flood. The King County Hydraulic and Hydrologic, Analyses of the May Creep Channel Restoration Arojec4 12/17/2010 (hereafter referred to as the H and H study) includes measured water surface profiles that include the footbridge. Table 1, pp 4-5 shows the footbridge location as river mile 4.612. Figure 3, pp 19 shows the water surface elevations measured on 01/08/2009 and 01/22/2009. The measured water surface profiles just upstream of the bridge show the backwater effect. However, the documents ignore this effect For example, on pp 31, of the Hand H study, a description of gravel bar and flooding is given: "During mean annual flows (8.6 cfs through the study area), control points are vegetation choking points in the wetland downstream of 148th Ave SE bridge and mildly so upstream of 148th•and gravel deposition where Long Marsh enters into May Creek at approximately river mile 4.64, just upstream of a footbridge. This high point of gravels controls the water surface elevation upstream approximately for 2000 feet to a footbridge located approximately at river mile 5.04. Similarly for higher flows (e.g. i year event), Long Marsh again controls water surfaces upstream for the same reach length" Again on pp 54: "These results are also dependant on the relocation of where Long Marsh creek deposits gravels during storm events. This tributary has clearly been shown in the past to deposit enough gravels to effectively backwater May Creek upstream of its confluence. Additionally, shear stresses in May Creek are far below forces necessary to mobilize gravels that are being deposited by Long Marsh creek." Well, shear stresses generally are lower in backwater areas. We visited this site, and the form and location of the gravel bar strongly suggests that the bridge is causing the excess gravel deposition probably due to the back water effect. Therefore the bridge is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2000 feet upstream (from H and H study). The gravel would disburse downstream rather than creating an oversized gravel bar if the bridge were sized properly or removed during overbank flows. Instead of evaluating this option, the documents -focus on removing the gravel and "mitigating" by removing the existing vegetation buffer along Long Marsh Creek and forcing the Creek into an unnatural planform. The documents acknowledge that the 148th Street Bridge causes a backwater effect This effect can be seen of the FEMA longitudinal flood profiles. While the effect is more local resizing the bridge would also increase hydraulic efficiency just upstream of the bridge. The Long Marsh Creek mitigation project is not mitigation. The proposed stream alignment does not appear to be based on the existing or historic channel characteristics. The LiDAR data shows an alluvial fan but it indicates that there were distributary channels rather than a single channel meandering stream (Figure 1). A similar situation occurs on the Indian Meadows alluvial fan. The proposed planform and the area allotted for channel movement is not natural to an alluvial fan 0 Page 2 system so is not a restoration project but more of a drainage efficiency project not related to historic fluvial processes and landforms. Geomorphic analysis The geomorphic interpretations and sediment transport study appear to be done by persons not well -versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response. For example, the Sediment transport study conducted in the ravine (Anchor QEA, LLC, 06/2009 ) relies on pebble counts along 3 transects for evaluating sediment transport Pebble counts tend to be biased towards larger sediment. This bias means that the median sediment size, for example, could be larger than it really is resulting in higher discharge estimate to mobilize bedload. This may explain why the calculated effective sediment mobilization discharges are between the S -10 -year floods. In boulder areas this makes more sense. However, the sediment I saw in the near the Duffus and downstream properties is much smaller and should be mobilized at a lower discharge. The lower end of the range (73-150 cfs) estimated in the H and H study appears more realistic for the areas we observed. Moreover, for sediment transport pebble counts should be done primarily on bars not the channel. The sediment transport study appears to have only relied on cross-channel pebble counts. Plus, a statement is made that the channel maybe armored. Channels with pavement or armoring should include a subsurface pebble count (e.g., Buffington and Montgomery 1997, 1999). As pointed out in the documents, HEC -RAS sediment transport model cannot address variable sediment transport conditions and changing channel elevations (erosion or deposition). Pebble counts may work for reconnaissance level study on the site basis (but not the whole reach), but not for a study related to assessing potential hazards such as damage to structures. Volumetric sediment sampling and more sample locations would be more appropriate in this case King County's Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division have well qualified Fluvial geomorphologists and geologists. The proponents of this project and the geomorphologists and geologists are in the same division. However, these qualified people appear to not have been consulted for evaluating the sediment transport study, baseline geology and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, and downstream channel response including migration to changes in flow and sediment regimes. The expertise is available within the same King County department and division. These people should be consulted on this project Downstream bank erosion. Since the sediment transport study and the H and H study appear to rely on reconnaissance site level data that does not include adequate sampling points, I cannot make a determination concerning potential for increased bank erosion downstream of the project area. There are many factors affecting bank erosion in the downstream reach such as riprap focusing flow against unprotected banks, reduction in natural sediment source from bank erosion, and head cutting from response to glacial lowering of the base level and more recent lowering of base level when Lake Washington water levels were lowered for transportation purposes. However, l disagree with the statement made in the H and H study that the increase in frequency of smaller floods is insignificant. While it may be the case, this hypothesis has not been tested using adequate data. This conclusion wouldn't be an issue if there were not structures downstream, but there are. The H and H study indicates that the project will increase the frequency of occurrence for smaller floods (Table 8, pp 47-48). For example, the 1.01 year flood 0 Page 3 (67 cfs) and 1.11 year flood (118 cfs) frequency of occurrence will increase by 16% and 10% respectively. The 2 -year event, often considered a surrogate for effective discharge where data are not available, frequency will increase by 5%. The increase in frequency of these small floods could affect sediment transport dynamics. Simply put, the increase in small flood frequency will increase the occurrence, of unit stream power (specific weight of water'kchannel gradient * discharge/active channel width) associated with these small floods by 16,10 and 5%, unless gradient decreases or width increases. Since gradient is somewhat controlled by valley conditions, stream width is more likely to change. Stream power is an indicator of transport capacity. Increased transport capacity can lead to increased incision and bank erosion. Yet the H and H study says there will be no significant effect There appears to be a disconnection in the conclusions supporting dredging. A 5-16% increase in stream power for potential sediment transport events is not significant but a 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of 50 cfs is significant enough to dredge (Table 4, pp 53, H and H study). Since there is disagreement between sediment transport numbers, King County should use its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study. Also the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere. In the meantime King County and residents should explore other options such as increasing conveyance capacity under 148th Street Bridge and footbridge just downstream of Long Marsh Creek. The foot bridge is obviously an imposition on water conveyance as the sediment wedge developed upstream testifies. The King County documents indicate that flood storage will be reduced in the project area, so additional flood storage to compensate for that loss should be included in the project The GLO survey notes describe upper May Creek from just downstream of the Renton -Issaquah Road and upstream as a crabapple swale. Vegetation consisted of Pacific crabapple, hardhack, willow and some indiscernible tea. There was no mention of any "brook" or other flowing water feature. The vegetation and lack of surface water implies it was a groundwater fed wetland. Restoration of some wetland functions in the project area as well as this area could increase flood storage and attenuate flood volumes downstream. Other options include, reducing reed canary grass, reducing or eliminating fine sediment sources (those above background), and replanting vegetation that was documented to occur in the area including cottonwood, ash, maple, cedar and undergrowth species such as alder, native Pacific crabapple (Malas fusca), and vine maple. 0 Page 4 References Buffington, J.M., and Montgomery, D.R. 1997. A systematic analysis of eight decades of incipient motion studies, with special reference to gravel -bedded rivers. Water Resour. Res. 33:1993-2029. Buffington, J.M., and Montgomery, D.R. 1999. Effects of sediment supply on surface textures of gravel -bed rivers. Water Resour. Res. 35: 3523-3530 Galloway, Devin, David R. Jones, and S.E. Ingebritse, eds.1999, Land Subsidence in the United States U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182. Page 5 Figure 1: A relative water surface elevation DEM was derived from the UDAR bare earth DEM. The DEM shows t he relative height of land surface in relation to water surface (in feet) at the time of the LiDAR flight The blue values indicate areas that are below the water surface elevation. Page 6 ro to IQ ki ri m ni rt Q o o �n ut ut �n �n �n �n �n ,es o o T m `m' gr v � .- m m to mm mm m m m m m m w$ o Ea u ;Q w a as a m a m a rn e m v, O �!1 O u] d i1t O ai O �5 O P in O N P i G Q F p 7 ti n i4 vi ,ri y y ri vi N ry 4 d Q r ry f+i ri ri v a vi ,ri i6 to r- W is m ai i ��®00000000000000000000a00000000000000aaoocoo -- T - cc � r• f. sr �t (D — h, , ..Y •F __pry_•'_ - Ch IL Ir 211W SW � .- [ :Y •-fit � 1! 'mac' �. Y %7�� .7F�'F� .- 'r a � � r "k.. , w�. Rte•-^. r,. -�¢. �' .�!'�� _ '�E: _ � - ,�91� {� sGrB 0 o� 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue 5E • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 September 1, 2011 Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and Land Resources Division 201. South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Reference #NWS -2010-158 Status of Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Chin: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a joint public notice with the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for the above project on September 24, 2010. Ecology has one year to issue its individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). On August 31, 2010, Ecology notified you by certified letter that this project would require an individual WQC and Coastal Zane Management Consistency (CZM) determination and requested additional information. Tbroughout the review of this project, Ecology has raised a number of questions about the purpose and need of the project, as well as technical issues regarding the wetlands, sediment transport, and water quality (see Attachment 1). As the statutory deadline of September 23 2011 ayiproaches we are concerned that many of these issues have yet to be fully addressed and we will not have reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met. In order to complete the WQC process and make our CZM determination; we need the fallowing additional information. • Description of how the sediment disposal areas will be stabilized in order to prevent fine material from entering waters of the state (including wetlands). • Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan (King County, July 2011): o Page 1, Section 2: The citation for the section of the water quality standards that allows a temporary area of mixing for turbidity during construction should be corrected from WAC 173-201AA00 (4) and (6) should be corrected to WAC 173- 201A-200(1)(e)(i). trip Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 2 of 6 o Page 2, Section 3, Sampling Locations: Ecology agrees that the background and point of compliance sampling locations will need to change as the project moves from segment to segment. And it is understood that Figure 1 is a representative site plan showing sampling locations. Please note that background samples should be taken at the same time as the point of compliance samples. o Page 4, Section 3, Long-term Data Storage aiid Reporting: The plan indicates that data will be provided to regulatory agencies upon request. The plan should be updated 'to reflect that if no exceedances are detected results of water quality sampling should be sent to my attention at Ecology on a monthly basis and that any exceedances should be reported within 24 hours with the following information: a. A description of the nature and cause of exceedance. b. The period of non-compliance, including exact dates, duration, and times and/or the anticipated time when the Applicant will return to compliance. c. The steps taken, or to be taken, to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the non-compliance. d. In addition, within five (5) days after notification of an exceedance, submit a wiitten report that describes the nature of the exceedance, turbidity results and location, photographs, and any other pertinent. information. • It is expected that there will be stream water temperature changes between the time the County removes more mature vegetation and when the replanted vegetation reaches the size to shade the creek, creating an additional impact to water quality. What measures will be taken to address this? The May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, prepared by King County Road Services Division, revised July 2011, needs to be revised to: a Vegetative coverage of 80 percent under Section 6. 1, o Replanting of dead plants to 100 percent for:years 1 and 2 under Section 6. 1, and . o Include submittal of an As -Built Report and monitoring reports for years 1 and 2 under Section 6.2, Post -Construction Monitoring, The memorandum from Julia Turney to Doug Chin, King County, RE. May Creek Drainage Improvement Project: SE May Valley Road 148th Avenue SE—Sediment Assessment, dated February 9, 2011, does not address what sediment volumes will be transported and where fine sediment will be deposited downstream other than to say it will not be Lake Washington. While the memorandum states that the project will decrease the agricultural sediment source at some time in the future, it does not say how long the increased sediment load will occur. The memorandum states that quantitative sediment estimates are not available (page 16). Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 3 of 6 King County developed a plan to monitor for erosion downstream from the project area (memorandum from Don Althauser, King County, to Bill Kerschke and Julia Turney, King County, RE, May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Post - Construction Erosion Monitoring Plan -- Downstream of 148a' Avenue SE, dated August 4, 2011). The plan needs to be revised to include the project area. The sediment monitoring plan should monitor sediment accumulation or erosion in the creek and changes in channel cross-sections and longitudinal profile to provide information on project effectiveness. It also should include contingencies in case the project does not perform as' expected. The revised JARPA #6a, Stream/Wetland Mitigation, first bullet, states that fencing will be installed around the planting areas to minimize livestock access to the stream. This appears to refer to the riparian planting buffer on both sides of May Creek—is this correct? Current site plans show fencing around the mitigation area west of 148th Avenue SE, however the plans are do not show fencing that would permanently exclude Iivestock from direct access to the restored riparian planting buffer area and. creek upstream of 148th Avenue SE. The plans should be updated to reflect this. • #6d of the JARPA refers to a riparian planting buffer along Long Marsh Creek. Will the buffer be on both sides of the creek? How wide will the buffer be? Will there be a buffer along the new side channel, and if so, how wide will this buffer be? Are the riparian buffer areas along Long Marsh Creek and the side channel included in the proposed mitigation calculations—Ecology does not believe that this should be included. #6d of the JARPA mentions that 16 pieces of large woody debris will be placed in the off -channel alcoves. Does this figure include the snags? And is it correct that another 60 pieces of large woody debris will be placed in the wetland enhancement area per the DARPA? These figures are inconsistent with the Mdy Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A.1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, prepared by King County Road Services Division, revised July 2011, page 4, first bullet, which states that 76 pieces of large woody debris and 2 snags will be installed. These figures need to be clarified. • In King County's July 22, 2411 response to May 11, 2011 comments by Karen Walter, Muckieshoot Indian Tribe (page 3), the County mentions a Draft Long Marsh Creek ,Sediment Control and Habitat Restoration Project Basis of Design Report and says that the final report will be available upon request. Please provide a copy of this report to Ecology. • On September 16, 2010, Ecology noted concern about the 15• -foot riparian vegetation, buffer in comments on the State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MONS). Specifically, we questioned the effectiveness of this size buffer in shading out reed canary grass and stated that we could not support the proposed Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 4 of b project with this size buffer. The proposed 15 -foot buffers remain below the best available science which would more closely approximate 30-35 feet. As Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has pointed out (May 11, 2011 comment letter to Ecology), King County Code requires existing livestock operations to implement a farm management plan or meet management standards outlined in the Code. In King County's July 22, 2011 response to Ms. Walter, you indicate that two of the four livestock operations have developed plans and that the buffers specified in these plans are 25 feet 10 feet more than the County is proposing. In Ecology's comments on the MDNS we also noted that the proposed planting of the "buffer" particularly on the left bank in Reach 4 is problematic because this area is NOT buffer. It is wetland that likely receives runoff from upslope seepage as well as bank overtopping. This area is very wet and needs to be planted with native vegetation that can tolerate long periods of inundation. Concerns remain with regards -to plant establishment in wetter reaches, specifically on the Ieft bank upstream of Long Marsh Creek. Site plans are not specific as to which plants will be installed in this reach. It is Ecology's assessment that backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge, extending 2,000 feet upstream. The form and location of the gravel bar indicates that the bridge is the primary cause for excess gravel deposition probably due to the backwater effect. Therefore, it appears that the bridge, rather than the gravel bar, is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2,000 feet upstream. The report focuses on dredging and vegetation removal, without considering resizing or removal of the bridge. Additionally, the documents acknowledge that the 148th Avenue SE Bridge causes a backwater effect. Resizing the 148th Avenue SE bridge would increase hydraulic efficiency just upstream of the bridge. King County and residents should explore other options such as increasing conveyance capacity under the 148th Avenue SE bridge and the footbridge just downstream of Long Marsh Creek. Ecology believes that the effectiveness of the proposed action for the stated intent of decreasing the duration of surface water on the grazed wetlands: o Has not been fully demonstrated to merit the level of impacts proposed for 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of SO eubic feet per second (efs), and o` One-time dredging will not solve the flooding extent and duration over time because large floodplain areas lie below the channel elevation; water inflow into the wetland system appears to be greater than the outflow; no upstream sediment study has been provided with detailed plans to reduce upstream sediment; changes to the 148th Ave SE bridge and footbridge downstream of Long Marsh Creek have not been proposed to increase conveyance capacity. • King County's Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division has well qualified fluvial geomorphologists and geologists on staff; however, it does not Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 5 of 6 appear that they were consulted for evaluating the sediment transport study, baseline geology and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, the downstream channel response including migration to changes in flow and sediment regimes. The studies upon which the proposal is based appear to be flawed in terms of making conclusions based on insufficient information or incorrect data. King County should utilize its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study. Additionally, the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere. Ecology questions the premise upon which the proposal is based and cannot complete its review until this work is complete and the County has reassessed the project. Unless we receive all of the above documentation by September 16, 2011, Ecology will have to deny the WOC/CZM for this project. Receipt of a denial without prejudice does not preclude you from resubmitting a request for 401 Certification at a later date. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter or the 401/CZM Certification process at (425) 649-7129 or e-mail at RebekaEPadRett a e, cy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Rebek R Padge Federal Permit Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program RRP:cja By certified mail #70110470 0003 3720 8964 Cc: TJ Stetz, U,S. Army Corps of Engineers Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers E -Cc: Patrick McGraner, Ecology Patricia Olson, Ecology Erik Stockdale, Ecology Loree Randall, Ecology Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Attachment 1: May Creek Key Ecology Correspondence Chronology 3124110 Ecology raised concerns in an e-mail that followed up on a 2122110 site visit, including the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the effectiveness of the 15 -foot -wide buffers. 515110 Ecology participated in an interagency pre -application meeting where we provided substantive comments regarding the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the need to redelineate the wetland, buffer width, and livestock access to the creek. 9116110 Ecology submitted comments on the State Environmental Policy Act mitigated determination of non -significance regarding effectiveness, purpose, and need of the proposal, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4 for establishing canopy cover, the degradation of the pastures and need for farm plans to protect riparian habitat and creeks, and livestock access to the creels. 4126111 Ecology participated in an interagency site visit where we raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, the buffers on Long Marsh Creek, whether ,the Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation, monitoring of sediments in the project area and downstream, best mauagenr ent practices, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4, the need for future dredging. 4/28111 Ecology followed up by e-mail documenting questions raised at the 4126111 site visit. Gerald Wasser From: Julie P. Bonwell Ubonwell@lesourd.coml Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:37 PM To: Gerald Wasser Cc: Hebe Bernardo Subject: LUA11-065 May Creek Project Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner City of Renton Dear Mr. Wasser: EXHIBIT 16 PLEASE DO NOT ISSUE A PERMIT TO THE COUNTY ON THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT ON MAY CREEK. Our family home is immediately downstream of the proposed project. Access to our home is across a privately -owned bridge built many years ago. We have witnessed firsthand the damaging effects of runoff and erosion on our creek banks and bridge abutments and believe the project as currently proposed to be meritless. We feel vulnerable, even threatened, by the County's proposal to dredge and relocate a stream bed in an effort to "enhance" drainage of a wet land (horse pasture). We experience seasonal flooding on our property. We believe the project without consideration for the homeowners most impacted, from beginning right down to the type of trees it intends to replant. The County should be measuring bank stability and bank erosion of the specific areas at risk. Permits to the County at this juncture are premature at best. Julie & Jim Bonwell Katie Bonwell 2914 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Wasser EXHIBIT 17 From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:19 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Dredging Public Notice for 401c and CZM Attachments: May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice comments.pdf From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:06 PM To: ECY RE FED PERMITS Cc: Lull, Lori C NWS; Randy McIntosh; 'Fisher, Larry D (DFW)'; Padgett, Rebekah (ECY); McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Dave Garland ; Jennifer T. Henning; Chin, Doug; Hartley, James Subject: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Dredging Public Notice for 401c and CZM To Whom It May Concern, Attached you will find comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division in response to the Public Notice of Application for the above referenced project. A signed hard copy has also been sent to the Olympia office of Ecology. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015-172 od Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 May 11, 2011 Washington Department of Ecology -SEA Program Federal Project Coordinator P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 401c and CZM Consistency Public Notice of Application Dear Sir or Madame: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (NflTFD) has reviewed the Public Notice of Application for a State of Washington 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. This project is the first of potentially four phases to dredge May Creek. In this first phase, the project proposes to dredge May Creek from Rivermile 4.3 to Rivermile 4.9, removing sediments, reed canarygrass and some of the existing willows that are within the flooded area of concern. . As noted in previous comments, the MITFD has expressed concerns about proposals to dredge May Creek because of potential adverse impacts to salmon and their habitats. This project proposes to dredge 2,000 linear feet of May Creek and its associated wetland in areas identified as salmon spawning and rearing habitat (May Creek Baseline Stream Conditions Report). As noted in various May Creek documents reviewed, this is the first dredging proposal of potentially four projects that would result in the dredging of 2.26 miles of May Creek in May Valley, which is 75% of the valley length and 32% of May Creek's entire length. The combined impact of all of these dredging projects would likely result in a significant loss of existing salmon habitat, and potentially future adverse impacts upstream and downstream from the ` dredged reaches as other landowners seek to protect their properties from bank erosion.. We recommend that King County implement and exhaust all less impacting alternatives prior to dredging May Creek. We remain concerned that this project will adversely affect salmon and aquatic habitats without sufficient mitigation for these impacts. The project proposes to directly impact the natural process of sedimentation and floodwater storage along May Creek without adequately assessing the potential impacts to salmon and their habitat in the project area and in upstream and downstream areas. In particular, the potential pre- and post -project rearing habitat available for juvenile salmon in May Creek has not been quantified. . Furthermore, for those impacts which have been quantified, the project impacts exceed the proposed mitigation in length and area, While the proposal to fence and plant native wetland/ riparian vegetation Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division May 11. 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice Page 2 and create alcoves with wood and sediment is an improvement over the existing conditions for most of the project area, the extent of these mitigation- measures is insufficient to mitigate for the potential loss of 48,000 square feet of instream habitat as a result of this dredging project. The planting buffer is significantly less than the regulated buffer and would provide inadequate riparian functions as a result. Additional mitigation for this project will likely be required to fully mitigate for the unavoidable environmental impacts from the project. Mitigation should include maximizing the natural processes that create and sustain salmon habitat including: 1) improving pasture conditions and controlling other existing sediment sources through agricultural best management practices, farm conservation plans, and other measures as appropriate; 2) greatly minimizing the dredge area; 3) adding additional habitat mitigation to the dredged portion; 4) increasing the stream/wetland buffer width to the regulated 25 foot buffer width and increase riparian plantings; 5) avoid impacting downstream portions of May Creek; and 6) mitigating any unavoidable impacts to downstream areas. We are concerned that this project is a "short term fix" and that there is a high likelihood that additional dredging will be proposed elsewhere and/or in the future that may again adversely affect May Creek, its associated wetlands, and potentially the mitigation implemented for this project. Instead we recommend focusing more effort on the obvious land use and pasture- related sediment sources and allow the May Creek more room to store and. transport its sediment load, consistent with natural stream processes. Additional specific comments and -questions about this project are attached for your review and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions at 253-876-3116. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Lori Lull, USACOE Randy McIntosh, NMFS Larry Fisher, WDFW Region 4 Rebekah Padgett, WDOE, NW Region Patrick McGranger; WDOE, NW Region Dave Garland, WDOE, NW Region Jennifer Henning, City of Renton PIanning Doug Chin, King County DNRP Jamie Hartley, King County DDES Muckleshoot Indian Tfibe Fisheries Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice Page 3 Other Potential Alternatives We are concerned that King County has not fully pursued all available alternatives that could reduce the need to dredge the entire area proposed under Phase I (and future phases) and reduce the amount of native vegetation removals to better protect existing instream and riparian functions. For example, most of the properties that would benefit from Phase I dredging are used for livestock pasture. King County Code (Title 21.A.30) regulates these areas to "support the raising and keeping of livestock in the county in a manner that minimizes the adverse impacts of livestock on the environment particularly with regard to their impacts on water quality and salmonid fisheries habitat in King County watersheds ". It is not clear how the adjacent properties are in compliance with this code which limits the maximum number of livestock on a per acre basis. As part of the Code compliance, property owners are required to have a farm plan with maximum densities of livestock. These farm plans require: "Site-specific management measures for minimizing nonpoint pollution from agricultural activities and for managing wetland and aquatic areas including, but not limited to: a. livestock watering; b. grazing and pasture management; c. confinement area management; d, manure management; and e, exclusion of animals from aquatic areas and their buffers and wetlands and their buffers with the exception ofgrazed wet meadows. " (KCC 21A.30.045.2). It should be noted that KCC 21.A.30A45.B requires that farm management plans seek to achieve a "minimum 25 foot buffer of diverse, mature vegetation between grazing areas and the ordinary high water mark of all type S and F aquatic areas and the wetland edge of any category I, II or III wetland with the exception of grazed wet meadows, using buffer averaging where necessary to accommodate existing structures." The proposed mitigation buffer for dredging is a maximum of 15 feet that is substantially less that the County Code. Another problem is that the mitigation buffer area is not proposed to be permanently protected in a conservation easement. From our field visit on April 26, 2011, it appears that the properties in question are not complying with King County Code Title 21.A.30. Prior to the approval of any dredging proposal that will adversely impact salmon habitat in May Creek, we recommend that the properties demonstrate compliance with Title 21.A.30 in that the property owners have minimized their contributions to the sedimentation and flooding problem, including providing a vegetated buffer to control sediment loading and shading out the existing reed canarygrass in and along May Creek and its tributaries. The project should also evaluate the potential for the existing SE 148"' Street Bridge to create an obstruction and create backwater conditions that cause sediment to deposit upstream. Per the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses for the project (December 2010), this bridge cannot pass a 100 -year flood without overtopping the roadway. 4- Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Dredging 401 c and CZM Public Notice May 11, 2011 Page 4 Project benefits The purpose of the project is to reduce the duration of flooding on local property owners by removing in - stream channel obstructions. There should be further analysis that discusses how much used pasture area will have reduced flooding and for what duration for each of the affected properties to determine project impacts versus potential benefits, The Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis report suggests that the decrease in flood durations at 100 cfs is 7 hours which suggests little benefit for substantial environmental impacts to May Creek. Project Impacts We are concerned that the existing rearing habitat in May Creek will be Iost through the combination of channel dredging, reed canarygrass removal, and removal of in -water and adjacent willows, There is no estimate given for the potential loss of rearing habitat. However, the impact analysis indicates that the total impact area is 43,995. square feet (1.01 acres), whereas, the proposed mitigation area at the two off - channel alcoves is 10,238 square feet (0.24 acres). This is less than a 1:1 ratio of impact to mitigation area and will likely result in unmitigated impacts to existing rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. In addition, details are lacking regarding the flood event needed to connect the alcoves to May Creek, the corresponding water depth in the alcoves, how long they will be inundated, and how much rearing habitat would be created. If the alcoves are not fully connected to May Creek or the entire area is not inundated, then the mitigation area alcoves may actual provide less habitat than the proposed 10,238 square feet and also may potentially result in stranding mortality. The project has not adequately described or analyzed the sediment sources coming into May Creek from Long Marsh Creek. For example, it is not clear if undersized culverts on Long Marsh Creek are contributing to bank erosion and contributing to the sediment load. Alternatively, upstream stormwater contribution may be causing sediment transport in Long Marsh Creek too. Additional information is needed to assess the contribution from Long Marsh Creek and if needed, measures taken since Long Marsh Creek was identified a major contribution in the County's sediment assessment report. Finally, we do not view the proposed Long Marsh Creek work as mitigation for reasons noted below. It is also unknown what benefit, if any, would occur from creating a side channel at the Long Marsh/May Creek confluence to trap sediment. It seems likely that this constructed feature would fill in from upstream sediment, since the mitigation design is not providing sufficient width in the upstream portions of Long Marsh Creek to slow down the rate of sediment transport and retain sediment in the channel upstream. In addition, the proposal to remove existing red alders that are 10-15 years old with smaller trees in the same 15 foot wide buffer on Long Marsh Creek is an impact, not mitigation. The project may not have fully considered potential impacts to Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. According to the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, King County indicates that Chinook and sockeye salmon do not travel upstream as far as May Valley. However, King County has data from the Salmon Watcher's program that indicates that adult Chinook, sockeye, and coho were reported as far upstream as Greene's Creek in 2001, which is just downstream of the SE 148' bridge. (see 13ttp://your.kinp,county. p,ov/d=/library/arcluve- Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice Page 5 documents/wlr/waterres/salmon/Maps/2001/0205distroEASTIakeWA.pdf ). The project also needs to mitigate for the loss of the full channel spanning pool at the Long Marsh Creek confluence. This pool will be eliminated by the stream dredging and not replaced based on the proposed mitigation plans. Since pools are limited in this portion of May Creek per the baseline stream conditions report, the pool should be replaced, potentially downstream of SE 148'h adjacent to the NGPE tract for Stonegate where there are fewer constraints. Alluvial fans are natural features at Long Marsh Creek and farther upstream at Indian Meadow Creek. According to the sediment assessment report, these features have been documented in the May Creek Valley since 1872. As a result, they will likely be continued sources of sediment to May Creek. Phase I and the future phases need to develop strategies that accommodate these natural features instead of proposing dredging now and into the future. The project may also aggravate existing conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen in May Creek. Currently May Creek through the May Valley is shown as a "Category 2" water for temperature and dissolved oxygen on Ecology's 2008 303(d) list. The removal of vegetation along 0.6 miles of May Creek that currently provides shade may worsen this condition. Once a redesigned project has been developed that addresses the concerns above, then a water quality protection plan and a monitoring plan that assesses the project's effects on sediment transport/filling, flooding, habitat creation and riparian planting success can be developed. Any approved project should be monitored for 10 years to determine project success (or failure) prior to allow any new dredging. °' ¢'w0 on V �iSuQ�G� oma '$ vdo r^y Qm,ce v �} o r� -2 iZ z� G9 'aC7'� 3 a c.5 y p > to BVI —U o 7C=p A O �� .n .a W r j W y g0. c E o oo n 0..G Co, S p aa. -C•- o = wry a a..� aro r+ U�,'��w•� oaca � � � �'�G m�ao F•Uz +�.5v oag- wv 00wXG„ x. mL d a u=v c^ U v vim$ a o Y 'C ¢� m U y 711 W aQ V c ao o� �� i ��°Ag �X � C Qu u a n aCiry ei b'4] tl a YAJ a gY u G �� a n. 3 04 0 V 0� o � �• oc5 ,b «+ �✓ :1 FL "= t4 gym,, y O Q"0 o �Q 'c 0 o u = p = y r. O �U 0- a�010i o U�0 y 0�=� � 3 0 a. -• p4 Z o D O •�+ h� Q QR 0 G[ C V en Q b4 >, N c� N �j � Q O O '� 3 • � C tY.n o �, � ra ri v [ �/ L � � 04 cl u � to cl o .0 v fJa� Vim? MC0�°� UQV �� a, C.� an[ a�rx�'o Ua 00 Z to �, �n � af�° cl t a� as te a. U m o to. 3 �I 0 N .G aU pC o o � IZ M � fel ZPC 5 a� o �3 'A• - -b b Ln r' EM o4 64 E pz c� jajejjsjuiwpy gjoM 3ilgnd'uEwJawwrZ 8laJ9 luawg3ej4y •aullpeap sly} laaw o} se os `aauuew Alawll a ul SuluuaH aa;luuar of sluawwo3 inoA Ilwgns aseald 'sl1exap JOI a0I40N pa43e:Re aql aaS 'TZOZ 'iZ aagoa70 Aq S3(](] A;undo 2ul>l of anp aje sluawwo:) •uolleollddV jo a3l;oN jaafgns ay} }o Ado:) a sl pag3e:aV uol;e.ialld seajd le3calaJ laaa:) AeVq / S003VTTI uope3llddd jo a3lloN 530(3 A4uno:) Sui)l U33fgnS J@OeueW Suluueld 4uaa-in' (]3:)/2uluuaH JaPuar :WOb3 JO;Daal(] slled/43ellag ailsal uolleljodsuel1- JoleJlslulwpd Md Anda(]/Iaa:Pad PePW aopall(] swa;sAS A4!1!in/AgsujoH sA3 juaw:peda(] aal3/seBaed ane(] :01 ZZOZ '0S jagwaidaS :31` O W n 0 N d b 0 iN 3 W Y 1N3WdOl3A3❑ OIWONOJ3 ONV AlINn W W O:) dO 1N3 VYIUVd3a I L4 Notice King County of Application Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Type 2) Renton, WA 98057.5212 206-296-6600 TTY Retay: 71 File No.: L1IAEOD5 —May Creek Critical Areas Alteration (CARE) DOES Project Manager: Kim Claussen Applicant: King County Water & Land Resources Div. Telephone No.: 206-296-7167 (WLRD) E-mail: Kimberty.claussen@kingcounty.gov Attn: Doug Chin' 201 S. Jackson St, Suite 600 Date Application Filed: August 22, 2091 Seattle WA 98104 Date Determined Complete: September 9, 2011 Project Location: The site Is located on the south side of SE May Valley Road at 148'^ Ave SE (approx.) Parcels Numbers: 0223059076; 0223059091; 4223059075; 6223059084 and 0223059005 Project Description: The project proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions, remove vegetation, sediment and provide streamtwettand mitigation between river mile 4.3 and 4.9 (approx.) of May Creek. The goal of the project is to reduce the duration of flooding on properties by removing In - stream channel obstructions Permits requested in this application: Critical Areas Alteration Exception (CAAE) Relevant environmental documents are available at the above address: Wetland report, mitigation pian, Baseline stream conditions study, hydraulic & hydrologic study, sediment assessment, water quality and monitoring plan Development regulations to be used for project mitigation, known at this time: King County Code 21A Consistency with applicable County plans and regulations: This proposal will be. reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County codes. A Mitigated Determination of Non -significance was Issued by WLRD September 8, 2010 Other permits not included in this application, known at this time: Army Corp of Engineers; State -- Water Quality, NPDES, HPA; King County Clearing & Grading permit; City of Renton — grading permit & Variance (Stonegate HOA tract) The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) will issue a decision on this application following a 21 -day public comment period which ends on October 21, 2011. Written' comments on this application must be submitted to.DDES at the address below. A public hearing is not required for this application prior to the DDES decision. However, the DOES de6sion may be appealed to the King County Hearing Examiner, who would conduct an appeal hearing prior to making a decision on the appeal. Details of the appeal process will be included in the notice of decision. Any person wishing additional information on this proposed project should contact the Project Manager at the phone number or e-mail listed above. You may review the application and any environmental documents or studies in our Renton office. NOTE: To request this information in alternative formats for people with disabilities, call 206-296-6600 or TTY Relay: 711. Department of Development and Environmental Services Building & Fire Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98057-5212 Date of Mailing: September 27, 2011 If you wish to receive'a copy of the DOES report and decision of this. application, complete and return this portion of the notice to the Building & Fire Services Division at the address listed above. File No.: L11AE005 — May Creek Name: Address: Telephone No.: King County has received an application to develop property at the address listed above. You are receiving this notice because our records indicate that you own property within approximately 500 feet of the proposal. S,ILUSD\CURRENT PLANNING1Support StafftShirley+CUP & A£ PROCESSINGIAE NOA & NODUI 1ae005noa.doc 4 f PROJECT LOCATION v \ \ O I COALFIELD SE MAY 405 VALLEY 4 yC , I RD I Iw w CITY OF. RENTON z_ KING COUNTY f ;IA �0 g o THE ,EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL UD LQ FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE FROM AUG 22 mu King County G.I.S. PURPOSE.- REDUCE DURATION OF FLOODING PROJECT TITLE: C QpW WORK: EK; ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO MAY CREMAY CREEK DRAINAGE iMPR 'lJii74E FLOW OBSTRUCTING BETWEEN APPROX. RIVER MILE 4.3 AND 4.9. VEGETATION AND SEDIMENT FROM DIRECTIONS TO SITE:SHEET TITLE. MAY CREEK. PLANT 15' BUFFER OF FROM COAL CREEK PARKWAY, (EAST OF VICINITY MAP NATIVE VEGETATION ON BOTH SIDES 1-405) TURN EAST ON S.E. MAY VALLEY OF CHANNEL. ENHANCE ROAD. GO TO 148TH AVE S.E, TURN SOUTH OFF -CHANNEL WETLAND FISH TO BRIDGE OVER MAY CREEK. HABITAT DOWNSTREAM OF 148TH AVE ATOM: N.A. ON THIS SHEET SCALE: H: 1" 2000' S.E. ASSISTANCE BY: UNDSEY MILLER SHEET: 1 OF 11 DRAWN BY: MEREDITH RADELLA DATE: JULY 29, 2011 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, September 15, 20112:19 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Dredging Public Notice for 401 c and CZM Attachments: May Creek Dredging 401 c and CZM Public Notice comments.pdf From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:06 PM To: ECY RE FED PERMITS Cc: Lull, Lori C NWS; Randy McIntosh; 'Fisher, Larry D (DFW)'; Padgett, Rebekah (ECY); McGraner, Patrick (ECY); Dave Garland ; Jennifer T. Henning; Chin, Doug; Hartley, James Subject: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to May Creek Dredging Public Notice for 401c and CZM To Whom It May Concern, Attached you will find comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division in response to the Public Notice of Application for the above referenced project. A signed hard copy has also been sent to the Olympia office of Ecology. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015-172 nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-4752 May 11, 2011 Washington Department of Ecology -SEA Program Federal Project Coordinator P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 401c and CZM Consistency Public Notice of Application Dear Sir or Madame: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (MITFD) has reviewed the Public Notice of Application for a State of Washington 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project. This project is the first of potentially four phases to dredge May Creek. In this first phase, the project proposes to dredge May Creek from Rivermile 4.3 to Rivermile 4.9, removing sediments, reed canarygrass and some of the existing willows that are within the flooded area of concern. . As noted in previous comments, the MITFD has expressed concerns about proposals to dredge May Creek because of potential adverse impacts to salmon and their habitats. This project proposes to dredge 2,000 linear feet of May Creek and its associated wetland in areas identified as salmon spawning and rearing habitat (May Creek Baseline Stream Conditions Report). As noted in various May Creek documents reviewed, this is the first dredging proposal of potentially four projects that would result in the dredging of 2.26 miles of May Creek in May Valley, which is 75% of the valley length and 32% of May Creek's entire length. The combined impact of all of these dredging projects would likely result in a significant loss of existing salmon habitat, and potentially future adverse impacts upstream and downstream from the dredged reaches as other landowners seek to protect their properties from bank erosion. We recommend that King County implement and exhaust all less impacting alternatives prior to dredging May Creek. We remain concerned that this project will adversely affect salmon and aquatic habitats without sufficient mitigation for these impacts. The project proposes to directly impact the natural process of sedimentation and floodwater storage along May Creek without adequately assessing the potential impacts to salmon and their habitat in the project area and in upstream and downstream areas. In particular, the potential pre- and past -project rearing habitat available for juvenile salmon in May Creek has not been quantified. . Furthermore, far those impacts which have been quantified, the project impacts exceed the proposed mitigation in length and area. While the proposal to fence and plant native wetland/ riparian vegetation Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries. Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice Page 2 and create alcoves with wood and sediment is an improvement over the existing conditions for most of the project area, the extent of these mitigation -measures is insufficient to mitigate for the potential loss of 48,000 square feet of instream habitat as a result of this dredging project. The planting buffer is significantly less than the regulated buffer and would provide inadequate riparian functions as a result. Additional mitigation for this project will likely be required to fully mitigate for the unavoidable environmental impacts from the project. Mitigation should include maximizing the natural processes that create and sustain salmon habitat including: l) improving pasture conditions and controlling other existing sediment sources through agricultural best management practices, farm conservation plans, and other measures as appropriate; 2) greatly minimizing the dredge area; 3) adding additional habitat mitigation to the dredged portion; 4) increasing the stream/wetland buffer width to the regulated 25 foot buffer width and increase riparian plantings; 5) avoid impacting downstream portions of May Creek; and 6) mitigating any unavoidable impacts to downstream areas. We are concerned that this project is a "short term fix" and that there is a high likelihood that additional dredging will be proposed elsewhere and/or in the future that may again adversely affect May Creek, its associated wetlands, and potentially the mitigation implemented for this project. Instead we recommend focusing more effort on the obvious land use and pasture- related sediment sources and allow the May Creek more room to store and transport its sediment load, consistent with natural stream processes. Additional specific comments and questions about this project are attached for your review and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions at 253-876-3116. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc. Lori Lull, USACOE Randy McIntosh, NMFS Larry Fisher, WDFW Region 4 Rebekah Padgett, WDOE, NW Region Patrick McGranger, WDOE, NW Region Dave Garland, WDOE, NW Region Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planning Doug Chin, King County DNRP Jamie Hartley, King County DDES Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401c and CZM Public Notice Page 3 Other Potential Alternatives We are concerned that King County has not fully pursued all available alternatives that could reduce the need to dredge the entire area proposed under Phase I (and future phases) and reduce the amount of native vegetation removals to better protect existing instream and riparian functions. For example, most of the properties that would benefit from Phase I dredging are used for livestock pasture. King County Code (Title 21.A.30) regulates these areas to "support the raising and keeping of livestock in the county in a manner that minimizes the adverse impacts of livestock on the environment particularly with regard to their impacts on water quality and salmonid fisheries habitat in King County watersheds". Itis not clear how the adjacent properties are in compliance with this code which limits the maximum number of livestock on a per acre basis. As part of the Code compliance, property owners are required to have a farm plan with maximum densities of livestock. These farm plans require: "Site-specific management measures for minimizing nonpoint pollution from agricultural activities and for managing wetland and aquatic areas including, but not limited to: a. livestock watering; b. grazing and pasture management; c. confinement area management; d. manure management; and e, exclusion of animals from aquatic areas and their buffers and wetlands and their buffers with the exception ofgrazed wet meadows. " (KCC 21A.30.045.2). It should be noted that KCC 21.A.30.045.13 requires that farm management plans seek to achieve a "minimum 25 foot buffer of diverse, mature vegetation between grazing areas and the ordinary high water mark of all type S and F aquatic areas and the wetland edge of any category 1, H or III wetland with the exception of grazed wet meadows, using buffer averaging where necessary to accommodate existing structures." The proposed mitigation buffer for dredging is a maximum of 15 feet that is substantially less that the County Code. Another problem is that the mitigation buffer area is not proposed to be permanently protected in a conservation easement. From our field visit on April 26, 2011, it appears that the properties in question are not complying with King County Code Title 21.A.30. Prior to the approval of any dredging proposal that will adversely impact salmon habitat in May Creek, we recommend that the properties demonstrate compliance with Title 21.A.30 in that the property owners have minimized their contributions to the sedimentation and flooding problem, including providing a vegetated buffer to control sediment loading and shading out the existing reed canarygrass in and along May Creek and its tributaries. The project should also evaluate the potential for the existing SE 148th Street Bridge to create an obstruction and create backwater conditions that cause sediment to deposit upstream. Per the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses for the project (December 2010), this bridge cannot pass a 100 -year flood without overtopping the roadway, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401 c and CZM Public Notice Page 4 Proiect benefits The purpose of the project is to reduce the duration of flooding on local property owners by removing in - stream channel obstructions. There should be further analysis that discusses how much used pasture area will have reduced flooding and for what duration for each of the affected properties to determine project impacts versus potential benefits. The Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis report suggests that the decrease in flood durations at 100 cfs is 7 hours which suggests little benefit for substantial environmental impacts to May Creek. Project Impacts We are concerned that the existing rearing habitat in May Creek will be Iost through the combination of channel dredging, reed canarygrass removal, and removal of in -water and adjacent willows. There is no estimate given for the potential Ioss of rearing habitat. However, the impact analysis indicates that the total impact area is 43,995 square feet (1.01 acres), whereas, the proposed mitigation area at the two off - channel alcoves is 10,238 square feet (0.24 acres). This is less than a 1:1 ratio of impact to mitigation area and will likely result in unmitigated impacts to existing rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. In addition, details are lacking regarding the flood event needed to connect the alcoves to May Creek, the corresponding water depth in the alcoves, how Iong they will be inundated, and how much rearing habitat would be created. If the alcoves are not fully connected to May Creek or the entire area is not inundated, then the mitigation area alcoves may actual provide less habitat than the proposed 10,238 square feet and also may potentially result in stranding mortality. The project has not adequately described or analyzed the sediment sources coming into May Creek from Long Marsh Creek. For example, it is not clear if undersized culverts on Long Marsh Creek are contributing to bank erosion and contributing to the sediment load. Alternatively, upstream stormwater contribution may be causing sediment transport in Long Marsh Creek too. Additional information is needed to assess the contribution from Long Marsh Creek and if needed, measures taken since Long Marsh Creek was identified a major contribution in the County's sediment assessment report. Finally, we do not view the proposed Long Marsh Creek work as mitigation for reasons noted below. It is also unknown what benefit, if any, would occur from creating a side channel at the Long Marsh/May Creek confluence to trap sediment. It seems likely that this constructed feature would fill in from upstream sediment, since the mitigation design is not providing sufficient width in the upstream portions of Long Marsh Creek to slow down the rate of sediment transport and retain sediment in the channel upstream. In addition, the proposal to remove existing red alders that are 10-15 years old with smaller trees in the same 15 foot wide buffer on Long Marsh Creek is an impact, not mitigation. The project may not have fully considered potential impacts to Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. According to the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, King County indicates that chinook and sockeye salmon do not travel upstream as far as May Valley. However, King County has data from the Salmon Watcher's program that indicates that adult Chinook, sockeye, and coho were reported as far upstream as Green's Creek in 2001, which is just downstream of the SE 148s bridge. (see IIU: //your.kinpcounty. g_ov/dM/library/archivc- �.f Muckleshool Indian Tribe Fisheries Division May 11, 2011 Comments to May Creek Dredging 401 c and CZM Public Notice Page 5 documents/wlr/waterres/salmon/Maps/2001/0205distroEASTIakeWA.pdf ). The project also needs to mitigate for the loss of the full channel spanning pool at the Long Marsh Creek confluence. This pool will be eliminated by the stream dredging and not replaced based on the proposed mitigation plans. Since pools are limited in this portion of May Creek per the baseline stream conditions report, the pool should be replaced, potentially downstream of SE 148'h adjacent to the NGPE tract for Stonegate where there are fewer constraints. Alluvial fans are natural features at Long Marsh Creek and farther upstream at Indian Meadow Creek. According to the sediment assessment report, these features have been documented in the May Creek Valley since 1872. As a result, they will likely be continued sources of sediment to May Creek. Phase I and the future phases need to develop strategies that accommodate these natural features instead of proposing dredging now and into the future. The project may also aggravate existing conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen in May Creek. Currently May Creek through the May Valley is shown as a "Category 2" water for temperature and dissolved oxygen on Ecology's 2008 303(d) list. The removal of vegetation along 0.6 miles of May Creek that currently provides shade may worsen this condition. Once a redesigned project has been developed that addresses the concerns above, then a water quality protection plan and a monitoring plan that assesses the project's effects on sediment transport/filling, flooding, habitat creation and riparian planting success can be developed. Any approved project should be monitored for 10 years to determine project success (or failure) prior to allow any new dredging. Gerald Wasser From: A DUFFUS [klassicars@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:16 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Dredging Attachments: EcyOlsonquestions.pdf; EcytoKC91 1 1.pdf Hello, Attached is a recent memo from Dr. Patricia Olson of Washington State Department of Ecology. She questions the county's proposal to dredge a section of May Creek Also, attached is a formal letter from Ecology regarding the county's application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate and determination of Coastal Zone Management Consistency. These validate downstream property owners' concerns. Thanks for your support. Andrew Duffus Memo To: Rebekah Padgett, 401 Coordinator, SEA-NWRO From Patricia L. Olson, Senior Hydrogeologist, PhD, LHG, SEA -HQ M. Patrick McGraner, Erik Stockdale Date: August 15, 2011 Re: Comments on Lipper May Creek dredging project My comments are mostly based on observations from our field visit on 07/29/2011 supplemented by technical documents provided by King County. I also reviewed comments from USCOE, Muckleshoot Tribe, and downstream. property owners but did not include in my discussions. I have many comments on the King County documents. But I have limited time so this memo contains only a summary of some important issues. 401 certification and WQ issues The King County memo from Julia Turney to Doug Chen dated 2/11/2011 discusses how the project will increase the channels fine sediment transport efficiency within the project area (pp 14). The memo also states that fine sediment and organic material will be transported downstream at a constant rate rather than an episodic rate (pp 15) and sediment delivery to May Creek will be reduced "in the project area". This will be a change in the current sediment transport regime and current downstream effects from the fine sediment transport Since lower flows will be transporting sediment, the fine sediment will likely be deposited in areas upstream of where high, episodic flows would deposit the sediment. However, the memo does not address what sediment volumes will be transported and where fine sediment will be deposited downstream other than to say it won't be Lake Washington. While the memo says that the project will decrease the agricultural sediment source at some time in the future, it does not say how long the increased sediment load will occur. The memo states that quantitative sediment estimates are not available (pp 16). These factors present ambiguities in terms of water quality effects. Dredging The project seems somewhat short-sighted because one time dredging will not solve the flooding extent and duration over time. LiDAR data indicate that there are large floodplain areas below the channel elevation (Figure 1). Some of this is may be due to LiDAR processing for the bare earth DEM. However, the H and H study supports this conclusion (pp 19). The "flood basin" type landform may be a natural condition or it may be due to years of dredging and lowering groundwater levels which promotes subsidence in organic rich soils (e.g. hydric and peatsoils). Wetland drainage leads to oxidation of the upper organic horizon burning up organic component The weight of livestock and machinery will increase the compaction and subsidence as well (e.g. Devin and others 1999). The survey notes that accompany the General Land Office (G LO) maps shown in the Turney memo indicate that the upper basin was mostly a groundwater fed wetland system. These conditions suggest that dredging is somewhat akin to trying to channelize a bathtub where water inflow is greater than outflow. Page 1 o�� ke S U",to Cost -benefit: There may be a cost -benefit analysis but I haven't found iL There should be cost -benefit analysis of various options including removing backwater effects caused by bridges, reducing reed canary grass, reducing or eliminating fine sediment sources, and removing willows and replanting with vegetation that was documented to occur in the area including cottonwood, ash, maple, cedar and undergrowth species such as alder, native Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca), and vine maple. Backwater effects Backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge. The FEMA longitudinal profile indicates that backwater likely occurs at floods less than the 10 -year flood. The King County Hydraulic and Hydrologic, Analysesofthe May Creek Channel Restoration Project 12/17/2010 (hereafter referred to as the H and H study) includes measured water surface profiles that include the footbridge. Table 1, pp 4-5 shows the footbridge location as river mile 4.612. Figure 3, pp 19 shows the water surface elevations measured on 01/08/2009 and 01/22/2009. The measured water surface profiles just upstream of the bridge show the backwater effect However, the documents ignore this effect For example, on pp 31, of the Hand H study, a description of gravel bar and flooding is given: "During mean annual flows (8.6 cfs through the study area), control points are vegetation choking points in the wetland downstream of 148th Ave SE bridge and mildly so upstream of 148th and gravel deposition where Long Marsh enters into May Creek at approximately river mile 4.64, just upstream of a footbridge. This high point of gravels controls the water surface elevation upstream approximately for 2000 feet to a footbridge located approximately at river mile 5.04. Similarly for higher flows (e.g.1 year event), Long Marsh again controls water surfaces upstream for the same reach length." Again on pp 54: "These results are also dependant on the relocation of where Long Marsh creek deposits gravels during storm events. This tributary has clearly been shown in the past to deposit enough gravels to effectively backwater May Creek upstream of its confluence. Additionally, shear stresses in May Creek are far below forces necessary to mobilize gravels that are being deposited by Long Marsh creek." Well, shear stresses generally are lower in backwater areas. . We visited this site, and the form and location of the gravel bar strongly suggests that the bridge is causing the excess gravel deposition probably due to the back water effect Therefore the bridge is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2000 feet upstream (from H and H study). The gravel would disburse downstream rather than creating an oversized gravel bar if the bridge were sized properly or removed during overbank flows. Instead of evaluating this option, the documents focus on removing the gravel and "mitigating" by removing the existing vegetation buffer along Long Marsh Creek and forcing the Creek into an unnatural planform. The documents acknowledge that the 1481h Street Bridge causes a backwater effect This effect can be seen of the FEMA longitudinal flood profiles. While the effect is more local resizing the bridge would also increase hydraulic efficiency just upstream of the bridge. The Long Marsh Creek mitigation project is not mitigation. The proposed stream alignment does not appear to be based on the existing or historic channel characteristics. The LiDAR data shows an alluvial fan but it indicates that there were distributary channels rather than a single channel meandering stream (Figure 1). A similar situation occurs on the Indian Meadows alluvial fan. The proposed planform and the area allotted for channel movement is not natural to an alluvial fan 0 Page 2 ' � I system so is not a restoration project but more of a drainage efficiency project not related to historic fluvial processes and landforms. Geomorphic analysis The geomorphic interpretations and sediment transport study appear to be done by persons not well -versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response. For example, the Sediment transport study conducted in the ravine (Anchor QEA, LLC, 06/2009 ) relies on pebble counts along 3 transects for evaluating sediment transport. Pebble counts tend to be biased towards larger sediment. This bias means that the median sediment size, for example, could be larger than it really is resulting in higher discharge estimate to mobilize bedload. This may explain why the calculated effective sediment mobilization discharges are between the 5 -10 -year floods. In boulder areas this makes more sense. However, the sediment I saw in the near the Duffus and downstream properties is much smaller and should be mobilized at a lower discharge. The lower end of the range (73-150 cfs) estimated in the H and H study appears more realistic for the areas we observed. Moreover, for sediment transport, pebble counts should be done primarily on bars not the channel. The sediment transport study appears to have only relied on cross-channel pebble counts. Plus, a statement is made that the channel maybe armored. Channels with pavement or armoring should include a subsurface pebble count (e.g., Buffington and Montgomery 1997, 1999). As pointed out in the documents, HEC -RAS sediment transport model cannotaddress variable sediment transport conditions and changing channel elevations (erosion or deposition). Pebble counts may work for reconnaissance level study on the site basis (but not the whole reach), but not for a study related to assessing potential hazards such as damage to structures. Volumetric sediment sampling and more sample locations would be more appropriate in this case King County's Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division have well qualified Fluvial geomorphologists and geologists. The proponents of this project and the geomorphologists and geologists are in the same division. However, these qualified people appear to not have been consulted for evaluating the sediment transport study, baseline geology and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, and downstream channel response including migration to changes in flow and sediment regimes. The expertise is available within the same King County department and division. These people should be consulted on this project Downstream bank erosion. Since the sediment transport study and the H and H study appear to rely on reconnaissance site level data that does not include adequate sampling points, I cannot make a determination concerning potential for increased bank erosion downstream of the project area. There are many factors affecting bank erosion in the downstream reach such as riprap focusing flow against unprotected banks, reduction in natural sediment source from bank erosion, and head cutting from response to glacial lowering of the base level and more recent lowering of base level when Lake Washington water levels were lowered for transportation purposes. However, I disagree with the statement made in the H and H study that the increase in frequency of smaller floods is insignificant While it may be the case, this hypothesis has not been tested using adequate data. This conclusion wouldn't be an issue if there were not structures downstream, but there are. The H and H study indicates that the project will increase the frequency of occurrence for smaller floods (Table 8, pp 47-48). For example, the 1.01 year flood 0 Page 3 (67 cfs) and 1.11 year flood (118 cfs) frequency of occurrence will increase by 16% and 10% respectively. The 2 -year event, often considered a surrogate for effective discharge where data are not available, frequency will increase by 5%. The increase in frequency of these small floods could affect sediment transport dynamics. Simply put, the increase in small flood frequency will increase the occurrence of unit stream power (specific weight of water*channel gradient * discharge/active channel width) associated with these small floods by 16,10 and 5%, unless gradient decreases or width increases. Since gradient is somewhat controlled by valley conditions, stream width is more likely to change. Stream power is an indicator of transport capacity. Increased transport capacity can lead to increased incision and bank erosion. Yet the H and H study says there will be no significant effect. There appears to be a disconnection in the conclusions supporting dredging. A 5-16% increase in stream power for potential sediment transport events is not significant but a 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of 50 cfs is significant enough to dredge (Table 9, pp 53, H and H study). Since there is disagreement between sediment transport numbers, King County should use its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment'transport and erosion study. Also the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere. In the meantime King County and residents should explore other options such as increasing conveyance capacity under 148th Street Bridge and footbridge just downstream of Long Marsh Creek. The foot bridge is obviously an imposition on water conveyance as the sediment wedge developed upstream testifies. The King County documents indicate that flood storage will be reduced in the project area, so additional flood storage to compensate for that loss should be included in the project The GLO survey notes describe upper May Creek from just downstream of the Renton -Issaquah Road and upstream as a crabapple swale. Vegetation consisted of Pacific crabapple, hardhack, willow and some indiscernible tea. There was no mention of any "brook" or other flowing water feature. The vegetation and lack of surface water implies it was a groundwater fed wetland. Restoration of some wetland functions in the project area as well as this area could increase flood storage and attenuate flood volumes downstream. Other options include, reducing reed canary grass, reducing or eliminating fine sediment sources (those above background), and replanting vegetation' that was documented to occur in the area including cottonwood, ash, maple, cedar and undergrowth species such as alder, native Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca), and vine maple. 0 Page 4 References Buffington, J.M., and Montgomery, D.R. 1997. A systematic analysis of eight decades of incipient motion studies, with special reference to gravel -bedded rivers. Water Resour. Res. 33:1993-2029. Buffington, J.M., and Montgomery, D.R.1999. Effects of sediment supply on surface textures of gravel -bed rivers. Water Resour. Res. 35: 3523-3530 Galloway, Devin, David R Jones, and S.E. Ingebritse, eds.1999, Land Subsidence in the United States U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182. Page 5 Figure 1: A relative water surface elevation DEM was derived from the LiDAR bare earth DEM. The DEM shows t he relative height of land surface in relation to water surface (in feet) at the time of the LiDAR flight. The blue values indicate areas that are below the water surface elevation. Page 6 E � � 1y � .n .n .n .n +n yr ,n .n Lo .n of n N L(� Lo Lq wY Lo >n O O N rn 17 ' ♦ In r I ns w m c ns m m m nr or rn rn rn a a w N r fn w r 6 o N N ".jri y r La vi w ac r ti m a; of of r i i �I � ��®®000000aa000000000000000aoa0000000000000e E}r T-1 v� S' t 3 d. LIQ. J :, ►.�� b dF z Ir r i a k _ - �i 4 � �� .rig- �� •. .� - '1.. sserg oM Cyt ieev ao STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - Norlhwest Regional office - 3190 760th Avenue SE - Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 - (425) 649-7000 September 1, 2011 Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Reference #NWS -2010-158 Status of Application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Chin: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a joint public notice with the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for the above proj ect on September 24, 2010. Ecology has one year to issue its individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). On August 31, 2010, Ecology notified you by certified letter that this project would require an individual WQC and Coastal Zone Management Consistency (CZM) determination and requested additional information. Throughout the review of this project, Ecology has raised a number of questions about the purpose and need of the project, as well as technical issues regarding the wetlands, sediment transport, and water quality (see Attachment 1), As the statutory deadline of September 23 2011 avoroaches, we are concerned that many of these issues have vet to be fully addressed and we will not have reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met. In order to complete the WQC process and make our CZM determination; we need the following additional information: • Description of how the sediment disposal areas will be stabilized in order to prevent fine material from entering waters of the state (including wetlands). Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan (King County, July 2011): o Page 1, Section 2: The citation for the section of the water quality standards that allows a temporary area of mixing for turbidity during construction should be corrected from WAC 173--201A-400 (4) and (6) should be corrected to WAC 173- 201A-200(l)(e)(i), Op - Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 2of6 o Page 2, Section 3, Sampling Locations: Ecology agrees that the background and point of compliance sampling locations will need to change as the project moves from segment to segment. And it is understood that Figure 1 is a representative site plan showing sampling locations. Please note that background samples should be taken at the same time as the point of compliance samples. o Page 4, Section 3, Long-term Data Storage and Reporting: The plan indicates that data will be provided to regulatory agencies upon request. The plan should be updated to reflect that if no exceedances are detected results of water quality sampling should be sent to my attention at Ecology on a monthly basis and that any exceedances should be reported within 24 hours with the following information: a. A description of the nature and cause of exceedance. b. The period of non-compliance, including exact dates, duration, and times and/or the anticipated time when the Applicant will return to compliance. c. The steps taken, or to be taken, to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the non-compliance. d. In addition, within five (5) days after notification of an exceedance, submit a written report that describes the nature of the exceedance, turbidity results and location, photographs, and any other pertinent. information. • It is expected that there will be stream water temperature changes between the time the County removes more mature vegetation and when the replanted vegetation reaches the size to shade the creek, creating an additional impact to water quality. What measures will be taken to address this? The May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, prepared by King County Road Services Division, revised July 2011, needs to be revised to: o Vegetative coverage of 80 percent under Section 6. 1, o Replanting of dead plants to 100 percent for- years 1 and 2 under Section 6. 1, and o Include submittal of an As -Built Report and monitoring reports for years 1 and 2 under Section 6.2, Post -Construction Monitoring, The memorandum from Julia Turney to Doug Chin, King County, RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project: SE May Valley Road 148th Avenue SE—Sediment Assessment, dated February 9, 2011, does not address what sediment volumes will be transported and where fine sediment will be deposited downstream other than to say it will not be Lake Washington. While the memorandum states that the project will decrease the agricultural sediment source at some time in the future, it does not say how long the increased sediment load will occur. The memorandum states that quantitative sediment estimates are not available (page 16). Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 3 of 6 King County developed a plan to monitor for erosion downstream from the project area (memorandum from Don Althauser, King County, to Bill Kerschke and Julia Turney, King County, RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Post - Construction Erosion Monitoring Plan – Downstream of 148a` Avenue SE, dated August 4, 2011). The plan needs to be revised to include the project area. The sediment monitoring plan should monitor sediment accumulation or erosion in the creek and changes in channel cross-sections and longitudinal profile to provide information on project effectiveness. It also should include contingencies in case the project does not perform as -expected. The revised DARPA #6a, Stream/Wetland Mitigation, fust bullet, states that fencing will be installed around the planting areas to minimize livestock access to the stream. This appears to refer to the riparian planting buffer on both sides of May Creek—is this correct? Current site plans show fencing around the mitigation area west of 14e Avenue SE, however the plans are do not show fencing that would permanently exclude livestock from direct access to the restored riparian planting buffer area and. creek upstream of 148`' Avenue SE. The plans should be updated to reflect this. #6d of the JARPA refers to a riparian planting buffer along Long Marsh Creek. Will the buffer be on both sides of the creek? How wide will the buffer be? Will there be a buffer along the new side channel, and if so, how wide will this buffer be? Are the riparian buffer areas along Long Marsh Creek and the side channel included in the proposed mitigation calculations --Ecology does not believe that this should be included. #6d of the JARPA mentions that 16 pieces of large woody debris will be placed in the off -channel alcoves. Does this figure include the snags? And is it correct that another 60 pieces of large woody debris will be placed in the wetland enhancement area per the JARPA? These figures are inconsistent with the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A.120.5) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, prepared by King County Road Services Division, revised July 2011, page 4, first bullet, which states that 76 pieces of large woody debris and 2 snags will be installed. These figures need to be clarified. In King County's July 22, 2011 response to May 11, 2011 comments by Karen Walter, Muckieshoot Indian Tribe (page 3), the County mentions a Draft Long Marsh Creels Sediment Control and Habitat Restoration Project Basis of Design Report and says that the final report will be available upon request. Please provide a copy of this report to Ecology. • On September 16, 2010, Ecology noted concern about the 15 -foot riparian vegetation buffer in comments on the State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS). Specifically, we questioned the effectiveness of this size buffer in shading out reed canary grass and stated that we could not support the proposed Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 4 of 6 project with this size buffer. The proposed 15 -foot buffers remain below the best available science which would more closely approximate 30-35 feet. As Karen Walter of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has pointed out (May 11, 2011 comment letter to Ecology), King County Code requires existing livestock operations to implement a farm management plan or meet management standards outlined in the Code. In King County's July 22, 2011 response to Ms. Walter, you indicate that two of the four livestock operations have developed plans and that the buffers specified in these plans are 25 feet -1 0 feet more than the County is proposing. In Ecology's comments on the MDNS we also noted that the proposed planting of the "buffer" particularly on the left bank in Reach 4 is problematic Because this area is NOT buffer. It is wetland that likely receives runoff from upslope seepage as well as bank overtopping. This area is very wet and needs to be planted with native vegetation that can tolerate long periods of inundation. Concerns remain with regards 4o, plant establishment in wetter reaches, specifically on the left bank upstream of Long Marsh Creek. Site plans are not specific as to which plants will be installed in this reach. It is Ecology's assessment that backwater caused by the McFarland footbridge is the primary reason for gravel deposition just upstream of the bridge, extending 2,000 feet upstream. The form and location of the gravel bar indicates that the bridge is the primary cause for excess gravel deposition probably due to the backwater effect. Therefore, it appears that the bridge, rather than the gravel bar, is the primary cause of the deposition and backwater effect extending 2,000 feet upstream. The report focuses on dredging and vegetation removal, without considering resizing or removal of the bridge. Additionally, the documents acknowledge that the 148th Avenue SE Bridge causes a backwater effect. Resizing the 148h Avenue SE bridge would increase hydraulic efficiency just upstream of the bridge. King County and residents should explore other options such as increasing conveyance capacity under the 148th Avenue SE bridge and the footbridge just downstream of Long Marsh Creek. Ecology believes that the effectiveness of the proposed action for the stated intent of decreasing the duration of surface water on the grazed wetlands: o Has not been fully demonstrated to merit the level of impacts proposed for 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of 50 cubic feet per second (cfs), and o` One-time dredging will not solve the flooding extent and duration over time because large floodplain areas lie below the channel elevation; water inflow into the wetland system appears to be greater than the outflow; no upstream sediment study has been provided with detailed plans to reduce upstream sediment; changes to the 148th Ave SE bridge and footbridge downstream of Long Marsh Creek have not been proposed to increase conveyance capacity. • King County's Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division has well qualified fluvial geomorphologists and geologists on staff; however, it does not Doug Chin, Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 5 of 6 appear that they were consulted for evaluating the sediment transport study, baseline geology and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, the downstream channel response including migration to changes inflow and sediment regimes. The studies upon which the proposal is based appear to be flawed in terms of maldng conclusions based on insufficient information or incorrect data. King County should utilize its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study. Additionally, the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere. Ecology questions the premise upon which the proposal is based and cannot complete its review until this work is complete and the County has reassessed the project. Unless we receive all of the above documentation by Se tember 16 2011. cology wilt have to deny the WQC/CZM for this project_ Receipt of a denial without prejudice does not preclude you from resubmitting a request for 401 Certification at a later date. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter or the 40l/CZM Certification process at (425) 649-7129 or e-mail at Rebekah.Padgett c[decy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Rebek R. Padge Federal Permit Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program RRP:cja By certified mail #70110470 0003 3720 8964 Cc: T7 Stetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lori Lull, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers E -Cc: Patrick McGraner, Ecology Patricia Olson, Ecology Erik Stockdale, Ecology Loree Randall, Ecology Doug Chin, .Project Manager September 1, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Attachment 1: May Creek Key Ecology Correspondence Chronology 3/24/10 Ecology raised concerns in an e-mail that followed up on a 2122110 site visit, including the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the effectiveness of the 15 -foot -wide buffers. 515110 Ecology participated in an interagency pre -application meeting where we provided substantive comments regarding the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the need to redelineate the wetland, buffer width, and livestock access to the creek. 9/16/10 Ecology submitted continents on the State Environmental Policy Act mitigated determination of non -significance regarding effectiveness, purpose, and need of the proposal, buffer width., how wet the Ieft bank is in Reach 4 for establishing canopy cover, the degradation of the pastures and need for farm plans to protect riparian habitat and creeks, and livestock access to the creek. 4/26/11 Ecology participated in an interagency site visit where we raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, pdrmanent protection of the mitigation area, the buffers on Long Marsh Creek, whether the Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation, monitoring of sediments in the project area and downstream, best management practices, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4, the need for future dredging. 4/28/11 Ecology followed hp by e-mail documenting questions raised at the 4/26/11 site visit. City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water &Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser a!q PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148"' Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream Flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land horeline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h VGlare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/culturol Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet nim We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infolmg ion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY°r• AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 14, 2011 TO: Jerry Wasser, Planner FROM: Jan Illian, Plan Review SUBJECT: May Creek Drainage improvement Project SE 152nd and 148t" Ave SE LUA 11-065, V -H, SP have reviewed the application for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, located along May Creek near 1481h Ave SE, and have the following comments: SURFACE WATER 1. A hydrologic and hydraulic report, dated December 17, 2010, was prepared and submitted by King County. The report evaluates pre -project and post -project conditions, addresses changes in flow depth, velocity of flow at the 148th Ave SE road crossing, downstream limits of the project, and a minimum of %-mile downstream of the project. The report includes channel cross-sections and pre -project and post -project water surface elevations and channel profiles. The analysis includes discussion of flood flows between the 2 -year flood frequency and the 100 -year flood frequency. The report concludes that the project will cause no impacts within the project limits or downstream of the project. A fluvial geomorphologic analysis of the project, utilizing the information from the hydrologic/hydraulic report to evaluate and determine if the project will affect stream bank erosion, channel incision, or other changes that could occur in the project area or impact downstream properties, was included in the report. In summary, the report concludes that the project will cause no impacts within the project limits or downstream of the project. 2. An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are required. The plans shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards. 3. The 100 -year floodplain boundary must be shown on the project construction plans. GENERAL COMMENTS A traffic control plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction for the construction entrances on 148th Ave SE. Construction hours will be in accordance with city standards (7:00 AM -8:00 PM), or as established in the approved traffic control plan. H:/CED/Plarining/Current Plan ning/PROJ ECTS/1 1-065.J erry/Pla n Review Comments LUA 11-065.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �� e� COMMENTS DUE, SEPTEMBER 9, L&IF RENTON APPLICATION NO: LUAU -065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 AUG 2 6 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148`4 Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LanylShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics ti h Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposol. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: dansAUL-h COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2%&FLOPMENT W APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 CITY OF RENT{ APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser AUG 2 6 201 PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148"' Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics ti h Glare Recreation Utilities Transpagation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date NICE5 IN oD City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: jfgonrCOMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 20�v" "'v""' ' APPLICATION NO: LUA11- - SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLIC Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PRO CT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian RECEIVE Plants SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148`h Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet No "TAF, �tvt rred . 3 B�a q�aoll B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date )N City o} ton Deportment of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �r-n F 55�, COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, 5P DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148th Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creels Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment ' Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet �Cjc"UA .t Sti- (;e_ � rl1 O L D_,Z:) . B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS j We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition -i ormotio ' nee to properly assess this proposal. r U (�a zc:) tk Signature of Directo or Authorized Representative Date City q rton Department of Community & Economit elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLIC RE HEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:� COMMENT5 UE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011L____ APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULA D: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148`h Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major impacts impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land Shoreline Use Animals Environmental health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing_____ Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 70,000 Feet ]Q 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ZN�tf Signature 96ireikor or Authorized Representative - Dat City o, )ton Department of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics LightlGlare Recreation Utilities Trans rtation Public Services Historic/Culturol Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS A4C a'lm ;�) x� k C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS 46� " , "Y"'A Ob We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is need" properly asses�Mis prop}osal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date \ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:,( COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-06S, V -N, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan IllianC'Irt,'26 SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A 3f, �RFN LOCATION: West of 148`h Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A RV1C SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics LightlGlare Recreation Utilities Trans rtation Public Services Historic/Culturol Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS A4C a'lm ;�) x� k C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS 46� " , "Y"'A Ob We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is need" properly asses�Mis prop}osal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date \ City o, iton Deportment of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: "R re, COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148`h Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL. Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li h Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 11,000 Feet WO Ae B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS "Vo /,^ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative 29 // Date Gerald Wasser From: Julie P. Bonwell Obonwell@lesourd.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:37 PM To: Gerald Wasser Cc: Hebe Bernardo Subject: LUA11-065 May Creek Project Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner City of Renton Dear Mr. Wasser: PLEASE DO NOT ISSUE A PERMIT TO THE COUNTY. ON THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT ON MAY CREEK. Our family home is immediately downstream of the proposed project. Access to our home is across a privately -owned bridge built many years ago. We have witnessed firsthand the damaging effects of runoff and erosion on our creek banks and bridge abutments and believe the project as currently proposed to be meritless. We feel vulnerable, even threatened, by the County's proposal to dredge and relocate a stream bed in an effort to "enhance" drainage of a wet land (horse pasture). We experience seasonal flooding on our property. We believe the project without consideration for the homeowners most impacted, from beginning right down to the type of trees it intends to replant. The County should be measuring ban_ k stability and bank erosion of the specific areas at risk. Permits to the County at this juncture are premature at best. Julie & Jim Bonwell Katie Bonwell 2914 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Wasser From: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmaii.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:27 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Dredging ProjectILUA11-065, V -H, SP Mr. Wasser, I respectfully request that the City of Renton deny King County a `Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Area Variance". The project is in a critical area. The downstream area that this project may potentially negatively impact is also a critical area! The downstream area was prezoned one dwelling per acre and declared an urban separator for good reasons: the presence of May Creek, and erosion and flooding in this area of May Creek. Both the County and the City recognize this urban separator designation. As Alex Pietsch once said, the City received more input regarding creating the May Valley Urban Separator than they did for the whole Boeing rezone. Our community has lived by May Creek and along side the steep slopes of the ravine that surround May Creek for many years. We know the sensitivity of this environmentally critical area. We have supported its protection amid concerns for the landscape and negative impacts to our own lives. We care deeply about our environmentally sensitive area. In fact, we gave up the potential economic gain of higher dwelling density by supporting the urban separator concept. We believe this project will exacerbate downstream flooding and erosion. As a community, we have been communicating these serious concerns to all agencies involved since May 2010. As a result, the county has revised the project several times. Nevertheless, it is still not good enough. To address concerns, the Washington State Department of Ecology sent a hydro -geologist to site visit the downstream properties. Doctor Patricia Olson, the sole departmental hydro -geologist for all of Washington State, typically reviews much larger scaled projects. In her report dated August 15th, 2011, she questioned, among other things, the very effectiveness of the project and erosion and sedimentation thresholds values assumed downstream. Subsequently, on September 1st, 2011 state Ecology notified the county that the proposed project is lacking and Ecology will deny the permits if not revised. I urge the City of Renton staff and hearing examiner to request Dr. Olson's memo and Ecology's letter directly. We ask that the City of Renton deny the permits requested by King County and support its own citizens in assuring that this project will not increase flooding and erosion downstream. We have new erosion pins placed in February 2010 and a new stream gauge (37H) in place in the center of the downstream properties. Monitoring these erosion pins and gauge for 1 water year with above average rainfall would enable a better understanding when erosion occurs in our community. We ask the City of Renton to support its' citizens and require this monitoring before this project is allowed to proceed. Thank you, Jean Rollins Gerald Wasser From: A DUFFUS [klassicars@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:35 AM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project LUA11-065, V -H, SP Attachments: Cityof rentoncomments090911.doc; FINAL May 5 - May Creek Summary 052510.doc; May Creek residence sandbagged.jpg; May Valley Pasture Storm 2010.jpg; Trees & property lost FOREVERJpg; May Valley Temporary Pasture Flooding Storm 2010.jpg; Home in Peril.jpg Hello Mr. Wasser: Attached please find my comments and question regarding this King County dredging proposal. Depending on how it goes I may send the photograph attachments to my letter separately. Also the Meeting Notes from the Office of Regulatory Assistance. (ORA) Thank you. Andrew Duffus p.s. looks like everything uploaded fine. Should be one letter, one meeting's notes ORA and five (5) photographs. 2905 Ilwaco NE Renton, WA 98059-3764 September 9th, 2011 Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project ILUA11-065, V-11, Dear Mr. Wasser: VIA E-MAIL King County Water & Land Resources Division proposes to dredge and/or remove reed canary grass and native willows between river mile 4.3 and 4.9 on May Creek. The goal of this ill-conceived project is an attempt to improve drainage on three horse pastures that are located within a wetland. Many downstream property owners, (all citizens of Renton) are apprehensive that this proposal may exacerbate stream flow velocity, volume and peak flow timing during storm events. (Footnote 1) There are severe and well documented flooding and erosion issues downstream that put our homes, properties and sole access bridges in peril. (Please see photographs attached.) Due to easement restrictions and development patterns, there is no way to access our properties other than private bridges across the creek. Recently the Washington State Department of Ecology conducted a review of the downstream issues. Their conclusion was that King County's project failed to provide the appropriate level of detail for potential downstream impacts. While we are less concerned about the removal of non-native invasive vegetation and replacement with native species suitable for stream bank stabilization and fish habitat, we are very concerned with the proposal to dredge, which we believe, will increase downstream flow during storm events. We are not isolated. Many of our concerns were echoed in an inter -agency meeting for the proposed project held on May 5, 2010. (See attached "Final Meeting Notes" ORA) Personnel from the City of Renton, two King County departments, the conservation district, state fisheries and ecology, the Muckleshoot Tribe and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attended this meeting. Several agencies expressed concern that this project was more about drainage of horse pastures than enhancement of May Creek and its associated wetlands. Questions asked regarded "buffers, repeated sedimentation, downstream impacts, inadequate mitigation," etc. During the past 16 months, the county has attempted to address some of those concerns. However, we do not believe that all issues are adequately resolved. As stated above the state Department of Ecology has recently concluded that King County's project failed to provide detail for potential downstream impacts. I am reiterating some of the unanswered questions of downstream property owners and public agencies. 1. Proposed stream and wetland buffer width? 2. Timing of May Creek storm surge flows? 3. Downstream bank erosion and destabilization of infrastructure? 4. Cumulative impacts of similar future proposed projects? 5. Ephemeral nature of this proposed project? First question, why is the county proposing only 15 -foot mitigation buffers? My property straddles May Creek. When 1 applied for a permit to build a garage located over 300' (three hundred feet) from the creek, I was required to dedicate and publicly record a 165 -foot conservation easement/buffer on both sides of the creek. A 15' buffer is considerably less than the 50 to 100 foot buffers that King County's own Code requires in rural areas. Further, within Renton city limits, Ordinance No. 5137 requires minimum 100 -foot buffers for a class 2 stream. (Page 102 5. a. 1(a)) Even by administrative reduction the minimum requirement is 75 feet. WHY ONLY 15 FOOT BUFFERS? Second question, will peak storm flow timing be altered post -project? Any alterations of upstream conditions in either the May Creek channel, wetlands, natural floodplain or any of the tributaries (i.e. Long Marsh Creek) may have significant adverse impacts on the timing of peak flows -through the valley, the canyon and the creek's mouth at Lake Washington. The relationship between flow, velocity and timing of storm impulses and the role of the upstream May Valley wetlands and tributaries is not addressed in any of the county's reports or the design of this proposed project. The "May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report" released in 1995 has an informative narrative and analysis of a storm event that occurred in] 990. This analysis discusses the January 1990 storm and how the tributaries and valley wetlands influenced the timing of peak flows. (See pages 5-24 to 5- 30) The report states, "upper basin tributaries ... peaked long before the valley." While the storm was generally considered a 100 -year storm, the storage and metering effect of May Valley reduced the flood flow at 148`h Ave SE (a.k.a. Nile NE) and further downstream to the range of a 10- to 25 year flow. "While the tributaries peaked in the morning of the 9`h during the heaviest rainfall, the main stem of May Creek did not peak until some 8 to 14 hours later. ...the large amount of valley floodplain storage resulted in a relatively small peak flow moving down through the valley at that time. A large portion of the flood volume was retained in the valley until the afternoon of the 9'h, when floodwaters in May Valley began to recede. ... The flood flow at 148`b equaled that ... of a 10- to -25 year flood.... This spread out the time of peak or near -peak discharge in the canyon and at the mouth, rather than concentrating the flood volume with a consequent higher peak." (Page 5-26 MCC&FC Report) This begs the question, what are the post -project impacts on storm event timing relationships of May Creek, its tributaries, wetlands and floodplains and downstream erosion and flooding? If we are going to remor atural wetland/floodplain choke point:. "tormwater metering points) and/or "manage" sediment contributed by Long Marsh Creek, what will be the downstream impacts to storm flow intensity and timing? Conclusion, the downstream impacts of the storm (scary enough as they were in 1990) could have been much worse had the creek, tributaries and wetland not interacted as they did. Has the timing of flood events and flow rate post channel clearing/dredging been adequately addressed? Third question, what about erosion and destabilization of homes and bridges downstream? The threshold of sediment transport (i.e. erosion) affects the creek's banks (our property), infrastructure (homes and sole access bridges) and aquatic habitat. To support the proposed dredging project the county is relying, in part, on the May Creek Sediment Transport Study (KC 2010) and the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project. (KC.2010) These studies use hydrologic simulation (HSP -F) and hydraulic model HEC -RAS. The number of data points in the Sediment Transport Study is limited because only three (3) flow -monitoring stations were established and one failed during the short 14 -month study period. The County has attempted to make up for this lack of hard data by simulating hydrologic conditions. We are not comfortable with this as there have been acknowledged errors in previous modeling of May Creek. Further, as in most streams, all sediment is not created equal. There are different size particles in the various reaches of May Creek. Particle size sampling is required to validate any model or simulation. King County has many times acknowledged the downstream erosion and flooding problems. In 2007, the county hired the consulting firm of Anchor QEA, LLC to study sediment transport (erosion) and suggest ways to mitigate erosion and flooding of homes, bridges and properties. King County spent a great deal of money and staff time to work with the consultants to determine how to stabilize the banks of May Creek downstream of the proposed project. Ideas to reduce erosion and flooding of homes, loss of bridges, etc. included re -aligning the creek channel, shoring up the banks and/or the outright purchase of at -risk -properties. The downstream challenges are significant. Yet, to -date, King County has not proceeded with any of this mitigation. Instead, they are proposing an upstream project that may exacerbate downstream risks! Between RM 3.8 and 4.0, the creek makes four 90 -degree bends. At these bends, the creek banks are extremely unstable. Furthermore, over time the creek bed is armoring itself with larger and larger cobble thus flow is now impacting bank stability to a greater extend. The creek banks are eroding and migrating. This is not only imperiling at least one home but is most certainly causing loss of property and habitat through bank collapse. (This geomorphology was predicted in the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study". (See excerpt reproduced below [2]) We asked the county install more in -stream flow monitoring stations, gather more data and be absolutely certain that there will be no unintended negative consequences to downstream public and private properties, and stream habitat. On February 1 Ith, 2011, King County Water and Land Resources (W&LR) completed the installation of six erosion -monitoring pins between River Mile 3.9 and RM 4.2 downstream of the proposed dredging project. Please note the stream bank erosion pins were installed on February 11, 2011. These were set sticking one-tenth (1/10th) of a foot out of the stream bank per King County email reproduced here. "> From: Tim. Kelly@kingcounty.gov > To: klassicars@hotmaii.com > Date: Mon, 2� ..pr 2011 12:12:57 -0700 > Subject: Emailing: Survey Notes for Andrew Duffus.pdf > Hi Andrew, tried calling a few times but your number (425-255-xxxx) goes straight to a busy signal. I'll try and call again later today (and tomorrow if necessary), but if you get this just email me back so I know. The pins all look to be set around 0.1'." At the bottom of this correspondence are stream flow records [(3) from October l st, 2010 to April 8th, 2011. Notice the flow recorded on the second day of April 2011 — 91.59 cubic feet per second. This writer examined three of the erosion monitoring pins on April 11 th, 2011. Two of the pins were exposed over three -tenths (3/1 Oth) of a foot. This indicated over two-tenths (2110th) of a foot erosion between date of install and date of observation. The stream flow records at gauge site 37H show a maximum flow of 92 cubic feet per second between February l lth, 2011 and the observation date, April 1 lth. it is reasonable to conclude that erosion occurred at 92 cfs OR LESS!! In the past King County, or its consultants, have come up with various erosion thresholds. These theoretical thresholds have been determined by interpolation and modeling. The current estimate the county is using is 233 cubic feet per second. However, this estimate rests on a limited number of empirical observations. Recently we have seen with our own eyes that bank erosion has occurred at just 92 cfs or less. Through our lawyer, we have asked the county to delay this project until potential adverse impacts downstream can be evaluated. Now that the county has installed more stream flow gauges and erosion monitoring sites there is a wonderful opportunity to determine a refined erosion baseline and clearly document that this proposed channel dredging will not create any unintended negative consequences downstream. Fourth question, what about cumulative impacts of similar future proposed projects? The May Creek Channel Restoration Baseline Stream Conditions (KC April 15, 2010) states, "The proposed project is one of four proposed "Ineffective Flow Projects" identified in the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers 2008). The four projects together would result in dredging of about 3.64 km (2.26 miles) of May Creek in May Valley, which is 75% of the valley length and 32% of May Creek's entire length." (Page 1-4 MCCBRSC) The cumulative impacts of aH these proiects must be addressed now! Not piecemeal as each subsequent project is considered. Fifth question, what about the ephemeral nature of this proposed project? GeoEngineers, the authors of the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers 2008) stated: "The greatest challenge and limitation to IPF 1 (Ineffective Flow Project One) is the ephemeral nature of the solution proposed. While IFP 1 would be expected to immediately address flood duration, conveyance, fish passage, and other issues, the benefits would be expected to be short lived.... May Valley is naturally a sediment deposition zone, and as sediment sources in the headwaters of the .ay Valley remain unmitigated, May C.. --k would be expected to fill back in." Before a lot of time, energy and money are spent, we ask that there is a concrete plan to address the otherwise ephemeral nature of the current proposal. MOREOVER, all the downstream impacts must be addressed! We are not saying that the project should not go forward. We are only saying that the county does not, at this time, have sufficient information to make this critical decision. We appreciate that the county has taken considerable time getting to this point. However, passage of time, by itself, does not fill in data gaps. As of today, data essential to making an informed decision is still missing. We ask that the City of Renton permit/variance decision be deferred to allow time to collect the necessary data and correlate the rainfall, stream flows and erosion in real time. Until this vear, there were no erosion monitoring stations in the reach of the creek that contains -four (4) erosion prone 90 degree bends. Until lite fall of 2009 there was no flow meter in this reach of the creek either. With these additional erosion monitoring stations pins and the additional flow gauge, it is now possible to have real time data to establish the erosion threshold with greater certainty. This, in turn, will allow the permitting agencies to understand better how the additional volume and velocity post -project may, or may not, exacerbate downstream flooding and erosion. We are asking for more time to collect and analyze data based on current known conditions (not assumption, interpretations or hypothesis). We are requesting greater certainty for the downstream citizens. We deserve mitigation to reduce any significant impacts to our homes, property and bridges and habitat. The city must not issue the permit/variance until the Washington State Department of Ecology, other local state and federal agencies, tribes and the public (particularly the downstream property owners, all citizens of the City of Renton,) have had their questions and concerns adequately addressed by the applicant. Moreover, adequate mitigation be proposed downstream. The city has an obligation to look out for its citizen's best interests. This also applies to the public and private infrastructure and riparian habitat at the mouth of May Creek (i.e. Barbee Mills). In summary, our questions are threshold of sediment transport, cumulative impacts, timing of peak flows, the projects ephemeral nature and regulatory critical areas buffer widths. We are asking that your department review our concerns and ensure that the county's proposed project does not have any unintended negative consequences downstream within the City of Renton. As a downstream property owner, I request that the City of Renton defer the Special Permit for Grade/fill and Critical Areas Variance at this time. This will allow time to correlate rainfall data, stream flow and the recently established erosion monitoring pins. We must establish and better understand the actual threshold of erosion as it affects the downstream reach of May Creek. The proposed project is primarily about draining several upstream horse pastures located in a wetland. There is potential for significant downstream impacts to people's homes and sole access private bridges! We ask Renton to consider this application very carefully and hold King County accountable. Sincerely, Andrew Duff -us cc: Mayor's Office, City Renton FOOTNOTES: (1) There are seven properties adjacent to May Creek within River Mile 4.3 an 4.9, the proposed project reach. One of these properties is a dedicated open space wetland; the second is an undeveloped -unused property that is obviously a wetland; and the third is not used for farming activity of any kind. The remaining four properties do pasture horses. None of the homes on these properties is in danger of flooding. Conversely, between Nile Avenue NE and Coal Creek Parkway there are 18 homes along the creek and two sole access bridges. At least eight of these homes are within 30 to 50 feet of the unstable creek banks and/or close enough to experience flooding (2) The armoring of the streambed and subsequent erosion of the banks was predicted in the "May Creek Sediment Transports -Study ", June 2009, Anchor QEA, LLC. Page 25 and 26 state the following: "The portion of May Creek examined in this study lacks an upstream sediment source for gravels and sands. As flow events impact the reach, the sediment size distribution along the channel bed will tend to coarsen over time; due to the transport of finer sediments out of the reach with no incoming sediment supply to replenish these materials. This armoring effect will tend to increase the threshold of sediment motion for the channel bed. On the other hand, bank sediments, which are likely of finer gradation than the bed sediments, will remain unchanged and are not affected by a natural armoring effect. Therefore, future erosion events may be characterized by bank migration (movement of the stream channel from its current location) as opposed to channel incising." Writer's comments: Bank. migration equals risk and peril for homes and bridges. So we are draining horse pastures in wetlands to increase seasonal use, while we run the risk orexacerbating downstream conditions that put at peril not only sole access to properties (bridges), but the actual properties themselves and the homes that people, -- not horses -- LIVE INl (3) Site 37H_May Creek at 143 PI SE Stream Gauge(Recording) Select a different water year: 2011 1 1.85 23.26 26.28 15.89 18.98 29.10 40.54 1 2 1.82 43.87 22.13 .14.26 16.37 29.27 91.59 3 1.60 26.77 17.48 12.54 15.25 29.09 82.83 4 1.53 15.03 14.17 11.17 15.80 30.01 60.86 5 1.65 10.71 12.39 111.31 17.13 30.44 54.43 6 1.50 14.26 11.56 13.48 18.88 26.62 48.43 7 1.51 30.30 10.64 26.56122.03 22.23 52.93 8 1.39 25.61 20.17 39.84123 , 86 20.43 47.22 9 1.80 117.621 37.57 38.64120.35 25.30 -10 11.07J114.631 51.69 33.6017.94 62,72 i 11 11.53 11.7 +6.52 27.78 16.67 58.52 12 5.64 10.17 221.78 36.05 15.99 46.11 13 3.81 9.03 199.52 68.46 21.12 46.59 14 3.13 11.33 128.83 71.90 25.21 54.40 15 2.99 14.62 89.89 62.98 29,80149-641 16 2.63 15.67 64.71 68.11 26.27 51.37 17 2.36 16.08 48.86 61.97 22.90 42.46 18 2.38 18.08 38.66 51.13 21.00 36.48 [ 19 2.20 17.30 33.19 143.17 17,33135-69 20 1.84 14.48 28.43 34.87 15.01 30.52 21 1.76 12.01 23.25 52.37 13.47 25.01 22 1.76 9.94 18.80 89.3914.21.20.08 23 � 1.80 1 8.81 16.63 171.15 15.98 17.47 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance FINAL Meeting Notes May Creek Channel Restoration Agency Meeting May 5, 2010 Location Department of Ecology, NWRO, 3190 160'' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Purpose Review and comment on the May Creek proposal submitted by King County Water and land Resource Division (King WLRD). Comments provided in the summary below were prepared by the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) and are intended to offer a general overview of the information presented during the meeting. Participating agency staff reviewed and provided comments for the Final Notes. Introduction King County Water and Land Resources Division (KC WLRD) presented a proposal for a channel restoration project in May Creek. The project description includes improving in -stream flow conditions and restoring a buffer of native riparian vegetation along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately river mile 4.3 and 4.9. The three primary components are: vegetation removal, sediment removal, and stream / wetland mitigation. Participants were provided the following information before the meeting primarily via the May Creek website (htt://www.kin coun ov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/ina - cree_ k.aVx): • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist and Mitigated Determination of Non- significance (April 21, 2010). • Wetland Delineation Report (March 2010). • Baseline Stream Conditions Report (April 2010). • Draft Hydraulics Report (April 20, 2010). • Draft JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application) and project plans (Note: not available on website). The meeting began with a question and answer session regarding the project. The second half of the meeting was conducted as an agency round table to identify issues of concern, clarify requirements, offer suggestions how to avoid and minimize impacts, and describe permits and permit conditions. At the conclusion of the meeting, KC WLRD submitted application packets to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Ecology (ECY). Next Steps Identified during the meeting were three action items regarding the following topics: SEPA public comment period, reference materials, and a follow-up agency meeting. - -- ---- --- -- r www.ara.wa.gov 360-407-7037 • 800-917-0D43 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 J WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance P. SEPA Public Comment Period Several agencies (Muckleshoot Tribe at the meeting; WDFW, City of Renton, ECY after the meeting) commented that it appeared their agencies did not receive a SEPA notice for the project. 4 A request was made to reopen or extend the comment period, which closed on May 5`h. ► Next Steps: KC WLRD will review the situation with their SEPA staff and report back their findings to the group. 4 Follow-up from KC WLRD after the meeting After reviewing our records, King County has confirmed, that due to an administrative error, the SEPA notification did not get sent to the necessary agencies per WAC 197 -I1 -3409(2)(d) for the May Creek Channel Restoration Project. Therefore, King County has not officially issued SEPA for this project. King County will be issuing SEPA for this project within the next 4 to 6 weeks. We are delaying the issuance to allow time to consider modifying the project description based oil the feedback received at the May 5, 2010 meeting, We are sorryfor any inconvenience that this may have caused and thank you for your ongoing assistance with this project. ► Reference Material(s) for Earlier Projects on May Creek. 4 A previous sediment removal project was conducted near the McFarland property in 2002. This was a small, pilot project by KC WLRD. -) A planting project on the Colassurdo property was implemented in the fall of 1995. ► Next Steps: KC WIRD will review their files and forward information to the group regarding these two projects. The planting plan from circa 1995 may no longer be available in King County archives. King County is searching through their files to see if project files are still available. ► Next Steps: Agency staff participating in the meeting will review files to determine if they have information on these projects to share with the group. If they find relevant information, please distribute to the group. ORA can also assist with distribution. ► Agency meeting_ 4 The Corps offered to review the proposal and offer design suggestions to reduced impacts on the aquatic environment. The Corps invited other agencies and tribes to participate in the review and comment process. The outcome could result in a substantial redesign to facilitate review under the standard Individual Permit (IP). Or suggestion for activities such simply planting in the buffer which would have a shorter review, potentially under a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27. ECY would need to verify the wetland delineation. .www .ora.wa.gov 360407-7037 _800-917-0043 1 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► Meeting and suggestions could be provided within a 30-60 day window. (Note: this assumes staff availability within 30-60 days.) ► KC WLRD suggested that the technical experts who worked on the various reports (wetland, stream, and hydraulics studies) be available to answer questions for agency staff. ► Next Steps: KC WLRD will discuss to determine if this is an approach they would like the agencies to pursue. If yes, KC WLRD will coordinate with the Corps. Agency Comments King Countv Department of Development and Environmental Services (Kine DDES Two permit processes are possible for the project: Grading permit as allowed alteration under the Critical Areas Code if considered Habitat Enhancement OR Grading permit with a separate Alteration Exception 1 Reasonable Use Exception of Critical Area Code if not considered habitat enhancement. ► Habitat Enhancement Project After reviewing proposal, King DDES anticipates it would be able to permit the project under this approach. 4 Requirements: Demonstrate that project restores habitat forming processes or directly restores habitat function and value. Restoration and enhancement plans must be prepared by a qualified biologist OR all properties have an approved King County Farm Management Plan (approved by King DDES). Average review time 120 days after submittal of a complete application. ► Alteration Exception -� Includes a public comment process. 3 Requires an alternative analysis, similar to the Corps 404(b)(1) analysis, to ensure minimal impacts. • Appealable decision. Average processing time 4-6 months after submittal of complete application. In general, this process is usually longer and more expensive for the applicant. www,ora.wa.gov _ 360-407-7037 - 800-917-0043_ 1assistance@ora.wa.gov � May 25 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► Other Comments. 4 If the Corps requires a standard Individual Permit (IP), King DDES would require the Alteration Exception process. Much of the information the Corps would request of KC WLRD for the IP process would likely be similar to what King DDES would need to generate for the Alteration Exception application. Buffers: no specific distance required to qualify for a habitat restoration process. The buffers must provide an improvement over existing conditions. Acceptable buffer widths vary by project. May or may not accept buffer widths in Farm Management Plans by the King Conservation District. ► Right now, most of May Creek does not have any effective buffers. King DDES would see planting buffers with appropriate native vegetation as an improvement to the existing conditions. Buffer plantings would need to be fenced. ► Overall, King DDES needs to see an improvement or net gain. Kine Conservation District (KCD) ► Two properties in project area currently have Farm Management Plans. ► Existing Farm Management Plans in project area generally try to achieve 25 ft buffers on average for pasture areas. However, one property has a fence that is grandfathered in at 15 ft as it was installed prior to 1990 (the Celigoy property). KCD generally promotes installing larger buffers but it doesn't work all the time. ► Farm Management Plans are landowner driven. ► Prepared under National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) methodology. Plans are not public documents. However, property owners may grant permission to release the plan to specified individuals. ► Some of the farm land in the May Valley has recently gone through ownership changes. Many of the new owners are interested in implementing Farm Management Plans. Implementing Plans often involves relationship building between the landowner and KCD. Renton ► For the work within Renton City limits, project would most likely require: 4 Grading and Fill permit. 4 Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Permit. Review will be required to determine if project qualifies for an exemption or needs a variance. 4 Construction permit. ► Land Use Examiner process used for Grading/Fill permit. Both the Grading/Fill and CAO process require a public hearing. P. Average time 8-10 weeks, assuming no appeals. - -- ---- ---... ------ www.0ra.W--g - 360-407-7037-800-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE y Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance ► if project has only 280 cubic yards of fill, then an Annual Grading License may be another option. ► Renton offers a pre -application meeting to discuss the details and clarify requirements. U.S. Army Corns of Eneineers (Corps) ► Corps considers the purpose and need for the project when determining which permit is appropriate. 4 As proposed, the purpose of the project appears to be "flood control" or "increased conveyance" with some habitat features incorporated in the design for mitigation. a The current proposal appears to contradict some of the recommendations for improving stream habitat and functions as presented in the Baseline Stream Conditions Report. ► The project as proposed does not meet the terms and conditions of a NWP 27. ► At this time, project appears it will require a standard Individual Permit (IP) where a range of off- and on-site alternatives will be considered. The off-site alternatives will likely address source control and sustainability of any proposed action. On-site alternatives will evaluate ways in which impacts to the aquatic environment could be reduced. A 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis required for an IP. Different evaluation than is required under SEPA. Considers alternative with least impact to aquatic resources. 4 Public Notice period part of process. -� Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation required. Cultural Resources Survey also required. ► Threshold for an IP vs. an NWP is based on the ecosystem restoration. The values and functions of the stream are considered. 4 For example, a NWP 27 would consider sediment removal when the purpose is for improved habitat functions. ► Timelines: (Note: "average" assumes straight -forward project review without significant issues / concerns and project revisions.) 4 IP: 180 days to 1 year average based on submittal of a complete application. NWP: usually shorter than for an IP but still 4-6 months on average. ESA and Cultural Resources still required for NWP. 4 The ESA process for all projects has been averaging 71 days. Muckleshoot Tribe ► Note: Some of the Corps permits processes include consultation with the Tribes. This is the case with the Corps TP. P. The project needs to provide details about the proposed mitigation; how does the mitigation compensate for the amount of dredging? The details for the proposed wood are missing, www.ora.wa.gov 38007-7037 800-917-0D43 ass istance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 GAZA WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of LJI Regulatory Assistance including the sizes, numbers, and species. The project will result in a loss of rearing habitat (albeit due to reed canary grass) and will need mitigation. A 15 ft buffer is insufficient. There needs to be fencing and long term protection of the buffer. ► The Muckleshoot Tribe will review how much mitigation is included and what is sufficient. ► Reed canary grass: even though a non-native species, provides juvenile salmon rearing habitat particularly because it provides lower water velocities. ► Mitigation and riparian buffer proposed for the project (15 ft) may not be adequate because it does not appear to fully mitigate the project impacts. ► More information to evaluate impacts would be required. 4 Concerned about long term, repeated sedimentation and subsequent removal projects. One of the project reports mentioned three other sediment removal projects for a total of 2.6 miles of May Creek. Need more information if this is the case. Cumulative impact from more dredging on this reach of the stream as well as other locations is a concern. 4 Also, questions about how removing sediment from May Valley will impact downstream flow, erosion, and fish habitat. WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) ► Project needs to demonstrate no net loss of habitat. ► Planting plan required. Crucial for long term prevention of reed canary grass proliferation, which increases sediment continuing to accumulate in stream. ► The wider the buffer width on the stream, the better. WDFW does not have specific buffer requirements. However, WDFW has buffer recommendation in Management Recommendation for WA Priority Habitats, Ripariaft(lattp.//wdfw. wa.gov/hab/ripxsum. hen?}. ► Stream Report, page 8 and 11. Gravel from Long Marsh Creek is an important spawning habitat. Do not want to see gravel in this area of May Creek disturbed. Would be better to widen this area where Long Marsh Creek flows into May Creek. ► Not meaning to speak for the Corps, but in trying to qualify for a NWP, it is recommended to design the project without a flat channel profile by adding pools and large woody material. ► Note: the WDFW application cannot accept a Hydraulic Project Approval (14PA) application until the SEPA process is complete. Ecoloey 401 / Coastal Zone Management (CZM) P. The 401 Certification status depends in part on what permit the Corps determines is appropriate for the project. -� If project is a NWP, then a 401 may or may not be required. If TP from the Corps, then ECY will require an Individual 401 and a CZM Consistency Determination. www.ora.wa.gov i 380.407-7037 - 800-917-0043 I assistance@ora.wa.gov i May 25, 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of _ Regulatory Assistance -> individual 401 and CZM must be completed before Corps can issue TP. ► Other comments: Project needs to follow current ECY Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. -) if greater than 1 acre disturbed, ECY Construction Stormwater General Permit required. -> Since the mitigation report is pending, not able to review in full at this time. Ecology Wetlands ► Concerned about several inconsistencies between Baseline Stream Conditions Report and the proposal. For example: a The purpose of the project appears to be to provide stormwater conveyance rather than habitat restoration. • From ECY perspective, concerned that project will not meet goal to drain water from pastures such that pastures will be dry earlier in the year. The high groundwater table in many of the pasture areas will keep the pastures wet. • At this point, ECY may not be able to approve application as proposed. Concerned that adequate buffer widths have not been proposed based on Best Available Science (BAS). Proposed buffers for wetlands and the stream may not be effective. Ecology Water Quality (ECY WQ) ► May Creek is on the state 303(d) list for Fecal Coliform. -> Most of the sampling and data is from King County. ► Because of this, ECY would like to see limiting of animal access to May Creek. ► ECY WQ staff prefers 35 foot buffers. The proposed 15 foot buffers appear thin for preventing future sedimentation of the Creek. ► ECY WQ staff prefers South side buffer to be wider than 15 feet since it provides the best shading which helps reduce summer temperatures in the Creek. ► Stream morphology, such as a meandering stream, provides benefits of reducing sedimentation and improving water quality. Realize there are limitations with private ownership and that this might counter the water conveyance objectives of the project. Channel meander might be considered for the improvements in the area south of 148`b. www.ora.wa.gov 364-407-7037 • 500-917-0043 assistance@ora.wa.gov May 25, 2010 1 WASHINGTON STATE Governor's Office of f Regulatory Assistance Attendees(per sign -in sheet ► Zelma Zieman, ORA P. Jay Mirro, KCD ► Jane Dewell, ORA ► Jennifer Henning, Renton ► Doug Chin, KC WLRD ► Ron Straka, Renton ► Rachel Berryessa, KC WLRD ► Lori Lull, Corps ► Don Althauser, KC WLRD ► Matt Bennett, Corps ► Curt Crawford, KC WLRD ► Rebekah Padgett, ECY 4011CZM ► Lindsey Miller, KC WLRD ► Paul Anderson, ECY Wetlands ► Randy Sandin, King DDES ► Patrick McGraner, ECY Wetlands ► Jamie Hartley, King DDES ► Dave Garland, ECY WQ ► Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries ► Chris Coffin, ECY WQ ► Larry Fisher, WDFW www.ora.wa.gov 360.407-7037 - 800-917-0043 I ass istance@ora.wa_gov May 25, 2010 �� i w i V a � j ,I" N L i 1� ,I" F w '411� IQ 0 0 c .S �• 1 1 it _ 1 s. E„M1, 411 \• .h .r • N[ i•• Ily 4 1 r. _ ',r s + i s I # c City of r! NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Applledcn hasbeen Rled and emptied With the Department OfCommunhy i Irnnank D"WOP ent ICED[- Pta+tnlnl OMslen of the CltY a1 R•nten. Th. fellowfig 6AeRy dacrlba the ePPllntlan and the mc•ssery Public Approval!. DATE OF NOTICE OF AppUCATION: August IS, 2011 PROJECT NAME/NUMIER: May Geek Drahsap improvement project f tuA11-0ES, V -H, SP PROJECTDESCRIPflON: Applicant requests a Spedal Parmit lu Gradadfl0 and a GN1cal Areas Varianca In order to impure in -stream flew conditions along the Much of mayxCr4al, between 2 cubic yard. te of River Mile 43 and 49. 17n Pmlect would result In the Nmov.l of app - mutated ledlrnenl hem app-dmatIIV 162 Meal fat of the May Cn•s Channel. and the removal Of ObstuCtMG vegetation [reed canary grass anrd rdlbw branches) From apProvknately 540 lineal fort M river ll channel. The project is located In May Valley on the south side of SE May Va,". Rood near the fides of NeWa ks •M Rentor` the pmleca 'elthln Mnton would occur en a PanCM that b .G dlm4 ml[IpNon for The poleCt site contains a Category 3 Welland, and a Class 3 ulmonld Steam {May removing sediment and vigetadon, 15 fed of rlparlan/wettand vegetation would he planted on both fides of May Cees, and also Outside of the city 1MRS. The Project 4 cat WW to commence during the not approved cash vvipdo a after receiving the permit, likely In 2012. $EPA Emdronm4ntml Review was Conducted by Kong Cough as lead agency. PROJECT LOCATION: Wert of 141° Avenue B South OI May Geek (APN 103540 Tract A) Fun%APPROVALS: HeatingEx.mkter y"me approval and Special Grade S FUM pemnt APPUUNTfLONTACT PERSON: Doug 201$ I�cksan Stin King et; Wity t God; Seattle, WA 92104,ater @ad Land Resource, 0tNslon: Eml: dou&chloQkingcougtY go° PUBLIC HIARING: .Hearings begin at 1:ODp.m. an the 7th floor OF Renton City Hail. Cemm•nts on the above ePpa.,rdon must be wbmltted In Wrung to d•reld Waver. Anodele Planner, Disputrasint of nt, loss South Brady , Renton, WA p.m. On September 9, 2011ity . This mettcar is also ttewagdva1Y Scheduled for ayPublk hearing On sOctober 0i 1011, al 1:00 p -m., Councl Chambers, Seventh Floor, Rentw+ City Ha1L loss South Grady W+y, Renton. If you are Inlensted fi attending the hearing, Plisse contact the Planning Division to encore that the hearing has not Men reschanlut•d at (425) 430-72E2 f! comments Honor b• submitted in a pro R h I berony the a the llia Hudng abwe, you may still appear at the hearing and present your ccom b• madVrits Ons e a partyp o record and receive Examiner. 11 you here questions about IMS pnaposai, o f vAsh to Maeager 31 (425) wne -110 subrrdU drttt+n comments An An wt mby ll, VISSe, coatads the d1canV become a party of record and win ben odfied of 30.7381. anyodedsW on thb Project if yea a aide Ike to In mete a Panty of moons Ia re[eh. h,rsh.r efpmatlan On oras P ProMcy compile this tam and return m: City at PAn*^ CFD, #Wd&g Oivldul 1055 South Grady WAY, Ra two WA 911017. age Kamal Nay MaY [reek Orelnais Improvement Prolact! LUAll-05s, vH, sa NAME: MAIUNG APOlt -%— TELEPHONE NO.: Date: PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE WENTIHCATION DATE OFAPPUCATIONI August 5, 3011 NOTICE OF COMPLEPI APPL1CATfONv Aup;1 21, 1011 w -a �G"fE}'� nofmom , J on l� �e w } aENTONAHEnOOFITHE CU Ir CERTIFICATION ereby certify that posted in I- i_�onspicuous places or nearby the l STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Signed; pies of the above document ?d Qrote'tan-7 -,5:� A certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that r [.Mass-cr signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses andanumoses mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): 4, A- My appointment expires: o24 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of August, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a seated envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Doug Chin Contact/Applicant Stonegate Homeowners Association Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners — NOA only See attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jennifer Henning I signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for mentioned in the instrument. Dated: A.�si✓ a4, anit Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ", A. Gf-,2 \o -,r My appointment expires: A,& L sA- 0Rq f &00 Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Project Number: LUA11-065, V -H, SP 032305910203 BENSON EDWARD A+JAYME L 5416 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 803540002000 BYUS DEAN T III+KIERSTEN G 5602 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 032305931704 CULBERTSON JASON ET 20211 126TH PL SE KENT WA 98031 032305903802 BONWELL JAMES L+JULIE P 9616 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 342405905205 CARLSON THERON A 2115 WHTIMAN AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 022305902201 AL DALPAY PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 2436 RENTON WA 98059 032305922109 HORNE WILLIAM E LIVING TR HORNE WILLIAM E+MARY A TTEE 5604 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98059 803540001002 LIEN LAURIE A 29928 PACIFIC HWY S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 803540005003 KIM BARO 5500 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 032305925706 MACKAY PAUL F JR+TAMMY L 5625 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 022305908208 BUTTAR BAUINDER S+ RASPHAL 6529 161ST PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006 342405905106 COLE GARY 9517 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 022305907606 DUNVEGAN TRUST MALCOLM & EUNICE MCLEOD TTEE 122 LUMMI CIR LA CONNER WA 98257 342405911203 KUSUNOSETARO 14524 SE MAY VALLEY RD NEWCASTLE WA 98059 803540003008 SALAS MELISSA C/O WILLOUGHBY 5512 NE 26TH ST RENTON WA 98059 803540004006 803540058002 342405905304 SPIER ROBERT+MONIQUE BLOCH STONEGATE MOA TEO PENG HENG+KITTY KITBING 5506 NE 26TH ST PO BOX 2691 11810 176TH AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 REDMOND WA 98052 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 26, 2011 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project / LUA11-065, V -H, SP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance In order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result In the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of 5E May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland, and a Class 2 salmonid Stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside of the city limits. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012, SEPA Environmental Review was conducted by King County as lead agency. PROJECT LOCATION: West of 148`h Avenue & South of May Creek (APN 803540 Tract A) PUBLIC APPROVALS: Hearing Examiner Variance approval and Special Grade & Fill Permit APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: Doug Chin, King County Water and Land Resources Division; 2015 Jackson Street; Suite 600; Seattle, WA 98104; Eml: doug.chin@kingcounty.gov PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 4, 2011 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 1:00 p.m. on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. on September 9, 2011, This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on October 4, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7382. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. File Name / No.: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project / LUA11-065, V -H, SP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION; August 5, 2011 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August Z6, 2012 Denis Law Cl O Mayor Alh v a Department_ of Community and Economic Development August 26; 2011 Alex Pietsch,Administrator , Doug Chin ; Project Manager King County Water.and Land Resources Division 201 S Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Notice of Complete Application - May Creek Drainiage Improvement Project, LUA11-065, V-H, SP . Dear Mr. Chin: The Planning Division. of th'e City of Renton has determined that the subject- application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is.accepted for.review. You Will be notified if any additional information.is'required to.continue processing.your. application.- In addition, 'this matter is tentatively scheduled fora Public. Hearing on October 4- 2011 at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady' Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the. applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will. be mailed to you prior to the scheduled-hearing. Please contact meat (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, YV' Gerald C. Walser Associate Planner cc: Stonegate Homeowners Association / owner(s) Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov i Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 20114:55 PM To: 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Gerald Wasser; Chip Vincent; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Attachments: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report; Comments to Sediment Transport Study Report for Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK; MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study; May Creek Dredging Sediment Mr. Examiner, It has come to my attention that the email comment letter from Marcia Baeker (the 4th attachment to this email, and sent to you by the City Clerk on October 13th), is not referenced as an exhibit in your decision. In addition, the applicant (Doug Chin) has advised me that two comments referenced in your decision (Exhibit 34 from Gary Amundson and Exhibit 35 from Wayde Watters) were not forwarded to King County for Rebuttal comment. I confirmed that the Clerk sent these to me, and I did not forward them onto the County. I apologize for this error. King County intends to submit a letter of reconsideration. I have provided the comments from Mr. Watter and Mr. Amundson to Mr. Chin. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jennifer Henning -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 1 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20119:19 AM To: 'phil olbrechts'; Bonnie Walton Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Here is another email that I sent to Doug Chin. -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:00 PM To: 'Chin, Doug' Cc: Gerald Wasser; Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Hello Doug, Sorry for the late reply. My understanding is that you may submit rebuttal comments by 5:00 pm today. Please submit to the Hearing Examiner via email: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Please also copy me and I will forward to the City Clerk. Thank you. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Chin, Dougfmailto:Dous.Chin(dkinecounty.gov1 Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:56 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser; Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Jennifer, Please confirm that King County has until Friday, October 21, 2011 to provide a rebuttal to these comments. Thanks, Doug -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning Finailto:Jhenning(@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report 1 Hi Doug, Here are the comments that the City Clerk received. These were just forwarded to me. Jennifer Henning, AZCP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 z Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:27 PM To: 'Chin, Doug' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: L11AE005 May Creek Critical Areas Alteration Attachments: KC May Creek Crit Areas Alteration. pdf Hello Doug, Please find attached the City of Renton's comment letter regarding the May Creek Critical Areas Alteration. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 Denis Law Cl Of. Mayor 1 tr tiiy . s DepartmentofCommunity and Economic Development. October 21, 2011 = Alex Pietsch,Administrator King,County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600. Renton; WA 98104 attn: -Doug Chin • . SUBJECT: MAY CREEK CRITICAL AREAS ALTERATION (KC FILE L11AE005= MAY.CREEK) Dear Mr. Chin, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Critical Areas Alteration Exception for the removal of se dirtient and vegetation, plus wetland and -stream mitigation between River Mile 4.3 and 4.9 of May.Creek. .The City requests that split rail fencing be used within the Renton City limits (west of 148a''A've SE) t6surround the enhanced riparian and'wetland.buffer rather than.the' prdposetd 3 -strand barb wire fencing. i Please contact me•ifyou have any question. regard.ing'this letter: I can be' reach edby telephone , at: 425.430.7286 or via email: Lenninjz@rentonwa.gov : 'Sincerely, .. Jennifer Henning, AICP i .'Planning Manager i cc: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Adrhinistrator Chip Vimorit, Planning Director Rich Perteet, Transpdrtatiorti Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Ron Shaka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way •. Renton, Washington 98057: • rentonwa.gov . Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 5:11 PM To: 'urban separator' Cc: Gerald Wasser; Bonnie Walton Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Hello Jean, I apologize for the very late response. My computer would not load the needed software and play the recording of the hearing. I was able to listen to the recording on a different computer and reconstructed the following exhibit list. Please note that this is not the official exhibit list, and the Hearing Examiner will provide the official list: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit 4: Rehabilitation Plans: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation Exhibit 5: Rehabilitation Plan: Planting Plan Exhibit 6: Topography Map Exhibit 7: Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit 8: Sediment Disposal and Turbid Water Disposal Areas Exhibit 9: Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, September 8, 2011 Exhibit 10: Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, July 2010 Exhibit 11: Wetland Delineation Report, March 10, 2010 Exhibit 12: Baseline Stream Conditions, April 15, 2010 Exhibit 13: Email from Jean Rollins, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 14: Email from Andrew Duffus, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 15: Email from Andrew Duffus, September 14, 2011 Exhibit 16: Email from Julie & Jim Bonwell, September 9, 2011 Exhibit 17: Email from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, September 15, 2011 Thank you, Exhibit: 18: Project Vicinity Map Exhibit 19: Wetland and Riparian Mitigation Drawing Exhibit 20: ESA Section 7 Consultation Letter Exhibit 21: DOE 401 Water Quality Letter (Denial) Exhibit 22: Letter from Mr. Duffas (October 3, 2011) Exhibit 23: Muckleshoot Tribe Letter Exhibit 24: Joint Public Notice ACOE/DOE for CMZ Water Quality Certification Exhibit 25: Jean Rollins Letter to Hearing Examiner (10/4/2011) Exhibit 26: Hydraulic Analysis Exhibit 27: Sediment Assessment (2/9/2011) Exhibit 28: Hydraulic Permit Analysis (HPA) Exhibit 29: Biological Evaluation for Section 7 Consultation (2/2011) 1 Jennifer Henning, A1CP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 011, or ,. . •''w From: urban separator[mailto:urbanseparator@hotmail.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 20113:12 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Thanks Jennifer, I got the link. And thank you for working to get the revised exhibit list. The exhibits came on fast and furious and I lost track. Jean From: Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov To: urbanseparator@hotmaii.com Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:12:41 -0700 Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Yes, Jean, I received your email and sent a response that I needed to get the Exhibit List from the Examiner. I'm working on that. Did you receive the link to the Anchor QEA study that I sent? Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 S:ftvnr,� , From: urban separator Finailto:urbanseparator@hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 07, 20117:54 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: from Jean Rollins — new exhibits Hello Jenifer. Did you receive my a-maii from a couple of days ago? I am attaching it below. Sure would like to know so we can review and comment. Thanks, Jean From: urbansepgrator@hotmaii.com To: jhenning rentonwa,gov Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Heating — new exhibits Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:02:20 -0700 Hello Jenifer, At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. I became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 15t�', 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, Jean Rollins 3 CrrY OF RENTON October 11, 2011 Synapsis of Jean Rollins' Comments 0 C r 14.2 0 11 +d DelJrerc/ SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY REPORT RECEIVED 0�4 a P� CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Based on shortcomings revealed within the text of the report, Iconcluded the results are severely compromised (Per the attached letter to Rachel Berryessa, King County Surface Water Engineering Services) Dr. Olson's expert observations and conclusions validate my original concerns regarding impacts to downstream and critical areas of May Creek Dr. Olson recommends the County: Design an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study with independent review Requiring an independent review of the Sediment Transport Study Report shows the lack of confidence Ecology has with those who prepared the original report. Dr. Olson refutes the baseline data, the adequacy of the study, the design of the project, and the conclusions of the project based on this report. Bottom line she is refuting that threshold of erosion of the Sediment Transport Study Report is not the 5-10 year flood, and therefore there could be potential downstream erosion. The remainder of my comments regards additional exhibits. I thought all additional exhibits could be commented on. A link was sent to the Sediment Transport Study Report, since it was not in written form. I did not understand that only the Sediment Report would be left open for comment. Therefore, the rest of my comments except my conclusion are regarding Ecology's Denial letter, Sediment Assessment Memo, and the Hydraulic and Hydrology Analyses Report. I would greatly appreciate your review. HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGY ANALYSES REPORT Dr. Olson's Conclusion: Bank erosion potentially will be increased by 5-16% for very little benefit of .04% decrease in flood duration. (Olson Page 4) SEDUKENT ASSESSMENT MEMO Dr. Olson's conclusion: "These factors present ambiguities in terms of water quality effects." (Olson Page 1 ) ECOLOGY DENIAL LETTER to King County WLRD dated September 22, 2011 "Ecology ... raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, and whether Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation." (Denial letter attachment 1, page3) Muckleshoot's also expressed serious doubts as reflected in chronological attachment of the denial letter. The City of Renton expressed the same downstream concern. CONCLUSION These exhibits reflect flaws in the county's proposed project and an absence of valid scientific information and incomplete scientific information as substantiated by experts. The lack of complete scientific information has resulted in design flaws and unsupported conclusions. This requires the Hearing Examiner take a "precautionary or a no -risk approach". Therefore, we respectfully request the Hearing Examiner not grant a variance or special permit. Jean Rollins 2905 Ilwaco Ave. NE Renton WA 98059 October 11, 2011 Mr. Hearing Examiner: My comments with conclusions in bold regarding the Sediment Transport Study Report are as follows: SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY REPORT I made observations and conclusions regarding the Sediment Transport Study Report to WLRD on February 17, 2010. (See attached letter to Rachel Berryessa, King County Surface Water Engineering Services). My continents then were based on shortcomings revealed within the text of the report. As stated throughout the study, I concluded the results are severely compromised by: ■ Very short monitoring period of 1 water year • Large data gaps in survey data ■ Interpolating data sets • Use of synthetic flow record • Lack of flood events in series • Difficulty of determining critical shear stress (erosion) ■ Theoretical approximations • Unreliable model results ■ Surmised and uncertainty of the flow at which when erosion occurs Dr. Olson reviewed the Sediment Transport Study Report. Her expert observations and conclusions validate my original concerns regarding impacts to downstream and critical areas of May Creek. 1. Dr. Olson recommends the County. Design an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study with independent review. 'King County should use its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study. Also the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere." (Olson Page 3) 2. Dr. Olson re the baseline data:_ A. LiDAR data did not appear to be used and does not support the. 04% benefit of this proposed dredging. "These conditions suggest that dredging is somewhat akin to trying to channelize a bathtub where water inflow is greater than outflow." (Olson Page 1) B. Regarding potential downstream erosion: "Since the sediment transport study and the H and H study appear to rely on reconnaissance site level data that does not include adequate sampling points, I cannot make a determination concerning potential for increased bank erosion downstream of the project area.' (Olson Page 3) C. "Moreover, for sediment transport, pebble counts should be done primarily on bars not the channel. The sediment transport study appears to have only relied on cross-channel pebble counts. Plus, a statement is made that the channel maybe armored. Channels with pavement or armoring should include a subsurface pebble count (e.g., Buffington and Montgomery 1997, 1999).0 °Pebble counts may work for reconnaissance level study on the site basis (but not the whole reach), but not for a study related to assessing potential hazards such as damage to structures. Volumetric sediment sampling and more sample locations would be more appropriate in this case. "(Olson Page 3) 3. Dr. Olson refutes the adequacy of the study: A. "However, the documents ignore this effect." (Olson Page 2) B. "The geomorphic interpretations and sediment transport study appear to be done by persons not well versed in fluvial geomorphology and channel response." (Olson Page 3) C. "As pointed out in the documents, HEC -RAS sediment transport model cannot address variable sediment transport conditions and changing channel elevations (erosion or deposition)." D. " However, these qualified people appear to not have been consulted for evaluating the sediment transport study, baseline geology and historic channel form and geomorphic processes that created the current conditions, and downstream channel response including migration to changes in flow and sediment regimes. The expertise is available within the same King County department and division. These people should be consulted on this project" (Olson Page 3) E. "Since there is disagreement between sediment transport numbers, King County should use its geologic and geomorphic expertise and further evaluate adding sampling points and designing an appropriate sediment transport and erosion study. Also the existing transport modeling should have independent review because not all sediment transport models apply everywhere". (o[son Page 4) Requiring an independent review of the Sediment Transport Study Report shows the lack of confidence Ecology has with those who prepared the original report 4. Dr. Olson refutes the design of the project and recommends redesign: A. "The Long Marsh Creek mitigation project is not mitigation. The proposed stream alignment does not appear to be based on the existing or historic channel characteristics. The UDAR data shows an alluvial fan but it indicates that there were distributary channels rather than a single channel." (Olson Page 2) B. Instead of evaluating this option, the documents focus on removing the gravel and "mitigating" by removing the existing vegetation buffer along Long Marsh Creek and forcing the Creek into an unnatural planform." (Olson Page 2) S. Dr. Olson refutes the conclusions of the project based on this report: A. "However, I disagree with the statement made in the H and H study that the increase in frequency of smaller floods is insignificant. While it may be the case, this hypothesis has not been tested using adequate data. This conclusion wouldn't be an issue if there were not structures downstream, but there are." The increase in frequency of these small floods could affect sediment transport dynamics. A 5-16°% increase in stream power for potential sediment transport events is not significant but a 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of 50 cfs is significant enough to dredge." (Olson Page 3) B. "This may explain why the calculated effective sediment mobilization discharges are between the 5- 10 year floods. In boulder areas this makes more sense. The lower end of the range (73-150 cfs) estimated in the H and H study appears more realistic for the areas we observed." (Olson Page 3) Bottom line she is refuting that threshold of erosion of the Sediment Transport Study.Report is not. -- the 5-10 year floor, and therefore there could be potential downstream erosion. C. "Since the sediment, transport study and the H and H study appear to rely on reconnaissance site level data that does not include adequate sampling points, I cannot make a determination concerning potential for increased bank erosion downstream of the project area. "(Olson Page 3) The remainder of my comments is regarding additional exhibits. I thought all additional exhibits could be commented on. A link was sent to the Sediment Transport Study Report, since it was not in written form. I did not understand that only the Sediment Report would be left open for comment. Therefore, the rest of my comments ex�my conclusion are regarding Ecology's Denial letter, Sediment Assessment Memo, and the Hydraulic and Hydrology Analyses Report. I would greatly appreciate your review. I have bolded the conclusion of each report. HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGY ANALYSES REPORT Dr. Olson's Conclusion: Bank erosion potentially will be increased by 5-16% for very little benefit of .04% decrease in flood duration. (Olson Page 4) Dr Olson statements regarding Hydraulic and Hydrology Analyses Report: 1. LACK OF SAMPLING POINTS "...the H and H study appear to rely on reconnaissance site level data that does not include adequate sampling points." "(Olson Page 3) 2. FREQUENCY OF SMALLER FLOODS "However, I disagree with the statement made in the H and H study that the increase in frequency of smaller floods is insignificant. While it may be the case, this hypothesis has not been tested using adequate data." (Page 3) Simply put, the increase in small flood frequency will increase the occurrence of unit stream power (specific weight of water*channei gradient ` discharge/active channel width) associated with these small floods by 16, 10 and 5%, unless gradient decreases or width increases. Since gradient is somewhat controlled by valley conditions, stream width is more likely to change. Stream power is an indicator of transport capacity. Increased transport capacity can lead to increased incision and bank erosion. Yet the H and H study says there will be no significant effect. There appears to be a disconnection in the conclusions supporting dredging. A 5-16% increase in stream power for potential sediment transport events is not significant but a 0.04% decrease in flooding duration of 50 cfs is significant enough to dredge (Table 9, pp 53, H and H study). (Olson Page 4) 3. EROSION THRESHOLD "Based on the sediment transport study conducted downstream in the ravine (King County 2009), channel sediment mobilizes approximately at 233 cfs. (Hydraulic and Hydrology Analyses Report, Page vii) Yet Dr. Olson states, "The lower end of the range (73-150 cfs) estimated in the H and H study appears more realistic for the areas we observed." "(Olson Page 3) Dr. Olson stated there would be a .04 % decrease in flooding duration of 50 cfs. This is how she arrived at the .04%: At the site, the proposed change in cfs is to go from 6 to 50 cfs. {Although Jeff Burkey testified at the hearing that it would be a range of 50 to 60, the number is moving hi er! } "For 50 cfs scenario 1(existing condition) is 2.94%; scenario 8, (proposed project) is 2.98%. (Hydraulic and Hydrology Analyses Report, Page 53 Table 9) Hence, the difference between 2.94% and 2.98% is .04 percent, for the change they are proposing at the project site. Yet the downstream impact could be substantially more- 5 to 16% for just the smaller floods! Footnote "Scenario 1: Existing conditions Scenario 8: removal of vegetation- choice points with increased sediment removal (Hydraulic and Hydrology Page 25) Footnote "Thus calculations for evaluating improved conditions in May Valley are based on this threshold of flows between 6 and 50 cfs..." (Hydraulic and Hydrology Page 37) SEDE14ENT ASSESSMENT MEMO Dr. Olson's conclusion: "These factors present ambiguities in terms of water quality effects." (Olson Page 1) Dr. Olson's statements regarding Sediment assessment memo dated February 9, 2011: "However, the memo does not address what sediment volumes will be transported and where fine sediment will be deposited downstream other than to say it won't be Lake Washington. While the memo says that the project will decrease the agricultural sediment source at some time in the future, it does not say how long the increased sediment load will occur. The memo states that quantitative sediment estimates are not available" (Olson Page 1) ECOLOGY DENIAL LETTER to King County WLRD dated September 22, 2011 Ecology's Position The county did not just find out (the day before the hearing) about the flaws in their reports. In their denial letter Ecology stated," We have attached a project chronology that details that we have been trying to work with you to get the needed information..." (Page 2) Ecology's position as of April 2011 as reflected in their denial letter, was reinforced by Dr. Olson's review of the documents. Ecology already recognized by 5-05-2010, "Ecology raised the question of whether the proposed one time dredging would accomplish the goals..." Ecology also pointed out that the baseline stream report included language that contradicted and would not support this proposal."(Denial letter attachment 1, page I) Again, Ecology raised serious issues on 4-26-2011, "Ecology ... raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, and whether Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation." (Denial letter attachment 1, page3) Muckleshoot's' Position Muckleshoot's also expressed serious doubts. "9/22110 Ecology received substantive public comments form the Muckleshoot Indian tribe raising concern about net loss of habitat, downstream erosion, insufficient buffers and the probability that the proposed dredging would be short-term fix." " (Denial letter attachment 1, page2) Renton Is Position Even the City of Renton expressed the same downstream concern: "10/23/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the City of Renton that included concern about the effects of increased velocity, flow, or erosion on downstream properties. "(Denial letter attachment 1. page2) CONCLUSION These exhibits reflect flaws in the county's proposed project and an absence of valid scientific information and incomplete scientific information as substantiated by experts. The lack of complete scientific information has resulted in design flaws and unsupported conclusions. This requires the Hearing Examiner take a "precautionary or a no -risk approach". Therefore, we respectfully request the Hearing Examiner not grant a variance or special permit. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this manner, J4 Attached is my letter to Rachel Benyessa Jean Rollins 2905 Ilwaco Ave NE- Renton, ERenton, WA 98059 February 17, 2010 Rachel Berryessa King County Surface Water Engineering Services 201 S.Jackson KSC-NR-0600 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report Dear Ms. Berryessa, I want to thank Anchor QEA for the openness of their report. I do not blame them for the results of this study, as I am not privy to the scoping required by King County. To benefit both the downstream (Ravine Community) and the upstream (Wetland Community) data must be monitored longer in the ravine reach to get more site-specific data and precise results. Eventual drainage improvements in May Valley will affect the ravine reach of May Creek for the rest of time. Compromised data collected for only 14 months, is unacceptable as a basis for long term decisions.. As stated throughout the study, the results are severely compromised by: ■ Very short monitoring period of 1 water year ■ Large data gaps in survey data ■ Interpolating data sets ■ Use of synthetic flow record ■ Lack of flood events in series ■ Difficulty of determining critical shear stress (erosion) ■ Theoretical approximations ■ Unreliable model results ■ _ Surrnise3-ddd ft certainty bf the flow at*hich When erosion occurs The monitoring period was 12 months for Station 1 and 14 months for Stations 2 & 3. As a water year runs from October 1 to September 30, for all three stations this was only one water year. The threshold of sediment motion is when erosion starts; empirical results, not theoretical approximations are required! Not knowing the effect of erosion of "flood events in series" is also not acceptable. We could have floods back to back, especially given the climate changes we are experiencing. The point of this study was to understand erosion in the Ravine Community. The study states erosion is not easy to predict or quantify. Compromising factors coupled with a value (erosion) which is difficult to quantify make it imperative there is additional and continued data collection in the ravine reach! ■ Data gaps must be eliminated ■ Data sets must not be interpolated • Actual, not synthetic flow record must be used ■ .Flood events in series must be studied ■ Actual results, not theoretical approximations must be used • Model results must. be. reliable ■ The flow at which erosion occurs must be known with certainty May Creek reach decisions must not be based upon this incomplete study. There needs to be a much higher level of confidence in an erosion study before decisions are made which affect this reach of May Creek. In addition to additional and continued data collection, I totally agree with the study's recommended next steps to: Continued monitoring, as described in this report, at Station 2 where bed pins, bank hooks, and the water level sensor are still deployed. Reestablish bed pins, bank hooks, and water level sensor for Station 3 upstream of its current location, and continue with monitoring Station 3 as described in this report. Consider relocating Gage 37b to a location that may be less effected by accumulation of sediment or debris, which can affect the data recorded by the sensor. I do not agree with the study's recommendation to combine the upstream and downstream models at this time. Only after the lower reach study is complete and comprehensive should we move forward with combining the upstream and downstream models. Respectfully submitted, Jean Rollins CC: Marc Isaacson, Director Water & Land Resources Division Don Althauser, Managing Engineer Tracy-Durey., Anchor QEA The following quotes from the May Creek Sediment Transport Study (MCSTS) document the flawed results and the imperative need for additional and continued data collection: MCSTS Page 4, "Anchor QEA did not observe this bedrock during field reconnaissance..." MCSTS Page 12, "during the timeframe of this project, from November 2007 through January 2009." " ... Station 1 was monitored from November 2007 through November 2008 only. " MCSTS Page 11, "It is not apparent from the survey data if that side channel existed prior to the January 2009 survey due to a lack of resolution in the earlier survey data." MCSTS Page 14, "Since the project monitoring period occurs within this window of time, the flow data directly from gage 37b could not be reliably used in this study." MCSTS Page 16, "An estimate of the threshold of sediment motion (critical shear stress) for each of the monitoring sites was completed using several theoretical approximations and data provided by the monitoring program." MCSTS Page 17, "The model results at Station Iwere found to be unreliable due to a large gap in survey data upstream of that location." MCSTS Page 17, "However, this could be an outlier due to an error in the synthetic flow record." "Agreement between modeled and measured WSE for the two high flow events (greater than 300 C cfs) was not good (in general) as the lower flow events." MCSTS Page 18, "Critical shear stress, the stress under which a sediment bed will become mobile, is challenging to determine. There are several processes that affect the value of critical shear stress... that are not easy to predict or Quantify." MCSTS Page 22, "Since there are no monitoring flow events in between those two bookends, the data set must be interpolated to provide estimate of bed shear stress..." MCSTS Page 24, "Due to these complexities, it would be challenging to interpolate a more precise threshold of sediment motion for Station 1." "This data gap leaves a broad range of interpretation of an estimate of the precise flow at which initiation of bed sediment begins." MCSTS Page 2425, "While the effects of flood events in series were not explicitly considered within the context of this study, they may have an attributable effect of the scale of erosion within the reach. " MCSTS Page 25 Conclusions, "However, for higher flow events, bed movement begins to occur which cannot be properly accounted for in the ,present model." MCSTS Page 25, "From an analysis of these data, it can be surmised that the flow at which erosion will begin to occur at discreet locations within the -project reach is approximately 275 cfs. It is important to note there is a fair amount of uncertainty with this value." MCSTS-Page-27-11'.. the "ra"nge of flow data paints Was not comprehensive enough to provide a precise result.,, Gerald Wasser From: w.watters [w.watters@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 14, 20114:57 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: May Creek Sediment Transport City Clerk Bonnie Walton Attention: Hearing Examiner City of Renton Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, The "May Creek Sediment Transport Study" dated June 2009 prepared by Anchor QEA states on page 24 that "The extent of erosion during the January 7, 2009 event was much more expansive than the December 11, 2007 event, even though the discharge for both events was approximately the same (348 and 339 cfs, respectively)." On page 25, the report indicates that the model provides "reasonable estimates of water surface elevations for lower flow events (less than 70 cfs), when compared to monitoring data. However, for higher flow events, bed movement begins to occur which cannot be properly accounted for in the present model." Also on page 25: "the range of flow data points was not comprehensive enough to provide a precise result." The final sentence of the conclusions on page 26 states "Therefore, future erosion events may be characterized by bank migration (movement of stream channel from its current location) as opposed to channel incising." The study recommends that more work needs to be done on page 27: —Combine the upstream and downstream models, which have been developed separately, to produce a cohesive model for the reach. ---Develop accurate hydrologic data for the upstream watershed. ---Develop and implement an unsteady state flow model inclusive of both the upstream and downstream of 148the Avenue, which'can be utilized to evaluate the long-term potential for changes to hydraulics throughout the length of the reach. This would allow simulations of successive flood events in order to evaluate the downstream effects of upstream modifications. Based on the above, it is quite clear to me that the Sediment Transport Study can't be used to determine what might happen downstream due to changes made upstream. There will be downstream impacts. However, the June 2009 Transport Study itself states that there is insufficient data to say what these impacts might be. Consequently, I ask that the Hearing Examiner deny any permits and variances regarding upstream changes to May Creek until the concerns of the State Deparment of Ecology, as noted in their letters dated September 1, 2011 and September 11, 2011 to Doug Chin, Project Manager, are addressed, Sincerely, Wayde Watters 11608 SE 286th St. Auburn, WA 98092 Gerald Wasser From: Chin, Doug [Doug.Chin@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Friday, October 14, 20114:37 PM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Cc: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Dear Mr. Olbrecht, As you are aware, the Department of Ecology has (DOE) "denied without prejudice" King County's 401 Water Quality Certification application. The denial was the result of a statutory deadline being reached where DOE had to approve or deny King County's application. There was no time left for DOE and King County to resolve outstanding issues with the project. The denial allows King County the opportunity to resolve issues with DOE and re- submit for the 401 Water Quality Certification. King County has scheduled a meeting to begin working on resolving the issues that DOE has with the May Creek project. At this meeting, King County will determine if the memo Dr. Patricia Olson prepared is the official position of DOE on the project. The memo is clearly not on official Washington State Department of Ecology letterhead and is not sign by Dr. Olson. If it turns out that Dr. Olson's comments are the official position of DOE then King County will fully address her concerns. King County requests that its application to the City of Renton for a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance be approved. Sincerely, Doug Chin, PMP Project Manager _____Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning Lmailto:]henning@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Hi Doug, Here are the comments that the City Clerk received. These were just forwarded to me. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick 1 Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:00 PM To: 'Chin, Doug' Cc: Gerald Wasser; Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Hello Doug, Sorry for the late reply. My understanding is that you may submit rebuttal comments by 5:00 pm today. Please submit to the Hearing Examiner via email: olbrechtslaw(@Rmail.com Please also copy me and I will forward to the City Clerk. Thank you. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Chin, Doug fmailto:Doug.Chin(@kinecounty.govl Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:56 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser; Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Jennifer, Please confirm that King County has until Friday, October 21, 2011 to provide a rebuttal to these comments. Thanks, Doug -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning fmailto:Jhennine(@Rentonwa.eovl Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Hi Doug, Here are the comments that the City Clerk received. These were just forwarded to me. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way 1 Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 2 Gerald Wasser From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20114:08 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: LUA11-065 New exhibits introduced Public Hearing Oct. 4th,2011 Attachments: LUA11-065 New exhibits introduced Public Hearing Oct. 4th,2011; Comments on new exhibits introduced at Public hearing October 4th, 2011 LUA11-065 Forwarding the attached to you as requested.... Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton, x6502 Gerald Wasser From: A DUFFUS [klassicars@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:51 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: LUA11-065 New exhibits introduced Public Hearing Oct. 4th,2011 City Clerk Ms. Bonnie Walton Would you please be so kind as to forward this to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you for your understanding and help. Please see bottom of this note. Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner. I attended the public hearing October 4th, 2011. The first new exhibit (introduced by the applicant) was the March 10th, 2011 letter to King County Department of Transportation from the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. After that, several more exhibits that were not specifically listed in the "Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner" were added to the record. At the recess requested by the applicant, I approached and asked about public comments on newly introduced exhibits i.e. the NMFS letter. You excused yourself to go to the restroom but said you would explain that later. You did. It is my understanding, and that of several citizens present, that comments on new exhibits should be sent to Ms. J. Henning.. (It should be noted that your microphone was not working very well. At the beginning of the hearing, I mentioned this to the other City of Renton staff member present. She said she would fix it, but that never happened; your voice was low throughout the hearing.) Regarding the County's introduction of the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report (Anchor QEA, LLC), June 2009" It is our understanding that it was not objected to and agreed that the applicant could provide a website link to this document rather than submit a printed copy that county staff did not have with them at that time. You stated that, assuming the county supplied the link by Thursday, the public comment period would remain open until the following Friday. Roger Coates, (citizen -member of the audience) clarified that would be the 14th, you affirmed. A Renton staffer has suggested the public comment period ended yesterday, Wednesday, October 12th, 2011. Further, they are rebuffing public comment from Stonegate and "downstream" citizens on anything but the sediment transport report. On Wednesday October 51h, the day after the hearing, we asked Renton staff to provide us with a list of the newly introduced exhibits. We also included a list of some l of the newly introduced exhibits that were not specifically listed in the "Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner'. We were told the list would be available soon. To date we have not seen it. Now there seems to be confusion on the part of a staff member that that comments could only be made on the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report" and that the hearing was closed yesterday. Comparing notes with Stonegate residents and down streamers that is not what we believe. Frankly, I am surprised that a City of Renton staff member would rebuff Renton citizens' comments in a matter that is of so much public concern. You may remember, I'm the guy who complimented Renton staff and city council in my testimony. City Clerk, Ms. Bonnie Walton, however, has been more than helpful, (stayed on after hours yesterday to wait for a citizen inquiry) gracious and coolheaded. I am looking forward to bringing her exemplary service to the attention of Mayor Law. Respectfully, Andrew Duffus. Recent E-mails to and from Renton staff: Yes, Jean, I received your email and sent a response that I needed to get the Exhibit List from the Examiner. I'm working on that. Did you receive the link to the Anchor QEA study that I sent? Jennifer Henning, AICD Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: urban separator fmailto:urbanseparator(o)i hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 07, 20117:54 AMTo: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: from Jean Rollins — new exhibits Hello Jenifer. Did you receive my e-mail from a couple of days ago? I am attaching it below. Sure would like to know so we can review and comment. Thanks, Jean From: urbanseparator@hotmail.com To: ihenning@rentonwa.gov 2 Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing — new exhibits Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:02:20 -0700 Hello Jenifer. At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. I became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 15'', 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, Jean Rollins Gerald Wasser From: A DUFFUS (klassicars@hotmail.comj Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:59 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Comments on new exhibits introduced at Public hearing October 4th, 2011 LUA11-065 City Clerk Ms. Bonnie Walton, Would you please be so kind as to forward this to the Hearing Examiner. Thank you for your understanding and help. Please see bottom of this note. Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner. I attended the public hearing October 4th, 2011. The first new exhibit (introduced by the applicant) was the March 10th, 2011 letter to King County Department of Transportation from the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. After that, several more exhibits that were not specifically listed in the "Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner" were added to the record. At the recess requested by the applicant, I approached and asked about public comments on newly introduced exhibits i.e. the NMFS letter. You excused yourself to go to the restroom but said you would explain that later. You did. It is my understanding, and that of several citizens present, that comments on new exhibits should be sent to Ms. J. Henning. (it should be noted that your microphone was not working very well. At the beginning of the hearing, I mentioned this to the other City of Renton staff member present. She said she would fix it, but that never happened; your voice was low throughout the hearing.) Regarding the County's introduction of the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report (Anchor QEA, LLC), June 2009". It is our understanding that it was not objected to and agreed that the applicant could provide a website link to this document rather than submit a printed copy that county staff did not have with them at that time. You stated that, assuming the county supplied the link by Thursday, the public comment period would remain open until the following Friday. Roger Coates, (citizen -member of the audience) clarified that would be the 14th, you affirmed. A Renton staffer has suggested the public comment period ended yesterday, Wednesday, October 12th, 2011. Further, they are rebuffing public comment from Stonegate and "downstream" citizens on anything but the sediment transport report. On Wednesday October 5th, the day after the hearing, we asked Renton staff to provide us with a list of the newly introduced exhibits. We also included a list of some of the newly introduced exhibits that were not specifically listed in the "Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner". We were told the list would be available soon. To date we have not seen it. Now there seems to be confusion on the part of a staff member that that comments could only be made on the "May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report" and that the hearing was closed yesterday. Comparing notes with Stonegate residents and down streamers that is not what we believe. Frankly, I am surprised that a City of Renton staff member would rebuff Renton citizen comments in a matter that is of so much public concern. You may remember I'm the guy who complimented Renton staff and city council in my testimony. City Clerk, Ms. Bonnie Walter, however, has-been more than helpful, (stayed on after hours yesterday to wait for a citizen inquiry) gracious and coolheaded. I am looking forward to bringing her exemplary service to the attention of Mayor Law. Respectfully, Andrew Duffus. Recent E-mails to and from Renton staff: Yes, Jean, I received your email and sent a response that I needed to get the Exhibit List from the Examiner. I'm working on that. Did you receive the link to the Anchor QEA study that I sent? Jennifer Henning, A1CP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: urban separator[maiIto: urbanseparator@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 20117:54 AMTo: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: from Jean Rollins — new exhibits Hello Jenifer. Did you receive my e-mail from a couple of days ago? I am attaching it below. Sure would like to know so we can review and comment. Thanks, Jean From: urbanseparator@)hotmaii.com To: jhenning@rentonwa.gov 2 Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing — new exhibits Date. Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:02:20 -0700 Hello lenifer. At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. I became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P,l. Olson, Aug 15", 2011 Washington Department of Ecology letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, lean Rollins Gerald Wasser From: Chin, Doug [Doug.Chin@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20112:56 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc. Gerald Wasser; Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Jennifer, Please confirm that King County has until Friday, October 21, 2011 to provide a rebuttal to these comments. Thanks, Doug -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning Cmailto:Jhenning(@Rentonwa.eov1 Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Hi Doug, Here are the comments that the City Clerk received. These were just forwarded to me. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message= ---- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 1 Gerald Wasser From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:52 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report I don't really know for sure. Phil would have set the comment period deadline, I would think. The citizen who called me seemed to think the comment period was 5 pm tomorrow, but I don't know myself. The way we always did things with Fred was to accept all submissions, make sure we had everything date & time stamped as to exactly when received, and then forward it all on to Fred regardless. Fred would then assume responsibility to decide whether the submission was timely or allowable. If not, he would inform them. I would suggest that you just pose the question directly to the HE and ask him if he would like you to send the emails on to any other parties of record, and if those parties are then allowed to rebut. 'Seems to me Phil needs to make those decision; we (you) just follow his lead. Bonnie, x6502 -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:39 PM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Bonnie, Is the comment period now closed? Do I need to send these out to anyone for rebuttal? Thanks for your help. Jennifer -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 1 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:50 PM To: 'Debra Rogers' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Dredging Bello Debra, My understanding is that the record was kept open until Thursday, Oct 6th for the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study; a comment period closed on Wednesday, Oct 12th at 5:00 pm. Rebuttal of comments is open until Friday, Oct 14th at 5:00 pm. Jennifer Henning, AICD Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 UVL�;-- 4--�.tf Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20112:48 PM To: 'urban separator' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Hello Jean, You've asked about the following exhibits: National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 151', 2011 This is attached to Mr. Duffas comments (Exhibit 15) in the staff report. Washington Department of Ecology Letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 This was added at the Hearing. May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA This was added to the file last Wednesday, October 51h via the link I provided to you. Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County This was introduced at the Hearing. May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report I'm trying to reconstruct the other exhibits based on the hearing recording. I believe all were entered as exhibits. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 �;isyuf , From: urban separator [mailto:urbanseparator@hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 07, 20113:12 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Thanks Jennifer, I got the link. And thank you for working to get the revised exhibit list. The exhibits came on fast and furious and I lost track. Jean From: Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov To: urbanseparator@hotmail.com Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:12:41 -0700 Subject: RE: from Jean Rollins - new exhibits Yes, Jean, I received your email and sent a response that I needed to get the Exhibit List from the Examiner. I'm working on that. Did you receive the link to the Anchor QEA study that I sent? Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: urban separator fmailto:urbanseoaratorC@hotmall.coml Sent: Friday, October 07, 20117:54 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: from Jean Rollins — new exhibits Hello Jenifer. Did you receive my e-mail from a couple of days ago? I am attaching it below. Sure would like to know so we can review and comment. Thanks, Jean From: urbanseparator@hotmail.com To: jhenning@rentonwa.gov Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing — new exhibits Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:02:20 -0700 Hello Jenifer. At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. I became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 15th 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Letter to Icing County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, Jean Rollins Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:39 PM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Bonnie, Is the comment period now closed? Do I need to send these out to anyone for rebuttal? Thanks for your help. Jennifer -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 1 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20112:38 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Attachments: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report; Comments to Sediment Transport Study Report for Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK; MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study; May Creek Dredging Sediment Hi Doug, Here are the comments that the City Clerk received. These were just forwarded to me. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7285 -----Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:18 PM To: 'Phil albrechts' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: FW: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Forwarding the four attached emails to you as requested. Bonnie Walton City Clerk, x6502 1 Gerald Wasser From: marcia Baeker Imarciabaeker@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 2:06 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: May Creek Dredging Sediment Hello, I live in the Stone Gate neighborhood and I want to comment on the exhibits that were brought up at the hearing. First some guy named Tom Carpenter told you that Stone Gate was all for this dredging/wetland project. Our neighborhood has already put up with the new Renton sewer station. This has changed the very entrance to our neighborhood. Now you want to change the wetland. Oh bad. Nobody around here seems to know who this Carpenter guy is. Did the dredgers hire him? They did not seem to have much support at the meeting. But I really want to comment on the exhibits. 1. The H & H report that trys to justify this project. 2. The Sediments Transport Study has gaps Both these reports were poo pooed by Dr. Patricai Olson of the Dept. of Ecology. I have a copy of a memo she wrote please read it. She'discusses problems that she finds in the H & H report. I don't pretend to understand it but she seems to know what she is talking about. She is the senior hydrologist/geologist. She seems a lot more sure of her self than Jeff Burkey who tried to discredit her. Also the Sediment report admits its own limitations and failings. For example it discusses missing erosion pins, lack of rain storm events only eight during the study period. On page 17 the report refers to unreliable data due to a large gap in survey data. Misrepresentation of the slope along the reach. An associated inaccuracy in the one dimensional model results. Agreement between modeled and measures WSE for two high flow events was good except for the flow even on June 11. produced lower WSE than predicted. What happens if the water level is HIGHER than the predictions? More report stuff. Differences for high flow events can be attributed to bed movement during these events that is not taken into account in the HEC -RAS model. The reports conclusions recommends (see below where I included the page.) Another exhibit is the National Marine Fisheries letter. This letter just parrots the county's own biased reports. The Muckleshoot Indians wrote that StreamWatchers saw salmon in Greens Stream which empties right smack in the middle of the wetland that the county wants to destroy then try to put back together again. Good luck it will never be the same. Salmon were spotted within Y of a mile of the project. We hear about fish in May Creek every winter. Once again where Green's stream and May Creek join is right in the middle. I wonder if the National Marine Fish guy actually got out of his chair and visited the site? Oh, by the way, have you visited the site? Also what about those folks downstream and their old bridges? Will the county replace those? At a meeting January or February 2010 the county showed us a report that said the county was 1 considering replacing some of the bridges or even buying up property in danger. I found the report on the counties website here is link. http://www.kingcounty.pov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-waZmay-c.reek/erosion stabilization-report.aspx Thanks for listening Marcia Baeker 6 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS The results of this study are directly related to the quality and quantity of data that were collected. As stated in the above section, the range of flow data points was not comprehensive enough to provide a precise result, although the data that were collected were accurate. It is potentially possible to increase the precision of the estimate of initiation of motion for the project reach through addition and continued data collection, such as the following: • Continued monitoring, as described in this report, at Station 2 where bed pins, bank hooks, and the water level sensor are still deployed. • Reestablish bed pins, bank hooks, and water level sensor for Station 3 upstream of its current location, and continue with monitoring Station 3 as described in this report. . Consider relocating Gage 37b to a location that may be less effected by accumulation of sediment or debris, which can affect the data recorded by the sensor. In addition, several actions are recommended that would allow the results of this study to be used more effectively for the evaluation of potential actions within the reach. These activities include the following: • Combine the upstream and downstream models, which have been developed separately, to produce a cohesive model for the reach. • Develop accurate hydrologic data for the upstream watershed. • Develop and implement an unsteady state flow model inclusive of both the upstream and downstream of 148th Avenue, which can be utilized to evaluate the long-term potential for changes to hydraulics throughout the length of the reach. This would allow simulations of successive flood events in order to evaluate the downstream effects of upstream modifications. 2 Gerald Wasser From: Debra Rogers [herogers@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:26 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Dear Ms. Walton, Please send my comments to the Hearing Examiner regarding the King County May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report. Gratefully, Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court, Stonegate Neighborhood, Renton WA 98059 425-271-8668 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report. This report is based on incorrect and inadequate data. I believe that it needs to be completely redone and have a external review to confirm its validity as the Department of Ecology and Dr. Olson have requested. I therefore request that you DENY the critical areas variance and permits to dredge May Creek. Respectfully, Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court Stonegate Neighborhood Renton, WA 98059 425-271-8668 1 Gerald Wasser From: Debra Rogers [herogers@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:26 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: RE: MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study Report Dear Ms. Walton, Please send my comments to the Hearing Examiner regarding the King County May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report. Gratefully, Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court, Stonegate Neighborhood, Renton WA 98059 425-271-8668 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Sediment Transport Study Report. This report is based on incorrect and inadequate data. I believe that it needs to be completely redone and have a external review to confirm its validity as the Department of Ecology and Dr. Olson have requested. I therefore request that you DENY the critical areas variance and permits to dredge May Creek. Respectfully, Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court Stonegate Neighborhood Renton, WA 98059 425-271-8668 1 Gerald Wasser From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Walton, If possible, may I Gratefully (again), Debra Rogers 5326 NE 22nd Court, 425-271-8668 Debra Rogers [herogers@comcast.net] Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:51 PM Bonnie Walton MAY CREEK Sediment Transport Study MAY CREEK 401 WQ CERTIFICATION ECOLOGY DENIAL.pdf ask that you also send the below comments? Stonegate Neighborhood, Renton, WA 98059 Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Sediment Transport Study. I have lived in the Stonegate neighborhood for almost 14years at: 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059. I want to be clear that I oppose the current King County plans to dredge May Creek because I think that the May Creek Sediment Transport Study that they did is flawed. I am also NOT aware of any "Stonegate support" of this or any other plan as purported by Tom Carpenter at the recent hearing October 4th 2011. I do not know who Tom Carpenter is, and he does not live in Stonegate. I do not understand why time and money is still being spent to push the dredging agenda without first requiring the county to present data that meets the requirements requested over the past several years as chronologically shown in the Department of Ecology denial -letter (attached). Especially the last page of that document. Very Respectfully, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 1 004- 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Once 3190 1601h SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000 September 22, 2011 Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and.Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RE: Ecology Denial for Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Chin: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a joint public notice with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for the above project on September 24, 2010. Ecology has one year to issue an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification). On August 31, 2010, Ecology notified you by certified letter that this project would require a 401 Certification. On April 21, 2011 and September 1, 2011, Ecology issued additional public notices regarding King County's two revised applications for 401 Certification. We determined that your application for an individual 401 Certification was incomplete and sent you a certified letter on September 1, 2011 detailing the specific information that was needed to complete your application and stating that if Ecology did not receive all of the required documentation by September 16, 2011, Ecology would deny the 401 Certification for this project. In our September 1, 2011 letter we identified the following information needed in order to complete our review: • A description'of how sediment disposal areas will be stabilized. • A Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan. • Measures to be taken regarding stream water temperature changes between removal of mature vegetation and when replanted vegetation reaches the size to shade the creek. • Revisions to the Mitigation Plan. • Revisions to the sediment monitoring plan. • Site plan revisions. Details on the Long Marsh Creek riparian planting buffer. A copy of the Final Long Marsh Creek Sediment Control and Habitat Restoration Project Basis of Design Report. • Expanded riparian vegetation buffers. • Study of the resizing or removal of the 1484 Avenue SE Budge. King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 2 • Reassessment and redesign of the project to address its effectiveness, including further evaluation and study of sediment transport and downstream erosion, as well as independent review of sediment transport modeling. On September 16, 2011, Ecology received a response addressing some of the information requested. Unfortunately we have not received all of the documentation needed in order to demonstrate that we have reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. We have attached a project chronology that details that we have been trying to work with you to get the needed information in order to process your request for a 401 Certification. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ch. 90.48 RCW and ch. 173-201 A WAC the May Creek Drainage Iml2rovement Project water uali certification is denied without_ prejudice. Receipt of a denial without prejudice does not preclude King County Water and Land Resources Division from resubmitting a request for 401 Certification at a later date. ,�.:... y-... - M=RW .r^r�..a,� -'?,-a ' ' r s r-- 1- A- i `-^-'�•. -,r- i c-'T Y�:UR7 R1GH"TOxAPP.A �- xt;.�_ r02 You have a right to appeal this Order to the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB) within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order. The appeal process is governed by Chapter 43.21 B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. "Date of receipt" is defined in RCW 43.218.001(2). To appeal you must do the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order: • File your appeal and -a copy of this Order with the PCHB (see addresses below). Filing means actual receipt by the PCHB during regular business hours. • Serve a copy of your appeal and this Order on Ecology in paper form - by mail or in person. (See addresses below.) E-mail is not accepted. You must also comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 43.21 B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. _ AD RESS AN JJ O0 T�(JI± A__F,,ORM IQN . et -Addresses - . Mallin dresses::.... Department of Ecology Department of Ecology Attn: Appeals Processing Desk Atin: Appeals Processing Desk 300 Desmond Drive SE PO Box 47608 Lacey, WA 98503 Olympia, WA 98504-7608 Pollution Control Hearings Board Pollution Control Hearings Board 1 I i I Israel Rd SW PO Box 40903 - STE 301 Olympia, WA' 98504-0903 Tumwater, WA 98501 King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 3 �`1:�� :i�t_'�'-'..�':'�Si"_'�' .. `-4x—xe�•-3YY�Si�'t, ._Jvn+—e y Please direct all questions about this Order to: Rebekah Padgett Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 16& Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7129 Rebekah.Padgett@ecy.wa.gov Pollution Control Hearings Board Website -,vww. eho.wa. gov/Boards_PCI Chapter 43.2113 RCW - Environmental Hearings Office — Pollution Control Hearings Board hqp://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.21B Chapter 371-08 WAC — Practice and Procedure http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=371-08 Cliapter 90.48 RCW — Water Pollution Control http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48 Chapter 173-201A WAC — Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington www,ec .wa. ov/biblio/wacl73201A.htnil Erik Stockdaie, Unit Supervisor Wetlands/401 Unit Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Northwest Regional Office ES:rrp:cja Enclosure By certified mail 7011 0470 0003 3720 9107 September 22, 2011 King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page d cc: Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TJ Stetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Katie Bonwell e -cc: Patrick McGraner -- NWRO Patricia Olson — HQ Loree' Randall — HQ Raman Iyer — N WRO ecyrefedpermits(r77�ecy.wa.gov_ Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov Jean Rollins urbanser)aratora,hotmail.com Debra Rogers herogerss(rr�},comcast,net Susan Malin susiemalin(&"sn.com_ Gary Amundson gary.ana_,comcast.net Andrew Duffizs hotmail.com klassicars@botmail.com Carol Tabacek caroltabacek@aol.co aol.com Mazy Weirich maryvweirich(@comcast.net A. Dulls blueheron6987@,,hotmail.com Julie & Jim Bomvell ibonwell[ilesourd.com Attachment 1: May Creek WQC Permitting Chronology 1126110 Ecology attended an interagency meeting organized by King County with discussion about the potential to create a multi -agency permitting team. A brief introduction and overview of the project concept at this early stage was presented. The U:S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance, and King County representatives were present. 2122/10 Ecology attended a field meeting with King County, WDFW, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Ecology staff raised concerns about the effectiveness, purpose and need of the proposed project. Specific comments included: the effectiveness of the 15 -foot -wide buffers, concerns about direct animal access to stream, severely degraded pastures and the need for farm plans, extent of the wetland and primary sources of hydrology, and concerns about establishing woody vegetation in very wet soils. Ecology observed that livestock have direct access on one of the project properties upstream of the project area. 3/24/1.0 Ecology provided written comments via e-mail that followed up on the 2/22110 site visit. 5/5/10 Ecology participated in an interagency pre -application meeting and provided substantive comments regarding the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the need to redelineate the wetland, buffer width, and limit livestock access to the creek Ecology raised concerns about 303(d) listing for. fecal coliform and the preference for 35 -foot buffers and wider planting on the south side buffer to reduce summer temperatures through shading. Ecology questioned the 2002 pilot described by King County where two sediment plugs were removed from side channels on the McFarland property, specifically whether it would be comparable to the current proposal and what post - construction monitoring was completed. Ecology raised the question of whether the proposed one-time dredging would accomplish the goals of the proposal; the County indicated that it was planning a series of projects, working from this site upstream. Ecology also pointed out that the baseline stream report included language that contradicted and would not support this proposal, Downstream erosion concerns were discussed, and King County staff noted that they had conducted modeling and did not believe that the sediment removal would increase erosion downstream. King County submitted the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) package to Ecology. 5/13/10 The Corps canceled the application. 6/24/10 Ecology canceled the 401 application based on the Corps' 5/13/10 action. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attacliment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 2 8116/10 King County submitted a revised JARPA to Ecology. 9/8110 King County submitted a Certification of Consistency with the Washington State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program to Ecology. 9116/10 Ecology submitted comments on the State Environmental Policy Act mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) regarding effectiveness, purpose, and need of the proposal, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4 for establishing canopy cover, the degradation of the pastures and need for farm plans to protect riparian habitat and creeks, and livestock access to the creek. 9/20110 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about increased erosion, sediment transport thresholds, cumulative impacts, and the need for additional detailed study of the potential downstream impacts. 9122110 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe raising concerns about net loss of habitat, downstream erosion, insufficient buffers and the probability that the proposed dredging will be a short-term fix. 9/24/10 Corps issued a joint public notice with Ecology. 10/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about the purpose and need of the project, draining of wetlands, water quality, salmon habitat, increased flow, and bank erosion, as well as questions about the 2002 pilot. 10/23/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the City of Renton that included concern about effects of increased velocity, flow, or erosion on downstream properties. 12/16/10 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology MDNS comments. In the response letter, the County defends the proposed 15 -foot buffer not as best available science (BAS) but as an improvement over existing conditions citing property owners' reluctance to expand planting areas, states that it cannot require farm plans from private property owners "or require owners with farm plans to implement them properly, and notes that the planting areas will be fenced and will 'therefore effectively eliminate livestock access to the creek. 313111 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 9/8/11. 3118/11 King County submitted another revised JARPA to Ecology. This revision included new impacts to Long Marsh Creek that the County referred to as mitigation, therefore reducing proposed mitigation downstream of 148'' Avenue SE. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 3 415111 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Neighhor•s far May Valley, who raised concerns about stream flow velocity, volume and timing of storm events, flooding and erosion. Downstream property owners requested that King County allow the project to be delayed at least one water year to establish a pre -project erosion baseline. The downstream citizens requested additional assurances that the proposed dredging will not have unintended negative consequences to downstream properties. 4121111 Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 4/26/11 Ecology participated in an interagency site visit where staff raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, the buffers on Long Marsh Creek, whether the Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation, project -specific monitoring of sediments in the project area and downstream, best management practices, proposed buffer widths, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4, and the need for future dredging. 4/28/11 Ecology followed up by a -mail documenting questions raised at the 4126111 site visit. 5111 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream property owners questioning assumptions being made by King County based on modeling within the Hydraulics and Hydrologic Analyses using limited data, expressing concerns about downstream erosion, increased turbidity, and the proposed 15 -foot planting buffer as not meeting BAS or County code. Specific questions also were raised with regards to the adequacy of the information provided by King County that claimed that the 2002 pilot project along a 300 -foot section of the creek upstream of the proposed project was successful, erosion thresholds, potential for shallow well contamination, flow velocity, volume and peak flow during storm events potentially risking sole -access bridges to properties, and the adequacy of the 15 - foot planting buffer. 5111111 Ecology received additional substantive comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe emphasizing the need to improve pasture conditions and control other existing sediment sources through agricultural best management practices and/or farm plans, minimize the dredging area with increased mitigation for impacts, increase the proposed planted buffer width, provide additional riparian plantings, measures to avoid impacts to downstream reaches, mitigation for any unavoidable impact to downstream reaches, future dredging projects, and potential impacts to salmonids. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 4 6/10/11 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology's 4/26/11 and 4/28/11 comments. In its letter, King County stated that downstream impacts have been sufficiently analyzed and that a formal monitoring plan is not warranted; based on previous analysis and current design features, re -sedimentation monitoring is not warranted at this time; and there are no future plans to implement additional upstream sediment removal projects. King County continued to defend the proposed 15 -foot buffer as being adequate even within the very wet portion of the left bank in Reach 4. In response to ongoing concerns from Ecology regarding the effectiveness of the proposed project, King County again stated that the project is only designed to reduce overbank pasture flooding for a short period of time on each end of the rainy season and that monitoring wells have been installed to assess groundwater pre- and post -project. 711111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public continent in which the County restated that the 15 -foot proposed planting buffer, while not based on. BAS, is an improvement over existing conditions as demonstrated by the results of the 2002 pilot project upstream of the current proposal and that the continuous hydrologic watershed mode used accounted for all peaks, all durations and all flow rates at all locations. King County reversed its position from 6110/11 and agreed to conduct downstream monitoring for a period of 5 years post -project. Ecology responded to King County by requesting a copy of the downstream monitoring plan with note that the plan should be comprehensive and not simply address the issues raised by one property owner. 718111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment in which the County stated that downstream monitoring will be conducted for a period of 5 years and that if monitoring data collected clearly shows that erosion problems result from the project, that it will offer technical assistance and perform remediation. The County indicated that it has no future plans to implement additional sediment removal projects upstream of this project site. 7/19111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment stating that the project will not increase existing erosion problems downstream, proposing 5 years of downstream monitoring and working with the property owner on a solution if the monitoring shows downstream erosion resulting from this project. 7/22/11 Ecology received King County's responses to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 5111/11 comments. The e-mail states that the County does not have plans to implement the other three upstream dredging projects. In response to the tribe's comment that King County Code requires existing livestock operations to implement a farm management plan or meet management standards outlined in the Code, the County indicates that two of the four livestock operations have developed plans and that the buffers specified in these plans are 25 feet (10 feet more than the County is proposing through this project). The County also acknowledges that the 148th Avenue SE Bridge causes a backwater effect. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment t September 22, 2011 Page S' 7126111 Ecology again visited the project site, including downstream properties. 812111 King County submitted another revised JARPA. The revision addresses Long Marsh Creek impacts and includes additional mitigation. 911111 Ecology sent a letter by Certified Mail to Doug Chin requesting additional information and stating that project 401 Certification would be denied if the requested documentation was not received at Ecology by September 16, 2011. Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 917111 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 1118111. ..I. 9114111 Ecology received a public comment from a property owner reiterating questions about the need for the project and concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts 9/15/11 Ecology received public comments from a property owner reiterating concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts, raising the need for additional erosion monitoring and stream flow devices, and questioning the need for the project. The property owner raises questions about the stream and wetland buffer width, storm surge flows, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, cumulative impacts, compensatory stormwater storage, and the need for additional data and analysis. Ecology received public comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reiterating concerns about salmonids and habitat, cumulative impacts, likely future dredging, insufficient buffer widths, and the adequacy of mitigation. The letter also notes the need to consider less -impacting alternatives, have enforceable farm plans in place, for further analysis on backwater effect of the McFariand/Gambini footbridge, to consider impacts of sediment deposition in the mitigation alcoves, for sediment accumulation and erosion monitoring, to collect data regarding changes in channel cross-sections and longitudinal profiles and data on flood frequency durations, to monitor for salmonid use, and for a contingency plan. 9/16/11 Ecology received additional public comments reiterating concerns about downstream flooding and erosion. Ecology received King County's responses to the 911111 letter requesting additional information. While some questions were addressed, outstanding issues remain including; buffers, baseline data, and sediment transport and data about what will happen downstream. Gerald Wasser From: Julie P. Bonwell Ubonwell@lesourd.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:19 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Comments to Sediment Transport Study Report for Hearing Examiner MAY CREEK City Clerk Bonnie Walton Attention of: Hearing Examiner City of Renton Re: Comments to Sediment Transport Study Report for Hearing Examiner Mr. Hearing Examiner: Significant concerns raised by citizens, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and others regarding the Sediment Transport Study Report (May Creek) have not been addressed. Dr. Olson's memo refers to one of the additional exhibits the county introduced: the Sediment Transport Study Report. Dr. Olson and others in the Department of Ecology believe the county's report is based on inaccurate data, bad analysis and bad conclusions. Dr. Olson, other Ecology personnel, and the Muckleshoots visited the sites at least twice. My husband was home on one of those visits. When did the City of Renton come to see for themselves the erosion we already have downstream? Dr. Olson and the Department of Ecology's recommendation is for a new Sediment Transport Study Report, to be reviewed by outside sources, and a further study of downstream erosion. The county's assertion that there will not be downstream impacts cannot be supported by a report based on inaccurate or incomplete data. The potential exists for negative downstream impacts per the scientific review of this report. When experts (and lay people living creekside) challenge the county's study, it is loud and clear - those discrepancies must be addressed before going forward with any sediment removal from May Creek. The issues must not be ignored. Our homes are at stake. We respectfully request the Hearing Examiner deny the permit and variance the county is seeking from the City of Renton. Thank you. Jim and Julie Bonwell Gerald Wasser From: marcia Baeker [marciabaeker@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20112:06 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: May Creek Dredging Sediment Hello, I live in the Stone Gate neighborhood and I want to comment on the exhibits that were brought up at the hearing. First some guy named Tom Carpenter told you that Stone Gate was all for this dredging/wetland project. Our neighborhood has already put up with the new Renton sewer station. This has changed the very entrance to our neighborhood. Now you want to change the wetland. Oh bad. Nobody around here seems to know who this Carpenter guy is. Did the dredgers hire him? They did not seem to have much support at the meeting. But I really want to comment on the exhibits. 1. The H & H report that trys to justify this project. 2. The Sediments Transport Study has gaps Both these reports were poo pooed by Dr. Patricai Olson of the Dept. of Ecology. I have a copy of a memo she wrote please read it. She discusses problems that she finds in the H & H report. I don't pretend to understand it but she seems to know what she is talking about. She is the senior hydrologist/geologist. She seems a lot more sure of her self than Jeff Burkey who tried to discredit her. Also the Sediment report admits its own limitations and failings. For example it discusses missing erosion pins, lack of rain storm events only eight during the study period. On page 17 the report refers to unreliable data due to a large gap in survey data. Misrepresentation of the slope along the reach. An associated inaccuracy in the one dimensional model results. Agreement between modeled and measures WSE for two high flow events was good except for the flow even on June 11. produced lower WSE than predicted. What happens if the water level is HIGHER than the predictions? More report stuff. Differences for high flow events can be attributed to bed movement during these events that is not taken into account in the HEC -RAS model. The reports conclusions recommends (see below where I included the page.) Another exhibit is the National Marine Fisheries letter. This letter just parrots the county's own biased reports. The Muckleshoot Indians wrote that StreamWatchers saw salmon in Greens Stream which empties right smack in the middle of the wetland that the county wants to destroy then try to put back together again. Good luck it will never be the same. Salmon were spotted within % of a mile of the project. We hear about fish in May Creek every winter. Once again where Green's stream and May Creek join is right in the middle. I wonder if the National Marine Fish guy actually got out of his chair and visited the site? Oh, by the way, have you visited the site? Also what about those folks downstream and their old bridges? Will the county replace those? At a meeting January or February 2010 the county showed us a report that said the county was considering replacing some of the bridges or even buying up property in danger. I found the report on the counties website here is link. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa may-creek1erosion- stabilization-report.aspx' Thanks for listening Marcia Baeker 5 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS The results of this study are directly related to the quality and quantity of data that were collected. As stated in the above section, the range of flow data points was not comprehensive enough to provide a precise result, although the data that were collected were accurate. It is potentially possible to increase the precision of the estimate of initiation of motion for the project reach through addition and continued data collection, such as the following: • Continued monitoring, as described in this report, at Station 2 where bed pins, bank hooks, and the water level sensor are still deployed. • Reestablish bed pins, bank hooks, and water level sensor for Station 3 upstream of its current location, and continue with monitoring Station 3 as described in this report. • Consider relocating Gage 37b to a location that may be less effected by accumulation of sediment or debris, which can affect the .data recorded by the sensor. In addition, several actions are recommended that would allow the results of this study to be used more effectively for the evaluation of potential actions within the reach. These activities include the following: • Combine the upstream and downstream models, which have been developed separately, to produce a cohesive model for the reach. • Develop accurate hydrologic data for the upstream watershed. • Develop and implement an unsteady state flow model inclusive of both the upstream and downstream of 148th Avenue, which can be utilized to evaluate the long-term potential for changes to hydraulics throughout the length of the reach. This would allow simulations of successive flood events in order to evaluate the downstream effects of upstream modifications. z Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:27 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: King County DDES Notice of Application/1-11AE0051May Creek Areas Alteration For your May Creek project. Did Plan Review make similar comments? From: Bob Mahn Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:25 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: King County DDES Notice of Application/ L11AE005/May Creek Areas Alteration Transportation Systems staffs previous comments, regarding the anchoring and securing any large woody debris and the use of willow stakes to anchor logs, that were in your October 22, 2010 letter to Lori C. Hull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are still applicable. Thanks. Bob Mahn Transportation Planning X-7322 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:55 AM To: 'Debra Rogers' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK DREDGING Hello Debra, Your comments were received following the close of the regular record at the May Creek Dredging hearing. The record was only kept open for comments regarding the Anchor QEA Sediment study. Therefore, because your comments were not germane to that study they cannot be added to the record for the May Creek Dredging project. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Debra Rogers fmailto:herogers@comcast._ne_t_7 Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:45 PM To: Debra Rogers; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: Re: MAY CREEK DREDGING Thank you! I hope tht they do make the recod. Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debra Rogers" <hero ers.comcast.net> To:'"Jennifer T. Henning" <Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:43 PM Subject: Re: MAY CREEK DREDGING > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jennifer T. Henning" <JhenninpJ@Rentonwa.eov> > To: "'Debra Rogers'" <herogers@comcast.net>; "Gerald Wasser" > <GWasser@Rentonwa.goy> > Cc: "Gerald Wasser" <GWasser(@Rentonwa.gov> 1 > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:04 PM > Subject: RE: MAY CREEK DREDGING > Dear Ms. Rogers, > Thank you for submitting comments regarding the May Creek Dredging > project, a portion of which is proposed in Renton. The public hearing on > the above -referenced matter was conducted last week, on Tuesday, October > 4th. The Examiner kept the record open until last Thursday in order to > allow the submittal of the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor QEA > Engineering) and then is only allowing comments on that study for a > limited time. Here is a link to that study: > http ZZyour_ki;ngcounty.Rovldnrp/library/water-and-land/watersheds/`ceda_r-river-lake-wa/may- creek/may-creek-sediment-transport-study.gdf > I have forwarded your comments to the Examiner in the event that he is > able to consider them as part of the record. > Jennifer Henning, AICP > Planning Manager > City of Renton Planning Division > 1055 South Grady Way > Renton, WA 98057 > 425.430.7286 > ----Original Message----- > From: Debra Rogers [mailto:heroRers(lcomcast.netl > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:00 PM > To: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning > Subject: MAY CREEK DREDGING > Dear Hearing Examiner, > I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Dredging proposal. > I have lived in the Stonegate neighborhood for almost 14years at: 5326 NE > 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059. > I want to be clear that I oppose the -current King County plans to dredge > May Creek . > I am also NOT aware of any "Stonegate support" of this plan as purported > by Tom Carpenter at the recent hearing October 4th 2011. I do not know who > Tom Carpenter is, and he does not live in Stonegate. > The new exhibits presented by King County were previously reviewed by Dr. > Olson. As well, The Department of Ecology is aware of these studies along > with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not > agreed with King County's assessment of the dredging situation being > proposed contrary to what the Renton staff has recommended.. > 2 > I do not understand why time and money is still being spent to push this > agenda without first requiring the county to present data that meets the > requirements requested over the past several years as chronologically > shown in the Department of Ecology denial letter (attached). Especially > the last page of that document. > Very Sincerely, > Debra Rogers > 425-271-8668 3 Gerald Wasser From: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:54 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning; Bonnie Walton; Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing I'll have the list of exhibits done for the final decision. I verify the exhibit list in my notes when I listen to the hearing record and prepare the summary of testimony. I won't have time to do this until next week. The record was only left open for comment on the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study. I cannot open the record for comment on any other exhibits. There is no need for an exhibit list to be issued prior to issuance of the final decision. From: Jennifer T. Henning [mailto:JhenninQ0Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20119:34 AM To: Bonnie Walton; 'Phil Olbrechts'; Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing Hi Bonnie, I'm going to reconcile the list of exhibits this morning and will respond to Ms. Rollins. Jennifer From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20115:24 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Jennifer T. Henning; Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing I received the attached citizen inquiry that pertains, I believe, to the hearing held 10/4 regarding the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, LUA-11-065. Would one of you please respond to this and cc the others? She is apparently is anxious for a response. Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:34 AM To: Bonnie Walton; 'Phil Olbrechts'; Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing Hi Bonnie, I'm going to reconcile the list of exhibits this morning and will respond to Ms. Rollins. Jennifer From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20115:24 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Jennifer T. Henning; Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing I received the attached citizen inquiry that pertains, I believe, to the hearing held 10/4 regarding the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, LUA-11-065. Would one of you please respond to this and cc the others? She is apparently is anxious for a response. Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 Gerald Wasser From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:24 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Jennifer T. Henning; Kayreri K. Kittrick Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing Attachments: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing I received the attached citizen inquiry that pertains, I believe, to the hearing held 10/4 regarding the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, LUA-11-065. Would one of you please respond to this and cc the others? She is apparently is anxious for a response. Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 Gerald Wasser From: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20114:51 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Newly introduced exhibits at public hearing Ms. Walton, The day after the public hearing we asked for the list of additional exhibits introduced at the hearing last week. Many of us noted that there were several new exhibits introduced, including but not limited to: The National Marine Fisheries Service letter dated March 10, 2011 Dr. Olson memo dated August 15, 2011 Dept of Ecology letter dated Sept. 22, 2011 Biological Evaluation Anchor QEA. LLC. Sediment Transport Study Sediment Assessment memo written by County 1 would like to know the complete list of additional exhibits and whether we can comment on these exhibits. The deadline for comments was set by the Hearing Examiner to be 5pm Friday, October 14,2011. Thank you for your assistance Jean Rollins 425-255-9405 Gerald Wasser From: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:47 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK DREDGING That's correct. Any comments submitted after the close of the verbal portion of the hearing for the May Creek dredging project should be limited to the Anchor QEA Sediment Study. I have already advised the Applicant that they cannot provide additional information and the same would apply to Ms. Rogers. Her comments are not germane to the Anchor study and are not admitted into the record. -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer T. Henning jmailto:JhenningJ@Rentonwa.govl Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:48 PM To: 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK DREDGING Mr. Examiner, Comments (below) were submitted via email today. As the comments do not pertain specifically to the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study, I don't believe that they can be added to the record at this time. Please advise, and I will contact Ms. Rogers. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Debra Rogers fmailto:herogersf@comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:00 PM To: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: MAY CREEK DREDGING Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Dredging proposal. I have lived in the Stonegate neighborhood for almost 14years at: 5325 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059. I want to be clear that I oppose the current King County plans to dredge May Creek . I am also NOT aware of any "Stonegate support" of this plan as purported by Tom Carpenter at the recent hearing October 4th 2011. I do not know who Tom Carpenter is, and he does not live in Stonegate. I The new exhibits presented by King County were previously reviewed by Dr. Olson. As well, The Department of Ecology is aware of these studies along with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not agreed with King County's assessment of the dredging situation being proposed contrary to what the Renton staff has recommended.. I do not understand why time and money is still being spent to push this agenda without first requiring the county to present data that meets the requirements requested over the past several years as chronologically shown in the Department of Ecology denial letter (attached). Especially the last page of that document. Very Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 2 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:04 PM To: 'Debra Rogers'; Gerald Wasser Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: MAY CREEK DREDGING Dear Ms. Rogers, Thank you for submitting comments regarding the May Creek Dredging project, a portion of which is proposed in Renton. The public hearing on the above -referenced matter was conducted last week, on Tuesday, October 4th. The Examiner kept the record open until last Thursday in order to allow the submittal of the Sediment Transport Study (Anchor QEA Engineering) and then is only allowing comments on that study for a limited time. Here is a link to that study: htt our.kin count ov dnr librar water -and -land watersheds cedar-river-lake- wa/may-creek/may-creek-sediment-transport-study.pdf I have forwarded your comments to the Examiner in the event that he is able to consider them as part of the record. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 ----Original Message ----- From: Debra Rogers f mailto:heroeers(lcomcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:00 PM To: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: MAY CREEK DREDGING Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Dredging proposal. I have lived in the Stonegate neighborhood for almost 14years at: 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059. I want to be clear that I oppose the current King County plans to dredge May Creek . I am also NOT aware of any "Stonegate support" of this plan as purported by Tom Carpenter at the recent hearing October 4th 2011. I do not know who Tom Carpenter is, and he does not live in Stonegate. The new exhibits presented by King County were previously reviewed by Dr. Olson. As well, The Department of Ecology is aware of these studies along with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not agreed with King County's 1 assessment of the dredging situation being proposed contrary to what the Renton staff has recommended.. I do not understand why time and money is still being spent to push this agenda without first requiring the county to present data that meets the requirements requested over the past several years as chronologically shown in the Department of Ecology denial letter (attached). Especially the last page of that document. Very Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 2 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:48 PM To: 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: MAY CREEK DREDGING Attachments: MAY CREEK 401 WQ CERTIFICATION ECOLOGY DENIAL.pdf Mr. Examiner, Comments (below) were submitted via email today. As the comments do not pertain specifically to the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study, I don't believe that they can be added to the record at this time. Please advise, and I will contact Ms. Rogers. Jennifer Henning, AICD Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 -----Original Message ----- From: Debra Rogers fmailto:herogersfdcomcast.net1 Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:00 PM To: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: MAY CREEK DREDGING Dear Hearing Examiner, I am writing in reference to the King County May Creek Dredging proposal. I have lived in the Stonegate neighborhood for almost 14years at: 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059. I want to be clear that I oppose the current King County plans to dredge May Creek . I am also NOT aware of any "Stonegate support" of this plan as purported by Tom Carpenter at the recent hearing October 4th 2011. I do not know who Tom Carpenter is, and he does not live in Stonegate. The new exhibits presented by King County were previously reviewed by Dr. Olson. As well, The Department of Ecology is aware of these studies along with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not agreed with King County's assessment of the -dredging situation being proposed contrary to what the Renton staff has recommended.. I do not understand why time and money is still being spent to push this agenda without first requiring the county to present data that meets the requirements requested over the past several years as chronologically shown in the Department of Ecology denial letter (attached). Especially the last page of that document. Very Sincerely, I Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY A'nr 11rwes! Regional Q.rice 3190 1601h SE Bellevue, 13'nshinglon 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000 September 22, 2011 Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and -Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RE: Ecology Denial for Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Chin: The U.S. Ar ny Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a joint public notice with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for the above project on September 24, 2010. Ecology has one year to issue an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification). On August 31, 2010, Ecology notified you by certified letter that this project would require a 401 Certification. On April 21, 2011 and September 1, 2011, Ecology issued additional public notices regarding King County's two revised applications for 401 Certification. We determined that your application for an individual 401 Certification was incomplete and sent you a certified letter on September 1, 2011 detailing the specific information that was needed to complete your application and stating that if Ecology did not receive all of the required documentation by September 16, 2011, Ecology would deny the 401 Certification for this project. In our September 1, 2011 letter we identified the following information needed in order to complete our review: • A description'of how sediment disposal areas will be stabilized. • A Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan. • Measures to be taken regarding stream water temperature changes between removal of mature vegetation and when replanted vegetation reaches the size to shade the creek. • Revisions to the Mitigation Plan. • Revisions to the sediment monitoring plan. • Site plan revisions. • Details on the Long Marsh Creek riparian planting buffer. • A copy of the Final Long Marsh Creek Sediment Control and Habitat Restoration Project Basis of Design Report. • Expanded riparian vegetation buffers. • Study of the resizing or removal of the 148'h Avenue SE Bridge. King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 2 • Reassessment and redesign of the project to address its effectiveness, including further evaluation and study of sediment transport and downstream erosion, as well as independent review of sediment transport modeling. On September 16, 2011, Ecology received a response addressing some of the information requested. Unfortunately we have not received all of the documentation needed in order to demonstrate that we have reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. We have attached a project chronology that details that we have been trying to work with you to get the needed information in order to process your request for a 401 Certification. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, ch. 90.48 RCW and ch. 173-201A WAC the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project water quali1y certification is denied without prejudice. Receipt of a denial without prejudice does not preclude King County Water and Land Resources Division from resubmitting a request for 401 Certification at a later date. �cmS,+<^•• max' _ f-.-. y'+ -mac• --t- t� .�..t YUU,RRl H-�'ERTOFAPPEA4" You have a right to appeal this Order to the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB) within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order. The appeal process is governed by Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. "Date of receipt" is defined in RCW 43.21B.001(2). To appeal you must do the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order: • File your appeal and a copy of this Order with the PCHB (see addresses below). Filing means actual receipt by the PCHB during regular business hours. Serve a copy of your appeal and this Order on Ecology in paper form - by mail or in person. (See addresses below.) E-mail is not accepted. You must also comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. Y. r- Q:4R S.S P►N L CAT f� Ili1F RM `BION- :M ..- :173- r E ••-osTa��.---2=.�xis:..:.rrF1_ .zr_'�ri'` .s �:�v.• Stret:t Aldresst:s: IlAallin Addresses.._. 'S�= Department of Ecology Department of Ecology Attu: Appeals Processing Desk Attn: Appeals Processing Desk 300 Desmond Drive SE PO Box 47608 Lacey, WA 98503 Olympia, WA 985044608 Pollution Control Hearings Board Pollution Control Hearings Board 1111 Israel Rd SW PO Box 40903 STE 301 Olympia, WA' 98504-0903 Tumwater, WA 98501 King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 3 C01► TACT fir?RMA; SON'S RR Please direct all questions about this Order to: Rebekah Padgett Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 1601h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7129 Rebekah.Padgett@ecy.wa.gov ....__...-..-..,_......_.....e+...,.-...-�,.w.f...,...,..=�+a--e-�T�'-�,xi� �--T,.�t.=� _=....,.i;,,.sv�.:'1`�'••_—.-�x'�-x: 4,"'�.csT�:'�i-�=-�==^.2=: _; Pollution Control Hearings Board Website www.eho.wa.gov/Boards PCHB . aspx Chapter 43.21B RCW - Environmental Hearings Office — Pollution Control Hearings Board http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aW2L?cite--43.21B Chapter 371-08 WAC — Practice and Procedure htiv://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.asl2x?cite--371-08 Chapter 90.48 RCW — Water Pollution Control httn://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defautt.aspx?citc--90.48 Chapter 173-201A WAC — Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington ,vww,ecy.wa.gov/biblio/wacl73201A.htnil rSIG ATT- ' - F s _..��,_....,..0i.�l_ LF�.:�.. 4- _ ..tiA+'�.-;;'� .-.�._�ti.r��_Ti� -_•_�_�`x,:k? '3��Efi�sr.:xn`�: i'� .k"'v�...-.�:_ ,��.�r- �- _ L-�eh.:'t:r Erik Stockdale, Unit Supervisor Wetlands/401 Unit Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Northwest Regional Office ES:rrp:cja Enclosure By certified mail 7011 0470 0003 3720 9107 September 22, 2011 King County Water and Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page d cc: Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TJ Stetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Katie Bonwell e -cc: Patrick McGraner—NWRO Patricia Olson — HQ Loree' Randall — HQ Raman Iyer -- NWRO ecyrefedperrnits@ecy.wa.gov ecy.wa.gov Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov Jean Rollins urbansetparatora.hotmaii.com Debra Rogers beropers@comcast.net Susan Malin susiemalin( ,msn.com Gary Amundson gary.a(a.comcast.net Andrew Duff -us klassicars&otmail.com Carol Tabacek caroltabacek(7aol.com Mary Weirich maryvweirich a,comcast.net A. Duff -us b1ueheron6987nboimail.com Julie & Jim Bonwell jbonwellnlesou3-d.com Attachment 1: May Creek WQC Permitting Chronology 1126110 Ecology attended an interagency meeting organized by King County with discussion about the potential to create a multi -agency permitting team. A brief introduction and overview of the project concept at this early stage was presented. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance, and King County representatives were present. 2/22/10 Ecology attended a field meeting with King County, WDFW, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Ecology staff raised concerns about the effectiveness, purpose and need of the proposed project. Specific comments included: the effectiveness of the 15 -foot -wide buffers, concerns about direct animal access to stream, severely degraded pastures and the need for farm plans, extent of the wetland and primary sources of hydrology, and concerns about establishing woody vegetation in very wet soils. Ecology observed that livestock have direct access on one of the project properties upstream of the project area. 3/24110 Ecology provided written comments via e-mail that followed up on the 2/22/10 site visit. 5/5/10 Ecology participated in an interagency pre -application meeting and provided substantive comments regarding the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the need to redelineate the wetland, buffer width, and limit livestock access to the creek. Ecology raised concerns about 303(d) listing for. fecal coliform and the preference for 35 -foot buffers and wider planting on the south side buffer to reduce summer temperatures through shading. Ecology questioned the 2002 pilot described by King County where two sediment plugs were removed from side channels on the McFarland property, specifically whether it would be comparable to the current proposal and what post - construction monitoring was completed. Ecology raised the question of whether the proposed one-time dredging would accomplish the goals of the proposal; the County indicated that it was planning a series of projects, working from this site upstream. Ecology also pointed out that the baseline stream report included language that contradicted and would not support this proposal. Downstream erosion concerns were discussed, and King County staff noted that they had conducted modeling and did not believe that the sediment removal would increase erosion downstream. King County submitted the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (.IA.RPA) package to Ecology. 5/13/10 The Corps canceled the application. 6/24/10 Ecology canceled the 401 application based on the Corps' 5/13/10 action. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 2 8116/10 King County submitted a revised DARPA to Ecology. 9/8/10 .King County submitted a Certification of Consistency with the Washington State Coastal Zone Management (CZK Program to Ecology. 9/16/10 Ecology submitted comments on the State Environmental Policy Act mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) regarding effectiveness, purpose, and need of the proposal, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4 for establishing canopy cover, the degradation of the pastures and need for farm plans to protect riparian habitat and creeks, and livestock access to the creek. 9/20/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about increased erosion, sediment transport thresholds, cumulative impacts, and the need for additional detailed study of the potential downstream impacts. 9/22/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe raising concerns about net loss of habitat, downstream erosion, insufficient buffers and the probability that the proposed dredging will be a short-term fix. 9/24/10 Corps issued a joint public notice with Ecology. 10/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about the purpose and need of the project, draining of wetlands, water quality, salmon habitat, increased flow, and bank erosion, as well as questions about the 2002 pilot. 10/23/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the City of Renton that included concern about effects of increased velocity, flow, or erosion on downstream properties. 12/16/10 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology MDNS comments. In the response letter, the County defends the proposed 15 -foot buffer not as best available science (BAS) but as an improvement over existing conditions citing property owners' reluctance to expand planting areas, states that it cannot require farm plans from private property owner-s.or require owners with farm plans to implement them properly, and notes that, the planting areas will be fenced and will therefore effectively eliminate livestock access to the creek. 3/3/11 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 9/8/11. 3/18/11 King County submitted another revised JARPA to Ecology. This revision included new impacts to Long Marsh Creek that the County referzed to as mitigation, therefore reducing proposed mitigation downstream of 148' Avenue SE. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2411 Page 3 415111 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Neighbors for 11ay Valley, who raised concerns about stream flow velocity, volume and timing of storm events, flooding and erosion. Downstream property owners requested that King County allow the project to be delayed at least one water year to establish a pre -project erosion baseline. The downstream citizens requested additional assurances that the proposed dredging will not have unintended negative consequences to downstream properties. 4/21/11 Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 4126/11 Ecology participated in an interagency site visit where staff raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, the buffers on Long Marsh Creek, whether the Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation, project -specific monitoring of sediments in the project area and downstream, best management practices, proposed buffer widths, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4, and the need for future dredging. 4128/11 Ecology followed up by e-mail documenting questions raised at the 4126/11 site visit. 5/11 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream property owners questioning assumptions being made by King County based on modeling within the Hydraulics and Hydrologic Analyses using limited data, expressing concerns about downstream erosion, increased turbidity, and the proposed 15 -foot planting buffer as not meeting BAS or County code. Specific questions also were raised with regards to the adequacy of the information provided by King County that claimed that the 2002 pilot project along a 300 -foot section of the creek upstream of the proposed project was successful, erosion thresholds, potential for shallow well contamination, flow velocity, volume and peak flow during storm events potentially risking sole -access bridges to properties, and the adequacy of the 15 - foot planting buffer. 5111111 Ecology received additional substantive comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe emphasizing the need to improve pasture conditions and control other existing sediment sources through agricultural best management practices and/or farm plans, minimize the dredging area with increased mitigation for impacts, increase the proposed planted buffer width, provide additional riparian plantings, measures to avoid impacts to downstream reaches, mitigation for any unavoidable impact to downstream reaches, future dredging projects, and potential impacts to salmonids. King County Water and land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment I September 22, 2011 Page 4 6110111 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology's 4/26/11 and 4128111 comments. In its letter, King County stated that downstream impacts have been sufficiently analyzed and that a formal monitoring plan is not warranted; based on previous analysis and current design features, re -sedimentation monitoring is not warranted at this time; and there are no future plans to implement additional upstream sediment removal projects. King County continued to defend the proposed 15 -foot buffer as being adequate even within the very wet portion of the left bank in Reach 4. In response to ongoing concerns from Ecology regarding the effectiveness of the proposed project, King County again stated that the . project is only designed to reduce overbank pasture flooding for a short period of time on each end of the rainy season and that monitoring wells have been installed to assess groundwater pre- and post -project. 711/11 Ecology received King County's responses to a public continent in which the County restated that the 15 -foot proposed planting buffer, while not based on BAS, is an improvement over existing conditions as demonstrated by the results of the 2002 pilot project upstream of the current proposal and that the continuous hydrologic watershed mode used accounted for all peaks, all durations and all flow rates at all locations. King County reversed its position from 6/10/11 and agreed to conduct downstream monitoring for a period of 5 years post -project. Ecology responded to King County by requesting a copy of the downstream monitoring plan with note that the plan should be comprehensive and not simply address the issues raised by one property owner. 718111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment in which the County stated that downstream monitoring will be conducted for a period of 5 years and that if monitoring data collected clearly shows that erosion problems result from the project, that it will offer technical assistance and perform remediation. The County indicated that it has no future plans to implement additional sediment removal projects upstream of this project site. 7/19/11 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment stating that the project willnot increase existing erosion problems downstream, proposing 5 years of downstream monitoring and working with the property owner on a solution if the monitoring shows downstream erosion resulting from this project. 7/22111 Ecology received King County's responses to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 5/11111 comments. The e-mail states that the County does not have plans to implement the other three upstream dredging projects. In response to the tribe's comment that King County Code requires existing livestock operations to implement a farm management plan or meet management standards outlined in the Code, the County indicates that two of the four livestock operations have developed plans and that the buffers specified in these plans are 25 feet (10 feet more than the County is proposing through this project). The County also acknowledges that the 148th Avenue SE Bridge causes a backwater effect. King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 5' 7126111 Ecology again visited the project site, including downstream properties. 812111 King County submitted another revised JARPA. The revision addresses Long Marsh Creek impacts and includes additional mitigation. 911111 Ecology sent a letter by Certified Mail to Doug Chin requesting additional information and stating that project 401 Certification would be denied if the requested documentation was not received at Ecology by September 16, 2011. Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 917111 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 1118111. 9/14/11 Ecology received a public comment from a property owner reiterating questions about the need for the project and concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts 9115111 Ecology received public comments from a property owner reiterating concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts, raising the need for additional erosion monitoring and stream flow devices, and questioning the need for the project. The property owner raises questions about the stream and wetland buffer width, storm surge flows, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, cumulative impacts, compensatory stormwater storage, and the need for additional data and analysis. Ecology received public comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reiterating concerns about salmonids and habitat, cumulative impacts, likely future dredging, insufficient buffer widths, and the adequacy of mitigation. The letter also notes the need to consider less -impacting alternatives, have enforceable farm plans in place, for further analysis on backwater effect of the McFarland/Gambini footbridge, to consider impacts of sediment deposition in the mitigation. alcoves, for sediment accumulation and erosion monitoring, to collect data regarding changes in channel cross-sections and longitudinal profiles and data on flood frequency durations, to monitor for salmonid use, and for a contingency plan. 9116/11 Ecology received additional public comments reiterating concerns about downstream flooding and erosion. Ecology received King County's responses to the 911111 letter requesting additional information. While some questions were addressed, outstanding issues remain including: buffers, baseline data, and sediment transport and data about what will happen downstream. Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:00 AM To: 'duffus3673@gmail.com' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek File Hello Mr. Duffas, The project file is on the 6th floor of City Hall. It does not yet contain the exhibits from the hearing. I'm planning to listen to the CD this afternoon, and make sure that all of the exhibits match the hearing record. Jennifer Henning, AlCP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 ClVof, Gerald Wasser From: .Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Thursday, October 06, 20114:28 PM To: 'A. Duffus' Cc: Gerald Wasser; Kayren K. Kittrick Subject: RE: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Hello Mr. Duffas, The Engineering Review (storm water, water, sewer, streets) is performed by Development Engineering Plan Review. Jan Illian was the Plan Reviewer assigned to the project. Pian Review coordinates and consults with the City of Renton utility and transportation departments as needed on all projects. Development Engineering reviewed the submitted studies with technical review and comments from all the affected utilities contributing to the report as well as providing the City of Renton code requirements with any conditions for approval of the project construction plans. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: A. Duffus[mailto:blueheron6987@hotmail.coml Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:05 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Goodmorning Ms. Henning, I really appreciated how quickly you sent me the staff comments. Thanks. However, I did not see anything from Ron 5rtaka's people (or is Jan Illian one.)???. Any way who from "creeks and rivers" (my phrase) reviewed it? Thanks, Andrew From: Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov To: blueheron69870hotmail.com CC: GWasser@Rentonwa.gov Date: Wed, 5 Oct 201120:05:31 -0700 Subject: RE: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Hello Mr. Duffas, The review comments received on this project are attached to this email. While we route to multiple groups, the comments I'm sending comprise the comments received. The in-house form staff uses for minor comments are included where the staff comments were provided using only that form. The project planner incorporates the staff comments as appropriate in the staff report. Please let me know if you have questions. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: A. Duffus[mailto:blueheron6987@hotm_ail.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20119:38 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Hello Ms. Henning, As we discussed yesterday could you please E-mail me the staff comments from the city departments that were scoped for the above land use action. Thank you, Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:13 PM To: 'jbonwell@lesourd.com' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek Drainage Project - Link to Anchor QEA Report Hello Julie and Jim, Here is the link to the Anchor QEA report referenced at the public hearing. The Examiner asked that I send it to parties who had provided their email address. Although you did not do this directly, I found your email address in the project file. http://your.kin.county.eov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/may-creg?-k/_maY-creek- sediment-tra nsport-study.pdf Jennifer Henning, AICD Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 a Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:09 PM To: 'urban separator' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing - new exhibits Hello Ms. Rolllins, Here is the link for the Anchor QEA study referenced by King County at the hearing yesterday. htt:ll our.kin count ov/d /libr /water-and-landlwatersheds/cedar-river-lake-walma-creeklma -creek- sediment-transport-study.pdf I'm putting together a list of exhibits and will forward that to you as soon as it is complete. Jennifer Henning, AlCP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: urban separator [mailto:urbanseparator0hotmail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:02 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing — new exhibits Hello Jenifer. At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. I became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration —National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 15ei, 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, Jean Rollins Gerald Wasser Fr6m: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:08 PM To: 'A. Duffus' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Mr. Duffas, Here is the link for the Anchor QEA study that was referenced by King County staff. The Hearing Examiner asked me to distribute it to those who provided me with their email address. http://your.kingeounty. gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/may-creek/may-creek- sed i ment-transport-study.pd f Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 Circ urs � From: A. Duffus[mailto:blueheron6987C&hotmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, October O5, 20119:38 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments LUA 11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Hello Ms. Henning, As we discussed yesterday could you please E-mail me the staff comments from the city departments that were scoped for the above land use action. Thank you, Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:06 PM To: 'A. Duffus' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: RE: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Attachments: Review Comments.pdf Hello Mr. Duffas, The review comments received on this project are attached to this email. While we route to multiple groups, the comments I'm sending comprise the comments received. The in-house form staff uses for minor comments are included where the staff comments were provided using only that form. The project planner incorporates the staff comments as appropriate in the staff report. Please let me Know if you have questions. Jennifer Henning, AlCP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 From: A. Duffus [mailt:o:blueheron69670hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20119:38 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments LUA 11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments Hello Ms. Henning, As we discussed yesterday could you please E-mail me the staff comments from the city departments that were scoped for the above land use action. Thank you, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R.A N D U M DATE: September 14, 2011 TO: Jerry Wasser, Planner FROM: Jan Illian, Plan Review SUBJECT: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project SE 152nd and 148th Ave SE LUA 11-065, V -H, SP I have reviewed the application for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project,. located along May Creek near 148th Ave SE, and have the following comments: SURFACE_ WATER 1. A hydrologic and hydraulic report, dated December 17, 2010, was prepared and submitted by King County. The report evaluates pre -project and post -project conditions, addresses changes in flow depth, velocity of flow at the 148th Ave SE road crossing, downstream limits of the project, and a minimum of %-mile downstream of the project. The report includes channel cross-sections and pre -project and post -project water surface elevations and channel profiles. The analysis includes discussion of flood flows between the 2 -year flood frequency and the 100 -year flood frequency. The report concludes that the project will cause no impacts within the project limits or downstream of the project. A fluvial geomorphologic analysis of the project, utilizing the information from the hydrologic/hydraulic report to evaluate and determine if the project will affect stream bank erosion, channel incision, or other changes that could occur in the project area or impact downstream properties, was included in the report. In summary, the report concludes that the project will cause no impacts within the project limits or downstream of the project. 2. An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are required. The plans shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards. 3. The 100 -year floodplain boundary must be shown on the project construction plans. GENERAL COMMENTS A traffic control plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction for the construction entrances on 148th Ave SE. Construction hours -will be in accordance with city standards (7:00 AM -8:00 PM), or as established in the approved traffic control plan. H:/CED/P4a6n1ng/Current Planning/PROJEC`rS/11-Q65.Jerry/PIan Review Comments LUA 11-065.doc Gerald Wasser From: Karen Walter [ KWalte r@muckles hoot. nsn. us] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:43 AM To: Stacy Tucker Cc: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement 1 LUA11-065 - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Thank you! Karen Walter M ITFD From: Stacy Tucker jmai Ito: STucker(&Rentonwa.govl Seri: Thursday, September 29, 20119:55 AM To: Karen Waiter Cc: Gerald Wasser; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: May Creek Drainage Improvement/ LUA11-065 - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Please see attached for the Staff Report for the above referenced project. The Hearing Examiner public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in the City of Renton's Council Chambers on the 71h floor. A hardcopy is also being forwarded to you in.the mail, if you have any questions regarding the staff report, please contact the Project Manager, Gerald Wasser at (425) 430-7382 or gwasser@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Crfal.c* 7k. 9 -MMA MIL Planning Division Secretary Department of Communiry & Economic Development Please consider the environment before printing this email Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:16 AM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: LUA11-065 May Creek Dredging Staff Comments fyi From: A. Duffus fmaiRto:blueheron6987CcbhotmaiLcomI Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20119:38 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: LUAII-065 May Creels Dredging Staff Comments LUA 11-065 May Creels Dredging Staff Comments Hello Ms. Henning, As we discussed yesterday could you please E-mail me the staff comments from the city departments that were scoped for the above land use action. Thank you, Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:15 AM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: May Creek Project HPA Attachments: 123184.2.pdf Here is a clean copy of the Hydraulic Permit Approval as provided to me via email by King County. Jennifer Henning, Al[P Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 goo— { iivuf,► �� From: Chin, Doug rmailto:Doug. Chin kincicounty.govl Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 20114:37 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning; Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: May Creek Project HPA Jennifer, Attached for your records is a clean copy of the HPA for the May Creek project. Thanks, Doug From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) [ma!Ito:Larry.Fisheraldfw_ .wa.c1ovl Sent: Monday, September 26, 20112:44 PM To: Chin, Doug Cc: Rebekah Padgett Subject: May Creek Project HPA Hi Doug: I have revised the HPA per the updated plans and referenced the 8.5 x 11 plans in the HPA. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 �. I Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of r. INEZI FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Dale: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 PERMITTEE King County Water and Land Resources Division ATTENTION: Doug Chin 201 S Jackson St Ste 600 Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-8315 Fax: 206-296-0192 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012.1296 (425) 775-1311 1231134-2 N/A AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Project Description: ' Improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Remove vegetation and instream debris which is impeding flows and dredge 4,050 cubic yards of sediment from May Creek. Stream and wetland mitigation consists of: 1. Enhancing a 15 foot wide buffer of vegetation on each side of May Creek. 2. Installation of off -channel alcoves adjacent to May Creek downstream of 148th Ave. SE. 3. Restoration at the lower end of Long Marsh Creek. PROVISIONS 1. The project may begin immediately and shall be completed by August 10, 2016, provided work below the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall occur only between June 16 and September 15. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below (e-mail to fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov) and the Enforcement Program Officer (e-mail to capeljlc.@dfw.wa.gov) shall receive e-mail notification from the person to whom this HPA is issued (permittee) no less than three working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange a compliance inspection. The notification shall include the permittee's name, project location, starting date of work or completion date of work, and the control number of this HPA. 3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, "MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT", dated September 15, 2011; "LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION", dated July 18, 2011; and "May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9Q1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysys and Mitigation Plan", dated revised September 2011, except as modified by this HPA. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 4. Installation of project mitigation components are required to compensate for impacts of the project on fish life and shall be overseen by a qualified stream ecologist. 5. A temporary bypass to divert flow around the work area shall be in place prior to initiation of other work within the wetted perimeter. Page 1 of 6 � _.\ Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 6. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire flow through the bypass. 7. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater from entering the work area. 8. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project. 9. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all instream work shall be completed. 10. Upon completion of the project, all material used in the temporary bypass shall be removed from the site and the site returned to preproject or improved conditions. 11. The permittee shall capture and safely move food fish, game fish, and other fish life from the job site. The permittee shall have fish capture and transportation equipment ready and on the job site. Captured fish shall be immediately and safely transferred to free-flowing water downstream of the project site. The permittee may request that WDFW assist in capturing and safely moving fish life from the job site to free-flowing water, and assistance may be granted if personnel are available. 12. Any device used for diverting water from a fish -bearing stream shall be equipped with a fish guard to prevent passage of fish into the diversion device pursuant to RCW 77.57.010 and 77.57.070. The pump intake shall be screened with 118 -inch mesh to prevent fish from entering the system. The screened intake shall consist of a facility with enough surface area to ensure that the velocity through the screen is less than 0.4 feet per second. Screen maintenance shall be adequate to prevent injury or entrapment to juvenile fish and the screen shall remain in place whenever water is withdrawn from the stream through the pump intake. 13. Dredging shall be accomplished by starting at the upstream end of the project boundary and working downstream. 14. Dredging shall be limited to deepening of the streambed. Banks shall not be disturbed. 15. Upon completion of the dredging, the streambed shall be contoured with pools and riffles similar to its configuration prior to the dredging. 16. Salmonid spawning habitat at the confluence of Long Marsh Creek with May Creek shall not be impacted. There shall be a minimum of 18 inches deep spawning gravels there upon completion of dredging. 17. Materials placed at the outlet of the culvert on Long Marsh Creek shall consist of rounded boulders, cobbles, and gravel, rather than the riprap shown on page 4 of the plans for Long Marsh Creek. Page 2 of 6 1. Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 18. Fish habitat components as shown in the approved plans (Provision 3) are required as part of the project to mitigate project impacts. Large woody material installed as fish habitat components shall be coniferous and shall be installed in a manner sufficiently far from the bank to provide fully functioning fish habitat and shall be securely anchored to withstand 100 -year peak flows using buried anchors and heavy duty chain or sufficient rock ballast. 19. Disturbance of the streambed and banks and their associated vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project. Affected streambed and bank areas shall be restored to preproject or improved habitat configuration. Prior to December 31 of the year of project grading, the approved planting plan (Provision 3) shall be installed. Project performance standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingencies shall occur as described in this plan on pages 27-28. 20. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum-based products while working around the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and undercarriage of equipment prior to its working below the OHWL. Equipment shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed prior to commencing work activities along the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. 21. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB. 22. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 23. Prior to starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 22) shall be installed. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion control methods after completion of work. 24. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the stream or wetlands associated with the stream. 25. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site. 26. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow subsides. Page 3 of 6 Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 27. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream or wetlands associated with the stream. NOTE This HPA is a modification of and supercedes the original HPA issued August 11, 2011 for this project. The modification pertains to updated plans referenced in Provision 3. PROJECT LOCATIONS Location #1 May Creek rm 4.3 to 4.9 WORK START: September 26, 2011 IWORK END: August 10, 2016 WRIA: 08.0282 Waterbody: May Creek Tributary to: Lake Washington 1/4 SEC: NW 114 Section: 02 Section: 03 Township: 23 N Range: 05 E Latitude: N 47.51149 Longitude_ W 122.13461 County: King Location #1 Driving Directions Location #2 Driving Directions Location #2 May Creek rm 4.3 to 4.9 WORK START: September 26, 2011 IWORK END: August 10, 2016 WRIA: 08.0282 Waterbody: May Creek Tributary to: Lake Washington 114 SEC: NE 114 Section: 03 Township: 23 N Range: 05 E Latitude: N 47.51599 Longitude: W 122.14429 County: King Location #2 Driving Directions APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. Page 4 of 6 LA Washington H ORAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may beheld liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below. Requests for any change to an unexpired HPA must be made in writing. Requests for new HPAs must be made by submitting a new complete application. Send your requests to the department by: mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dtw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. APPEALS INFORMATION If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information. A. INFORMAL_ APPEALS: WAG 220-11D-340 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. It you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the MPA Appeals Coordinator or designee will conduct an informal hearing and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal. B. FORMAI_ APPEALS: WAC 220-110-350 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. Page 5 of 6 Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA 1MLDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 981112-1296 (425)775-1311 123184-2 NIA A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications t@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FAILURE TO APPEAL_ WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable. ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P1 E Habitat Biologist for Director Larry Fisher 425-313-5683�'`�"" WDFW CC: Page 6 of 6 Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:15 AM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: May Creek: Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study for Hearing Record Mr. Examiner, Here is the link to the Anchor QEA document referenced in the hearing. I have a few of the parties email addresses, but will need to send out the link via US Mail for those who did not give me an address. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 T (0,W L F 5 From: Chin, Doug Fmailto-. Doug. Chin kincicoun ov Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 20114:34 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser; Althauser, Don Subject: May Creek: Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study for Hearing Record Jennifer, Below is the link to the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study to be entered as an Exhibit to the May Creek Hearing Record. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your support. Doug htt our.kin count . ov dnr libra water -and -land watersheds cedar-river-lake-wa ma -creek ma -creek- sediment-transport-study.pdf Gerald Wasser From: Chin, Doug [Doug.Chin@kingcounty.govj Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 20114:34 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Gerald Wasser; Althauser, Don Subject: May Creek: Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study for Hearing Record Jennifer, Below is the link to the Anchor QEA Sediment Transport Study to be entered as an Exhibit to the May Creek Hearing Record. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your support. Doug http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/watersheds/ceda r-river-lake-wa/may-_creeklmay-creek- sediment-transport-study.pdf Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:44 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Gerald Wasser, Kayren K. Kittrick; Bonnie Walton Subject: May Creek Drainage Hearing Hello Phil, Tomorrow's land use hearing for the May Creek Drainage project will be staffed by me and Kayren Kittrick (Plan Review Supervisor). Jerry Wasser will be away from the office due to a death in the family. Doug Chin from King County (applicant) will also be in attendance with one of his staff. We expect attendance from the public. Jennifer Henning, AICP Planning Manager City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425,430.7286 Oily of. "IUS Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 5:30 PM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: May Creek I spoke with Doug Chin on Friday. He is going to attend the hearing along with his habitat biologist. The reason the 401 WQ Certification was denied was due to a clock that was running. Action was required to be taken, and they did not feel comfortable approving the project just yet. Doug is in a training on Monday, but will be checking messages if you need to reach him. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ityof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D e0 a HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING October'41 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: May Creek Drainage Improvement PROJECT NUMBER: LUA11-065, V -H, SP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in -stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. The project is located in May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The project within Renton would occur on a parcel that is approximately 3.75 acres. The project site contains a Category 3 wetland, and a Class 2 salmonid Stream (May Creek). As mitigation for removing sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation would be planted on both sides of May Creek, and also outside of the city limits. The project is expected to commence during the first approved fish window after receiving the permit, likely in 2012. SEPA Environmental Review was conducted by King County as lead agency. HEX Agenda 10-04-11.doc r ' . Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of NPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 PERMITTEE King County Water and land Resources Division ATTENTION: Doug Chin 201 S Jackson St Ste 600 Seattle, WA 98104 246-296-8315 Fax: 206-296-0192 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012.1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Project Description: Improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Remove vegetation and instream debris which is impeding flows and dredge 4,050 cubic yards of sediment from May Creek. Stream and wetland mitigation consists of: 1. Enhancing a 15 foot wide buffer of vegetation on each side of May Creek. 2. Installation of off -channel alcoves adjacent to May Creek downstream of 148th Ave. SE. 3. Restoration at the lower end of Long Marsh Creek. PROVISIONS 1. The project may begin immediately and shall be completed by -August 10, 2016, provided work below the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall occur only between June 16 and Se temb 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below (e-mail to fsheldf@dfw.wa.gov) and the Enforcement Program Officer (e-mail to capeljlc.@dfw.wa.gov) shall receive e-mail notification from the person to whom this HPA is issued (permittee) no less than three working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange a compliance inspection. The notificatipn shall include the permittee's name, project location, starting date of work or completion date of work, and the control number of this HPA. 3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, "MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT', dated September 15, 2011; "LONG MARSH CREEK RESTORATION", dated July 18, 2011; and "May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9Q1205) King County Water and Land Resources Division Stream and Wetland Impact Analysys and Mitigation Plan", dated revised September 2011, except as modified by this HPA. A -copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 4. Installation of project mitigation components are required to compensate for impacts of the project on fish life and shall be overseen by a qualified stream ecologist. 5. A temporary bypass to divert flow around the work area shall be in place prior to initiation of other work within the wetted perimeter. Pagel of 6 Washington Department of HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA 1W WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 MITI Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 6. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire flow through the bypass. 7. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater from entering the .work area. 8. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project. 9. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all instream work shall be completed. 10. Upon completion of the project, all material used in the temporary bypass shall be removed from the site and the site returned to preproject or improved conditions. 11. The permittee shall capture and safely move food fish, game fish, and other fish life from the job site. The permittee shall have fish capture and transportation equipment ready and on the job site. Captured fish shall be immediately and safely transferred to free-flowing water downstream of the project site. The permittee may request that WDFW assist in capturing and safely moving fish life from the job site to free-flowing water, and assistance may be granted if personnel are available. 12. Any device used for diverting water from a fish -bearing stream shall be equipped with a fish guard to prevent passage of fish into the diversion device pursuant to RCW 77.57.010 and 77.57.070. The pump intake shall be screened with 118 -inch mesh to prevent fish from entering the system. The screened intake shall consist of a facility with enough surface area to ensure that the velocity through the screen is less than 0.4 feet per second. Screen maintenance shall be adequate to prevent injury or entrapment to juvenile fish and the screen shall remain in place whenever water is withdrawn from the stream through the pump intake. 13. Dredging shall be accomplished by starting at the upstream end of the project boundary and working downstream. - 14. Dredging shall be limited to deepening of the streambed. Banks shall not be disturbed. 15. Upon completion of the dredging, the streambed shall be contoured with pools and riffles similar to its configuration prior to the dredging. `11�� 16. Salmonid spawning habitat at the confluence of Long Marsh Creek with May Creek shall not be impacted. There shall be a minimum of 18 inches deep spawning gravels there upon completion of dredging. 17. Materials placed at the outlet of the, culvert on Long Marsh CVeekhall consist of ro ed boulders,_cobbles, and gravel, rather than the riprap shown on of the plans for Long Marsh Creek. �~ Page 2 of 6 Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August .10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 18. Fish habitat components as shown in the approved plans (Provision 3) are required as part of the project to mitigate project impacts. Large woody material installed as fish habitat components shall be coniferous and shall be installed in a manner sufficiently far from the bank to provide fully functioning fish habitat and shall be securely anchored to withstand 100-yearpeak flows using buried anchors and heavy duty chain or sufficient rock ballast. -- 19. Disturbance of the streambed and banks and their associated vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project. Affecfec�reambed and bank areas shall be restored to preproject or improved habitat configuration. Prior to December 31 of the year of project grading, the approved planting plan (Provision 3) shall be installed. Project performance standards, monitoring, maintenance, and contingencies shall occur as described in this plan on pages 27-28. 20. Equipment used for this project shall be free of external petroleum-based products while working around the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. Accumulation of soils or debris shall be removed from the drive mechanisms (wheels, tires, tracks, etc.) and undercarriage of equipment prior to its working below the OHWL. Equipment. shall be checked daily for leaks and any necessary repairs shall be completed prior to commencing work activities along the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. 21. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB. 22. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream and wetlands associated with the stream. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 23. Prior to starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 22) shall be installed. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion control methods after completion of work. 24. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the stream or wetlands associated with the stream. 25. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site. 26. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow subsides. Page 3 of 6 Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of t{ FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at and of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA 27. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream or wetlands associated with the stream. NOTE This MPA is a modification of and supercedes the original HPA issued August 11, 2011 for this project. The modification pertains to updated plans referenced in Provision 3. PROJECT LOCATIONS Location #1 May Creek rm 4.3 to 4.9 WORK START: September 26, 2011 IWORK END: August 10, 2016 WRIA: 08.0282 Waterbody: May Creek Tributary to: Lake Washington 114 SEC: NW 114 Section: 02 I Township: 123 N Range: 05 E Latitude: IN 47.51149 Longitude: W 122.13461 I county: King Location #1 Driving Directions Location #2 May Creek rm 4.3 to 4.9 WORK START: September 26, 2011 IWORK END: August 10, 2016 WRIA: 08.0282 Waterbody: May Creek Tributary to: Lake Washington 114 SEC: NE 1/4 Section: 03 Townsh� 23 N Range: 05 E Latitude: N 47.51599 Longitude: W 122.14429 County; King Location #2 Driving Directions APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77,20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. Page 4 of 6 oWashington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 • See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 N/A The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below. Requests for any change to an unexpired MPA must be made in writing. Requests for new HPAs must be made by submitting a new complete application. Send your requests to the department by: mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. APPEALS INFORMATION If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includesa review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information. A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-340 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the NPA Appeals Coordinator or designee will conduct an informal hearing and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal. B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-350 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. Page 5 of 6 r Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Department of FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - See appeal process at end of HPA WILDLIFE Issue Date: September 26, 2011 Control Number: Project Expiration Date: August 10, 2016 FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Greek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 123184-2 NIA A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an MPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable. ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P 1 E Habitat Biologist ,... for Director Larry Fisher 425-313-5683 WDFW CC: Page 6of6 o u u o � '� ;5°o+ L% O L C O C y C U 'X N ,�' N 2 U CY R � N U {.. >.0p'� S to U. OQd W 'P 4 y d0 C C v 7CCO UWOZ�C m� o o o.�A o °�'o.v �N F+UZC�✓EU c©�Rvvp"Qb�n°`� zr,zwvi cq � v ars u�,�_e� , > � �m v �•G ay G y g ��03 A'3V p� �° va uU `� o UY U >UM� # a �T�e� �rWn gv! CCS cU g -.82•o �a ND rrr r Cj ��'�++ll JT�` ri�1k11», ��\\`\`• tt1111tt � A: PD STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Norlhives1 Regional Office 31901601h SE Belle tie, A'ashinglon 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000 September 22, 2011 Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and.Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 RE: Ecology Denial for Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project, Renton, King County, Washington Dear Mr. Chin: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a joint public notice with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for the above project on September 24, 2010. Ecology has one year to issue an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification). On August 31, 2010, Ecology notified you by certified letter that this project would require a 401 Certification. On April 21, 2011 and September 1, 2011, Ecology issued additional public notices regarding King County's two revised applications for 401 Certification. We determined that your application for an individual 401 Certification was incomplete and sent you a certified letter on September 1, 2.011 detailing the specific information that was needed to complete your application and stating that if Ecology did not receive all of the required documentation by September 16, 2011, Ecology would deny the 401 Certification for this project. In our September 1, 2011 letter we identified the following information needed in order to complete our review: • A description of how sediment disposal areas will be stabilized. • A Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan. • Measures to be taken regarding stream water temperature changes between removal of mature vegetation and when replanted vegetation reaches the size to shade the creek. • Revisions to the Mitigation Plan. • Revisions to the sediment monitoring plan. • Site pian revisions. • Details on the Long Marsh Creek riparian planting buffer. • A copy of the Final Long Marsh Creek Sediment Control and Habitat Restoration Project Basis of Design Report. • Expanded riparian vegetation buffers. • Study of the resizing or removal of the 148th Avenue SE Bridge. r - King County Water ari. Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 2 • Reassessment and redesign of the project to address its effectiveness, including further evaluation and study of sediment transport and downstream erosion, as well as independent review of sediment transport modeling. On September 16, 2011, Ecology received a response addressing some of the information requested. Unfortunately we have not received all of the documentation needed in order to demonstrate that we have reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. We have attached a project chronology that details that we have been trying to work with you to get the needed information in order to process your request for a 401 Certification. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, ch. 90.48 RCW and ch. 173-201A WAC, the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project water, quality certification is denied without prejudice. Receipt of a denial without prejudice does not preclude King County Water and Land Resources Division from resubmitting a request for 401 Certification at a later date. rv-`�,s--.�-.�.r....:.,a�g.�:= £. _ a,^"zrl "=_°'_�..,..—x.,�:S+= K_� ter- =' :_".,...,.��...,'-`•'•rs�.--, YOUR LP MR ' You have a right to appeal this Order to the Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB) within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order. The appeal process is governed by Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. "Date of receipt" is defined in RCW 43.21B.001(2). To appeal you must do the following within 30 days of the date of receipt of this Order: • File your appeal and a copy of this Order with the PCHB (see addresses below). Filing means actual receipt by the PCBB during regular business hours. • Serve a copy of your appeal and this Order on Ecology in paper form - by mail or in person. (See addresses below.) E-mail isnot accepted. You must also comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 371-08 WAC. EMU -S:treek:A.'ddresses.rT'� =-= ',,.�.z : Mallin `Addresses _ Department of Ecology Depa rtment of Ecology Attn: Appeals Processing Desk Attn: Appeals Processing Desk 300 Desmond Drive SE PO Box 47608 Lacey, WA 98503 Olympia, WA 98504-7608 Pollution Control Hearings Board Pollution Control Hearings Board 1111 Israel Rd SW PO Box 40903 STE 301 Olympia, WA' 98504-4903 Tumwater, WA 98501 .-1 King County Water a,.., Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 3 Please direct all questions about this Order to: Rebekah Padgett Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160'h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7129 Rebekab.Padgett@ecy-wa.gov k-r.-_:-.�,..i.,,._r..--.w.......�.._..2 ..,�».� •3'rk=. Pollution Control Hearings Board Website www.eho.wa.ggv/Boards PCHB.aWpx Chapter 43.21E RCW - Environmental Hearings Office — Pollution Control Hearings Board http:l/auys.le, wa. goy/RCW/default.aspY?cite=43.21 B Chapter 371-08 WAC — Practice and Procedure http://ay]2s.leg.wa. govAVAC/default. aspx?cite-3 71-08 Chapter 90.48 RCW — Water Pollution Control btLtp://ap-ps.leg.wa..gov/RCW/defa-alt.aMx?cite=90.48 Chapter 173-201A WAC — Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington www.ecy.wa.v,ov/biblio/Wacl73201A.htmi Erik Stockdale, Unit Supervisor September 22, 2011 Wetlands/401 Unit Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Northwest Regional Office ES:rrp:cja Enclosure By certified mail 7011 0470 0003 3720 9107 King County Water b._.. Land Resources Division September 22, 2011 Page 4 cc: Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TJ Stetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Katie Bonwell e -cc: Patrick McGraner — NWRO Patricia Olson — HQ Loree' Randall -- HQ Raman Iyer — NWRO ecyrefedpermits ,,ecy.wa.gov Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Jhenningna,Rentonwa.gov Jean Rollins urbanseparato _,hotmail.com Debra Rogers herogers(@comcast.net Susan Malin susiernalin@msn,com Gary Amundson gazy.a0comcast.net Andrew Duffus klassicars(R1hotnaail.com Carol Tabacek caroltabacek@aol.com Mary Wehich mmweirich Ri eomcast.net A. Duff -us blueheron$987@fiotmail,com T Julie & Jim Bonwell ibonwell Rr,lesourd.com Attachment 1: May Creek WQC Permitting Chronology 1/26/10 Ecology attended an interagency meeting organized by King County with discussion about the potential to create a multi -agency permitting team. A brief introduction and overview of the project concept at this early stage was presented. The U.S. Almy Corps of Engineers (Corps), Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance, and King County representatives were present. 2/22/10 Ecology attended a field meeting with King County, WDFW, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Ecology staff raised concerns about the effectiveness, purpose and need of the proposed project. Specific comments included: the effectiveness of the 15 -foot -wide buffers, concerns about direct animal access to stream, severely degraded pastures and the need for farm plans, extent of the wetland and primary sources of hydrology, and concerns about establishing woody vegetation in very wet soils. Ecology observed that livestock have direct access on one of the project properties upstream of the project area. 3/24110 Ecology provided written comments via e-mail that followed up on the 2/22/10 site visit. 5/5/10 Ecology participated in an interagency pre -application meeting and provided substantive comments regarding the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, as well as the need to redelineate the wetland, buffer width, and limit livestock access to the creek. Ecology raised concerns about 303(d) listing for. fecal coliform and the preference for 35 -foot buffers and wider planting on the south side buffer to reduce summer temperatures through shading. Ecology questioned the 2002 pilot described by King County where two sediment plugs were removed from side channels on the McFarland property, specifically whether it would be comparable to the current proposal and what post - construction monitoring was completed. Ecology raised the question of whether the proposed one-time dredging would accomplish the goals of the proposal; the County indicated that it was planning a series of projects, working from this site upstream. Ecology also pointed out that the baseline stream report included language that contradicted and would not support this proposal. Downstream erosion concerns were discussed, and King County staff noted that they had conducted modeling and did not believe that the sediment removal would increase erosion downstream. King County submitted the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (7ARPA) package to Ecology. 5/13/10 The Corps canceled the application. 6/24/10 Ecology canceled the 401 application based on the Corps' 5/13/10 action. King County Water and Lan, =urces Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 2 8116110 King County submitted a revised JARPA to Ecology. 918110 .King County submitted a Certification of Consistency with the Washington State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program to Ecology. 9115110 Ecology submitted comments on the State Environmental Policy Act mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) regarding effectiveness, purpose, and need of the proposal, buffer width, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4 for establishing canopy cover, the degradation of the pastures and need for farm plans to protect riparian habitat and creeks, and livestock access to the creek. 9120110 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about increased erosion, sediment transport thresholds, cumulative impacts, and the need for additional detailed study of the potential downstream impacts. 9122/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe raising concerns about net loss of habitat, downstream erosion, insufficient buffers and the probability that the proposed dredging will be a short-term fix. 9124/10 Corps issued a joint public notice with Ecology. 10110 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream residents. Issues raised included concerns about the purpose and need of the project, draining of wetlands, water quality, salmon habitat, increased flow, and bank erosion, as well as questions about the 2002 pilot. 10/23/10 Ecology received substantive public comments from the City of Renton that included concern about effects of increased velocity, flow, or erosion on downstream properties. 12/16/10 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology MDNS comments. In the response letter, the County defends the proposed 15 -foot buffer not as best available science (BAS) but as an improvement over existing conditions citing property owners' reluctance to expand planting areas, states that it cannot require farm plans from private property owners, or require owners with faun plans to implement them properly, and notes that the planting areas will be fenced and will therefore effectively eliminate livestock access to the creek. 3/3111 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 9/8/11. , 3/18/11 King County submitted another revised JARPA to Ecology. This revision included new impacts to Long Marsh Creek that the County referred to as mitigation, therefore reducing proposed mitigation downstream of 148 Avenue SE. King County Water and Lao. :sources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment i September 22, 2011 Page 3 4/5/11 Ecology received substantive public comments from the Neighbors for 11ay Valley, who raised concerns about stream flow velocity, volume and timing of storm events, flooding and erosion. Downstream property owners requested that King County allow the project to be delayed at least one water year to establish a pre -project erosion baseline. The downstream citizens requested additional assurances that the proposed dredging will not have unintended negative consequences to downstream properties. 4/21/11 Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 4/26111 Ecology participated in an interagency site visit where staff raised questions about the effectiveness, purpose, and need of the project, permanent protection of the mitigation area, the buffets on Long Marsh Creek, whether the Long Marsh Creek work was really mitigation, project -specific monitoring of sediments in the project area and downstream, best management practices, proposed buffer widths, how wet the left bank is in Reach 4, and the need for future dredging. 4128111 Ecology followed up by e-mail documenting questions raised at the 4126111 site visit. 5/11 Ecology received substantive public comments from downstream property owners questioning assumptions being made by King County based on modeling within the Hydraulics and Hydrologic Analyses using limited data, expressing concerns about downstream erosion, increased turbidity, and the proposed 15 -foot planting buffer as not meeting BAS or County code. Specific questions also were raised with regards to the adequacy of the information provided by King County that claimed that the 2002 pilot project along a 300 -foot section of the creek upstream of the proposed project was successful, erosion thresholds, potential for shallow well contamination, flow velocity, volume and peak flow during storm events potentially risking sole -access bridges to properties, and the adequacy of the 15 - foot planting buffer. 5111/11 Ecology received additional substantive comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe emphasizing the need to improve pasture conditions and control other existing sediment sources through agricultural best management practices and/or farm plans, minimize the dredging area with increased mitigation for impacts, increase the proposed planted buffer width, provide additional riparian plantings, measures to avoid impacts to downstream reaches, mitigation for any unavoidable impact to downstream reaches, future dredging projects, and potential impacts to salmonids. King County Water and Lance ,sources Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment 1 September 22, 2011 Page 4 6/10/11 Ecology received King County's responses to Ecology's 4/26/11 and 4/28/11 comments. In its letter, King County stated that downstream impacts have been sufficiently analyzed and that a formal monitoring plan is not warranted; based on previous analysis and current design features, re -sedimentation monitoring is not warranted at this time; and there are no future plans to implement additional upstream sediment removal projects. King County continued to defend the proposed 15 -foot buffer as being adequate even within the very wet portion of the left bank in Reach 4. In response to ongoing concerns from Ecology regarding the effectiveness of the proposed project King County again stated that the project is only designed to reduce overbank pasture flooding for a short period of time on each end of the rainy season and that monitoring wells have been installed to assess groundwater pre- and post -project. 7/1111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment in which the County restated that the 15 -foot proposed planting buffer, while not based on BAS, is an improvement over existing conditions as demonstrated by the results of the 2002 pilot project upstream of the current proposal and that the continuous hydrologic watershed mode used accounted for all peaks, all durations and all flow rates at all locations. King County reversed its position from 6110/11 and agreed to conduct downstream monitoring for a period of 5 years past -project. Ecology responded to King County by requesting a copy of the downstream monitoring plan with note that the plan should be comprehensive and not simply address the issues raised by one property owner. 7/8/11 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment in which the County stated that downstream monitoring will be conducted for a period of 5 years and that if monitoring data collected clearly shows that erosion problems result from the project, that it will offer technical assistance and perform remediation. The County indicated that it has no future plans to implement additional sediment removal projects upstream of this project site. 7/19111 Ecology received King County's responses to a public comment stating that the project will not increase existing erosion problems downstream, proposing 5 years of downstream monitoring and working with the property owner on a solution if the monitoring shows downstream erosion resulting from this project. 7/22/11 Ecology received King County's responses to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 5111111 comments. The e-mail states that the County does not have plans to implement the other three upstream dredging projects. In response to the tribe's comment that King County Code requires existing livestock operations to implement a farm management plan or meet management standards outlined in the Code, the County indicates that two of the four livestock operations have developed plans and that the buffers specified in these plans are 25 feet (10 feet more than the County is proposing through this project). The County also acknowledges that the 148th Avenue SE Bridge causes a backwater effect. ' King County Water and Lan sources Division May Geek Drainage Improvement Project Attachment t September 22, 2011 Page 5' 7/26/11 Ecology again visited the project site, including downstream properties. $12111 King County submitted another revised 3ARPA. The revision addresses Long Marsh Creek impacts and includes additional mitigation. 911111 Ecology sent a letter by Certified Mail to Doug Chin requesting additional information and stating that project 401 Certification would be denied if the requested documentation was not received at Ecology by September 16, 2011. Ecology issued a public notice on the revised application. 917111 Ecology and King County jointly extended the CZM review period until 11/SII 1. ,. 9/14111 Ecology received a public comment from a property owner reiterating questions about the need for the project and concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts 9/15/11 Ecology received public comments from a property owner reiterating concerns about downstream erosion and flooding impacts, raising the need for additional erosion monitoring and stream flow devices, and questioning the need for the project. The property owner raises questions about the stream and wetland buffer width, storm surge flows, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, cumulative impacts, compensatory stormwater storage, and the need for additional data and analysis. Ecology received public comments from the Mucklesboot Indian Tribe reiterating concerns about salmonids and habitat, cumulative impacts, likely future dredging, insufficient buffer widths, and the adequacy of mitigation. The letter also notes the need to consider less -impacting alternatives, have enforceable farm plans in place, for further analysis on backwater effect of the McFarland/Gambini footbridge, to consider impacts of sediment deposition in the mitigation alcoves, for sediment accumulation and erosion monitoring, to collect data regarding changes in channel cross-sections and longitudinal profiles and data on flood frequency durations, to monitor for salmonid use, and for a contingency plan. 9/16111 Ecology received additional public comments reiterating concerns about downstream flooding and erosion. Ecology received King County's responses to the 911111 letter requesting additional information. While some questions were addressed, outstanding issues remain including: buffers, baseline data, and sediment transport and data about what will happen downstream. t Gerald Wasser From: Chin, Doug [Doug.Chin@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:12 PM To: Gerald Wasser Cc: Miller, Lindsey Subject: RE: May Cree Drainage Improvement Project LUA11-065 Attachments: 12 22_10MTribe.pdf Gerald, Attached is the response to the MIT's comments of September 22, 2010. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Doug From: Gerald Wasser mailto:GWasser Rentonwa. ov Sent: Thursday, September 08, 201112:34 PM To: Chin, Doug Subject: May Cree Drainage Improvement Project LUA11-065 Hello Doug: I am following up on our conversation of a few minutes ago regarding King County's responses to !Caren Walters' (Muckleshoot Indian Tribes) comments of September 22, 2010. 1 look forward to seeing those responses as soon as possible. Thank you, Doug. Jerry Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7382 FAX (425) 430-7300 gwasse rP re nto nwa.gov Im a .M Ming County Water and land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Sulte 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206.296.6519 Fax 206.296.0192 TTY Relay: 711 December 22, 2010 Karen Waller Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 —172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (C(DFIY RE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) — Response to Comments on: State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination _Df Non -Significance Dear Ms. Walter: Thank you for your letter of September 22, 2010, with comments on the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS). Responses to each of your comments have been provided below. Comment: We are unable to review the May Creek Hydraulic Study as this document was not included in our SEPA packet or available online. Response:. We are including the latest copy of the Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project, dated December 17, 2010 for your review. Comment: We are also unable to review the May Creek Detailed Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan because as noted in the MDNS, these documents were not available at the time of SEPA issuance. Response: The Plan is being finalized at this time and when it is completed, we will forward a copy for your review. Comment: ...this is the first dredging proposal of potentially four projects that would result in the dredging, of 2.26 mile of May Creek in May Valley... Response: The currently proposed project will be monitored to determine the effectiveness to reduce flood durations and overcome reed canarygrass before other projects are considered for implementation. -Cew � a .--"'.Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 2 Comment: As far as we can tell from the project drawings handed out for the May 5, 2010 interagency meeting, the three proposed alcove areas comprise approximately 19,000 square feet but the dredging area will impact approximately 48,000 square feet of instream.habitat (based on an average stream width of 24 feet). If this is correct, then the mitigation for instream impacts is less than a 1:1 ratio and unacceptable. Response: The area calculation for impacts from in -channel grading was determined to be 0.12 acres west of 148th (City of Renton) and 0.89 acres east of 148th (King County}. This area calculation was determined from the plan set; it is in total 43,995 square feet (1.01 acres). The updated Baseline Stream Conditions Report for the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project references an average stream width of 12 feet, with some wider measurements of 21 and 23 feet throughout the surveyed stream reach. For comparison, 43,995 square feet would equate to a stream width around 20 feet The current mitigation plan proposes two alcove areas that comprise approximately 10,238 square feet (0.24 acres) (Long Marsh Creek area not included), which results in a ratio for in -stream mitigation of 0.23:1. The project could not achieve a 1:1 replacement ratio for in -stream impacts; therefore, the stream buffer and wetland enhancement areas mitigation ratio has-been increased to 3.2:1 ratio to offset not meeting a 1:1 ratio for the in -stream impacts. Our overall mitigation (in -stream . and riparian buffer) ratio is 1.4:1. This ratio is derived from 43,995 square feet in -channel sediment removal and 26,825 square feet of willow and reed canarygrass removal for a total of 1.6 acres (70,820 square feet). Our total area of mitigation is 2.2 acres (95,663 square feet). Our forthcoming Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan will include a more detailed description on impacts. and proposed mitigation. Comment: The planting buffer is significantly less than the regulated buffer and would be limited in its ability to provide riparian functions as a result. Response: King County has experience applying a 15 -foot -wide buffer in an area upstream of the current project has shown that the buffers function well as a natural boundary to livestock access, alleviate streambank erosion, provide shade to reduce stream temperatures, reduce reed canarygrass growth, and provide a canopy of native vegetation that help lessen the survival of non-native understory. 1. Comment: Please clarify how many properties would benefit from the dredging proposal and specifically how flooding is affecting these properties to date... Response: There are four properties with active pastures that will benefit from this project. Sediment accumulation and increasing in -stream vegetation has resulted in reduced channel capacity and results in backwatering of flows. Reduced channel capacity has extended the duration of flooding in adjacent pastures into the summer months, which has been reducing the period of time that the pastures can be actively used. The project would reduce the duration of time that these pasture areas would experience overbank flooding at both ends of the rainy season. This in turn would help protect agricultural, livestock, and equestrian operations in May Valley. Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 3 To increase the longevity of the project, a buffer of native vegetation will be planted along both stream banks to help miuimi7e reed canarygrass intrusion in the channel. Fencing will also be installed to protect the plantings and limit livestock access to the stream. By minimising reed canarygrass growth along the banks, the channel capacity will be maintained over time. Fencing will limit livestock aceess that exposes sail to erosion along the banks, thereby reducing the amount of sediment that enters the stream during overbank flooding events. In addition, the Long Marsh Creek Restoration, if supported by the property owner, will reduce the amount of sediment transported into May Creek, further increasing longevity of the project. 2. Comment: Please explain how other alternatives that would have less adverse impacts to salmon and their habitat were considered and evaluated as part of compliance with regulatory mitigation sequencing requirements... Response: King County has considered buying out flood -prone properties in May Valley, but this was determined to be unfeasible due to the costs associated with property , acquisition and management. In addition, the King County Comprehensive Plan calls for the protection of both agricultural uses and equestrian activities in the County. The County desires to preserve the diverse rural agricultural character of May Valley and maintain the potential for firture agricultural production. Other alternatives such as constructing regional detention and localized retention/detention facilities would not reduce the on-going loss of channel capacity due to sediment deposition and invasive vegetation encroachment in the channel. In addition, the current detention standards would not affect the small frequent storms that we are managing through this project. The following mitigation will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative impacts to the in -stream and wetland habitat from the proposed project • During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in - water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fish are less likely to be present. A King County biologist will be on-site during construction to monitor water quality. • Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent); where additional access is needed, will minimise disturbance to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access .to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland and riparian vegetation will be planted along May' Creek (15 feet on each side of the stream from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project). Fencing will be installed to protect the plantings and the stream from livestock. Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 4 Approximately 0.69 acres of wetland will be enhanced on the west side of 148th Avenue SE by removing invasive reed canarygrass and replanting with native wetland vegetation. Two off -channel alcoves will also be excavated along May Creek in this location and large woody debris and streambed gravel will be added in the alcoves to enhance wetland fish habitat. . • Fish habitat and alluvial fan processes will be restored through introduction of meanders and native plantings along the buffer in Long Marsh Creek, a tributary to May Creek. King County is currently negotiating with the property owners on the area for mitigation. 3. Comment: Please explain how the proposed dredging project will reduce flooding that may occur as a result of naturally high groundwater tables... ReMonse: The proposed dredging project will reduce overbank flooding rates in the May Valley during small frequent storm events, but is not expected to reduce flooding that may occur due to a naturally high groundwater table. Overbank flooding in May Valley predominantly occurs when storm flow rates exceed channel capacity.. Under existing conditions, any flows above winter base flow levels breach the stream bank in multiple locations (at approximately 6 cubic feet per second at the lowest capacity location). Effectively this low channel capacity contributes to flooded conditions during most of the winter every winter, and this flood condition is now extending into the summer months. One of the project goals is to increase in -channel capacity to contain flows ranging from approximately 40'to 50 cubic feet per second, which would be just below the estimated 1 -year flow event in May Valley post -project. By improving channel capacity and conveyance at more frequent lower flow rates, the frequency and duration of over bank flooding should be reduced, therefore reducing flooding at the start and end of the rainy season. In the winter months, flooding due to the high groundwater water table and large storm events is expected to remain the same. 4. Comment: Please describe and quantify the sources of sediment that are filling in the stream in the project area and how these sources will be managed to avoid future sedimentation and dredging... Response: The following sediment sources have been identified in the project area: • The May Creek channel at Long Marsh Creek contains sediment discharged from Long Marsh Creek and the confluence creates a choke point for flow within' the May Creek channel. A man-made channel for Long Marsh Creek transports sediment to May Creek. Survey elevations and the stream survey identify this confluence as a significant depositional area_ + Larger sediment is deposited in the May Valley by small alluvial fans at the base of Tributary 08.0291A and Indian Meadow Creek. A ditch carries Indian Meadow Creek Karen Walter Deeember 22, 2010 Page 5 to May Creek. Tributary 08.0291A is hydraulically controlled by a culvert under SR -900 and deposits sediment upstream, from the culvert. The mean width of May Creek in 1995 was 20 to 25 feet with wider sections up to 60 feet at RM 5.6. The widest point measured in May Creek during the stream survey in 2010 was 18 feet at the 148th Avenue SE Bridge. This narrowing of channel width suggests that infilling by reed canarygiass (Phalaris arundinacea) has had a significant impact on the change in channel configuration and capacity. A significant exception is at the coiafluence with Long Marsh Creek, where reed canarygrass is not present due. to on-going use and maintenance by the previous property owner. The following measures are being taken to reduce sediment input in the project area and increase the longevity of the project: • Creating off -channel alcoves in the wetland downstream of 148th Avenue SE will allow sediment to deposit outside of the main channel at higher flows. - Planting 15 feet of native vegetation on both sides of May Creek will help trap and remove suspended sediment from pasture stormwater runoff. • Installing fences along the stream to protect the new vegetation and limit livestock access will reduce the amount of sediment entering the stream. • Reducing the duration of pasture flooding will reduce the amount of organic material and sediment that is carried back into the stream from the pastures during flood events. • Establishing native vegetation and shade along the stream will rninimie reed canarygrass intrusion into the channel, which will reduce narrowing of the channel and redevelopment of choke points. • Widening the channel and removing sediment blockages will improve conveyance, which will allow the stream to move the silt to clay size sediments more effectively during average to yearly flows. This will reduce the amount of new sediment deposited in the channel during low flows. Restoring more natural alluvial fan functions in Long Marsh Creek will allow sediment to drop out -in Long Marsh Creek before reaching the mainstem of May Creek. In addition to the above measures, King County adopted more stringent regulations in 2005 and again in 2009 for controlling the duration of erosive flows from new development and reducing the quantity of runoff through use of low impact development techniques. These more stringent regulations will help prevent future increases in erosion and sedimentation and start to reduce existing erosion and sedimentation as future development and redevelopment activities occur, Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 6 5. Comment: Please describe the previous pilot dredging work completed in 2002 in detail.. . Resaponse: The 2002 pilot project was conducted on the McFarland property at Hyak Stables, which is now owned by Harold Gambini. The project involved removing approximately 250 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from a 300 -foot -long reach of May Creek. -The project also included planting native plants along the stream bank as mitigation. This pilot project was intended to partially satisfy Recommendation Five (i.e., Remove Flow Obstructions from the Channel of May Creek in May Valley) in the April 2001 Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan. King County undertook this pilot project to assess three primary project components: (1) whether a flow obstruction removal project could be successfully permitted; (2) whether the project could be constructed; and (3) what the approximate project cost would be. 'The ultimate project goal was to provide.a method for private property owners to undertake flow obstruction removal projects on their own; however, during the permitting process it was determined that this type of project could only be constructed using King County's Public Agency Utilities Exception process (a process now called a Critical Areas Alternation Exception), which is not available to private property ownM. The project's effects on salmon, flooding, and sediment accumulation were not assessed using scientific methods; however, visual observations show a decrease in duration of overbank flooding along this stream reach. As -built drawings were not prepared for this project because the constructed project closely corresponded with what was shown on the design plans. The current project does overlap in some areas with the 2002 pilot project; however, the cu' rent project has taken a more comprehensive look at the areas along May Creek that are impeding flows. This more detailed analysis has shown that sediment removal to a greater depth and length in the proposed project area would be more effective at reducing the duration of overbank flows in the long-term on adjacent properties. 6. Comment: Please describe how frequent dredging will need to occur in the project area in the future and if any other areas downstream may need to be dredged due to increased flood conveyance at the project site... Respons. e: A review of historic survey records, stream surveys, and aerial photographs has been conducted for the project area. bong Marsh Creek and agricultural fields appear to be the major contributors of sediment within the project area. Sediment from Long Marsh Creek and willow and reed canarygrass growth in the stream constrict flow. The stream channel bottom elevation is relatively stable, except where Long Marsh Creek discharges to May Creek and vegetation stabilizes muck in the May Creek Channel. A long-term pattern of channel narrowing is suggested by historical aerial photographs. Reducing sediment and organic matter input to the channel from Long Marsh Creek (proposed project mitigation) and the pastures and removing reed canarygrass will slow narrowing of the channel. Active monitoring and buffer planting management along the creek banks will take place for Karen Walter December 22,'2010 Page 7 10 years to allow establishment of native vegetation buffers. The. larger channel can be expected to last beyond 10 years, but a specific number of years is not known. 7. Comment: Please clarify how often Indian Meadow Creek, a May Creek tributary in the project area, has been dredged, if this dredging was permitted and what mitigation occurred for past dredging. Please also clarify if this project will result in any reduction of Indian Meadow Creek dredging in the fugue. Response: King County does not have any information on the history of dredging of Indian Meadow Creels. To our knowledge, King County has not done any dredging of Indian Meadow Creek in the past. The County cannot confirm or deny any dredging of Indian Meadow Creek by others. King County has no plans to dredge Indian Meadow Creek in the future. 8. Comment: Please describe the capacity of the SE 148th Street Bridge to successfully pass . wood, water, and sediment for the 100 -year flood... Response: Under existing conditions, the SE 148th Street Bridge would not.pass a 100 -year flood without overtopping the roadway. It is not the objective of this project to increase flow conditions for storm events that are larger than a 1 -year event. Under existing conditions, the bridge will pass an approximately 5 -year event. The bridge opening is not large enough to efficiently pass large wood. Replacing the bridge to pass a I00 -year event is beyond the scope of this project. 9. Comment: The 2001 Basin Plan identified_ a 65% tree retention standard for rural properties as one way to address flooding. Please explain the status of this regulation and if it has been enforced so that reviewers can discern the likely potential for future dredging activities at the project site. Response: In July of 2008, a Court of Appeals decision ruled that the limits on the amount of clearing allowed. on rural area zoned property were inconsistent with a state law that sets standards and limits on the taxes, fees, and charges a county may impose on development. Since this ruling, King County has not been enforcing tree retention standards. Alternatively, there are incentives in the King County Surface Water Design Manual to retain trees for purposes of stormwater control. There are also incentives to retain trees by way of the 65110 discount for Surface Water Management fees and the tax breaks given as part of the Public Benefit Rating. System., As part of the mitigation for this project, King County is proposing to plant approximately 3 acres of forested and scrub -shrub vegetation in May Valley. These plantings will increase the longevity of the project by trapping sediment outside the channel. 10. Continent: Please explain how King County proposes to manage the mitigation areas in perpetuity if the County does not own the parcels or obtain easements to the mitigation areas. Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 8 Response: King County will obtain a temporary easement to monitor and maintain the mitigation areas throughout the monitoring period. The mitigation areas are all located in existing critical areas (streams, wetland, or buffer) that are protected under the King County and City of Renton critical area codes as well as under federal and state laws. Once the monitoring and maintenance period is complete, the mitigation areas will be protected as any other critical areas would be protected under federal, state, and local regulations. 11. Comment: Please describe the potential for headcutting to occur upstream and the potential extent of headcutting and measures proposed to avoid this potential impact and additional loss of instream habitat. Response: There is a very small potential for channel headcutting'and this risk is mirLm;zed by the following elements: • The stream channel was already straightened in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and this project does not change that alignment .The most dramatic changes in the stream profile would have occurred during those early channelization projects. • The gradient is very low through the project area. • The overall gradient between the project end points is not changing. • The stream's ability to move sediment is limited to silt to sand size material. The geologic deposits in the valley consist of advanced and recessional outwash and compacted sediments in the base of the excavated channel, which would be impossible for the stream to erode.' • The transition from the sediment removal project area to existing channel will be a gradual transition and not an abrupt `wall." 12. Comment: The proj ect needs to discuss how it will affect downstream spawning reaches used by salmon including Chinook and sockeye. Specifically, what is the net change that would result in natural sediment and water detention and storage functions of the May Creek Valley that serve to control flood scour and siltation of spawning beds below? Response: King County is analyzing the potential effects to listed salmonids and habitat downstream of the May Valley as part of compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This analysis is not yet complete, but King Countywill provide the analysis once it is complete. 13. Comment: The project needs to discuss the potential to drain the 140 acre wetland associated with May Creek in May Valley and the potential impacts to salmon and their habitat as a result of any draining of this. wetland. Karen Walter December 22, 2010 Page 9 Response: Due to the high groundwater table in the May Valley, this project is not expected to drain any wetlands or impact any wetland salmon habitat. As is often common with riverine wetlands, the wetland receives significant amounts of water from other sources, including groundwater and slope discharges. , The goal of the project is to reduce the duration of flooding in pastures resulting from overbank flows at the start and the end of the rainy season, but the project is not expected to change'the overall geographical extent of flooding.due to winter storm events. The project is also not expected to reduce the duration or geographical extent of soil saturation in wetland areas; the project would simply reduce the duration of time when ponded water is present in some pasture areas due to overbank flooding near the stream at the start and end of the rainy season.. Kang County is planning to sign a Decision to Proceed for this project and publish the associated Notice of Action Taken in the Seattle Times. Any action to set aside, enjoin, review,- or eview;or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 C RCW shall be commenced on or before 21 days after the Iast publication date. Please contact meat 206-296-8315 or dong.chin(�kingcom1y.gov if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Project Manager Capital Services Unit Stormwater Services Section DC;LM:bgn73 Enclosures cc: Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Randy McIntosh, National Marine Fisheries Service Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Patrick McGraner, Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office Dave Garland, Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planing Jamie Hartley, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Lindsey Miller, Environmental Engineer, King County Road Services Division, Department of Transportation City o,._e.nton Deportment of Community & Economic . _velopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �r .Jlv"- • . COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 20HV -L,GITY QE R NT( APPLICATION NO: LU6 - SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLI Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources IAUG PROJECT MANAGER: JerryWasser , PRO CTTITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian RECEIVE SITE AREA: 0.77 acres 11 EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: West of 148th Ave SE & South of May Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along theieach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable PraWbie More Environment Minor Malar Information impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Lon Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Heahh Energy/ Natural Resources SIO —nxr -TV%VWad . ,,923 6M g/doll 8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Macre Environment Minor Major fr ormovan impacts Impacts Nereswry Housing Aesthetics light/Glare Recreation Utillties n2gseRrtotiDn Public Services HworiclCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ]a OW Feer IN .D We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of )ton Department of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL '& DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: 1 -6A.11 -065,1-6A.11-065, V -H, SP� J APPLICANT: Dour~ Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECTTITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement SrrF AREA: 0.77 acres COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 -DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA NIA SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Geek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Imparts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Lond/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 1� i 1 eL cry V1L�JCi lnY> L 0 � 1�7 GFi�l Ll l.! 1J�'^�i l •_. B. POLJCY-RELATED COMMENTS VKJ Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Gfare Recreation Utitides Trans rtaaort Public Services Histaric/Cuiturai Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 feet C CODE-REIAiED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional4ii ormatio 45 need to properly assess this proposal. _ a zU Lk Signature of Directo 'or Authorized Representative Date City of - don Department of Community & Economic ielopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1 COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPiJCATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser A. PROJECTTITLE: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian C 26 SITE AREA. 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A MUNE fiR�N SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL- Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major ! ormadon lmpacts Impacts Alece=ry Earth Air Water Plants La dlMarefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Rewurres B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information lmpacu Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li h Glare ReCreation Utilities Trans tion Public Services Flistoric/Cutrvral Preservation Airport Environment 10,Wo Feet J4,00o Feet C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information ' neede properly assess this propllosal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Iton Deportment of Gomm unity&,Economic ielopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Fire, COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-065, V -H, SP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 26, 2011 APPLICANT: Doug Chin, KC Water & Land Resources Div PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Drainage improvement Project PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 0.77 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOC4TIO • West of 148Ave SE & South-gLMU Creek PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross NLA SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL • Applicant requests a Special Permit for Grade/Fill and a Critical Areas Variance in order to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximate River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. The project would result in the removal of approximately 392 cubic yards of accumulated sediment from approximately 162 lineal feet of the May Creek Channel, and the removal of obstructive vegetation (reed canary grass and willow branches) from approximately 540 lineal feet of river channel. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information frnpactr impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land horeline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics L ht/Glare Recreation utilities Tronspontation Publk Services HistorkICuhurol Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet A B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS we have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identrfied areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. zh� Signature of Director or Authorized Representative pate Gerald Wasser From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:16 AM To: Gerald Wasser Subject: FW: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing - new exhibits fyi From: urban separator[maiIto: urbanseparatorohotmai1,coml Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:02 AM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: May Creek Dredging Public Hearing -- new exhibits Hello Jenifer. At the hearing yesterday, a lot of new exhibits were introduced. 1 became a bit confused. Could you confirm that these were some of the newly introduced exhibits? National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration —National Marine Fisheries Service Letter 03/10/11 Washington Department of Ecology memo from Dr. P.L. Olson, Aug 15th, 2011 Washington Department of Ecology Letter to King County Dated Sept. 22, 2011 May Creek Sediment Transport Study by Anchor QEA Hydraulic & Hydrological Analysis Report, King County May Valley Sediment Assessment Memo King County Biological Evaluation Report Thanks, Jean Rollins UA ' �' aY Q f City of Renton p;anrlinq )�n o 'Son LAND USE PERMIT AUG -5�Yll MASTER APPLICATION ��e, PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Stonegate Homeowners Association Happy Longfellow, President ADDRESS: 5405 NE 24th Ct CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 204.1119 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Doug Chin on behalf of King County Water and Land Resources Division COMPANY (if applicable): King County Water and Land Resources Division ADDRESS: - 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98104 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 296.8315 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Doug Chin, Project Manager COMPANY (if applicable): King County Water and Land Resources Division ADDRESS: 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98104 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: (206) 296.8315 doug.chin@kingcounty.gov PROJECT INFORMATION FOJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Open space on the west side of 148th Avenue SE Just south of Its intersection with SE May Valley Road In Renton, WA 98059. KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 803540TR-A EXISTING LAND USE(S): Open Space Tract PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Open Space Tract EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential --1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) Residential -1 EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-1 SITE AREA (in square feet): Approximately 33,600 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: Not applicable. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) Not applicable. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) Not applicable. NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not applicable. F:ID0UGCID0UGCHIN1May Creek 20101Rcnton PermitsUznd Use Permit Master ApplicationlStonegate Renton Master App Form.docx i ti F..OJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not applicable. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not applicable. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not applicable. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not applicable. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not applicable. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not applicable. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not applicable. TION (com. wed PROJECT VALUE: $350,000 (includes project area outside City limits) 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 sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. J SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES 5.300 sq. ft. J WETLANDS 28.300 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information Included SITUATE IN THE SECTIONS 2 & 3, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Grade & Fill Permit 3. 2. Variance 4. EStaff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Sage att c ad easement. , declare under penalty of peduvunder the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved In this application or ,s/ 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. See Hached easement. J ^ I certify that l know or have satisfactory evidence that h[� signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislharlthe r f ee and luntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. of erlRepresentative) `��tatt�tlt►tt#t#tt . �f �/1 7i' 1 /i J ,� itutt0„ Nnh�,. Notary Public in and for he Stateof Washington' , v (Signature of Owner/Representative) $$ 3s �► y� Mary (Print. i� - Q0h.V_ �� II,,� galt9 � 080 y appointment expires; tthtl. • � . F:IDOUGCIDOUGCH[AtlMay Creek 20141Rentonf t� t(i Rz unit Master Application\Stonegate Renton Master App Form.docx -2- -----it PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR MAY CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (KING CO) MAY CREEK FROM APPROX SE 1 S2ND ST TO BEY CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PRE10-044 October 28, 2010 Contact Information: Planner: Gerald Wasser Publlc Works Reviewer: ]an Illian Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425-430-7382 Phone: 425.430.7216 Phone: 425.430.7023 Phone: 425.430,7290 City of Penton Planning Division AUG ` 5 7U11 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of It to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting Is Informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies In effect at the time of review. The applicant Is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations In effect at the time of project submittal. The Information contained In this summary Is. subject to modification and/or concurrence by official declsion-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council), DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 22, 2010 TO: Jerry Wasser, Planner FROM: Jan 1111an, Plan Review Ql- SUBJECT: May Creek Drainage Improvements SE 152"d Street and 148 Ave SE PRE 10-044 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non- binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above -referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Storm Drainage The following are comments regarding the proposed King County May Creek Drainage Improvement Project for use in the pre -application meeting and incorporating into the City's comment letter on the JARPA public notice. 1. A hydrologic and hydraulic report is needed for the project that evaluates the pre -project and post - project condition, to evaluate and determine If the project will cause any impacts within the project limits and downstream of'the project. The report will need to look at -the -change In flow depth, velocity- - of flow at the 1481h Ave 5E road crossing, the downstream limit of the project, and a minimum of Y. -mile downstream of the project. The report will need to include'channel cross-sections that show the pre - project and post -project water surface elevations and channel profiles. The hydrology may be based upon the May Creek Basin Plan or updated hydrology, if this has been done by the County. The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will need to look at a range of flows between the 2 -year flood frequency and the 100 -year flood frequency, Ideally the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 -year storm events. Any change to the 100 -yr floodplain elevation will need to be determined and shown in the -study. 2. A fluvial geomorphologic analysis of the project; utilizing the Information from the hydrologic/hydraulic report to evaluate and determine if the project will affect stream bank erosion, channel incision, or other changes that could occur in the project area or impact downstream properties. I May Creek Dralnage — PRE 1"35 , Page 2 of Z October 22, 2010 I 3. The project will need an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the project that complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards. The ESC Plan will need to Include measures.to contro; dust and tracking of sediment on to streets during construction. 4. The City's Critical Area Ordinance requirements related to flood hazards will need to be addressed for work in the FEMA 100 -year floodplain to meet requirements regarding compensatory storage for any filling in the floodplairi. The 100 -year floodplain boundary will need to be shown on the project construction plans. 5. A -traffic control plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction for the construction entrances on 148th Ave SE. Construction hours will be In accordance with City standards (7:00 AM -8:00 PM), or as established in the approved traffic control plan. 5. Information about. ownership, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the improvements within the portion of the project In Renton is needed. What are the monitoring and maintenance requirements for the project? Will King County be responsible fot meeting these requirements? - I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY iuol � E�� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 28, 2010 TO: Pre -application File No. 10-044 FROM: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner SUBJECT: King County May Creek Drainage Improvement General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting Issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the -date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The project is located in May Valley within unincorporated King County and the City of Renton on the south side of May Valley Road (Sections 2 and 3, Township 23N, Range 5E). The project area Includes the reach of May Creek between approximately River Mile 4.3 (which is approximately 0.25 mile downstream of 148th Avenue SE) and River Mile 4.9. The portion of the project within the City of Renton Is located downstream of 148th Avenue SE. Assessor Parcel Number 803540TR-A which is an open space tract owned by the Stonegate Homeowners Association is the only parcel which has been Identified as being directly affected by the proposed project. The portion of the project -upstream of 148th Avenue SE is located in unincorporated King County. The area within the City of Renton is zoned Residential —1 dwelling units per net acre (11-1). The project would consist of removing in -stream vegetation, woody debris, and sediment in order to increase •stream flow through May Valley and reduce the risk of flooding. Mitigation proposed includes planting a 15 -foot wide buffer of native riparian and wetland vegetation on both sides of May Creek (1.3 acres), and enhancement of 3.75 acres of wetland on the west side of 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project. Invasive vegetative species (reed canarygrass and willows) would be removed and replaced with native wetland vegetation. Proposed KC May Creek Drainage improver^qt, PREIM44 Page 2 of 3 October 28, 2010 enhancements to wetland fish habitat include the placement of large woody debris and stream bed gravel alcoves. Current Use: The parcel which the applicant has identified as being directly affected by the proposed project is a vacant open space tract owned by the Stonegate Homeowners Association. This parcel would remain vacant upon project completion. Critical Areas: The project area within the City of Renton includes May Creek, a Class 2 Stream, a wetland on the north side of May Creek, and it is within a flood hazard area. Note: The Wetland Delineation Report submitted with the pre -application materials identifies the onsite wetland as a King County Category II riverine wetland. The applicant must provide the City of Renton wetland classification In order for staff to accurately evaluate compliance with the wetland provisions of the Code (RMC 4-3- 050M). I At the time of formal submittal for projects involving work in wetlands the applicant is required to provide an evaluation of alternative methods of development (RMC 4-3- 050M.8), a plan for compensating for wetland impacts (RMC 4-3-050M.9), a proposal for a mitigation approach that includes wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement (RMC 4-3-050M.10). Ratios for wetland creation or restoration are addressed in RMC 4- 3-050M.11 and ratios for wetland restoration or creation plus enhancement are addressed in RMC 4-3-050M.12. Additionally, the applicant must provide a mitigation monitoring plan for streams and wetlands in compliance with RMC 4-3-050F.8 and 4-3- 050M.16. Mitigation monitoring Is required for a 5 -year period with reporting done quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter. The monitoring reports should indicate the number of floodplain acres filled and restored. A surety device would also be required as a condition of approval of any mitigation, plan. Environmental Review: King County has issued a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the proposed project. Permit Requirements: A Critical Areas Exemption for Flood Hazard Reduction in Streams and Lakes would be required (RMC 4-3-050C.Sid.11i). There is no fee for critical areas exemptions. Administrative Approval for Alterations -of Streams and ,Lakes or Associated Buffers Dredging would also be required (RMC 4-3-050L.8.d.ii). , The applicant will be required to provide an evaluation of the criteria necessary for administrative approval alterations of streams and lakes or associated buffers for dredging. I A Special Fill and Grade Permit would be required (RMC 4-9-080F.2). Because the proposed project would involve the excavation of 1,550 cubic yards of material, it is considered a Major Activity (RMC 4-9-080F.1,a) and requires Hearing Examiner review. The fee for a Special Fill and Grade Permit is $2,000.00.1 in addition, to an approved Special Fill and Grade Permit, an Annual Grading License is necessary. Such grading license would be issued by the Development Services Division for not more than one KC May Creek Drainage Improuament, PRE10-044 Page 3 of 3 October 28, 2010 year and may be renewed if the operation is progressing according to the approved plans. If the applicant cannot comply with the wetland provisions of the Code (see note in Critical Areas section, above), a Critical Areas Variance would be required (RMC 4-9- 250). The fee for a variance is $1,200.00. Note: The protection of properties not directly affected by this drainage improvement project must be addressed in the formal submittal. The potential affects on surrounding and downstream properties should be addressed. The above approvals would be processed concurrently within approximately 6 to 8 weeks. The Critical Areas Exemption and the Administrative Approval for stream alterations regarding dredging would be processed administratively prior to any public hearing. Subsequently, the Special Fill and Grade Permit and any Critical Area Variance would be considered by the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing. C6 - 34 T24N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK E6 -10 T23N R5E E 1/2 PW TECHNIICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 Tb 0 200 400 RIM -1 T E 11000 D6 03 T23N R5E E 1/2 5303 PLANNING DIVISION - WAIVEi..OF SUBMITTAL REQUIh�MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Crit, of Ren fon Planning Division AUG - 5 ju+r '.:E �•`IIJIi�i�l��iiVt . pj.l3;a�iP R . TTA�i Iii°�°' li �iw� ..�D'iii .{'.....'.'.. .>5=::::':t:i� �. i : •1 V Calculations ..I Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 :;1 :;:{•i;; ilii:j:{:{:i:{:{:il•,:{ij:1i{ii;:::%:%{:.:.::{i{:jiii{'.ii?lil.ii�ii:;:;:ii i{=, ij i:,ii:;:{i Density Worksheet 4 .I.• .I r�`i iiiii'•:`=i''Iiiiiiiijiii i✓iar� I:I .I: �_::::. : 't.:. i:i:::i:i:i:iti:icl e ra , .I• Drainage Report z •1= , ilii {I-�1 ma�yy}' l''''iii•l':'''�{'••••ii:"•'•' 'it• '�{1�'y Mii',''.•`"r•''�.'.'1''•••.�••'i�'•, �3'' /ryy�1}!� .7�Y•IY �� Q �{ ;1;::::; it .,.:�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::';::::::::::::::::::::;::;::'::: Environmental Checklist 4 •...L'..•:•;.1•:•:.:':.:•:••.••:•:•:•::::::•::::•::•�'::::::::•::::II•a::=::'.::{:j:::i:j:i:j:i �ttifi� :::;:i:i:i:i:{:ili:jli.::::j::: i{ij i:i:i',•......... ...... :•t' .•.•3 ....:..',•.. '.'....... , . tti i�ca. � . �, .� ..pyo. Existing' Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 i�ii'i{i�i'iii�i�iiiiiii'•i€i. .,. I t. •`f'"````�`iiii•: :1::• �:a��`�`�`�•a�� i'�iiii::,., :�ii��aa's� ::I:l:{: i:l •::l:j:S :;•:::::::::::::.::::j:isi:;:;:;.;i;;.:iiii�iisiiii;ijijiii iiiiiiiiii�iiii�iji.. 1 .'�3i�1 . . I:::;:{l::i:i:i:i:I:::::��Elj:.. ::::::::::::. {a:i . 1.... . Floor Plans s AND 4 iiii3 ''ifec� . i�� IR ::1•: _�=��iiiii'i :i�':�::{iiiiiiiiiiii�=°�:':;: .•:.;:•' �::i:{:{:i:i•i:::::{:i:i:i:j:jii::::l..� Grading plan, Conceptual z :::''�:::�•:::::_•: iiiii ,{,�� 3all 'd°�.':i::;;iiji�E{iji;i{i;ii?iii?'iiiii{{:';6°''j`;i`?°iii`i`...•. fir, iiiji:lit'iit�t�iiiijiii;j:ii tjjlj:i:i�i:j%iEiii,•.. � i%1::;:::'ijSii:jii . I . •:a�, . : :.;.1.:•:• :...:.:.:.:.....:...:...:.:.•. , "•I=I:::ii:1•l;:y,;;i..'.., P r1 . :,t• .o•: :.;:;, . ¢ , .•_•.',•.�.�.'.•.•.•,•.•,' Habitat Data Report 4 :.1'1:;1,•;:;{;: t. ii .: iii: it ':1•: iiii;iiiiiii: .I :Il: €ii=ijsiiiiiiiiiji::i;ii�i{: I•:.:•:•1.:•: I t. H•...•.•.•. •1•...• ._.....,.,, .I. Irrigation Plan 4 •I :,' I.3%I•: l S�'y'%11': ' '.Il•, '•:;: '' :til ; '.I •. 1 ' .l :l::Ij:i ••i yyy�i� k '1':•{.1�:•I::•I '•�y7..'7,4Q1u•,,17:i1 .• :•I:••: t::::::;:::I :Il•:%I'...•, .I i:. ..i1ili:;l::i':•:•1•:•1.:: l::•::::I:: a;:;.:•::• ., I,..,,., �...t,.. 1.1•I I .•.1.: 3 it I• :•: 1,1:: 1:3 ::;:": ::;1:';:::':; ;I;'; I.11:•l:{:'i;. ,.,�{�. i �{1{. 5,•,1 li: I I : 1•:.:':•i•I : '•iii I'Si+l'1•:•i=111•[=1•: _: ;:,:•;;; :;.: j:{:;:;1;:;;;::;;;;ij;;{j I � .i�...:�I.I.; •. i'l.'i1!'=i'i1i:;.•':�:I:i:l:ill:•'S1.1.1 af�M� .,_;� ,I, j:;:;.;.: .:.=�I.:.:I;.I �;� :;j:::: i7I::i:II.:.I.I1: ::{itl j.i.:.:•S.ISS.j..::.:'i•I..•.I.•.�.•.•....,..IIS.I.'.•I•.•1•.I�'.•.•t'.'.•.•.•.•I•. •1•.•.•. Landscape Plan, Conceptual4 .;. '•1 1'S•:: ::ii{i{is=iiii''•i:•1':•=H'i•:: '�i� t l'i:iii:.;.;.;.:.;�;.;.ii'.:.i.:: .::: ijijijiiij'ii{:i1 :I: • ilii ji:. i S lsiiiiij.. i 1 I 1 I• t : .,.;.{. �_ �;. .:E....•.. , •.I . I �•.:•ri i{ilii:•:';.. . � ei� �ialia: 1I'''.��' ........ :..::::::::.:.:.:::. •1':.1' ._';.....':1::1:•:•:::•:::�::::':.::::::I:::°:::jai:::. . l.:il:{%l=I.3•:::;::l:iii::=.,� f . � I .• :I:::::: :•_•:':':':•:•:::':':::_:_:;: Legal Description 4 . 1 .: jii{i;i;=i:i{{jiij{iji:i {ij�=: ii{iij•:•1... , :... ill Master Application Porm.4 .::1::::::1::1::::• :•1•:•:':•:•:.:'1::•:1'•:1::1::1::1::1::1::::::::::1•:::••':::::::::::• I :.::::::::::.:•::••• . I. . 1 ••1=:=1� .�,a, ••:. •1,;.;:'•:•:::: I::: ••1:::{:=1: rIr :' _:.:....'. ,,':.: k�.� ' oh ' 1 t l ._. I , L;:; iUir>ih � Ikt,�''t��`f�$=��[)�i�3$�i[?'f �I�1�1'�,�,it,.:,,.,.. ,.• ,.,.:.•,•,_ :U ia::aa=i1i:j::: �:3:::::::; 'si�iiii�:'1:;::::::: .,1..,..... a i;ilii•: iiiiiiiiEiiij?j. =Iii�.:•..,....•._.,,I�.'�•_'�_ 1.1 I•;•: ..L•.•..•i€�:;lii,'Il:.i'.. :i1::1::':i:::;:::;1i:1•{:;:i:;:;:_,:::::il{:{,;:{:;:;:i:;1i:;:i;;:;:{:;::•:::;l:::j:j;iti;{t;1;: ,t .._.....L .. ,•I . ..1 •...'...' . : I . •l•l ::1 , t •I'.'.:• •::.:. .•1<::::::::,::::: ':::.::.. � ,:1.,; ,, ..{......:.t':•:,.....,I,.,I,I ..,.i.;,:.;:: t.:;1l:1., . i '.!:ii:..: .:•,.1.. ,•I.11:..:.:.:.:.:.:1;,:';,;,j.l:{:I1j .,.It:{..'.'.'.ii:::1:::a,•,...... . .'1... „ 'Neighborhood Detail Map 4 1;1i• ,;i;j;,;ii;;i;j{j{i Plan Reductions (PMTS) 4 46— Y • k This requirement maybe waived by: 1, Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3, Building 4, Planning t WMT PROJECT NAME: to —C7 444- _ DATE: 9 /ac-) l Ca H.%r,Fr11f]atalForms-TBmnlaleskSelf-Help HandoutrlPlanninglwajvamfsubmittairegs.xls 06= PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER' SUBMITTAL,REQUIRE NTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS T• j '9 aw T Plat Name Reservation 4 Public Works Approval Lettere ij Screening Detail 4 ............ Stream or Lake'Study, Standard 4 I CA .7- MYt:t .: Stream.or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 01 lk !:11 Title Report or Piet Certificate 4 Traffic Study 2 NPAR 01; i':N Urban Design Regulations AnDlYSIS 4 A u. Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 lk fl.' :4:10 4! A 4 Wetlands Report/Delineation 4 iA41V WM� 111I, flit NS. " !: I j: lull, ' R:@ �11111[ 111111 Il I! -Applicant Agreement. Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement,Draft 2AND.3- Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2AND 3 Photosimulationg2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by; 1. Prop" Services. 2, Public Works Plan Review 3, Building 4. Planning k:.r- ImAkliENSIE-1 I MPP-C>j't-= WelwT 91 PROJECT NAME: DATE: r-> H:10ED%Dela%FormG-TomplatenSelf-Help Handoute4Pianning%waiverofoubmltlalroqlB.xls 0EV09 City of Renton City LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONP�annr Rent ng O,, May Creek Drainage Improvement Project AuG Project Narrative Location King County's Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) proposes to improve in - stream flow conditions along the reach of May Creek between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9 near the cities of Newcastle and Renton. The project is located in the May Valley on the south side of SE May Valley Road (Sections 2 and 3, Township 23N, Range 5E). The portion of the project in the City of Renton is located in the open space tract (Parcel 803540TR-A) on the west side of 148th,Avenue SE and covers approximately 3.75 acres. The proposed project requires a City of Renton Grade & Fill Permit and a Critical Areas Variance. Existing -Land -Use The current use of the site is a designated open space tract, zoned R-1, containing critical areas and is owned by the.Stonegate Homeowners Association. Land use adjacent to the site is a combination of rural residential with small farms and undeveloped open space. The current zoning classification adjacent to the site is primarily RA -5 and RA -10, rural residential with future development limited to rural uses with maximum densities of one house per five acres and ten acres, respectively. Streams, Wetland, Soils The project site contains a Category 3 wetland with a 25 -foot buffer, and a Class 2 stream (containing salmonids) with a 100 buffer. Due to prolonged inundation at the project site, soils are hydric. The soils are slow draining with high clay content. The proposed project will occur within the delineated wetland boundary and the ordinary high water mark of May Creek. Proposed Use Within the City of Renton, the project proposes to remove accumulated sediment (approximately 392 cubic yards) from approximately 160 linear feet of the May Creek channel, and remove flow obstructing vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willow branches) from approximately 540 linear feet of channel. Additional sediment and vegetation removal will happen in May Creek outside the city limits. As mitigation for removing the sediment and vegetation, 15 feet of riparian/wetland vegetation will be planted on both side of May Creek both within the City of Renton, and also outside the city limits. In addition, approximately 3 acres of riverine wetland will be enhanced. Enhancements will include approximately 0.24 acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation, and large woody debris placement. Page 1 of 2 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Project Narrative Site Access Site access will be provided by a temporary construction road off 148th Avenue NE. Additional access within the wetland and floodplain will be provided by using rubber tired or tracked equipment. This equipment can move over the landscape with minimal ground disturbance. The estimate fair market value of th.e entire project (including areas in and outside the city limits) is $350,000. Tree Removal Flow obstructing vegetation will be removed from the channel as described above; however, no trees greater than 6 -inch diameter breast height, will be removed. Page 2of2 City of Rent® of Renton �, y LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division AUG - 5 2011 May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Justification for Variance Request RE King County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) is requesting a Critical Areas Variance from the City of Renton to improve flow conditions in May Creek. Work within the city limits is proposed in May Creek and the adjacent wetland immediately west of 148`s Avenue SE on Parcel 803540TR-A. The following proposed activities in the stream and wetland require a variance: Dre. dging: Removal of accumulated sediment (approximately 392 cubic yards) from approximately 160 linear feet of the May Creek channel. Vegetation Removal: Removal of flow obstructing vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willow branches) from approximately 540 linear feet of the May Creek channel. Wetland/Stream Enhancement: Riparian habitat will be enhanced by planting 15 feet of native riparian/wetland vegetation on both sides of May Creels. In addition, approximately 3 acres of existing riverine wetland will be enhanced. Enhancements will include approximately 0.24 acres of off -channel alcoves, reed canary grass suppression, planting with native vegetation, and large woody debris placement. This variance request is necessary because sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willows) throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting well into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties at both sides of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow the pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur. King County WLRD is providing the following justification for this variance request per Section 4-9-250B #10 in the Renton Municipal Code. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9--150B 10. Special Review Criteria - Public/Quasi-Public Utility or Agency Altering Aquifer Protection, Geologic Hazard, Habitat, StreandLake or Wetland Regulations: In lieu of the variance criteria of subsection BS of this Section, applications by public/quasi-public utilities or Page 1 of 6 May eek Drainage Improvement Pro, t Justification for Varlance Request agencies proposing to alter aquifer protection, geologic hazard, habitat, stream and lake or wetland regulations shall be reviewed for compliance with all of the following criteria: a. Public policies have been evaluated and it has been! determined by the Department Administrator that the public's health, safety, and welfare is best served: King County has designed this proposal to protect public health and safety. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation throughout the valley reach of May Creek as been increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties by removing in -stream channel obstructions, restoring a buffer of native riparian vegetation (approximately 15 feet wide on each side of the stream) along May Creek, and enhancing the existing riverine wetland. To protect public health and safety during construction, public access will be limited during construction. King County will coordinate with the property owners to ensure that they know when access will be limited to their property so they can plan ahead. Construction crews will allow access to these areas only when public health and safety can be maintained. To ensure that public health and safety is protected post -construction, King County completed a hydraulic analysis (Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses of the May Creek Channel Restoration Project, December 2010) to analyze the potential effects on adjacent properties, specifically properties downstream of the project area. The hydraulic analysis shows that these activities will not further contribute to ongoing erosion on properties downstream in May Canyon. This is because this project addresses flow conditions that occur during low to moderate storm events, while the erosion in the canyon is triggered by large storm events. The project will not change the stream flow during large storm events, and therefore will not change erosion patterns downstream. To further ensure that public health and safety is protected post -construction, King County is proposing to monitor conditions downstream for a period of 5 years after the project is completed. If the data collected from the monitoring during this time clearly shows that an erosion problem resulted from the project and does impact individual properties, then King County is committed to responding to the property owner and the City of Renton to provide technical I assistance and determine responsibilities of King County to perform any remediation. b. Each facility must conform to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with any adopted public programs and policies; This project will not change existing land use. Page 2 of 6 AY Creek Drainage Improvement olect Justification for Variance Request c. Each facility must serve established, identified public needs; This project is proposed to serve the public by protecting existing agricultural uses in the May Valley. d. No practical alternative exists to meet the needs; Other alternatives examined that would potentially reduce flooding in May Valley and provide property owners with more usable pastureland included: Restore a May Creek channel corridor that corresponds to the King Count re ug latory_buffer of 334 feet (165 feet on either side of the stream). This alternative would involve purchasing land, but would not require the demolition or relocation of any home or structures. It would require that property owners relinquish existing pasture land in the buffer in exchange for pastureland either offsite, or in the form of constructed farm pads onsite within the 100 -year floodplain (see alternative #4). This alternative was not feasible due to the large amount of private property that King County would need to buy. Funding is not available for property purchases of this magnitude, and even if funding were available, the property owners are not necessarily interested in relocating their existing land uses to another location. 2. Construct flood control berms aloniz May Creek. This alternative would require placing fill in the 100 -year floodplain and associated wetland, and would further disconnect May Creek from its floodplain. This alternative would have more adverse impact on critical areas than the chosen alternative. 3. Construct upland stormwater controls for ul2land sources of sediment including the addition of retention and detention facilities. This alternative would not meet the project goal to reduce the duration of flooding for low to moderate storm events. Upland stormwater controls would mitigate flows that are half of the two year event and greater. Controlling flows greater than half the two year event would not stop fines from flowing through the drainage system. This project targets flows well below half of the two year event. Therefore, upland detention is not a feasible option to reduce flood durations during small storm events. 4. Implementation of farm management -plans and construction of farm pads. While this alternative would eliminate the need for dredging and would maintain May Creek's existing connection to the 100 -year floodplain, it would require the placement of fill in the 100 -year floodplain (for construction of farm pads) and would potentially result in a loss of wetland area. As a result, this alternative would likely have more long-term adverse impact on critical areas than the chosen alternative. Page 3of6 May -eeek Drainage Improvement Pro, ,t Justification for Variance Request The proposed project, which includes removing channel obstructions while also providing compensatory stream and wetland mitigation, was the alternative with the least adverse impact on critical areas that was within the available King County budget. e. The proposed action takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; The project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on critical areas to the maximum extend possible without compromising the project goals. The following avoidance and minimization methods have been incorporated to protect critical areas: I I 1. Construction equipment will use existing farm access roads, whenever possible to cross the wetland, floodplain, and stream. 2. When wetland access is needed outside of''existing farm roads, only rubber tired and tracked construction equipment will be allowed. This type of equipment can move over the landscape with minimal ground disturbance. 3. Temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices, such as silt fences or coir logs, would be used to prevent sediment -laden stormwater runoff from entering the stream or wetland. As needed, additional best management practices may or collecting sediment - laden stormwater before it enters the stream or wetland and discharging the stormwater into a vegetated upland location instead. Please refer to the project's Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring plan for a detailed description of the proposed best management practices. 4. Any wetland areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction will be restored with native wetland vegetation after construction is complete. i 5. To minimize the amount of temporary ground disturbance in the wetland, reed canarygrass will be removed from the planting areas using a weed barrier fabric instead of excavation. Native vegetation will be planted through the fabric. 6. All in -water work will be conducted during the summer low flow construction work window that is designated to protect aquatic species. 7. During the sediment removal, the stream' will be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of the temporary erosion and sediment control plan. This diversion may involve using one or more gas -powered pumps to remove water from the channel just upstream of the work area. The water would then be discharged downstream of the work area. Page 4 of 6 Creek Drainage Improvement' ject JustMeatlon for Variance Request In -stream vegetation removal will be completed by hand, when possible, to minimize turbidity in the stream and to avoid removing more vegetation than is necessary to restore flow conditions. When machine removal is' required, the stream will be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of the temporary erosion and sediment control plan. 9. Hand removal of in -stream willow removal will be limited to the minimum amount required to restore flow conditions. Branches that are crossing the stream and obstructing flow will be removed by pruning the branches back to the trunk. Willows that are providing canopy cover for the stream without obstructing flow will not be removed, and similarly, the willow roots that are providing bank stability will not be removed. 10. May Creek will be protected during' construction of the off -channel alcoves west of 148th Avenue SE by leaving an earth plug between the existing stream channel and the excavation area for the alcove. Prior to removing the earth plug and connecting the alcove to the existing channel, a turbidity curtain will be installed to protect the stream during the connection. f. The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland or streamRake area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland, stream or lake is located; The activity will not result in a loss of regulated wetland area or function. The sediment and vegetation removal will impact existing in -stream fish habitat. Compensatory mitigation is proposed to offset these impacts. Please refer to the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan (Revised July 2011) for a complete description of the impacts and mitigation. g. The proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened or sensitive species as listed by the Federal government or the State; The activity has been evaluated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The evaluation determined that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. The project will have no effect on bull trout. No other sensitive species are located in the project area. h. That the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality; Best Management Practices will be used during construction to protect groundwater and surface water quality as described in Section 5.1 of the Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan. Construction and post - construction monitoring of surface water and groundwater will be conducted as Page 5of6 i Md&reek Drainage improvement Pr of Justiflcation for Varlance Request described in Section 6.2 of the plan. In addition, this project will be obtaining an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and will follow all permit conditions set forth by Ecology for the protection of groundwater and surface water. i. The approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose; and (Ord. 5519, 12114-2009) The project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on critical areas to the maximum extent possible without compromising the project goals and is therefore requesting the minimum variance possible. Please refer to item a for the list of avoidance and minimization measures. j. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000, Amd. Ord 4851, 8-7-2000). The following reports have been prepared for this project: • Wetland Delineation Report, March 2010 • Baseline Stream Conditions, Revised December 2, 2010 • Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analyses, December 17, 2010 • Sediment Assessment, February 2011 • Stream and Wetland Impact Analysis and Mitigation Plan, Revised July 2011 • Biological Evaluation Report for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout as protected under the Endangered Species Act, February 2011 • Construction Water Quality Protection and -Monitoring Plan, July 2011 Please refer to these reports for the science used to design this project. Page 6 of 6 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance Date of Issue: September 8, 2014 Name of Proposal- May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Description of Proposal: King County's Water and Land Resources Division proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willows) throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting well into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties at both the start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow the pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur. Due to -the high groundwater table in the May Valley and because there will be no measureable difference in the geographic extent of flooding, it is not likely that this project will change the amount of wet pasture or wetland in the project vicinity, In addition, the project hydraulic analysis found that the potential for erosion downstream of May Valley is virtually unchanged for the pre- versus post -project conditions. Flow obstructing in -stream vegetation and accumulated sediment will be removed from the stream channel primarily using machinery operated from the stream bank. The vegetation and sediment removal will negatively impact existing in -stream fish habitat. Mitigation has been proposed to offset these impacts. Mitigation: The following mitigation will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative impacts to the in -stream and wetland habitat. • During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in -water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fishare less Iikely to be present. A King County biologist will be onsite during construction to monitor water quality. • Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent), where additional access is needed, will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland and riparian vegetation will be planted along May Creek (15 feet on each side of the stream from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project). Fencing will be installed to protect the plantings and the stream from livestock. 8/31/2010 City of Renton Planning Division King County Water and Land Resources Olvislon AUG - 5 ZU11 Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 lJ' E C E O„111'JII E D Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-296-6519 Fax 206-296-0192 TTY Relay: 721 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance Date of Issue: September 8, 2014 Name of Proposal- May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Description of Proposal: King County's Water and Land Resources Division proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willows) throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting well into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties at both the start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow the pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur. Due to -the high groundwater table in the May Valley and because there will be no measureable difference in the geographic extent of flooding, it is not likely that this project will change the amount of wet pasture or wetland in the project vicinity, In addition, the project hydraulic analysis found that the potential for erosion downstream of May Valley is virtually unchanged for the pre- versus post -project conditions. Flow obstructing in -stream vegetation and accumulated sediment will be removed from the stream channel primarily using machinery operated from the stream bank. The vegetation and sediment removal will negatively impact existing in -stream fish habitat. Mitigation has been proposed to offset these impacts. Mitigation: The following mitigation will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative impacts to the in -stream and wetland habitat. • During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in -water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fishare less Iikely to be present. A King County biologist will be onsite during construction to monitor water quality. • Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent), where additional access is needed, will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland and riparian vegetation will be planted along May Creek (15 feet on each side of the stream from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the end of the project). Fencing will be installed to protect the plantings and the stream from livestock. 8/31/2010 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Page 2 • Approximately 3,75 acres of wetland will be enhanced on the west side of 148th Avenue SE by removing invasive reed canarygrass and replanting with native wetland vegetation. Off - channel alcoves will also be excavated along May Creek -in this location and large woody debris and streambed gravel will be added in the alcoves to enhance wetland fish habitat, • Fish habitat and natural stream processes will be restored at either the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, or at another similar location in the project vicinity, Location of Proposal: The project is located in the May Valley near the cities of Renton and Newcastle (Sections 2 and 3, Township 23N, Range 5E) on the south side of SE May Valley Road, The project area includes multiple segments of May Creek between approximately River Mile 4.3 (about 0.25 miles downstream of 148th Avenue SE in Renton) and River Mile 4.9. Responsible OfJJclal: Positlon/Title; Address: DATE: q-Zi'1 0 Proponent and Lead Agency: Contact Person(s); Mark, Isaacson Division Director, Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 SIGNATURE: So �-�--� King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resotarecs Division Doug Chin, Project M Inager, 206-296-8315 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 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43,21C,030(2)(6). 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 (for a nominal photocopying fee). It is also available on the King County website at: littp;//www,kin ciutnt + Dov/etivironlnernt/watersheds/ce(lar-river-lake-wa/may-t,reek.ttsp.v. THIS MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) is issued under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-340(2). Th'e lead agency will not act on this proposal until after September 22, 2010. Comments must be submitted or postmarked by that date, For additional information, please contact: Doug Chin, Project Manager King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 (206)296-8315 ` Dou .Chin RkillgCOLIIItY, anir_nt0 im, King County Environmental Checklist May Creek Channel Restoration Project Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. 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. Instrucdons for applicants: 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 EIS. 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. In most cases, you should be able to answer the 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 different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. 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 of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (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. KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) 2. Name of applicant: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:! 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Contact: Doug Chin, Project Manager Phone: (206) 296-8315 Fax: (206) 296-0192 Email: Doug.Chin@kingcounty.gov 4. Date checklist prepared: August 2010 S. Agency requesting checklist: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and hand Resources Division d. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): I The activities described in this checklist are estimated to be completed in the summer of 2011, except for the planting which will be completed during the dormant scason (approximately November 2011 to February 2012). The exact project schedule is dependent on when the necessary permits and property owner agreements are obtained. 7. Do you have any plans for fixture additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) and the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers Inc. 2008) make a series of recommendations to reduce flooding and improve habitat in May Valley. These include the removal of channel obstructions such as beaver dams, accumulated sediment, and vegetation choking the channel. This project addresses a subset of 2 KING COUNTY ENVIRG—MENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project the drainage improvements and restoration recommendations in these plans; additional recommended actions may be proposed as future projects. R, List anv environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following documentation has already been prepared and is directly related to this proposal: • May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report (King County and City of Renton 1995) • May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) • May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan (GeoEngineers Inc. 200$) • May Creek Erosion Stabilization Draft Report — May Creek Sediment Transport Study Phase 3 (Anchor QEA LLC 20 10) • Mav Creek Wetland Delineation Report (King County, 2010) • May Creek Baseline Stream Conditions (King County 2010) • May Creek Hydraulic Study (King County 2010) The following documentation has not yet been finalized for this project: • May Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan • May Creek Detailed Stream Habitat Survey • Effects Determination for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 9. Do you know whether applications are pending far governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None are known to be pending. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed, for your proposal, if known. The following permits will likely be required for this project. The exact list of required permits will be determined based on feedback received from the regulatory agencies. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Individual Permit a Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act o Compliance with Section 106 of National Historical Preservation Act • Washington Department of Ecology 401 Water Quality Certification • Washington Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval • King County DDES Clearing and Grading Permit • King County DDES Critical Area Alteration Exception • City of Renton Grade and Fill Pon -nit • City of Renton Critical Areas Variance 3 i KING COUNTY LNVIRONM TAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 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 checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal, You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. King County's Water and Land Resources Division proposes to improve in -stream flow conditions along segments of May Creek in May Valley between approximately River Mile 43 and 4.9. Sediment accumulation and in -stream vegetation (e.g., reed canarygrass and willows) throughout the valley reach of May Creek have been gradually decreasing channel flow capacity, causing a backwater effect. This is increasing the duration of flooding in actively used pastures on adjacent rural residential properties with flood conditions now persisting.well into the summer months. The goal of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding on these properties at both the start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events and should allow the pastures to drain more effectively when flooding does occur, Due to the high groundwater table in the May Valley and, because there will be no measureable difference in the geographical extent of flooding, it is not likely that this project will change the amount of wet pasture or wetland in the project vicinity. King County implemented a similar pilot project along 300 linear feet of May Creek in 2002 and, as a result, less overbank flooding now occurs during small storm events along this reach, This project proposal consists of three components: vegetation removal, sediment removal, and stream/wetland mitigation. The vegetation and sediment removal will negatively impact existing in - stream fish habitat, so mitigation has been proposed to offset these impacts, The mitigation is also designed to improve the longevity of the project by decreasing the opportunity for channel obstructions to form in the future. The project components are described; below. Vegetation Removal: The first component of the project includes removal of flow obstructing in - stream vegetation and debris from specific reaches where it is choking the channel and creating a backwater effect, causing flooding on adjacent properties during small storm events. Invasive reed canarygrass is the dominant vegetation that will be removed from the channel and banks. In addition, willows, located in multiple locations throughout the project area, are currently growing in the middle of the channel, further contributing to the backwater effect. A portion of the willows that are identified as obstructing flow will also be removed, The willows will be primarily removed by hand, but some small, hand-held, mechanized machinery may be used to assist. The reed canarygrass that is growing in the channel will be removed with machinery, most likely a trackhoe, operated from the stream bank, Prior to removal of the reed canarygrass, the stream will be diverted around the construction site and erosion and sediment control best management practices will be used during construction to minimize temporary downstream water quality impacts. Sediment Removal: Sediment will be removed from the stream channel using machinery, most likely a trackhoe, operated from the stream bank. The stream will be diverted around the construction site and erosion and sediment control best management practices will be used during construction to minimize temporary, downstream water quality impacts. Construction `techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent) where additional access is needed, will be used to minimize temporary impacts to adjacent wetlands. 4 i KING COUNTY ENVIRO, ._.!ENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Stream/Wetland Mitiaatiori: The final component of the project includes providing mitigation to avoid, minimize, and compensate for in -stream and wetland habitat impacts as well as implementing measures that will increase the longevity of the project. The following mitigation will be implemented: During construction, the stream flow will be diverted around the work area, and in -water work will only be conducted during the summer low flow when fish are less likely to be present. A King County biologist will be onsite during construction to monitor water quality. a Construction techniques, such as utilizing existing access roads or using temporary steel plates (or equivalent), where additional access is needed, will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. In addition, direct access to the stream channel by equipment will only be allowed in specific areas where vegetation disturbance can be minimized. • A buffer of native vegetation (primarily wetland vegetation) will be restored for approximately 15 feet on each side of May Creek from 148th Avenue SE upstream to the eastern end of the project limits for a total of approximately 1.3 acres. This buffer is intended to shade out future reed canarygrass and to compensate for the cover that will be lost by removing flow obstructing willows and reed canarygrass. The native vegetation will be planted in areas where, under existing conditions, virtually no native vegetated buffer exists. In most of the project area, the regulatory stream buffer is contained within the delineated wetland boundary, which means that stream buffer enhancement could also be considered wetland enhancement. Fencing will be installed around the planting areas to minimize livestock access to the newly planted areas and to the stream. • Wetland enhancement will be performed by removing invasive vegetation within the wetland (mostly reed canarygrass) and replanting approximately 3.75 acres of native wetland vegetation in the open space tract on the west side of 148th Avenue SE. Off -channel alcoves will also be excavated along May Creek within the wetland in this location and large woody debris will be added in the alcoves to partially compensate for the loss of in -stream habitat complexity that will occur as a result of removing flow obstructing vegetation. • Additional in -stream habitat restoration may occur at the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek. If implemented, this mitigation will restore fish habitat complexity at the confluence of these two streams. It will also restore the alluvial fan functions by removing the stream from the agricultural ditch and relocating it into a more natural channel, allowing sediment to drop out in Long Marsh Creek prior to reaching May Creek. If King County is unable to reach an agreement with the property owner to perform this mitigation, then similar mitigation will be proposed at another location either in the immediate project area or offsite. 5 4 KING COUNTY ENVIRONMtNTAL CHECKLIST i May Creek Drainage Improvement Project ! 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. ff a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic, map, if reasonably available. Whileyait should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this'ehecklist. The project is located in May Valley near the cities of Renton and Newcastle (Sections 2 and 3, Township 23N, Range 5E) on the south side of SE May Valley Road. The project area includes the reach of May Creek between approximately River Mile 4.3 (about 0,25 miles downstream of 148th Avenue SE in Renton) and River Mile 4.9. Please see the attached vicinity map. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a, General description of the site (circle one); fiat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. All of the proposed work will be completed within the May Valley, which is a flat, broad valley with little variation in elevation, The channel through this area has a very low gradient (0.2 percent slope), and as a result is prone to sediment accumulation. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? I The valley is flat with little variation across the floodplain. On both sides of the valley, the elevations rise quickly, with slopes ranging from` 6 to 30 percent. c. What general types of sails are found on the site (for, example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classifucation of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The U, S. Department of Agriculture National. Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (2009) for King County identifies Bellingham silt loam as the primary soil on the valley floor, At the higher elevations, adjacent to the valley, Ragnar-Indianola association and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam are identified. Soil investigations during the wetland survey also found areas with a high concentration of clay. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no evidence of surface instability near the subject property, 6 KING COUNTY ENVIRON --ENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of f ll. The purpose of this project is to remove channel obstructions from May Creek, including accumulated sediment and flow obstructing vegetation. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will be excavated from May Creek, The removed sediment will either be disposed of appropriately offsite, or will be spread in an approved area adjacent to the project site in coordination with the property owner and as allowed by regulations and permits. As mitigation, the project proposes to restore approximately five acres of native vegetation (primarily wetland vegetation adjacent to the stream) through out the project area. This restoration will include shading out reed canarygrass using a sheet mulch treatment, such as cardboard or weed fabric, and replanting with native vegetation. In addition, approximately 76 pieces of large woody debris will be placed throughout the mitigation areas, and approximately 32 cubic yards of streambed gravel will be placed in off -channel alcoves west of 148th Avenue NE. Streambed gravel will also be placed at the potentially restored confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, but the exact quantity'at this location has not been determined yet, f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During sediment and in -stream vegetation removal, it is anticipated that some amount of sediment will likely be released into the stream. The sediment release will likely occur after in -channel construction work is complete and the diverted stream flow is reintroduced into freshly exposed stream bed and banks. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The project area currently does not contain any impervious surface, and the project will not add any impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any; During construction, erosion will be minimized by implementing appropriate sediment and erosion control best management practices. Measures will include a plan to divert flow from the stream reaches where the sediment and in -stream vegetation will be removed. Diverting the stream around the work area will minimize downstream water quality impacts. The plan will also limit all in -stream work to the summer low flow periods. In areas where invasive vegetation is removed from streams banks and replanted with native vegetation, best management practices will be implemented (e.g., V1 KING COUNTY ENVIRONMtrNTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 2. Air silt fence, coir logs, etc.) to protect the stream during vegetation removal and installation. In the long-term, restoring a buffer of native vegetation will minimize erosion by providing long-term bank stabilization, while maintaining channel flow capacity. In addition, to determine whether there would be a significant erosion impact downstream as a result of the proposed project, King County assessed the pre -project versus post. project percentage of time (over a 60 -year period) that erosive flows would cause gravels to erode in the stream channel. The analysis found that, within the accuracy of the model being used, the percentage of time erosive flows occur is virtually unchanged for pre- versus post -project conditions. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, 1. odors, greenhouse gases, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the If project is completed? any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction of the proposed project maygenerate same dust during the transport of soil and sediment; however, because the material being transported will be originating from the stream channel and wetland, it will likely be moist, and therefore will have less potential to generate dust. The proposed project, once construction is complete, will emit no gasses with the potential to negatively affect climate change. Construction of the proposed project will use various vehicles and pieces of equipment that emit gasses with the potential to affect climate. These gasses include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, as well as others in much smaller amounts. The global warming potential (GWP) of these compounds is measured in "carbon dioxide equivalents," or CO2e, which converts the GWP of various gasses into their equivalent in CO2. The amount of CO2e that may be emitted as a result of constructing the proposed project has been estimated by computing the amount of fuel to be consumed by equipment.used to construct the project, both during construction and in transit from King County's Roads Maintenance Headquarters Shops in kenton,' where crews and equipment may originate. The actual origin of equipment will not be known until after a contractor is selected. Fuel consumed is then converted into CO2e emitted using formulae developed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Departmcnt of Energy. Using these formulae and estimates, construction of the proposed project will likely result in the discharge of approximately 12 tons of CO2e to the atmosphere. b, Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe, i M KING COUNTY ENVIRO, ..4ENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Greenhouse gas emissions will be controlled during construction by enforcing the King County Vehicle Anti -Idling Policy. In addition, while not specifically proposed as mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions will be offset by planting trees and shrubs that are an essential component of the proposed project. Trees and shrubs sequester CO2 during their growth and thus help to offset emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere. The EIA has also developed formulae for estimating the rate of carbon sequestration by various types of trees (deciduous or coniferous, fast-, medium-, or slow-growing) at various life stages and these formulae have been used to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of the proposed project, Approximately 680 trees will be planted during the planting season following construction of the proposed project. At rates calculated using the above method, these plantings should sequester the 12 tons of CO2e emitted during construction of the proposed project in approximately 6.5 years. These calculations are attached to the checklist. In addition, construction will be performed in accordance with the regulations of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, and Best Management Practices for controlling fugitive dust will be utilized as necessary, and may include covering loads during transport and moistening material before transport. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of 1he site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes: The proposed project is within or immediately adjacent to May Creek, three small tributaries (Indian Meadow Creek, Long Marsh Creek, Greenes Creek), and one wetland (May Creek #5 in the King County Wetland Inventory). May Creek and its tributaries are Type F Waters (containing fish or fish habitat) requiring 165 foot buffers under the King County Critical Area Code, and ultimately flow into Lake Washington. Under City of Renton Critical Area Code these streams are considered Class 2 streams (salmonid bearing) and require a 100 foot buffer. 9 KING COUNTY ENVIRONINTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project The May Creek #5 wetland is a large (over 140 acres) riverine wetland that occupies much of the valley floor. Under the King County Critical Area Code this is a Category II wetland with a regulatory buffer of 110 feet, Under the City of Renton Critical Area Code this is a Category 1 wetland with a standard regulatory buffer width of 100 feet. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Excess sediment and invasive reed canarygrass will be removed from the stream channel using a trackhoe or similar equipment. Access to these areas may require crossing the floodplain or wetland. Willows that are obstructing flow will also be removed, but primarily by hal d. As mitigation for temporary impacts, any areas that are temporarily disturbed will be restored after construction by planting native vegetation. As mitigation for permanent impacts, a 15 -foot buffer of native vegetation (primarily wetland vegetation) will be restored along both sides of the stream bank east of 148th Avenue SE where under existing conditions virtually no native vegetated buffer exists. A fence will be installed to protect the new plantings and to minimize livestock access to the stream. This vegetation will increase shade, add habitat, and minimize the return of the reed canarygrass. On the west side of 148th Avenue SE, approximately 3.75, acres of riverine wetland will be enhanced. Off -channel alcoves with large woody debris will also be constructed on the west side of 148th Avenue SE to enhance fish habitat. In addition, natural alluvial fan functions and fish habitat will be potentially restored either at the confluence of May Creek and Long Marsh Creek or at another location with similar opportunity. i 3) Estimate the amount offtll and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected, Indicate the source of fill material. i Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of sediment will be removed from May Creek. The removed sediment will either be disposed of appropriately offsite, or will be .spread in an approved pasture area adjacent to the project site in coordination with the property owner and as allowed by regulations and permits. As part of the mitigation, a sheet mulch treatment (e.g., cardboard or weed fabric) will be placed within the wetland boundary to shade out reed canarygrass and facilitate planting of native vegetation. Some compost may also be imported to facilitate planting, but the exact amount has not been determined yet. In addition, approximately 76 pieces of large woody debris will be placed throughout wetland west of 148th Avenue SE, and approximately 32 10 KING COUNTY ENVIRG...AENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project cubic yards of streambed gravel will be placed near the stream in the off- channel ffchannel alcoves. Streambed gravel will also be placed at the potentially restored confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, but the exact quantity at this location has not been determined yet. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. During the sediment and in -stream vegetation removal, the stream will be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of a temporary erosion and sediment control plan. This diversion may involve using one or more gas - powered pumps to remove water from the channel just upstream of the work area. The water will then be discharged downstream of the work area, Any additional water that seeps into the construction work area may also be removed with a pump as needed. The stream diversion may require fish removal and relocation. All fish removal and relocations will be done by a King County biologist using hand -netting or other accepted methods. No other surface or groundwater will be withdrawn or diverted. S) Does the proposal lie within a 100 yearfloodplain? Ifso, note location on the site plan. Yes. The project area lies within the 100 -year floodplain for May Creek. 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 material will be discharged to surface or groundwater. 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. This project will not withdraw from or discharge 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 ofanimals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be generated or discharged into the ground. KING COUNTY ENVIRONMtNTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project c, Water runoff (including stormwater); 1) Describe the source of runaff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, ifknown). Where will this waterflow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Any areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction have the potential to generate sediment -laden stormwater runoff. Temporary erasion and sediment control best management practices, such as silt fences, turbidity curtains, or coir logs, will be used to prevent sediment -laden stormwater runoff from entering the stream or wetlands. As needed, additional best management practices may include collecting sediment -laden stormwater before it enters the stream or wetland and discharging the stormwater into a vegetated upland location instead, Water quality monitoring will be conducted during construction to ensure that state water quality standards are met, If water quality standards are exceeded, additional best management practices will be implemented to protect water quality. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? f'so, generally describe. No. All sediment excavated from the stream will be disposed of at an approved offsite location, or will be spread in an approved location adjacent to the project site in coordination with the property owners and as allowed by regulations and permits. It will not be allowed to enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and n4no,,f water impacts, if any. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices, such as silt fences, turbidity curtains, or coir logs, will be used to prevent any material or runoff from entering ground or surface water during construction.. Construction equipment access will also be limited to specific locations along the stream, which will minimize disturbance to existing vegetation. In the long-term, the purpose of this project is to reduce the duration of flooding in May Valley at both the start and end of the rainy season by removing in -stream channel obstructions. This effort should help alleviate the duration of localized flooding on adjacent properties during low to moderate storm events. The project hydraulic analysis found that the potential for erosion downstream of May Valley is virtually unchanged for the pre- versus post -project conditions; i 12 i KING COUNTY ENVIRG..wIENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 4. Plants a, Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® Deciduous Tree: alder, cottonwood, Oregon ash, maple, aspen, other - chem ® Evergreen Tree: fir, cedar, pine, other - spruce ® Shrubs: willow, dodo Wood, hardhack, Indian plum Z Grass: reed canarygrass ® Pasture: various grasses ❑ Crop or Grain: ® Wet Soil Plants: cattail, buttercup, soft rush, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other - horsetail ❑Water Plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ® Other types of vegetation: blackberry b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 3,000 square feet of reed canarygrass will be removed from the stream banks. Approximately 5,500 square feet of flow obstructing willows will also be removed from the stream channel to improve flow conditions. In addition, approximately five acres of reed canarygrass will be removed adjacent to the channel and in the wetland and will be replanted with native vegetation. This reed canarygrass will be removed by placing a sheet mulch treatment, such as cardboard or weed fabric, over the grass to shade out the grass over multiple growing seasons. The native vegetation will be planted through this treatment. c. List threatened or endangered.plant species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are currently known to be on or near the project site; however, historically, threatened or endangered plant species were known to exist in the area. According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Natural Heritage Program Database (June 2009), Tall Bugbane (Cimicifuga elata) existed historically in the project area but is not likely to be present any longer because it typically grows along the margins of mature or old growth stands of coniferous or mixed coniferous -deciduous forest. This type of habitat no longer exists in the project area. In addition, Tall Bugbane was not identified in the project study area during any of the wetland or stream surveys which spanned multiple days in January, February, and August 2010. 13 i KING COUNTY ENVIRONMOTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project i d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other °measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any; This project proposes to enhance five acres of native vegetation along the stream corridor and in the wetland. Invasive reed canarygrass will be removed along the stream and in the wetland, and the area will be replanted with native vegetation. 5. Animals a. 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: hawk, heron, eagle, songbird , other: ducks ® Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyote ® Fish: bass, ss. almon, Imut, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Terrestrial'Species Red-tailed hawks (i3uteo jamaicensis), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and great blue herons (Ardea herodias) have been observed traveling through the project area; however, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Database (dune 2009) there are no documented or known nesting sites associated with these species in'the project area, Great blue herons and bald eagles are both species of concern in Washington State (WDFW 2010), but are not threatened or endangered. Aauatic Species Historically, May Creek supported five species of salmonids: Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (O, nerka), and coho (O, kisutch) salmon, as well as rainbow/steelhead (O. rnykiss) and cutthroat (0, clarki) trout (King County 1995). Salmon still use May Creek and its tributaries even though their numbers have decreased (King County 1995). Chinook and sockeye salmon are found in the lower, reaches of May Creek and in May Canyon; but they most likely do not travel upstream into May Valley as far as the project area (King County 1995). Both of these species are species of concern in Washington State (WDFW 2010), and Chinook salmon is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Coho salmon and rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat trout rear in May Valley and use it as a travel corridor to upstream spawning habitat in the North Fork, Cabbage and Country Creeks, and Tributary 0291 A (King County 1995). Under the federal Endangered 14 KING COUNTY ENVIRO, ..MENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Species Act, steelhead are listed as a threatened species, and coho salmon are a species of concern. In addition, the Lake Washington Basin contains spawning populations of the federally - listed threatened bull trout (Salvelinus con,/luentus), but no spawning populations have been confirmed in the part of the basin where the project is located (WDFW 1998, 2004a). Furthermore, it is unlikely bull trout will be present in May Creek due to a lack of suitable habitat. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, no designated or proposed critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout is located within the project area. An effects determination for species protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be completed in coordination with the appropriate federal agencies during the permitting process. This determination will analyze potential impacts to listed species resulting from the project. c, Is the site part ofa migration route? Ifso, explain. Yes. Anadromous fish, including coho salmon, rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat trout, use the May Valley as a migration corridor to upstream spawning habitat. Most-ofthelarge valleys in King County, including May Valley, comprise a portion of the Pacific Flyway used by waterfowl and other migratory bird species during spring and fall migration. d. Proposed measures to presence or enhance wildlife, if any; Best management practices will be utilized during construction to minimize potential impacts to listed species. For example, in -water construction work will be completed during the summer low flow work window that is designated to protect listed aquatic species, Species are unlikely to be present in the project area during the designated summer work window. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures (discussed in section 3.c above), including a stream diversion, will also be implemented to protect water quality. The stream diversion may require fish removal and relocation. All fish removal and relocations will be done by a King County biologist using hand -netting or other accepted methods. In the long-term, this project will enhance fish and wildlife habitat in May Valley by restoring approximately five acres of native wetland and riparian vegetation, adding large woody debris to off -channel alcoves, and potentially restoring fish habitat and alluvial fan functions at the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek. This will increase the complexity and diversity of habitat available in the project area. KING COUNTY ENVIRONMtNTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 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. None. The completed project will not require any energy. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? Ifso, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of'this proposal? ,Gist other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None are proposed. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of f re and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Ifso, describe. No toxic chemical or hazardous waste will be used or generated by this project. 1) . Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if aity: Maintenance and refueling of construction equipment will occur outside of the stream, wetland, and buffer areas. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may'affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? i Some minor traffic noise from adjacent roads is expected, but it will have no effect on construction or on the completed project. 16 KING COUNTY ENVIRG..,vIENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Z) 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. During construction, equipment operation will temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. Construction equipment may produce temporary noise levels as high as 90 decibels. The completed project will not change existing noise levels. 3) - Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if anv: Construction activities will comply with provisions of the King County Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No, 3139). Equipment operation will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m, and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is a combination of rural residential with small farms and undeveloped open space. The small farms in the project area primarily consist of pastures that are utilized by horses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. May Valley supports pasture and low -intensity agriculture uses, small farms, and scattered single-family residences; however, the project area is not located in an Agriculture Production District. Historically, May Valley was probably more extensively utilized for agriculture production; however, under existing conditions the pastures in the project area are primarily utilized only by horses. c. Describe any structures on the site. The adjacent properties contain single-family homes, barns, and other out -buildings. None of these structures will be affected by construction of the proposed project. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is RA -5 and RA -l0, rural residential with future development limited to rural uses with maximum densities of one house per five aces and ten acres, respectively. 17 KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek. Drainage Improvement Project f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is rural residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. May Creek is not a Shoreline of the State in the project area and therefore, is not regulated under the King County Shoreline Master Program. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentallv sensitive " area? If so, specify. Yes. The proposed project will occur in and adjacent0 May Creek and its tributaries, which are Type F Waters (contains fish or fish habitat) under the King County Critical Area Code. The proposed project is also located in the 100 -year floodplain for May Creek. In addition, a large Category II Wetland (May, Creek #5) covers a large percentage of the May Valley floor. The proposed work will all occur within the stream, wetland, buffers, and floodplain of May Creek, i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? i None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: One of the project goals is to reduce the duration of flooding on properties adjacent to May Creek, Reducing floodwaters on these properties will facilitate the continued use of these properties as single-family homes with small farms. 18 KING COUNTY ENVIRG—dENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed? Does not apply, No buildings or structures will be constructed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply. 11. Light and Glare a, What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. K KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply. 12. Recreation a, What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Recreational opportunities in the immediate'project area are limited; however, they could include fishing, hiking, bicycling, and/or bird watching. Within a couple of miles of the project area, the King County Cougar Mountain Park and the Squak Mountain State Park together provide over 5,000 acres of public land with trails for hiking and horseback riding, b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. All of the proposed work will occur on private.pr6perty and will not affect recreational opportunities or access. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No measures proposed. 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? If so, generally describe. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the King County Cultural Resource Protection Project databases were checked on March 1, 2010. No listed or proposed historic properties or archaeological;sites were found in the project vicinity. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known to be present. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control. impacts, ifany: 20 KING COUNTY ENVIRC. 41ENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Because there are not any listed or proposed archaeological or historic resources in the project area, no mitigation is being proposed. If, archaeological or historic resources are uncovered or encountered during project construction, work will cease immediately, and appropriate steps necessary to protect those resources will be taken before construction resumes. If resources are discovered, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the King County Historic Preservation Program, and any affected federally recognized tribes will be notified immediately, and an on-site inspection will be conducted by a professional archaeologist and other qualified resource professionals. A mitigation plan would then be prepared before resuming construction at the site of discovery, if necessary. In addition, the measures and the possibility of uncovering materials of archaeological or historic significance near inland waters will be discussed during a preconstruction conference with the construction crew/contractor before performing the work on-site. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, ifany. Access to the site will be from properties located on SE May Valley Road or 148th Avenue SE. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Does not apply. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply. 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 new roads will be required. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity qf) water, rail, or air transportation? Ifso, generally describe. Im 21 KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST May Creek Drainage Improvement Project f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. ; None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: I Does not apply, I 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need far public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. I I b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, f any. Does not apply. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Does not Apply. 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. Does not apply. 22 KING COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CFIECKLIS'f May Creel( Drainage Improvement Project C. SICNKrURE The above answ at -s etre tette and complete to the best of iq knowledge, l understand that the lead ag(uncv is relving on thein to make its decision, Signature: Name: Title: Date: The following tune included with the Checklist ifetheckeci off: N Vicinity Map Z Greenhouse Gas Worksheet ❑ Project Flans 23 i' a• _y�� r�. 1• 1.�•� ��,1 ..ff��'t�'F,L no `.a If Ag" • pxiv ate Rd to f - aWO . a a �s 1 `�iasl P8 .33 Pd 35 any 919tq �v w JS i3AV kj)lvL C v � OAV s iia z Z ■ C 3N a • N � V) ' G 04 lu w Z AN s 0 A LO w U r Im Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Worksheet Project Name: May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Note: The finished project will emit no GHGs aside form those occuring in the environment by natural processes. All emissions are therefore related to construction of the proposed project. Distance of project site from Benton Shops, where most daily construction -related vehicle trips will start and and: 3.75 miles Estimated days of construction activity: 110 Carbon Sequestration Approximately 680 trees will be planted as part of this project. Of these, 340 as classified as fast- growing hardwoods, and the remaining 340 as moderate -growing conifers. The carbon sequestration rates of these trees was calculated using data tables from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Using these data tables, the proposed plantings (assuing an 80% survival rate) will sequester 10.9 tons of carbon after 6 years and 14.0 tons after 7 years. Rate Em. Coef. Mlles/ (mpg or (lbs CO2e1 Emissions Vehicle hours gal/hr') Fuel Used gal) (lbs CO2e) Tons CO2e Pickup 40 20.7 1.93 19.564 37.80 0.02 Pickup 40 20.7 1.93 19.564 37.80 0.02 Dump Truck 160 6.15 26.02 22.384 582.35 0.29 Dump Truck 160 6.15 26.02 22.384 582.35 0.29 PC 120 Trackhoe 160 6.3 1008.00 22.384 22563.07 11.28 Heavy Equip Transport 40 1.9 21.05 22.384 471.24 0.24 Log Truck 16 1.9 8.42 22.384 188.50 0.09 TOTAL: 24463.12 12.23 Carbon Sequestration Approximately 680 trees will be planted as part of this project. Of these, 340 as classified as fast- growing hardwoods, and the remaining 340 as moderate -growing conifers. The carbon sequestration rates of these trees was calculated using data tables from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Using these data tables, the proposed plantings (assuing an 80% survival rate) will sequester 10.9 tons of carbon after 6 years and 14.0 tons after 7 years. City of Renton - City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division May Creek Drainage Improvement Project AUG - Construction Mitigation Description REMOVED Construction Schedule The project will be constructed in two phases. Sediment removal, vegetation removal, and mitigation construction will occur within the first approved fish window after receiving the permit (likely 2012). Riparian and wetland plants will be installed during the following dormant season (November to February). Construction hours will be Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Haul in ransportation Routes Spoils from the project will be hauled offsite using existing roadways to approved disposal sites. Construction Best Management Practices The following measures will be used to minimize dust, traffic impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and impacts to sensitive areas. Noise: During construction, equipment operation will temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. Construction equipment may produce temporary noise levels as high as 90 decibels. To minimize noise impacts, construction activities will comply with provisions of the King County Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3139). Equipment operation will be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. 2. Traffic Impacts: No traffic impacts are anticipated. Use of roadways for construction related work will have appropriate flaggers and safety measures in place prior to work commencing. 3. Erosion and Mud: During construction, erosion will be minimized by implementing appropriate sediment and erosion control best management practices. Measures will include a plan to divert flow from the stream reaches where the sediment and in -stream vegetation will be removed. Diverting the stream around the work area will minimize downstream water quality impacts. The plan will also limit all in -stream work to the summer low flow periods. In areas where invasive vegetation is removed from streams banks and replanted with native vegetation, best management practices will be implemented (e.g., silt fence, coir logs, etc.) to protect the stream during vegetation removal and installation. These measures are described in detail in the project's Construction Water Quality Protection and Monitoring Plan (King County July 2011) 4. Dust: There will be low potential for the project to generate dust during transport of material, because the material being excavated and transported will be originating from the stream channel and wetland and will likely be moist. Page 1 of 2 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION May Creek Drainage Improvement Project Construction Mitigation Description 5. Sensitive Areas: Construction equipment will use existing farm access roads, whenever possible to cross the wetland and Floodplain. When wetland access is needed outside of existing farm roads, only rubber tired or tracked construction equipment will be allowed in the wetland and floodplain. This type of equipment can move across the landscape with minimal disturbance. 6. Sensitive Areas: Any wetland areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction will be restored with native wetland vegetation after construction is complete. To minimize the amount of temporary ground disturbance in the wetland, reed canarygrass will be removed from the planting areas using a weed barrier fabric instead of excavation. Native vegetation will be planted through the fabric. 7. Sensitive Areas: In -stream vegetation removal will be completed by hand, when possible, to minimize turbidity in the stream and to avoid removing more vegetation than is necessary to restore flow conditions. When machine removal is required, the stream will be temporarily diverted around the work area as part of the temporary erosion and sediment control plan. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan A traffic control plan will not be available until a contractor is selected. After the contractor is selected for project construction, they will determine if a traffic plan is required. If a plan is required, the contractor will prepare it and provide it to the City for approval. Page 2 of 2 May Creek Drainage Improvement Project (9A1205) Construction Water Quality Protection and MonitoringPn Federal Project NWP-210-158 y of Rent �O,+7 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks planning Division Water and Land Resources Division AUG -5 7011 July 27, 2011 tr-0ece#nn VV r�O Table of Contents 1. Plan Purpose............................................................................................................... 1 2. Water Quality Criteria................................................................................................ 1 3. Monitoring Plan.......................................................................................................... 2 4. Water Quality Protection Measures ........................................................................ 4 Figure 1: May Creek Water Quality Sampling Locations During Construction ................ 7 I. Plan Purpose In order to ensure that construction of the May Creek Drainage Improvement Project does not exceed water quality standards as established by federal, state, and local laws and regulations, the King County Water and Land Resources Division has developed this plan for in -stream water quality protection and monitoring during construction. Specifically, water quality criteria contained within Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-201 A-030(2), 173-201 A-040, and 173-201 A-110(3) apply to this project. The project is located in May Creek (WRIA 08-0282) and the surrounding wetland on the south side of SE May Valley Road between approximately River Mile 4.3 and 4.9 (Figure 1). Construction activities consist of removing accumulated sediment and flow obstructing vegetation (primarily reed canarygrass and willow) from May Creek, reconstructing the confluence of Long Marsh Creek and May Creek, and planting riparian and wetland vegetation as compensatory mitigation. The purpose of the monitoring plan is to ensure that silt and sediment. generated by project construction activities does not affect water quality in violation of project permits and applicable regulations. Erosion control best management practices (BMPs) are proposed and will be implemented to protect water quality within May Creek. Water quality monitoring will be performed to confirm the effectiveness of the BMPs. 2. Water Quality Criteria Washington State WAC 173-201 A establishes criteria for surface waters of the state. The Department of Ecology may allow a temporary area of mixing during and immediately after necessary in -water construction activities that result in the disturbance of in-place sediments. This temporary area of mixing is subject to the constraints of WAC 173-201A-400 (4) and (6) and can occur only after the activity has received all May Creek Drainage Improven,, .,c Project (9A1205) Water Qufility Prot,_ .,tan and Monitoring Plan other necessary local and state permits and approvals, and after the implementation of appropriate best management practices to avoid or minimize disturbance of in-place sediments and exceedanccs of the turbidity criteria. Summer low flows in May Creek and Long Marsh Creek are below 10 efs (the annual mean flow in May Creek is 8.6 efs) and therefore the point of compliance for the temporary area of mixing shall be 100 feet downstream from the construction activity per WAC 173-201 A-200(l)(e). Turbidity Turbidity will be monitored for this project per WAC 173-201A-200(l)(e). At the point of compliance, turbidity shall not exceed: • 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or • A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. Other Parameters Dissolved oxygen, the 7 -day average of the daily maximum temperatures (7-DADMax), and pH will not be monitored for this project because the construction activities are not expected to affect these parameters. 3. Monitoring Plan SamNing locations The following sampling points (SP) (Figure 1) will be used for monitoring. Because this is a linear project that extends for approximately 2,000 feet, and multiple stream bypasses will be needed, the sampling points in May Creek will change as the project proceeds. • SP1 (upstream location): Samples will be taken in May Creek 100 feet upstream of the work area before construction begins (to establish baseline conditions) and will continue during the construction activities. • SP2 u stream location : During work at the Long Marsh Creek confluence, Samples will be taken in Long Marsh Creek 100 feet upstream of the work area before construction begins (to establish baseline conditions) and will continue during the construction activities. • SP3 downstream point of com liance : Samples will betaken in May Creek 100 feet downstream of the work area before construction begins (to establish baseline conditions) and will continue during construction activities. Additional sampling points may be used on an as needed basis. May Creek Drainage Imi nient Project (9A 1205) Water Qualit, otection and Monitoring Plan Sampling Frequency Immediately prior to in -water work, baseline sampling will be performed at SPI, SP2, and SP3 in order to obtain representative values for background water quality in the stream. Once construction activity has commenced in an area, water quality data will be collected at each sampling point using a water monitoring device. The monitoring device will be used to collect data every 15 minutes during the construction period. Monitoring will not be performed when the contractor is not working (typically evenings, weekends and holidays). For water quality monitoring purposes, "final stabilization" is defined in the Construction Stormwater General Permit as "the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as riprap, gabions orgeolextiles) which prevents erosion. Once the project has implemented the final stabilization measures, the likelihood that it will contribute sedimentation to the stream is small; therefore, monitoring will no longer be necessary. Field Sam ring and Analysis Procedures To evaluate the state water quality criteria, samples will typically be taken in -stream using a YSI, a Hach 21 OOP turbidimeter, or other equivalent monitoring device. The monitoring device will be calibrated and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. During all sampling, care will be taken to not disturb the streambed or bank, which could contaminate the samples. Samples will be taken in approximately the middle of the stream, at mid -depth. During construction activities that have the potential to affect turbidity, King County staff will be onsite to collect and review water quality data. If the data being collected indicate that state water quality standards are being exceeded, the project's Certified Erosion Control and Sediment Lead (CESCL) will immediately be contacted. The contractor will be directed to stop work while the reason for non-compliance is determined. If the non-compliance is due to construction activities, the contractor will be directed to take the following potential corrective measures before being allowed to resume work: • Immediate maintenance of existing erosion control facilities • Implementation of additional erosion control measures • Diversion of any stormwater away from exposed areas • Suspension of all work activities until more favorable conditions exist The contractor will determine which contingency measures should be implemented and will submit the proposal to the CESCL for review and approval. Once the contingency measures have been implemented, King County staff will monitor water quality to ensure that compliance with water quality standards have been achieved. The CESCL will May Creek Drainage Improven,_.., Project (9A1205) Water Quality Prot, in and Monitoring Plan document corrective measures taken in the project's Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Monitoring Personnel King County Water and Land Resources Division will provide staff to perform water quality monitoring. Long-term Data Storage and Reporting All water quality monitoring data collected during construction will be recorded electronically and downloaded into an excel spreadsheet later in the office by project staff. The data will be provided regulatory agencies upon request. 4. Water Quality Protection Measures The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to protect water quality in May Creek and the associated wetland during construction. 1. Construction Equipment Access a. Construction entrances will be stabilized using quarry spalls and geotextile fabric under the spalls. This will minimize track -out onto the roadway. b. Only low impact rubber tired or tracked construction equipment will be used to access the stream and to transport the sediment. This equipment will move over the reed canary grass and/or pasture grass with minimal disturbance. Equipment will be operated from the stream bank. Construction equipment access points to the stream will be limited in the field to avoid the removal of mature trees. c. Equipment staging areas will be located outside the regulated stream and wetland buffers. Silt fence will be installed around the perimeter of the staging areas to prevent sediment -laden runoff from leaving the area. d. Temporary paths used for construction equipment access will be restored to original or better conditions once construction is complete, using an appropriate upland or wetland seed mix. 2. Stream Diversion a. To protect downstream water quality, sediment and reed canary grass removal shall be done in the dry by bypassing the stream around the construction area. Approximately 100 to 500 feet of stream will be bypassed at a time. The contractor will submit a bypass plan to King County for review and approval -at the pre -construction meeting, b. Prior to installing the bypass, a biologist will relocate any aquatic life in the channel to a safe location upstream via hand -netting or other accepted 4 May Creek Drainage It, vement Project (9A 1205) Water Qual, , .Jrotcetion and Monitoring Plan methods of fish removal (following WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocol and Standards, dated 2006). c. The stream flow will be bypassed by installing a coffer dam on the upstream end of the construction area and using a sump to pump the flow from the coffer dam to a location downstream of the construction, d. Prior to reintroducing the flow to the newly excavated channel, a second coffer dam and sump will be installed at the downstream limits of the construction area. To ensure that state water quality standards can be met, flow will be introduced to the newly excavated channel, and turbid water will be pumped out at the downstream end of the construction area, and will be discharged to a vegetated upland area, until the water flowing through the channel meets state water quality standards. At that point, the cofferdam and sump will be removed and the flow will be allowed to continue downstream into the undisturbed channel. e. To promote infiltration, a perforated pipe will be used to disperse the pumped turbid water over a vegetated upland area. If the vegetated upland area receiving discharge becomes saturated, the water will be pumped to a Baker tank, or equivalent, and disposed of offsite. f, If it is not possible for the water flowing through the newly excavated channel to meet water quality standards within a reasonable amount of time, then contingency measures may be implemented to decrease sedimentation and turbidity. These measures may include bringing in streambed gravel for the channel or placing a biodegradable erosion control blanket in the bottom of the channel. 3. Sediment Transport and Drying Areas a. Excavated sediment will be transported from the stream channel in a Crawler Carrier, or similar tracked or rubber tired hauling equipment. During transport, the sediment will be carried in the sealed tub of the Crawler Carrier. This sealed tub will contain any sediment -laden water. In the unlikely event, that sediment -laden water does leak out of the tub, the following additional BMPs may be used: i. Lining the tub with plastic to prevent leakage ii. Using sand bags, or a similar plug, at the back end of the carrier to prevent water from spilling out the back b. Sediment that is not saturated will be spread directly on the disposal sites, shown in the plans and will be stabilized by applying a native seed mix. c. Sediment that is saturated will be transported to the soil drying area. A sump will be installed in the soil drying area, and excess turbid water will be pumped to a vegetated upland area, To promote infiltration, a perforated pipe will be used to disperse discharged water over the area. If May Creek Drainage lniprovemu« Project (9A 1205) Water Quality Prov .n and Monitoring Plan I the vegetation area becomes saturated, water will be pumped to a Baker tank or equivalent. 4. Construction of Wetland Alcoves along May Creek a. When excavating adjacent to the stream channel on the west side of 148th Avenue SE, an earth plug shall be left between the existing stream channel and the excavation area. Prior to removing the earth plug and connecting the excavated channel, a turbidity curtain shall be installed to protect the strearn from sedimentation and turbidity. b. Before removing the turbidity curtain, suspended sediment in the water behind the turbidity curtain will be allowed time to settle out. 5. Other Best Management Practices a. Clearing limits will be clearly flagged prior to construction. No disturbance will be allowed outside the clearing limits. b. In -stream sediment and vegetation removal will occur only during the work windows designated in the permit to',protect aquatic species. c. The temporary erosion and sediment control facilities will be inspected daily by the CESCL and maintained by the contractor. d. A King County staff member will be onsite at all times during construction activities to monitor in -stream. water quality and ensure compliance. C- Z 0 ro a N � N © O O ® CD �. Cc, -RA � ro�CL D o cp ;a 0 -U CD K -1 W (DQ p o ^. o cu D D ' u' Cl CD 0) o ro r - W 5F +z r� 44 Z 0 ro a N � O �. Cc, -RA � ro�CL ELP J s � Ar + d K r� 44 10 �Q N� a -OVA �. .l� e -•h r . o - •.�s ,c is cn ,^ . Ina IV ELP K C34 a 10 �Q N� a -OVA �. .l� e -•h r . o - •.�s ,c is cn ,^ G uarantee/Certificate Issued By: 0- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company SUBDIVISION Guarantee/Certificate Number: 611008780 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INCCity of Renton a corporation, herein called the Company Planning Division AUG - 5 mi GUARANTEES RECE ED - King County, Department of Natural Resources and Parks herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. . LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. Z The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set for in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, Inc. Dated: April 14, 2011 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent SEAL By: J - President Attest: Secretary Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 04.20.11 C 11:27AM SSCORPO0817.doc 1 Updated: 03.12.2010 WA--FTMA-610051-611008780 FIDELITY NATIONAL. TITLE COMPANY OF GUARANTEEXERTIFICATE NO.: 611008780 WASHINGTON, INC. SCHEDULE A Liability Premium Tax $0.00 $350.00 $33.25 Effective Date: April 14, 2011 at 12:OOAM The assurances referred to on the face page are: That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matter relative to the following described property: For APNIParcel ID(s): 803540 Tract A, STONEGATE, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 177 of Plats, Pages 62 through 69, inclusive, records of King County, Washington. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. ABBREVIATED LEGAL: Tract A, STONEGATE Title to said real property is vested in: Stonegate Homeowners Association, a Washington non-profit corporation subject to the matters shown below under Exceptions, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. END OF SCHEDULE A Subdhrlslon Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 04.20.11 ® 11;27AM SSCORPD0836.doc! Updated: 03.12.2010 WA--FTMA-810051-611008780 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF GUARANTEEICERTIFICATE NO.: 611008760 WASHINGTON, INC. SCHEDULE B 1. No search has been made as to the property taxes and assessments. Property taxes and assessments will be searched upon request. Any interest of the individual owners of Lots 1 through 51 of said subdivision. Various instruments of record and the King County Tax rolls disclose the individual owners of said Lots have an undivided interest in Tract A. 3. Reservations and exceptions contained in the deed Grantor: Northam Pacific Railroad Company Recording No.: 193931 Reserving and excepting from said Lands so much or such portions thereof as are or may be mineral lands or contain coal or iron, and also the use and the right and title to the use of such surface ground as may be necessary for ground operations and the right of access to such reserved and excepted mineral lands, including lands containing coal or iron, for the purpose of exploring, developing and working the land. The Company makes no representations about the present ownership of these reserved and excepted interests. 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document: In favor of: Puget Sound Power 8r Light Company Purpose: Electric power line Recording Date: May 28, 1930 Recording No.: 2607789 Affects: . As described therein 5. Covenants,'conditions, restrictions and easements but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date: February 21, 1995 Recording No.: 9502210643 6. Mitigation Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof: Recording Date: March 23, 1995 Recording No.: 950323068 Right -Of -Entry for Survey and Sampling Purposes, and the terms and conditions thereof: Recording Date: February 5, 2010 Recording No.: 20100205000291 B. Restrictions, but omitting restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said restriction is permitted by applicable law, as shown on that certain maplplat of Stonegate. Subdtvlsion GuaranleelCertificate Printed: 04.20.11 (M 11:22AM SSCOR PD0855.doc ! Updated: 03,10,2010 WA--FTMA-61005"1 1008780 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF GUARANTEEXERTIFICATE NO.: 611008780 WASHINGTON INC. SCHEDULE B (continued) 9. Rights of the public to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon the.Land in the reasonable original grading of streets, avenues, alleys and roads, as disclosed in the Plat. 10. Any question that may arise due to shifting and changing in the course or boundaries of May Creek. 11. Any prohibition or limitation of use, occupancy or improvement of the Land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now or was formerly covered by water. END OF SCHEDULE B Subdivision GuaranteelCertincete Printed: 04.20.11 @ 11:22AM SSC0RPD0B55.doc l Updeted: 03.12.2010 WA—FTMA-610051.811008780 Name,- StoneRate Homeowners Association Address, PO Sox 2691 Cny/Siate Renton, WA 98056 Statutory Warranty Deed Iq Renton 010621 0290 Planning Division T AM9RICAN WO' S 00 001 OF 007 112091 09 WA AUG AUG - _ � lull E1824538 00 21/2001 00:41 KI a COUNTY, B2 00 SEX 10.00 THE GRANTOR CHAFFEY CORPORATION, a Washington corporation for and inconsideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other CL= valuable consideration pursuant to plat `x` dedication in hand paid, conveys and warrants to STONEGATE-HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit corpor- ation orpor- ation the following described real estate, situated in the County of RING co 0 ca N RECEOVIED PAGE 001 OF 001 FirstAmerrcan Title Insurance Company (thts space jar title company use only) ,State of Washington TRACTS A, C, F, J and H, Plat of Sfomggate, as per plat recorded in Volume 177 of Plains, pages 62-69, records of King County, Washington. tM go 133 (9) ,AXM FCY RECORDlNO ONLY NO LIABILITY FOR VALIDITY AND/OR ACCURAgY ASSUMED BY FIRST AMMUCAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Assessor's Property Tax Paroel/Account Number(s) Tracts A, F and J are undivided interest - no tax acct no's Tract C - 803540 0550 08; Tract H:803540 0480 02 Dated JUNE 15 , 3X 2001 CHAFFEY CORPO I0N 00 LPB-10 (11/96) N 4 -JO Q a -- Q 4 CV STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS County of On (lits day pennnally appeared before me ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Individual to be the individuat(s) desei abed in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that Signed the same ak to me known free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned GIVEN under my hind and officidl seal this day of Notary Public in and far the State of Waalrrngton, residing at My appointment expires 19 STATE OFWASHINUTON, I ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Corporate ss County of �,( 1 On this a day of rig! !, before me, the undersigned, a N Lary Pubic in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ri /SAV r //tt slid' to me known to be the ILA—President and , of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said insviimen[ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed (if any) is the corporate seal of said corporation Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written ThIS Jurat is page of and is attached to Nolary Public+ rid he tate Washington, residing at r My appointment expires /C) --3,y —U % dated uS• 33.91900,10:51 ar . V Deed Piled J J:9 �'� D �%� 193929 Dated Clay 25,1900 Con.$16 Titusville Lodge Ido 34 T 0 0 F of i�ent,N io Jos H Bart.o of K -;O°ti! ,. P p does hereby g b s etc c un to s p a1 l o f lot 4 b Ik 9 ai TheKent Cemetery accdg to rec plat. 5 �O.:G yS �r.�rcCG �S rc�c�Ca� Filed J u1y 31,1900 11:.55 az:!. {Form R rd 49C with min res} Dated Tray 19,1891 ^.on.4161.64 Northern Pacific Railroad Company p f tP To 1:arcel Fournier Of Ties Central Trust Comp at 31 I" trustee, p p Cas t7 e, Ir Co, f ✓ The fractl TJF: afAsec 3 tp ',3 1a Tt 5 7 4 a5.92 ac---sinct 2dd t con`•8 i BB- 2 wits (.. Corp seal) racifi 2 n Railroad Coinpany Williws,Vice Presidert By Jaj. y s I? Attest: Gee Ii Fla 1, SeL;re+.ary Central Trust COMPEMY of Ijew York,Trustes By G chwrnan,VPrcsidant Attest: C H F Babcock,Secretary SOfITY(,,ty .& Co of 14Y)sS. V7 by J B W as v p of sd lyd co bar L R Kidder , July ,1.681 Comicr of D jn= for. the S of W. Att w th seal. sd trust co bef sm oommr And July 31,1681 by G S as v p of R P with seal. i �GoccaazGaaG=Gss=-csccGa� $GS�F=LLC F=G�Cim�C a� I ,/f Mtge Filed July 31,1900,12:30 pm. 01 1St IItge /fe 195932 s ' Dated Tuly 30,1900 Can • 220 $ATISFACTJOIV . OVMR r John Black and pne Ai:n Black Paul Luabs of S° W F of S, W To p p do hereby g b unto S p &11dtd his h and a the flg 'land in KCo,/W, r mita Lot 14 blk of Bradner's Add to :he of S. Tag with all and sing the tens &c. 50. To 'sea $2?.0, int 7;;, n e d. A f Jahn leek (Seal)' 2 wits Jean Lan Black.., (Seal) 8 of W Co of K)ss. July 30,1900 by J B and Gene A B his wf {sap exa:al bc+i Roswell Soott N P in and for *has of W res at 1. ^.am ex Itch 2,1902. ¢esmL�=ca-Gamc=cL cc= '3 �a��cc��a�sscmrFs�crsaa � . Sat of Etge piled July 31,1900,1:30 Val/,07 I•Ttge J''f 193953 gated zuli 134900 Louisa Hg11 Russell To g1bridge adirZ and %rf F p does hereby cart and deo that a e sac t m'ge ex Oat ll,la92 and and int and by sd H W H # 11 W Fli ins to and ex by s paa 6 Bk 145 of ttges to LO uisa A I?a11 and .. shown on p duly- asegtiad, as shown o n !? L A H asgad to f p 257 8k 158 of Fttgbs, coverg ?% by sd r the fj; prop, fto-W! ✓ r Lots 3 and 4 bik 22 of tiilman's ? Add togas }ha C56G g B With =I Vol 9 rec in the and aft of K Cao ia hd and sea is p atin rIntfullr ° 1 (se'sl) the debt thereby �.�- LOU sa Hall Russell .4 D Fl d May 28 1930 L-30 Isar 24 1930 111000 G W Upper and Emma L Upper, hv;f, to Lonnie A Dnrth and Lilian R 3 fp or and war to sp the folg re eat the north 150 ft or so 2.5 sores of n all tbe& part of the Ej of the Nz4L 32 bet co roads on the wast aide and nor Highway less so 10 sores thof, the no with the so line, all in seo 33, twp sub, to mtg for j400 due Jan _ purohr assumes andavress to pay G W Upper al Emmet Upper 'row on Mar 24. 1930 by G W Upper and E R N White n p for wn res at a n sJul mail ap 423 lot no D F1dfUhy 28 1930 1-40 Apr 87 1930 x'10 and o v Iesse Baroh and SarahBaroh hwf, of s, to Antonatti Pizxello and Nick F fp oy andwar tQ a • zoo folg raeat in that p,�rtn of lot 11 blk 1 plat 8110 ;g to plat reodd in vol 2 of plats com at the intersection of the no mar seat margin or 23d ave so as now laid th no sl ad east margin of 23d ave so beg; th so 99 deg :6130" east 100 St; of 23d ave so 47.96 ft m or 1 to then al the no 11 orad lot 11 100 ft to th al the east margin of 23d eve so 45. This cyanoe is rad subj to mtg in Iease Baroh and Sarah Baroh huf, to t Sana Seattle, Wash Rite to mark John P Gallagher X aenest Isaac Baroh frog on April 27 1930 by bef Jahn P Gallagher n fid by sp 120 23d so Sarah X Baro her mark Isaac Baroh a p for wn res a 1-asement fl&day 28 1930 1-43 May 20 1930 91 Pauline McUouin fmly PaulinePeterson to Puget Sound Prower Light Dom -- am as 2452404 --- sngl line of p 1101 e haNi.;j of see 3 twp 23 n r 5 e I seg at a pt 480 ft east of the nr or sea 3 tup 23 n r 5 o sr m; rg th pee sea a dist of 480 ft to ad nva cor of t 3; th due ao and pll with the east bd] 536 ft; th duo east and p11 with the n of 330 rt; th nely to the -rt or beg at the adenter line o ad transmias is be Lao ns fo15; ..beg at the se *or ofsd :R$ of tk •deg la' east 533 ft; th on an angle 0.1 ft m or 1 to the peat wergin of oo roe beg; t4 continuing on carne bee+ring 10C -of a*]ovo des pty to^eth with the right at all time Pauline Mo"ai kow an ?gay 20 1930 by Pau ine MOUOVAm widoe, bef Eduard P Thwing, a p for wr 2607797 g h+Af n th 5 acres of the folg: tt; lid of theNSJ of SLa dying and south endo slid State Jae orad 10acree to be pll n r 4 e w m 33, at e% int, wch the L Upper, hwf, l=ef 1933 2607788 lio hh 7 - ! JeoksonSt add to the o® 24 race of a9 co d f; n of !-ain at with tho ut and estab by the ce, 02.76 ft to the true pt of h no oll to ad east margin cor ofsd lot 11; th west nwoor of sd lot 11; th_ as f t m or I to r.` ' beg be sum of �30r6 and by Washington anal Swings Sarah Lsro4 huf, n s)4ar 3 1932 /41Z 8807782 o arp m loss ports d P; oor of the N8; of the �xzj of the no bdry 11 ofod sill;} of thele of ad ass li orad see, adist of bdry 11 orad seo, a dist 4.98 sores and lose road land dlstributinn li to NXi of sea 3; th no 0 67 deg 36' do the Laft woh is the true pt of ft m or 1 to the west -- erg a a for n t6 M443 n fmly Pauline Potereaa m ree at 9 a aFeb 3° 1931 ".5 It �r CITY OF RENTON WI tEN RECOMEO RETURN To: 0IRceaf the cltydatk Rcntm A midpil Dwidlns FER 1 5 1995 700 phll ALenue5auth COVENANT Rolun,WA VNSS Kk:i;C1VED :7ITY CLERK'S OFFICE This covenant is made on the �� day of Sj�4hs 1995, by the owner(o) of property situated in King county, Washington, known as the Stonegata subdivision and legally described as follows: RECEIVE© SSE EXHIBIT A FEB 171995 KING COUNTY For and in consideration of annexation to the City of RECORDER Renton, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the covenantee, the covenantor hereby agrees and covenants as follows: 1. The development of the Stonegate subdivision will be limited to no more than 53 lots or single family homes and the lots shall not be further subdivided. This covenant shall be perpetual in duration. All the conditions of this covenant shall run with the land, and shall be binding on the successors, assigns, personal representatives and heirs of the covenantor, including but not limited to all subsequent owners of the subject property. 9-x1690].1 STOREGATE LIMITED ona d vi -I- 00.6 ut ECO 5CM34 MW %% AB gC1gSt{4 E4lIhIZ20SG 0. O Ah STATE OF WASHINGTON j ss. COMITY OF ICING } On this day personally appeared before ase Donald H. Leavitt, to me known to be the President of Stonegate Limited, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the same instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this.Ld day of 1995. {t1N� Qp two 94,6y, V Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at by commission expireas i -z- s•216a0].1 sw t �.1�. •.�. .f . w+ 3 -WO -10" --M AXA�. M EXHIBIT A Legal Description: That portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 Nonh, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian., lying west of this west One of the Plat of May Valley Co-op Community Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, page 93, records of Icing County, Washington and the northerly extension of said west lino; TOGETHER Y 1M that portion of Government Lot 1, Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence North 88°3717" West along the north line of said subdivision 30 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing North 8813T17" West, along said north line, $94.68 feet, more or less, to a point which is 698 feet from the northwest corner ofsaid Government Lot; Thence South 17102'52"West, 556.69 feet, more or less, to a point which is 536 feet south of the north One of said Government Lot and 54B feet cast of the west line ofsaid. Government Lot; Thence South 01°25'07"West parallel with said west line of said Government Lot, 595.79 feet, more or leas, to the south lino of said Government Lot; Thence South 88001'27"F+. M along said south One, 744.61 feet, more or leas, to a point 30 feet from t\t the southeast corner of said Government Lot and the west margin of 148th Avenue Southust; Le) Thence north along said margin, 30.00 feet; t� Thence North 88001'27" West 425.00 feet; Thence North 0102522" East 262.33 feet; Thence North 65000'00" East 113.89 feet; Thence South 88001127"East 323.00 feet to said west road margin, and a point from which the True Point of Beginning bears North 01025'x2" Fast; Thence North 01025'22" East, parallel with the east line of said Government Lot and along the west margin of said 148th Avenue Southeast, 735.55 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Adjoining the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance 03972 along the west quarter section lino of the southeast quaver of the northeast quarter of Section 3 from the southwest comer of said subdivision to the south fine of the north half of the north half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 3. . T After recording return IT Issaquah School District No. 411 565 N.W, Holly Street Issaquah, Washington 98027-2899 Attn: Doug Snyder X. MITIGATION AGREEMENT this THIS MITIGATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made day of March, Cl 1995, between the ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, 411, Issaquah, Washington G (the "District") and STONEGATE LIMITED (the "Developer"). RKEEALS A. The Developer has submitted an application to King County for the construction of 52 new single family dwelling units, commonly known as the Proposed Plat of Stonegate, File No. S90P0068 (the *Project"), more particularly described nn Exhibit A, attached hereto and 3, incorporated herein by ri&-rence. The developer has requested that this Project be annexed to the ryf City of Renton. B. The State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43,2IC RCW ("SEPA"), provides l processes and procedures whereby major actions by state and local agencies, including, but not ° limited to, plat or PUD approval' or the issuance of building permits, may be reviewed to e. determine the nature and extent of their impact on the environment, Impacts on public services, «� including schools, are environmental impacts for the purposes of SEPA. SEPA requires the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts. ` C. This Project is anticipated to generate 20 elementary school students and seven middle school students, and these students will be served by Apollo Elementary School and Maywood Middle School. The District's student population and growth projections indicate that ap both of these schools am currently operating over capacity, and that the Project will have a direct impact on Apollo Elementary School and Maywood Middle School. # D. RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the District to enter into a voluntary agreement with the Developer for payment to mitigate the impact of the Developer's Project. E. It is the policy of the District to recommend that the direct impact of development be voluntarily mitigated by the payment of fees and other mitigation measures where appropriate. F. Th: Developer has agreed to mitigate, on a voluntary basis, the adverse impact of the Project on the District. 151190 IF Wr w o 0 a AMEEMI~NT NOW, THMFORF, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual promises and covenants below, the Dis.rict and the Developer agree as follows: I. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that there is a direct impact on the District as a result of the Developers Project and that this Agreement is necessary as a result of that impact. 2. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that in order to mitigate the direct impact of the Project, the Developer has offered to pay the District the following sutn of money: Two Thousand Three Hundred and No/100 Dollars (52,300,00) for each single family dwelling unit (the "Mitigation Payment") or the total sum of One -Hundred Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and No/ 100 Dollars ($119,600,00) for the 52 new single family dwelling nits. 3. Any extension, renewal, modification or amendment to the Project that results in N an adjustment in the number of dwelling units shall result in a corresponding pro rata adjustment in the total Rrnount of the Payment. 0 C� 4. The Developer agrees that the iVfiitigation Payment (in the amount of Two t? Thousand Three Hundred and No1100 Dollars (52,300.00) per dwelling unit) shall be paid to the District at the time the building permit for each dwelling unit in the Project is issued. 5. The Developer agrees to place a covenant on the face of the recorded plat, and include in the deed for each affected lot within the plat, that the amount of Two Thousand Three Hundred and Nn/I00 Dollars (52,300.00) shall be paid to the District at the time the building permit for each dwelling unit in the Project is issued. 6. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that the Mitigation Payment is authorized to be used for capital improvements to the following facilities: Apollo Elementary School, Maywood Middle School, and/or any other facilities that may be afrected by the Project and/or the purchase of portable facilities. 7. The Developer agrees that the District has five (5) years from the payment date to spend the Mitigation Payment for the capital improvements described in paragraph 6. In the event that the Mitigation Payment is not expended within those five years, the moneys will be refunded with interest at the rate applied to judgments to the property owners of record at the time of refund, however, if the Mitigation Payment is not expended within five years due to delay which is attributable to the Developer, the Payment shall be refunded without interest. 8. The Developer shall record this Agreement. 9. Thi Developer waives and relinquishes its right to protest or challenge the payment of the Mitigation Payment pursuant to this Agreement and hereby covenants and undertakes that it forever refrains and desists from instituting, asserting, filing or bringing any -2- ._....., 9 i 0 lawsuit, lidgatioa, cWrn, or challenge or proceeding to challenge this Agrctmcnt, claim any repayment or reimbursement of Stnds, petfarmarm or improvanents provided for therein, or any ofits terms and conditions, an any ground or basis whatsoever. lo. The District hereby waives any objection to the Project as presently proposed, 11. The District and the Developer agree that the Mitigation Payment will be full and complete mitigation for the impar of the Project as presently proposed on the District. 12, This AgreCnent shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators. successors, and assigns of both of the Developer and the District. 13. If an action must be brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement, such action shall be brought in King County Superior Court. The prevailing party shall be entitled to payment of its cesu and reasonable attorneys' fees. �LM 14. This Agresmem constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and any other d agreement either written or oral shall be null and void. r] w - L•i . ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 411 ,�1t -� i DATED: %�lar/9-r lf�wt ay: William H. Stewart, Superintendent STONEGATE LUTED DATED: _ V By: Donald H. cavitt, dent -3- C7 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that William H. Stewart is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he Signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Superintendent of Issaquah School District No. 411 to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated:_ 31ads'—' Ls' NOTARY PUBLIC -- ------- ON DEAR SMAMS F P>rfwFx0ins MAR I. 1SMdnW STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Title My appointment expires t'9"K-- I certify that i know or have sadsfartoty evidence that Donald H. Leavitt is the person who appeared before me, and said person aclurowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of Stonegate Limited to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Ae4 I /9�-V-- JVAM14- ="n 0 Title My appointment expires 0 0 (oil IN 0 db EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUAR i ER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF MAY VALLEY CO-OP CONIMUNITY ADDITION, RECORDED IN VOLUME 66 OF PLATS, PAGE 93, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID WEST LINE. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF !,OVERX%MNT LOT 1, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 99'3T17" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 30 FEET Irl � TO THE POINT 'OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88°3717" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 594.68 FEET, -MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH IS 698 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT; z THENCE SOUTH 17°02'52" WEST 556.69 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT' WHICH IS 536 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT AND 54B FEET _� EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT; THENCE SOU711 01025'07" WEST; PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 595.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT; THENCE SOUTH 88°01'27" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 744.61 FEET, MORE OR y LESS, TO A POINT 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT AND THE WEST MARGIN OF 148TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST; THENCE NORTH 01°25'22" BAST ALONG SAID MARGIN. 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°01'27" WEST 425.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0I °25 22" EAST 262.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 65.00'00" EAST 113.89 FEET; .� THENCE SOUTH 88001'27" EAST 323.00 FEET TO SAID WEST ROAD MARGIN, AND A POINT FROM 1,VHICH THE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH OlnS'22" EAST; THENCE NORTH Ol"2572" EAST, PARALLEL WITH TETE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVMNIMENT LOT AND ALONG THE WEST MARGIN OF SAID 148TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST, 735.55 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING 20900205000291.001 Recording Requested By And When Recorded Mail To: King County Water and Lands Resources Division Open Space Acquisitions Unit 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 1111111111111111111 20100205000291 Paor-001 OF 003 RISC 0.80 02/83,20te 10:,2 KING COUNTY, WA RIGHT -OF -ENTRY FOR SURVEY AND SAMPLING PURPOSES Grantor [Seller]: Stonegate Homeowners' Association, a Washington rlon-profit corporation. Grantee [Buyer]: King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington. Legal Description (abbreviated): Tract A, Stonegate, Vol. 177, pgs. 62-68 Additional legal(s) on Page 2. Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#: NIA. Project [Area]: May Creek Sediment Removal. Parcel [#]: Stonegate. The undersigned, Stonegate Homeowners' Association, a Washington non-profit corporation, hereinafter called the "Owner", in consideration of mutual benefits and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which arc hereby acknowledged, hereby grant and convey to King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter called the "County," a permit or right -of -entry upon the following terms and conditions: 1. The Owner hereby grants to the County an irrevocable right to enter upon the lands hereinafter described at any time within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this instrument, in order to complete a stream survey and take soil samples. 2. This permit includes the right to ingress and egress on other lands of the Owner not described below, provided that such ingress and egress is necessary and not otherwise conveniently available to the County. 3. All tools, equipment, buildings, improvements, and other property taken upon or placed upon the land by the County shall retrain the property ofthe County and may be removed by the County at any time within a reasonable period after the expiration of this permit or right - of -entry. mayor sediment-stonegate Page i of.1 November 20. 2009 20100205000281.002 4. The county shall have the right to enter upon the lands hereinafter described during the period of this permit or right -of -entry. 5. It is understood and agreed that if the County does not acquire title or other necessary interest in said land prior to the expiration of this permit or right -of -entry, or any renewal thereof, the County agrees to be responsible for any damage arising from the activity of the County or its agents on said lands, in the exercise of rights under this permit or right -of - entry, and shall repair such damages, or, in lieu thereof and at the option of the County, shall make a cash settlement with the Owner. The land affected by this permit or right -of -entry is located in the County of King, State of Washington, and is described as follows: Tract A of Stonegate, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 177 of Plats at pages 62 through 68, inclusive, records of King County, Washington. 1 IN WITNESS WH OF, the said Owner has hereunto signed his name this day of OWNER: Stonegate Homeowners' Association, a Washington non-profit corporation M :h�M$� �i��Z mayor wdimcnl-stonegate Page] 03 Nuvembo 20, 2W) 201 00205000289.043 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 3 I ss_ County of King. I I hereby certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that is/&F&the person(s) who appeared before me, and said pe n{s} OV acknowledged that he signed this instrument,o oaths ted that he is/are authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as th tonegate Homeowner's Association to be the free and vola t act of such p y r the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated: cn Printed signature Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires maycr sWinwnt-slonegak Page 3 of 3 . Navemher 20. 2009 1:;77 62 4 in Rills N Qx Is ba lit LAJ 7 LA - LU Lj Lj z;j 9 k N IN LUU- 21 4 0 G i� I 1 11 p I a' 0 Z k' 'k ak it a It: , I I IN I LA� jai Ilk =Z) It IV Al 0 a;t Mi IN ZF 0 0 111-m .0 Ai iii Z Z I LA- Igill -N JP , )f . mi W11401,11aak Wh 1151 Rp Oka a a Ail a 111115 z'S Wd . ej M3� 1OWN, t91zt:e %�w 00 CD I I- ra - wk,O X V) 11 .48Y 0 L) 00 to a 0 CL :i 3i ---7— 17.7 64 t 3,s 35N3AY.I-iil—,� IWO 3.0igi op LiHWA E - w W 1t 1 IWO 3.0igi op LiHWA E - w W 30 . j z ui His H uj -oill + Km Th m 177. 65 3 ZZ. Lo 14 I ZZ.GLLO N LLJ Ve tz P A LAj L9 La J-, C14 V) < W LLJ V) F- F - ?4 U.1 z Z A si Lq z La 0 %,MIS ---,A z F - < z LL, L F - 30 . j z ui His H uj -oill + Km Th m 177. 65 Tell 3 ZZ. Lo 14 LLJ LLI Tell �I .oabtL F-:. `f ~� C7 co LO 0 0 Q c U7 p G U Z I 71T,%- daa � I 3 6 Lr) Ld r i( LLJ aJ �Z o Cr Ki L` O Z WU LLJ LL.1 � Ln a r a V) •d, E r- Z Lal Z w •i ,. w:, W Z z O ` r,,_ .� V / /, •ttom O ` W x F, F- z LLI o C) 'L O� �I .oabtL F-:. `f ~� C7 co LO 0 0 Q c U7 p G U Z I 71T,%- 6.6 Lr) is r i( W �I .oabtL F-:. `f ~� C7 co LO 0 0 Q c U7 p G U Z - Nu le w 76 Es9 Lu Li Ln C,4 :E: a: 0 U- 0 LULU V) tt V) N.. x Lj z Lol- 0 F- L" z) UJ Y CD in 0 z Z LLJ o 0; .10 13 Lu Printed: 08-05-2011 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Crty Of RentOn Renton, WA 98055 Planning Division Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA11-065 Payment Made: 08/05/2011 11:28 AM Total Payment: 3,296.00 OPERATIONS DIVISION Current Payment Made to the Following Items: AUG -- 5 (ll)1 Receipt Number: R1103016 Payee: KING COUNTY FINANCE & BUSINESS Trans Account Code Description Amount ------ 3080 ------------------ 503.000000.004.322 ------------------------------ Technology Fee ---------------- 96.00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 2,000.00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 1,200.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------------ Payment Check 801948 3,296.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000000.020.345 ------------------------------ Park Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee .00 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits .00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat .00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD .00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone .00 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00