The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutECF_Early_Notice_Request_190213.pdf February 11, 2019 Matt Herrera, AICP City of Renton Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Road Renton, WA 98057 Re: Cedar River Apartments: SEPA – Request for Early Notice The Watershed Company Reference Number: 170314 Dear Matt: This letter relates to the Cedar River Apartments project and is intended to constitute a formal ‘request for early notice’ pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-9-070.J.11. This letter follows receipt of your email, dated February 1, 2019, in which you outlined three specific items associated with the project/site that have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts. Such a level of impacts, in one or more of the three identified areas, would result in issuance of a SEPA Determination of Significant (DS). Issuance of a DS would require the preparation and submittal of an Environmental Impact Statement by the applicant. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-350(2), this letter intends to provide additional clarification on each of the three identified areas of concern ahead of the City’s threshold determination. Multiple exhibits are referenced below and can be found at the end of the letter. Transportation Summary A traffic impact report was prepared for the subject project (Traffic Impact Analysis for Cedar River Apartments, November 1, 2018, by William Popp Associates [Popp Report]) (see Exhibit 1). The report analyzed traffic related impacts and provided several mitigation recommendations. The Popp Report was based upon the proposal to construct 481 apartment units and approximately 25,000 square feet of medial office space. Impacts The Popp Report concluded that at project completion (year 2023/2034), the project is estimated to generate approximately 3,500 average weekday (24 hour) vehicle trips with Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 2 240 of those occurring in the AM peak hour and 300 occurring in the PM peak hour. The average weekday 24-hour traffic volume on SR-169 between I-405 and Cedar River Park Drive at project completion (year 2023/24) is estimated to be approximately 47,000 vehicles, with 3,000 vehicles occurring in the AM peak hour and 3,500 vehicles occurring in the PM peak hour. The project’s estimated vehicular impact on this section of roadway is approximately 6% for each peak hour, and 7% for the daily condition. The Popp Report also analyzed level of service (LOS) impacts to intersections. LOS as referenced here is the national grading system for traffic operations, with A being the best, representing very little vehicle delay (< 10 seconds/vehicle), E being the point of maximum throughput, but high level of delay (55 to 80 seconds/vehicle), and F representing breakdown and extensive or intolerable delay (> 80 seconds/vehicle). LOS D is considered by most agencies to be an acceptable future design condition (35 to 55 seconds/vehicle). The intersection capacity analyses for 2023 indicate that all of the analyzed intersections operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the I-405/SR-169/Sunset Way southbound on-ramp intersection, which is estimated to operate at LOS E. Both the I-405 north and southbound ramp intersections, however, can quickly deteriorate past LOS E conditions as a result of ramp metering caused by severe congestion on I-405. Proposed Mitigation Measures As described in the Popp Report, the project will include frontage improvements, plus a new direct access to SR-169. A total of approximately $2.2 million in traffic impact fees are also to be paid. In addition to these site-specific mitigation measures, several nearby projects are expected to result in traffic improvements. Specifically, WSDOT in conjunction with the City of Renton have proposed improvement to the southbound I- 405 on-ramp and eastbound approach that would result in more efficient storage and metering on the ramp than currently exists; thereby minimizing the queue (backup) on SR-169, in particular for AM peak hour conditions. These efforts would improve intersection level of service from LOS E to D during the morning peak hour by up to 20 seconds per vehicle, and improve the delay for the PM condition by up to 11 seconds per vehicle. Under existing conditions, during the morning commute period, the westbound traffic on SR-169 can queue back excessively (sometimes exceeding 4,000 ft) and longer with a rolling queue. Furthermore, the I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project and the I-405/SR-167 Interchange Direct Connector Project, which are currently under construction with completion in 2024, should significantly reduce congestion and decrease travel time on I-405 in this area, which in theory would minimize excessive ramp meter intervals at the I-405/SR-169/Sunset Way southbound on-ramp intersection and at the I-405/SR-169 northbound on/off-Ramp intersection, in particular for AM Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 3 commute period conditions. It is estimated that the I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project would improve intersection level of service from LOS E to D during the morning peak hour by up to 20 seconds per vehicle (for all movements), and improve the delay for the PM condition by up to 11 seconds per vehicle (for all movements). During the morning commute period, the westbound traffic on SR-169 can queue back excessively sometimes exceeding 4,000 feet and longer with a rolling queue. Conclusion The proposed project will generate substantial new vehicular trips. These trips will result in an additional load on the existing transportation infrastructure in the vicinity. However, the applicant will install access/intersection improvements at the site and pay in excess of $2 million in traffic impact fees. Therefore, proposed mitigation measures are expected to significantly offset traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, multiple regional improvements along the I-405/SR-167 corridor are expected to improve congestion in the area. With implementation of all mitigation measures, combined with planned regional improvements, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Groundwater Contamination Summary Due to the historical use of the site, including as home to the Stoneway Concrete Facility, multiple contaminants have been detected at the site. As a result, a Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) (see Exhibit 2) was prepared for the project site. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) responded to the VCP on July 19, 2018. Specifically, Ecology issued several opinions, including: • …upon completion of your proposed cleanup, no further remedial action will likely be necessary to clean up contamination at the Site. • The proposed future use of the Site (residential) does not meet the MTCA definition of an industrial property; therefore, soil cleanup levels suitable for unrestricted land use are appropriate. • …cleanup levels… are considered appropriate for soil at the Site and are protective of human health and the environment. Specific to groundwater protection, pH was considered to be a water quality parameter of concern for the site. Arsenic is an additional principal contaminant present within groundwater at the site. In addition to the VCP, the applicant will be entering into an Environmental Covenant (Covenant) with Ecology, intended to restrict certain activities and uses of the Property to protect human health and the environment… The Covenant, a draft copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3, includes specific prohibitions and requirements to achieve this goal. Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 4 Impacts The Covenant states that the applicant shall: Not expose contaminated soil, result in a release of contaminants, or create a new exposure pathway, without prior written approval of Ecology. Thus, the Covenant will ensure that, only with Ecology approval, will any contaminated soils be exposed. Specific to groundwater contamination, the Covenant outlines the goal of containing contaminated groundwater beneath the Property. Contact with high pH groundwater is to be prevented by placing clean inert fill material within the settling ponds, as is proposed by the applicant. Further, pursuant to the Covenant, groundwater is not to be extracted for any purpose other than investigation, monitoring, or remediation in accordance with requirements imposed by Ecology… Any groundwater extracted from the site would be considered potentially contaminated. However, pursuant to the VCP and Covenant, monitoring wells are to be established along the western property boundary, as this area is within approximately 800 feet of City of Renton water supply wells. Finally, stormwater infiltration will not be allowed at the site, in an effort to minimize the potential for mobilization of contaminants. Proposed Mitigation Measures To ensure that on-site contaminants are prevented from impacting human health and the environment, the applicant will comply with the VCP and Covenant, including the Groundwater Monitoring Plan and the Operation, and Maintenance and Contingency Plan. Conclusion Prior uses at the site have resulted in contaminated soils. The site owner has worked with Ecology to prepare a VCP that involves cleanup of the site. In addition, the applicant has entered into a covenant with Ecology to ensure that contaminated soils are not impacted and that monitoring is continued to ensure protection of the City’s nearby water wells. Stormwater generated by the proposed project will be tight-lined to the river, thereby minimizing the potential for mobilization of contaminants. Overall, the proposed project will not result in additional impacts to the groundwater system; while approved cleanup actions will ensure that occupants of the proposed uses will not be negatively impacted. Channel Migration Zone Summary As described in the Review of Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives for the Cedar River Apartments Project, in Renton, WA, dated October 30, 2018 and prepared by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder Report) (see Exhibit 4), a majority of the project site is located within the regulated severe channel migration zone. It is further identified as being located within an unconstrained channel migration zone, as designated by King County Water and Land Resources Division in the April 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 5 Study (KC Study) (see Exhibit 5). As described in the KC Study, the unconstrained channel migration zone does not recognize artificial constraints and, therefore predicts channel migration in the absence of levees, revetments, and infrastructure. The KC Study thus mapped migration areas in recognition of certain artificial structures that can restrain channel migration. These included all publicly maintained structures in the City of Renton, as well as SR-169 and sole access roads. Areas located landward of these structures were designated as ‘disconnected migration areas’ and were not formally mapped as within the channel migration zone. As part of this designation, structures are to be constructed to a height above the 100-year floodplain elevation. However, as made clear in the KC Study, no privately maintained structures were mapped as barriers to migration. This includes the existing concrete wall at the project site that runs along the right bank of the river (see Figure 1). The wall is constructed of two rows of vertically stacked ecology blocks with a reinforced vertical concrete wall poured on top. Thus, no determination was made by King County as to the height of the wall or whether or not the existing on-site wall would prevent migration of the river. Rather, the channel migration zone was mapped as if the wall does not exist. Figure 1. View of existing concrete wall – looking upstream. Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 6 Based upon the KC Study, it is clear that existing structures can prevent migration of the river. Because the KC Study specifically excluded private structures, however, the on- site wall was not assessed by King County. While not explained, it can be assumed that the KC Study purposefully omitted private structures due to access and budget constraints. However, specific to the project site, the location, height, and effectiveness of the wall should be considered. In the Golder Report, the existing wall is described as corresponding with the 100-year flood inundation limits across the upstream and downstream portions of the site. Only in the middle of the site, in the area around the settling ponds, does the floodplain encroach beyond the wall and into the site. Thus, the height of the wall, across a large portion of the site, is at or above the 100-year floodplain elevation. The proposed plan for the site includes a lowering of a portion of the wall. However, channel migrating processes often begin with scouring at the toe of embankments. The Cedar River is also constrained downstream and upstream of the site by maintained civil infrastructure. The I-405 bridge lies approximately 720 feet downstream of the site, and SR-169 lies within 135 feet of the river channel adjacent to the upstream end of the site. Both of these are publicly maintained structures and considered to be barriers to channel migration within the KC study, further constraining the plausibility of the channel migrating within the vicinity. Upon reviewing historical aerial photos from 1946, 1954, 1961, 1977, 1985, and 2002, no signs of channel migration were observed along the project parcel. As described in the Golder Report, the wall was likely not installed until sometime after 1977. If this channel was prone to migrating inland towards the project site, there has been no sign of this within the last 73 years, including at least several decades when no wall was present. Impacts While the site is nearly entirely encumbered by a mapped severe channel migration zone, the existing wall does constrain the river and prevent channel migration. While King County was unable to consider the on-site wall while mapping the channel migration zone, it should be considered when reviewing and assessing project specific details. That is, large scale mapping and analysis efforts are crucial for understanding context and regulatory implications. However, SEPA is to consider site specific existing conditions, as well. In this case, the wall is still functional, in its current condition. If the severe channel migration zone was mapped according to onsite conditions and considered the wall to be a channel migration barrier, most of the project site would not be in the severe channel migration hazard zone, or even the moderate channel migration hazard zone. The wall extends from the upstream end of the parcel to approximately 296 feet from the downstream, or western, property boundary. It is not until this point that the property becomes vulnerable to channel migration. Despite a softening of the Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 7 shoreline at this point, just downstream the shoreline is armored by a retaining wall on the adjacent property until the river crosses under I-405. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the channel has little to no potential to migrate into the project site. Future development activities within the shoreline buffer include removing a length of wall along the downstream end of the project and lowering a section of the wall. The section of the wall to be lowered is located waterward of the settling ponds. The wall will be cut down to the 35-foot elevation. Despite part of the wall being lowered to below the 100- year base flood elevation, the property is still protected at the most vulnerable part of most stream banks, the toe. Toe scour is the initial erosive force behind most bank failure and channel migration. Since the toe of the bank will still be protected by a wall standing a few feet above base flow, the most significant channel forming force is not a concern. As for impacts, typically, construction within a severe channel migration zone constitutes a risk to the development. That is, migration of the channel could jeopardize some or all of the development. In this case, however, despite the mapped migration zone, the proposed retention of the concrete wall will constrain the river from migrating into the site. Thus, provided the wall is maintained and properly functioning, no significant impacts are expected. Proposed Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that the site is primarily protected from migration of the Cedar River, the existing concrete wall along the right bank of the river will be maintained in its existing condition. If any sign of scour or structural failure is observed, a plan will be developed to limit the erosion, or make the repairs necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the wall. Conclusion The project is mapped by King County as being located within the severe channel migration zone. King County did not consider the existing concrete wall along the right riverbank in mapping the channel migration zone. The wall effectively prevents the river from migrating in this location. Provided the wall is maintained, as the applicant intends to do, there is no risk of the river channel significantly migrating into the site. Further, a plan will be developed if any sign of scouring or structural failure is observed. Thus, under no scenario would channel migration ever threaten the proposed development. Therefore, no significant adverse impact will occur. Summary None of the above discussed three items, individually or collectively, constitute a significant adverse impact, as defined by WAC 197-11-794. Transportation impacts are to be offset through payment of traffic impact fees. Regional transportation improvements will also help to offset impacts. Groundwater contamination has been Cedar River Apartments SEPA: Request for Early Notice February 11, 2019 Page 8 thoroughly evaluated as part of cleanup efforts with Ecology and no further impacts to groundwater will occur as site runoff will not be allowed to infiltrate. In addition, cleanup efforts will ensure that human health and the environment are protected, ensuring the safety of future site occupants. Finally, impacts associated with the mapped channel migration zone will be avoided provided the existing concrete wall is maintained and that contingency plans are implemented if migration is detected. Overall, proposed mitigation measures will substantially offset project impacts; thus, no significant adverse impacts will occur. Please note that this document shall constitute a supplement to the previously submitted SEPA Checklist, pursuant to WAC 197-11-350(4). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Kenny Booth, AICP Senior Planner / Principal Exhibit 1 Traffic Impact Analysis for Cedar River Apartments, November 1, 2018, William Popp Associates. William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners ________________________________________________________________________ (425) 401-1030 (425) 401-2124 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com 14-400 Building z Suite 206 z 14400 Bel-Red Road z Bellevue, WA 98007 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Cedar River Apartments Prepared for: SRM Renton, LLC 720 6th Street South Ste. 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14-400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 November 1, 2018 Traffic Impact Analysis Cedar River Apartments Page i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................4 Table 1 Three-plus Year Accident History a .............................................................................................8 Table 2 Accident Type History a ...............................................................................................................8 2. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................................9 Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Volume Summary a ......................................................................................9 3. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ..........................................................................................................................12 Table 4 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria........................................................................................13 Table 5 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2017)..................................................................13 Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) ........................................................................................13 4. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................14 B. FUTURE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................16 1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................................................................16 2. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................17 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates a ...........................................................................................18 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT...............................................................................19 4. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................19 5. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (FUTURE YEAR PHASED PROJECT CONDITIONS)...............................................22 Table 7 Phase 1 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2021)...................................................................22 Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) ........................................................................................22 Table 8 Phase 2 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2022)...................................................................25 Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) ........................................................................................25 Table 9 Phase 3 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2023)...................................................................26 Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) ........................................................................................26 6. PARKING ..........................................................................................................................................27 C. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................27 1. PROJECT DETAILS ............................................................................................................................27 2. ACCIDENTS ......................................................................................................................................28 3. PROJECT VEHICULAR IMPACT ..........................................................................................................28 4. LEVEL OF SERVICE ...........................................................................................................................28 5. SITE ACCESS ....................................................................................................................................29 6. PARKING ..........................................................................................................................................29 D. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................29 1. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................................29 2. PRIMARY SITE ACCESS ....................................................................................................................29 3. SECONDARY SITE ACCESS................................................................................................................30 4. OFF-SITE PROGRAMMED MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................31 5. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE .......................................................................................................................33 Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 1 INTRODUCTION The following report was prepared to address the traffic related impacts of the proposed new Cedar River Apartments project located in the City of Renton. This study evaluates the project’s AM and PM peak hour (street peak) traffic impacts at the following intersections per the pre-application meeting direction: 1. SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp 2. SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp 3. SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 4. SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr The study follows the typical City of Renton traffic impact analysis guidelines for project impacts. These are evaluated for three separate phases, with Phase 3 being the year of estimated full occupancy. Project Identification The site is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) in the City of Renton. The parcel number is 1723059026, and the total area of the site is approximately 12.5 acres. The site is currently vacant in terms of building structures, however, it is used as a storage area for heavy construction machinery. Presently, there are two access points to the site including one to Cedar River Park Drive and one to SR 169. A project vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 2 Figure 1: Vicinity Map (north is up) The project site fronts to SR 169 to the east, the Cedar River to the south, and Cedar River Park to the west. A parcel map locating the site is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Site Parcel Map (north is up) Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 3 The proposed Cedar River Apartments site plan consists of three different buildings, to be constructed in three separate phases. Each building and phase is discussed below: Phase 1 – Building A will be constructed as Phase 1 and presumed occupied by 2021. This building will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels; along with 306 parking stalls in the structure. In addition to the structure parking, there will be some surface parking on the north side of the building. Building A will be located on the west end of the site and its proposed access will be to both Cedar River Park Drive and to SR 169. The SR 169 access will replace the existing driveway opening. Phase 2 –Building B will be constructed as Phase 2. This building will be located at the east side of the site and will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor for public use. Phase 2 is presumed to be occupied by 2022. The retail space is currently undetermined. There will be 339 parking stalls in the structure. Phase 3 – This phase proposes a Medical Office type use on the commercial pad located in the north corner of the parcel, identified in this report as Building C. Parking is currently undetermined. Access is presumed to be to the internal roadway in front of Building B and the driveway is anticipated to be opposite the garage entry to Building B. No additional access points to public roadways are proposed with Phase 3. The site plan is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3: Site Plan (north is up) Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 4 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadways Key roadways serving the site are discussed below. SR 169 is a two-way east/west Principal Arterial that connects between I-405 to the west and extends east all the way to Enumclaw. The roadway in the site vicinity is a 7-lane roadway with three-lanes each direction and left turn pocket / center two-way left turn lane, along with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is prohibited. Traffic control includes signals at all major intersection. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. Cedar River Park Dr is a two-way local access public/private street that provides project access and connection to recreational elements including the Cedar River Park, Carco Theatre, and the Henry Moses Aquatics Center. The roadway is identified as a public road for a distance of approximately 300 feet southwest from the SR 169 intersection, at which point it is a private roadway for access and circulation through the park. The public portion of the road is approximately 40 feet wide with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted. The public portion of the roadway is channelized with a three-lane section, two lanes northbound towards the signal at SR 169 (left turn and right turn pockets), one lane southbound (exiting away from SR 169). The speed limit is presumed to be 25 mph. On the west side of I-405, nearby roadways include Bronson Way, Houser Way, Sunset Way, the one-way couplet of S 3rd St and S 2nd St, the one-way couplet of N3rd St and N 4th St, and N 3rd St east of I-405 (becoming N 4th St further east at top of the hill), are all identified as Principal Arterials. A map identifying the City’s arterial classification is shown in Figure 4. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 5 Figure 4: City Arterial Classification Map (north is up) Intersection Geometrics and Signal Operations SR 169 runs in a diagonal direction in the project vicinity, however, for this analysis, it is described as in an east-west direction with side streets in the north and south directions. SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp is a signalized intersection with split phasing for all directions plus some overlaps. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Southbound approach – a four lane approach including a one left turn lane, a shared left/thru lane where the thru is restricted to HOV only, a shared thru/right turn lane, and a right turn lane. The right turn lanes have a large radius turn along with large raised island with exclusive signal control to Bronson Way. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across the main approach or the right turn lanes. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 6 • Eastbound approach – a four-lane approach including dual left turn lanes, a thru lane and a shared thru/right lane with a large right turn island. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes a left turn pocket, two thru lanes and a right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • The signal operates with three phases. The southbound phase runs with a westbound right turn overlap. The westbound phase runs exclusive with no overlaps. The eastbound phase runs with the southbound right turn lane overlap. • The south leg is the I-405 southbound on-ramp, a two-lane roadway leaving the intersection. This ramp has one lane with ramp meter control as well as an HOV bypass lane. The ramp meter is approximately 510 feet south from the intersection crosswalk. SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp is a signalized intersection with special operations. This intersection is approximately 400 feet east from the SR 169/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Southbound approach – a single lane off-ramp from northbound I-405. The lane is right turn only. There is a pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • Eastbound approach – a three-lane approach including one left turn pocket and two thru lanes. The two thru lanes do not have signal control and thus run free. • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • The north leg exit lane to I-405 is a single lane with ramp meter approximately 775 feet north from the crosswalk at the intersection. SR 169/Shari’s Driveway is a signalized intersection serving the restaurant plus a Quality Inn. This intersection is approximately 270 feet east from the SR 169/I-405 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: • Southbound approach – a single or possibly dual lane for right or left turns, however there is no channelization on this leg, as it is a commercial driveway. The pedestrian crossing of this approach is the sidewalk across the driveway. • Eastbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes one left turn pocket, and three thru lanes. There is a pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. U-turns are signed as prohibited however there is a fair amount of u-turn traffic observed. • Westbound approach – a four lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one designated right turn lane that extends through this intersection to the northbound on- ramp. There is no pedestrian crossing of the east leg. SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr is a signalized intersection serving the Cedar River Park and amenities. This intersection is approximately 700 feet east from the SR 169/Shari’s Driveway intersection. The intersection channelization is as follows: Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 7 • Eastbound approach – a three-lane approach that includes two thru lanes and one shared thru/right turn lane. There is no pedestrian crosswalk across this approach. • Westbound approach – a four-lane approach that includes three thru lanes and one designated left turn pocket that transitions from a center two-way left turn lane. The turn pocket is 200 feet in length plus a 150-foot transition opening to the center two- way left turn lane markings. There is a pedestrian crossing of the east leg. • Northbound approach – a two lane approach that includes a left turn lane and a right turn lane that extend back approximately 175 feet to where the proposed Cedar River Apartments access will be (and where the current gravel yard driveway is now). There is a pedestrian crossing of this approach. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site include sidewalks on the adjacent roadways. Pedestrian access from the site to the west side of I-405 into downtown Renton can be walked via the sidewalk along the south side of SR 169 and under I-405. Alternatively, pedestrians can walk through Cedar River Park near the river and underneath I-405 to a pedestrian signal and crosswalk across Houser Way N. Transit Service Transit service in the region is provided by the King County Department of Transportation (Metro Transit). There are two routes that run along SR 169 in the vicinity of the site. These are Routes 143 and 907. Route 143 runs between Black Diamond and Downtown Seattle. Buses run during the AM and PM commute hours only with bus headways approximately 20 minutes apart in the peak direction. Route 907 is DART (dial a ride transit) and provides service between Black Diamond and the Renton Transit Center. Service is generally provided between 9am and 4pm. The bus stop for both of these routes are on SR 169 just east of the Cedar River Park Drive intersection, essentially adjacent to the site. The walking distance to/from the Renton Transit Center is approximately 4,000 feet, which is presumed to be along S 3rd St to Houser Way N and under I-405 and through Cedar River Park. Accident Data, last 3 (available) calendar years. A summary of the three-plus year accident data at the analysis intersections was obtained from WSDOT Headquarters Olympia. Data for the subject intersection was for the period of January 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017 for the subject intersections. A summary of available accident data is presented in Table 1. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 8 Table 1 Three-plus Year Accident History a Number of Accidents by Year Accident Intersection 2014 2015 2016 2017a Total Rate b SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp 2 4 4 0 10 0.16 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp 4 5 10 3 22 0.43 SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 8 8 10 2 28 0.71 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr 8 2 3 1 14 0.36 a Data period is 1/1/14 through 5/31/17. b Accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev). Entering vehicles based on 2017 PM peak hour data * 10. As shown in Table 1, the accident rate ranges between 0.16 acc/mev and 0.71 acc/mev for the four analysis intersections for the 3-plus year period. The accident rates noted suggest adequate relatively safe operations at these intersections. The typical standard threshold is 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev) at which time further evaluation would be needed. The most common type of accidents are rear-end, sideswipe and enter-at-angle type of accidents. Table 2 identifies the number of occurrences by accident type at each of the four intersections. Table 2 Accident Type History a SR 169/Sunset/ SR 169/I-405 SR 169/Shari’s SR 169/Cedar All I-405 SB Ramps NB Ramps Driveway River Park Drive Intersections Rear End 2 18% 15 52% 10 33% 14 67% 41 45% Side Swipe 6 55% 7 24% 5 17% 5 24% 23 25% Enter at Angle 1 9% 1 3% 6 20% 2 10% 10 11% Left Turn 1 9% 3 10% 7 23% 0 0% 11 12% Other 1 9% 3 10% 2 7% 0 0% 6 7% 11 29 30 21 91 a For the period between 1/1/14 and 5/31/17. As shown in Table 2, the rear-end accident is the most prevalent type of accident at three of the four intersections. The most prevalent accident type at the SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB on-ramp intersection is a sideswipe condition, which is most likely due to the large number of dual turn lanes. Overall, cumulative for all four intersections, the rear-end type of accident accounts for of 45% of the total accidents, with sideswipe accidents at 25%. In general, rear-end accidents are most common at heavily congested signalized intersections where motorists are not anticipating stop conditions during green light situations. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 9 2. Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the four subject intersections in mid June of 2017. Table 3 below identifies the peak hour volume for each location. Table 3 Existing Peak Hour Volume Summary a Total Entering Volume Intersection AM PK PM PK SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp 4,347 5,126 SR 169/I-405 Northbound On & Off-Ramp 3,267 4,058 SR 169/Shari’s Driveway 2,803 3,157 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr 2,717 3,144 Pk between SB Ramps between NB Ramps between Shari’s Dvwy Hr Direction and NB Ramps and Shari's Dvwy and Cedar River Park Dr AM WB 2,220 2,090 2,020 EB 370 680 660 PM WB 1,360 960 950 EB 1,670 2,270 2,120 a Traffic counts conducted in mid June 2017 As shown in Table 3, the intersection with the heaviest amount of traffic is the SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection. The PM entering volume at this intersection is about 20% greater than the AM entering volume. In general for all four intersections, the PM peak hour intersection volume is about 18% greater. This is very high volume intersection. The link volume by direction as shown in Table 3 is about 2,100 vehicles during the AM peak hour in the westbound direction. This volume reflects a 79% directional volume westbound. The total volume on average is 2,680 vehicles for the AM peak hour. For the PM peak hour, the peak directional volume is on average 2,020 vehicles. This volume reflects a 65% directional volume eastbound. The total volume on average is 3,110 vehicles for the PM peak hour. A summary of the existing 2017 AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections are presented in Figure 5a and 5b. A 24-hour count was obtained from WSDOT historical records, albeit somewhat dated, that shows the hourly volume for an average weekday in April of 2010 (average for Tue through Friday). The volumes are shown in Figure 6 and are presented to show the peaking nature by hour of day. SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2017 AM Peak Hour Counts (;,67,1*$03($.75$)),&92/80(6 Figure 5a ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 5 6 4 0 2 0 0 8 755 6 2 3 5 5 261395 104 47 775 578 895853439 631 1 9 8 4 1 2 6 1 2891 7 3 4 8 1 7 0 6 4 1 2495 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2017 PM Peak Hour Counts (;,67,1*303($.75$)),&92/80(6 Figure 5b ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 7716 1 1 6 0 4 7 0 4 2 4 6672 44 1 2 1 1 8 9 3 5 1 331 2 0 8 2 1 5 1145673 520 65 334 236 770768638 66389 1 01 2 3 6 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 12 Figure 6: SR 169 Hourly Volumes As shown in Figure 6, the peak hour for the average weekday is during the 5:00 PM hour. Also shown in this figure is the hourly fluctuation in volume by direction. The westbound direction clearly peaks in the morning and the eastbound clearly peaks in the evening. 3. Level-of-Service Level-of-service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels-of- service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F", with "A" being the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. Level-of-service for the existing condition was calculated using Trafficware’s Synchro software. This software replicates the analytical procedures specified in the Highway Capacity Manual. The level of service criteria are shown in Table 4. Level-of-service for signalized and non-signalized intersections is quantified in terms of vehicular delay. Delay, measured in terms of time (seconds), also represents driver discomfort, frustration, excess fuel consumption and lost travel time. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 13 Table 4 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria Level of Stopped Delay Per Vehicle1 Service Definition signalized non-signalized A Little or no delay Less than 10.0 sec Less than 10.0 sec B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 20 sec 10.1 to 15 sec C Average traffic delays 20.1 to 35 sec 15.1 to 25 sec D Long traffic delays 35.1 to 55 sec 25.1 to 35 sec E Very long traffic delays 55.1 to 80 sec 35.1 to 50 sec F Extreme delay Greater than 80 sec Greater than 50 sec 1 Delay; seconds per vehicle Note that for signalized intersections, the delay presented represents the overall operation of the intersection, whereas the delay presented for unsignalized intersections represents the delay for the critical approach or movement. The results are presented in this manner since the overall intersection delay at a non-signalized intersection is generally quite good because the major through street maneuvers are not impeded and for the most part carry the majority of the traffic. It is also important to note that the level of service results from the Synchro output do not fully take into consideration the queue spill back from upstream or downstream- signalized intersections and the additional congestion that may occur. The existing level of service at the analysis intersections is presented in Table 5. Table 5 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2017) Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) Intersection LOS a Delay a Comments AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp D 47 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp c C 28 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari’s Café/Quality Inn Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr A 6 tee intersection PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset Way/Bronson Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp E 56 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB On & Off-Ramp B 12 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari’s Café/Quality Inn Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr A 4 tee intersection a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v10, HCM 2010 except Int2. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. b street peak hour: AM 7:00-8:00am, PM 4:45-5:45pm. c Int2 (SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps) computed using HCM2000 due to fact HCM2010 cannot compute non-NEMA conditions. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 14 As shown in Table 5, as stand-alone intersections, each of these are estimated to operate at satisfactory level of service except for the SR 169/Sunset Way intersection (Int1), which is estimated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. It is important to note that the operations of these four intersections are all affected directly by the operations of I-405 and the subsequent ramp metering conditions for Intersections 1 and 2. Any significant ramp congestion due to long ramp meter intervals generally results in spillback congestion through the intersections in this analysis. 4. Planned and Programmed Improvements According to the city of Renton’s 2019-2024 Transportation Improvement Program, there are four roadway project improvement projects in the vicinity of the project. TIP 34 -- Maple Valley Highway Barriers (Traffic Operations and Safety Project). This project includes two barriers vicinity of western edge of Riverview Park: One is to install a concrete median barrier between east and westbound travel lanes of the SR 169 S-Curve between the Riviera Apartments and S. 5th Street including associated roadway widening to add the barrier. The second barrier improvement will remove the existing concrete barrier end treatment located eastbound (east of the Riviera Apartments) and replace with 2 new concrete barriers extending west. TIP 36-- NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street Corridor Improvements (Corridor Project) This project involves a series of improvements in this corridor to improve traffic operations such as rechannelization and traffic signal modifications, possible transit priority signal treatments and queue jumps. This project will seek to meet pedestrian, transit and bicycle needs. TIP 24-- South 2nd Street Conversion Project (Corridor Project) The South 2nd Street Conversion Project will be improving multimodal mobility in around the downtown core by converting an existing 4–lane one-way roadway to a roadway with one through-lane in each direction between Main Ave South and Rainier Ave South. This project also includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic operations improvements, and transit upgrades that will provide better traffic operation and circulation for all modes of transportation. The improvements include a westbound bypass transit lane from just west of Logan Ave S to just east of Lake Avenue. Transit facility upgrades include new Rapid Ride stops and a transit queue jump at the new traffic signal at the Shattuck intersection. TIP 41 -- South 3rd Street Conversion Project (Corridor Project) The project provides pedestrian and bicyclists facilities and enhancements, traffic operation and circulation improvements in Downtown. The improvements include adding raised intersections with bulb outs, parklets, pedestrian plaza, lighting, street furniture, streetscape, bicycle blvd, bike racks, signage, wayfinding and converting S 3rd St to two-way operations. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 15 TIP 28 -- Houser Way S/N Non Motorized Improvements (Non-Motorized Project) This project would install a separated bike facility on the north side of Houser Way S/N, between Mill Ave S. and Bronson Way N. Intersection crossings would be improved at Cedar River Park Drive and Mill Ave S. The project will include planning and pavement overlay, channelization, and intersection crossing improvements. For feasibility and constructability issues, the roadway and pedestrian bridge sections would not be part of this project. Another project not included in the Transportation Element but that is included in the City’s Rate Study for Impact Fees (8/26/11), is Project #10 which consists of widening SR 169 from the Cedar River Park Entrance to East City Limits – “widen existing 4-lane roadway (7 lanes for a very limited distance) to provide additional lane in each direction; traffic operations improvements at intersections.” The total project cost was estimated at $83,693,292 and the amount eligible for impact fees was $59,204,163. This cost is part of the total fee basis of $134,330,224 as used for the denominator in the calculations of trip fees. WSDOT Improvements There are several projects currently in design or long range proposed that would have significant impact on traffic operations on I-405 in the vicinity of the proposed Cedar River Apartments project. They are: I-405/SR 169 Interchange Improvements There are currently two interchange projects proposed at this location. The first involves a proposed short-term enhancement with widening of the southbound on-ramp to include two general purpose metered lanes and one HOV by-pass lane. As part of this, the westbound approach would be modified (underneath I-405) to include two westbound turn lanes to the southbound ramp. This would involve rechannelization of the inside through lane to a shared thru plus left turn lane. This concept is expected to be completed in 2019 as its benefits to current traffic operations are substantial.. The second project is along-range plan (currently unfunded part of I-405 Master Plan) and includes a major change of both the SR 169 interchange and adjacent roadways that would include new ramps at N 3rd St and a fly-over southbound to eastbound SR 169. The estimated completion of this concept would be about 15 years out and will require significant legislative action to fund these remaining portions of the Master Plan. I-405 - Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes The project will add new lanes to create a two-lane express toll lane system between SR 167 in Renton and Northeast 6th Street in Bellevue. In general, the project will add one new tolled lane in each direction. The existing HOV lane will be combined with this new lane to create a dual express toll lane system. Since this project adds a lane of capacity each way the beneficial impacts on mainline and interchange operations should be substantial. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 16 Project highlights • Dual express toll lane system from SR 167 in Renton to Northeast Sixth Street in Bellevue • New southbound auxiliary lane in the I-90 to 112th Avenue Southeast vicinity • Improvements at interchanges, including Northeast Park Drive and Northeast 44th Street in Renton, and 112th Avenue Southeast and Coal Creek Parkway in Bellevue • Construction of portions of the Eastside Rail Corridor regional trail, including a 2.5- mile paved section and a new crossing over I-405 in downtown Bellevue at the site of the former Wilburton rail bridge (in partnership with King County) • New direct access ramp and inline transit station at NE 44th Street in Renton to help support Bus Rapid Transit operations (in partnership with Sound Transit) The project timeline is: • Summer 2015: Funded by Connecting Washington for preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction • 2019: Start of construction • 2024: Open to traffic The longer term plans for the south end of I-405 Master Plan includes one additional general purpose lane in each direction in this section of the roadway and other associated improvements to interchanges, local roadways, noise walls and storm water management facilities. This longer-term work is not currently funded for design or construction. I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project WSDOT is currently constructing a new flyover ramp connecting the HOT lanes on SR 167 to the carpool lanes on I-405 in Renton. This highway-to-highway connection will address weaving issues associated with drivers exiting the carpool or HOT lanes, merging onto I-405 or SR 167, and merging across traffic again to the toll lanes. The immediate result should be improved operations for both general- purpose lanes and carpool or express toll lanes. . B. FUTURE CONDITIONS 1. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes were estimated by factoring the existing traffic volumes by a calculated historical traffic growth rate up to the project's horizon year. The project’s estimated horizon year was assumed to be 2021 for Phase 1, 2022 for Phase 2, and 2023 for Phase 3. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 17 Historical average annual daily traffic counts in the area of the project were obtained from WSDOT sources for the period between 2008 and 2016. The count locations include locations on SR 169 just east of I-405. A summary total for all roadway segments noted above indicate that the historical annual growth rates are trending around 1.3%. Given the state’s policy directive to limit future travel growth a simplified background growth rate of 1% was used to forecast future volumes for all movements. No pipeline projects were identified by the City that would have a significant impact on this analysis. Background volume forecasts for Year 2021, 2022, and 2023 are all shown in Appendix A. 2. Project Trip Generation The Cedar River Apartments would consist of 481 apartments in two separate buildings; Building A and B, with 5 levels each building. The third building is proposed as a medical office building with a gross floor area of 25,000 gsf approximately, identified as Building C. The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. Each phase is discussed below and the trip generation estimate bases are all per the ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition manual. Phase 1 will be Building A. This building will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels; along with 306 structure parking stalls. The best-fit land use is ITE Land Use Code 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). Mid-rise multi-family housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors). Phase 2 will be Building B. This building will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor. There will be 339 structure parking stalls. For the small space of commercial retail public use, and due to the fact the space(s) is/are currently undefined, this analysis assumes an evenly split mix of four different retail type uses including: LUC 814 Variety Store, LUC 875 Department Store, LUC 876 Apparel Store, and LUC 920 Copy/Print/Express Ship Store. For the resultant retail trip generation estimate, it was also assumed that 50% of the total trips would be pass-by related. Since for Phase 2 there is a mix of land uses, an estimate of internal trip capture was made for all non-pass-by related trips using NCHRP 684 “Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool”. The results are shown in Table 6. Phase 3 will be the future commercial pad, identified in this report as Building C. It is intended to be a Medical Office type use. Therefore, trip generation rates are based on ITE LUC 720, Medical Office. Similar to Phase 2, since there is a mix of land use types, the internal trip capture tool (NCHRP 684) was used to estimate internal and external trips with Phase 3. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 18 The site is currently occupied by construction trucks and trailers and other heavy equipment. However, the trips currently generated at the site are likely incidental and are assumed as insignificant and thus identified in this analysis for any trip credit against future project trips. The trip generation estimates for the project by phase are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates a PHASE and, AM Peak PM Peak ITE Code and Land Use Size AWT Total In Out Total In Out PHASE 1 LUC 221 b – Multi-Family House Mid-Rise (3 to 10 floors) – 238 units (Building A) Rate 5.44 0.360 0.260 0.740 0.440 0.610 0.390 Vol 1,295 86 22 64 105 64 41 PHASE 2 LUC 221 b – Multi-Family House Mid-Rise (3 to 10 floors) – 243 units (Building B) Rate 5.44 0.360 0.260 0.740 0.440 0.610 0.390 Vol 1,322 87 23 64 107 65 42 LUC 814,815,875,920 c – Retail Mix – 4,852 gsf commercial/retail Rate 61.21 1.85 0.67 0.33 4.95 0.50 0.50 Vol 297 9 6 3 24 12 12 Retail Primary & Diverted (50%) 149 5 3 2 12 6 6 Phase 2 Subtotal 1,471 92 26 66 119 71 48 PHASE 1 and 2 Total Trips (internal & external) 2,766 178 48 130 224 135 89 Internal Trip Capture Estimate d 55 2 1 1 6 3 3 Total External Trips 2,710 176 47 129 218 132 86 PHASE 3 LUC 720 e – Medical-Dental Office Building – approximately 25,000 gsf (Building C) Rate 34.8 2.780 0.780 0.220 3.460 0.280 0.720 Vol 870 70 55 15 87 24 63 PHASE 1, 2 and 3 Total Trips (internal & external) 3,636 248 103 145 311 159 152 Internal Trip Capture Estimate d 145 10 5 5 14 7 7 Total External Trips 3,490 238 98 140 297 152 145 a ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition b Mid-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three and 10 levels (floors) c A department store is a free-standing facility that specializes in the sale of a wide range of products including apparel, footwear, home products, bedding and linens, luggage, jewelry, and accessories. d Multi-Use Trip Capture per NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool (see Appendix B) e A medical-dental office building is a facility that provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis but is unable t o provide prolonged in-house medical and surgical care. One or more private physicians or dentists generally operate this type of facility. As shown in Table 6, for Phase 1 the site is estimated to generate 1,295 average weekday daily trips, 86 AM, and 105 PM peak hour trips. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 19 For Phase 2, including Phase 1, the site is estimated to generate 2,710 average weekday daily trips, 176 AM, and 218 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. These would be the total external trips to and from the project and for the retail these would be the retail primary and/or diverted trips. Pass-by trips would already be on the street. For Phase 3, the site is estimated to generate 3,490 average weekday daily trips, 238 AM, and 297 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system (which includes Phase 1 and 2). Again these would be the external vehicle trips to and from the project as well as the retail non-pass-by trips. 3. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The project trip distribution patterns were based in general on traffic volumes for the surrounding roadways plus knowledge of the surrounding areas with respect to employment and socio-recreational types of attractions. For all of the land uses including the residential, retail, and office elements of the project, the analysis assumed the following: • 25% to I-405 north and 25% to I-405 south, • 10% to S 2nd St and S 3rd St in downtown Renton, • 10% to N 3rd St and N 4th St through North Renton and westerly locations, • 5% to the North Renton via the Houser Way bypass, • 10% to N 3rd St east to the Renton Highlands via N 3rd-N 4th St, • 15% to SR 169 east towards Fairwood, Maple Valley, Black Diamond and places east. The AM peak and the PM street peak hour trip distribution and assignment for the project for all phases is presented in Figure 7a and 7b. For each individual phase, the project trip assignment at each intersection is shown in Appendix A. 4. Background Traffic Plus Project Traffic Volumes Future year AM and PM peak hour with-project traffic volumes were developed by adding project trips to the background forecast traffic volumes. For Phase 1, the AM and PM peak hour volumes include the background traffic growth estimate from 2017 to 2021 as well as the Project Phase 1 traffic, which would all be representative for Year 2021. Similarly for Phase 2, the horizon year estimate is Year 2022 and the AM and PM peak hour volumes include an additional year of background growth plus Phase 2 project traffic. With Phase 2 there will be a small amount of trips that stay on site as a result of the small retail uses on site (trip capture). And finally, for Phase 3, the horizon year estimate is Year 2023 and would include another year of background growth plus Phase 3 traffic. Like Phase 2, there will be a small amount of trips that stay on site as a result of the small retail and the medical office mix with the residential. SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- AM Peak Hour Volumes (all Phases) $03($.352-(&775$)),&92/80(6 Figure 7a ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW DOO3KDVHVDQG North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 7 8 1 1 9 2 1461034 14 37 1119 3 5 8 225 6 8 5 3 4 1 2 2 0 8 1 8 2 1 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- PM Peak Hour Volumes (all Phases) 303($.352-(&775$)),&92/80(6 Figure 7b ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW DOO3KDVHVDQG North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 1 2 7 1 1 3 1 4741532 14 35 3116 1 1 1 1 3 378 9 8 1 3 2 3 2 5 0 1 1 1 4 1 4 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 22 All of the volumes by movement at each intersection as well as by Phase and per peak hour are all shown in Appendix A. The Year 2023 AM and PM peak hour with project volumes are shown in Figure 8a and 8b. 5. Level-of-Service (Future Year Phased Project Conditions) Level-of-service for the 2021 with- and without-project conditions were calculated for the subject analysis intersections plus the site access. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7. All of the future level of service calculations assume existing geometric and signal operations conditions. Table 7 Phase 1 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2021) Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) Without Project With Project Intersection LOS a Delay a LOS a Delay a Comments AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps D 51 D 52 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps B 33 C 32 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 6 A 7 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access n/a n/a A 9 left turn into site B 11 right turn to SR 169 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps E 65 E 65 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps B 13 B 13 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 A 4 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 5 A 5 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access n/a n/a D 25 left turn into site D 28 right turn to SR 169 a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v10, HCM 2010 except Int2. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. b street peak hour: AM 7:00-8:00am, PM 4:45-5:45pm. c Int2 (SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps) computed using HCM2000 due to fact HCM2010 cannot compute non-NEMA conditions. As shown in Table 7, as stand-alone intersections, each of these are estimated to operate at satisfactory level of service except for the SR 169/Sunset Way intersection (Int1), which is estimated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project traffic with Phase 1 is not estimated to have a significant impact on any of the four signalized intersections. SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2023 AM Peak Hour Volumes <($5$03($.75$)),&92/80(6 Figure 8a ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ZLWK3URMHFW3KDVHDQG North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 33 7 7 5 8 2 2 5 2 758 6 8 2 5 8 323419120 50 857 628 988905466 7153 2 1 0 6 1 6 1 2 3 3291 8 4 2 6 1 8 9 7 4 7 2525 6 6 9 2 2 0 2 1 2 7 1 8 2 1 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC SR 1 6 9 S h a ri's D rive w a yI-405 N B R am psI-405 NB Off-RampSunset Way,6%2Q5DPSB r o n s o n W a y I-405 SBI-405 NBSITE A B C xx -- 2023 PM Peak Hour Volumes <($5303($.75$)),&92/80(6 Figure 8b ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ,QW ZLWK3URMHFW3KDVHDQG North WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 44 4 2 3 7 7 1 1 0 7 1 433 2 2 2 4 1 6 1290714567 69 387 265 853791677 7 3157 9 6 6 2 4 1 5 3 3296 5 1 7 9 3 8 2 9 2 9 3856 2 2 8 3 2 5 0 9 9 0 1 4 1 4 Cedar River Apartments SRM Renton, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 25 As noted earlier, it is important to note that the operations of these four intersections are all affected directly by the operations of I-405 and the subsequent ramp metering conditions for Intersections 1 and 2. Any significant ramp congestion due to long ramp meter intervals generally results in spillback congestion through the intersections in this analysis. Level-of-service for the 2022 with project condition was calculated for the subject analysis intersections plus the site access. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8. All of the future level of service calculations assume existing geometric and signal operations conditions. Table 8 Phase 2 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2022) Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) With Project Intersection LOS a Delay a Comments AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps E 59 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps C 34 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 10 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access A 9 left turn into site B 11 right turn to SR 169 PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps E 72 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps B 13 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 6 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access D 27 left turn into site D 29 right turn to SR 169 a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v10, HCM 2010 except Int2. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. b street peak hour: AM 7:00-8:00am, PM 4:45-5:45pm. c Int2 (SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps) computed using HCM2000 due to fact HCM2010 cannot compute non-NEMA conditions. As shown in Table 8, as stand-alone intersections, each of these are estimated to operate at satisfactory level of service except for the SR 169/Sunset Way intersection (Int1), which is estimated to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hour. The level of service results shown in Table 8 above include one year of background growth plus Phase 2 traffic. The delay changes do not increase significantly for the majority of intersections. Intersection 1 for the AM and PM peak hour are both estimated to increase by an average of 7 sec/veh with Phase 2 traffic and one year of background growth. For the AM condition, the level changes from LOS D to E, the PM condition is estimated to remain at LOS E. Again, as noted earlier, it is important to note that the operations of these four intersections are all affected directly by the operations of I-405 and the subsequent ramp metering Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 26 conditions for Intersections 1 and 2. Any significant ramp congestion due to long ramp meter intervals generally results in spillback congestion through the intersections in this analysis. Level-of-service for the 2023 with project condition was calculated for the subject analysis intersections plus the site access. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 9. All of the future level of service calculations assume existing geometric and signal operations conditions. Table 9 Phase 3 Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2023) Individual Intersection Results (per Synchro) With Project Intersection LOS a Delay a Comments AM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps E 60 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps D 36 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 11 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access A 9 WBL B 11 NBR PM PEAK HOUR b 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps E 75 ramp meter not included 2 SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps B 13 ramp meter not included 3 SR 169/Shari's Driveway A 3 tee intersection 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park Drive A 8 tee intersection 5 SR 169/East Site Access D 28 WBL D 32 NBR a LOS and Delay are per Synchro v10, HCM 2010 except Int2. Delay values represented in seconds per vehicle, all intersections are signalized. b street peak hour: AM 7:00-8:00am, PM 4:45-5:45pm. c Int2 (SR 169/I-405 NB Ramps) computed using HCM2000 due to fact HCM2010 cannot compute non-NEMA conditions. As shown in Table 9, as stand-alone intersections, each of these are estimated to operate at satisfactory level of service except for the SR 169/Sunset Way intersection (Int1), which is estimated to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hour. The level of service results shown in Table 9 above include one year of background growth plus Phase 3 traffic. The level of services changes do not increase significantly for the majority of intersections. Intersection 1 for the PM peak hour is estimated to increase by an average of 3 sec/veh with Phase 3 traffic and one year of background growth (1 sec/veh for the AM peak hour). Both peak hour conditions are estimated to remain at LOS E for the Phase 3 condition up from Phase 2. And to re-iterate, the operations of these four intersections are all affected directly by the operations of I-405 and the subsequent ramp metering conditions for Intersections 1 and 2. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 27 Any significant ramp congestion due to long ramp meter intervals generally results in spillback congestion through the intersections in this analysis. 6. Parking The project is proposing in total 645 parking stalls in Buildings A and B. There are 41 surface parking stalls proposed north of Building A, and 14 stalls along the internal access road in front of Building B. The parking requirement for Buildings A and B is a range between 634 and 700 stalls. Thus the parking proposed complies with City code. A useful tool in estimating parking demand for residential multi-family development is the King County Multi-Family Residential Parking Calculator. This program calculates parking/unit rates for any parcel/area in the county. The model indicates that for the subject site parcel based on the bedroom count and floor areas as noted in the site plan, and assuming parking costs are included in rent (not a separate item), the model yields a parking per unit rate of 1.02 vehicles/unit for Building A and 1.07 vehicles per unit for Building B. The peak demand is estimated to occur between 10 pm and 5 am. In total, the parking demand estimate for all of the residential is 503 vehicles for peak demand conditions. Given the designed parking supply of 645 stalls in the two garages, it is concluded that the parking supply should be adequate to meet estimated demand. The parking supply has not yet been identified for Building C, but it is presumed it will meet or exceed code requirements. C. CONCLUSIONS 1. Project Details The site is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) in the City of Renton. The parcel number is 1723059026, and the total area of the site is approximately 12.5 acres. The site is currently vacant in terms of building structures, however, it is used as a storage area for heavy construction machinery. Presently, there are two access points to the site including one to Cedar River Park Drive and one two SR 169. The proposed project consists of three different buildings, to be constructed in three separate phases. Phase 1 – Building A will consist of 238 apartment units, on 5 levels, along with 306 structure parking stalls and presumed occupied by 2021. In addition to the structure parking, there will be some surface parking on the north side of the building. Phase 2 –Building B will consist of 243 apartment units, on 5 levels, along with 339 structure parking stalls, plus 4,852 gsf of commercial retail on the ground floor for public use, and presumed occupied by 2022. Phase 3 – Building C (as identified in this study) will be a Medical Office type use on the commercial pad located in the north corner of the parcel. Parking is currently undetermined. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 28 Access is presumed to be to the internal roadway in front of Building B and the driveway is anticipated to be opposite the garage entry to Building B. No additional access points to public roadways are proposed with Phase 3. 2. Accidents Based on accident records obtained from WSDOT, none of the four subject intersection have an accident rate higher than 0.71 for the 3-plus year of data. The accident rates ranged between 0.16 and 0.71 acc/mev. The typical standard threshold is 1.0 acc/mev. The accident occurrence and rate suggests no unusual unsafe conditions. Based on all the data at the four intersections, the rear-end type of accident is the most common accident type with 45% of the total accidents, next with sideswipe type accidents at 25%. In general, rear-end accidents are most common at heavily congested signalized intersections where motorists are not anticipating stop conditions during green light situations. 3. Project Vehicular Impact In total for all phases, the project is estimated to generate 3,490 average weekday daily trips, 238 AM peak hour trips and 297 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street network. Phase 1 with 238 units is estimated to generate 1,295 average weekday daily trips, 86 AM, and 105 PM peak hour trips. Phase 2 with 243 units plus 4,852 gsf retail is estimated to generate 1,471 average weekday daily trips, 92 AM, and 119 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. Phase 3 with 25,000 gsf of medical office space is estimated to generate 870 average weekday daily trips, 70 AM, and 87 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding street system. When added all together there is the assumption of some trip capture thus as a mixed use development at full buildout the project is estimated to generate slightly less trips than if each phase were a stand alone project. 4. Level of Service The results of the level of service analyses indicate that all of the subject intersections operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp intersection which is estimated to operate at LOS E for the AM or PM peak hour with or without the project for future conditions. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 29 5. Site Access The project will have two access points, one to Cedar River Park Drive and one to SR 169. This analysis assumes that the majority of the project traffic will access Cedar River Park Drive which will have signalized access to SR 169. The project site access to SR 169 which will be approximately 350 feet southeast from the SR 169/Cedar River Park Dr intersection is presumed to be left-in, right-in, and right-out. No left turn out was assumed for this driveway due to the expected difficulty in doing so during the peak hour periods. 6. Parking The project’s peak parking demand for all of the residential in Phase 1 and 2 is estimated to be 503 vehicles. The peak demand would occur for the overnight period. The proposed parking supply in the two garages in Phase 1 and 2 totals to 645 stalls. Thus, the parking supply as proposed for the residential will exceed parking demand estimates and no parking spill over is estimated to occur to surrounding areas, primarily no spill over into the Cedar River Park area. Parking supply has not yet been identified for Building C, the medical office proposed use. However, it is assumed that the parking supply will meet or exceed demand. Of course this will be better identified as the plans develop for that building. D. MITIGATION and RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing traffic impact analysis for the Cedar River Apartments project, the draft mitigation recommendations are suggested: 1. Frontage Improvements The City requirement along SR 169 per the development standards and the pre-app meeting is a 6” curb, 8’ planter, 8’ sidewalk and 2’ clear behind sidewalk to new property line. Currently there is an 8’ sidewalk. The current site plan provides for an additional 8’ for the sidewalk and landscaping plus 2’ from back of sidewalk to the new property line (and then there’s a 15’ setback required that is being provided). 2. Primary Site Access The project’s primary access will be to/from Cedar River Park Drive. The existing configuration currently consists of two lanes (left and right) from the site access to SR 169, and one lane exiting from SR 169. With heavy congestion on I-405, it is estimated that there could be spill back congestion on SR 169 passing through this intersection, which in turn may result in congestion when exiting from Cedar River Park Dr to SR 169, primarily left turns to SR 169. Excessive delay from Cedar River Park Dr may be a result. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 30 One consideration would be widening the Cedar River Park Dr approach to include dual left turn lanes (for increase storage and shorter green time for dissipation) and a right turn lane. Additional right of way consideration should be made and potential further evaluation conducted when Building C as part of Phase 3 is approached. All of the WSDOT improvements discussed in Section A.4. should result in decreased congestion and spill back on SR 169. 3. Secondary Site Access The project is proposing a direct access to SR 169 as a secondary access in addition to the access to Cedar River Park Drive. There is an existing driveway opening at the point where the curb lane begins to taper back from 3 lanes to 2 lanes heading east. This existing driveway is about 490 feet from the stop bar at the Cedar River Park Dr intersection. There is a two-way left turn lane on SR 169 that begins approximately 350 feet southeast from the stop bar at the Cedar River Park Dr intersection. This 350-foot section consists of a 200’ left turn pocket plus a 150-foot transition opening. The proposed driveway is recommended to be no closer than at the beginning of the two-way left turn lane, which as noted is 350 feet south east from the stop bar at Cedar River Park Dr intersection. This location recommendation is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9: East Site Access to SR 169 Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 31 Given the heavy volumes on SR 169, it is recommended that the egress for this driveway be restricted to right turn out only. Due to the fact there is a two-way left turn lane, it is possible that left turn traffic queuing in the turn lane and turning into the site can be made without impact on the mainline traffic heading west or impact on those vehicles turning left to Cedar River Park Drive. In addition, this ingress access option from the east would reduce vehicle impact for the left turn at Cedar River Park Dr and also keep from extending the green time for the left turn phase. 4. Off-Site Programmed Mitigation Improvements An important near term WSDOT programmed project is widening of the southbound on-ramp to I-405 from SR 169. The widening would include adding an additional lane on the on-ramp (from two lanes to three lanes), widening from one general purpose metered lane and one HOV by-pass lane to two general purpose metered lanes and one HOV by-pass lane(see Figure 10). In turn the westbound approach (SR 169) would be modified to a left turn lane and a shared left/through lane. And at the southbound approach (Sunset Boulevard), the HOV lane designation would be removed from the shared left/through lane, and two general-purpose lanes would access the southbound on-ramp. It is estimated that this proposal would improve intersection level of service from LOS E to D during the morning peak by up to 20 seconds per vehicle (for all movements), and improve the delay for the PM condition by up to 11 seconds per vehicle (for all movements). During the morning commute period, the westbound traffic on SR 169 can queue back excessively (sometimes exceeding 4,000 ft) and longer with a rolling queue. It should be noted that this recommended change would significantly reduce the overall travel time for HOVs to access southbound 1-405 in light of any difference with the existing HOV bypass. The proposed channelization plan from WSDOT is shown in Figure 10. This figure shows paths for two large trucks side-by-side turning left on to the ramp. Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 32 Figure 10: SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp Improvements The level of service results noted in this traffic study are footnoted to indicate these results reflect stand-alone intersection conditions. Computerized traffic simulation runs indicate significant spill back however much of that depends on the operations of I-405 and the ramp metering. It is expected that the proposed improvement shown in Figure 10 would result in more efficient storage and metering on the ramp than currently exists thereby minimizing the queue spill back on SR 169. Furthermore, the I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project and the I-405 - SR 167 Interchange Direct Connector Project should significantly reduce congestion and decrease travel time on I-405 in this area which in turn and in theory would minimize excessive ramp meter intervals at the SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 Southbound On-Ramp intersection and at the SR 169/I-405 Northbound On/Off-Ramp intersection, in particular for AM commute period conditions. It is our understanding that Figure 10 southbound ramp widening and rechannelization of SR 169/Sunset Way/I-405 SB On-Ramp intersection ”has been moved to the head of the line for construction” by WSDOT and is estimated to be constructed las early as late 2019. The Cedar River Apartments project would benefit from this project. A lower cost immediate type option that had been analyzed and advocated by the City before the WSDOT current construction program had advanced is removal of the HOV bypass lane from the on-ramp. This would involve restriping the southbound on-ramp to remove the HOV bypass lane and provide two general-purpose metered lanes. In this location, the HOV bypass only provides Traffic Impact Analysis (11/01/18) Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates Page 33 travel time savings once the carpool is on the ramp. Also there are no bus routes that use the on-ramp. However, since WSDOT has advanced their ramp project to a likely late 2019 implementation, this lower cost project becomes unnecessary. 5. Traffic Impact Fee The City of Renton’s currently adopted traffic impact fees for various land use types are based on the City’s “Rate Study for Impact Fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire Protection”, dated August 26, 2011. The City’s impact fee rate based on PM peak hour trips generated by new development is $7,517.08 per PM peak hour Trip (source: Table 7 of the City’s Rate Study 8/26/11). The estimated PM peak hour total trips generated to the surrounding street system by this development are 297 PM peak hour trips with completion of all phases of this development3. That would result in a traffic impact fee of $2,232,573. It is important to note that this project is a mixed-use development with residential, retail, and medical office uses. Computation of traffic impact fees based on stand-alone uses in this case would not be applicable due to the fact it would not take into consideration of internal trip capture on site between uses. William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners ________________________________________________________________________ (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com 14-400 Building z Suite 206 z 14400 Bel-Red Road z Bellevue, WA 98007 TECHNICAL APPENDIX for Cedar River Apartments November 1, 2018 CONTENTS: APPENDIX A: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES AND FORECASTS APPENDIX B: TRIP GENERATION INTERNAL CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR AM AND PM PEAK HOUR APPENDIX C: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS $33(1',;$$33(1',;$$33(1',;$$33(1',;$ AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES AND FORECASTS 1 SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB RampsExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byAM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK 2023EBLT 1 199 8 207 0 207 2 0 209 2 0 211 0EBLT 2 196 395 8 204 411 0 204 411 2 0 206 415 2 0 208 419 0EBT 104 4 108 2 110 1 3 114 1 5 120 10EBRT 47 2 49 0 49 0 0 49 0 0 50 0 WBLT77531 806 16 822 8 16 847 8 2 857 34WBT 578 23 601 6 607 6 7 621 6 1 628 14WBRT89536 931 15 946 9 19 975 10 3 988 37 NBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 SBLT 1 187 8 195 5 200 2 7 209 2 13 224 25SBLT 2 74 261 3 77 272 6 83 283 1 5 89 297 1 10 100 323 21SBT HOV 358 15 373 0 373 4 0 376 4 0 380 0SBT 495 853 20 515 888 0 515 888 5 0 520 897 5 0 525 905 0SBRT 439 18 457 0 457 5 0 461 5 0 466 04347 177 4524 50 4574 46 57 4676 47 34 4757 1412.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.7% 3.0%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3)1SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB Ramps1SR 169/Sunset/Bronson/I-405 SB RampsExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byPM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK 2023EBLT 1 314 13 327 0 327 3 0 330 3 0 333 0EBLT 2 359 673 15 374 700 0 374 700 4 0 377 707 4 0 381 714 0EBT 520 21 541 6 547 5 7 560 6 2 567 15EBRT 65 3 68 0 68 1 0 68 1 0 69 0 WBLT 334 14 348 10 358 4 11 372 4 11 387 32WBT 236 10 246 4 250 2 4 256 3 6 265 14WBRT 770 31 801 10 811 8 10 829 8 15 853 35 NBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 SBLT 1 718 29 747 16 763 8 18 789 8 6 803 40SBLT 2 427 1145 17 444 1191 15 459 1222 5 16 480 1269 5 3 488 1290 34SBT HOV 202 8 210 0 210 2 0 212 2 0 214 0SBT 543 745 22 565 775 0 565 775 6 0 571 783 6 0 576 791 0SBRT 638 26 664 0 664 7 0 671 7 0 677 05126 208 5334 61 5395 54 66 5515 55 43 5613 1702.0% 1.1% 1.2% 0.8% 3.0%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 2 SR 169/I-405 NB RampsExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byAM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK Growth Trips AM PK 2023EBLT 171180180 0180 018 0EBT 348 14 362 13 375 4 15 394 4 28 426 56EBRT 00000000000 0 WBLT 00000000000 0WBT 1706 69 1775 37 1812 18 42 1872 19 6 1897 85WBRT 412 17 429 16 445 4 16 465 5 2 472 34 NBLT 00000000000 0NBT 00000000000 0NBRT 289 12 301 6 307 3 6 316 3 10 329 22 SBLT 00000000000 0SBT 00000000000 0SBRT 495 20 515 0 515 5 0 520 5 0 525 03267 133 3400 72 3472 35 79 3585 36 46 3667 1972.0% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3% 5.4%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3)2 SR 169/I-405 NB RampsExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byPM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK Growth Trips PM PK 2023EBLT 612630631 0641 065 0EBT 1604 65 1669 37 1706 17 41 1764 18 11 1793 89EBRT 00000000000 0 WBLT 00000000000 0WBT 704 29 733 24 757 8 25 789 8 32 829 81WBRT 246 10 256 10 266 3 11 280 3 11 293 32 NBLT 00000000000 0NBT 00000000000 0NBRT 771 31 802 16 818 8 17 843 8 4 856 37 SBLT 00000000000 0SBT 00000000000 0SBRT 672 27 699 0 699 7 0 706 7 0 713 04058 165 4223 87 4310 43 94 4447 44 58 4550 2392.0% 2.0% 2.1% 1.3% 5.3%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 3 SR 169/Shari's DrivewayExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byAM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips AM PK 2023EBUT 55 2 57 0 57 1 0 58 1 0 58 0EBLT 35 1 36 0 36 0 0 37 0 0 37 0EBT 1 240 10 250 0 250 2 0 252 3 0 255 0EBT 2 260 640 11 271 666 13 284 685 3 15 301 713 3 28 332 758 56EBT 3 140 6 146 6 152 2 6 159 2 10 171 22EBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 WBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0WBT 1 546 22 569 16 585 6 16 606 6 2 614 34WBT 2 541 2008 22 563 2090 6 569 2143 6 7 581 2222 6 1 588 2252 14WBT 3 541 22 563 15 578 6 19 603 6 3 612 37WBT 4 380 15 395 16 411 4 16 432 4 2 438 34WBRT 7 07 07 007 007 0 NBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 SBLT 3 03 03 003 003 0SBT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBRT 55 2 57 0 57 1 0 58 1 0 58 02803 114 2917 72 2989 30 79 3098 31 46 3175 1972.0% 2.4% 2.6% 1.4% 6.2%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3)3 SR 169/Shari's DrivewayExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byPM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips PM PK 2023EBUT 15 1 16 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 16 0EBLT 41 2 43 0 43 0 0 43 0 0 44 0EBT 1 990 40 1030 0 1030 10 0 1040 10 0 1051 0EBT 2 778 2118 32 810 2204 38 848 2258 8 41 897 2339 9 11 917 2377 90EBT 3 350 14 364 16 380 4 17 401 4 4 409 37EBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 WBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0WBT 1 355 14 369 10 379 4 11 394 4 11 409 32WBT 2 158 935 6 165 973 7 172 1007 2 4 177 1053 2 6 185 1107 17WBT 3 158 6 165 7 172 2 10 183 2 15 200 32WBT 4 264 11 275 10 285 3 11 299 3 11 313 32WBRT 13 1 14 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 NBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 SBLT 4 04 04 004 004 0SBT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBRT 31 1 32 0 32 0 0 33 0 0 33 03157 128 3285 88 3373 34 94 3501 35 58 3594 2402.0% 2.6% 2.7% 1.6% 6.7%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 4 SR 169/Cedar River Park DriveExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byAM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips AM PK 2023EBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0EBT 1 272 11 283 0 283 3 0 286 3 0 289 0EBT 2 296 623 12 308 648 0 308 648 3 0 311 660 3 0 314 682 0EBT 3 55 2 57 0 57 1 5 63 1 16 79 21EBRT 61 2 63 19 82 1 16 99 1 23 123 58 WBLT 12 0 12 0 12 0 0 13 0 3 16 3WBT 1 536 22 558 0 558 6 0 563 6 0 569 0WBT 2 783 1984 32 815 2065 0 815 2065 8 0 823 2085 8 0 831 2106 0WBT 3 665 27 692 0 692 7 0 699 7 0 706 0WBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 NBLT 31 1 32 54 86 1 55 142 1 9 153 118NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 6 06 06 006 017 1 SBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02717 110 2827 73 2900 29 76 3005 30 52 3087 2012.0% 2.5% 2.5% 1.7% 6.5%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3)4 SR 169/Cedar River Park DriveExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 2 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byPM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips PM PK 2023EBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0EBT 1 1013 41 1054 0 1054 11 0 1065 11 0 1075 0EBT 2 989 2082 40 1029 2167 0 1029 2167 10 0 1039 2196 10 0 1050 2224 0EBT 3 80 383 083 1 892 1 699 14EBRT 36 1 37 54 91 1 50 142 1 9 153 113 WBLT 12 0 12 5 17 0 5 23 0 1 24 11WBT 1 342 14 356 0 356 4 0 359 4 0 363 0WBT 2 229 910 9 238 947 0 238 947 2 0 241 956 2 0 243 966 0WBT 3 339 14 353 0 353 4 0 356 4 0 360 0WBRT 0 00 00 000 000 0 NBLT 38 2 40 35 75 1 37 112 1 44 157 116NBT 0 00 00 000 000 0NBRT 66 3 69 0 69 1 0 69 1 3 73 3 SBLT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBT 0 00 00 000 000 0SBRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03144 128 3272 943366 34 100 3499 35 63 3597 2572.8% 2.9% 1.8% 7.1%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) 5 SR 169/Cedar River Apts East DrivewayExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 2021 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project w/Project Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byAM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips AM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips Growth 2020EBLT 00000000000 0EBT 629 26 655 0 655 7 0 661 7 1 669 1EBRT 0000005501621 21 WBLT 0003305801018 18WBT 1996 81 2077 0 2077 21 5 2103 21 3 2127 8WBRT 00000000000 0 NBLT 00000000000 0NBT 00000000000 0NBRT 0 0 01010010200 222 22 SBLT 00000000000 0SBT 00000000000 0SBRT 00000000000 02625 107 2732 13 2745 27 25 2797 28 32 2857 702.0% 0.5% 0.9% 1.1% 2.5%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3)5 SR 169/Cedar River Apts East DrivewayExisting 2021 2021 Phase 1 w/Project 2022 Phase 2 2022 2023 Phase 3 2023 All Dev2017 Future Background Project 2021 Future Project w/Project Future Project w/Project byPM PKGrowth aTraffic Trips PM PK Growth Trips Traffic Growth Trips Growth 2020EBLT 00000000000 0EBT 2148 87 2235 0 2235 22 0 2258 23 3 2283 3EBRT 000000880614 14 WBLT 0005505100414 14WBT 922 37 959 5 964 10 5 979 10 1 990 11WBRT 00000000000 0 NBLT 00000000000 0NBT 00000000000 0NBRT 00066071301225 25 SBLT 00000000000 0SBT 00000000000 0SBRT 00000000000 03070 125 3195 16 3211 32 25 3268 33 26 3326 672.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 2.0%aBackground growth estimated based on SR 169 count records WSDOTbProject: 238 apts (Ph1), 243 apts and 4.852 kgsf retail (Ph2), 25 kgsf medical office (Ph3) $33(1',;%$33(1',;%$33(1',;%$33(1',;% TRIP GENERATION INTERNAL CAPTURE CALCULATIONS FOR AM AND PM PEAK HOUR APPENDIX B (page1) Project Name: Organization: Project Location: Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year: Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 0 - GFA 0 0 0 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 5 3 2 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 000 Residential 221 481 DU 173 45 128 Hotel 0 All Other Land Uses2 0 178 48 130 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 178 48 130 Office N/A N/A Internal Capture Percentage 1% 2% 1% Retail 33% 0% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 176 47 129 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 0% 1% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton AM Street Peak Hour William Popp Associates Bill Popp Jr. At Full Occupancy 24-Oct-18Phase A & B Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only ) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Land Use Cedar River Apartments NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 1-A 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 2) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.00 3 3 1.00 1.5 2 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 45 45 1.00 128 128 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 26 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 1 0 Restaurant 0 0 2 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 2 3 2 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 45 45 45 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 2 2 2 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 127 128 127 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Cedar River Apartments AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 2-A 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 3) Project Name: Organization: Project Location: Performed By: Scenario Description: Date: Analysis Year: Checked By: Analysis Period: Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 0 - GFA 0 0 0 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 12 6 6 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment - - - 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 212 129 83 Hotel - - - 0 All Other Land Uses2 - - - 0 224 135 89 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential 0 0 Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 224 135 89 Office N/A N/A Internal Capture Percentage 3% 2% 3% Retail 17% 33% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 218 132 86 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 2% 1% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton Bill Popp Jr. *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Phase A & B 24-Oct-18 At Full Occupancy PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only )Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, Page 1-P 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 4) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.00 6 6 1.00 6 6 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 129 129 1.00 83 83 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 2 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 35 17 2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 5 0 Retail 0 0 59 0 Restaurant 0 3 21 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 5 0 Residential 0 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 5 6 5 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 127 129 127 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 2 4 6 4 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 82 83 82 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Cedar River Apartments PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx, NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 2.xlsx 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 5) Project Name: Organization: Project Location: Performed By: Scenario Description:Date: Analysis Year: Checked By: Analysis Period:Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 720 25,000 GFA 70 55 15 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 5 3 2 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 000 Residential 221 481 DU 173 45 128 Hotel 0 All Other Land Uses2 0 248 103 145 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 248 103 145 Office 5% 7% Internal Capture Percentage 4% 5% 3% Retail 67% 50% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 238 98 140 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 0% 2% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton AM Street Peak Hour William Popp Associates Bill Popp Jr. At Full Occupancy 24-Oct-18Phase A & B & C Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6Person-Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Destination (To)Origin (From) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment Development Data (For Information Only ) 0 0 0 Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Land Use Cedar River Apartments NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 1-A 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 6) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 55 55 1.00 15 15 Retail 1.00 3 3 1.00 1.5 2 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 45 45 1.00 128 128 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 4 9 0 0 Retail 1 0 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 26 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 1 0 0 0 Retail 2 0 1 0 Restaurant 8 0 2 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 2 1 0 0 Hotel 2 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 52 55 52 0 0 Retail 2 1 3 1 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 45 45 45 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 1 14 15 14 0 0 Retail 1 1 2 1 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 125 128 125 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 00 0 0 0 0 Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips 2Person-Trips Person-Trip Estimates Cedar River Apartments AM Street Peak Hour Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips 0 0 0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* External Trips by Mode* 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 0 *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 0 0 0 0 0 Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Destination Land Use Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 2-A 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 7) Project Name: Organization: Project Location: Performed By: Scenario Description: Date: Analysis Year: Checked By: Analysis Period: Date: ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting Office 720 25,000 GFA 87 24 63 Retail 815,920 4,852 GFA 12 6 6 Restaurant 930,936 - GFA 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment - - - 0 0 0 Residential 221 481 DU 212 129 83 Hotel - - - 0 All Other Land Uses2 - - - 0 311 159 152 Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel All Other Land Uses2 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential 0 0 Hotel Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 1 0 Retail 0 0 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 311 159 152 Office 13% 2% Internal Capture Percentage 5% 4% 5% Retail 17% 33% Restaurant N/A N/A External Vehicle-Trips5 297 152 145 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 2% 5% External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A 1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ). 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 6Person-Trips 0 0 0 0 Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment 0 Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From)Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Cedar River Apartments William Popp Associates 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton Bill Popp Jr. *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Phase A & B & C 24-Oct-18 At Full Occupancy PM Street Peak Hour Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use Development Data (For Information Only )Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, Page 1-P 10/31/2018 APPENDIX B (page 8) Project Name: Analysis Period: Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 24 24 1.00 63 63 Retail 1.00 6 6 1.00 6 6 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.00 129 129 1.00 83 83 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 13 3 1 0 Retail 0 2 2 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 35 17 2 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel Office 0 0 5 0 Retail 7 0 59 0 Restaurant 7 3 21 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1 0 0 5 0 Residential 14 1 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 3 21 24 21 0 0 Retail 1 5 6 5 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 126 129 126 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0 Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2 Office 1 62 63 62 0 0 Retail 2 4 6 4 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 4 79 83 79 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) 2Person-Trips 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Cedar River Apartments PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From)Destination (To) Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx, NCHRP Report 684 estimator PHASE 3.xlsx 10/31/2018 $33(1',;&$33(1',;&$33(1',;&$33(1',;& AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS AM AND +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2017 existing AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 395 104 47 775 578 895000261853439 Future Volume (veh/h) 395 104 47 775 578 895 0 0 0 261 853 439 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 439 116 0 861 642 994 290 948 488 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 373 383 0 768 1533 1200 576 1210 686 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 439 116 0 861 642 994 290 948 488 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 4.4 0.0 64.0 9.3 64.0 19.2 33.8 36.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 4.4 0.0 64.0 9.3 64.0 19.2 33.8 36.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 383 0 768 1533 1200 576 1210 686 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 0.30 0.00 1.12 0.42 0.83 0.50 0.78 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 383 0 768 1533 1200 576 1210 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.0 56.9 0.0 16.6 10.1 4.0 36.5 41.3 30.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 104.6 0.4 0.0 58.8 0.0 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.6 2.1 0.0 41.0 4.2 38.6 9.1 16.8 18.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 166.6 57.3 0.0 75.4 10.1 5.2 37.8 43.4 33.1 LnGrp LOS F E F B A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 555 2497 1726 Approach Delay, s/veh 143.8 30.6 39.6 Approach LOS F C D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 52.0 68.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 47.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 38.6 66.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2017 existing AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 348 0 0 1706 412 0 0 289 0 0 495 Future Volume (vph) 17 348 0 0 1706 412 0 0 289 0 0 495 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 387 0 0 1896 458 0 0 321 0 0 550 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001420000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 387 0 0 1896 316 0 0 321 0 0 540 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 51.5 140.0 78.5 78.5 140.0 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 52.5 140.0 79.5 79.5 140.0 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 1.00 0.57 0.57 1.00 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 607 3241 2034 823 1476 553 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.12 c0.53 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.93 0.38 0.22 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 0.0 27.8 16.7 0.0 43.1 Progression Factor 1.55 1.00 0.74 0.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 9.3 1.4 0.3 32.0 Delay (s) 43.0 0.1 29.9 5.1 0.3 75.1 Level of Service D A C A A E Approach Delay (s) 2.1 25.0 0.3 75.1 Approach LOS A C A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2017 existing AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 35 640 2008 7 3 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 35 640 2008 7 3 55 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 711 2231 8 3 61 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 61 3256 4433 16 4 91 Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5977 20 70 1418 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 711 1518 721 65 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1761 1511 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 0.05 0.94 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 61 3256 3016 1433 97 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.22 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 3256 3016 1433 194 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 7.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.7 0.2 0.5 0.9 72.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 750 2239 65 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 0.6 72.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 127.0 13.0 9.1 117.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 113.0 17.0 17.0 91.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 7.9 5.2 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 36.3 0.1 0.1 34.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.0 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2017 existing AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 623 61 12 1984 31 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 623 61 12 1984 31 6 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 692 68 13 2204 34 7 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2897 283 27 3632 228 204 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.81 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 4328 371 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 449 311 13 2204 34 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1699 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 25.9 2.5 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 25.9 2.5 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1884 1296 27 3632 228 204 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.24 0.49 0.61 0.15 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1884 1296 84 3632 228 204 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 5.1 53.4 52.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.4 13.1 0.8 1.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.6 10.7 1.2 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.3 0.4 81.5 5.9 54.7 52.8 LnGrp LOS A A F A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 760 2217 41 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.3 6.3 54.4 Approach LOS A A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 110.8 117.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 101.0 112.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 27.9 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 36.8 35.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.5 HCM 2010 LOS A +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 background AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931000272888457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 108 49 806 601 931 0 0 0 272 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 457 120 0 896 668 1034 302 987 508 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 396 407 0 756 1509 1189 576 1210 696 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 457 120 0 896 668 1034 302 987 508 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 4.6 0.0 63.0 10.4 63.0 20.2 35.7 38.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 4.6 0.0 63.0 10.4 63.0 20.2 35.7 38.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 396 407 0 756 1509 1189 576 1210 696 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 0.29 0.00 1.18 0.44 0.87 0.52 0.82 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 407 0 756 1509 1189 576 1210 696 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 56.0 0.0 17.4 10.9 4.3 36.9 42.0 30.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 94.4 0.4 0.0 84.5 0.0 0.7 1.4 2.5 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.8 2.1 0.0 45.8 4.6 40.0 9.5 17.8 20.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 155.9 56.4 0.0 101.9 10.9 5.0 38.2 44.5 33.1 LnGrp LOS F E F B A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 577 2598 1797 Approach Delay, s/veh 135.2 40.0 40.2 Approach LOS F D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 52.0 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 47.0 62.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 40.4 65.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 background AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 375 0 0 1812 445 0 0 307 0 0 515 Future Volume (vph) 18 375 0 0 1812 445 0 0 307 0 0 515 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 417 0 0 2013 494 0 0 341 0 0 572 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001460000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 417 0 0 2013 348 0 0 341 0 0 562 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 52.0 140.0 78.0 78.0 140.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 53.0 140.0 79.0 79.0 140.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.00 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 613 3241 2021 818 1476 558 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.56 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.13 1.00 0.43 0.23 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 0.0 30.3 17.5 0.0 43.5 Progression Factor 1.53 1.00 0.65 0.34 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 16.9 1.3 0.4 39.9 Delay (s) 41.9 0.1 36.8 7.3 0.4 83.4 Level of Service D A D A A F Approach Delay (s) 2.0 30.9 0.4 83.4 Approach LOS A C A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 background AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 36 666 2090 7 3 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 36 666 2090 7 3 57 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 740 2322 8 3 63 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 62 3251 4422 15 4 93 Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5978 19 68 1420 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 740 1579 751 67 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1761 1511 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.94 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 3251 3008 1430 99 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 3251 3008 1430 183 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 7.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.4 0.2 0.5 1.0 72.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 780 2330 67 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 0.6 72.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 126.8 13.2 9.2 117.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 18.0 91.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.1 5.2 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 40.3 0.1 0.1 37.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.0 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 background AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 648 63 12 2065 32 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 648 63 12 2065 32 6 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 720 70 13 2294 36 7 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2900 281 27 3632 228 204 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.81 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 4332 368 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 467 323 13 2294 36 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1700 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 28.1 2.6 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 28.1 2.6 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1884 1296 27 3632 228 204 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.25 0.49 0.63 0.16 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1884 1296 84 3632 228 204 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 5.3 53.4 52.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 13.1 0.8 1.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.6 11.8 1.3 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.3 0.5 81.5 6.2 54.9 52.8 LnGrp LOS A A F A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 790 2307 43 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.4 6.6 54.6 Approach LOS A A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 110.8 117.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 101.0 112.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 30.1 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 40.7 38.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.7 HCM 2010 LOS A +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 AM Peak 2021 Phase 1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946000283888457 Future Volume (veh/h) 411 110 49 822 607 946 0 0 0 283 888 457 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 457 122 0 913 674 1051 314 987 508 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 457 122 0 913 674 1051 314 987 508 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 4.6 0.0 64.0 10.0 64.0 21.4 36.1 38.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 4.6 0.0 64.0 10.0 64.0 21.4 36.1 38.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 0.30 0.00 1.19 0.44 0.88 0.56 0.83 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 56.1 0.0 16.6 10.2 4.2 38.0 42.9 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 94.4 0.4 0.0 86.1 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.8 2.2 0.0 46.8 4.5 40.7 10.2 18.0 20.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 155.9 56.5 0.0 102.7 10.2 5.1 39.6 45.8 34.1 LnGrp LOS F E F B A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 579 2638 1809 Approach Delay, s/veh 135.0 40.2 41.4 Approach LOS F D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 51.0 68.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 46.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 40.9 66.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 AM Peak 2021 Phase 1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 375 0 0 1812 445 0 0 307 0 0 515 Future Volume (vph) 18 375 0 0 1812 445 0 0 307 0 0 515 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 417 0 0 2013 494 0 0 341 0 0 572 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001460000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 417 0 0 2013 348 0 0 341 0 0 562 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 52.0 140.0 78.0 78.0 140.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 53.0 140.0 79.0 79.0 140.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 1.00 0.56 0.56 1.00 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 613 3241 2021 818 1476 558 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.56 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.13 1.00 0.43 0.23 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 0.0 30.3 17.5 0.0 43.5 Progression Factor 1.58 1.00 0.65 0.33 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 16.3 1.2 0.4 39.9 Delay (s) 43.3 0.0 36.0 7.0 0.4 83.4 Level of Service D A D A A F Approach Delay (s) 2.0 30.3 0.4 83.4 Approach LOS A C A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 AM Peak 2021 Phase 1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 36 685 2143 7 3 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 57 36 685 2143 7 3 57 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 761 2381 8 3 63 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 62 3251 4424 15 4 93 Arrive On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5978 18 68 1420 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 761 1619 770 67 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1761 1511 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.94 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 3251 3009 1430 99 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.23 0.54 0.54 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 3251 3009 1430 183 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 0.2 0.5 1.0 7.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.6 0.2 0.5 1.0 72.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 801 2389 67 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.9 0.7 72.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 126.8 13.2 9.2 117.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 10.0 99.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.1 5.2 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 43.0 0.1 0.0 41.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 AM Peak 2021 Phase 1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 648 82 12 2065 86 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 648 82 12 2065 86 6 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 720 91 13 2294 96 7 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2762 347 27 3568 252 225 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.79 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 4219 464 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 481 330 13 2294 96 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1683 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 30.2 7.2 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 30.2 7.2 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1849 1260 27 3568 252 225 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.26 0.49 0.64 0.38 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1849 1260 84 3568 252 225 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 6.1 53.6 50.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.5 13.1 0.9 4.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.6 12.6 3.7 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.3 0.5 81.5 7.0 58.0 51.1 LnGrp LOS A A F A E D Approach Vol, veh/h 811 2307 103 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.4 7.4 57.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 108.8 115.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 99.0 110.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 32.2 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 41.0 37.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.3 HCM 2010 LOS A +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 AM Peak 2021 Phase 1 Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 655 0 3 2077 0 10 Future Vol, veh/h 655 0 3 2077 0 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 728 0 3 2308 0 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 728 0 1658 364 Stage 1 - - - - 728 - Stage 2 - - - - 930 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 871 - 112 633 Stage 1 - - - - 427 - Stage 2 - - - - 319 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 871 - 112 633 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 112 - Stage 1 - - - - 427 - Stage 2 - - - - 318 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 633 - - 871 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.018 - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 10.8 - - 9.1 - HCM Lane LOS A B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 2 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 975000297897461 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 114 49 847 621 975 0 0 0 297 897 461 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 461 127 0 941 690 1083 330 997 512 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 461 127 0 941 690 1083 330 997 512 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 4.8 0.0 64.0 15.5 64.0 22.7 36.6 39.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 4.8 0.0 64.0 15.5 64.0 22.7 36.6 39.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 V/C Ratio(X) 1.16 0.31 0.00 1.22 0.45 0.91 0.58 0.84 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 56.2 0.0 27.4 17.9 7.0 38.4 43.1 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 98.2 0.4 0.0 102.3 0.0 1.2 1.8 3.1 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.0 2.3 0.0 51.1 7.2 42.1 10.8 18.4 20.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 159.7 56.6 0.0 129.7 18.0 8.1 40.2 46.1 34.3 LnGrp LOS F E F B A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 588 2714 1839 Approach Delay, s/veh 137.4 52.8 41.8 Approach LOS F D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 51.0 68.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 46.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 41.4 66.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 58.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 2 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 394 0 0 1872 465 0 0 316 0 0 520 Future Volume (vph) 18 394 0 0 1872 465 0 0 316 0 0 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 438 0 0 2080 517 0 0 351 0 0 578 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001480000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 438 0 0 2080 369 0 0 351 0 0 568 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Free 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.0 140.0 80.0 80.0 140.0 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 140.0 81.0 81.0 140.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 590 3241 2072 838 1476 537 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.14 c0.58 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.24 c0.38 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.14 1.00 0.44 0.24 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 0.0 29.5 16.7 0.0 44.5 Progression Factor 1.57 1.00 0.60 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 17.7 1.3 0.4 54.9 Delay (s) 44.9 0.0 35.4 7.1 0.4 99.4 Level of Service D A D A A F Approach Delay (s) 2.0 29.7 0.4 99.4 Approach LOS A C A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 2 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 713 2222 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 713 2222 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 792 2469 8 3 64 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 63 3249 4416 14 4 94 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5979 18 67 1422 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 792 1679 798 68 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1762 1510 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.94 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 3249 3003 1427 100 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.24 0.56 0.56 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 3249 3003 1427 183 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.65 0.65 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 0.2 0.5 1.0 7.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 72.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 833 2477 68 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 0.7 72.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 126.7 13.3 9.3 117.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 17.0 92.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.2 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 47.2 0.1 0.1 43.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 2 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 660 99 13 2085 142 6 Future Volume (veh/h) 660 99 13 2085 142 6 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 733 110 14 2317 158 7 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2540 379 28 3375 324 289 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.75 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 4133 537 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 501 342 14 2317 158 7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1670 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 37.1 11.7 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 37.1 11.7 0.5 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1741 1177 28 3375 324 289 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.29 0.50 0.69 0.49 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1741 1177 60 3375 324 289 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 9.0 50.3 45.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.6 13.2 1.2 5.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.6 15.6 5.9 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.4 0.6 81.5 10.2 55.5 46.0 LnGrp LOS A A F B E D Approach Vol, veh/h 843 2331 165 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.5 10.6 55.1 Approach LOS A B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 102.7 109.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 95.0 104.0 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.0 39.1 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 42.1 36.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 2010 LOS B +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 2 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 661 5 8 2103 0 20 Future Vol, veh/h 661 5 8 2103 0 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 734 6 9 2337 0 22 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 734 0 1686 367 Stage 1 - - - - 734 - Stage 2 - - - - 952 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 867 - 108 630 Stage 1 - - - - 424 - Stage 2 - - - - 310 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 867 - 107 630 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 107 - Stage 1 - - - - 424 - Stage 2 - - - - 307 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 630 - - 867 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.035 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 10.9 - - 9.2 - HCM Lane LOS A B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 988000323905466 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 988 0 0 0 323 905 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 466 133 0 952 698 1098 359 1006 518 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 466 133 0 952 698 1098 359 1006 518 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 5.1 0.0 64.0 15.8 64.0 25.3 37.1 40.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 5.1 0.0 64.0 15.8 64.0 25.3 37.1 40.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 0.33 0.00 1.24 0.46 0.92 0.64 0.85 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 407 0 768 1533 1189 564 1185 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 56.3 0.0 27.4 18.0 7.0 39.3 43.2 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 103.0 0.5 0.0 108.7 0.0 1.4 2.2 3.2 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.3 2.4 0.0 52.5 7.3 42.8 12.0 18.6 20.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 164.5 56.7 0.0 136.1 18.0 8.3 41.5 46.4 34.6 LnGrp LOS F E F B A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 599 2748 1883 Approach Delay, s/veh 140.6 55.1 42.2 Approach LOS F E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 51.0 68.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 46.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 42.1 66.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 60.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 18 426 0 0 1897 472 0 0 329 0 0 525 Future Volume (vph) 18 426 0 0 1897 472 0 0 329 0 0 525 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 473 0 0 2108 524 0 0 366 0 0 583 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001480000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 473 0 0 2108 377 0 0 366 0 0 573 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Free 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.0 140.0 80.0 80.0 140.0 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 51.0 140.0 81.0 81.0 140.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 1.00 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 590 3241 2072 838 1476 537 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.15 c0.59 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.25 c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.15 1.02 0.45 0.25 1.07 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 0.0 29.5 16.8 0.0 44.5 Progression Factor 1.61 1.00 0.61 0.38 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 21.2 1.3 0.4 57.8 Delay (s) 46.1 0.0 39.2 7.7 0.4 102.3 Level of Service D A D A A F Approach Delay (s) 1.9 32.9 0.4 102.3 Approach LOS A C A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 37 758 2252 7 3 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 37 758 2252 7 3 58 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 842 2502 8 3 64 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 63 3249 4416 14 4 94 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5980 17 67 1422 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 842 1701 809 68 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1762 1510 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.94 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 3249 3003 1427 100 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.26 0.57 0.57 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 3249 3003 1427 183 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 0.64 0.64 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 0.2 0.5 1.0 7.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 72.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 883 2510 68 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.6 0.7 72.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 126.7 13.3 9.3 117.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 16.0 93.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.2 5.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 50.1 0.1 0.1 46.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 682 123 16 2106 153 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 682 123 16 2106 153 7 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 758 137 18 2340 170 8 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2429 436 33 3343 336 300 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.74 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4026 628 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 534 361 18 2340 170 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1654 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.5 39.0 12.6 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.5 39.0 12.6 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1716 1149 33 3343 336 300 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.31 0.54 0.70 0.51 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1716 1149 72 3343 336 300 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.0 9.6 49.8 45.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.7 13.2 1.2 5.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 0.8 16.2 6.4 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.5 0.7 81.2 10.9 55.2 45.2 LnGrp LOS A A F B E D Approach Vol, veh/h 895 2358 178 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.6 11.4 54.7 Approach LOS A B D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 101.2 108.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 93.0 103.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 2.0 41.0 14.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 43.8 36.5 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 2010 LOS B +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 669 21 18 2127 0 22 Future Vol, veh/h 669 21 18 2127 0 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 743 23 20 2363 0 24 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 743 0 1728 372 Stage 1 - - - - 743 - Stage 2 - - - - 985 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 860 - 102 625 Stage 1 - - - - 419 - Stage 2 - - - - 298 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 860 - 100 625 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 100 - Stage 1 - - - - 419 - Stage 2 - - - - 291 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 625 - - 860 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.039 - - 0.023 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 11 - - 9.3 - HCM Lane LOS A B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0.1 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/30/2018 2021 Phase 3 AM Peak -- with dual WBL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 988000323905466 Future Volume (veh/h) 419 120 50 857 628 988 0 0 0 323 905 466 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 466 133 0 952 698 1098 359 1006 518 Adj No. of Lanes 220211 121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 396 407 0 1537 807 1189 564 1185 686 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 3361 1765 1500 1681 3529 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 466 133 0 952 698 1098 359 1006 518 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1765 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 5.1 0.0 24.9 45.8 64.0 25.3 37.1 40.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 5.1 0.0 24.9 45.8 64.0 25.3 37.1 40.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 396 407 0 1537 807 1189 564 1185 686 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 0.33 0.00 0.62 0.87 0.92 0.64 0.85 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 396 407 0 1537 807 1189 564 1185 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.5 56.3 0.0 19.8 23.9 7.0 39.3 43.2 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 103.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.4 2.2 3.2 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.3 2.4 0.0 11.5 22.2 42.8 12.0 18.6 20.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 164.5 56.7 0.0 19.9 24.9 8.3 41.5 46.4 34.6 LnGrp LOS F E B C A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 599 2748 1883 Approach Delay, s/veh 140.6 16.5 42.2 Approach LOS F B D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 51.0 68.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 46.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 42.1 66.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2017 existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 673 520 65 334 236 7700001145 745 638 Future Volume (veh/h) 673 520 65 334 236 770 0 0 0 1145 745 638 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 748 578 0 371 262 856 1272 828 709 Adj No. of Lanes 220211 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 3361 1765 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 748 578 0 371 262 856 1272 828 709 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1765 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 24.0 0.0 15.1 20.5 26.0 38.4 55.7 34.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 24.0 0.0 15.1 20.5 26.0 38.4 55.7 34.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.97 0.00 0.59 0.80 0.78 0.69 0.85 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 57.1 0.0 60.6 63.1 9.6 22.8 26.7 9.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 140.8 28.2 0.0 0.9 8.4 2.2 0.8 4.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 22.6 13.4 0.0 7.1 10.8 33.9 17.9 28.0 23.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 198.3 85.3 0.0 61.5 71.5 11.8 23.7 30.7 11.0 LnGrp LOS F F E E B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1326 1489 2809 Approach Delay, s/veh 149.0 34.7 22.5 Approach LOS F C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 81.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 76.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.0 57.7 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.6 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2017 existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 61 1604 0 0 704 246 0 0 771 0 0 672 Future Volume (vph) 61 1604 0 0 704 246 0 0 771 0 0 672 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1782 0 0 782 273 0 0 857 0 0 747 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001780000014 Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1782 0 0 782 95 0 0 857 0 0 733 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Free 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 82.3 140.0 47.7 47.7 140.0 82.3 Effective Green, g (s) 83.3 140.0 48.7 48.7 140.0 83.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 1.00 0.35 0.35 1.00 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 964 3241 1246 504 1476 878 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.55 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.58 c0.50 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.55 0.63 0.19 0.58 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 12.0 0.0 38.1 31.9 0.0 22.8 Progression Factor 1.31 1.00 0.85 0.41 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.8 1.7 6.9 Delay (s) 15.7 0.1 34.8 13.8 1.7 29.7 Level of Service B A C B A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 29.4 1.7 29.7 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2017 existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 41 2118 935 13 4 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 41 2118 935 13 4 31 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 2353 1039 14 4 34 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 69 3320 4448 60 7 62 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5915 72 156 1327 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 2353 715 338 39 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1752 1523 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.10 0.87 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 3320 3061 1447 71 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.71 0.23 0.23 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 3320 3061 1447 185 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 1.1 0.2 0.4 6.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.7 1.1 0.2 0.4 72.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 2399 1053 39 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.4 0.2 72.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.4 10.6 9.8 119.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 10.0 99.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.5 5.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 57.5 0.1 0.0 53.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.5 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2017 existing PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2082 36 12 910 38 66 Future Volume (veh/h) 2082 36 12 910 38 66 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2313 40 13 1011 42 73 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 3225 56 27 3696 204 182 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.82 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 4680 72 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1375 978 13 1011 42 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1752 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.2 3.2 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.2 3.2 6.3 Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1920 1361 27 3696 204 182 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.72 0.49 0.27 0.21 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1920 1361 48 3696 204 182 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 2.9 55.4 56.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 2.0 13.1 0.2 2.3 6.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 0.6 3.0 1.6 2.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.4 2.0 81.5 3.1 57.7 63.3 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2353 1024 115 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.7 4.1 61.2 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 112.8 119.0 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 106.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 9.2 8.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 49.3 49.5 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 without Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 8010001191 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 541 68 348 246 801 0 0 0 1191 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 778 601 0 387 273 890 1323 861 738 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 778 601 0 387 273 890 1323 861 738 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 24.9 0.0 25.0 11.0 25.0 40.9 60.0 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 24.9 0.0 25.0 11.0 25.0 40.9 60.0 35.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.97 0.00 1.29 0.46 0.81 0.72 0.89 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 56.6 0.0 65.9 59.3 9.8 23.4 27.7 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 140.4 27.5 0.0 143.8 0.3 2.8 1.0 5.2 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 23.5 13.9 0.0 23.6 5.1 35.4 19.2 30.6 25.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 197.4 84.0 0.0 209.6 59.6 12.6 24.3 32.9 10.9 LnGrp LOS F F F E B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1379 1550 2922 Approach Delay, s/veh 148.0 70.1 23.5 Approach LOS F E C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 81.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 76.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.0 62.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 65.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 without Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 256 0 0 802 0 0 699 Future Volume (vph) 63 1669 0 0 733 256 0 0 802 0 0 699 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 70 1854 0 0 814 284 0 0 891 0 0 777 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001880000012 Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 1854 0 0 814 96 0 0 891 0 0 765 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 83.8 140.0 46.2 46.2 140.0 83.8 Effective Green, g (s) 84.8 140.0 47.2 47.2 140.0 84.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.34 0.34 1.00 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 981 3241 1207 488 1476 894 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.57 c0.23 c0.52 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.57 0.67 0.20 0.60 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 11.4 0.0 39.8 32.9 0.0 22.6 Progression Factor 1.31 1.00 0.85 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.9 1.8 8.1 Delay (s) 14.9 0.1 36.6 13.6 1.8 30.7 Level of Service B A D B A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 30.7 1.8 30.7 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 without Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2204 973 14 4 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2204 973 14 4 32 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 2449 1081 16 4 36 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 72 3315 4426 65 7 64 Arrive On Green 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5906 80 148 1336 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 2449 745 352 41 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1751 1522 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 0.10 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 3315 3051 1441 73 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.74 0.24 0.24 0.56 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 3315 3051 1441 185 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 6.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 72.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 2497 1097 41 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.5 0.3 72.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.2 10.8 10.0 119.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.7 5.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 63.1 0.1 0.0 58.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.6 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 without Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2167 37 12 947 40 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2167 37 12 947 40 69 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2408 41 13 1052 44 77 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 3197 54 27 3664 216 193 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.81 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 4682 71 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1431 1018 13 1052 44 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1752 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.9 3.3 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.9 3.3 6.6 Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1902 1349 27 3664 216 193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.75 0.49 0.29 0.20 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1902 1349 48 3664 216 193 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 68.3 3.2 54.6 56.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 2.2 13.1 0.2 2.1 6.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.8 0.6 3.3 1.7 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.6 2.2 81.5 3.3 56.7 62.1 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2449 1065 121 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.9 4.3 60.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 111.8 118.0 22.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 105.0 113.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.0 9.9 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 54.1 54.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.5 HCM 2010 LOS A +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2021 with Phase 1 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 8110001222 775 664 Future Volume (veh/h) 700 547 68 358 250 811 0 0 0 1222 775 664 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 778 608 0 398 278 901 1358 861 738 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 778 608 0 398 278 901 1358 861 738 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 25.3 0.0 25.0 10.4 25.0 42.7 60.0 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 25.3 0.0 25.0 10.4 25.0 42.7 60.0 35.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.98 0.00 1.33 0.46 0.82 0.73 0.89 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 606 623 0 300 599 1093 1849 971 1104 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.0 56.7 0.0 57.5 51.5 8.6 23.8 27.7 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 140.4 30.1 0.0 159.0 0.3 2.9 1.1 5.2 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 23.5 14.3 0.0 24.8 4.9 35.7 20.1 30.6 25.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 197.4 86.8 0.0 216.5 51.8 11.5 24.8 32.9 10.9 LnGrp LOS F F F D B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1386 1577 2957 Approach Delay, s/veh 148.9 70.4 23.7 Approach LOS F E C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 81.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 76.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.0 62.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 65.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 1 PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 266 0 0 818 0 0 699 Future Volume (vph) 63 1706 0 0 757 266 0 0 818 0 0 699 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 70 1896 0 0 841 296 0 0 909 0 0 777 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001960000011 Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 1896 0 0 841 100 0 0 909 0 0 766 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 83.9 140.0 46.1 46.1 140.0 83.9 Effective Green, g (s) 84.9 140.0 47.1 47.1 140.0 84.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.34 0.34 1.00 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 983 3241 1205 487 1476 895 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.58 c0.23 c0.52 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.59 0.70 0.20 0.62 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 11.3 0.0 40.3 33.1 0.0 22.6 Progression Factor 1.31 1.00 0.81 0.28 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.9 1.9 8.1 Delay (s) 14.9 0.1 35.9 10.1 1.9 30.6 Level of Service B A D B A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 29.2 1.9 30.6 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2021 with Phase 1 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2258 1007 14 4 32 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2258 1007 14 4 32 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 2509 1119 16 4 36 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 73 3315 4427 63 7 64 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5910 77 148 1336 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 2509 770 365 41 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1751 1522 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 30.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 30.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.10 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 3315 3049 1441 73 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.76 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 3315 3049 1441 185 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.33 0.33 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 65.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 6.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 10.2 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.3 3.0 0.2 0.4 72.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 2557 1135 41 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 0.3 72.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.2 10.8 10.0 119.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.9 5.7 5.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 55.0 0.1 0.0 61.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/26/2018 2021 with Phase 1 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2167 91 17 947 75 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2167 91 17 947 75 69 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2408 101 19 1052 83 77 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 3118 130 34 3696 204 182 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.82 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 4567 168 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1469 1040 19 1052 83 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1735 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 7.6 6.4 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 7.6 6.4 6.7 Prop In Lane 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1908 1340 34 3696 204 182 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.78 0.55 0.28 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1908 1340 48 3696 204 182 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.53 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 67.9 2.9 56.8 57.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 2.4 13.1 0.2 5.9 7.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.9 0.9 3.2 3.3 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.6 2.4 81.1 3.1 62.8 64.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2509 1071 160 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.0 4.5 63.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 112.1 119.0 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 106.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 2.0 9.6 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 57.0 57.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.3 HCM 2010 LOS A +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2021 Phase 1 PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2235 1 5 964 0 6 Future Vol, veh/h 2235 1 5 964 0 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 2483 1 6 1071 0 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 2483 0 2923 1242 Stage 1 - - - - 2483 - Stage 2 - - - - 440 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 182 - 19 166 Stage 1 - - - - 48 - Stage 2 - - - - 582 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 182 - 18 166 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 18 - Stage 1 - - - - 48 - Stage 2 - - - - 563 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 27.6 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 166 - - 182 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.04 - - 0.031 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 27.6 - - 25.4 - HCM Lane LOS A D - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0.1 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2022 with Phase 2 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 8290001269 783 671 Future Volume (veh/h) 707 560 68 372 256 829 0 0 0 1269 783 671 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 786 622 0 413 284 921 1410 870 746 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 786 622 0 413 284 921 1410 870 746 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 26.0 11.5 26.0 45.5 61.3 37.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 26.0 11.5 26.0 45.5 61.3 37.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 V/C Ratio(X) 1.35 1.04 0.00 1.32 0.46 0.83 0.76 0.90 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 57.5 0.0 65.7 58.9 9.6 24.4 28.0 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 168.6 47.2 0.0 156.7 0.3 3.0 1.2 5.7 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.9 15.5 0.0 25.7 5.4 36.7 21.3 31.3 26.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 226.1 104.7 0.0 222.4 59.1 12.6 25.6 33.6 11.7 LnGrp LOS F F F E B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1408 1618 3026 Approach Delay, s/veh 172.5 74.3 24.5 Approach LOS F E C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 81.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 76.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.0 63.3 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 72.2 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2022 with Phase 2 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 280 0 0 843 0 0 706 Future Volume (vph) 64 1764 0 0 789 280 0 0 843 0 0 706 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 1960 0 0 877 311 0 0 937 0 0 784 RTOR Reduction (vph)000002030000010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 1960 0 0 877 108 0 0 937 0 0 774 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 83.4 140.0 46.6 46.6 140.0 83.4 Effective Green, g (s) 84.4 140.0 47.6 47.6 140.0 84.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 1.00 0.34 0.34 1.00 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 977 3241 1217 493 1476 889 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.60 c0.24 c0.52 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.60 0.72 0.22 0.63 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 0.0 40.4 33.0 0.0 23.2 Progression Factor 1.31 1.00 0.78 0.20 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 3.6 1.0 2.1 9.3 Delay (s) 15.2 0.1 35.0 7.6 2.1 32.5 Level of Service B A D A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 27.8 2.1 32.5 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2022 with Phase 2 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2339 1053 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 43 2339 1053 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 2599 1170 16 4 37 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 72 3313 4428 61 7 66 Arrive On Green 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5913 74 145 1340 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 2599 805 381 42 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1752 1521 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.10 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 3313 3048 1441 74 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.78 0.26 0.26 0.56 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 3313 3048 1441 185 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 1.5 0.2 0.4 6.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.8 1.5 0.2 0.4 72.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 2647 1186 42 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.7 0.3 72.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.1 10.9 10.0 119.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.8 5.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 72.1 0.1 0.0 65.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2022 with Phase 2 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2196 142 23 956 112 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 2196 142 23 956 112 69 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2440 158 26 1062 124 77 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 3020 194 44 3696 204 182 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.82 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 4468 253 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1522 1076 26 1062 124 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1720 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.1 7.7 9.8 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.1 7.7 9.8 6.7 Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1895 1319 44 3696 204 182 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.82 0.60 0.29 0.61 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1895 1319 48 3696 204 182 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.48 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 67.5 2.9 58.3 57.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 2.8 15.7 0.2 12.7 7.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.0 1.2 3.2 5.3 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.8 2.8 83.2 3.1 71.1 64.0 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2598 1088 201 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.2 5.0 68.4 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 111.4 119.0 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 106.0 114.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 2.0 9.7 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 61.0 61.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 2010 LOS A +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2022 with Phase 2 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2258 8 10 979 0 13 Future Vol, veh/h 2258 8 10 979 0 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 2509 9 11 1088 0 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 2509 0 2966 1254 Stage 1 - - - - 2509 - Stage 2 - - - - 457 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 178 - 18 163 Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 570 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 178 - 17 163 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 17 - Stage 1 - - - - 46 - Stage 2 - - - - 535 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 29.2 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 163 - - 178 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.089 - - 0.062 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 29.2 - - 26.6 - HCM Lane LOS A D - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 - - 0.2 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 265 8530001290 791 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 265 853 0 0 0 1290 791 677 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 793 630 0 430 294 948 1433 879 752 Adj No. of Lanes 220121 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 1681 3353 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 793 630 0 430 294 948 1433 879 752 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1676 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 26.0 11.9 26.0 46.8 62.5 38.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 26.0 11.9 26.0 46.8 62.5 38.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 V/C Ratio(X) 1.36 1.05 0.00 1.38 0.47 0.86 0.78 0.91 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 599 0 312 623 1104 1849 971 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 57.5 0.0 65.7 59.1 9.6 24.7 28.2 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 173.8 51.3 0.0 179.5 0.3 3.5 1.3 6.2 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 25.3 15.8 0.0 27.7 5.5 37.9 22.0 31.9 26.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 231.3 108.8 0.0 245.2 59.3 13.1 26.0 34.4 11.8 LnGrp LOS F F F E B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1423 1672 3064 Approach Delay, s/veh 177.1 80.9 24.9 Approach LOS F F C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 81.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 76.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.0 64.5 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 75.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ&DSDFLW\$QDO\VLV ,1%2II5DPS,1%2Q5DPS 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 65 1793 0 0 829 293 0 0 856 0 0 713 Future Volume (vph) 65 1793 0 0 829 293 0 0 856 0 0 713 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 *0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 3241 3582 1450 1476 1476 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 1992 0 0 921 326 0 0 951 0 0 792 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000204000009 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 1992 0 0 921 122 0 0 951 0 0 783 Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Free Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 5 Permitted Phases 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 83.0 140.0 47.0 47.0 140.0 83.0 Effective Green, g (s) 84.0 140.0 48.0 48.0 140.0 84.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 1.00 0.34 0.34 1.00 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 972 3241 1228 497 1476 885 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.61 c0.26 c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.61 0.75 0.25 0.64 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 11.7 0.0 40.7 33.0 0.0 23.9 Progression Factor 1.31 1.00 0.74 0.16 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 4.1 1.1 2.2 10.5 Delay (s) 15.3 0.1 34.3 6.4 2.2 34.4 Level of Service B A C A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.6 27.0 2.2 34.4 Approach LOS A C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: SR 169/I-405 NB On-Ramp c Critical Lane Group +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 65 6KDUL V'ULYHZD\10/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2377 1107 14 4 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 44 2377 1107 14 4 33 Number 5 2 6 16 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1765 1800 1765 1800 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 2641 1230 16 4 37 Adj No. of Lanes 134000 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 73 3313 4428 58 7 66 Arrive On Green 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 4235 5918 70 145 1340 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 2641 846 400 42 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1235 1235 1752 1521 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 0.10 0.88 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 3313 3045 1440 74 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.80 0.28 0.28 0.56 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 3313 3045 1440 185 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.74 0.74 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 1.6 0.2 0.4 6.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.5 1.6 0.2 0.4 72.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS EAAAE Approach Vol, veh/h 2690 1246 42 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.8 0.3 72.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.1 10.9 10.1 119.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 114.0 16.0 11.0 98.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.8 6.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 75.4 0.1 0.0 68.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.8 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ &HGDU5LYHU3DUN'U 6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2224 153 24 966 157 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 2224 153 24 966 157 73 Number 21216318 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2471 170 27 1073 174 81 Adj No. of Lanes 301311 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 2976 202 45 3664 216 193 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.81 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 4451 267 1681 4765 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1547 1094 27 1073 174 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1235 1718 1681 1500 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.2 8.1 14.1 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.2 8.1 14.1 7.0 Prop In Lane 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1875 1304 45 3664 216 193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.84 0.60 0.29 0.81 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1875 1304 48 3664 216 193 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.46 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 67.4 3.2 59.3 56.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 3.2 17.2 0.2 26.5 6.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.1 1.3 3.3 8.1 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.0 3.2 84.6 3.4 85.8 62.8 LnGrp LOS A A F A F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2641 1100 255 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.5 5.4 78.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.7 110.3 118.0 22.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.0 105.0 113.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 2.0 10.1 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 62.8 62.7 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.1 HCM 2010 LOS A +&07:6& 6LWH(DVW$FFHVV 6510/29/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/29/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2283 14 14 990 0 25 Future Vol, veh/h 2283 14 14 990 0 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 150 - 150 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow 2537 16 16 1100 0 28 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 2537 0 3008 1268 Stage 1 - - - - 2537 - Stage 2 - - - - 471 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.29 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.04 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.67 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 173 - 16 160 Stage 1 - - - - 45 - Stage 2 - - - - 560 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 173 - 15 160 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 15 - Stage 1 - - - - 45 - Stage 2 - - - - 508 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 32.2 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) - 160 - - 173 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.174 - - 0.09 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 32.2 - - 27.9 - HCM Lane LOS A D - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.6 - - 0.3 - +&06LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ ,6%2Q5DPS6XQVHW%OYG %URQVRQ:D\6510/30/2018 Cedar River Apartments 10/30/2018 2023 with Phase 3 Project PM Peak -- dual WBL Synchro 9 Light Report BPJ; William Popp Associates Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 265 8530001290 791 677 Future Volume (veh/h) 714 567 69 387 265 853 0 0 0 1290 791 677 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1765 1765 1800 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 793 630 0 430 294 948 1433 879 752 Adj No. of Lanes 220211 211 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 222 Cap, veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 3261 3441 0 3361 1765 1500 3361 1765 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 793 630 0 430 294 948 1433 879 752 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1630 1676 0 1681 1765 1500 1681 1765 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 17.6 23.2 26.0 46.8 62.5 38.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 25.0 0.0 17.6 23.2 26.0 46.8 62.5 38.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 V/C Ratio(X) 1.36 1.05 0.00 0.69 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.91 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 599 0 624 328 1104 1849 971 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 57.5 0.0 61.7 64.4 9.6 24.7 28.2 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 173.8 51.3 0.0 1.5 14.6 3.5 1.3 6.2 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 25.3 15.8 0.0 8.3 12.7 37.9 22.0 31.9 26.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 231.3 108.8 0.0 63.3 79.0 13.1 26.0 34.4 11.8 LnGrp LOS F F E E B C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1423 1672 3064 Approach Delay, s/veh 177.1 37.6 24.9 Approach LOS F D C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 81.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 76.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.0 64.5 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Exhibit 2 Opinion on Proposed Cleanup of the following Site, July 19, 2018, Department of Ecology. Mr. Jimmy Blais July 19, 2018 Page 2 x Gasoline-, diesel-, and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-G, TPH-D, and TPH-O), and formaldehyde into Soil. x Formaldehyde, arsenic, and highly alkaline pH into Ground Water. Enclosure A includes a detailed description and diagram of the Site, as currently known to Ecology. Please note a parcel of real property can be affected by multiple sites. At this time, we have no information that the parcel(s) associated with this Site are affected by other sites. Basis for the Opinion This opinion is based on the information contained in the documents listed in Enclosure B. Those documents are kept in the Central Files of the Northwest Regional Office of Ecology (NWRO) for review by appointment only. You can make an appointment by completing a Request for Public Record form (https://www.ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Accountability- transparency/Public-records-requests) and emailing it to PublicRecordsOfficer@ecy.wa.gov, or contacting the Public Records Officer at 360-407-6040. A number of these documents are accessible in electronic form from the Site web page (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid=2121). This opinion is void if any of the information contained in those documents is materially false or misleading. Analysis of the Cleanup Ecology has concluded that, upon completion of your proposed cleanup, no further remedial action will likely be necessary to clean up contamination at the Site. That conclusion is based on the following analysis: 1. Characterization of the Site. Ecology has determined your characterization of the Site is sufficient to establish cleanup standards and select a cleanup action. The Site is described above and in Enclosure A. The lateral and vertical extent of soil and ground water impacted by contaminant releases at the Site have been adequately defined by completion of Site investigations conducted from September 1998 through July 2017. Also, the additional analysis provided in the March 7, 2018 “Request for Written Opinion, Focused Feasibility Study and Disproportionate Cost Analysis” addressed the Site characterization data gaps cited in the August 31, 2017 “Further Action Opinion Letter” from Ecology. Mr. Jimmy Blais July 19, 2018 Page 3 Electronic submittal of all sampling data into Ecology’s electronic Environmental Information Management (EIM) database is a requirement in order to receive a NFA opinion from Ecology for this Site. EIM guidance can be found on the following Ecology web page:https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data- resources/Environmental-Information-Management-database . Erica Fot (email Efot461@ecy.wa.gov, telephone 360-407-6692) is Ecology’s contact and resource on entering data into EIM. 2. Establishment of cleanup standards. Soil Cleanup Levels: The proposed future use of the Site (residential) does not meet the MTCA definition of an industrial property; therefore, soil cleanup levels suitable for unrestricted land use are appropriate. Soil cleanup levels based on protection of ground water are appropriate. The MTCA Method A cleanup levels (TPH-G, TPH-D, and TPH-O) and Method B cleanup levels (formaldehyde) are considered appropriate for soil at the Site and are protective of human health and the environment. Soil cleanup levels protective of terrestrial ecological receptors are not necessary because the Site meets the Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation (TEE) exclusion criteria (MTCA WAC 173-340-7491). The results of the TEE Evaluation Form worksheet indicated that a TEE exclusion is applicable and that protective cleanup levels based on TEE factors are not required for this Site. Point of Compliance: For soil cleanup levels based on the protection of ground water, the point of compliance is defined as Site-wide throughout the soil profile and may extend below the water table. This is the appropriate point of compliance for the Site. Soil Vapor Formaldehyde in soil vapor was evaluated as a potential vapor intrusion (VI) issue, based on detections of this chemical in soil vapor samples conducted at the Site in 2016. This soil vapor sampling occurred after completion of the on-site removal and in-situ treatment of formaldehyde-contaminated soil in 2010 (see Enclosure A), after confirmation soil and ground water sampling showed concentrations below the Method B cleanup levels. Formaldehyde does not have soil or ground water VI screening levels in the current Ecology VI guidance. Based on this information and data, soil vapor was eliminated as a contaminated media for this Site. Mr. Jimmy Blais July 19, 2018 Page 4 Ground Water Cleanup Levels: MTCA Method A cleanup levels for arsenic and formaldehyde are the applicable ground water cleanup levels for this Site. A ground water cleanup level for pH does not exist; however, the maximum reported pH value in Site ground water (12.54) was above the characteristic dangerous waste threshold of 12.5; therefore, pH is considered to be a water quality parameter of concern at the Site. Point of Compliance: Ecology has determined the conditional point of compliance proposed for ground water at the Site (western Property boundary) is appropriate for the Site, given the following: x Data documenting a consistent ground water flow direction away from the Cedar River to the northwest has been provided to Ecology, and x It is not practicable to meet the cleanup level for arsenic and an acceptable concentration of pH in ground water throughout the Site within a reasonable restoration time frame, per WAC 173-340(8)(c), due to presence of high pH soils in inaccessible Site areas. 3. Selection of cleanup action. Ecology has determined the cleanup action you proposed for the Site meets the substantive requirements of MTCA. The focused feasibility study and disproportionate cost analysis (Farallon Consulting 2018) documented the rationale for accepting the interim cleanup actions as the final cleanup action. Interim cleanup actions completed to date at the Site are summarized in Enclosure A. The FS and DCA conclude that an environmental covenant (EC) will be required to support a No Further Action determination for the Site, and Ecology concurs. The environmental covenant will include an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan and a confirmational monitoring plan. In order to adequately monitor ground water along the western property boundary (conditional point of compliance), Ecology will require installation of an additional downgradient monitoring well, between existing monitoring wells MW-1 and EPI-MW- 1. Monitoring of ground water at this point of compliance is especially important because the Site is located within the 1-year time-of-travel wellhead protection zone of City of Renton water supply Well 8 and Well 9. These water wells are located approximately 700 to 800 feet west of the western Property boundary. Mr. Jimmy Blais July 19, 2018 Page 5 Links to Ecology guidance regarding environmental covenants can be found on our web site: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1509054.html . Limitations of the Opinion 1. Opinion does not settle liability with the state. Liable persons are strictly liable, jointly and severally, for all remedial action costs and for all natural resource damages resulting from the release or releases of hazardous substances at the Site. This opinion does not: x Resolve or alter a person’s liability to the state. x Protect liable persons from contribution claims by third parties. To settle liability with the state and obtain protection from contribution claims, a person must enter into a consent decree with Ecology under RCW 70.105D.040(4). 2. Opinion does not constitute a determination of substantial equivalence. To recover remedial action costs from other liable persons under MTCA, one must demonstrate that the action is the substantial equivalent of an Ecology-conducted or Ecology-supervised action. This opinion does not determine whether the action you proposed will be substantially equivalent. Courts make that determination. See RCW 70.105D.080 and WAC 173-340-545. 3. Opinion is limited to proposed cleanup. This letter does not provide an opinion on whether further remedial action will actually be necessary at the Site upon completion of your proposed cleanup. To obtain such an opinion, you must submit a report to Ecology upon completion of your cleanup and request an opinion under the VCP. 4. State is immune from liability. The state, Ecology, and its officers and employees are immune from all liability, and no cause of action of any nature may arise from any act or omission in providing this opinion.See RCW 70.105D.030(1)(i). Contact Information Thank you for choosing to clean up the Site under the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). As Enclosure A Description and Diagrams of the Site Site Description This section provides Ecology’s understanding and interpretation of Site conditions, and is the basis for the opinions expressed in the body of this letter. Site:Stoneway Concrete is located on King County parcel 1723059026 (the Property), which occupies 12.54 acres situated between the Cedar River and SE Maple Valley Highway (Figure 1). The Site boundaries generally follow the Property boundaries. Site History and Current Use: Historical records indicate that the Property was developed in the 1930s as Stoneway Dock Company. The facility name changed to Stoneway Sand and Gravel in the 1950s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Property was reportedly leased by many businesses, including an asphalt manufacturing company. By 1966, the Property was owned and operated by Stoneway Concrete and in 1985 was purchased by Don Merlino. The Property was most recently occupied by a concrete batch plant, along with associated support activities (Figure 2). Operations on the Property ceased prior to October 2002 in order to conform with the City of Renton aquifer protection ordinance, which precludes industrial activities that use, handle, or store hazardous substances in Aquifer Protection Area Zone 1. Sources of Contamination: Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil due to historic surface spillage and historic releases from underground storage tanks that have been removed. Formaldehyde in soil and ground water is attributed to spills of a chemical additive associated with the concrete batch process. Arsenic, detected in ground water above the cleanup level, was not found in soil at concentrations exceeding natural background concentrations. Physiographic Setting: The Site is relatively flat and slopes from an elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl) adjacent to State Route 169 on the north to 40 feet amsl at the Cedar River on the south. The Cedar River valley is very narrow in the Site vicinity and is bounded on the north and south by steep valley walls that attain elevations of 300 to 400 feet amsl. Surface/Storm Water System: The majority of the Property is currently paved with concrete that is 4 - 12 inches thick. Unpaved areas are located in the eastern and western portions of the Property. Storm sewer control is in place in the upper portion of the Property and the Property has a storm water permit. Storm water in the lower portion of the Property drains to on-site settlement ponds for infiltration. There are no point source discharges to the Cedar River. Ecological Setting: Most of the Property’s river frontage is protected with erosion control features such as riprap, cast-in-place concrete walls, "Ecology" blocks, and a poured concrete veneer over the native soils. Very little of the original low bank frontage remains and there does not appear to be a riparian habitat on the Property. Geology: The Site is underlain by coarse sands and gravels deposited in the valley of the Cedar River. The Cedar River valley is very narrow in the Site vicinity and is bounded by steep-sided valley walls comprised of glacial till overlying bedrock. The surface of the Site has been graded over time and includes varying thicknesses of fill. The sand and gravel alluvium has been observed in borings to a depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs), the deepest exploration on the Site. Ground Water: Ground water occurs under unconfined conditions in the sand and gravel alluvium beneath the Site, in the regional, USEPA-designated Sole Source Cedar Valley Aquifer. The City of Renton obtains the majority of the water supply from well fields in this aquifer, located upstream and downstream from the Site. Local well logs indicate that this aquifer extends to depths up to 72 feet bgs near the Site. Depths to ground water at the Site range from 10 to 20 feet bgs. Data from detailed studies of the aquifer by the City of Renton, and monitoring wells on the Site, confirm a consistent northwesterly flow direction across the Site, away from the Cedar River. This reach of the Cedar River loses a significant volume of surface water through the riverbed into the aquifer, resulting in the down-valley ground water gradient to the northwest. Aquifer tests conducted in the City of Renton wellfield (located within 700 feet northwest of the western Property boundary) document that this prevailing ground water flow direction is not measurably affected by pumpage in the well field. Extent of Contamination and Remedial Actions: From 2005 through 2010, numerous remedial actions regarding soil contamination have taken place at the Property (Figure 5), which are summarized as follows: x Work Area 1- Former Small Settling Pond (southwest corner of Property). High pH soil was present in this area. At total of 200 cubic yards was removed to a depth of 6 feet, with the southwest area excavated to 8 feet. Sixteen performance samples indicated pH at limits of excavation (sidewalls and floor) was 6.0-8.0. x Work Area 2 - Large Settling Ponds. The settling ponds are concrete lined and approximately 15 feet deep. Approximately 2,200 cubic yards of high pH soil were removed from within the settling ponds. Excavation was completed when the concrete sidewalls and bottom were exposed. Because the Site was excavated to concrete, no performance samples were collected. A small amount of high pH soil may remain below and around the concrete settling ponds. Removing this material would involve excavating in and adjacent to the Cedar River, which may pose a risk to salmon spawning habitat and erosion of the bulkheads. x Work Area 3 - Shallow Petroleum Impacted Area. COCs for this area were TPHo and TPHd. Impacted soil in this area was excavated to a depth of 4 feet. Approximately 190 cubic yards of TPHo contaminated soil were removed. Twelve performance samples indicated TPHo and TPHd were below cleanup levels (ranging from less than detection limits to 410 mg/kg). x Work Area 4 - Formaldehyde Impacted Area. This area is the largest on the Site and covers a major portion of the central area of the Property. The final size of this area at the completion of soil excavation was 1.4 acres. The depth of excavation was to approximately 11 feet bgs. Approximately 21,000 cubic yards of material were excavated from the area, of which 13,000 cubic yards were bioremediated on-Site and the remainder disposed off-Site. Performance samples were collected and areas over excavated if a performance sample was above the formaldehyde cleanup level. A total of 447 performance samples were collected and analyzed from this area, with 238 samples representing final performance samples. All final performance samples were below the cleanup level. x Work Area 5 - Heating oil UST. A 600-gallon UST was removed from this area. 300 cubic yards were removed from this area (24 feet x 24 feet) to a depth of 23 feet bgs. During the remediation effort, approximately 3,000 gallons of water that accumulated in the pit was removed. Eleven performance samples were collected. Only one of the performance samples was above analytical detection levels, but below the cleanup level. TPHd levels in the water that accumulated in the pit were 320 μg/L, below the ground water cleanup level. Concentrations of COCs in ground water are shown on Figure 5. As mentioned in the text of this opinion letter, the present status of formaldehyde in ground water cannot be assessed, because the laboratory detection limits for the most recent sampling events were greater than the cleanup level of 5 μg/L. Elevated pH has been observed in monitoring well MW-10 since January 2012 (ranging from 11.02 to 12.54). Site Diagrams Checked By: JR Disc Reference: FARALLON PN: 266-008 SITE LOCATION Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ³SITE VICINITY MAP OLD STONEWAY CONCRETE SITE 1915 SOUTHEAST MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON, WASHINGTON Washington Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle Oregon Portland | Bend | Baker City California Oakland | Sacramento | IrvineCONSULTING Quality Service for Environmental Solutions | farallonconsulting.com Farallon Date: 4/13/2017Drawn By: pemahiser Document Path: Q:\Projects\266 Gary Merlino\008 Old Stoneway\FIGURE 1_SITE VICINITY MAP.mxd FIGURE 1 REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS QUADRANGLE RENTON, WASHINGTON, DATED 2011 0 2,000 SCALE IN FEET RENTON &ODMPTVSF" 'JHVSF Drawn By: pemahiser Checked By: JR Date: 4/13/2017 FIGURE 2 Disc Reference: !< !< !<; !<!<; !< !<; !<; !<MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAYCEDAR RIVERGFORMER AGGREGATE STORAGE AREA GFORMER AGGREGATE STORAGE AREA GFORMER SETTLING BASINGFORMER SERVICE PIT GFORMER WAREHOUSE G FORMER SCALE G FORMER MAIN OFFICE GFORMER BATCH PLANTGFORMER ADMIXTURE STORAGE GFORMER SETTLING PONDG FORMER TRUCK WASHOUTGFORMER PUMPHOUSE G FORMER AGGREGATE STORAGE GFORMER WELDING AND CARPENTER SHOP G FORMER TRUCK SHOP GFORMER WASTE OIL AST GFORMER OFFICES MW-10 EPI-MW-7 EPI-MW-6 EPI-MW-9EPI-MW-8 EPI-MW-1 MW-41 EPI-MW-5 MW-1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ³SITE PLAN OLD STONEWAY CONCRETE SITE 1915 SOUTHEAST MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAY RENTON, WASHINGTONCONSULTING Quality Service for Environmental Solutions | farallonconsulting.com Farallon Washington Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle Oregon Portland | Bend | Baker City California Oakland | Sacramento | Irvine Document Path: Q:\Projects\266 Gary Merlino\008 Old Stoneway\FIGURE 2_SITE PLAN.mxd FARALLON PN: 266-0080200 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND !<MONITORING WELL (INSTALLED BY EPI AND OTHERS) !<;ABANDONED MONITORING WELL APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY HISTORIC SITE FEATURES &ODMPTVSF" 'JHVSF !<!<!<;!<!<;!<!<;!<;!<CEDAR RIVERGROUNDWATERFLOW DIRECTIONMW-10(NC)EPI-MW-7(30.82)EPI-MW-6EPI-MW-9(29.93)EPI-MW-8EPI-MW-1(28.38)MW-41EPI-MW-5MW-1(28.02)28.0028.0030.5030.0028.5029.0029.5030.5030.0029.0029.5028.50³CONSULTINGChecked By: JRDisc Reference:FIGURE 3GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURS AND FLOW DIRECTION FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2016OLD STONEWAY CONCRETE SITE1915 SOUTHEAST MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAYRENTON, WASHINGTONQuality Service for Environmental Solutions | farallonconsulting.comFarallon060SCALE IN FEETWashingtonIssaquah | Bellingham | SeattleOregonPortland | Bend | Baker CityCaliforniaOakland | Sacramento | IrvineDate: 4/13/2017Drawn By: pemahiserDocument Path: Q:\Projects\266 Gary Merlino\008 Old Stoneway\Figure 3_Contour_pee.mxdFARALLON PN: 266-008LEGENDAPPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY!<MONITORING WELL (INSTALLED BY EPI AND OTHERS)!<;ABANDONED MONITORING WELL(28.38)GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (9/15/16) MEASURED IN FEETABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICANVERTICAL DATUM 1988 (MONITORING WELL SURVEY DATAPROVIDED BY ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC.)GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)29.50GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION1 " = 3,000 'MAP LOCATOR(NC)GROUNDWATER ELEVATION NOT CALCULATED. MONITORING WELL SURVEY DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE&ODMPTVSF" 'JHVSF & &&!!(& % &$""!&!!'%##"% &$""!&#! !""!% &$""!#!#& & & & & % " $ $'%'(" ( " !#(""#!$#!(" "! " !! "" ""!" $!!#"# ! !"##(! "#&(!#" %(&(!#&"# # &$"# '%" %!"'&!"" %!"'" !&!"" %!"'&ODMPTVSF" 'JHVSF !<!<!<;!<!<;!<!<;!<;!<CEDAR RIVERMW-10EPI-MW-7EPI-MW-6EPI-MW-9EPI-MW-8EPI-MW-1MW-41EPI-MW-5MW-1³CONSULTINGChecked By: JRDisc Reference:FIGURE 4GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSOLD STONEWAY CONCRETE SITE1915 SOUTHEAST MAPLE VALLEY HIGHWAYRENTON, WASHINGTONQuality Service for Environmental Solutions | farallonconsulting.comFarallon080SCALE IN FEETWashingtonIssaquah | Bellingham | SeattleOregonPortland | Bend | Baker CityCaliforniaOakland | Sacramento | IrvineDate: 4/13/2017Drawn By: shaynesDocument Path: Q:\Projects\266 Gary Merlino\008 Old Stoneway\Figure 4_gwAnalyticalData_pee.mxdFARALLON PN: 266-008LEGENDAPPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY!<MONITORING WELL (INSTALLED BY EPI AND OTHERS)!<;ABANDONED MONITORING WELLNOTES:DISSOLVED ARSENIC AND FORMALDEHYDE UNITS ARE IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (g/L) pH AT 25 DEGREES CELSIUS BOLD = DENOTES CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED MODEL TOXICS CONTROL ACT (MTCA) CLEANUP LEVEL. < = DENOTES ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR EXCEEDING THE REPORTED LIMIT LISTED. NA = NOT APPLICABLE6/8/2009 10.827<59/29/2009 11.435.8<512/14/2009 10.347.7<53/3/2010 8.585.7<56/1/2010 11.41 4.9 169/14/2010 9.357.3<512/14/2010 9.33 4.8 <53/2/2011 8.315.2<51/27/2012 9.405.9NA5/15/2012 8.455.7<610/9/2012 8.529.7<51/17/2013 7.656.5NA4/23/2013 9.05 4.2 <57/30/2013 7.707.3NA10/21/2013 8.39 4.7 <11/23/2014 7.415.2NA7/14/2014 8.855.6<11/12/2015 8.77 3.7 <24/13/2015 7.90 4.3 67/20/2015 7.595.1<210/13/2015 8.85 4.2 <1001/13/2016 7.73 3.9 <1009/15/2016 7.75.2<100DATE pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-79/29/2009 NA6.2<512/14/2009 NA7.7<53/3/2010 NA 4.0 <56/1/2010 NA 4.8 189/14/2010 NA7.1<51/9/2012 10.2717<51/17/2013 11.946.8NA4/23/2013 11.44 3.8 <57/30/2013 11.365.9NA10/21/2013 11.696.0<11/23/2014 11.4 4.3 NA7/14/2014 11.83 4.1 <11/12/2015 11.02 2.5 <24/13/2015 11.32 2.7 87/20/2015 11.83 3.6<20001/13/2016 12.54 3.1 <1009/15/2016 11.55<100DATE pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEMW-103/18/2009 7.29 <5 <56/8/2009 7.13 <5 <59/29/2009 7.06 <1 612/14/2009 7.74 1.1 <53/3/2010 8.04 <1.8 <56/1/2010 7.48 <1.8 <59/14/2010 7.09 <1.8 <512/14/2010 7.8 <1.8 <53/2/2011 6.65 <1.8 <55/15/2012 6.6 <1.0 NA10/9/2012 6.27 1 NA4/23/2013 7.36 <1.0 <510/21/2013 6.95 <1.0 NA1/23/2014 7.16 1.3 NA7/14/2014 6.88 <1.0 <11/12/2015 6.59 <1.0 NA4/13/2015 6.98 1.3 <47/20/2015 7.09 <1.0 <210/13/2015 6.55 <1.0 <1001/13/2015 7.19 <1.0 <1009/15/2016 7.4 <3.0 <100DISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEMW-1DATE pH3/18/2009 7.28 <5 <56/8/2009 6.96 <5 <59/29/2009 7.24 1.7 <512/14/2009 7.42 1.6 <53/3/2010 7.86 2.4 <56/1/2010 7.66 <1.8 <59/14/2010 7.14 2.1 <512/14/2010 7.58 <1.8 <53/2/2011 7.11 2.5 <55/15/2012 6.94 1.1 NA10/9/2012 6.43 1.4 NA4/23/2013 7.64 <1.0 <510/21/2013 7.1 1.5 NA1/23/2014 7.14 1.5 NA7/14/2014 7.24 1.6 <11/12/2015 7.65 <1.0 NA4/13/2015 6.6 <1.0 <47/20/2015 6.96 <1.0 <210/13/2015 6.52 <1.0 <1001/13/2016 7.09 1.3 <1009/15/2016 7.3 <3.0 <100DISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-1DATE pH3/18/2009 6.46 <5 <56/8/2009 6.31 <5 <59/29/2009 6.47 <1 <512/14/2009 6.34 <1 <53/3/2010 7.72 <1 <56/1/2010 6.63 <1.8 <59/14/2010 6.75 <1.8 <5DATE pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-53/18/2009 NA NA NA6/8/2009 8.18 <5 <59/29/2009 8.30 3.8 <512/14/2009 8.22 3.9 <53/3/2010 8.16 3.9 <56/1/2010 8.19 2.8 <59/14/2010 7.96 4.4 <5DISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-6DATE pH3/18/2009 NA NA NA6/8/2009 8.15 <5 <59/29/2009 8.36 3.9 512/14/2009 8.58 4.2 <53/3/2010 8.25 4.7 <56/1/2010 8.93 3.1 <59/14/2010 7.98 4.7 <5pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-8DATE6/8/2009 7.987.0<59/29/2009 7.955.7<512/14/2009 8.265.8<53/3/2010 8.006.6<56/1/2010 8.586.459/14/2010 8.126.6<512/14/2010 8.236.3<53/2/2011 7.997.8<51/27/2012 9.256.6NA5/15/2012 7.228.1NA10/9/2012 7.477.6<51/17/2013 8.836.6NA4/23/2013 8.535.9<57/30/2013 8.427.5NA10/21/2013 8.186.6<11/23/2014 7.35.9NA7/14/2014 8.066.0<11/12/2015 8.26 3.9 <24/13/2015 6.16 3.9 <47/20/2015 7.09 4.2 <210/13/2016 7.26 4.2 <1001/13/2016 7.24 3.1 <1009/15/2016 7.8 4.7 <100DATE pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEEPI-MW-93/18/2009 NA NA NA6/8/2009 5.87 <5 <59/29/2009 6.65 <1 <512/14/2009 6.58 <1 <53/3/2010 7.77 <1.8 <56/1/2010 6.65 <1.8 <59/14/2010 7.11 <1.8 <5DATE pHDISSOLVED ARSENICFORMALDEHYDEMW-41&ODMPTVSF" 'JHVSF Enclosure B Basis for the Opinion: List of Documents 1. March 7, 2018. Request for Written Opinion, Focused Feasibility Study and Disproportionate Cost Analysis, Old Stoneway Renton Property, 1915 Southeast Maple Valley Highway, Renton, Washington, VCP Project No. NW1702. Farallon Consulting. 2. August 31, 2017. Further Action Opinion Letter, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, VCP NW1702. Washington State Department of Ecology. 3. April 13, 2017. Cleanup Status and Permanent Cleanup Action, Old Stoneway Renton Property, 1915 Southeast Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA. Farallon Consulting. 4. August 11, 2015. Cleanup Status, Former Stoneway Concrete Batch Plant, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, Washington. Environmental Partners, Inc. 5. December 29, 2011. Further Action Opinion Letter, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, VCP NW1702. Washington State Department of Ecology. 6. October 12, 2011. Interim Action Report Volume 1, Former Stoneway Batch Plant, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton Washington, WA. Environmental Partners, Inc. 7. May 9, 2011. Further Action Opinion Letter on Interim Action Report, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, VCP NW1702. Washington State Department of Ecology. 8. February 7, 2011. Interim Action Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Former Stoneway Batch plant, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton Washington, WA. Environmental Partners, Inc. 9. April 30, 2009. Opinion on Proposed Cleanup of the following Site: Former Stoneway Batch Plant, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton Washington, WA, VCP NW1702. Washington State Department of Ecology. 10. March 9, 2009. Cleanup Action Plan, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, Environmental Partners, Inc. 11. October 30, 2007. Ex Situ Soil Bioremediation Treatability Study, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, Environmental Partners, Inc. 12. September 17, 2007. Interim Remedial Action Letter Report, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, Environmental Partners, Inc. 13. May 5, 2006. Remedial Investigation Report, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, Environmental Partners, Inc. 14. April 17, 2001. Department of Ecology Memorandum from Joanne Polayes to file. Discontinuation of groundwater monitoring for tetrachloroethene at Stoneway Concrete, Renton. 15. September 20, 1998. Final Report, Stoneway Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Assessment Renton, Washington. Pacific Groundwater Group. Exhibit 3 Environmental Covenant, Draft 10-3-2018 1 DRAFT 10-3-2018 After Recording Return Original Signed Covenant to: Michael Warfel, VCP Site Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 Environmental Covenant Grantor:SRMRENTON LLC Grantee:State of Washington, Department of Ecology (hereafter “Ecology”) Brief Legal Description:POR OF SE 17-23-05 BEING KNOWN AS REV LEGAL DESC OF EXHIBIT E OF BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT REC #20090112001505 APPROVED BY CITY OF RENTON DAVID CHRISTENSEN DATED 01-22-09 SEE SURVEY 20090112900011 Tax Parcel Nos.:King County 172305-9026 Cross Reference:No Further Action Opinion at a Site, VCP Project NW1702, FSID 62244377, CSID 2121, Stoneway Concrete Renton, 1915 Maple Valley Highway, Renton WA 98055, Month 2018. RECITALS a.This document is an environmental (restrictive) covenant (hereafter “Covenant”) executed pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (“MTCA”), chapter 70.105D RCW, and Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (“UECA”), chapter 64.70 RCW. b.The Property that is the subject of this Covenant is part or all of a MTCA site commonly known as Stoneway Concrete Renton, Ecology Facility Site ID 62244377, Cleanup Site ID 2121, Voluntary Cleanup Program # NW1702.The Property is legally described in Exhibit A, 2 and illustrated in Exhibits B and C, both of which are attached (hereafter, “Property”). If there are differences between these Exhibits, the legal description in Exhibit A shall prevail. c.The Property is the subject of remedial action conducted under MTCA. This Covenant is required because residual contamination remains on the Property after completion of remedial actions. Specifically, the following principal contaminants remain on the Property: Medium Principal Contaminants Present Soil Highly alkaline pH Groundwater Arsenic and highly alkaline pH d.It is the purpose of this Covenant to restrict certain activities and uses of the Property to protect human health and the environment and the integrity of remedial actions conducted at the site. This Covenant includes the following Exhibits: Exhibit A – Legal Description Exhibit B – Property Map Exhibit C – Maps Illustrating Locations of Restrictions Exhibit D – Subordination Agreements Exhibit E – Confirmational Groundwater Monitoring Plan Exhibit F – Operation, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan Records describing the extent of residual contamination, remedial actions conducted, and details of post-remediation activities required by this Covenant are available through Ecology. This includes the following documents: Department of Ecology, Further Action Opinion Letter, Stoneway Concrete, 1915 SE Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA, VCP NW1702, August 31, 2017. Farallon Consulting, Request for Written Opinion, Focused Feasibility Study and Disproportionate Cost Analysis, Old Stoneway Renton Property, 1915 Southeast Maple Valley Highway, Renton, Washington, VCP Project No. NW1702, March 7, 2018. e.This Covenant grants Ecology certain rights under UECA and as specified in this Covenant. As a Holder of this Covenant under UECA, Ecology has an interest in real property, however, this is not an ownership interest which equates to liability under MTCA or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. The rights of Ecology as an “agency” under UECA, other than its’ right as a holder, are not an interest in real property. 3 COVENANT SRMRENTON LLC, as Grantor and owner of the Property, hereby grants to the Washington State Department of Ecology, and its successors and assignees, the following covenants. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Grantor that such covenants shall supersede any prior interests the GRANTOR has in the property and run with the land and be binding on all current and future owners of any portion of, or interest in, the Property. Section 1. General Restrictions and Requirements. The following general restrictions and requirements shall apply to the Property: a. Interference with Remedial Action. The Grantor shall not engage in any activity on the Property that may impact or interfere with the remedial action and any operation, maintenance, inspection or monitoring of that remedial action without prior written approval from Ecology. b. Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The Grantor shall not engage in any activity on the Property that may threaten continued protection of human health or the environment without prior written approval from Ecology. This includes, but is not limited to, any activity that results in the release of residual contamination that was contained as a part of the remedial action or that exacerbates or creates a new exposure to residual contamination remaining immediately adjacent to the Property. c. Continued Compliance Required.Grantor shall not convey any interest in any portion of the Property without providing for the continued adequate and complete operation, maintenance and monitoring of remedial actions and continued compliance with this Covenant. d. Leases. Grantor shall restrict any lease for any portion of the Property to uses and activities consistent with this Covenant and notify all lessees of the restrictions on the use of the Property. e. Preservation of Reference Monuments.Grantor shall make a good faith effort to preserve any reference monuments and boundary markers used to define the areal extent of coverage of this Covenant. Should a monument or marker be damaged or destroyed, Grantor shall have it replaced by a licensed professional surveyor within 30 days of discovery of the damage or destruction. Section 2. Specific Prohibitions and Requirements. In addition to the general restrictions in Section 1 of this Covenant, the following additional specific restrictions and requirements shall apply to the Property. a. Containment of Soil.The remedial action for the Property is based on containing contaminated soil beneath the Property, the estimated extent of which is illustrated in Exhibit C. The Grantor shall not alter or remove all or a portion of existing or future structures on the Property in any manner that would expose contaminated soil, result in a release to the environment of 4 contaminants, or create a new exposure pathway, without prior written approval of Ecology. Should the Grantor propose to alter or remove all or a portion of existing or future structures so that access to the underlying soil contamination is feasible, Ecology may require treatment or removal of the underlying contaminated soil. b. Containment of Groundwater.The remedial action for the Property is based on containing contaminated groundwater beneath the Property, as illustrated in Exhibit C. Contact with high pH groundwater in the four former concrete sedimentation basins shall be prevented by filling the basins with clean inert material to ground surface. The Grantor shall not alter or remove the existing structures on the Property, or construct new structures on the Property, in any manner that would expose contaminated groundwater, result in a release to the environment of contaminants, or create a new exposure pathway, without prior written approval of Ecology. Should the Grantor propose activities on the Property such that access to the underlying groundwater contamination is feasible, Ecology may require treatment or removal of the contaminated groundwater. c. Stormwater facilities. To minimize the potential for mobilization of contaminants remaining in the soil on the Property, no stormwater infiltration facilities or ponds shall be constructed within the area of the Property illustrated in Exhibit C. All stormwater catch basins, conveyance systems, and other appurtenances located within this area shall be of watertight construction. Three 48-inch-diameter, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) dry wells, located north of and adjacent to the four former concrete sedimentation basins, shall be decommissioned in accordance with WAC 173-160-381. d. Groundwater Use. The groundwater beneath the Property shall not be extracted for any purpose other than investigation, monitoring, or remediation performed in accordance with requirements imposed by Ecology for the Property. Drilling of a well for any water supply purpose on or beneath the Property is strictly prohibited. Groundwater extracted from the Property for any purpose shall be considered potentially contaminated and any discharge of this water shall be done in accordance with state and federal law. e. Confirmational Groundwater Monitoring Plan.Monitoring of groundwater for the Property shall be performed in accordance with the Confirmational Groundwater Monitoring Plan that is attached as Exhibit E to this Covenant. f. Operation, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan. The integrity of the Site cleanup shall be protected in accordance with the Operation, Maintenance, and Contingency Plan that is attached as Exhibit F to this Covenant. Any activity on the Property that compromises the integrity of the Site cleanup (including drilling; digging; piercing with a 5 sampling device, post, stake or similar device; grading; excavation; or installation of underground utilities) is prohibited without prior written approval by Ecology. Section 3. Access. a.The Grantor shall maintain clear access to all remedial action components necessary to construct, operate, inspect, monitor and maintain the remedial action. b.The Grantor freely and voluntarily grants Ecology and its authorized representatives, upon reasonable notice, the right to enter the Property at reasonable times to evaluate the effectiveness of this Covenant and associated remedial actions, and enforce compliance with this Covenant and those actions, including the right to take samples, inspect any remedial actions conducted on the Property, and to inspect related records. c.No right of access or use by a third party to any portion of the Property is conveyed by this instrument. Section 4. Notice Requirements. a. Conveyance of Any Interest.The Grantor, when conveying any interest in any part of the Property, including but not limited to title, easement, leases, and security or other interests, must: i. Provide written notice to Ecology of the intended conveyance at least thirty (30) days in advance of the conveyance. ii. Include in the conveying document a notice in substantially the following form, as well as a complete copy of this Covenant: NOTICE: THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTGRANTEDTOTHEWASHINGTONSTATEDEPARTMENTOF ECOLOGY ON [DATE] AND RECORDED WITH THE KING COUNTY AUDITORUNDERRECORDINGNUMBER[RECORDING NUMBER]. USESAND ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH THAT COVENANT, A COMPLETE COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. iii.Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Ecology, provide Ecology with a complete copy of the executed document within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of such document. b. Reporting Violations.Should the Grantor become aware of any violation of this Covenant, Grantor shall promptly report such violation in writing to Ecology. c. Emergencies.For any emergency or significant change in site conditions due to Acts of Nature (for example, flood or fire) resulting in a violation of this Covenant, the Grantor is authorized to respond to such an event in accordance with state and federal law. The Grantor must 6 notify Ecology in writing of the event and response actions planned or taken as soon as practical but no later than within 24 hours of the discovery of the event. d. Notification procedure. Any required written notice, approval, reporting or other communication shall be personally delivered or sent by first class mail to the following persons. Any change in this contact information shall be submitted in writing to all parties to this Covenant. Upon mutual agreement of the parties to this Covenant, an alternative to personal delivery or first class mail, such as e-mail or other electronic means, may be used for these communications. Insert Name of Corporate Officer SRMRENTON LLC Insert Address Insert Phone Number Insert Email Address Environmental Covenants Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 360-407-6000 ToxicsCleanupProgramHQ@ecy.wa.gov Section 5. Modification or Termination. a.Grantor must provide written notice and obtain approval from Ecology at least sixty (60) days in advance of any proposed activity or use of the Property in a manner that is inconsistent with this Covenant. For any proposal that is inconsistent with this Covenant and permanently modifies an activity or use restriction at the site: i. Ecology must issue a public notice and provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposal; and ii. IfEcology approves of the proposal, the Covenant must be amended to reflect the change before the activity or use can proceed. b.If the conditions at the site requiring a Covenant have changed or no longer exist, then the Grantor may submit a request to Ecology that this Covenant be amended or terminated. Any amendment or termination of this Covenant must follow the procedures in MTCA and UECA and any rules promulgated under these chapters. c.By signing this agreement, per RCW 64.70.100, the original signatories to this agreement, other than Ecology, agree to waive all rights to sign amendments to and termination of this Covenant. Section 6. Enforcement and Construction. a.This Covenant is being freely and voluntarily granted by the Grantor. 7 b. Within ten (10) days of execution of this Covenant, Grantor shall provide Ecology with an original signed Covenant and proof of recording and a copy of the Covenant and proof of recording to others required by RCW 64.70.070. c. Ecology shall be entitled to enforce the terms of this Covenant by resort to specific performance or legal process. All remedies available in this Covenant shall be in addition to any and all remedies at law or in equity, including MTCA and UECA. Enforcement of the terms of this Covenant shall be at the discretion of Ecology, and any forbearance, delay or omission to exercise its rights under this Covenant in the event of a breach of any term of this Covenant is not a waiver by Ecology of that term or of any subsequent breach of that term, or any other term in this Covenant, or of any rights of Ecology under this Covenant. d.The Grantor shall be responsible for all costs associated with implementation of this Covenant. Furthermore, the Grantor, upon request by Ecology, shall be obligated to pay for Ecology’s costs to process a request for any modification or termination of this Covenant and any approval required by this Covenant. e.This Covenant shall be liberally construed to meet the intent of MTCA and UECA. f.The provisions of this Covenant shall be severable. If any provision in this Covenant or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Covenant or its application to any person or circumstance is not affected and shall continue in full force and effect as though such void provision had not been contained herein. g.A heading used at the beginning of any section or paragraph or exhibit of this Covenant may be used to aid in the interpretation of that section or paragraph or exhibit but does not override the specific requirements in that section or paragraph. 8 The undersigned Grantor warrants he/she holds the title to the Propertyand hasauthority to execute this Covenant. EXECUTED this ______ day of __________________, 2018. ___________________________________[SIGNATURE] by: [PRINTED NAME] Title: ______________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ______________________ COUNTY OF ____________________ On this day of , 2018, I certify that personally appeared before me, acknowledged that he/she is the of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and signed said instrument by free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument for said corporation. __________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of ______________ Residing at ________________________________ My appointment expires _____________________ 9 The Department of Ecology,hereby accepts the status as GRANTEE and HOLDER of the above Environmental Covenant pertaining to the Stoneway Concrete Renton, Ecology Facility Site ID 62244377, Cleanup Site ID 2121, Voluntary Cleanup Program # NW1702. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY _________________________________[SIGNATURE] by: [PRINTED NAME] Title: Toxics Cleanup Program Section Manager Dated: _____________________________ Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THOSE PORTIONS OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 4, 6, AND 7, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17; THENCE NORTH 89°45'17" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1325.66 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 01°08’15" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7, A DISTANCE OF 561.54 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20070716001845, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID STRIP OF LAND THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 43°36'56" WEST A DISTANCE OF 45.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°13'07" WEST A DISTANCE OF 162.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°01'03" WEST A DISTANCE OF 71.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°48'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 43.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44°34'17" WEST A DISTANCE OF 18.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°25'13" WEST A DISTANCE OF 97.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°37'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°56'28" WEST A DISTANCE OF 33.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°05'34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 53.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°14'28" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°05’34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°14'28" EAST A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°05’34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 58.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43°03'39" WEST A DISTANCE OF 81.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°20'14" WEST A DISTANCE OF 9.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°24'25" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°28'13" WEST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°24'25" EAST A DISTANCE OF 3.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°20'15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°56'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°03'22" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°56'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41°42'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 52.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86°11'31" WEST A DISTANCE OF 19.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20060515000366, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20060515000380 RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 47°51’06" WEST A DISTANCE OF 34.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42°08'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 10.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°51'06" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3.44 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 394.50 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04°35'00", A DISTANCE OF 31.56 FEET. THENCE NORTH 37°33'54" WEST A DISTANCE OF 4.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 37°33'54” WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 390.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°08'11", A DISTANCE OF 123.45 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARIES SOUTH 47°51’38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 31.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°45'08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 251.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39°43'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 73.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°45'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 176.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28°17'28" WEST A DISTANCE OF 410.47 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF THE RIGHT BANK OF THE CEDAR RIVER; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG SAID ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 7 WHICH BEARS SOUTH 1°08'15" WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 01°08'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 204.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 89°45'17" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 17, 1325.66 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7 OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE SOUTH 01°08'15" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 699.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 86°05'30" EAST, 8.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°07'3" EAST, 10.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32°15'04" EAST, 9.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°06'52" EAST, 20.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20°04'33" EAST, 10.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55°58'38" WEST, 9.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60°06'50" WEST, 10.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68°03'20° WEST, 9.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67°57’27" WEST, 8.01 FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE NORTH 01°08'15" EAST, 61.95 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PARCEL OF LAND THE BOUNDARY OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON THENCE NORTH 89°45'17" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 17, 1325.66 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 7 OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE SOUTH 01°08'15" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 561.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 01°08'15” WEST 138.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86°05'30" WEST, 3.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28°28'36" WEST, 31.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°47'52" WEST, 32.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°40'25" WEST, 56.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°09'34" EAST, 24.54 FEET; THENCENORTH03°48'48"WEST,21.14FEETTOTHESOUTHLINEOFTHATSTRIP OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20070716001845, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 43°36’56" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 33.81 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Exhibit B PROPERTY MAP Notes (will not appear in the document) Add Figure B-1, Property Map, including: x Line drawing base map with scale and north arrow; aerial photo base maps do not scan well x Outline of Property Boundary from 7/10/2017 Boundary/Topographic Survey by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers x Label: SR 169, Cedar River x Please confirm the property/parcel boundary differences between the following maps in the area of the four concrete sedimentation basins: o King County parcel viewer for parcel 1723059026 o 7/10/2017 Boundary/Topographic Survey by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers o 3/21/2008 Revised Record of Survey for ANMARCO by Triad Associates, which shows a claim of adverse possession for the area between the legal property boundary and the north bank of the Cedar River Exhibit C MAPS ILLUSTRATING LOCATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS Notes (will not appear in the document) Add Figure C-1, Site Plan, including: x Line drawing base map with scale and north arrow; aerial photo base maps do not scan well x Outline of Property Boundary from 7/10/2017 Boundary/Topographic Survey by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers Parcel boundaries x Locations of MW-1, EPI-MW-1, EPI-MW-7, EPI-MW-9, EPI-MW-10, and a new monitoring well to be installed between MW-1 and EPI-MW-1 x Outline of estimated area with groundwater arsenic concentrations above MTCA Method A cleanup levels x Outline of estimated area with groundwater pH above 8.5 x Outline of estimated area where high-pH soils remain in place x Location of Figure C-2 cross section line Add Figure C-2, Site Cross Section, using Figure 4 from the 3-7-2018 FFS/DCA report, with the following modifications: x Remove formaldehyde excavation area and formaldehyde soil and groundwater data x Outline the estimated area with groundwater arsenic concentrations above MTCA Method A cleanup levels x Outline the estimated area with groundwater pH above 8.5 Exhibit D Subordination Agreements Notes (will not appear in the document) Based on Ecology review of the title report, Subordination Agreements may be required from the following entities and associated easement numbers, as listed under Schedule B, Special Exceptions, of the Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Escrow Number 20377119-416-416 dated June 8, 2018: Title Insurance Report Schedule B Number Easement Grantor King County Recording Number Brief Description of Easement Subject 15 Not specified 20080213002215 Notice of claim of adverse possession 17 Not specified 2009011200505 Boundary line and easement agreement 18 State of Washington none Land which lies below the line of ordinary high water of the Cedar River If detailed mapping of any of these easements confirms that they are not located where contaminated soil and groundwater is present, then the requirement for a subordination agreement for that entity can be eliminated. SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT KNOW ALL PERSONS, That __________, the owner and holder of that certain _______________________________ bearing the date the _____ day of ___________, _____, executed by ______________________________, _________________________________, and recorded in the office of the County Auditor of ____________ County, State of Washington, on _______________, under Auditor’s File Number ________________, does hereby agree that said Instrument shall be subordinate to the interest of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology, under the environmental covenant to which this Subordination Agreement is attached. __________________________________ Signature by: _______________________________ Printed Name Title: ______________________________ Dated: _____________________________ CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF On this day of , 20__, I certify that personally appeared before me, acknowledged that he/she is the of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and signed said instrument by free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument for said corporation. ___________________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of ______________ Residing at __________________________________ My appointment expires ______________________ Exhibit E CONFIRMATIONAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN Compliance groundwater monitoring will be conducted as part of the selected cleanup action. The results of the groundwater monitoring events will be used to assess groundwater flow and gradient, and groundwater quality at the Site to ensure that the MTCA Method A cleanup level for arsenic is attained at the conditional points of compliance at the downgradient, northwestern Site boundary. The Confirmation Groundwater Monitoring Plan (CGMP) includes the following elements: x Monitoring Locations o MW-1, EPI-MW-1, EPI-MW-7, EPI-MW-9, EPI-MW-10, and a new monitoring well to be installed between MW-1 and EPI-MW-1; see Figure C-1 in Exhibit C of this Covenant o If any of these wells must be decommissioned during Property development, replacement monitoring wells shall be installed per WAC 173-160 standards, at the same or similar locations approved by Ecology. x Monitoring Data to be Collected: o Water levels o Samples to be tested for pH (field) and dissolved arsenic x Monitoring Frequency o Annually, beginning in xx 2019, for at least 5 years, the time of the first periodic review by Ecology o Subsequent monitoring will depend upon the results of the first periodic review. x Sampling Procedures o Groundwater samples will be collected in accordance with the Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Groundwater Samples fromMonitoring Wells dated January 19, 2010, prepared by EPA (2010). Groundwater samples will be collected directly from thepump outlet following stabilization ofthe geochemical parameters in accordance with theEPA (2010) guidance for low-flow purging and sampling. Laboratory analytical results will be uploaded to Ecology’s Environmental Information Management database. x Reporting o Submit report of water level measurements, sample analysis results, and a map showing groundwater elevation contours, pH, and dissolved arsenic. x The Grantor shall maintain clear access to the on-Property wells and protect them from damage. The Grantor shall report to Ecology within forty-eight (48) hours of the discovery of any damage to any monitoring well. Unless Ecology approves of an alternative plan in writing, the Grantor shall promptly repair the damage to any of the on-Property wells and submit a report documenting this work to Ecology within thirty (30) days of completing the repairs. Exhibit F OPERATION,MAINTENANCE,AND CONTINGENCY PLAN The Grantor shall maintain clear access to the monitoring wells and protect them from damage. The Grantor shall report to Ecology within forty-eight (48) hours of the discovery of any damage to any monitoring well. Unless Ecology approves of an alternative plan in writing, the Grantor shall promptly repair the damage to any monitoring wells and submit a report documenting this work to Ecology within thirty (30) days of completing the repairs. The Grantor shall report to Ecology within forty-eight (48) hours of the discovery of any activity that affects the integrity of the Site cleanup. Unless an alternative plan has been approved by Ecology in writing, the Grantor shall promptly repair any damage to the integrity of the Site cleanup and submit a report documenting this work to Ecology within thirty (30) days of completing the repairs. Exhibit 4 Review of Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives for the Cedar River Apartments Project, in Renton, WA, October 30, 2018, Golder Associates, Inc. Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200, Redmond, Washington, USA 98052 T: +1 425 883-0777 F: +1 425 882-5498 Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com SRM Development (SRM) requested that Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) review available information related to existing shoreline stabilization at a proposed site called the Cedar River Apartments Project (Project). The King County assessor Parcel Number for the Project is 1723059026, which is generally located along the Maple Valley highway just upstream of the intersection of Interstate 405 and the Cedar River in Renton, Washington. Our review was limited to available studies and applicable technical documents and focused on confirming whether bank stabilization is necessary at the site. In addition, Golder is providing preliminary input on the feasibility of implementing bank stabilization as addressed in the Renton Municipal Code (Code) within the context of the hierarchal alternatives process. No new technical assessments or investigations were completed as a part of this work. Our scope includes the review as described above, a brief site visit (completed on September 4, 2018), and development of this technical memorandum summarizing the initial conclusions and results. 1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION We reviewed and/or considered the following information: Project Site Plan, by RMA (Appendix A); Project 100-year Flood Boundary delineation, by SRM (Appendix B); “Cedar River Channel Migration Study”, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, lead author Terry Butler (now retired), dated April 2015 (available on-line at: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/flooding/mapping/Cedar- CMZ/Cedar_CMZ_study_&maps_April_2015.pdf); Phone conversation with Jeanne Stypula, Managing Engineer (new contact for the Cedar River channel migration study), King County River and Floodplain Management Section; Historical documentation from Gary Merlino Construction Company (GMCC), the most recent batch plant operator at the site, whereby the focus was on the historical site operations going back to the original site operator, Stoneway Gravel Company; Renton Municipal Code, 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, outlined in email from S. Sandstrom to A. Kammereck dated October 3, 2018 (Appendix C); TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE 10/30/2018 Project No. 18101829 TO Andy Loos SRM Development CC Sarah Sandstrom, The Watershed Company FROM Andreas Kammereck, PE; Joe Mitzel, EIT EMAIL akammereck@golder.com, jmitzel@golder.com REVIEW OF SHORELINE STABILIZATION ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CEDAR RIVER APARTMENTS PROJECT, IN RENTON, WA Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 2 “Summary of Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines”; abbreviated summary of the Integrated Streambank Stabilization Protection Guidelines (ISPG) technical document developed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) by lead authors Cramer, Bates, and Miller (Appendix D); Project Shoreline Buffer Diagrammatic and Court Concept Plan, by SRM (Appendix E); and, Example stream and river habitat restoration, enhancement, and bank stabilization projects (Appendix F). 2.0 SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS A brief site visit was completed on September 4, 2018 to observe and review riverine, fluvial geomorphic, and floodplain conditions relative to the Project. The ground elevations throughout the parcel are generally flat and elevated above the river active channel, generally matching the top of an existing concrete retaining wall that runs along the rightbank (orientation looking downstream) edge of the main channel. The concrete retaining wall is approximately 15-20 feet in height, with a vertical face extending from the general parcel ground elevation down to river level. Figure 2-1: View looking upstream (Left) and downstream (Right) along rightbank of the Cedar River where it abuts the existing concrete retaining wall The 100-year flood inundation limits (Appendix B) generally correspond with the right-bank side of the main active channel where it runs along the concrete retaining wall on the upstream end of the project (the actual elevation is likely somewhere along the face of the wall), and reaches further into the Project in the area around the settling ponds (intersecting ground elevation where the site slopes away from the river and located approximately mid- point along the river bank at the existing concrete bays). It then moves back towards the river and follows the rightbank side of the main channel through the downstream end of the Project (elevation along the sloping bank). Based on experience with similar projects, we assume the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) follows closely with the rightbank side of the main channel (and along the near vertical wall face). Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 3 3.0 KING COUNTY CMZ STUDY Review of the King County (2015) study of channel migration hazards along the Cedar river show the site is located within an unconstrained channel migration zone (Figure 3-1) and define the channel migration zone regulatory status covering much of the parcel as a “severe hazard area” (Figure 3-2). The unconstrained channel migration zone does not account for the existing concrete retaining wall that runs along the rightbank side of the channel through the parcel, which is standard of practice this these types of assessments; the term “unconstrained” refers to the expected limits of the channel migration if no structure were there to impede the river. Figure 3-1: Unconstrained Channel Migration Map (Map 6, Panel 1 of 8) Figure 3-2: Channel Migration Zone (Map 7, Panel 1 of 8) The technical methods and approach for King County (2015) study were discussed briefly with Jeanne Stypula, Managing Engineer in the King County River and Floodplain Management Section, who is the current point of contact for the study because the lead author for the study has retired from the County. The approach and methods used for the study represent the standard of practice for these type of assessments, and based on our Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 4 review of the document and discussions with King County we do not envision that additional technical studies would result in new or changed conclusions on the delineation of channel migration hazards for the site. 4.0 HISTORICAL SITE CONDITIONS Historical information from the Gary Merlino Construction Company (GMCC), who was the most recent batch- plant operator at the site, provides a summary of historical site conditions and changes in land use going back decades for the Project site. The site was originally developed in the early 1930’s by the Stoneway Dock Company with a concrete batch plant and rock crushing operation. The sand and gravel for the concrete batch plant was dredged from the river. Figure 4-1 shows an aerial photo from the site in 1946. Note how the main river channel reaches into the middle of the site in the area where the settling ponds (i.e. old concrete bays) currently exist. Additionally, the active channel appears to be unconfined with no apparent in-channel control structures. There appears to be gravel mining activities in the upstream portion of the site, presumably to support the batch plant operations. Figure 4-1: 1946 Aerial Photo A newspaper clipping from 1954 shows an oblique view looking downstream of the site. The batch plant sits predominately in the middle of the site and the central portion of the site has been filled and flattened. There is evidence of a storage pond along the river edge toward the upstream end of the site. Around this time the operating company name changed to the ‘Stoneway Sand and Gravel Company’. Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 5 Figure 4-2: Newspaper Clipping from 1954 Figure 4-3 provides an oblique aerial view from 1961, while Figure 4-4 shows a plan view aerial photo from 1962. At this time, the river channel ran close to the settling pond (reference photos) towards the upstream end of the site. Comparison of the 1962 and 1977 aerial photos shows that site operations have pushed the river channel to the south, presumably to expand the site area. Similarly, the historical channel alignment appears to have been filled at the upstream end of the site for expansion of operations. While a long linear bank alignment through the upstream end of the site is evident in the 1961 photo (Figure 4-3), there appears to be changes in the bank Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 6 alignment even in the 1962 aerial photo (Figure 4-4); this may be explained by the photos showing different flow conditions (i.e. 1962 may show lower flows that expose gravel bars along the rightbank side of the channel). No retaining wall is evident in 1977 aerial photo (Figure 4-5). Figure 4-3: Oblique Aerial Photo from 1961 Figure 4-4: Aerial Photo from 1962 Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 7 Figure 4-5: Aerial Photo from 1977 Figure 4-6: Aerial Photo from 1985 Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 8 Figure 4-7: Aerial Photo from 2002 Figure 4-8: Google Aerial Image from 2018 The 1985 aerial photo (Figure 4-6) shows a similar rightbank river bank alignment as the 1977 photo (Figure 4-5), and no retaining wall is evident. By the 2002 (aerial photo Figure 4-7), the retaining wall is evident as a pronounced line defining the rightbank side of the main river channel. Concrete mixer trucks are easily identified Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 9 parked along the edge of the retaining wall (Figure 4-7). The bank line from 2002 appears unchanged with the current bank line (Figure 4-8) seen in a Google Image from 2018. 5.0 RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SRM requested Golder look at the Renton Municipal Code (Code) with respect to bank stabilization for existing structures (see Appendix C for highlighted Code sections for review). The Code outlines the need for repairing or retaining bank stabilization and provides a process for prioritizing bank stabilization methods called the “Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy”. From 4-3-090F.4.c.iii.a; the Code requires a demonstrated need by “geotechnical analysis” to protect “principal uses or structures from erosion…”. Based on review of available information and the results of the King County (2015) study, there is a demonstrated need to protect against future erosion and scour that could threaten the Project. From 4-3-090F.4.a.iii.a.b.c.d.e; the Code outlines the “Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy”, which says that structural stabilization measures should only be used when more natural, flexible, non-structural methods such as vegetative stabilization and bio-engineered methods are not feasible. The alternative types and methods of stabilization are defined in order of priority by the following hierarchy of preference (whereby (a) represents increased priority): (a) No Action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks and relocate structures; (b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization; (c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as protective measure at the buffer line; (d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexible defense works, as described above; and, (e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. The Code does not provide detailed guidance on the definition of “soft shore protection”, “bioengineering”, or “vegetative stabilization”; based on previous project experience, we assume these references imply using bank stabilization methods addressed and explained in state-of-the-practice guidance documents developed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), such as the “Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines” (SHRG), dated April 2012, and available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01374/ ); and “Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines” (ISPG) developed in 2002, and available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00046/. An abbreviated summary of the ISPG (2002) developed by the primary authors (Cramer, Gates, and Miller) is included in Appendix D and highlights the key components of current stream bank stabilization methods and approaches with “selection and design of stream bank protection techniques that protect or restore aquatic and riparian habitats” (Appendix D). The ISPG (2002) reflects the current trend and guiding principles of stream bank stabilization work that need to be incorporated into any project planning and design effort, as follows (Appendix D): Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 10 x Erosion is a natural process that is essential to ecological health; x Erosion is often exacerbated or caused by human activities; x Causes of erosion (not just symptoms) must be solved when appropriate; x Basin, reach, and meander belt management are essential to integrated streambank projects; x Habitat protection must be assimilated into streambank projects; x Mitigation sequencing must be integrated into streambank projects; and, x Impacts to natural channel processes must be mitigated. These guiding principles should be incorporated into project planning, design, permitting, and construction of stream stabilization projects. 5.1 Feasibility of Hierarchal Alternatives We understand the conceptual plan for the buffer zone along river bank is represented in the “Project Shoreline Buffer Diagrammatic and Court Concept Plan” (Appendix E). In general, with regard to references in the hierarchical alternatives process, we assume the reference to “flexible defense works” is consistent with the standard-of-practice technical resources as described in ISPG (2002) and SHRG (2012) for “biotechnical bank protection techniques” such as (but not limited to): woody plantings, herbaceous cover, soil reinforcement, riparian buffers, coir and straw logs, bank reshaping, and buffer management. Similarly, “structural bank protection techniques” refer to (but are not limited to): anchor points, roughness trees, large woody debris (LWD) riprap, log toe, rock toe, crib walls, ballast, and manufactured retention systems. Additional measures such as “In-stream flow redirection techniques” that could be used, that include (but are not limited to): groins, buried groins, barbs, engineered debris jams (i.e. engineered log jams, a.k.a. ELJ’s), drop structures, and porous weirs. Our initial review of these types of streambank protection measures relative to the Project and relative to the hierarchical alternatives process finds the “No Action’ alternative is not feasible because it leaves no measures to protect the Project area from future bank erosion, scour, and channel migration hazards. The “Flexible Defense Works” alternative is not likely sufficient (and thereby not feasible) to establish a level of protection commensurate with the proposed Project development, primarily because “soft” vegetative measures assume that changes can and will occur over the long-term. The currently provided buffer zone of 100 feet is likely not enough to provide the required offset for natural processes to occur while maintaining sufficient offset from the developed portion of the site. The “Flexible Defense Works with Rigid Defense Works constructed at the Buffer Line” is not likely feasible because it would take more room than is available, i.e. there is little or no space to build streambank protection measures landward of the buffer line, which is 100 feet offset from the river bank. The “Combination of Rigid and Flexible Works” appears feasible and could provide the required level of protection. This alternative would likely require much of the 100 foot buffer space to construct. This alternative would likely include a combination of biotechnical and structural bank protection techniques as described above. These techniques would need to be designed and constructed to meet current regulatory level-of-protection requirements, which is typically the 100-year flood level of protection but may vary depending on the intent and function of each component of the overall project and the level of corresponding risk. The work would likely entail combining grading the bank area within the buffer to have a variable sloped and vegetated topography consistent with typical floodplain regimes, LWD configured in single or multiple pieces, ELJ’s to replicate the function of natural LWD and provide erosion and scour protection, riprap rock materials in targeted areas (mostly in bank tow Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 11 areas), piles (steel and/or wood) to secure LWD and ELJ’s, and other structural components, or variations thereof, needed to restore and enhance habitat and provide bank protection mitigation for expected erosion and scour conditions. Examples of similar projects that include a combination of techniques are included in Appendix F. These examples are presented to demonstrate there is a range of relevant applications that have been successfully constructed in Pacific Northwest riverine systems. Please note there are numerous other project examples out there that are applicable and would inform continued planning and discussion, and additional planning and design would be needed to develop options that best fit the Project requirements. The “Rigid works” alternative appears feasible, but has the lowest preference in the hierarchy of alternatives when other alternatives (as described above) are feasible. 5.1.1 Relative Planning Level Costs Costs should be included in feasibility review of bank stabilization alternatives for the site. Relative ranges of costs for targeted streambank stabilization techniques are included in Table 5-1. Note, these costs are intended for planning purposes only, to provide a relative order-of-magnitude understanding of costs. They represent low and high unit costs from ISPG (2002) which have not been adjusted to current values. More detailed and comprehensive costing assessments are needed to develop costs that are representative of Project site-specific proposed stabilization measures. Costs in Table 5-1 were developed assuming a project length of approximately 1,500 feet or approximately 0.30 mile (i.e. the approximate Project length of the bank along the rightbank side of the main channel), and consider only materials and construction costs. Design costs including geologic assessments, geotechnical engineering and investigations, hydrotechnical (i.e. hydrologic, hydraulic, and fluvial geomorphic) engineering, and civil design and survey costs are not addressed. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines Techniques (2002) Description Estimated Cost (Low to High) Biotechnical bank protection techniques woody plantings, herbaceous cover, sol reinforcement, riparian buffers, coir and straw logs, bank reshaping, and buffer management ~$40,000 to ~$200,000 Structural bank protection techniques anchor points, roughness trees, riprap, log toe, rock toe, crib walls, ballast, and manufactured retention systems ~$100,000 to ~$200,000 In-stream flow (i.e. in the bed or bank) redirection techniques groins, buried groins, barbs, engineered debris jams (i.e. LWD and ELJ’s), drop structures, and porous weirs ~$200,000 to ~$2,000,000 Table 5-1: Relative Streambank Stabilization Technique Costs Based on our experience from similar and recently completed project work, the ranges of estimated costs in Table 5-1 are likely low. Note also that some combination of biotechnical, structural, and in-stream structures may be needed for restoration and stabilization at the Project site, so total costs could be the combination of costs for respective techniques. Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 12 Refer to Table 5-2 for a listing of comparable example streambank restoration and stabilization projects and corresponding total project costs (note year of completion for adjusting costs to current value). Additional information about the projects can be found in Appendix F, including some photographs, project location, and a link to additional publicly available project details. The example project costs range from approximately $600,000 to $10,000,000, which represents the likely range of work that would be required at the Project site for habitat enhancement, restoration, and bank stabilization. Project Cost Year Notes Upper Washougal River $800,000 2011 60 ft logs, 160 logs installed in 2011 to restore riverine function, spread over 5 mile reach NF Stillaguamish $621,384 2008-2012 7 structures, 0.25 miles of streambank stabilized and habitat restoration, 0.25 mile reach Saxon Reach $1,180,247 2010-2013 7 structures, 0.12 miles of streambank stabilized and habitat restoration, 0.12 mi length Riverberry-Davis VanDellen $1,200,000 ~1995 18 structures, 0.60 miles of river bank stabilized Hoh River Bank Stabilization $7,000,000 2004 4 mid-channel ELJs, 6 bank ELJs, and 2 ELJs for highway embankment stabilization, over 0.25 mile reach Lower Germany Creek Restoration not available 2011-2012 habitat restoration, river bank stabilization Mashel Eatonville Restoration $1,254,992 2009-2012 21 structures, 0.12 miles of streambank stabilized SR 20 Skagit River $10,200,000 2014 ~1,700 dolos with LWD and ELJ's along 0.26 mile bank, river bank stabilization along highway Table 5-2: Example Stabilization Projects The above summarized costs provide a relative understanding for how particular measures compare. As previously mentioned, a more comprehensive and detailed cost assessment would be needed to better define costs for proposed site-specific measures. 5.1.2 Assessing Risk All streambank stabilization projects have inherent risk, corresponding to the dynamics and uncertainties that come with working in the riverine environment. Identifying, assessing, and managing those risks in the planning, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring of streambank stabilization projects is therefore critical. Any risk assessment for this Project should consider the following (but not limited to): the regulatory setting, costs, land use, the likelihood of continued bank erosion and channel migration potential at the site, the feasibility and function of proposed streambank stabilization measures, long-term performance of installed measures, monitoring, operational requirements, riverine and riparian habitat, and public safety. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Review of the channel migration assessment completed by King County (2015) indicates that much of the Project site is located within a channel migration zone. The King County (2015) study approach does not account for the existing retaining wall, which meets the standard of practice for these types of assessments. We do not see additional studies changing the fundamental conclusions of the County’s study. Assessing risk in terms of bank stabilization alternatives and feasibility and costs needs to be incorporated into the planning, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring elements of the Project. Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 13 From a geotechnical and hydrotechnical engineering, geologic, long-term performance, and risk management perspective, the “Combination of Rigid and Flexible Works” alternative appears feasible and would likely require much of the 100 foot buffer space for construction. This alternative could likely be constructed landward of the OHWM. Proposed streambank stabilization measures should incorporate principles and approaches as outlined in SHRG (2012) and ISPG (2002), or similar applicable technical resources. A range of potential costs are presented herein. More detailed planning, investigation, design, and cost estimate are needed to develop a site- specific bank stabilization package. 7.0 CLOSING Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or comments, or if further clarification or additional information is needed. Joe MItzel, EIT Andreas Kammereck, PE Engineer Principal Engineer JM/AQK/aqk d:\new_aqk_working\projects\temp_watershed company_cedar river\final_srm_cedar river cmz review_10302018.docx Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 14 Appendix A Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 15 Appendix B CEDAR 5,9(5 100-YR FLOOD BOUNDARY NOTES 1. 1% CHANCE ANNUAL FLOOD DEMARCATED USING FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROFILES FOR THE CEDAR RIVER. 1% CHANCE ANNUAL FLOOD BOUNDARY 200'50'25'0 100' Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 16 Appendix C From:Sarah Sandstrom To:Kammereck, Andreas Subject:Renton Code sections Date:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:37:29 AM Attachments:image002.png SRM Renton_Site_Shorline Diagrammatic_2018-09-11.pdf Hi Andreas, I am copying the code section we discussed below with highlights on the applicable sections. I have also attached the diagrammatic sketch of the shoreline buffer restoration. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Sarah 4-3-090D General Development Standards F. Shoreline Modification 4. Shoreline Stabilization a. General Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to approve new water-dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent uses that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, nonstructural methods such as vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering have been determined infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of preference: (a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and relocate structures. (b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization. (c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line. (d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexible defense works, as described above. (e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. iv. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of the following situations: (a) To protect existing primary structures: (1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves within three (3) years, or where waiting until the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause of shoreline instability at the site in question. (2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone (CMZ) require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington-licensed geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments. Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting in natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream. (b) New Development: In support of new development when all six (6) of the conditions listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. (2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as currents and waves. (4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (6) The proposed new development is not located in a channel migration zone (CMZ). (c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW when both of the conditions below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor area when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a geotechnical report: (1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this Section that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the need and effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential damage to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction. vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on streams should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural stream processes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall review the proposed design for consistency with State guidelines for stream bank protection as it relates to local physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master Program, subject to the following: (a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or valuable shoreline resources. (b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration. (c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such features would not adversely affect ecological functions. (d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and existing structures. (e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank protection guidelines. (f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in- water structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological functions that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss. b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the following design criteria shall apply: i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed by a qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to ensure that installation meets all design parameters. ii. General Requirements: The size of stabilization measures shall be limited to the minimum necessary. Use measures shall be designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions. iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures shall be ensured to not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4). Where feasible, ecological restoration and public access improvements shall be incorporated into the project. iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with other appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or private recreation and Indian treaty rights. v. Aesthetic Qualities to Be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. vi. Public Access to Be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access should be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization structures for public or quasi-public developments whenever safely compatible with the primary purpose. Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to decrease long-term public use of the shoreline. c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures: Existing shoreline stabilization structures not in compliance with this Code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the applicable criteria below: i. Repair of Existing Structures: An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be repaired as long as it serves to perform a shoreline stabilization function for a legally established land use, but shall be subject to the provisions below if the land use for which the shoreline stabilization structure was constructed is abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, or changed to a new use. ii. Additions to Existing Structures: Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. iii. Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, discontinued, or changed to a new use may be retained or replaced with a similar structure if: (a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves; and (b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation to the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in subsection F4aiii of this Section shows that a more preferred level of shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing shoreline stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives (a) through (c) of the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section would be infeasible then the existing shoreline stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a similar structure. iv. Waterward Replacement Prohibited for Structures Protecting Residences: Replacement walls or bulkheads, if allowed, shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. v. Restoration and Maintenance of Soft Shorelines Allowed: Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Replenishment of substrate materials to maintain the specifications of the permitted design may be allowed as maintenance. vi. No Net Loss: Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical habitats would occur by leaving an existing structure that is being replaced, the structure shall be removed as part of the replacement measure. E. Use Regulations 9. Residential Development: a. Single Family Priority Use and Other Residential Uses: Single family residences are a priority on the shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020). All other residential uses are subject to the preference for water-oriented use and must provide for meeting the requirements for ecological restoration and/or public access. b. General Criteria: Residential developments shall be allowed only when: i. Density and other characteristics of the development are consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. ii. Residential structures shall provide setbacks and buffers as provided in subsection D7a of this Section, Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified under subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation. c. Public Access Required: Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety, or environmental concerns, new single family residential developments, including subdivision of land for ten (10) or more parcels, shall provide public access in accordance with subsection D4 of this Section, Public Access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-family developments shall provide a significant public benefit such as providing public access and/or ecological restoration along the water’s edge. For such proposed development, a community access plan may be used to satisfy the public access requirement if the following written findings are made by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee: i. The community access plan allows for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline; and ii. The balance of the waterfront not devoted to public and/or community access shall be devoted to ecological restoration. d. Shoreline Stabilization Prohibited: New residential development shall not require new shoreline stabilization. Developable portions of lots shall not be subject to flooding or require structural flood hazard reduction measures within a channel migration zone or floodway to support intended development during the life of the development or use. Prior to approval, geotechnical analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics shall demonstrate that new shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary for each new lot to support intended development during the life of the development or use. e. Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions for critical areas including avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, riparian and marine shoreline erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable development standards. Setbacks from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures during the life of the structure (one hundred (100) years). f. Vegetation Conservation: All new residential lots shall meet vegetation conservation provisions in subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, including the full required buffer area together with replanting and control of invasive species within buffers to ensure establishment and continuation of a vegetation community characteristic of a native climax community. Each lot must be able to support intended development without encroachment on vegetation conservation areas, except for public trains and other uses allowed within such areas. Areas within vegetation conservation areas shall be placed in common or public ownership when feasible. g. New Private Docks Restricted: All new subdivisions shall record a prohibition on new private docks on the face of the plat. An area reserved for shared moorage may be designated if it meets all requirements of the Shoreline Master Program including demonstration that public and private marinas and other boating facilities are not sufficient to meet the moorage needs of the subdivision. h. Floating Residences Prohibited: Floating residences are prohibited. SARAH SANDSTROM Senior Fisheries Biologist 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 822-5242 x209 watershedco.com Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 17 Appendix D INTEGRATED STREAMBANK PROTECTION GUIDELINES Michelle Cramer P.E.1, Ken Bates P.E. 2, Dale E. Miller3 ABSTRACT: Washington State’s Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines provide advice for the selection and design of streambank protection techniques that protect or restore aquatic and riparian habitats. Protecting and restoring these habitats will provide essential functions for a healthy and productive natural system while at the same time prevent or minimize bank erosion damage. Too often these habitats have been ignored in favor of developing or protecting other floodplain uses and have not successfully mitigated habitat impacts. By understanding river processes, designs for streambank protection can optimize the potential to maintain fluvial integrity and provide habitat. Natural river processes should be integrated into selecting and designing bank protection projects. Integrated streambank protection requires a change in the traditional approach; bank protection measures should be selected to address site- and reach-based conditions and to avoid habitat impacts rather than automatically applying traditional methods such as riprap. This new approach allows for consideration of other methods such as roughening a bankline, directing flow away from an eroding bank, revegetation, floodplain management, landuse planning, maintaining riparian corridors, restoring oxbows/wetlands, relocating infrastructures at risk, managing meander belts, and public education. It may also lead to a recommendation of not allowing specific bank protection projects. KEY WORDS: streambank protection, assessment, risk, habitat, mitigation, design INTRODUCTION The State of Washington is in the final process of developing a document entitled “Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines” (ISPG) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000) for use by a wide variety of technical and laypersons. Integrated streambank protection is the recognition, assessment, and assimilation of erosion and channel processes, habitat considerations, mitigation requirements, levels/types of risk, project objectives, design criteria, and attributes of bank protection techniques. Guidance is provided on how to assess these factors and how to use the results from the assessments to select appropriate bank protection solutions. A graphical representation of the integrated streambank protection process is shown in Figure 1. There are a number of fundamental guiding principals that comprise integrated streambank protection: erosion is a natural process that is essential to ecological health; erosion is often exacerbated or caused by human activities; causes of erosion (not just symptoms must be solved when appropriate; basin, reach and meander belt management are essential to integrated streambank projects; habitat protection must be assimilated into streambank projects; mitigation sequencing must be integrated into streambank projects; and impacts to natural channel processes must be mitigated. Identification of suitable bank protection treatments begins with an understanding of the specific mechanism of failure at a project site as well as the site- and reach-based causes of bank erosion. The mechanism of failure is the physical action or process within the bank and can be thought of as the problem you see on site. The site-and reach-based causes are what activates the mechanism of failure. These causes may be simple and discreet, or they may be highly dependent and difficult to separate. Table 1 lists typical mechanisms of failure and corresponding site- and reach based causes of bank erosion. These guidelines are intended to provide a framework for the selection of techniques that promote an understanding of the erosion problem and ultimately, innovative and habitat-friendly solutions. As such, the design process advocated here is not linear. Developing effective, creative solutions requires a clear definition and understanding of why a bank is eroding. Once this is understood, the art and science of integrating this information with habitat considerations, mitigation requirements, levels/types of risk, project objectives, and design criteria can result in the selection of appropriate, habitat-friendly bank protection treatments. 1 Senior Environmental Engineer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way N. , Olympia, WA 98501, (360)/902-2610, cramemlc@dfw.wa.gov. 2 Chief Habitat Engineer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way N. , Olympia, WA 98501, (360)/902-2545, bateskmb@dfw.wa.gov. 3 Principal, Inter-Fluve, Inc, 25 N. Willson Ave., Suite 5, Bozeman, MT 59715, (406)/586-6926, dale_miller@interfluve.com. FIGURE 1. Integrated Streambank Protection Process, (ISPG) SITE AND REACH ASSESSMENTS Identifying suitable bank protection alternatives begins with an understanding of the specific mechanism(s) of failure as well as the site- and reach-based causes of erosion. Correctly identifying the mechanism(s) and cause(s) of failure is critical to selecting appropriate bank protection solutions. There are five types of mechanism of failure: general bank erosion, scour, mass failure, subsurface entrainment, and avulsion. The cause(s) of failure can be divided into site- or reach-based causes. At times, these causes may be difficult to ascertain, nevertheless the single cause or combined causes can be identified with careful evaluation. Often, the reach-based causes generate site-based causes. Table 1 lists the mechanisms of failure and site- and reach-based causes. The mechanisms and causes listed in the table may be natural or human caused or exacerbated. A site and reach assessment should identify existing habitat conditions and the habitat potential, respectively. During site and reach assessments, it is important to recognize that bank erosion is a natural process where essential habitat functions are often created. For example, an overhanging bank with exposed plant roots provides cover habitat. Considering habitat creation (or conversely, impacts to habitat) resulting from bank erosion is a critical component of site and reach assessments. MITIGATION Bank protection projects can create substantial impacts to fish habitats. As such, every bank protection project should be evaluated with respect to potential mitigation requirements. Before designing a project, attempts should first be made to avoid impacts altogether. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimized to the extent possible. Where such impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation will be necessary. The preferred option is to: first, avoid; second, minimize; and third, compensate for impacts. Project Objectives Site Assessment Risk Assessment Assessment Reach Assessment Habitat Assessment Design Criteria Mitigation (avoid, minimize, compensate) Selection Process (screening matrices) Techniques flow redirection structural biotechnical internal bank drainage avulsion prevention channel modification no action Mitigation avoid impact minimize impact compensate for impact TABLE 1. Mechanisms of Failure, Site- and Reach-Based Causes Mechanism of Failure Site-Based Causes Reach-Based Causes General Bank Erosion Reduced vegetative bank structure Tailout and backwater bars Smoothed channel Along a bend (bend scour) Meander migration Aggradation reduced hydrology/increased sediment supply localized downstream constriction reduced slope confined channel Degradation increased hydrology/reduced sediment supply localized shortened channel natural channel evolution change in long-term watershed hydrology Scour Local Scour Woody debris Bridge pier or abutments Boulder/outcropping Not applicable Constriction Scour Bridge/road approach Existing bank feature Large woody debris jam Not applicable Drop/Weir Scour Weir, ledge, or sill Not applicable Jet Scour Lateral bar Side-channel or tributary Abrupt channel bend (energy sink) Subchannels in a braided channel Not applicable Mass Failure Saturated soils Increased surcharge Loss of root structure Removal of lateral/underlying support Meander migration Aggradation reduced hydrology/increased sediment supply localized downstream constriction reduced slope confined channel Degradation increased hydrology/reduced sediment supply localized shortened channel natural channel evolution change in long-term watershed hydrology Subsurface Entrainment Groundwater seepage Rapid drawdown Not applicable Avulsion/ Floodplain Erosion Floodplain activities Natural conditions Aggradation Previously relocated channel Braided channel Large storm event The first priority of regulatory agencies normally is for the project to be designed so impacts are avoided. If an impact cannot be avoided, then direct effects, such as hardening a bank, are mitigated by restoring damaged or lost ecological functions. Indirect effects are addressed by recognizing long- and short-term impacts to the reach and mitigating for them in the design or off-site. Indirect effects might include the loss of valuable future side-channel habitat and sources of spawning gravel and large woody debris. These losses in habitat arise from bank hardening practices, which prevent the channel from migrating laterally (Dillon, 1998). These impacts are most critical in undisturbed river reaches since the first bank protection project will often promulgate more bank protection projects. They are also critical in developing watersheds where landowners expect stream channels not to move. RISK Throughout the design process, it is important to understand and evaluate the many types and levels of risk associated with a bank protection project. A risk assessment should consider both the risk of continued bank erosion and the risk associated with the bank protection project with respect to property, habitat, and public safety. All bank protection projects contain some level of risk. For example, a bank protection project may be effective at lower flows, but may fail as a result of a larger flood. Likewise, the quality of fish cover habitat along an undercut, vegetated streambank may be at risk by the placement of bank protection techniques (Peters, 1998). Low erosion risk to property and public safety deserves bank protection treatment of comparable risk that allows the bank to continue to erode but at a more gradual, natural rate. OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Solving a bank protection problem begins with clearly stating the objectives of a project. Objectives are typically somewhat general or qualitative. For example, objectives may be stated as “preventing further erosion of the river along the highway” or “stabilizing the streambank to reduce loss of cropland”. In fact, there are usually a number of objectives with differing levels of priority. For example, either of these objectives should often include “maintaining the aesthetic qualities of a streambank environment” or “protecting or enhancing fish habitat”. In order to bridge objectives with selection of techniques, it is important that design criteria are established. These criteria, considering risk and cost, and stratified according to relative priority, outline the objectives of the project and provide the foundation for making design decisions about the specific sizes and components of bank protection techniques. SELECTION OF TECHNIQUES One of the most difficult but important aspects of the design process is moving from the site and reach assessments to the selection of an appropriate solution. Three screening matrices were developed to assist the user in the selection of bank protection treatments that: perform adequately to meet bank protection objectives; are appropriate with respect to mechanism(s) of failure and site-and reach-based cause(s); are considered with an understanding of the potential impacts to habitat caused by each technique; and are selected in order of priority that first avoid, second minimize, and lastly compensate for habitat impacts. These matrices act progressively as selective screens, or filters, of bank protection techniques. These matrices are: Screening Treatments Based on Site Identified Mechanism of Failure Screening Treatments Based on Reach Identified Causes Screening Treatments Based on Habitat Protection and Mitigation Within each matrix, bank protection techniques are listed. Each technique is rated such that the applicability of each technique can be considered. This consideration results in accepting or rejecting a technique within the matrix. With each subsequent matrix, techniques are progressively “screened out”, leaving a suite of feasible techniques. Throughout the process of identifying a technique, the question should always be posed whether the best course of action might involve none at all. BANK PROTECTION TECHNIQUES Information about streambank protection techniques applicable within the State of Washington is provided in these guidelines. The techniques have been divided into seven functional groups as shown in Table 2. For each technique, the following information is provided in the guidelines: Description of the technique; Application (typical application, variations, emergency, site and reach limitations); Effects; Design; Habitat considerations (mitigation requirements for the technique or mitigation benefits provided by the technique); Risk (risk to habitat, adjacent properties, and reliability/uncertainty of the technique); Construction considerations (material required, timing considerations, cost); Operation and maintenance needs; Monitoring considerations by case studies; Examples (typical drawings, site example, description, photographs); and References. TABLE 2. List of bank protection techniques organized by functional group. In-Stream Flow Redirection Techniques Structural Bank Protection Techniques Biotechnical Bank Protection Techniques Internal Bank Drainage Techniques Avulsion and Chute Cutoff Prevention Techniques Channel Modification Techniques No Action groins buried groins barbs engineered debris jam drop structure porous weir anchor points roughness tress riprap log toe rock toe cribwalls ballast manufactured retention system woody plantings herbaceous cover soil reinforcement riparian buffer coir and straw logs bank reshaping buffer management chimney drain collector drains floodplain roughness headcut prevention (grade control) floodplain flow spreader construct overflow channels Separate guidelines are currently being developed for channel modification techniques. CONCLUSIONS Integrated bank protection is the assimilation of three factors; cause of bank failure, habitat, and risk; into the planning and design of a streambank protection project. It is crucial to assess these factors at the onset, otherwise a bank protection project will not likely achieve ecological and structural success. Many bank protection projects have been constructed with consideration of no more than one of these factors, the risk of erosion. The ISPG provides guidance on: assessing site- and reach-based processes that may be triggering erosion; identifying project objectives and design considerations; identifying existing and potential habitat conditions; and assessing risk. One of the most difficult but important aspects of integrated bank protection is moving from the assessment and identification of project objectives/design criteria to the selection of an appropriate bank protection solution. Three screening matrices were developed to progressively screen-out techniques, leaving a suite of favorable techniques. Mitigation is a crucial component to the selection of bank protection treatment. Techniques must first be selected that avoid impacts to habitat. Only after exhausting the practicality of applying techniques that avoid impacts, can other habitat impacting techniques be selected. These impacts must be mitigated. Detailed design information for bank protection techniques is provided in the guidelines. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Transportation and the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board jointly funded the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines document. Several authors jointly wrote this document from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Inter-Fluve, Inc. The primary authors are: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Ken Bates and Michelle Cramer Inter-Fluve Consultants, Inc: Dale Miller, Karin Boyd, Lisa Fotherby, and Todd Hoitsma REFERENCES Dillon, J., T. Littleton, and J. Laufle, 1998. Literature Review of Revetment and Channelization Impacts on Pacific Northwest Aquatic Resources with Implications to Skagit River, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, Washington, pp.10-13. Peters R.J., B.R Missildine, and D.L. Low, 1998. Seasonal Densities Near River Banks Stabilized with Various Stabilization Methods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, Lacey, Washington, pp. 26-28. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Inter-Fluve Inc., 2000. Draft Washington State Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. Olympia, Washington. Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 18 Appendix E Primary access path Secondary access connection Public amenity opportunity (vegetation with bench, viewpoint, or flexible open space) Public access node and viewpoint Restoration planting - mixed riparian vegetation, herbaceous and woody shrubs Restoration planting - clustered tree planting View preservation area Rev. September 2018RENTON, WA SRM CEDAR RIVER APARTMENTS SHORELINE BUFFER DIAGRAMMATIC + COURT CONCEPT PLAN © 2018, The Watershed Company, all rights reserved. Cedar River 11111111111 111111111111111222222222222222222222222222 333333333 4444444444444444444444 44444 555 44444444444444444444 1 Existing bulkhead wall to remain 2 Lowered bulkhead wall 3 Grade separation 4 Public shared-use trail (ADA-accessible) 5 Pool (private amenity) 66 Rooftop lounge (private amenity) 7 Multi-use private plaza 8 Existing trees to remain Private amenity opportunity (sport court, barbecue, picnic, courtyard, patio, or flexible open space) Fire truck access path (grasscrete) Private access only CONNECTION TO ADJACENT PUBLIC USES SIDEWALK CONNECTION 666666666666 777777 8888888 Vegetated screen Shoreline buffer (100 feet) 888888888888888888888 33333333 Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 19 Appendix F October 2018 F-1 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Upper Washougal River Restoration (Phases 1, 2, and 3) Cost: $800,000 Location: Washougal River Latitude: 45.663° Longitude: -122.168° Photo Source: The Columbian http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/aug/31/Upper-washougal-river-restoration-moves-ahead/ PHOTOGRAPH 1 Logs anchored into scoured bedrock to restore natural fish habitat. PHOTOGRAPH 2 Chained log anchors on Washougal River. October 2018 F-2 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: North Fork Stillaguamish Engineered Log Jams Cost: $ 621,384 Location: North Fork Stillaguamish River Latitude: 48.420° Longitude: -121.667° Photo Source: Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians https://secure.rco.wa.gov/prism/search/projectsnapshot.aspx?ProjectNumber=07-1737 PHOTOGRAPH 3 Newly constructed ELJ (engineered log jam) PHOTOGRAPH 4 Reach of Stillaguamish where new ELJs were installed and existing structures repaired. October 2018 F-3 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Saxon Reach Restoration Project Cost: $1,180,247 Location: South Fork Nooksack River Latitude: 48.774° Longitude: -122.213° Photo Source: Lummi Nation https://secure.rco.wa.gov/prism/search/ProjectSnapshot.aspx?ProjectNumber=10-1300 PHOTOGRAPH 5 Log revetment and ELJ looking toward Saxon Bridge PHOTOGRAPH 6 ELJ #3 with scour pool and log piles October 2018 F-4 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Riverberry-Davis VanDellen Project Location: Nooksack River Latitude: 48.882° Longitude: -122.327° Photo Source: Whatcom County PHOTOGRAPH 7 Aerial view during construction looking upstream, and zoomed view of installed LWD structures looking downstream (post- construction), see zoomed view corresponding to dashed box area. PHOTOGRAPH 8 Aerial view during construction looking downstream, and zoomed view looking downstream of bendway weir(s) using rock riprap and dolo materials installed on right bank of Nooksack, see zoomed view corresponding to dashed box area. October 2018 F-5 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Hoh River Bank Stabilization Site #1 Cost: $7,000,000 Location: Hoh River Latitude: 47.782° Longitude: -124.261° Photo Source: Herrera Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/06jan/05.cfm PHOTOGRAPH 9 Installed 4 mid-channel ELJ structures, and armored bank where it was attacking the highway alignment using riprap and logs with rootwads and included six ELJs along roadbank and two smaller ELJs to prevent erosion of the highway embankment. PHOTOGRAPH 10 Large spruce trees placed between H-piles with stream boulders and river gravel filling in the inner matric to add buoyancy resistance. October 2018 F-6 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Lower Germany Creek Restoration Project (Phases 1 and 2) Location: Germany Creek Latitude: 46.191° Longitude: -123.124° Photo Source: Wild Fish Conservancy http://wildfishconservancy.org/projects/germany-creek PHOTOGRAPH 11 Placement of LWD as part of bank stabilization on Lower Germany Creek PHOTOGRAPH 12 Less invasive measure securing log jam structure using large dolosse. October 2018 F-7 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: Mashel River Restoration Project Cost: $1,254,992 Location: Mashel River Latitude: 46.860° Longitude: -122.270° Photo Source: Nisqually Indian Tribe https://secure.rco.wa.gov/prism/search/projectsnapshot.aspx?ProjectNumber=09-1393 PHOTOGRAPH 13 Log revetment and ELJ looking toward Saxon Bridge PHOTOGRAPH 14 ELJ #3 with scour pool and log piles October 2018 F-8 18101829 f_example log jam projects_revd Project Title: SR 20 Skagit River – CED Permanent Restoration Project Location: Skagit River Latitude: 48.499° Longitude: -121.528° Photo Source: Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/ PHOTOGRAPH 15 Staging of dolosse anchored to log bundles as delivered from manufacturer PHOTOGRAPH 16 Trackhoe with grapple placing log and dolos bundles for first layer of engineered log jam Andy Loos Project No. 18101829 SRM Development 10/30/2018 20 Page Left Intentionally Blank Exhibit 5 Cedar River Channel Migration Study, April 2015, King County Water and Land Resources Division. Cedar River Channel Migration Study April 2015 Department of Natural Resources and Parks King County Water and Land Resources Division River and Floodplain Management Section 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 Alternate Formats Available 206-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 Cedar River Channel Migration Study April 2015 Submitted by: Terry Butler King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Funded by: King County Flood Control District King County River and Floodplain Management i April 2015 Acknowledgements John Bethel participated in fieldwork during study preparation. Kyle Comanor provided supported on hydrologic analyses. Jennifer Vanderhoof provided technical editing of this report. Jeanne Stypula supervised the study and map preparation. Citation King County. 2015. Cedar River channel migration study. Prepared by Terry Butler and Fred Lott. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. e King County River and Floodplain Management ii April 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................ vii 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Statement of purpose ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Report Layout ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Timeframes relevant to this study .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 Effect of landslides on channel migration ................................................................................ 2 2.0 Study area characteristics ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 General basin characteristics ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Human activity and built features ............................................................................................... 4 2.3 Geology and sediment ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.3.2 Sediment characteristics ........................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Flood hydrology ................................................................................................................................13 2.5 Large wood .........................................................................................................................................16 3.0 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................18 3.1 Historical and current information used in report .............................................................18 3.2 Channel Migration Zone Components......................................................................................20 3.3 Mapping criteria and methods ....................................................................................................20 3.3.1 Historical Migration Zone .......................................................................................................21 3.3.2 Avulsion Hazard Zone ..............................................................................................................21 3.3.3 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback ..............................................................................22 3.3.4 Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback ...................................................................25 3.3.5 Disconnected Migration Area ................................................................................................26 4.0 Characteristics of Channel Migration in the Study Area ........................................................27 4.1 Channel migration processes ......................................................................................................27 4.2 Morphology of the study reaches ..............................................................................................30 4.3 Lateral channel migration rates .................................................................................................35 4.4 Spatial variation in channel migration ....................................................................................39 4.5 Temporal changes in channel migration ................................................................................40 5.0 Channel migration hazards on the Cedar River ........................................................................41 King County River and Floodplain Management iii April 2015 5.1 Delineation of channel migration hazard areas ...................................................................41 5.1.1 Historical Migration Zone .......................................................................................................41 5.1.2 Avulsion Hazard Zone ..............................................................................................................41 5.1.3 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback ..............................................................................44 5.1.4 Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback ...................................................................46 5.1.5 Disconnected Migration Area ................................................................................................46 5.2 Channel migration hazard maps ................................................................................................47 5.3 Summary, conclusions ...................................................................................................................49 6.0 References ...............................................................................................................................................51 7.0 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................54 8.0 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................55 King County River and Floodplain Management iv April 2015 Figures Figure 1. Cedar River CMZ study area location map. ........................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Cedar River construction history of publicly maintained bank armoring ............. 6 Figure 3. Percent of Cedar River riverbank length with bank armoring ................................... 7 Figure 4. Temporal changes in stage at (A) USGS gage 12119000, Cedar River at Renton, and (B) USGS gage 12117500, Cedar River near Landsburg (from Gendaszek et al. 2012). ............................................................................................................11 Figure 5. Change in average bed elevations, 2000 or 2003 to 2012 .........................................12 Figure 6. Reach-averaged channel gradient and channel substrate particle size (substrate data from Perkins et al. 2002 and Gendaszek et al. 2012) ..................13 Figure 7. Annual peak flows at USGS gage 12117500 Cedar River near Landsburg ..........14 Figure 8. Cedar River flood confinement ratio, by reach, at various flow events ................16 Figure 9. Plan view schematic of Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) components. Modified from Rapp and Abbe (2003). ..............................................................................20 Figure 10. Plan view schematic of the Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback. ......................24 Figure 11. Cross-section schematic of Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback.............25 Figure 12. Example of lateral migation on the Cedar River near RM 15.5 ................................27 Figure 13. Example of channel expansion on the Cedar River at RM 5 ......................................28 Figure 14. Example of avulsion on the Cedar River near RM 10.5 ...............................................29 Figure 15. Channel sinuosity by reach ....................................................................................................34 Figure 16. Cedar River channel migration rates using all measurements ................................37 Figure 17. Cedar River weighted-average channel migration rates, using all measurements and eroding-only measurements .........................................................38 King County River and Floodplain Management v April 2015 Tables Table 1. Flow discharge magnitudes, annual percent chance and recurrence intervals. ........................................................................................................................................14 Table 2. Aerial orthophotos used or consulted in this report. ...................................................19 Table 3. Cedar River reach characteristics. .......................................................................................32 Table 4. Cedar River channel migration rates using all measurements. ...............................35 Table 5. Cedar River channel migration rates using eroding-only measurements. ..........36 Table 6. Areas mapped within the Avulsion Hazard Zone. .........................................................42 Table 7. Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback widths. ..............................................................45 Table 8. Assumed barriers to channel migration. ..........................................................................47 King County River and Floodplain Management vi April 2015 Appendix A Map 1. Publicly maintained levees and revetments Map 2. Generalized geologic map of the study area Map 3. Historical channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) Map 5. Avulsion Hazard Zone Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone Appendix B Migration Rates in Unarmored Areas (Tables B-1 and B2, and Figures B-1 and B-2) King County River and Floodplain Management vii April 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cedar River moves, or migrates, across its floodplain. This “channel migration” can occur gradually as the river erodes one bank and deposits sediment along the other, and it can also occur suddenly when a channel shifts abruptly to a new location. Channel migration represents a different type of flood hazard than inundation by overbank flow. The area subject to channel migration hazard within a given timeframe is referred to as the channel migration zone (CMZ). The purpose of this study is to delineate a Cedar River CMZ and identify channel migration hazard areas in the study area extending from Lake Washington to Cedar River Mile (RM) 22. The results of the study will directly inform the planning and development of capital flood risk reduction projects. The CMZ map also will inform regulation of land use within channel migration hazard areas. Study area characteristics The CMZ study area includes the mainstem Cedar River from Landsburg Bridge at RM 22 downstream to the mouth of the river (RM 0) in the City of Renton, plus adjacent valley bottom floor and valley walls. Both the natural geologic setting and constructed structures strongly influence study area characteristics. The Cedar River within the study area is a post-glacial valley that has incised through glacial and non-glacial deposits since the last glaciation some 13,000 years ago. Bedrock exposures are rare but locally exert significant control on channel migration. More commonly, the Cedar River valley walls are composed of sedimentary formations that range from erosion-resistant to erodible. The valley bottom is composed mainly of alluvium, which typically is loose sand and gravel deposited by the river or its tributaries, through which the channel will migrate readily if unimpeded. Operation of the Masonry Dam and associated waterworks upstream of the study area since circa 1914 has altered Cedar River flows and thereby influenced channel conditions and migration characteristics for about a century. Widespread construction in the 1960s of levees (raised earthen berms, typically with rock armor on the river side) and revetments (rock armor intended to prevent erosion), along with other infrastructure such as the Cedar River Trail, SR169, and several other bridges, have resulted in armored riverbanks along much of the study area. The effects of flow regulation and bank armoring plus naturally erosion-resistant geology combine to constrain the potential for channel migration in many areas. However, there continues to be active channel migration along unarmored alluvial riverbanks. Methods This CMZ study and resultant map uses historical channel migration patterns and rates to predict future channel migration hazard. Cedar River channel migration was evaluated and mapped using information from existing studies, field observations, and analyses King County River and Floodplain Management viii April 2015 conducted in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Historical aerial photographs dating from 1936 through 2011, historical maps, and present-day aerial imagery, including topography shown by LiDAR, were evaluated in GIS to map historical channels and calculate channel migration rates. Channel migration hazards in the Cedar River were mapped by identifying the component parts of a CMZ as specified by the King County Channel Migration Public Rule and consistent with Washington State Department of Ecology guidance. CMZ components are defined in the following equation and described below. CMZ = HMZ + AHZ + EHA – DMA where HMZ = Historical Migration Zone AHZ = Avulsion Hazard Zone EHA = Erosion Hazard Area = Erosion Setback (ES) + Geotechnical Setback (GS) DMA = Disconnected Migration Area The Cedar River HMZ includes the area occupied by channels from 1936 to present. The AHZ includes areas subject to a rapid shift of channel location. The ES width was calculated as a time period ranging from 50 years to 100 years multiplied by an average annual channel lateral migration rate calculated individually for each study reach. A GS was mapped where EHA/ES encounters certain erosion-resistant landforms at a 1H:1V slope landward into that landform. The DMA was mapped to exclude areas landward of publicly maintained artificial structures that (in incorporated areas) limit channel migration or (in unincorporated areas) are likely to restrain channel migration and are built to an elevation that is greater than that of the annual 1 percent flood. Once the CMZ components were mapped and combined to delineate the outer edge of the CMZ, severe and moderate hazard areas were identified within the overall CMZ. This study considers the effect of channel migration on slope stability when mapping the CMZ, but it does not consider the process by which a landslide blocks and redirects the channel. As information is compiled and mapping methodologies defined with regard to landslide hazard areas, CMZ mapping will be evaluated to consider necessary revisions. Characteristics of channel migration in the study area Channel migration occurs mainly by three processes in the Cedar River: x Lateral migration: progressive movement of the channel across floodplain resulting from erosion along one riverbank and deposition along the other. x Channel expansion: channel widening resulting from erosion along both banks. x Avulsion: an abrupt shift of the channel to new location. The channel gradient, channel confinement, channel pattern, and riverbank materials directly influence the type and extent of channel migration that is likely to occur. Channel migration in the Cedar River typically is more active in a channel with moderate gradient, King County River and Floodplain Management ix April 2015 unconfined conditions and unarmored banks than in a steeper, confined channel with armored banks. Channel conditions through much of the study area are confined and armored. Average annual lateral migration rates vary from 1 foot/year to 5 feet/year in most reaches, with the highest rates in the range of 8 feet/year. In addition to spatial variation in channel migration resulting from factors described above, the channel pattern has simplified and channel migration rates have decreased through time because of flow regulation since 1914 and widespread installation of bank armoring in the 1960s. Delineation of the CMZ and channel migration hazard areas within the CMZ An unconstrained CMZ was mapped as the combination of the HMZ + AHZ + EHA (including EHA/ES and EHA/GS). The unconstrained CMZ does not recognize artificial constraints and therefore predicts channel migration in the absence of levees, revetments, and infrastructure. In a majority of study reaches, the width of the HMZ constitutes most of the width of the unconstrained CMZ. The unconstrained CMZ was modified in two ways to produce the CMZ map. First, the DMA was mapped to recognize that certain artificial structures can restrain channel migration. All publicly maintained structures in the City of Renton were mapped as barriers to migration, as were SR 169 and sole-access roads within King County. The majority of levees and revetments maintained by King County within unincorporated King County were not mapped as barriers to channel migration because they were not built higher than the elevation of the annual 1 percent chance flood and were not likely to restrain channel migration. No privately maintained structures were mapped as barriers to channel migration. A second modification to the unconstrained CMZ was that severe and moderate hazard areas were mapped within the overall CMZ. Severe hazard areas are composed of the entire HMZ, severe AHZs, and typically half of the EHA. The present-day active channel always is mapped as a severe hazard area. With these components mapped as severe hazards, the severe hazard area occupies most of the width of the CMZ throughout the study area. The moderate hazard area lies between the severe hazard area and the outer boundary of the unconstrained CMZ. The result of these two modifications to the unconstrained CMZ completes the Cedar River CMZ map. Key findings and conclusions Modifications to the Cedar River flow regime since circa 1914, coupled with widespread bank armoring since the 1960s, combine to simplify channel pattern, confine channel conditions, and decrease channel migration rates. With flow regulation assumed to continue as it has for the past century, channel confinement and bank armoring emerge as the prominent variables presently affecting channel migration in this study area. Channel migration does occur in confined and armored areas, though at lower rates than in King County River and Floodplain Management x April 2015 unconfined or unarmored areas. However, the potential for active channel migration remains high should bank armoring fail or be removed. In the few areas that are naturally unconfined or recently have had bank armoring removed, lateral migration rates typically are higher than in confined or armored areas. A multiple-channel pattern prevails and gravel bars are bare and active, all of which suggest sediment deposition. Greater numbers of large wood exist in unconfined areas than in confined areas and conditions that favor avulsion may be present. Channel expansion typically occurs after a triggering event such as avulsion or levee removal. The Cedar River CMZ includes most of the valley floor in the naturally confined upstream part of this study area (Reaches 20 through 18). Further downstream, the CMZ includes most of the valley floor where it is not cut off by major infrastructure (e.g., SR 169) in reaches that exhibit historically active channel migration or are subject to avulsion hazards, or both (Reaches 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 6 and 4). The CMZ along most of the length of other reaches covers a relatively narrow portion of the valley floor. In addition to using the Cedar River CMZ map to regulate land use in affected channel migration hazard areas, the CMZ map and findings of this study will inform planning and development of capital flood risk reduction projects via the Cedar River Corridor process. There is potential to decrease flood risk and increase floodplain connectivity in mapped channel migration hazard areas by acquiring at-risk properties, removing constructed bank armoring and allowing channel migration to proceed in a less constrained condition than currently exists. This potential would be greatest in areas where channel gradient is moderate and naturally erosion-resistant riverbanks are absent or do not dominate. Such conditions exist in Reaches 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, 7, 6, 5 and 4 of this study area. This study is based on the use of historical information to predict future hazard; these methods are consistent with accepted practices and guidance from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Because some factors affecting channel migration are stochastic in nature, the channel may not occupy all parts of the mapped CMZ within the next 100 years. Furthermore, the channel could occupy portions of the valley floor beyond the limits of the mapped CMZ within the next 100 years. To recognize the need to have hazard mapping reflect more near-term, expected conditions, it is intended that a CMZ map be updated every 20 years. Also, portions of a CMZ map may be revised at timeframes shorter than 20 years if local changed conditions warrant. King County River and Floodplain Management 1 April 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Cedar River moves, or migrates, across its floodplain. This “channel migration” can occur gradually as the river erodes one bank and deposits sediment along the other, and it can also occur suddenly when a channel shifts abruptly to a new location. Abrupt channel changes may happen during a single flood event. Channel migration represents a different type of flood hazard than inundation by overbank flow. It can endanger properties located outside of the regulatory floodplain shown on flood hazard and flood insurance maps. Although both channel migration and flood inundation are hazards that may result from flooding, there is no specific correlation between the mapped boundaries of these two distinct hazard areas. The area subject to channel migration hazard within a given timeframe is referred to as the channel migration zone (CMZ). There is a potential hazard to permanent structures anywhere within a CMZ. The historical approach to addressing potential damage from bank erosion and channel migration has been to armor the riverbanks with levees or revetments. However, such bank armoring can be expensive to construct and is subject to ongoing flood damage, which requires costly recurring maintenance work. Bank armoring can aggravate flooding or erosion problems upstream or downstream of the armored location and degrade aquatic habitat. In order to prevent future development in areas subject to channel migration, the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update (“Flood Plan”) (King County 2013) states in Policy FP-2: King County should identify channel migration hazard areas through geomorphic analyses and review of historical channel migration patterns and rates. Land-use regulations shall restrict unsafe development in identified channel migration hazard areas. The Flood Plan and its policies are incorporated into the King County Comprehensive Plan (King County 2012). These King County policies and their implementation are consistent with State Shoreline provisions, which require the mapping of CMZs (WAC 173-26-221) and State Department of Ecology guidance on CMZ mapping (Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program 1994-2014; referred to herein as “Ecology 1994-2014”). This study constitutes the geomorphic analyses recommended in King County Flood Plan Policy FP-2. The Cedar River CMZ map produced by this study will be provided to King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) for adoption via the 2014 Revised King County Channel Migration Public Rule (King County 2014) to use in regulating land use within channel migration hazard areas. King County River and Floodplain Management 2 April 2015 1.1 Statement of purpose The purpose of this study is to delineate a Cedar River CMZ and identify channel migration hazard areas in the study area extending from Lake Washington to River Mile (RM) 22. The Cedar River CMZ map and study utilizes historic channel information, and the resultant hazard mapping portrays expected channel movement over time. The results of the study will directly inform the planning and development of capital flood risk reduction projects. For the Cedar River, this study is particularly timely for corridor planning now underway. River corridor planning and the development of capital projects serve to implement the policies and recommendations of the King County Flood Plan. The CMZ map also will inform regulation of land use within channel migration hazard areas. These uses of the Cedar CMZ map and study are consistent with county and state policies and regulations cited on page 1. 1.2 Report Layout This Cedar River channel migration study provides an overview of geomorphic, geologic, physical, and structural factors affecting channel migration in the study area. Mapping methods and criteria are described in detail. Historical channel migration patterns and rates are evaluated as the basis of predicting future channel migration hazard. Finally, channel migration hazard areas are identified in a channel migration zone map. 1.3 Timeframes relevant to this study A CMZ is defined as the area through which channel migration is predicted to occur within a given timeframe (Ecology 1994-2013; Rapp and Abbe 2003). The timeframe used in this study to map channel migration hazard is 100 years. That timeframe is consistent with planning timeframes used in Federal Emergency Management Agency (2013) and National Marine Fishery Service (2008) and the adopted policies of the King County 2006 Flood Plan and 2013 Update and Progress Report. Although the information and methods used in this study constitute the best available science, channel migration is a dynamic process, and the CMZ maps now prepared may become less informative or obsolete in the distant future (i.e., 100 years). To recognize the need to have hazard mapping reflect more near-term, expected conditions, the King County Channel Migration Public Rule (King County 2014) requires that a CMZ map should be updated every 20 years. As such, 20 years can be considered the planning horizon for this CMZ study. Also, the Public Rule provides that portions of a CMZ map may be revised at a shorter timeframe than 20 years if locally changed conditions affect channel migration, such as construction of a levee setback project. 1.4 Effect of landslides on channel migration The process by which a landslide blocks and redirects the channel is not addressed in this study or CMZ maps, and CMZ mapping methods do not include technical methods to account for landslide processes that may block or redirect the channel. As information is King County River and Floodplain Management 3 April 2015 compiled and mapping methodologies defined with regard to landslide hazard areas, CMZ mapping will be evaluated to consider necessary revisions. King County River and Floodplain Management 4 April 2015 2.0 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS The Cedar River flows from headwaters in the Cascade Mountains to its mouth at the south end of Lake Washington, as shown in Figure 1. The CMZ study area includes the length of mainstem Cedar River from Landsburg Bridge at River Mile (RM) 22.1 downstream to the mouth of the river (RM 0) in the City of Renton. The width of the study area includes the valley bottom floor and valley walls along the length of the study area. 2.1 General basin characteristics The crest of the Cascade Mountains forms the eastern border of the Cedar River basin at elevations in excess of 5,000 feet. The Cedar River flows west for 45 miles from its headwaters to its mouth and drains about 196 square miles. From its headwaters, it descends through the steep, heavily forested City of Seattle's Cedar River Municipal Watershed for over half its length. Masonry Dam impounds flow at RM 37 in Chester Morse Lake (Figure 1). The City of Seattle operates the dam primarily for water supply and power generation. The river flows through a steep and confined reach between Chester Morse Lake and Landsburg. Flow is diverted at the Landsburg Diversion Dam at RM 22.6 for water supply. Unincorporated King County areas downstream of Landsburg through Maple Valley to the City of Renton boundary are typified by rural residential and suburban land use of varying densities. The lowest five miles of the river and its floodplain are almost entirely within the City of Renton and its urban growth boundary. This area contains parks, single- and multi- family residential development, several major subdivisions, significant commercial/ industrial development, and portions of the downtown business core. Much of the area is developed area and supports infrastructure in close proximity to the Cedar River. The location of this study area within the Puget Sound lowland area affected by multiple glaciations and the geomorphic response since retreat of glaciation strongly influence basin characteristics relevant to channel migration, as described in Section 2.3.1. 2.2 Human activity and built features Early land uses in the Cedar River valley included the extraction industries of coal mining and timber harvesting. Construction of a railroad up the valley in the late 19th century spurred those activities. Masonry Dam and associated waterworks were constructed by City of Seattle for water and power supply in the early 20th century. The entire basin upstream of Landsburg was preserved in the City of Seattle’s municipal watershed. The Cedar River valley downstream of Landsburg within the study area remained largely rural through the first half of the last century. Subsequently, low-density rural land use transitioned to areas of moderate or higher density residential use resulting in greater numbers of structures built in areas subject to flooding and channel migration. With the increase of population and structures in flood hazard areas, levees and revetments were King County River and Floodplain Management 5 April 2015 Figure 1. Cedar River CMZ study area location map. King County River and Floodplain Management 6 April 2015 constructed along the river channel. In addition to inhibiting flooding, levees and revetments also constrain channel migration. Levees (raised earthen berms, typically with rock armor on the river side) and revetments (rock armor intended to prevent erosion) can inhibit or constrain channel migration. There are approximately 70 publicly maintained levees and revetments, built as flood protection facilities, along the Cedar River’s banks within the study area. King County maintains facilities upstream of I-405 (RM 1.63); the City of Renton maintains the system of levees and floodwalls downstream of I-405. The locations and approximate construction dates of these facilities are shown in Map 1, Appendix A. The majority of the publicly constructed and maintained flood protection facilities within the study area were built in the 1960s with public funds raised by two King County bond issues (Figure 2). No new bank armoring facilities have been constructed within the King County part of the study area in the last few decades, although maintenance and repairs of existing facilities is ongoing. Most facilities are either revetments or “training levees,” the latter of which typically do not contain large flood flows but instead train or direct the flow of the river. Figure 2. Cedar River construction history of publicly maintained bank armoring. The lowest mile of the Cedar River was rerouted to its current location and both riverbanks were lined by armored levees in 1914. Presently, a combination of floodwalls and armored levees, termed the Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project, provide containment of 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) (the annual 1 percent flood) from I-405 to the mouth. The 205 Flood Control Project also prevents channel migration of the Cedar River through the same area. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% pre-1936 1936-1958 1959-1963 1964-1969 1970-1979 1980-2011Percent of river length in revetments Time Period Percent built Cumulative percent armored King County River and Floodplain Management 7 April 2015 The fill prism and bridges of a former railroad line dating from the late 1800s extend through almost the entire length of the study area and now serve as the Cedar River Trail (CRT). Separate CRT bridges cross the river at three locations upstream of Maple Valley (RM 15) and three locations downstream of Maple Valley in tandem with SR169 bridges (Map 1, Appendix A). In all, there are 18 bridges that span the Cedar River from I-405 upstream with abutments that, to some extent, fix the river channel in place. From Landsburg to I-405, either the CRT alone or the CRT and SR169 disconnect the Cedar River from its floodplain in several locations. Considerable amounts of infrastructure (i.e., roads, bridges, utilities, and bank armoring) exist in close proximity to the Cedar River through much of this study area. Some individual segments of the Cedar River are armored extensively, and publicly maintained levees or revetments line the majority of the length of at least one bank in about half of the reaches of the study area (Figure 3). This percentage is higher when privately constructed bank armoring and infrastructure are included. Almost every outside bend of the Cedar River from Landsburg to the mouth is either armored by levees or revetments or bounded by an erosion-resistant geologic feature (Section 2.3). Together, constructed roads, bank armoring, and bridges plus naturally erosion-resistant geology combine to constrain the potential for channel migration in many parts of this study reach. Figure 3. Percent of Cedar River riverbank length with bank armoring. 2.3 Geology and sediment The Cedar River basin is underlain by Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary bedrock that is exposed rarely in the study area and exerts little influence on fluvial processes relevant to channel migration on the basin scale. Locally, bedrock walls exert significant control on channel migration. Multiple episodes of continental glaciation extending down from British Columbia covered the Puget Lowland over the past 2.5 million years and shaped the 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Percent of reach length armored Reach Infrastructure Private Bank Armor Public Bank Armor King County River and Floodplain Management 8 April 2015 landscape of today. Today, most of the Cedar River basin from Landsburg to the mouth has valley walls composed of glacial and non-glacial sediments and a valley bottom of young alluvium. A generalized geologic map of the study area is shown in Map 2, Appendix A (after Mullineaux 1970 and Booth 1995). The Cedar River within the study area has incised through glacial and non-glacial deposits since the last glaciation some 13,000 years ago. The Cedar River in the study area is an east-west trending, post-glacial, Holocene valley that joins a north-south trending glacial trough, now occupied by Lake Washington, carved by direct glacial contact (Collins and Montgomery 2011). As a result of its geologic past, the river flows through a floodplain of erodible alluvial materials composed primarily of sediments eroded from glacial and non-glacial deposits. If unconstrained, the river typically will migrate laterally through young alluvium of the modern floodplain, older alluvium of abandoned flood terrace deposits, as well as exposed colluvium, alluvial fans, and modified fill. The river more slowly erodes relatively erosion- resistant cliffs by undermining and cliff retreat processes, as is evident in several locations in this study area (Perkins et al. 2002). In the few places where Tertiary bedrock forms the valley walls, no bank erosion or channel migration is evident during timeframes relevant to this study. 2.3.1 Geology The following paragraphs describe geologic formations observed in river banks and valley walls of the study area, in order from oldest to youngest. Tertiary bedrock in the Puget Group (map unit Tp) is exposed near the middle of the study reach and again along the south valley wall near the downstream end of the valley. This sedimentary rock dates from the upper Eocene (some 38 million years ago) and consists of sandstone with interbedded shale and coal. Members of the Puget Group within the study area are the Renton Formation (Tpr) and Tertiary sedimentary (Ts) rock. The Renton Formation outcrops on both sides of the river from RM 9 to RM 10. This outcrop along both valley walls likely results in the narrowness of the floodplain in that area. The south valley wall from about RM 3.9 to RM 2.2 consists of Tertiary sedimentary rock. Quaternary glacial and non-glacial deposits are sediments deposited by glaciers and rivers, respectively, during and between glacial advances of the last 2.5 million years. They comprise most of the Cedar River valley walls and are exposed extensively within the study area. The sequence of glacial sediments deposited during the most recent glaciation of 15,000 to 13,000 years ago include Vashon advance outwash (Qva), Vashon Till (QVt), and Vashon recessional outwash (QVr) sediments. These Vashon glacial sediments constitute the vast majority of the surficial geology of the plateaus adjacent to the Cedar River valley. Glacial sedimentary deposits of the pre-Fraser (Qpf) glaciation age include at least two till layers older than Vashon glaciation. Greater age and the pressures of multiple glaciations make the pre-Fraser a more consolidated, more erosion-resistant sedimentary unit than King County River and Floodplain Management 9 April 2015 the most recent glacial sediments. This unit forms near-vertical bluffs along both valley walls through much of the study area, and resists the rapid erosion that can affect looser alluvium. Still, the pre-Fraser bluffs adjacent to the river are subject to cliff retreat due to undermining by the river and to episodic landsliding. The one outcrop of ice contact (Qvi) deposit found at the downstream end of the south valley wall, near I-405, may have been deposited as a glacial moraine. This deposit would be similar to, but contain a higher percentage of silt than, a recessional outwash. Recent deposits were formed in the Holocene period during the last 13,000 years and are still being formed by ongoing processes. Recent deposits include colluvium (landslides and mass wasting material), alluvium (typically valley bottom river sediment) and modified surfaces (contemporary fill material). The modern, post-glacial Cedar River has incised through a complex sequence of glacial and non-glacial deposits, leaving high and steep valley walls along both sides of the river for much of the length of this study area. Following initial downcutting, the Cedar River has filled most of its present-day valley with thick deposits of sand and gravel (King County 1993). With geologically recent incision into glacial and non-glacial sediments, the steep Cedar River valley walls exhibit widespread and locally severe landsliding. Landslides (Qls) and mass-wastage colluvial deposits (Qmw) are prevalent along both valley walls, often draped upon the older pre-Fraser unit. Where in contact with the river, landslides provide sediment directly to the channel. In this setting, channel migration maintains steep sideslopes (Booth 1995) as the river erodes and redistributes the colluvial sediment. The entire Cedar River valley floor is composed of alluvium sediment (typically sand and gravel) deposited by the river or its tributaries. Younger alluvium (Qyal) is moderately sorted sediment, largely composed of reworked glacial sediments in this basin. Older alluvium (Qoal) is texturally equivalent to the younger alluvium but lies at a higher elevation as a terrace no longer flooded by the river. Such elevated terraces may resist channel migration more than younger, frequently flooded alluvium. There is a terrace of older alluvium along the northeast side of the valley adjacent to the river near RM 11.8 to RM 12.4. 2.3.2 Sediment characteristics As channel gradient and confinement decrease, so does sediment transport capacity, and this reduced capacity for the river to transport sediment typically results in sediment deposition. Accumulations of large wood debris can also force the local deposition of sediment. Depositional river reaches with unarmored alluvial banks are likely to experience bank erosion and channel migration, as flow is deflected by deposited material. The deposited sediment of primary interest in this study includes coarse sand, gravel, and larger particles. These sediment fractions are often referred to collectively as gravel. King County River and Floodplain Management 10 April 2015 Perkins et al. (2002) estimated the total gravel supply to the mainstem Cedar River within this same study area at 11,000 to 12,000 cubic yards per year (cy/yr), most of which comes from upstream of Landsburg and cliff erosion a few miles downstream of Landsburg. This annual gravel influx volume is consistent with the 11,000 to 15,000 cy/yr estimated by King County (1993) and regional sediment yields for basins of this size (Nelson 1977). Most of the gravel entering Reaches 20 through 18 does not deposit there because of the steep channel gradient and natural confinement in those reaches. Continuing downstream, the sediment transport capacity of the Cedar River is adequate to move incoming sediment through most of the study area (King County 1993; Perkins et al. 2002). Indeed, sediment transport modeling indicates that sediment transport capacity exceeds sediment supply between Landsburg and about RM 2, making sediment transport in the Cedar River sediment-supply limited through most of the study area (King County 1993). The flat channel gradient in the lower approximately two river miles and backwater from Lake Washington upstream of the river mouth decrease transport capacity in that area, resulting in ongoing aggradation. Dredging in this portion of the channel has been conducted periodically to maintain channel flood capacity; the most recent dredging activity was in 1998. The average annual sediment deposition volume in the channel from RM 1.3 to the river mouth between 1998 and 2011 is 9,700 cy/yr (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2011), which is about 70 to 90 percent of the estimated average annual coarse sediment influx to the entire study area (Perkins et al. 2002). The similarity of the upstream influx and downstream deposition volumes is consistent with sediment transport conditions that are sediment-supply limited. The change in stage elevation through time at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage 12119000 (Cedar River at Renton) reflects ongoing aggradation at RM 1.4 (Figure 4A), which also is typical of conditions from I-405 to the mouth. A similar plot at USGS gage 12117500 (Cedar River near Landsburg) indicates no long-term aggradation at RM 23.4 (Figure 4B). King County River and Floodplain Management 11 April 2015 Figure 4. Temporal changes in stage at (A) USGS gage 12119000, Cedar River at Renton, and (B) USGS gage 12117500, Cedar River near Landsburg (from Gendaszek et al. 2012). Approximately 200 channel cross sections from Landsburg to I-405 that were surveyed in 2000 or 2003 were resurveyed in 2012 to evaluate change in average riverbed elevations through the study area. Comparison of the two datasets reveals wide variability in riverbed elevation changes through the period between surveys (Figure 5). Annual monitoring of average bed elevation within the City of Renton documents increases in sediment levels from RM 1.3 (Wells Ave) downstream to the mouth that range from 1 feet to 8 feet (average is approximately 3 feet) from 1998 to 2011 (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2011). In all, available information suggests a general efficiency in transporting coarse sediment and no systemic recent changes in in-channel sediment levels from Landsburg to I-405 (RM 1.7). Monitoring data document ongoing aggradation from RM 1.7 downstream to the mouth. 0 1 2 3 4 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Year Cedar River near Landsburg Cedar River at Renton Stream stage (m)Stream stage (m)0 1 2 3 4 A B GageReleveled King County River and Floodplain Management 12 April 2015 Figure 5. Change in average bed elevations, 2000 or 2003 to 2012. The competence of a river, or its ability to transport a given sediment particle size, typically decreases with channel gradient in the downstream direction. Figure 6 plots reach- averaged channel gradient, based on water surface gradient at 1,800 cfs flow (Section 2.4) with the median surface sediment size through the study area. The riverbed is predominantly coarse material (e.g., boulder, cobble) in the steep (0.6 percent) channel gradient of Reaches 20 to 18. From Reach 17 (RM 17.5) downstream to Reach 2 (RM 3), substrate particle size generally decreases with channel gradient, with some notable local variability (Figure 6). In parts of the study area there is no apparent trend in substrate size in the downstream direction, and sampling results can vary widely within a short river distance because of local morphology and hydraulics (Perkins et al. 2002). The Cedar River remains a gravel-bedded channel to well downstream of RM 1 even as channel gradient becomes very flat (<0.2 percent). Finer gravel transitions to mainly sand within 1,000 feet of the river mouth (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2001; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1997). Sediment transport varies as a function of channel gradient, water depth, and riverbed particle size. Based on these factors, initial movement of riverbed sediment was calculated to occur at about 2,000 cfs near Landsburg and 2,700 cfs in Renton (Perkins et al. 2003), both calculations of which are consistent with the empirical observation that significant sediment movement and deposition begins to occur at about 2,500 cfs in Renton (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2001). -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Change in average channel elevation, in feetRiver Mile Change 2003-2012 Change 2000-2012 King County River and Floodplain Management 13 April 2015 Figure 6. Reach-averaged channel gradient and channel substrate particle size (substrate data from Perkins et al. 2002 and Gendaszek et al. 2012). 2.4 Flood hydrology Floods along the Cedar River occur primarily during the winter months of November through February, and each event typically lasts a few days. Annual peak flows at USGS gage 12117500, the Cedar River near Landsburg, at RM 23.4 are shown in Figure 7 for the period of record through water year 2011. Peak flows after 2011 are not shown because 2011 is the most recent aerial photo used in Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses in this study. Selected recurrence interval flood magnitudes from the Cedar River Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005) and other flows of interest are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 7 for context. Three floods between 1900 and 1912 equaled or exceeded the current-day annual 1 percent flood of 10,300 cfs at Landsburg. Masonry Dam and associated waterworks were under construction from 1902 to 1914. Since 1914, only the November 1990 flood has exceeded 10,300 cfs at Landsburg. King County River and Floodplain Management 14 April 2015 Figure 7. Annual peak flows at USGS gage 12117500 Cedar River near Landsburg. Table 1. Flow discharge magnitudes, annual percent chance and recurrence intervals. Discharge at Cedar River near Landsburg (cfs) Discharge at Cedar River at Renton (cfs) Annual Percent Chance Recurrence Interval (Years) King County Flood Phase or Example Flood Source: Landsburg, Renton* 1800 2305 Approx. 74 Approx. 1.4 Phase 1 1,4 2800 3510 Approx. 42 Approx. 2.3 Phase 2 1,4 3720 4600 20 5 2,2 4200 5155 Approx. 15 Approx. 6.8 Phase 3 1,4 5000 6080 10 10 Phase 4 1,4 6580 7650 Approx. 4.1 Approx. 24 November 1995 3,3 7870 9390 Approx. 3.3 Approx. 30 January 2009 3,3 8340 9860 2 50 November 1909 2,2 10,300 12,000 1 100 November 1990 2,2 *Source of data in last column of table: 1. King County Flood Warning Phases 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005) 3. USGS flow records 4. Watershed Sciences and Engineering 2013 King County River and Floodplain Management 15 April 2015 The Masonry Dam has a primary purpose of water supply and power generation, so its flood control benefits are only opportunistic. However, the presence of this dam appears to have decreased flood peaks since 1914, as suggested by the four large flood events in the dozen years prior to 1914 and only one event of similar magnitude in the century since 1914 (Figure 7). The post-dam 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year recurrence intervals have been reduced by 47, 54, and 56 percent, respectively, relative to pre-dam conditions (Gendaszek et al. 2012). Water diversion or withdrawal for water supply and power generation may alter lower flows, but have little impact on flood peaks. With a decrease in peak flows since 1914 and widespread increases in channel confinement due to bank armoring since the 1960s, less frequent and larger discharges remain within the riverbanks through much of the study area. A comparison of inundated width to bankfull channel width1, averaged by reach for various flows, gives an indication of channel confinement (Figure 8; this is the “flood confinement ratio” of Perkins et al. 2002). A ratio of 1 indicates that the flow is entirely contained in the channel. The 5,000 cfs flow (annual 10 percent flood) is entirely contained in several reaches, and in some reaches a discharge of 10,300 cfs (annual 1 percent flood) is contained (Figure 8). A decrease in the peak magnitude of large floods by necessity results in longer durations of moderate and lower flows than would occur in unaltered conditions, because the total volume of water that flows into the reservoir in a given flood event is unchanged but that water volume is released more slowly by the dam. Much of the longer-duration flows likely exceed the threshold at which sediment movement begins (approx. 2,000 cfs near Landsburg). 1 Bankfull width was represented by the distance between bank stations identified at every cross section in the Cedar River HEC-RAS hydraulic model (WSE 2013). Bank stations in HEC-RAS mark the transition in hydraulic conditions from the channel to overbank areas and typically are located at or near the top of bank. Visual inspection of bank station locations at each cross section in the HEC-RAS hydraulic model indicated that this was an acceptably accurate representation of the bankfull location. Inundated width, provided directly by the HEC-RAS model at each cross section, includes the full width of the channel and floodplain that is equal to or lower than the water surface elevation of interest, and as such, may overstate the width of floodplain that is inundated by continuous overbank flow. King County River and Floodplain Management 16 April 2015 Figure 8. Cedar River flood confinement ratio, by reach, at various flow events. 2.5 Large wood The presence of large wood has the potential to increase water surface elevations through vertical changes in the elevation of the river bed resulting from sediment deposition upstream of large wood accumulations. The increase in water surface elevation caused by large wood can increase the frequency and extent that flood flows access adjacent floodplain areas, and consequently have an influence on the likelihood of avulsion and channel migration (Brummer et al. 2006). The presence of large wood accumulations is relevant to mapping Cedar River channel migration by avulsion because this study evaluates the frequency and depth of inundation in low lying areas as a criterion for mapping avulsion hazards under current conditions. The management of riparian forests to allow more and larger trees means that the volume of large wood in rivers is likely to increase through the 100-year timeframe relevant to CMZ mapping. See also Section 4.4 for more discussion of the effect of large wood on channel migration. A study in progress by King County at the time of writing is evaluating the presence and distribution of large wood in the Cedar River (K. Akyuz, pers. comm. 2014). Preliminary data from the study indicate that there were an estimated 11,500 total pieces of large wood on the Cedar River in 2010, and the vast majority of the pieces of wood were categorized as small logs and branches. There were 145 key pieces (wood pieces large enough to act as key member in the formation of a log jam) at an average of 6.5 per river mile. Higher densities of total wood counted and key pieces occurred in unconfined reaches than in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Flood confinement ratio (Inundated width / bankfull width) Reach 1800 cfs 2800 cfs 5000 cfs 6580 cfs 10300 cfs King County River and Floodplain Management 17 April 2015 confined reaches. These values for large wood metrics on the Cedar River are low relative to large wood in natural conditions on other Pacific Northwest river channels (Fox and Bolton 2007). The potential effect of large wood accumulations on channel migration is discussed in Section 4.4. King County River and Floodplain Management 18 April 2015 3.0 METHODS Channel migration on the Cedar River was evaluated and mapped using information from existing studies, field observations, and analyses conducted in GIS Esri ArcMap 10.0. Information from several existing studies of the geology, geomorphology, hydrology, hydraulics, land use, and other factors relevant to Cedar River channel migration forms the foundation of this study. These studies include Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1993), Geologic map of Maple Valley (Booth 1995), Cedar River gravel study (Perkins et al. 2002), Cedar River Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005) and associated hydraulic model (Harper, Houf, Righellis 2002), historical river channel data for the Cedar River (Collins et al. 2003), and an article titled “Geomorphic response to flow regulation and channel and floodplain alterations in the gravel-bedded Cedar River, Washington, USA” by Gendaszek et al. (2012). The river channel and other parts of the study area were accessed by raft or on foot. Field observations were made of river bed and bank materials, evidence of erosion, location and condition of bank armoring, general channel pattern, and the presence and nature of hydraulic or geomorphic controls. Channel substrate data were not collected because they are available from Perkins et al. (2002) and Gendaszek et al. (2012). Historical and current channel locations were documented in GIS from historical information described in Section 3.1. Lateral channel migration rates and the potential for abrupt channel shifting by avulsion were evaluated in GIS, as described in Section 4.3. In Section 5.2, calculated channel migration rates and mapped avulsion potential were used in combination with information from field observations and other relevant resources, such as hydraulic models, geologic maps, and other geomorphic studies, to map channel migration hazards throughout the study area. 3.1 Historical and current information used in report Historical channel locations were digitized in GIS at a scale of 1:1,000 by Collins et al. (2003) from orthorectified aerial photos dated 1936 through 2000 (Table 2). The digitization process included mapping the active channel for each photo year as the composite of low flow channel, bare gravel bars, and vegetated patches on alluvial surfaces (Collins et al. 2003; O’Connor et al. 2003). King County digitized historical channel locations for 2005 and 2011 using the same methods as Collins et al. (2003). The horizontal accuracy of the digitized historical channel locations is estimated to be within 25 to 40 feet of actual location (Collins et al. 2003). There are two main sources of inaccuracy: the orthorectification process and the digitization process. Channel locations digitized from 1944 and 1985 were not used in this analysis because of inaccuracies King County River and Floodplain Management 19 April 2015 exceeding 60 feet. The high level of inaccuracy in 1944 and 1985 resulted mainly from poor image quality in those two years. Digital aerial photos and LiDAR coverage from 2013 also are available for the study area. Because there were relatively minor flood events and negligible channel changes between 2011 and 2013, the 2013 channel was not digitized and the 2011 channel is taken to represent present-day conditions for this analysis. LiDAR imagery from 2011 was consulted for this study. Table 2. Aerial orthophotos used or consulted in this report. Year Scale Estimated Horizontal Accuracy† Source 1936 1:10,500 10.3 meters (33.8 ft) King County 1948 1:21,000 16.3 meters (53.5 ft) King County Conservation District/USDA-NRCS 1959 1: 7,800 5.9‡ meters (19.4 ft) King County 1964 1:21,000 9.0 meters (29.5 ft) King County Conservation District/USDA-NRCS 1970 1:12,000 5.0 meters (16.4 ft) King County 1980 1:58,000 10.0 meters (32.8 ft) University of Washington Libraries 1989 1:13,500 7.2 meters (23.6 ft) King County 1995 1:12,000 6.0 meters (19.7 ft) University of Washington Libraries 2000 2 ft pixel 4.0 meters (13.1 ft) King County 2005 1 ft pixel 2.0 meters (6.6 ft) King County 2011 1:1,200 0.3 meters (1.0 ft) King County 2013 0.5 ft pixel 0.1 meters (0.3 ft) King County † National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) 95% statistic indicates the horizontal distance over which the user can be confident that the horizontal position of a feature on the image will be within its true location 95% of the time (Collins et al. 2003). ‡ Photo set does not encompass entire study area and contained 10 of 20 field-verifiable locations that the NSSDA 95% statistic requires. Of those 10, horizontal accuracy is 5.9 m (Collins et al. 2003). A circa 1920 USGS topographic map also was consulted but not used quantitatively due to its small scale (1:125,000). Historical plat maps surveyed by the General Land Office (GLO) between 1865 and 1880 were reviewed but were not included quantitatively in this analysis because of inherent inaccuracies, as described by Collins et al. (2003). Further, operation of Masonry Dam and associated waterworks since 1914 (described in Section 2.4) has reduced the size of major flood flows; these reduced flows have resulted in long-term alteration of channel conditions throughout the Cedar River (Perkins 1994). With such systemic changes after 1914, the channel locations and conditions shown in the circa 1865 GLO maps are not directly applicable to an analysis of present-day channel migration hazard. King County River and Floodplain Management 20 April 2015 3.2 Channel Migration Zone Components Channel migration hazards in the Cedar River were mapped by identifying the component parts of a CMZ, as specified by King County (2014) and consistent with Ecology (1994- 2014). CMZ components are described in the equation below and illustrated schematically in Figure 9. CMZ = HMZ + AHZ + EHA – DMA where HMZ = Historical Migration Zone AHZ = Avulsion Hazard Zone EHA = Erosion Hazard Area. = Erosion Setback (ES) + Geotechnical Setback (GS) DMA = Disconnected Migration Area Figure 9. Plan view schematic of Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) components. Modified from Rapp and Abbe (2003). Each CMZ component is defined and its mapping methods are described in Section 3.3. 3.3 Mapping criteria and methods This section defines each CMZ component and hazard area and describes mapping criteria and methods. As described in Section 3.2, the combination of the following components constitutes the CMZ: CMZ = HMZ + AHZ + EHA – DMA. King County River and Floodplain Management 21 April 2015 Once the CMZ was delineated, severe and moderate hazard areas were identified within it so as to recognize that channel migration hazard is not equal throughout the CMZ. In general, any part of the CMZ that is not mapped as a severe hazard area is mapped as a moderate hazard area. The criteria by which parts of the CMZ components are mapped as a severe or moderate hazard area are included with the description of each CMZ component. 3.3.1 Historical Migration Zone The Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) is the portion of a CMZ study area that the channel has occupied during the historical record (King County 2014). The HMZ is mapped as a composite footprint of historical active channel locations from 1936 to 2011, as listed in Table 2. The HMZ typically is a fundamental component of the CMZ. The entire HMZ was mapped as severe hazard area. 3.3.2 Avulsion Hazard Zone The Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) is the area outside of the HMZ that is subject to avulsion hazard (King County 2014). To map the AHZ, low-lying areas were identified from the 5,000 cfs (annual 10 percent flood) inundation map. Low-lying areas inundated by 5,000 cfs that occupy a shorter distance in the down-valley direction than the adjacent mainstem channel were evaluated in the field. Other pertinent information was considered in evaluating avulsion hazard, such as whether there was a history of avulsions in the immediate area or if there were discernable trends in the accumulation of wood or sediment in the main channel near the potential avulsion site. Potential avulsion pathways were included in the AHZ if they met all four of the following criteria (King County 2014): 1. Low-lying ground or channel that is equal to or lower than the water surface elevation of frequent flooding in the current main channel. 2. The length of the potential avulsion pathway follows a shorter distance (and steeper gradient) than the main channel. 3. The substrate in the banks and bed or floodplain of the potential avulsion pathway is erodible material. 4. The potential avulsion pathway is a likely avulsion route based on consideration of Quaternary history, avulsion history in the basin, flow regulation, channel alteration, sediment trends, and large woody debris loading. King County River and Floodplain Management 22 April 2015 An Avulsion Hazard Zone was mapped as a severe hazard area if it met any of the following criteria: 1. Potential avulsion pathways have little or no vegetation, or show evidence of fresh scour, channel widening or oversteepening, consistent with erosion from recent flood events, or 2. Potential avulsion pathways have a direct low-elevation surface connection to the main channel such that it is flooded deeply and frequently (which may be indicated by surface flow through the pathway even during periods of low river flow), or 3. Indicators of avulsion hazard regarding accumulation of sediment or large wood in the main channel, or changes to main channel meander geometry, exist in close proximity to a potential avulsion pathway. Severe AHZs were mapped as wide as the 2011 average Active Channel of the reach in which the avulsion pathway is located. The AHZ typically was centered along the centerline of avulsion pathway unless site-specific conditions such as variability of substrate indicated it was appropriate to map the AHZ otherwise. An AHZ that did not meet any of the three criteria listed above for the severe hazard AHZ was mapped as a moderate hazard AHZ. As with a severe AHZ, a moderate AHZ was mapped to a width equal to the average Active Channel width of the present river channel reach in which the avulsion pathway is located and along the centerline of the avulsion pathway unless conditions indicated otherwise. Where an artificial structure such as a levee blocks a potential avulsion pathway that otherwise meets the criteria to be mapped as an AHZ except for the blockage, that pathway was mapped as an AHZ if the top elevation of the blocking structure is lower than the water surface elevation of the 1 percent annual chance flood and the blocking structure is not likely to restrain channel migration. The AHZ behind the blockage was mapped as a severe hazard area if the severe hazard mapping criteria, listed above, were met, or it was mapped as a moderate hazard area if the criteria were not met. 3.3.3 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback The Erosion Setback is that part of the EHA within the CMZ that is susceptible to lateral channel migration due to stream or river erosion (King County 2014). The width of the Erosion Setback (referred to as EHA/ES) was calculated as a lateral channel migration rate times a given time period. To calculate lateral channel migration rates, channel centerlines were digitized along the mid-line of the active channel in each year of aerial photos and lateral channel migration distances were measured between channel centerlines in sequential aerial photos (Table 2). These distances between channel centerlines were measured along transects spaced 400 feet apart, down-valley, and oriented perpendicular to the centerline of the Historical Migration Zone. King County River and Floodplain Management 23 April 2015 Average annual lateral channel migration rates were calculated as the lateral migration distance measured between sequential aerial photos divided by the time elapsed between the photos. The rate used in this study is the time-weighted average of the absolute value of the migration distance measurements described above. Using the absolute value calculates channel migration as if it occurred in one direction between every pair of photos. Channel migration was measured at sites where channel migration occurred as channel expansion. The channel expansion distance was calculated as the difference in active channel widths as measured at HMZ transects in sequential aerial photos. That distance was divided by 2 to indicate the extent of expansion that had occurred on each side of the active channel in the first photo. The resulting distance was divided by the number of years between aerial photos to calculate the migration rate at that location. Channel migration rates were calculated for each reach using aerial photos from between 1964 and 2011 and for Reach 1 through Reach 11 using aerial photos from between 1936 and 2011 (Table 2). Migration rates between 1936 and 1964 could not be calculated upstream of Reach 11 either because of a lack of photo coverage or the inferior accuracy of existing photos. Collins et al. (2003) describe lesser accuracy of photo orthorectification in these earlier photos resulting from fewer observable landmarks in the eastern portions of the study area. Channel migration rates were calculated in two ways: first, rates were calculated using all measurements taken, and second, rates were calculated using only those measurements where erosion occurred. For erosion to have occurred, not only must there be a movement of the channel centerline at an HMZ transect, but the channel edge in a given photo-year must have moved outside the channel edge of the previous photo-year. This measurement method captured lateral channel migration and channel expansion but excluded channel contraction and locations of no erosion. If the channel remained entirely within the boundaries of the channel from the previous aerial photo, no erosion was assumed to have occurred even if the channel centerline had moved. 3.3.3.1 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback applied to the Historical Migration Zone or to the Active Channel The width of the Erosion Setback was calculated using the eroding-only channel migration rates. For each reach, the width of the EHA/ES for lateral migration in Holocene valley- bottom alluvium was calculated as the greater of the following two distances (Figure 10). 1. 50 years of lateral migration times the channel migration rate, applied to each side of the HMZ, or 2. 100 years of lateral migration times the channel migration rate, applied to each side of the most recent active channel (2011). King County River and Floodplain Management 24 April 2015 Figure 10. Plan view schematic of the Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback. The EHA/ES can be further broken down into moderate and severe hazard areas. The width of the severe hazard area within the Erosion Setback was delineated as the greater of the following two distances. 1. 25 years times the representative channel migration rate of this reach applied to each side of the HMZ, or 2. 50 years times the representative channel migration rate of this reach applied to each side of the most recent active channel (2011). The area that lies between the severe channel migration hazard area and the outer edge of the Erosion Setback was mapped as moderate hazard area. Where historical channel locations indicated that there was a measureable, consistent down-valley component to lateral channel migration, the EHA/ES was adjusted based on down-valley migration rates measured at the affected sites. Erosion-resistant landforms that the EHA/ES intersected included tall bluffs composed of the Pre-Frasier glacial formation and Vashon-age glacial drift at several locations in the study area (Map 2, Appendix A). In these locations, the width of the portion of the EHA/ES within the more-resistant landform was calculated using an appropriately lower channel migration rate. The lower channel migration rate was based on lateral retreat rates observed in the same or similar tall bluffs that the active channel encountered and during that part of the historical record of the study during which the active channel eroded that King County River and Floodplain Management 25 April 2015 landform. The resulting EHA/ES width is likely to be narrower than it would be in Holocene alluvium in the same river reach (Figure 11). Figure 11. Cross-section schematic of Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback. 3.3.3.2 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback applied to Avulsion Hazard Zone Once an avulsion occurs, lateral migration is assumed to proceed from the new channel location. The width of that lateral migration is calculated as an EHA/ES added to the AHZ. An EHA/ES applied to either a severe AHZ or moderate AHZ was mapped as a moderate hazard area. The widths of this EHA/ES applied to an AHZ may vary as follows: 1. Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback applied to a severe AHZ: This Erosion Setback distance was added to each side of a severe AHZ to a width equal to a range of 25 years to 50 years times the representative channel migration rate for that study reach. The number of years is based on the extent to which AHZ mapping criteria in Section 3.3.2 were met. 2. Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback applied to a moderate AHZ: This Erosion Setback distance was added to each side of a moderate AHZ to a width equal to 25 years times the representative channel migration rate for that the study reach. 3.3.4 Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback Where the outer edge of the EHA/ES encountered an erodible land surface that is greater than 20 feet in height above Ordinary High Water, a Geotechnical Setback, referred to as EHA/GS, was applied to the outer edge of the EHA/ES (King County 2014). The EHA/GS was delineated at a 1H:1V slope measured from the predicted toe of slope after applying the EHA/ES (Figure 11). No EHA/GS or EHA/ES was applied to sound bedrock showing no signs of erosion. The entire EHA/GS was mapped as moderate hazard. King County River and Floodplain Management 26 April 2015 3.3.5 Disconnected Migration Area A Disconnected Migration Area (DMA) is the area located landward of an artificial structure that is likely to restrain channel migration and that meets criteria in Washington Administrative Code 173-26-221(3)(b) and King County (2014). In other words, the DMA is an area that would be subject to channel migration were it not for the presence of the artificial structure. Areas landward of the legally existing, publicly maintained artificial structures (e.g., revetments, levees) that met the following criteria were mapped as a DMA: 1. Within incorporated areas and urban growth areas, an artificial structure that limits channel migration. 2. In all areas, an artificial structure that is likely to restrain channel migration and is built above the one hundred-year (100-year) flood elevation. 3. State highways and sole-access major county roads. 4. Legally existing active railroads. An artificial structure was considered likely to restrain channel migration if its construction, condition, and configuration are consistent with current relevant design and construction standards and if the present channel is unlikely to migrate landward of the structure (King County 2014). Levees and revetments maintained by King County within unincorporated King County were evaluated for their likelihood to restrain channel migration. Information on construction date and methods, damage, and repair history was consulted from King County files. Available project repair design plans were reviewed regarding construction standards. Levees and revetments maintained by King County or the City of Renton within the City of Renton were evaluated as to the structure’s ability to limit channel migration. Whether an artificial structure was built above the elevation of the 10,300 cfs discharge (annual 1 percent flood2) was determined from the hydraulic model prepared for the Cedar River flood study (Harper, Houf, Righellis, Inc. 2002) and inundation maps based on the flood study hydraulic model (Watershed Science and Engineering 2013). Relevant empirical evidence also was considered regarding structure elevations relative to the water surface elevation of the 10,300 cfs discharge. If an artificial structure did not meet all criteria necessary to map a DMA, then the severe and moderate hazard area delineations were not revised. This approach was taken so as recognize the channel migration hazard landward of that structure. 2 Referred to as the 100-year flood in relevant WAC and KCC sections cited above. King County River and Floodplain Management 27 April 2015 4.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHANNEL MIGRATION IN THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Channel migration processes Channel migration occurs by three processes in the Cedar River study area: lateral migration, channel expansion, and avulsion. Lateral channel migration occurs as a combination of bank erosion along one riverbank coupled with sediment deposition along the opposite bank. The result is a progressive net movement, or migration, of the channel across the valley bottom. A comparison of the 1964 and 2011 channel locations near RM 15.5 on the Cedar River illustrates lateral migration (Figure 12). There also may be a down- valley component to the lateral migration. Through time, the down-valley component would result in an area downstream and between river meanders being affected by channel migration, not just an area laterally landward from the channel. Lateral migration is the main type of channel migration affecting the Cedar River in the study area. Figure 12. Example of lateral migation on the Cedar River near RM 15.5. Channel expansion is a widening of the channel, which manifests as an increase of the channel width toward both riverbanks. Conditions that cause this type of channel migration include an increase in sediment influx or the eroding effects of a large flood flow. Channel expansion also can result from channel incision if the lowering of the riverbed King County River and Floodplain Management 28 April 2015 undercuts and destabilizes the riverbanks (Simon 1989). Channel expansion on the Cedar River occurred near RM 5 after a 2001 landslide from the right (north) bank deposited a large volume of sediment directly in the river channel (Figure 13). Figure 13. Example of channel expansion on the Cedar River at RM 5. In a channel migration process called an avulsion, the channel shifts abruptly to a different location without laterally eroding through the land between the two channel locations. The channel may shift by avulsion rapidly, such as during a single flood event. Avulsions also may occur more gradually, as the majority of flow shifts from one channel to another. Avulsions may be triggered by the onset of unpredictable conditions such as a landside or log jam. Though avulsion triggers may be unpredictable, certain conditions favor the occurrence of avulsions, as described in Section 3.3.2. Avulsions have occurred in the Cedar River, for example, near RM 10.5 where the split flow conditions in 1989 shifted to a single channel in 1995 without eroding the forested island between channel locations (Figure 14). Conditions that favor avulsion (Section 3.3.2) exist within the study area. King County River and Floodplain Management 29 April 2015 Figure 14. Example of avulsion on the Cedar River near RM 10.5. Comparison of channel locations evident in historical maps and aerial photos reveals the location, type, and extent of past channel migration. Information about past channel migration is used to predict future channel migration and map channel migration hazard areas. Comparison of channel locations in sequential aerial photos in a GIS format informs the evaluation of lateral channel migration, channel expansion and avulsion, as does the compilation of all digitized historical channel locations. The composite map of historic channel locations becomes the HMZ shown in Map 3, Appendix A. Water surface elevations of selected flows in the mainstem channel were compared to the topographic elevations of adjacent valley-bottom surfaces and secondary channels using existing Cedar River hydraulic model results (Harper, Houf, Righellis, Inc. 2002 and Watershed Sciences and Engineering 2013) and LiDAR digital surfaces. The elevation difference between the water surface at 5,000 cfs (annual 10 percent chance flood) and the valley-bottom surface topography is shown in Map 4, Appendix A. Map 4 is equivalent to a “Height Above Water Surface” map produced by Jones (2006) except that Map 4 shows color only in the areas of the valley bottom that are below the 5,000 cfs water surface elevation, not above it. A 5,000 cfs flood is equivalent to a Phase 4 event in King County flood warning phase system (Table 1). The 5,000 cfs flood event was selected for Map 4 King County River and Floodplain Management 30 April 2015 because it is a relatively frequent flood that may access low-lying areas of the valley bottom and so is relevant to mapping avulsion hazard. Map 4 is not an inundation map because it does include consideration of the hydraulic connectivity of the colored valley-bottom areas to the main channel at a discharge of 5,000 cfs. Dark blue in Map 4 indicates valley-bottom areas that are as much as 5 feet lower in elevation than the water surface at 5,000 cfs and yellow to green indicates valley-bottom areas that are as much as 1 foot lower in elevation than the water surface at 5,000 cfs. Along the river channel, this map illustrates the difference in elevation between the water surface at 5,000 cfs and the water surface at the time that LiDAR was flown. Therefore, the water depth within the channel is illustrated generally in Map 4 and does not represent specific localized conditions in the channel. 4.2 Morphology of the study reaches A river reach is a length of channel that exhibits consistent physical conditions. River reaches in the study area were identified based primarily on channel gradient, channel confinement, channel pattern, and riverbank material. Channel sinuosity (ratio of channel length to valley length), confluence with tributaries, and the presence of infrastructure were considered secondarily. Twenty reaches were identified, numbered in upstream direction through the study area; many of the reaches correspond closely to the river segments used by Perkins et al. (2002). Reach characteristics are summarized in Table 3 and described below in the downstream direction. The State Department of Ecology defines channel confinement based on the ratio of active channel width to valley bottom width. A ratio of less than 2 is confined; a ratio of greater than 4 is unconfined; and a ratio between 2 and 4 is moderately confined (Ecology 1994- 2014). The only place where the ratio is less than 4 on the Cedar River in this study area is at Landsburg Bridge and a few hundred feet downstream. In this report, the term confinement does not refer to the active channel/valley bottom ratio defined by Ecology, but is used to generally describe the relative level of constraint placed on the channel by the proximity of the valley walls, terraces, or constructed features. Channel patterns are described in the study reach as two types. A single-channel pattern, or single channel, conveys flow up to and including bankfull flow entirely in one main channel. A multi-channel pattern, or multiple-channel pattern, consists of more than one channel separated by islands that may be stable and vegetated. An anabranching channel (see footnote 3) is an example of multi-channel pattern. Reaches 20 through 18 are among the steepest in the study area, with channel gradients ranging from 0.67 to 0.55 percent. The single channel in these reaches generally is confined and often in contact with high banks or bluffs. Channel substrate is a coarse gravel/cobble/ King County River and Floodplain Management 31 April 2015 boulder mix. With most gravel influx being routed through these reaches (Section 3.2.3), gravel bars are infrequent and narrow. The river in Reach 17 is single channel with a 0.62 percent gradient and increasing channel width in the downstream direction. This reach has erosion-resistant banks at its upstream end and a right bank composed of colluvium along its downstream end. Coarse channel substrate, some of which appears to have come from a right bank landslide, is evident in the mid-channel bar just upstream of the CRT Bridge at the downstream end of Reach 17 (RM 17.6). Reaches 16 and 15 have a single channel, a widening floodplain and decreasing channel gradient (ranging from 42 to 60 percent). Bank materials alternate between continuous lengths of armoring and unarmored alluvium. Bare gravel bars suggest increased in- channel sediment deposition. Side channels or floodplain channels are present across the interior of every meander bend in Reach 15. The river in Reaches 14 and 13, between the SR 18 (RM15.3) and SR 169 (RM 14.1) bridges, is a single, relatively straight channel. Alluvial banks are armored in much of Reach 14 or confined by bridge abutments. The channel in Reach 13 runs contiguous to an erosion-resistant bluff and the alluvial fan of Peterson Creek along its left (west) bank. In March 2014, a relatively small landslide from the left bank bluff briefly blocked the mainstem channel in the Royal Arch neighborhood area at approximate RM 14.5, but the channel quickly incised through the landslide debris and remained in the same location. In Reach 12, the single channel is bounded by SR169 and CRT bridge abutments at its upstream end and bank armoring at every outside bend as well as some interior bends. Landward and between bank armoring segments, floodplain channels show bare gravel or surface water, or both, evidence of frequent flow. Taylor Creek and associated floodplain channels flow and coalesce behind the Getchman levee before joining the river just upstream of Jan Road levee (RM 13.4). Unarmored alluvial river banks exhibit active erosion along both left and right banks between revetments. The channel gradient in Reach 12 is 0.43 percent. In Reach 11, the single channel is in contact with a right bank terrace and glacial bluffs through the entire reach. Ongoing bank erosion and channel migration into the terrace of old alluvium is evident in a very tight curve at the Rawson bend (RM 12.5). The channel flows along the right bank base of tall glacial bluffs from RM 12.1 to RM 11.8 (across from the Lions Club area). In Reach 10, the single channel flows under Cedar Grove Bridge near its upstream end, curves along the Rainbow Bend levee removal site, and then flows in a straight line adjacent to the CRT for almost 2,000 feet. Even with the Rainbow Bend levee removal, the channel has armoring or abutments on at least one of its banks through almost 90 percent of this reach. The levee removal project excavated two floodplain channels that are readily accessed by flow from the main channel. King County River and Floodplain Management 32 April 2015 Table 3. Cedar River reach characteristics. Reach River Mile€ Length (miles) Average Gradient (%)† Armored Length (%)‡ Channel pattern, river banks, geology, constraints** General location - infrastructure, King County facilities, tributaries, etc. D/S* end U/S* end 1 0 1.633 1.6 0.18 100 Single channel, nearly straight, flat gradient. Leveed channel within City of Renton 2 1.633 3.241 1.6 0.27 9 Single incised and confined channel, mild meanders. Narrow valley. Along SR 169 U/S of I-405 3 3.241 4.57 1.3 0.35 47 Single channel, one meander; 1980s landslide on LB; armored spots on alluvial banks. Maplewood subdivision on RB 4 4.57 5.135 0.6 0.43 53 Multiple channels; 2001 RB landslide. Ron Regis Park area 5 5.135 6.435 1.3 0.34 60 Single channel, flatter gradient, mild meanders; armored spots on alluvial banks. Elliott Bridge and lower Jones Road area 6 6.435 7.695 1.3 0.46 78 D/S part has single channel, mostly armored banks. U/S is multi-channel, unconfined. Riverbend and Cedar Rapids area 7 7.695 9.39 1.7 0.44 64 Single channel, large meander; moderately confined by relatively high alluvial RB. Upper Jones Road area 8 9.39 10.35 1.0 0.30 43 Single channel; narrow valley; bedrock walls. Bedrock area 9 10.35 10.97 0.6 0.38 40 Multiple accessible channels. Valley narrows. Belmondo area 10 10.97 11.69 0.7 0.36 81 Single channel; mostly armored alluvial bank, until 2013. Cedar Grove; RB Rainbow Bend levee removed 2013 11 11.69 12.666 1.0 0.39 15 Single channel; RB old alluvium terrace, bluff. Rawson curve to Lions Club area 12 12.666 14.05 1.4 0.43 69 Single channel; armored alluvial bends; side channels or creek landward of armoring. Getchman, Rhode, Rutledge-Johnson Jan Rd facilities; Taylor Creek joins RB 13 14.05 14.757 0.7 0.46 30 Single channel; mild meander; tall LB bluffs, the site of 2014 landslide. Royal Arch area 14 14.757 15.52 0.8 0.53 37 Relatively straight single channel; alluvial banks w/armor. SR 169 and SR 18 Bridges 15 15.52 16.55 1.0 0.60 58 Single channel with accessible side channels; armored spots on alluvial banks. Doris Creek, Dorre Don Road; Lower Don area 16 16.55 17.64 1.1 0.42 67 Single channel; armored lengths of alluvial banks; erosion resistant bends. Upper Dorre Don area to Orchard Grove 17 17.64 18.37 0.7 0.62 0 Single channel; one meander along colluvial material on RB. Isolated residential areas on both banks, upstream of Cedar River Trail 18 18.37 19.654 1.3 0.67 19 Single channel in tortuous bends; tall bluffs both banks are sediment sources. Arcadia-Nobel area 19 19.654 21.02 1.4 0.55 13 Single channel; relatively straight; tall bluffs are sediment source. Isolated residential areas on both banks 20 21.02 22.063 1.0 0.66 18 Steep single channel; glacial material banks. Landsburg Bridge at U/S end of study King County River and Floodplain Management 33 April 2015 Table 3 footnotes: € River Miles with 3 decimal places are located at cross sections surveyed for the Cedar River Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 2005) and hydraulic model (Harper, Houf, Righellis (2002). River Miles with 2 decimal places are located between surveyed cross sections. * D/S = downstream; U/S= upstream. † Average gradient measured from the water surface elevation at the 1,800 cfs flow. ‡ Armored length is the channel length armored by King County or Renton flood protection facilities on either one or both banks. Total cannot exceed 100%. ** LB= left bank and RB = right bank when viewed downstream. The river in Reach 9 is a single channel with a valley bottom that narrows in downstream direction. The channel has shifted by avulsion and also eroded the alluvial floodplain by lateral migration. Channel migration is active in Reach 9. The downstream end of Reach 9 and upstream part of Reach 8 are referred to as the Belmondo area. The river in the upstream part of Reach 8 has a multi-channel pattern, with a left bank side channel that is actively connected to the mainstem throughout the year. Mid-channel gravel bars downstream of a circa 2009, relatively small right bank landslide split the mainstem channel into multiple flow paths. The valley bottom continues to narrow going downstream through Reach 8, with bedrock walls on outside bends. The downstream end of Reach 8 is at upper Jones Road Bridge. In Reach 7, the floodplain broadens as the channel exits the area of bedrock walls. The single channel remains moderately confined as it flows through the largest amplitude meander bend of the study area and is bounded by a high right bank alluvial surface. More than half of the downstream part of this reach has armored banks. The unarmored alluvial banks show active erosion. In the upstream 1,200 feet of Reach 6, the river has a multi-channel pattern that is wide and unconfined, with active bare gravel bars and recently shifting channel locations along the Cedar Rapids levee setback project. This part of Reach 6 exhibited dynamic channel migration from 2009 to 2011. Through almost all of the remainder of Reach 6, the river flows in a single channel and is armored on one or both banks. The river in Reach 5 flows in a single channel through more than a mile of low-amplitude meanders that are armored on most outside bends. Alluvial banks show erosion between armored bends. Channel gradient decreases to 0.34 percent. Reach 4 is the site of a 2001 landslide from the right bank that blocked the main channel and induced its rerouting. Similar slide activity and channel responses are evident in historical aerial photos. Episodic infusion of sediment over several decades causes this reach to have a multi-channel pattern and an average active channel width about four times that along most other parts of the river. Although most of the 2001 slide material appears to have been evacuated by channel erosion, channel expansion has occurred since 2001 and adjustments are ongoing in this unconfined reach. King County River and Floodplain Management 34 April 2015 In Reach 3, the river flows in a single channel under SR 169/CRT bridges and around one relatively large-amplitude meander bend. Left bank substrate is composed of discontinuous bank armoring, colluvial material (at the site of a 1980s landslide), and a short stretch of bedrock. Between the non-alluvial left bank substrate and a right bank subdivision, the channel is confined and relatively narrow in this reach. The channel begins to exhibit incised conditions in the downstream 1,000 feet of Reach 3. Through Reach 2, the river flows in a single channel through low-amplitude meanders as gradient drops to less than 0.3 percent. The narrowing valley bottom and SR 169 confine the channel in place. The channel is incised through Reach 2. The Cedar River in Reach 1 flows under I-405 at RM 1.63 and between continuous levees on both river banks through the center of Renton to the mouth. Channel gradient is less than 0.2 percent. Channel substrate is gravel through most of this reach and transitions to sand near the river mouth. Sinuosity, S, was calculated as the ratio of active channel centerline length to valley bottom centerline length, for each reach in each photo-year from 1936 to 2011 (Figure 15). Channels are considered sinuous with S values less than 1.5 and meandering with S values greater than 1.5 (Leopold et al. 1964). A sinuosity of 1.0 indicates a straight channel, and examples of straight-channel sinuosity are the channelized Reach 1 within the City of Renton and the very straight Reach 20. The largest S values are for Reaches 3, 12 and 17, which all approach or equal the meandering category (S=1.5). These larger S values result from one or a few meander wavelengths occupying a relatively short valley distance. The majority of study reaches are in the sinuous category and their sinuosity has not varied greatly through time. Increases in the calculated sinuosity in some reaches may result from a narrowing of the active channel with an associated minor increase in active channel centerline length. Figure 15. Channel sinuosity by reach. 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1234567891011121314151617181920Sinuosity Reach 1936 1948 1959 1964 1970 1980 1989 2000 2011 King County River and Floodplain Management 35 April 2015 4.3 Lateral channel migration rates As noted in Section 3.3.3, lateral channel migration rates were calculated as the distance between channel locations in successive aerial photos divided by the time between photos. Channel migration rates were calculated throughout each reach for time intervals between successive aerial photos from 1936 to 2011 (Table 2) in two ways: using all measurements and using eroding-only measurements. Channel migration rates calculated throughout each reach are summarized for all measurements in Table 4 and for eroding-only measurements in Table 5. The last two columns of each table report a time-weighted average value of migration rates for 1936 to 1964 and for 1964 to 2011. Table 4. Cedar River channel migration rates using all measurements. Reach 1936 to 1948 1948 to 1959 1959 to 1964 1964 to 1970 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1989 1989 to 2000 2000 to 2011 1936 to 1964 1964 to 2011 1 1.0 1.0 1.9 2.1 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 2 0.9 1.8 3.8 3.3 1.5 1.0 2.0 0.6 2.4 1.6 3 1.3 2.6 6.2 3.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 0.7 2.7 1.9 4 2.0 4.8 5.3 5.3 8.5 3.0 4.3 2.0 3.7 4.7 5 2.8 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.0 3.2 2.3 6 2.6 8.4 7.1 5.4 2.3 3.2 1.8 2.8 5.7 2.9 7 4.9 5.5 7.0 3.9 2.0 3.1 1.8 0.6 6.1 2.1 8 1.5 2.0 5.8 3.5 2.5 1.7 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 9 2.0 3.8 2.9 4.6 2.8 1.8 1.5 2.5 2.9 2.8 10 3.1 4.0 2.8 2.7 1.8 2.3 1.1 0.8 3.4 1.6 11 4.5 4.9 3.7 4.1 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.0 4.5 2.1 12 3.3 3.1 2.2 2.2 0.6 2.2 13 3.6 2.4 2.7 1.9 0.9 2.1 14 2.7 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.6 1.6 15 1.9 3.5 3.8 2.2 1.0 2.4 16 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.6 0.8 1.5 17 3.0 1.8 3.2 2.8 1.4 2.4 18 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.6 0.9 1.8 19 2.7 1.7 2.2 1.3 0.8 1.6 20 2.1 1.4 2.0 0.7 0.7 1.3 Migration rates from each of the eight time periods calculated using all measurements (Table 4) have varied through the study area and through time (Figure 16). The highest migration rates are approximately 8 feet/year. These higher rates are common to reaches or areas with less confinement or bank armoring (e.g., Reach 4 and part of Reach 6). Migration rates through all reaches typically have declined through the period of this study. Typical migration rates range from 2 feet/year to 7 feet/year during 1936 to 1964 and range from 1 foot/year to about 5 feet/year during 1964 to 2011. King County River and Floodplain Management 36 April 2015 Table 5. Cedar River channel migration rates using eroding-only measurements. Reach 1936 to 1948 1948 to 1959 1959 to 1964 1964 to 1970 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1989 1989 to 2000 2000 to 2011 1936 to 1964 1964 to 2011 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 1.5 4.8 3.8 1.8 1.2 2.2 0.7 2.8 1.9 3 1.4 3.1 6.2 4.9 2.2 1.9 2.1 0.9 3.2 2.2 4 2.6 5.4 5.7 5.9 11.7 2.8 4.9 2.2 4.5 6.4 5 1.8 4.4 3.3 2.8 3.8 2.7 2.6 1.1 3.5 2.5 6 3.1 8.5 7.6 7.6 3.1 4.9 1.8 3.6 6.2 3.3 7 1.8 4.7 7.3 5.1 2.2 3.7 2.2 0.8 6.7 2.2 8 1.7 2.5 5.8 3.9 3.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.7 9 2.0 8.6 3.7 4.1 2.8 1.3 1.6 2.9 4.6 2.9 10 3.3 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.9 1.7 1.0 3.9 2.0 11 4.4 5.5 3.0 4.6 2.4 2.9 2.5 1.2 5.3 2.6 12 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.4 1.0 2.3 13 3.6 2.6 3.6 2.2 1.7 2.5 14 2.9 3.2 4.1 1.2 1.1 2.0 15 2.5 3.5 3.8 2.2 1.5 2.7 16 2.3 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.1 1.7 17 3.2 2.5 3.9 2.7 1.3 2.6 18 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.1 2.2 19 3.6 1.9 2.8 2.0 1.1 2.0 20 2.8 1.9 2.4 0.9 1.1 1.6 King County River and Floodplain Management 37 April 2015 Figure 16. Cedar River channel migration rates using all measurements. Time-weighted average migration rates (Table 5, Figure 17) moderate the variability in migration rates evident through the eight time periods (Figure 16). However, overall spatial and temporal trends in migration remain similar whether calculated in each time period or as a time-weighted average. Migration rates based on eroding-only measurements are consistently greater than rates based on all measurements, typically by about 5 to 10 percent (Figure 17). The migration rates during 1964 to 2011 are lower than those during 1936 to 1964. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Migration Rate (feet/year) Reach 1936 - 1948 1948 - 1959 1959 - 1964 1964 - 1970 1970 - 1980 1980 - 1989 1989 - 2000 2000 - 2011 King County River and Floodplain Management 38 April 2015 Figure 17. Cedar River weighted-average channel migration rates, using all measurements and eroding-only measurements. Migration rates also were calculated based on measurements taken only in unarmored areas to evaluate the effect of bank armoring on channel migration (Appendix B). The migration rates in unarmored areas based on all measurements (Appendix B, Table B-1 and Figure B-1) have varied through the study area and through the eight time periods similarly to channel migration rates in all areas (Table 4, Figure 16). The magnitudes of channel migration rates in unarmored areas typically are greater than migration rates in all areas (e.g., by 10 to 50 percent), although there is much variability in the differences in migration rates in unarmored compared to all areas. In most reaches, the time-weighted average rates in unarmored areas (Appendix B, Table B-1, Table B-2, and Figure B-2) are within 10 percent of the time-weighted average rate based on measurements in all areas. The few locations where migration rates in unarmored areas are notably greater than those in all areas are in Reach 6, where rapid and expansive migration followed levee removal at the Cedar Rapids site (RM 7.4), and in the largely unconfined and unarmored Reach 9. The general similarity between migration rates in unarmored areas and in all areas results from different reasons during the 1936 to 1964 and the 1964-2011 periods. Bank conditions in all areas and in unarmored areas were very similar during the 1936 to 1964 period because relatively little bank armoring had been constructed at that time (Figure 2). Similarities of migration rates in all areas and in unarmored areas during the 1964 to 2011 period likely result because widespread bank armoring can reduce channel migration along adjacent unprotected banks as well as at armored sites. Eroding-only channel migration rates, both in all areas and in unarmored areas, have been used in previous CMZ mapping studies on local rivers. Channel migration rates calculated on the Tolt River (Shannon & Wilson 1991) and the Middle Green River (King County 1993) provide local context for Cedar River channel migration rates. Both the Tolt River and the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Migration Rate (feet/year) Reach 1936-1964 All Msmts 1936-1964 Erod Only 1964-2011 All Msmts 1964-2011 Erod Only King County River and Floodplain Management 39 April 2015 Middle Green River have migrating channels in post-glacial valleys, and both are affected by the presence of dams. Both studies calculated migration rates using eroding-only measurements; the Tolt River from all areas and the Middle Green River from unarmored areas. Eroding-only channel migration rates on the Tolt River ranged from 2 feet/year to 10 feet/year and on the Middle Green River ranged from about 1 foot/year to 11 feet/year. River channels in both the Tolt River and Green River study areas have less bank armoring than the Cedar River study area. Typical eroding-only channel migration rates from all areas on the Cedar River throughout the timeframe of 1964 to 2011 range from 2 feet/year to about 6 feet/year. Migration rates on the Cedar River are comparable to these two local examples. 4.4 Spatial variation in channel migration Much of the study area exhibits confined channel conditions, as indicated by widespread containment of the 1,800 cfs (annual 74 percent) and 2,800 cfs (annual 42 percent) flood events. Containment of these frequent flows, and, in some locations, the 5,000 cfs (annual 10 percent) and larger floods, results in a decreased frequency and extent of overbank flows, recruitment of gravel and large wood, bank erosion, and channel migration. These conditions are typical throughout the study reaches except in unconfined areas such as within Reach 4 (RM 5; 2011 landslide) and Reach 6 (RM 7.4; Cedar Rapids area). The Cedar River appears to be generally efficient at moving coarse sediment from Landsburg to I-405. In Reach 20 (RM 22) through Reach 18 (RM 17), the naturally steep channel gradient and narrow valley bottom confinement combine to keep incoming sediment in transport. In Reach 17 and downstream as well, pervasive bank armoring or erosion-resistant geology plus containment of flows well above the threshold of coarse sediment movement generally maintain conditions that favor coarse sediment transport. From Reach 17 (RM 17) to Reach 2 (RM 3), the lack of a clear correlation between channel gradient and sediment characteristics (Figure 5 and Figure 6) suggests that local variations in factors such as channel confinement have a stronger influence than channel gradient on sediment transport and deposition, and by extension, on bank erosion and channel migration. The areas noted in the previous paragraph are example locations where unconfined channels exhibit sediment deposition and active channel migration. Large wood accumulations have the potential to influence and increase channel migration activity (Brummer et al. 2006). However, the current amounts, densities, and distribution of large wood (K. Akyuz, pers. comm. 2014) suggest that large wood presently is not a significant factor regarding channel migration, at least not systemically. Large wood accumulations within a reach typically increase local water surface elevations, and these increases cause increased potential for avulsion and channel migration, depending on the proximity of the large wood feature to a potential avulsion pathway. The location, presence, and size of present-day large wood accumulations were considered when evaluating potential avulsion sites for avulsion hazard in this study (Section 5.1.2). Habitat restoration plans for endangered species recovery and other purposes have the goal of increasing the number and size of large wood over time within the Cedar River. It is King County River and Floodplain Management 40 April 2015 assumed that, as riparian reforestation projects mature, the amount of wood in the river will increase. Potential future increases in in-channel large wood accumulations likely will result in increased water surface elevations and the extent of potential channel migration, locally at first and more systemically over longer periods. 4.5 Temporal changes in channel migration The combination of flow regulation since 1914 and the widespread presence of bank armoring since the 1960s has resulted in a narrowing of the average active channel width by approximately 50 percent and a simplification of the channel pattern from anabranching3 to single channel in most of the study area (Perkins 1994). With simplification of channel pattern, channel migration by avulsion likely decreased through time because of less opportunity for flows to access the multiple flow paths present in anabranching channels. The decrease in channel migration rates seen after 1964 (Figure 17) likely also results from the proliferation of bank armoring in the 1960s. The effects of bank armoring on channel migration rates persist to present day, with relatively minor lateral channel migration observed after the January 2009 flow of 7,870 cfs (approximately an annual 3.3 percent flood event) (Gendaszek at al. 2012). 3 Anabranching channel: A channel pattern that consists of multiple channels separated by stable islands which are large relative to the size of the channels and which divide the flow up to and including bankfull (Knighton 1998). King County River and Floodplain Management 41 April 2015 5.0 CHANNEL MIGRATION HAZARDS ON THE CEDAR RIVER The findings from Section 4 are used in this chapter to predict future limits of channel migration within the study area. The resulting identified channel migration hazard areas are shown in the Cedar River CMZ map in Section 5.2. 5.1 Delineation of channel migration hazard areas Channel migration hazards associated with each CMZ component are described in the following subsections. 5.1.1 Historical Migration Zone Historical active channels and the HMZ boundary are shown in Map 3. The HMZ is mapped as a severe hazard area. 5.1.2 Avulsion Hazard Zone Low-lying, frequently flooded areas evident in the elevation difference map (Map 4) that met AHZ mapping criteria (Section 3.3.2) are listed in Table 6 and shown in Map 5, Appendix A. Mapped AHZs are described in this section. King County River and Floodplain Management 42 April 2015 Table 6. Areas mapped within the Avulsion Hazard Zone. D/S RM* U/S RM* Bank** Location Description Mapping criteria†: ALL must be met in order to map as AHZ Map as AHZ? Criteria† for Severe: must meet ANY Map as Severe? Low-lying Shorter Erodible substrate Likely route Unvegetated/ scour Low Connection Indicators 6.80 6.95 LB Riverbend Lower Yes, behind facility Yes Yes: Facility not DMA‡ and is <1 percent flood elevation4 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 8.95 9.25 LB Large meander, floodplain channel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 9.85 10.00 RB Near CRT€ 5B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10.87 11.47 RB Rainbow Bend; existing low area Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 10.87 11.16 RB Rainbow Bend; side channel to d/s backwater area Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11.15 11.44 RB Rainbow Bend; side channel to river Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11.21 11.41 RB Rainbow bend; cut off channel to river Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13.16 13.44 LB Rutledge Johnson Yes, behind facility Yes Yes: Facility not DMA‡ and is <1 percent flood elevation4 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 13.37 13.65 RB 13.65 to Taylor Crk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13.37 13.89 RB Behind Getchman Yes, behind facility Yes Yes: Facility not DMA‡ and is <1 percent flood elevation4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 15.74 15.91 LB U/S Colemn-Lotto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15.83 16.2 RB Doris Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16.00 16.5 LB D/S of CRT Bridge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16.95 17.09 LB U/S Youngs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17.28 17.38 RB Behind Orchard Grove Yes, behind facility Yes Yes: Facility not DMA‡ and is <1 percent flood elevation4 Yes Yes No No No No 17.84 18.04 LB U/S of CRT Bridge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes King County River and Floodplain Management 43 April 2015 Table 6 footnotes: * D/S = downstream; U/S= upstream. ** LB= left bank and RB = right bank when viewed downstream. † See Section 3.3.2 for full description of mapping criteria. ‡ “Facility not DMA” = Facility does not meet Disconnected Migration Area mapping criteria. 4 “<1 percent flood elevation” = Top of facility is lower than the 1 percent flood water surface elevation € CRT = Cedar River Trail. An AHZ is mapped along the left bank near RM 7 (Map 5A, Appendix A). The top elevation of the Riverbend Levee at this site is lower in elevation than the water surface elevation of the 10,300 cfs (annual 1 percent) flood, and this levee is not likely to restrain channel migration. This severe AHZ is mapped through Cavanaugh Pond. A low-lying area that runs generally parallel to the main channel along the left bank near RM 9 is mapped as a moderate AHZ (Map 5B, Appendix A). A present-day side channel that was occupied by the mainstem as recently as the 1970s is mapped as a severe AHZ along the right bank near RM 10 (Map 5B, Appendix A). Although this former channel is within the HMZ, the delineated severe AHZ extends landward of the HMZ. There are two floodplain channels that were excavated along the right bank near RM 11 as part of the Rainbow Bend levee removal project. These two excavated channels plus two existing low-lying areas onsite are mapped as severe AHZs (Map 5C, Appendix A). Existing floodplain channels and the downstream end of Taylor Creek located landward of the right bank Getchman levee and the left bank Rutledge-Johnson levee (RM 13 to RM 14) are mapped as severe AHZs (Map 5D, Appendix A). The top elevation of both levees is lower than the water surface elevation of the 10,300 cfs (annual 1 percent) flood, and neither levee is likely to restrain channel migration. An existing right bank floodplain channel located between the Getchman and Jan Road levees near RM 13.6 has a direct, low- elevation surface connection to the Cedar River and is mapped as severe hazard (Map 5D, Appendix A). There is a low-lying floodplain channel along the left bank near RM 15.8 and more than one such floodplain channels near RM 16.5 that have a direct, low-elevation connection to the mainstem. All are mapped as severe AHZs (Map 5E, Appendix A). A right bank side channel named Doris Creek located between RM 16.2 and RM 15.9 maintains a direct low-elevation surface connection to the mainstem with year-round flow; it is mapped as a severe AHZ (Map 5E, Appendix A). There are two low-lying floodplain channels along the left bank that have a direct, low- elevation connection to the mainstem channel; one is near RM 17 and one is near RM 18 (Map 5F, Appendix A); both areas are mapped as severe AHZs. A low-lying area landward of the right bank Orchard Grove levee near RM 17.4 is an AHZ because the top elevation of this levee is lower than the water surface elevation of the 10,300 cfs and this levee is not likely to restrain channel migration (Map 5F, Appendix A). This AHZ is a moderate hazard area because the landward area does not meet any of the criteria to be mapped as a severe AHZ. King County River and Floodplain Management 44 April 2015 5.1.3 Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback The 1964-2011 weighted average channel migration rate calculated using eroding-only measurements (Table 5) is taken to be the representative lateral migration rate for the reach in which it was calculated. The 1964-2011 timeframe was used because it produces long-term average migration rates, which are appropriate to the prediction of channel migration hazard over multiple decades. It also encompasses the period through which bank armoring and flow regulation, representative of current conditions, have been in place. The migration rates using eroding-only measurements also are representative because they use measurements along both armored and unarmored locations, which reflect present channel conditions. Channel migration rates calculated in unarmored areas were not used because they do not include armored locations, which are pervasive under present conditions. EHA/ES widths calculated for moderate hazard areas and severe hazard areas in valley- bottom alluvium using eroding-only migration rates are summarized in Table 7. The severe hazard ES width is delineated as either 25 years times the channel migration rate in column 2 of this table applied to the HMZ or 50 years times the same migration rate applied to the 2011 Active Channel, whichever distance is more landward. The moderate hazard area ES width is delineated in the same way as the severe hazard area ES using 50 years and 100 years. In addition to applying these setback widths to the HMZ and the 2011 Active Channel, an ES also was applied to the delineated AHZ to a width based on 25 to 50 years of lateral migration (as described in Section 3.3.3.2). King County River and Floodplain Management 45 April 2015 Table 7. Erosion Hazard Area/Erosion Setback widths. Reach Channel Migration Rate (ft/year) EROSION SETBACK WIDTHS (feet) SEVERE HAZARD AREA MODERATE HAZARD AREA Feet from HMZ Feet from 2011 Active Channel Feet from HMZ Feet from 2011 Active Channel 25 years 50 years 50 years 100 years 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 2 1.9 46 93 93 185 3 2.2 54 108 108 216 4 6.4 161 321 321 642 5 2.5 62 125 125 250 6 3.3 82 165 165 330 7 2.2 55 111 111 221 8 2.7 68 135 135 270 9 2.9 73 146 146 291 10 2.0 50 99 99 199 11 2.6 64 128 128 257 12 2.3 58 115 115 231 13 2.5 63 126 126 252 14 2.0 50 100 100 200 15 2.7 68 136 136 271 16 1.7 42 83 83 166 17 2.6 65 131 131 261 18 2.2 55 110 110 220 19 2.0 51 102 102 203 20 1.6 41 81 81 163 There was a measureable, consistent, channel migration that progressed in the downstream (down-valley) direction in addition to lateral channel migration at approximate RM 7.4 and RM 9.8. At these locations, a down-valley component was added to the EHA/ES. The lateral migration rate from Table 5 was not a representative migration rate in some locations because the substrate was not valley-bottom alluvium (i.e., the material in which Table 5 migration rates were calculated), or the land surface elevation at that location was much higher than the valley bottom within which that rate was calculated, or both. Specific locations where these non-representative conditions exist are as follows: x a left bank landslide site at RM 3; x the 2001 landslide site on the right bank at approximate RM 5; x an alluvial fan on the right bank at approximate RM 7.4; x a terrace mapped as mass-wasting material on the right bank at about RM 10.5; x a terrace composed of old alluvium on the right bank at about RM 12.5; King County River and Floodplain Management 46 April 2015 x an alluvial terrace on the right bank at RM 15.35; and x a landslide site on the right bank at RM 17.7. At these locations, an EHA/ES was mapped using lateral migration rates that were calculated specific to that site. The lateral migration rates at these sites were lower than those in nearby valley-bottom alluvium. 5.1.4 Erosion Hazard Area/Geotechnical Setback An EHA/GS was added to the outer edge of the EHA/ES at several locations where the EHA/ES encountered a landform that was greater in height than 20 feet above Ordinary High Water, as described in Section3.3.4. The EHA/GS is included in the CMZ delineated in Section 5.2. 5.1.5 Disconnected Migration Area Legally existing publicly maintained levees, revetments, and other infrastructure within King County or the City of Renton that met the mapping criteria in Section 3.3.5 are summarized in Table 8. Areas landward of such structures are eligible to be mapped as a DMA. King County River and Floodplain Management 47 April 2015 Table 8. Assumed barriers to channel migration. D/S RM U/S RM River Bank Name of Structure Type of Structure(s) 0.00 1.66 Both Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project Levees and floodwalls within City of Renton 1.99 13.31 Either SR 169, at several locations State highway 2.74 2.78 Left Haddad Revetment within City of Renton 2.77 2.84 Right Tabor-Crowall Revetment within City of Renton 3.33 3.51 Right Brodell Revetment within City of Renton 4.11 4.21 Right Erickson Revetment within City of Renton 4.26 4.31 Right Maplewood Golf Course Revetment within City of Renton 4.27 4.41 Left Lower Elliott Park Revetment within City of Renton 4.77 4.89 Left Upper Elliott Park Levee within City of Renton 7.36 7.54 Right Cedar Rapids Right Bank* Levee 10.32 10.41 Left Belmondo Levee 11.47 11.51 Right Rainbow Bend Upstream Revetment 11.67 11.94 Left SE 184th Str Sole-access county road 12.67 12.82 Left SE 193rd Str to 216th Ave SE Sole-access county road 14.04 14.06 Both SR 169 bridge State highway bridge abutments 14.97 15.16 Left SE Bain Rd Sole-access county road 14.75 14.81 Right SE 214th Str to 221st Ave SE Sole-access county road 14.91 15.16 Left SE Bain Rd Sole-access county road 15.12 15.16 Both SR 18 bridges State highway bridge abutments 15.22 15.26 Both SR 169 bridge State highway bridge abutments 15.81 15.89 Right Dorre Don Way SE Sole-access county road 15.99 16.34 Right Dorre Don Way SE Sole-access county road 16.55 16.58 Left Elkington Cedar Trail Bridge Revetment 16.95 17.05 Right Dorre Don Way SE Sole-access county road 17.19 17.53 Right Upper Dorre Don Way SE Sole-access county road *Mapped as a barrier to channel migration for Severe Hazard Area only. 5.2 Channel migration hazard maps Areas within the Historical Migration Zone, Avulsion Hazard Zone, and Erosion Hazard Area (including the Erosion Setback and Geotechnical Setback) were combined to form an unconstrained channel migration zone, as shown in Map 6, Appendix A. The unconstrained CMZ does not recognize artificial constraints and therefore predicts channel migration in the absence of levees, revetments, and structures such as the Cedar River Trail, SR 169, and bridge features. In a majority of study reaches, the width of the HMZ constitutes most of the width of the unconstrained CMZ. Reaches where this relationship holds true include those that are steep, confined, or both (e.g., Reaches 20-16, 14, 13, 5, 3, 2, and 1). In reaches where the width of the HMZ does not constitute most of the width of the unconstrained CMZ (e.g., Reaches 15, 12, 11, 8, and 6), typically an AHZ is present, or there has been a down-valley King County River and Floodplain Management 48 April 2015 component mapped in the EHA/ES, or both. The width of the HMZ may or may not constitute most of the width of the unconstrained CMZ in unconfined reaches with high channel migration rates (e.g., Reach 4 and Reach 6). A channel migration zone map was prepared by modifying the unconstrained CMZ in two ways. First, the effects of artificially constructed constraints on channel migration were recognized by mapping a Disconnected Migration Area (DMA) based on the information from Table 8. Structures listed in Table 8 were assumed to be barriers to channel migration, and the outer edge of the CMZ was drawn along the boundaries of these structures. Areas landward of these structures were considered DMAs and removed from the unconstrained CMZ, with one exception: the severe hazard area along the right bank at RM 7.4 in Reach 6 landward of the Cedar Rapids Right Bank levee was reduced in width to match the boundary of the bank armoring. The severe hazard width was reduced at this location because this structure met the criteria for top elevation being higher than that of the annual 1 percent flood and for its construction standards but not for the possibility of erosion landward of the structure. The outer extent of the CMZ remains unaltered at this location and is mapped as a moderate hazard area. In accordance with WAC and King County code provisions (cited in Section 3.3.5), artificial structures in unincorporated King County were mapped as barriers to migration only if they are publicly maintained, built higher than the annual 1 percent flood elevation, meet construction standards, and the channel is unlikely to migrate landward of the structure (Section 3.3.5). The majority of levees and revetments maintained by King County within unincorporated King County were not mapped as barriers to channel migration because they were not built higher than the elevation of the annual 1 percent flood and were not likely to restrain channel migration. All publicly maintained structures in the City of Renton were mapped as barriers to migration. No privately maintained structures were mapped as barriers to channel migration. If an artificial structure did not meet all criteria necessary to map a DMA, the width of both severe and moderate hazard areas were left unrevised in order to recognize the channel migration hazard landward of that structure. The second modification to the unconstrained CMZ map was to delineate a severe hazard area and moderate hazard area within the CMZ. This delineation recognizes that channel migration hazard is not equal throughout the CMZ. Channel migration hazard is greater for sites that are near the current channel and potential avulsion pathways. Severe hazard areas are composed of the HMZ, severe AHZs, and portions of the EHA. The 2011 (present-day) active channel is located within the HMZ, and therefore the active channel always is located within the severe hazard area. The severe hazard area occupies most of the width of the CMZ throughout the study area except at RM 14.5 and RM 19.25, where the moderate-hazard EHA/GS is relatively wide (Map 6, Appendix A). Severe hazard area widths upstream of the channelized Reach 1 range from 110 feet at RM 20 where both river banks are bedrock to about 1,000 feet in the naturally unconfined Reach 4. The moderate hazard area lies between the severe hazard area and the outer boundary of the unconstrained CMZ. King County River and Floodplain Management 49 April 2015 The Cedar River channel migration zone is presented in Map 7, Appendix A. The Cedar River CMZ includes most of the valley floor in the naturally confined upstream part of this study area (Reaches 20 through 18). Further downstream, the CMZ includes most of the valley floor where it is not cut off by major infrastructure (e.g., SR 169) in reaches that exhibit historically active channel migration or are subject to avulsion hazards, or both (Reaches 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 6 and 4). The CMZ along most of the length of other reaches covers a relatively narrow portion of the valley floor. 5.3 Summary, conclusions Natural conditions set the stage for channel migration in the study area. Over the past 13,000 years, the Cedar River has incised through glacial and non-glacial sediments, deposited alluvial sediments, and migrated across its alluvial valley bottom. Artificial conditions imposed on the natural setting over the past 50 to 100 years have altered channel conditions and channel migration characteristics through most of the study area. Modifications to the flow regime since circa 1914 have resulted in containment of small to moderate flood events as well as a simplified channel pattern. Widespread bank armoring installed in the 1960s, along with other constraining infrastructure, confine much of the river channel length and have decreased channel migration rates. With flow regulation assumed to continue as it has for the past century, channel confinement and bank armoring emerge as the prominent variables presently affecting channel migration in this study area. The river has a single-channel pattern and lower lateral migration rates in confined and armored areas than in unconfined or unarmored areas. However, the potential for active channel migration remains high should bank armoring fail or be removed. In the few areas that are naturally unconfined or recently have had bank armoring removed, the following channel conditions have been observed: x Lateral migration rates typically are higher than in confined areas. x A multiple-channel pattern prevails and gravel bars are bare and active, all of which suggest sediment deposition. x Conditions that favor avulsion may be present. x Channel expansion typically occurs after a triggering event such as avulsion or levee removal. x Greater numbers of large wood exist than in confined areas. In addition to using the Cedar River CMZ map to regulate land use in affected channel migration hazard areas, the CMZ map and findings of this study will inform planning and development of capital flood risk reduction projects via the Cedar River Corridor process. There is potential to decrease flood risk and increase floodplain connectivity in mapped channel migration hazard areas by acquiring at-risk properties, removing constructed bank armoring and allowing channel migration to proceed in a less constrained condition than currently exists. This potential would be greatest in areas where channel gradient is moderate and naturally erosion-resistant riverbanks are absent or do not dominate. Such conditions exist in Reaches 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, 7, 6, 5 and 4 of this study area. If channel King County River and Floodplain Management 50 April 2015 migration predicted for conditions following a bank-armor removal project is significantly different from present conditions, the relevant portion of the CMZ map may be updated, as described in Section 1.3. This study’s use of historical information to predict existing and future hazard is consistent with accepted practices and guidance (King County 2014; Ecology 1993-2014). Because some factors affecting channel migration are stochastic in nature, the channel may not occupy all parts of the mapped CMZ within the next 100 years. However, there also is a low but real possibility that the channel could occupy portions of the valley floor beyond the limits of the mapped CMZ. As such, all parts of the alluvial valley bottom, excluding high terraces, should be considered to have a low level of channel migration hazard. King County River and Floodplain Management 51 April 2015 6.0 REFERENCES Akyuz, K. 2014. Senior Ecologist, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Rivers and Floodplain Management Section. Personal communication. Booth, D.B. 1995. Geologic map of the Maple Valley quadrangle, King County Washington. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2297. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Brummer, C.J., T.B. Abbe, J.R. Sampson, and D.R. Montgomery. 2006. Geomorphology. 80: 295-309. Influence of vertical change associated with wood accumulations on delineating channel migration zones, Washington, USA. Collins, B.D. , A. Sheikh, and C. Kiblinger. 2003. Historical river channel data for the Cedar River. Unpublished report to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 14 pp. Collins, B.D., and D.R. Montgomery. 2011. The legacy of Pleistocene glaciation and the organization of lowland alluvial process domains in the Puget Sound region. Geomorphology 126: 174-185. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. Flood Insurance Study, King County Washington and Incorporated Areas. Washington D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2013. Model ordinance for floodplain management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. Produced by Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10. Bothell, WA Fox, M., and S. Bolton. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes of instream wood in unmanaged forest basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27, 342-359. Gendaszek, A.S., C.S. Magirl, and C.R. Czuba. 2012. Geomorphic response to flow regulation and floodplain alterations in the gravel-bedded Cedar River, WA, USA. Geomorphology. 179, 258-268. Harper, Houf, and Righellis. 2002. Cedar River Flood Analysis Report. River Mile 5 to 22. Unpublished report to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Prepared by Harper, Houf, Righellis, Inc. Las Vegas, NV. 2pp. Jones, J.L. 2006. Side channel mapping and fish habitat suitability analysis using LiDAR topography and orthophotography. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 71, 1202-1206. King County River and Floodplain Management 52 April 2015 King County. 1993. Cedar River current and future conditions report. Unpublished report by King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. Seattle, WA. King County. 2006. Flood hazard management plan: King County, Washington. King County Department of Natural Resources and Park, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. King County, 2012. King County Comprehensive Plan 2012. King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review, Chapter 8, Section II.L. King County. 2013. 2013 flood hazard management plan update: King County, Washington. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA. King County. 2014. King County channel migration public rule. Chapter 21A-24, Rules and regulations of the Department of Permitting and Environmental Review and Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Critical Areas: Designation, Classification and Mapping of Channel Migration Zones. Amended March 31, 2014. Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms and processes; a new perspective. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Leopold, L.B. , M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco. Mullineaux, D.R. year? Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond quadrangles, King County, Washington. Professional Paper. U.S. Geological Survey, 672. Washington, D.C. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document - Puget Sound Region. NMFS Tracking Number NWR-2006-472. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Nelson, L. 1971. Sediment transport by streams in the Snohomish River basin, Washington: October 1967 – June 1969: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 71-213. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2001. Lower Cedar River Sedimentation Analysis of Existing Data, Final Report. Unpublished report prepared for the City of Renton. Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Seattle WA. 58 pp. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2011. Cedar River Survey Data 2011. Unpublished report prepared for the City of Renton. Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Seattle WA. 101pp. King County River and Floodplain Management 53 April 2015 O’Connor, J.E., M.A. Jones, and T.L. Haluska. 2003. Flood plain and channel dynamics of the Quinalt and Queets Rivers, Washington, U.S.A. Geomorphology 51, 31-59. Perkins, S.J. 1994. The shrinking Cedar River – channel changes following flow regulation and bank armoring. Proceedings, Effects of human-induced changes on hydrologic systems. 1994 Annual Summer Symposium, American Water Resources Association, MD. Pp 649-658. Perkins Geosciences and Harper Houf Righellis, Inc. 2002. Cedar River gravel study phase 2 report. Unpublished report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office and Jones & Stokes, Bellevue Washington. 67 pp. Rapp, C., T.A. Abbe. 2003. A framework for delineating channel migration zones. Washington Department of Ecology Publication 03-06-027. Olympia, WA. Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Science Processes and Landforms 14, 11-26. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Draft technical appendices to the Cedar River Section 205 study. Seattle District, Army Corps of Engineers. WA Department of Ecology. 1994-2014. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Channel Migration Assessment website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/cma/index.html Watershed Sciences and Engineering. 2013. Cedar River interactive mapping project model and mapping development. Unpublished technical memorandum. 13 pp. August 21, 2013. HEC-RAS hydraulic model. Seattle, WA. King County River and Floodplain Management 54 April 2015 7.0 APPENDIX A Map 1. Publicly maintained levees and revetments Map 2. Generalized geologic map of the study area Map 3. Historical channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) Map 5. Avulsion Hazard Zone Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone Maps 1 through 7 are included after Appendix B. King County River and Floodplain Management 55 April 2015 8.0 APPENDIX B Table B-1. Channel migration rates in unarmored areas using all measurements. Reach 1936 to 1948 1948 to 1959 1959 to 1964 1964 to 1970 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1989 1989 to 2000 2000 to 2011 1936 to 1964 1964 to 2011 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.9 1.9 3.9 3.4 1.5 1.0 2.1 0.6 2.5 1.6 3 1.3 2.6 6.3 3.8 1.7 1.3 1.8 0.6 2.7 2.3 4 2.0 4.8 5.3 7.0 1.7 3.6 4.6 1.8 3.7 5.1 5 2.9 3.6 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.4 2.1 1.1 3.4 2.6 6 2.8 8.8 8.9 8.6 3.7 5.5 1.7 6.9 6.1 5.0 7 4.4 5.3 4.5 2.7 1.4 1.9 1.4 0.9 5.3 1.6 8 1.6 2.1 6.8 4.4 2.4 1.7 2.4 3.5 2.7 2.8 9 1.7 4.3 2.8 5.5 4.5 2.5 0.9 2.7 3.0 3.6 10 2.1 4.3 3.7 2.3 2.9 4.8 0.1 0.2 3.4 1.9 11 4.5 4.9 4.0 4.4 2.1 2.3 1.8 1.0 4.5 2.1 12 1.5 2.9 2.5 2.2 0.6 1.9 13 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.0 2.0 14 2.6 2.6 2.5 0.9 0.7 1.7 15 1.8 4.4 5.0 4.0 1.3 3.1 16 2.4 1.8 2.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 17 3.0 1.8 3.2 2.8 1.4 2.4 18 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.6 0.9 1.8 19 3.1 1.6 2.1 1.4 0.9 1.7 20 2.3 1.3 2.1 0.7 0.8 1.3 King County River and Floodplain Management 56 April 2015 Table B-2. Channel migration rates in unarmored areas using eroding-only measurements. Reach 1936 to 1948 1948 to 1959 1959 to 1964 1964 to 1970 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1989 1989 to 2000 2000 to 2011 1936 to 1964 1964 to 2011 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.1 1.5 5.0 3.8 1.8 1.2 2.3 0.7 3.0 1.9 3 1.4 3.1 6.3 4.9 2.0 1.4 1.9 0.8 3.1 2.6 4 2.6 5.4 5.7 7.8 3.9 1.4 5.7 1.8 4.5 5.4 5 1.8 4.6 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.4 2.2 1.3 3.9 2.5 6 3.1 9.0 9.3 13.2 4.6 5.5 1.9 9.3 6.6 5.9 7 1.8 5.7 3.8 3.5 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.2 4.8 2.0 8 1.5 2.6 6.8 4.6 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.8 9 1.6 8.6 3.7 3.4 4.5 3.6 3.5 4.6 3.6 10 2.6 5.0 3.6 2.3 2.9 4.8 0.7 0.2 4.3 2.3 11 4.4 5.5 3.0 4.9 2.1 2.7 2.5 1.2 5.3 2.6 12 1.8 2.9 3.3 2.5 1.3 2.3 13 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 1.8 2.4 14 3.0 2.7 4.1 1.4 1.0 2.1 15 1.8 4.4 4.5 4.0 3.2 3.6 16 3.1 1.8 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 17 3.2 2.5 3.9 3.1 1.3 2.6 18 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.1 1.1 2.2 19 4.0 1.7 2.8 2.0 1.2 2.1 20 2.9 1.2 2.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 King County River and Floodplain Management 57 April 2015 Figure B-1. Cedar River channel migration rates in unarmored areas using all measurements. Figure B-2. Cedar River weighted-average channel migration rates in unarmored areas using all measurements and in eroding-only measurements. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Migration rate (ft/yr) Reach 1936 - 1948 1948 - 1959 1959 - 1964 1964 - 1970 1970 - 1980 1980 - 1989 1989 - 2000 2000 - 2011 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Migration Rate (ft/yr) Reach 1936-1964 All Msmts 1936-1964 Erod Only 1964-2011 All Msmts 1964-2011 Erod Only !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Cedar River 205 Flood Control Project Cummins 1965 Lund 1965 Tobacco-Dotson 1965 Haddad 1966 Maplewood Golf Course 1965? Cedar Trail 5 Elliot Brg 1965 Cedar Trl 1 Camp Freeman 1970 Orting Hill Cedar Rapids R Belmondo Riverbend Lower Ext. 1965?Cedar Trl 2 Erickson 1963 Tabor-Crowall Cedar Trail 4Cedar Trl 3 Progressive Investment 1963 Littlefield 1965 Upper Elliot Park 1977? Herzman 1965 Lower Elliot Park Person 1972 Buck's Curve 1963?Cedar Trl 5B Brodell 1966 Cedar Rapids L WPA 1963? Riverbend Upper Riverbend Lower 1965 Cook-Jeffries 1963 Cedar Trail 6 Brassfield Maxwell Guth Punnett Briggs 1968 Scott-Indian Grove 1964 King CountyRentonKi ng Cou nt y Renton 1 | 2 2 | 3 6 | 7 5 | 6 7 | 8 3 | 4 9 |4 | 5 8 | 9 10 0 5 7 6 9 2 3 11 8 1 4 §¨405 Ü Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Reach Boundaries 2011 Active Channel Valley Wall Streets Cedar River Map 1. Publicly maintained levees and revetments The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map1_Cedar_facilities.mxd !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Rainbow Bend US Bain Road Seppi/Safe US 1965 Petorak Wadhams 1973 Edwards 1967 Elkinton-Cedar Trl Brg Cummins 1965 Rawson 1968 Ahlquist 1965 Bain Road Bridge Cedar Trail 5 Cedar Trl 7 Young Dorre Don Rd Kazzka 1963 Ramon 1962 Belmondo Mitchell 1963 Lions Club 1962 Byer's Curve Banchero Barnes 1965?Lower Bain Road 1966 Cedar Trl 8 Littlefield 1965 Arcadia Nobel 1962 Coleman-Lotto 1969 Cedar Trl 5B Cedar Trl 9 Rutledge Johnson Jan Road 1962 Mcdonald 1965 Dorre Don Lower 1964 Royal Arch 1966 Rhode Cedar 1965 WPA 1963? Dorre Don Upper 1963 Orchard Grove Getchman Cedar Trail 6 18 | 19 19 | 2013 | 14 1 5 | 1 6 17 | 1812 | 1316 | 1714 | 151 1 | 1210 | 11 8 9 | 1 08 | 9 20 10 15 22 19 12 14 21 18 11 16 13 20 17 ¬«18 Ü Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 APRIL 2015 010.5 Miles !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 10 0 5 15 22 7 19 12 6 9 14 21 2 18 3 11 16 8 1 13 20 4 17 ¬«18 ¬«167 §¨405 Covington King County Covington King County CovingtonKentKingCountyKentKingCountyM apleValleyKingCountyRenton Kent Renton Ü 0 120.5 Miles Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Streets 2011 Active Channel Study Area Geology Modern Post Glacial Deposits Modified Wetland (Qw) Landslide (Qls, Qmw) Alluvium (Qyal) Alluvial Fan (Qf) Older Alluvium (Qoal) Glacial Deposits Recessional Outwash (Qvr) Ice Contact (Qvi) Advance Outwash and other deposits (Qvu, Qva, Qu) Till (Qvt) Pre-Fraser deposits (Qpf) Bedrock Bedrock (Ts, Tp, Ti, Tpr) Cedar River Map 2. Generalized geologic map of the study area Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map2_Cedar_geology.mxdCedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(1 | 20 2 1 KingCountyRenton0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 1 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !(!( !( 1 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 4 2 3 4 Ki ng CountyRentonKingCountyRenton 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 2 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !( !( !( 5 | 6 3 | 4 4 | 5 5 7 6 King Coun ty Renton King C o u n t y R e n to n King County Renton Ki ng Count y Renton 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 3 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !(!(!(!(6 | 7 5 | 67 | 8 10 7 9 8 K ingCountyR enton0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 4 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !(!(!(11 | 12 10 | 117 | 8 9 | 10 8 | 9 10 12 11 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 5 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !(!(!(13 | 1412 | 1314 | 1 5 11 | 12 15 14 13 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 6 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !( !( !( !( !( 18 | 1915 | 1617 | 1816 | 1714 | 1519 18 16 20 17 KingCountyMapleVall eyKing CountyMaple Va l ley 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 7 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !( !( !( 20 18 | 19 19 | 2022 21 20 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map3_Cedar_HistoricalChannels.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Valley Wall Reach Boundaries HMZ Boundary Historical Active Channels 2011 2005 2000 1995 1989 1980 1970 1964 1959 1948 1936 Panel 8 of 8 Map 3. Historical active channels and Historical Migration Zone (HMZ) 2011 LIDAR APRIL 2015 Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. !(!(!(1 | 20 2 1 KingCountyRenton0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 1 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!( !( 1 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 4 2 3 4 Ki ng CountyRentonKingCountyRenton 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 2 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( 5 | 6 3 | 4 4 | 5 5 7 6 King Coun ty Renton King C o u n t y R e n to n King County Renton Ki ng Count y Renton 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 3 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(!(6 | 7 5 | 67 | 8 10 7 9 8 K ingCountyR enton0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 4 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(11 | 12 10 | 117 | 8 9 | 10 8 | 9 10 12 11 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 5 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(13 | 1412 | 1314 | 1 5 11 | 12 15 14 13 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 6 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( !( !( 18 | 1915 | 1617 | 1816 | 1714 | 1519 18 16 20 17 KingCountyMapleVall eyKing CountyMaple Va l ley 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 7 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( 20 18 | 19 19 | 2022 21 20 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map4_Cedar_elevation_difference.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Elevation Difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ Panel 8 of 8 Map 4. Elevation difference (water surface at 5,000 cfs and surface topography) 2011 LIDAR Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 Legend !(River Mile Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Streets 2011 Active Channel Historical Migration Zone Boundary Severe AHZ Moderate AHZ AHZ Erosion Setback Elevation difference (feet) -0 to -0.5 -0.51 to -1 -1.01 to -2 -2.01 to -3 -3.01 to -4 -4.01 to -5 -5.01+ !( 5 | 6 7 SE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 Cedar River Map 5. Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map5_Cedar_AHZ_tiled.mxd !( !( 10 9 7 | 8 1 9 6 T H A V E S E SE R E N T O N-M A PLE VA LLE Y R D R E N T O N -MA P L E V A L L E Y R D S E !( 11 9 | 10CEDARGROVERDSERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRDSE!( !( 14 13 12 | 13RENTON-MAP LEVAL L EYRDS E!( 16 14 | 1515 | 16WITTERDSE!( !( 18 17 1 6 | 1 7 244THAVESESE235THPL (a)(b)(c) (d)(e)(f) Ü 0 1,000500 Feet Ü Ü Ü Ü Ü The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(1 | 20 2 1N4THST SGRADYWAYS2NDSTM A P L E VA L L E Y H W Y PARKAVENGARDENAVENS2NDSTBENSO N R D S 84TH AVES S3RDSTBRONSONWAYN87T H AVE S NE7THSTI-405FWYS7THSTEDMONDSAVENETALBOTRDS RAINIERAVES WILLIA MS AVES M AIN AVE S 78T H AVE S I-405FWYNE4THSTR A M P WELLSAVENRAMPTAYLORPLNWN 3 R D S T WE L L S A V E S W ELLSAVES SHATTUCK AVE STAYLORAVENWWI L L I AMSAVEN I-405FWYSUNSETBLVDNEN4THSTN6THSTI-405FWYFACTO RY AVE N BRONSONWAYNEN3RDSTS4THSTSUNSETBLVDNES3RDSTPARKAVENWILLIA M S AVES FACTORY AVE N M EA DO W AVE N N 3R D STN8THSTTALBOTRDS LOGAN AVES SGRADYWAYN3RDSTN6THSTN4THSTS7THSTN3RDSTMILLAVES I- 4 0 5 F WY RENTONAVESAIRPORTWAYLOGANAVENB U R N E T T A V E S HARDI EAVES WRAINIERAVES L AKE WAS HI NGT ONBL VDNWILLIA M S AVE N W ELLS AVES W HIT W ORTH AVES BURNETT AVES SHATTUCK AVES M ORRIS AVE S W HIT W O RTH AVES M ORRIS AVES WILLIA M S AVE S LO GA N AVE S WILLIA M S AVES S130THSTW ELLSAVES M AINAVE S BU RNETT AVE S RAMPNPARKDRSWSUNSETBLVDPARKAVENWELLSAVENWILLIAMSAVENW ELLS AVE N PARK AVE N GAR DEN AVE N M EADO W AVE N I -405FWYRAMPRAMPRAINIERAVENS3RDPLRAMPSHATTUCKAVESNE3RDSTS3RDSTSUNSETBLVDNRAMPRAMPRAMPRAMPI-405 FWY GARDENAVENRAMPBENSONRDSI-405 F W YSUNSETBLVDN BENSONRDSRAMPI-405FWYHOUSERWAYNI-405F W YHOUSERWAYNKi n g C o unty Renton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 1 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!( !( 1 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 4 2 3 4 144THAVESEMAI NAVESUNIONAVENEPUGETDRSEI-405FWYNE3RDST N E 4 T H S T EDMONDSAVENEFACTORYAVENI-405FWYRAMPRAMPSUNSETBLVDNEUNI ONAVESEBRONSONWAYNESUNSETBLVDNE116THAVESEMONROEAVENEN 3 R D S T N E4TH STI-4 05 F W Y I-405FWYM A P LE V A LLEY H W YRAMPRAMPRAMPNE3RDSTSUNSETBLVD N S E R E N T O N -MA P L E VA L LE Y RDRAMPRAMP 140T H W AY SE BENSONRDSI-405FWYSUNSETBLVDNRAMPHOUSERWAYNI-405FWYI-405FWYI -405FWYKi ngCount yRenton K in g C o u n tyRenton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 2 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( 5 | 6 3 | 4 4 | 5 5 7 6144THAVESE SE FAIRWOOD BLVD SE 144TH ST154THAVESESE142NDST156THAVESESE141STST 177THAVESE140THAVESESERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRD 169THAVESESE142NDPL1 4 0 T H WA Y S E 154THPLSEKing C ou nty Re nton Kin g C o u n t yRentonKingCountyRenton King County Re nton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 3 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(!(8 |6 | 7 5 | 67 | 8 10 7 9 8SE137THST1 7 8 T H A V E S E SE144THST1 7 7 T H A V E S E SERENTON-M APLEVALLEYRD196T H A V E SE S E 1 5 0 T H S T RENTON-MAPLE VALLEYRDSE KingCountyRenton0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 4 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(11 | 12 10 | 117 | 8 9 | 10 8 | 9 10 12 11 196THAVESE SELAKEFRANCISRDCEDARGROVERDSERENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRDSE 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 5 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(13 | 1412 | 1314 | 1 5 11 | 12 15 14 13 R E NT O N-M A P L E V A L L E Y R DS E R E N T O N -M A P L E VA L L E Y R D S E SR18SR18S E P E T R O V I T S K Y R D SE216THSTSR18RAMPSE216THWAYWI T T E R D S E SW EE N EY R D SES R 1 8 L A K E F R A N C I S R D S E 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 6 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( !( !( 18 | 1915 | 1617 | 1816 | 1714 | 1519 18 16 20 17RENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRDSE2 3 8 T HP L S E234THWAYSE 2 31 S TAVES ESE231STST SE240THWAY SE250THSTSE 240TH WAYSR18SR18 SE235THPLSR18 S E 2 4 0 T H S T WITTERDSE238THAVESE S E 2 3 1 S T S T 235THWAYSE MAPLEVALLEY-BLACK DIAMONDRDSE S E 2 4 4 T H S TRAMP 244THAVESEMAPLEVALLEY-BLACKDI AMONDRDSERAMPSEWAXRDSR18RAMPW IT T E R D SE King CountyMapl e Va l l ey 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 7 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !( !( !( 20 1 8 | 19 19 | 2022 21 20 LANDSBURGRDSE SESUM M IT-LANDSBURGRD2 7 6 T H A V E S E 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map6_Cedar_unconstrained_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile Valley Wall Reach Boundaries City Boundaries Levees and Revetments Unconstrained CMZ Boundary Historical Migration Zone Boundary 2011 Active Channel Severe Avulsion Hazard Zone (AHZ) Moderate AHZ AHZ / Erosion Setback Erosion Hazard Area / Geotechnical Setback Streets Panel 8 of 8 Map 6. Unconstrained Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. APRIL 2015 !(!(!(1 | 20 2 1 §¨405 §¨405 S2NDSTSGRADYWAYNE 3RD STPA RK A VE N M AP LE VA L L E Y H W Y GA RD E N A V E N S 3RD STTALBOT R D S M A I N AVE S BENSONRDS 84 T H A V E S FACTORY PL N 87 T H A V E S S 7TH STRAINIER AVES WILLI A MS AV E N RAINIERAVES WI LLIA M S A V E S 78 TH A V E S N 6TH STN 3RD ST W E L L S AVE N TAYLOR PL NW W EL L S AV E S SH ATT UC K A V E S TA Y L O R AV E N W FA C T ORY AV E N S 4TH STSW LA N G STO N RDNEPARKDR M E A D O W A V E NN 8TH STLOG A N A V E S SWSUNSETBLVDS7THSTAIRPORT WAYLOGA N A V E N BURNETT AVE S W H I T W O R T H AVE S M O R R I S AV E S LOG A NAV E S S130THSTNPARKDRWILLIA MS A V E N RAINIERAVEN S3RDPLSHATT U CKAVE S S U NS E T B L V D N HOUSER WAY N BRONSON WAY NSUNSET BLVDNE ED M ON D S AVE N E NE4THSTN 3RD STRENTONAVESKi n g C o unty Renton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 1 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !(!( !( 1 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 4 2 3 4 §¨405 §¨405 144TH AVE SEMAIN AVE SUNION AVE NENE 3RD STPUGETDRSE MAPLE VALLEY HWY NE 4TH ST FACTORYAVENN 3RD ST UNION AVE SE116TH AVE SE NE 4TH S T 140THWA Y SE BENSONRDSS U N S E T B L V D N E EDMONDS AVE NEBRONSONWAYNESUNSET BLVD NKi ngCount yRenton K in g C o u n tyRenton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 2 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !( !( !( 5 | 6 3 | 4 4 | 5 5 7 6144TH AVE SESE FAIRWOOD B L V D SE 142 ND STSE 141ST ST 140THAVESESE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD 169TH AVE SE177TH AVE SE140TH WAYSE 1 4 0 T H W A Y S E 154THPLSE1 5 4 T H P L S E King C ou nty Re nton Ki ng C o u n t yRentonKingCountyRenton King County Re nton 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 3 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !(!(!(!(8 |6 | 7 5 | 67 | 8 10 7 9 8SE 144TH ST1 7 8 T H A V E S E SERENTON-M APLEVALLEYRDSE 1 5 0 T H STRENTON-MAPLEVALLEY RD SE 1 7 7 T H A V E S E 196 THA V E S E KingCountyRenton0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 4 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !(!(!(11 | 12 10 | 117 | 8 9 | 10 8 | 9 10 12 11 196TH AVESE RENTON-MAPLE VALLEY RD SE S E L A K E F R A N C I S R D 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 5 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !(!(!(13 | 1412 | 1314 | 1 5 11 | 12 15 14 13 ¬«18 ¬«18 SE PET ROVIT S KY RD SE 216TH STSE216THWAYWI T T E R D SE SW EENEYR D S E LAKE FRANCIS RD S E 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 6 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !( !( !( !( !( 18 | 1915 | 1617 | 1816 | 1714 | 1519 18 16 20 17 ¬«18 ¬«18 ¬«18 ¬«18 RENTON-MAPLEVALLEYRDSE234THWAYSES E 231STST SE 240TH WAY SE250THSTSE 2 4 0 T H W A Y SE 235TH PL SE 2 40 TH STWI T T E R D SE 238T H A V E S E MAPLE V A L L E Y - B LAC K DIAMO ND RD SE SE 244 TH ST 244TH AVE SESEWAXRD2 3 8 T H P L S E 231ST AVESEKing CountyMapl e Va l l ey 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 7 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015 !( !( !( 20 1 8 | 19 19 | 2022 21 20 LANDSBURG RDSE SESUMMIT-LANDSBURGR D SE KE NT-KA N G L E Y RD 2 7 6 T H A V E S E 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Document Path: \\kc.kingcounty.lcl\dnrp\WLRD\RFMS\FLOOD\Flood Drive Files\Cedar-Samm\FLD202 Cedar CMZ Study\Final_to_DPER\Maps\Map7_Cedar_CMZ.mxd Cedar River Legend !(River Mile City Boundaries Reach Boundaries Levees and Revetments Valley Wall Streets Parcels 2011 Active Channel CMZ Boundary Severe Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area Panel 8 of 8 Map 7. Cedar River Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) APRIL 2015 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Cedar River Channel Migration Study - April 2015